{"id": "21764__0_000", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "We'll now hear argument in Alaska against the United States.\nMr. Franklin.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [0.0, 5.471], "stop_times": [5.471, 6.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21764__0_001", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nBecause title to lands underlying navigable waters is an inseparable attribute of State sovereignty, this Court has long held that there is a strong presumption that each State receives title to such lands at statehood.\nUnder the Court's precedents, the United States cannot defeat the State's title unless Congress has definitely declared an intention to do so or has otherwise made that intention very plain.\nTurning to the Glacier Bay claim in this case, the United States asserts that it received title to the submerged lands underlying the bay at statehood, but there is no express statement, an unambiguous statement by Congress evidencing an intent to defeat Alaska's title.\nTo the contrary, the proviso to section 6(e) of the Alaska Statehood Act, which is the only statute the United States identifies as ratifying the purported reservation of the bay, in fact shows that title remains with Alaska.\nUnder the plain language of the statute, the proviso applies only to a subset of the lands that would otherwise have been transferred to the State under the main clause.\nAnd this is important.\nIn this case it is undisputed by both of the parties and by the special master that the Glacier Bay Monument was not included within the main clause.\nThe submerged lands, therefore, did not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [6.345, 9.674, 23.61, 35.733, 53.759, 69.13, 81.145, 82.276, 92.777], "stop_times": [9.674, 23.61, 35.733, 53.759, 69.13, 81.145, 82.276, 92.777, 95.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6.345}, "reply_to": "21764__0_000", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_002", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, counsel, you... apparently you agree that the U.S. retained title to the uplands in Glacier Bay National Monument under section 5--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [95.897], "stop_times": [105.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 95.897}, "reply_to": "21764__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21764__0_003", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [105.453], "stop_times": [106.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 105.453}, "reply_to": "21764__0_002", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_004", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--of the statehood act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [106.03], "stop_times": [106.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 106.03}, "reply_to": "21764__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21764__0_005", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [106.589], "stop_times": [107.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 106.589}, "reply_to": "21764__0_004", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_006", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "And why was Federal title to the monument not sufficient to retain title to the submerged lands as well without reference to section 6(e) at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [107.123], "stop_times": [121.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 107.123}, "reply_to": "21764__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21764__0_007", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Because of section 6(m), Your Honor.\nSection 5 of the Alaska Statehood Act provides that the Federal Government retained all of the property it previously possessed with one important exception, except as provided in section 6.\nSection 6 has two exceptions within it that are potentially relevant here.\nSection 6(m) incorporates the Submerged Lands Act and thereby provides that Alaska was to receive title to all the submerged lands underlying its navigable waters, plus those 3 miles seaward from the coastline, in order to put Alaska on the same equal footing with the rest of the States.\nSection 6(e) dealt with an entirely different set of properties.\nWhat section 6(e) did was to transfer to the State a very specific and narrowly defined class of property, property that was used for the purposes or solely... for the sole purpose of... of fish and wildlife conservation under three designated statutes.\nThose are the State... local-State fish and wildlife conservation statutes.\nAgain, here it was... it is undisputed that Glacier Bay is not included within the main clause.\nTherefore, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [121.602, 123.405, 135.303, 139.793, 157.595, 162.027, 179.83, 183.707, 188.94], "stop_times": [123.405, 135.303, 139.793, 157.595, 162.027, 179.83, 183.707, 188.94, 189.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 121.602}, "reply_to": "21764__0_006", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_008", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--problem, as... you just said that... that the main clause is very, very narrow, and we're told by the Government that no wildlife reservation would come within that main clause, so that there would be nothing to retain under the second clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [189.937], "stop_times": [210.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 189.937}, "reply_to": "21764__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21764__0_009", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--The Government is incorrect, Your Honor.\nWe have identified two wildlife refuges, the Kenai moose range and the Kodiak bear refuge, that were otherwise encompassed by the main clause but saved by the proviso.\nAnd here's why the United States is correct on that.\nThey argue in their brief that those properties were not included in the main clause because they were created under the Alaska Game Law of 1925 rather than the Alaska Game Law of 1943.\nIn fact, Your Honors, those are the exact same statute.\nThe '43 Alaska Game Law simply restated the 1925 law with certain amendments.\nWhat that means is that at statehood the Kenai moose range and the Kodiak bear refuge were, in fact, being used for the purposes under the Alaska Game Law of '43, which was the then-existing version.\nThese refuges were created in 1941 prior to the restatement and amendment of the statute.\nSo those are two properties.\nAnd... and actually the legislative history... we don't think the Court needs to go to the legislative history because the statute is plain and also because there's a clear statement rule.\nBut the legislative history does indicate that Congress was specifically concerned about those two very large refuges.\nThe Kenai and the Kodiak together comprise an area that is approximately the same size as the State of Connecticut.\nAnd Congress' concern or, more specifically, the concern of the Fish & Wildlife Service was that Alaska might not be able adequately to manage those properties.\nBut there was no such concern expressed with the monument that's at issue here because it was never going to be transferred to the State under the main clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [210.629, 212.544, 225.258, 227.205, 239.369, 242.751, 248.906, 264.217, 271.018, 272.938, 280.393, 287.514, 294.212, 303.588], "stop_times": [212.544, 225.258, 227.205, 239.369, 242.751, 248.906, 264.217, 271.018, 272.938, 280.393, 287.514, 294.212, 303.588, 312.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 210.629}, "reply_to": "21764__0_008", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_010", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Why... why shouldn't we look to the tests set out in the Idaho case here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [312.356], "stop_times": [319.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 312.356}, "reply_to": "21764__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21764__0_011", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "We are advocating the tests set out in the Idaho case, Your Honor.\nThat test is a two-pronged test.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [319.892, 323.658], "stop_times": [323.658, 325.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 319.892}, "reply_to": "21764__0_010", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_012", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [325.732], "stop_times": [326.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 325.732}, "reply_to": "21764__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21764__0_013", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "First, you have to look and see if there is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [326.164], "stop_times": [328.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 326.164}, "reply_to": "21764__0_012", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_014", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Whether Congress has notice of the inclusion of the lands and a Federal reservation, which it certainly did for Glacier, did it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [328.504], "stop_times": [336.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 328.504}, "reply_to": "21764__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21764__0_015", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--That's... that's relevant to the first prong, Your Honor.\nThe second prong--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [336.419, 339.166], "stop_times": [339.166, 340.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 336.419}, "reply_to": "21764__0_014", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_016", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "And second, whether the transfer to the State would undermine the purpose of that reservation.\nShould we look to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [340.035, 345.602], "stop_times": [345.602, 346.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 340.035}, "reply_to": "21764__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21764__0_017", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--If the Court were examining the... the first prong, Your Honor, I think those factors might be relevant.\nHere, though, the test is set out in not only the Idaho case but also the Alaska case, and that is that there has to be an explicit action by Congress.\nAnd Idaho applies that.\nIdaho looked very carefully for some action by Congress ratifying the reservation in that case.\nHere, we need an action by Congress.\nThe United States has identified what they contend is the action of Congress, that is, the proviso to section 6(e) of the Alaska Statehood Act.\nThat proviso, though, just does not cover these lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [346.957, 353.09, 362.765, 364.312, 370.413, 372.899, 381.592], "stop_times": [353.09, 362.765, 364.312, 370.413, 372.899, 381.592, 384.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 346.957}, "reply_to": "21764__0_016", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_018", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Why do you say explicit?\nI... I thought it said you have to make it plain, which really might matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [384.893, 386.103], "stop_times": [386.103, 390.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 384.893}, "reply_to": "21764__0_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_019", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "In--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [390.326], "stop_times": [391.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 390.326}, "reply_to": "21764__0_018", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_020", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "What it says... the language I think is... or definitely declared or otherwise made very plain.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [391.254], "stop_times": [397.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 391.254}, "reply_to": "21764__0_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_021", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Yes.\nIn the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [397.333, 397.669], "stop_times": [397.669, 398.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 397.333}, "reply_to": "21764__0_020", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_022", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Is that right?\nThere's nothing that says explicit.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [398.154, 398.96, 400.357], "stop_times": [398.96, 400.357, 400.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 398.154}, "reply_to": "21764__0_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_023", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, in the Alaska case... and here I refer the Court to page 44 of the 1997 Alaska case.\nThere the Court said that Congress must, quote, explicitly recognize or that Congress had explicitly recognized the resignation in that case.\nSo the... the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [400.704, 407.455, 415.493], "stop_times": [407.455, 415.493, 416.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 400.704}, "reply_to": "21764__0_022", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_024", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "But doesn't that simply mean that if it explicitly recognizes, it has made it plain.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [416.058], "stop_times": [420.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 416.058}, "reply_to": "21764__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21764__0_025", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [420.756], "stop_times": [421.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 420.756}, "reply_to": "21764__0_024", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_026", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "But it doesn't mean that it must be explicit in every case.\nIsn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [421.529, 424.078], "stop_times": [424.078, 424.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 421.529}, "reply_to": "21764__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21764__0_027", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, I... I think explicit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [424.915], "stop_times": [427.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 424.915}, "reply_to": "21764__0_026", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_028", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "You don't have to be explicit to make it plain.\nIt's a great way to do it, but that's... it's not the only way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [427.107, 428.612], "stop_times": [428.612, 431.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 427.107}, "reply_to": "21764__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21764__0_029", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--It has to be definitely... Justice Breyer, you're correct.\nIt has to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [431.257, 433.956], "stop_times": [433.956, 434.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 431.257}, "reply_to": "21764__0_028", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_030", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [434.431], "stop_times": [434.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 434.431}, "reply_to": "21764__0_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_031", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--definitely clear or otherwise made plain.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [434.873, 436.302], "stop_times": [436.302, 436.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 434.873}, "reply_to": "21764__0_030", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_032", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "If I'm correct, then... if I'm correct, then I guess the main argument I thought is here we have a national park and we want to keep the national parks as the United States, which you'd expect.\nIt's a national park.\nAnd of course, they want to keep the whole thing.\nI mean, it's obvious.\nYou don't have to write everything that's obvious.\nThey no more want to give all the water in the park to Alaska than they'd want to give the gamekeeper's part to Alaska.\nA house, or maybe there's a swimming pool somewhere they don't mention either, but it's just obvious that unless there's something very special about the water, that the water in the park is part of the park.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [436.302, 446.573, 447.693, 450.535, 452.167, 453.512, 459.554], "stop_times": [446.573, 447.693, 450.535, 452.167, 453.512, 459.554, 470.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 436.302}, "reply_to": "21764__0_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_033", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, there is something special about the water, Your Honor, and that's what the Court has recognized.\nThe water is a State... an essential attribute of State sovereignty, and just to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [470.781, 474.824], "stop_times": [474.824, 479.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 470.781}, "reply_to": "21764__0_032", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_034", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "I understand that.\nBut I mean, it's like saying we're keeping Yellowstone, but we're giving you the geysers.\nI mean, that's water too.\nIt's even underground water.\nBut I mean, what the argument I think is... would be is this like that, and the argument that it is like that is that, well, of course, you need this water in order to study the glaciers because there are forests that go down to the edge, because the flora and fauna can't be protected without it.\nAnd so though it isn't as strong a case as the geysers in Yellowstone, it's good enough.\nNow, what's your reply?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [479.01, 479.82, 483.062, 484.838, 487.451, 503.82, 508.294], "stop_times": [479.82, 483.062, 484.838, 487.451, 503.82, 508.294, 509.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 479.01}, "reply_to": "21764__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_035", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--First of all, the geysers are not included because we're talking about navigable--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [509.441], "stop_times": [513.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 509.441}, "reply_to": "21764__0_034", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_036", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "I understand that.\nI'm using a funny example to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [513.477, 513.664], "stop_times": [513.664, 514.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 513.477}, "reply_to": "21764__0_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_037", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Yes.\nNavigable waters.\n[Laughter]\nBut let me... let me just assure the Court.\nThere is nothing at all unusual about State-owned submerged lands within national monuments.\nThe reason is simple.\nThe Antiquities Act, which allows the President to designate national monuments, was enacted in 1906.\nAt that time there were 45 States already in the Union.\nTherefore, any national monument created in those 45 States would necessarily have included State-owned submerged lands unless there had been some conveyance.\nAnd let... let me give Your Honors a... a concrete example.\nIn the 1978 California decision decided by this Court, the Court recognized that the Channel Islands National Monument, which is an offshore national monument off the coast of California, included State-owned submerged lands because even though the reservation order was asserted to have included those lands, there was no congressional statement of an intent to defeat the State's title.\nAnother--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [514.698, 514.811, 515.152, 514.811, 518.725, 524.058, 525.471, 531.978, 535.925, 545.211, 548.224, 572.122], "stop_times": [514.811, 515.152, 514.811, 518.725, 524.058, 525.471, 531.978, 535.925, 545.211, 548.224, 572.122, 572.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 514.698}, "reply_to": "21764__0_036", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_038", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Like in Yellowstone.\nThere is a river I think.\nWho owns that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [572.501, 573.285, 574.596], "stop_times": [573.285, 574.596, 575.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 572.501}, "reply_to": "21764__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_039", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Well, Yellowstone was created before the State of Wyoming and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [575.301], "stop_times": [580.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 575.301}, "reply_to": "21764__0_038", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_040", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "No.\nBut I mean, does the State or the Feds own the... the river that goes through it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [580.01, 580.24], "stop_times": [580.24, 583.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.01}, "reply_to": "21764__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_041", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--One would need to examine the particular reservations and statutes there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [583.338], "stop_times": [587.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 583.338}, "reply_to": "21764__0_040", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_042", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "What about in Yosemite?\nI think there's a river down there too.\nIs the river in Yosemite owned by California or by the... the Feds?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [587.205, 588.208, 589.845], "stop_times": [588.208, 589.845, 594.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 587.205}, "reply_to": "21764__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_043", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "I'm not familiar with that, but I will give you an example that I am familiar with.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [594.57], "stop_times": [597.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 594.57}, "reply_to": "21764__0_042", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_044", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Before you do that, Mr. Franklin, is... is the rule that... that we're operating under that Congress had to have made it clear--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [597.925], "stop_times": [605.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 597.925}, "reply_to": "21764__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__0_045", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [605.487], "stop_times": [605.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 605.487}, "reply_to": "21764__0_044", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_046", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--that it reserved, or is the rule that it is clear that Congress ought to have reserved it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [605.908], "stop_times": [612.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 605.908}, "reply_to": "21764__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__0_047", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "No.\nIt's the former rule, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [612.281, 612.618], "stop_times": [612.618, 613.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 612.281}, "reply_to": "21764__0_046", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_048", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "It's the former.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [613.577], "stop_times": [613.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 613.577}, "reply_to": "21764__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__0_049", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [613.689], "stop_times": [614.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 613.689}, "reply_to": "21764__0_048", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_050", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "So the mere fact that it doesn't make any sense not to have reserved it does not make it clear that Congress reserved it, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [614.174], "stop_times": [621.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 614.174}, "reply_to": "21764__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__0_051", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [621.469], "stop_times": [622.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 621.469}, "reply_to": "21764__0_050", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_052", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Right, but normally you assume, I guess, that Congress does what is... tries to avoid things that are ridiculous.\nSo if they say keep the park, I guess the question would be is that included.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [622.334, 627.72, 632.153], "stop_times": [627.72, 632.153, 632.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 622.334}, "reply_to": "21764__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_053", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "It's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [632.638], "stop_times": [633.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.638}, "reply_to": "21764__0_052", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_054", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--can you read it this way?\nI... I think it would be relevant, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [633.165, 634.083], "stop_times": [634.083, 635.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 633.165}, "reply_to": "21764__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_055", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Well, first of all, this is not the ordinary... in this case we presumed the... the opposite.\nIn fact, there's a strong presumption.\nBut let me give you the other example that I was going to refer to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [635.634, 639.607, 641.281], "stop_times": [639.607, 641.281, 643.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 635.634}, "reply_to": "21764__0_054", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_056", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [643.932], "stop_times": [644.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 643.932}, "reply_to": "21764__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_057", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "There's something called the California Coastal National Monument.\nThat extends the entire length of California and goes out 12 miles to sea.\nIn that monument, the... the lands, the submerged lands, are both State-owned and Federal-owned, and they are managed cooperatively.\nAnd that's what we are seeking to do here.\nAnd importantly, the fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [644.391, 646.689, 651.824, 660.891, 662.582], "stop_times": [646.689, 651.824, 660.891, 662.582, 664.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 644.391}, "reply_to": "21764__0_056", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_058", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Mr. Franklin, are... are these submerged lands covered by navigable waters?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [664.176], "stop_times": [668.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 664.176}, "reply_to": "21764__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__0_059", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [668.591], "stop_times": [668.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 668.591}, "reply_to": "21764__0_058", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_060", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "What is it that the Government could do, if they owned the submerged lands, by way of protecting wildlife and doing all the good stuff they want to do, that they cannot do simply by... by reason of... of having jurisdiction over the navigable waters?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [668.959], "stop_times": [686.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 668.959}, "reply_to": "21764__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__0_061", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "There are a few things, presumably very localized activities that the State would have the exclusive authority in.\nImportantly though, the Federal Government, even though the State owns title here, will retain all of its constitutional authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [686.019, 692.009], "stop_times": [692.009, 703.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 686.019}, "reply_to": "21764__0_060", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_062", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Yes, but just as a practical matter, tell us what you're arguing about.\nWhat does Alaska think it can do if it prevails in the Glacier Monument area by virtue of prevailing, as a practical matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [703.758, 707.101], "stop_times": [707.101, 717.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 703.758}, "reply_to": "21764__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21764__0_063", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--As... as a practical matter, there are issues relating to local subsistence fishing that are important to the State.\nThere are issues relating to local uses of the bay.\nBut more importantly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [717.534, 722.91, 725.651], "stop_times": [722.91, 725.651, 726.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 717.534}, "reply_to": "21764__0_062", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_064", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, could... could you be concrete?\nI mean, there... I don't know what you mean.\nWhat are the issues?\nCan you give me an explicit example?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [726.99, 728.685, 730.189, 731.224], "stop_times": [728.685, 730.189, 731.224, 733.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 726.99}, "reply_to": "21764__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21764__0_065", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Well, one explicit example is I think the State would prefer to have more local subsistence fishing in the bay.\nAnd the Court... to... to move out a bit, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [733.048, 738.306], "stop_times": [738.306, 741.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 733.048}, "reply_to": "21764__0_064", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_066", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "So the State would permit more fishing than the U.S. would allow--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [741.965], "stop_times": [745.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 741.965}, "reply_to": "21764__0_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21764__0_067", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [745.858], "stop_times": [746.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 745.858}, "reply_to": "21764__0_066", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_068", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--as a practical matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [746.551], "stop_times": [747.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 746.551}, "reply_to": "21764__0_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21764__0_069", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--As a practical matter.\nAnd... and there... there--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [747.457, 748.108], "stop_times": [748.108, 749.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 747.457}, "reply_to": "21764__0_068", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_070", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "But couldn't Congress forbid that under... by reason of its control of the navigable waters--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [749.169], "stop_times": [753.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 749.169}, "reply_to": "21764__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__0_071", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Well, if--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [753.355], "stop_times": [753.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 753.355}, "reply_to": "21764__0_070", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_072", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--if it really wanted to?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [753.995], "stop_times": [755.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 753.995}, "reply_to": "21764__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__0_073", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--If Congress really wanted to, Congress could... could affect activities relating to interstate commerce.\nBut importantly, what Alaska seeks here really is a seat at the table.\nRight now Alaska has no say over anything that happens in its navigable waters which are its sovereign State lands.\nWhat it seeks really is to have its views being considered.\nRight now... and I'll give you a concrete example that goes to the enclaves that are issue in the... in the next count that I'll discuss.\nFor some time cruise ships were going out into the middle of these enclaves and dumping their untreated sewage because that was outside... or asserted by the Government to be outside the scope of Alaska's pollution laws and not within the scope of Federal laws.\nThat was fixed, but it took an act of Congress to do that.\nThere had to be an act of Congress to prohibit those cruise ships from dumping their sludge out in these, what they used to call, donut holes.\nAlaska finds it unacceptable to have to go petition Congress every time something comes up on its navigable waters that it believes ought to be regulated or dealt with.\nNow, if Congress decides to preempt the State under its interstate commerce power, it has the right to do that.\nI think we also need to keep in mind what waters we're talking about.\nThis is southeast Alaska.\nThe waters of southeast Alaska quite literally define the region.\nThey are central to the economy, the history, the society, and the culture of all the Alaskans who live there and who travel there.\nJust to take an example, there are still today very few roads anywhere in southeast Alaska, and the... the towns and the cities like the... the State capital of Juneau historically were accessible only by the water.\nThis is an area... the water in particular is an area that is of great importance to Alaska.\nAnd they are seeking to confirm that that area does belong to Alaska.\nAnd I think we have set forth in quite detail why--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [755.002, 759.494, 762.683, 770.661, 773.866, 780.0, 795.029, 799.424, 805.503, 815.931, 822.486, 826.224, 828.01, 832.223, 839.941, 854.181, 859.984, 863.707], "stop_times": [759.494, 762.683, 770.661, 773.866, 780.0, 795.029, 799.424, 805.503, 815.931, 822.486, 826.224, 828.01, 832.223, 839.941, 854.181, 859.984, 863.707, 866.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 755.002}, "reply_to": "21764__0_072", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_074", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, there... there are big differences between the... the analysis concerning the bays that you assert and Glacier Monument.\nI think they're quite different.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [866.576, 875.642], "stop_times": [875.642, 877.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.576}, "reply_to": "21764__0_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21764__0_075", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Well, the... the tests are different.\nThe Glacier Bay test involves... needs to have an explicit reservation... explicit ratification by Congress of a reservation and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [877.001, 878.719], "stop_times": [878.719, 885.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 877.001}, "reply_to": "21764__0_074", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_076", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "You're lumping them all together, but I think the tests are quite different.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [885.477], "stop_times": [889.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.477}, "reply_to": "21764__0_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21764__0_077", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--The tests are different.\nWhat I was trying to explain is, in answer to Your Honor's question, why this matters to Alaska.\nIt matters quite--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [889.908, 890.767, 895.64], "stop_times": [890.767, 895.64, 896.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 889.908}, "reply_to": "21764__0_076", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_078", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "But in... in respect to Glacier Bay--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [896.921], "stop_times": [898.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 896.921}, "reply_to": "21764__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_079", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [898.643], "stop_times": [899.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 898.643}, "reply_to": "21764__0_078", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_080", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--I... I mean, is the only... you said, for example... is the only dispute about the use of the water that's in the middle of the Glacier Bay park whether there should be more or less fishing, or are there other things that Alaska wants to do with that water in the park that they can't do if the United States owns it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [899.331], "stop_times": [923.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 899.331}, "reply_to": "21764__0_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_081", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "There are two issues.\nI think it's fishing and also to allow more local people to visit the area that would otherwise be prohibited by the Park Service.\nThere was... but just to assure Your Honors--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [923.768, 924.37, 931.692], "stop_times": [924.37, 931.692, 933.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 923.768}, "reply_to": "21764__0_080", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_082", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "How could they do that?\nYou mean they would go into a boat in the middle of the water there, but they couldn't get off the boat?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [933.751, 934.326], "stop_times": [934.326, 940.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 933.751}, "reply_to": "21764__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_083", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Well, that's normally what... what people do is they just visit the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [940.982], "stop_times": [945.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 940.982}, "reply_to": "21764__0_082", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_084", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [945.498], "stop_times": [945.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 945.498}, "reply_to": "21764__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_085", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--by boats.\nBut to assure Your Honor, there... for example, there are no mineral interests here anywhere in the picture.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [945.551, 946.052], "stop_times": [946.052, 950.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 945.551}, "reply_to": "21764__0_084", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_086", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "No.\nAll right.\nSo if... if the normal way of visiting the park is to go into a boat and to go up along the waterway and to look at the glaciers on the shore, then it surely is odd that the United States intended to give that waterway to Alaska, for under those circumstances, there would be nothing left of the park.\nI mean, it would be like... you see, if it's essential to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [950.729, 950.873, 951.112, 979.33], "stop_times": [950.873, 951.112, 979.33, 983.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 950.729}, "reply_to": "21764__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_087", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, that's not true, Your Honor.\n80 percent of the park, even if one assumes it included the submerged lands, is uplands.\nBut it's no more unusual--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [983.474, 985.128, 990.039], "stop_times": [985.128, 990.039, 992.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 983.474}, "reply_to": "21764__0_086", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_088", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "No. I understand that, but I mean, it's the way of visiting the park.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [992.001], "stop_times": [995.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 992.001}, "reply_to": "21764__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__0_089", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Yes, but I just mentioned, for example, the two monuments in California.\nThe Channel Islands National Monument this Court held included the... the submerged lands were State-owned.\nThere's no other way to get to the Channel Islands Monument but to traverse State-owned submerged lands.\nIn fact, I think there are few national parks in this country you can't get to without going across State lands.\nI think there's another important point here and that is the Property Clause of the Constitution would also allow the Federal Government to regulate activities on lands that abut national parks to the extent that they might affect park activities.\nBut here what we need is an express statement by Congress ratifying the purported reservation of the bay.\nWithout that, Your Honors... and the... the precedents are clear.\nWithout that, the presumption is... in fact, the strong presumption is... that these are State-owned lands.\nAnd again, there is absolutely nothing unusual.\nThat is part of our Federal system.\nIt's the way that these monument properties have been managed since 1906 when the President first got the authority.\nIt's the way that Glacier Bay will continue to be managed.\nWe expect, we intend to work cooperatively with the Federal Government to resolve any issues that might remain.\nWhat we're seeking here, again, is a seat at the table.\nWe just are seeking to have Alaska's views dealt with because they are the owner.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [995.089, 998.336, 1002.789, 1007.397, 1013.323, 1026.933, 1032.212, 1035.14, 1040.573, 1043.522, 1045.214, 1051.475, 1054.073, 1061.054, 1063.843], "stop_times": [998.336, 1002.789, 1007.397, 1013.323, 1026.933, 1032.212, 1035.14, 1040.573, 1043.522, 1045.214, 1051.475, 1054.073, 1061.054, 1063.843, 1070.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 995.089}, "reply_to": "21764__0_088", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_090", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "In the... in the '97 case, was the area at issue within the first part of 6(e)?\nBecause this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1070.403, 1085.511], "stop_times": [1085.511, 1088.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1070.403}, "reply_to": "21764__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21764__0_091", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Yes.\nThe... the Court expressly stated that it was at pages 60 to 61, and that was in the absence of any contrary argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1088.562, 1089.111], "stop_times": [1089.111, 1095.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1088.562}, "reply_to": "21764__0_090", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_092", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--It... it made an assumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1095.89], "stop_times": [1097.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1095.89}, "reply_to": "21764__0_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21764__0_093", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "The Court made an assumption, but in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1097.901], "stop_times": [1100.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1097.901}, "reply_to": "21764__0_092", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_094", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "But was it in fact?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1100.338], "stop_times": [1102.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.338}, "reply_to": "21764__0_093", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21764__0_095", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--I think there would have been a substantial... had that... had that issue been litigated, there would have been a substantial argument that it was not within the main clause.\nBut again, there was no argument on that point before the Court.\nThe Court at pages 60 to 61 expressly stated... again, it was an assumption, but the Court expressly stated that the lands were within the main clause.\nApparently the Court was considering the fact that the application for ANWR did, in fact, reference the purposes that were set forth in the main clause, the Alaska Game Law.\nThe important point of that case for this case, though, Your Honors, is that the Court embraced the construction of section 6(e) that we are advocating here, namely that the proviso exempts and saves for the Federal Government a subset of the properties that would otherwise have been transferred to the State under the main clause.\nThere simply was no need for Congress to have expressed an intent--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1102.087, 1110.845, 1114.087, 1122.215, 1132.535, 1152.882], "stop_times": [1110.845, 1114.087, 1122.215, 1132.535, 1152.882, 1156.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1102.087}, "reply_to": "21764__0_094", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_096", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "I thought we had left that open.\nI thought we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1156.28, 1157.485], "stop_times": [1157.485, 1158.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1156.28}, "reply_to": "21764__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__0_097", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--I think what I said is that the Court embraced that position, and it was actually an essential attribute of the... essential premise for the Court's holding.\nAt 60 to 61 and again at page 48 of the... the decision, what the Court made clear is it was concerned that unless the lands were saved by the proviso, all of them, the submerged lands and the uplands, would have passed to Alaska under the main clause, and that was one of the reasons the Court, I think, held that it was covered by the proviso.\nNo such concern is present here.\nI'd like at this point briefly to turn, if I might, to the count I, which is the historic waters count.\nThere the United States asserts that at statehood the waters of southeast Alaska were riddled with isolated enclaves of international high seas that were wholly surrounded by U.S. territorial waters.\nThe historical record, though, belies that contention.\nAt least from 1903 until 1971, the United States took what this Court has described in the Mississippi Sound case, the Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case, as the publicly stated policy that the waters of the archipelago were inland and that the political boundary ran along the outside edge.\nThereafter, the United States took... consistently based a discriminatory enforcement regime, fisheries enforcement, on that position.\nWhat I mean by discriminatory is that the United States allowed U.S. fishing but prohibited foreign fishing in that area.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1158.514, 1166.851, 1188.62, 1191.469, 1196.85, 1210.573, 1213.949, 1233.01, 1242.466], "stop_times": [1166.851, 1188.62, 1191.469, 1196.85, 1210.573, 1213.949, 1233.01, 1242.466, 1250.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1158.514}, "reply_to": "21764__0_096", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_098", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, the argument on the other side, as I understand it, is that the... the assertion of authority to regulate fishing really is... is relevant.\nIt has no necessary implication for the historic waters doctrine.\nWhat... what is your answer to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1250.098, 1259.356, 1262.924], "stop_times": [1259.356, 1262.924, 1263.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1250.098}, "reply_to": "21764__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21764__0_099", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "That's the assertion.\nMy answer is that the Court announced to the contrary in the 1975 decision, the Cook Inlet case, there at page 201 and 202, and this is quoted at page 28 of the blue brief.\nWhat the Court said there is it examined an incident in which a Japanese fishing vessel had been caught in the general area, and the Court said... and I quote... that incident deserves scrutiny because the seizure of a foreign vessel more than 3 miles from shore manifests an assertion of sovereignty to exclude foreign vessels altogether and, quote, must be viewed as an exercise of authority over the waters in question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1263.97, 1264.497, 1276.544], "stop_times": [1264.497, 1276.544, 1298.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1263.97}, "reply_to": "21764__0_098", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_100", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "What... what page was that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1298.518], "stop_times": [1299.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1298.518}, "reply_to": "21764__0_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21764__0_101", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "I'm sorry.\nThat's 201 to 202... 201 and 202 of the Cook Inlet case, and that's at 28 of the blue brief.\nWhat the law was at statehood is the United States had no authority, after 3 miles out, to enforce discriminatory fishing regulations against foreign vessels.\nNow, importantly there's a caveat here, and that is that the law has changed.\nThe law has changed since 1971.\nBeginning in 1976, the United States asserted a 200-mile... what's known as an exclusive economic zone that allows the United States to enforce discriminatory fishing, and in 1982 international law embraced that.\nBut... and we have quoted a U.N. study.\nIn fact, the U.N. study that we have quoted... and that is noted at page 29 of the blue brief.\nThat is the study that's called the Juridical Regime Study.\nIt's the study that this Court itself, in all of its historic waters cases, has used as the authoritative statement of the law.\nThat study quite clearly states that if a... if a country enforced discriminatory fishing rules against foreign vessels outside... that that manifests an assertion of an historic inland waters claim.\nAnd what we have here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1299.904, 1300.207, 1307.006, 1318.766, 1322.579, 1325.219, 1339.118, 1341.176, 1348.257, 1350.786, 1357.521, 1371.697], "stop_times": [1300.207, 1307.006, 1318.766, 1322.579, 1325.219, 1339.118, 1341.176, 1348.257, 1350.786, 1357.521, 1371.697, 1373.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1299.904}, "reply_to": "21764__0_100", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_102", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--On... on this point, it seems to me there... unlike the first point you were discussing where I think the Federal Government can work its will anyway, on this point there is really a significant Federal interest involved.\nThat is to say, if the United States takes the position that these are, indeed, inland waters, it's going to have to acknowledge similar rights in foreign countries with similar archipelagos.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1373.313, 1385.264], "stop_times": [1385.264, 1401.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1373.313}, "reply_to": "21764__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__0_103", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--No.\nYour Honor, they assert that, but they don't provide any specific examples.\nAnd the reason they can't provide a specific example of any instance abroad where it would affect their position is that each historic waters inquiry is decided on its own facts.\nThe fact that something is an archipelago does not render it historic waters.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1401.702, 1403.21, 1407.243, 1417.163], "stop_times": [1403.21, 1407.243, 1417.163, 1421.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1401.702}, "reply_to": "21764__0_102", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_104", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "No, but... but you say a determinative fact, a conclusive fact is simply... is simply enforcing discriminatory fishing regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1421.451], "stop_times": [1430.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.451}, "reply_to": "21764__0_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__0_105", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "It is a claim to the... to the waters, which was made in 1903, accompanied with discriminatory fishing enforcement, accompanied with other statements in this case, including the California brief to this Court.\nThere has to be an... excuse me... examination of all of the facts and circumstances before one can conclude that waters are historic waters.\nThese ones are.\nOther waters would not be.\nThe United States has not identified any waters abroad that have precisely these constellation of facts.\nSo its... its position is basically: we say it, therefore it must be so.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1430.875, 1441.904, 1449.215, 1449.951, 1452.635, 1458.512, 1464.815], "stop_times": [1441.904, 1449.215, 1449.951, 1452.635, 1458.512, 1464.815, 1465.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1430.875}, "reply_to": "21764__0_104", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_106", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "But it's not the United States that will be making the judgment about what areas are controlled.\nIt would be the country abroad.\nAnd I... I think the argument was, what the United States does other nations will copy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1465.114, 1471.268, 1474.228], "stop_times": [1471.268, 1474.228, 1481.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.114}, "reply_to": "21764__0_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21764__0_107", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1481.289], "stop_times": [1481.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1481.289}, "reply_to": "21764__0_106", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_108", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "And they will decide what looks like the Alaska--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1481.412], "stop_times": [1487.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1481.412}, "reply_to": "21764__0_107", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21764__0_109", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Right.\nWhat the United States does, Your Honor, is follow the well-settled international law on historic bays... historic waters.\nThose are set forth in the convention.\nEach state will have the same authority where its facts and circumstances dictate it.\nIf there has been a continuous claim asserted by a nation with the acquiescence of foreign nations, then it will qualify as historic waters.\nBut it has to be done based on a... an examination of the particular facts of the case.\nAnd one thing else... one thing other that is worth noting, if you have an archipelago like this, a nation can always close it off using article 4 straight baselines.\nThat is permitted under the convention.\nThe U.S. has decided not to do that, but other states are fully able to do that.\nI think that if the United States is going to be arguing that there is some international precedent here that's going to hurt it adversely, it needs to identify a particular body water abroad that it believes this case is going to affect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1487.235, 1487.421, 1494.428, 1496.354, 1501.228, 1510.242, 1514.577, 1524.652, 1526.535, 1530.951], "stop_times": [1487.421, 1494.428, 1496.354, 1501.228, 1510.242, 1514.577, 1524.652, 1526.535, 1530.951, 1543.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1487.235}, "reply_to": "21764__0_108", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_110", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Why should it make that suggestion?\nIt would certainly not be in the interest of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1543.297, 1545.111], "stop_times": [1545.111, 1547.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1543.297}, "reply_to": "21764__0_109", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21764__0_111", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, it... it needs to explain more specifically then, other than just stating we think it might affect our position.\nThe... the facts and circumstances... the Court, for example, applied the historic bay question in Mississippi Sound, in the Mississippi Sound case.\nI am aware of no instance in which that precedent was ever used adversely and the United States has not identified any... any instance.\nBut more importantly, what this Court did in the Mississippi Sound case is it looked at the evidence and it said is this a historic bay or is it not.\nThe Court concluded that it was and that was the inquiry that the Court follows.\nAt this point, I'd like to reserve the remaining time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1547.474, 1554.444, 1561.431, 1569.116, 1576.738, 1581.367], "stop_times": [1554.444, 1561.431, 1569.116, 1576.738, 1581.367, 1584.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1547.474}, "reply_to": "21764__0_110", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__0_112", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Yes, Mr. Franklin.\nMr. Minear.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1584.028, 1585.211], "stop_times": [1585.211, 1587.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1584.028}, "reply_to": "21764__0_111", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21764__1_000", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nI would like to begin with the focal point of Alaska's argument, namely Glacier Bay National Park.\nAlaska's core contention is that section 6(e) of the statehood act does not provide an adequate showing that the United States intended to retain the submerged lands in Glacier Bay.\nThis--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1587.125, 1591.611, 1597.036, 1608.39], "stop_times": [1591.611, 1597.036, 1608.39, 1609.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1587.125}, "reply_to": "21764__0_112", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_001", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Could... before you go into that, could you tell me how 6(e) begins?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1609.301], "stop_times": [1613.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1609.301}, "reply_to": "21764__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_002", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Yes.\nIn fact, I think it's very helpful.\nIt's listed at page 7a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1613.706, 1614.261, 1615.599], "stop_times": [1614.261, 1615.599, 1617.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1613.706}, "reply_to": "21764__1_001", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_003", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "I mean, (e)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1617.384], "stop_times": [1617.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.384}, "reply_to": "21764__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_004", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--of our... of the gray brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1617.518], "stop_times": [1618.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1617.518}, "reply_to": "21764__1_003", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_005", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Yes, but the... well... well, the... the introduction to it is... is not listed, is it?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1618.899, 1624.163], "stop_times": [1624.163, 1624.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1618.899}, "reply_to": "21764__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_006", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "That may... that may be so.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1624.574], "stop_times": [1627.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1624.574}, "reply_to": "21764__1_005", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_007", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--I mean, it's incomplete.\nIt... it just says all real and... what about all real and personal property?\nIs there an intro that says there is hereby... there is hereby granted to the United... to Alaska?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1627.22, 1628.452, 1632.888], "stop_times": [1628.452, 1632.888, 1638.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1627.22}, "reply_to": "21764__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_008", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, 6(e) I think begins stating that this... these are exceptions to section 5 which is the retention... the general retention provision of the United... for United States lands.\nBut if we look at 6(e) itself, it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1638.206, 1646.701], "stop_times": [1646.701, 1649.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1638.206}, "reply_to": "21764__1_007", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_009", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, you say they're exceptions.\nHow... how are the exceptions introduced?\nI mean, it's incomplete to just read (e) that says all... what about all real and personal property of the United States?\nThere has to be some introductory language.\nWhat is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1649.4, 1650.397, 1653.362, 1660.599, 1662.171], "stop_times": [1650.397, 1653.362, 1660.599, 1662.171, 1662.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.4}, "reply_to": "21764__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_010", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--No.\nActually there doesn't, Your Honor, because if you go on, it says all real and personal property... then you skip down, about halfway down... shall be transferred and conveyed to the State of Alaska by the appropriate Federal agency.\nSo it is... so this is complete in terms of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1662.598, 1662.655, 1672.446], "stop_times": [1662.655, 1672.446, 1675.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1662.598}, "reply_to": "21764__1_009", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_011", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Okay.\nYou're right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1675.23, 1675.603], "stop_times": [1675.603, 1675.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1675.23}, "reply_to": "21764__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_012", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--But if I could walk you through those provisions because I think they're quite important.\nThe first provision says, as you say, all real and personal property which is specifically used for the sole purpose of conservation and protection of wildlife shall be transferred to the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1675.961, 1679.091], "stop_times": [1679.091, 1689.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1675.961}, "reply_to": "21764__1_011", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_013", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1689.021], "stop_times": [1689.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.021}, "reply_to": "21764__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_014", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "It's followed by another provision here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1689.517], "stop_times": [1691.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1689.517}, "reply_to": "21764__1_013", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_015", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "To... to Alaska.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1691.576], "stop_times": [1692.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1691.576}, "reply_to": "21764__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_016", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "To... to Alaska.\nExcuse me.\nAnd it's followed by another proviso which says that the United States will continue to control fish and game matters in Alaska until the Secretary of Interior has certified that Alaska is ready to do so.\nClearly that proviso is not a subset--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1692.205, 1693.0, 1693.571, 1705.554], "stop_times": [1693.0, 1693.571, 1705.554, 1707.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1692.205}, "reply_to": "21764__1_015", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_017", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Mr. Minear, before you get too far, I also would like to ask a preliminary question that was raised by Justice O'Connor before.\nDo you agree that section 5 itself, the second part of it that says the United States retains title to its own property, that the response to that is adequately provided in the Submerged Lands Act referred to in subparagraph (m)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1707.624, 1714.946], "stop_times": [1714.946, 1728.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1707.624}, "reply_to": "21764__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21764__1_018", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--No, I don't.\nI don't believe... let me frame the... your... your question, if I may, for you.\nSection 5 indicates the United States would retain all of the lands that it presently holds.\nSection 6(m) then makes the Submerged Lands Act applicable to the... to the... to Alaska.\nIn doing so, it recognizes that there are some lands the United States would continue to retain, provided it meets the requirements of the Submerged Lands Act.\nThe particular exception we're concerned about here is the expressly retained exception, in other words, if lands are retained by the United States.\nThis Court said in the Arctic Coast case that that provision adopts the general law that applied before the Submerged Lands Act, that it had to be made plain that the United States would be holding onto these lands.\nIt doesn't require an express statement.\nIt simply requires that it be made plain.\nNow, our view is that these lands would be retained by the United States, quite apart from 6... the 6(e) exception we're arguing about here on summary judgment.\nAnd if you denied our motion for summary judgment, we'd go back and talk about the other exceptions that are applicable.\nBut in this case we're simply focusing on 6(e) and we're focusing on that because the Court's Arctic Coast decision made clear that 6(e)... and I quote... reflects the very clear intent to retain title, unquote, to submerged lands, quote, so long as those submerged lands were among those set apart as refuges or wildlife... or reservations for the protection of wildlife.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1728.173, 1729.143, 1734.343, 1739.299, 1745.943, 1754.621, 1762.317, 1773.469, 1775.272, 1777.127, 1786.311, 1791.324], "stop_times": [1729.143, 1734.343, 1739.299, 1745.943, 1754.621, 1762.317, 1773.469, 1775.272, 1777.127, 1786.311, 1791.324, 1811.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1728.173}, "reply_to": "21764__1_017", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_019", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, we didn't have this issue before us.\nLet... let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1811.414, 1812.71], "stop_times": [1812.71, 1813.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1811.414}, "reply_to": "21764__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_020", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Yes, we did.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1813.494], "stop_times": [1813.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1813.494}, "reply_to": "21764__1_019", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_021", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--let me... why don't you go back to your argument?\nYou said that the first proviso on its face is simply not a subset of the first part of (e).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1813.9, 1815.995], "stop_times": [1815.995, 1823.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1813.9}, "reply_to": "21764__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_022", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Yes.\nIt's an example how provisos do not need to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1823.206, 1823.574], "stop_times": [1823.574, 1825.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1823.206}, "reply_to": "21764__1_021", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_023", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "But that's not the proviso at issue here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1825.947], "stop_times": [1827.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1825.947}, "reply_to": "21764__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_024", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1827.275], "stop_times": [1827.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1827.275}, "reply_to": "21764__1_023", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_025", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "The proviso at issue here is the second proviso which begins provided that such transfer shall not include lands.\nSuch transfer.\nNow, this is... the word such refers you back to something.\nWhat... what possible transfer could it mean except the end of the introduction, which says shall be transferred and conveyed to the State of Alaska?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1827.536, 1835.921, 1837.142, 1841.595], "stop_times": [1835.921, 1837.142, 1841.595, 1851.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1827.536}, "reply_to": "21764__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_026", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1851.93], "stop_times": [1852.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1851.93}, "reply_to": "21764__1_025", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_027", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "I mean, anybody reading that would... would think that proviso refers to that transfer or at least it is not clear that it provides to... that it applies to every transfer in... in the whole act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1852.571], "stop_times": [1867.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.571}, "reply_to": "21764__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_028", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--I disagree with you, Justice Scalia, for these reasons.\nFirst of all, the such transfer simply tells you what's not included.\nThat language tells you... this is outside.\nIt doesn't mean that whatever follows necessarily was within the main clause.\nWhat Congress was doing here, by making clear that these lands were not transferred--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1867.925, 1870.756, 1875.21, 1876.826, 1880.559], "stop_times": [1870.756, 1875.21, 1876.826, 1880.559, 1884.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1867.925}, "reply_to": "21764__1_027", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_029", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "What does the such refer to?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1884.303], "stop_times": [1884.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1884.303}, "reply_to": "21764__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_030", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--It does refer to the transfer before.\nBut what follows here, refuges and reservations for the protection of wildlife, they do not fit within that... that main clause.\nIt's obvious they don't because the only things that fit within the main clause are those lands and real property specifically used for the sole purpose of conservation and protection of wildlife.\nWhat we're talking about here... wildlife reservations are multiple purpose lands.\nThey're not used solely for... for the purpose of conservation.\nThe purpose of the first provision here was to transfer vehicles, fish hatcheries, other equipment that the State would need to enforce Alaska game laws.\nThat was the point of... of that first provision.\nBut Secretary Chapman who drafted this made clear in the legislative history that what he was doing was drawing a line between those... those facilities and equipment that are used by a State in its traditional game management and drawing a contrast with the matters that would be retained by the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1884.734, 1886.729, 1894.723, 1904.329, 1909.742, 1913.108, 1923.614, 1925.774], "stop_times": [1886.729, 1894.723, 1904.329, 1909.742, 1913.108, 1923.614, 1925.774, 1941.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1884.734}, "reply_to": "21764__1_029", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_031", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Yes, but where is the language that says that the submerged land that fits the proviso is retained by the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1941.913], "stop_times": [1953.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1941.913}, "reply_to": "21764__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_032", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "We do not need--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1953.31], "stop_times": [1954.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1953.31}, "reply_to": "21764__1_031", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_033", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "What the proviso says is just what Justice Scalia said.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1954.84], "stop_times": [1956.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1954.84}, "reply_to": "21764__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_034", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--We do not need express language that expresses--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1956.296], "stop_times": [1958.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1956.296}, "reply_to": "21764__1_033", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_035", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "No, no, but where is the implication in that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1958.712], "stop_times": [1960.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1958.712}, "reply_to": "21764__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_036", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--The implication is that we are retaining all of the reservation.\nAnd this is what the Court said in the Arctic Coast decision.\nIt saw that this was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1960.76, 1963.966, 1966.168], "stop_times": [1963.966, 1966.168, 1967.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1960.76}, "reply_to": "21764__1_035", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_037", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "That's... that's... it... I mean, in... in... I take it in the Alaska case we were considering a transfer that did fall within the main sentence of (e).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1967.79], "stop_times": [1980.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1967.79}, "reply_to": "21764__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_038", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Justice Breyer, neither party made that argument.\nThis issue came up in a letter that was written after.\nThe... the language--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1980.238, 1983.613, 1986.466], "stop_times": [1983.613, 1986.466, 1987.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1980.238}, "reply_to": "21764__1_037", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_039", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Were we or weren't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1987.886], "stop_times": [1988.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1987.886}, "reply_to": "21764__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_040", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--You were not considering that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1988.755], "stop_times": [1990.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1988.755}, "reply_to": "21764__1_039", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_041", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "We weren't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1990.018], "stop_times": [1990.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1990.018}, "reply_to": "21764__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_042", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "That... that was... simply neither party suggested that ANWR fell within the first provision.\nAnd it doesn't.\nIt's clear that it doesn't.\nIt was not land that was specifically used solely for conservation of wildlife under these three listed statutes.\nThe ANWR reservation at that time was set apart.\nIt was BLM land.\nIt was also used for mining and other activities.\nLikewise, the other matters--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [1990.018, 1994.604, 1995.281, 1996.38, 2003.01, 2005.505, 2006.513, 2008.754], "stop_times": [1994.604, 1995.281, 1996.38, 2003.01, 2005.505, 2006.513, 2008.754, 2010.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1990.018}, "reply_to": "21764__1_041", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_043", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "But the Court did assume... the Court did assume that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2010.764], "stop_times": [2013.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2010.764}, "reply_to": "21764__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21764__1_044", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2013.723], "stop_times": [2015.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2013.723}, "reply_to": "21764__1_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_045", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--It made that assumption with no briefing, but it did that with regard to the second issue that was presented there.\nThe issue that people were fighting about in the Arctic Coast decision was was this land properly set apart or not for purposes of the proviso.\nAnd that's where this discussion takes place.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2015.062, 2019.819, 2027.253], "stop_times": [2019.819, 2027.253, 2029.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.062}, "reply_to": "21764__1_044", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_046", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "All right.\nThen--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2029.093, 2029.418], "stop_times": [2029.418, 2029.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2029.093}, "reply_to": "21764__1_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_047", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "It's an afterthought that simply reinforces.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2029.7], "stop_times": [2031.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2029.7}, "reply_to": "21764__1_046", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_048", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--All right.\nThen at best Alaska is a neutral.\nBecause we didn't think it, we're operating as a mistake.\nIt's a neutral.\nOkay.\nNow, what's bothering me about the case is just what Justice Scalia said, that... that why I... if I sell you all my clothing and then I put, but not my camping gear, I mean, I can absolutely see you don't get my camping clothing, but you want to say that's a reservation of mess kits from some other transfer?\nI mean, it has nothing to do with mess kits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2031.304, 2031.758, 2034.206, 2037.166, 2038.051, 2038.792, 2063.208], "stop_times": [2031.758, 2034.206, 2037.166, 2038.051, 2038.792, 2063.208, 2064.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2031.304}, "reply_to": "21764__1_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_049", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Your Honor, but that's... it's clear that what this is... this is more along the lines if someone said that I will sell you my house, provided that transfer shall not include the detached garage.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2064.84], "stop_times": [2075.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2064.84}, "reply_to": "21764__1_048", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_050", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Fine, and then it doesn't go in that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2075.601], "stop_times": [2077.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2075.601}, "reply_to": "21764__1_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_051", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "In that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2077.152], "stop_times": [2077.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2077.152}, "reply_to": "21764__1_050", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_052", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "But it doesn't mean that the next--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2077.275], "stop_times": [2078.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2077.275}, "reply_to": "21764__1_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_053", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Yes, but it was not a part of the house.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2078.657], "stop_times": [2079.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2078.657}, "reply_to": "21764__1_052", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_054", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2079.018], "stop_times": [2079.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2079.018}, "reply_to": "21764__1_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_055", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "You know, that's... it's just providing clarification, just that one of the purposes of the proviso is to provide clarification.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2079.661], "stop_times": [2084.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2079.661}, "reply_to": "21764__1_054", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_056", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "This is an abundance of caution?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2084.844], "stop_times": [2085.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2084.844}, "reply_to": "21764__1_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21764__1_057", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "In other... that is exactly right.\nAnd we can tell that from--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2085.768, 2087.629], "stop_times": [2087.629, 2088.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2085.768}, "reply_to": "21764__1_056", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_058", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "All right.\nIf it's an abundance of caution, where's the other language that almost reserves it so we need the caution?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2088.882, 2089.341], "stop_times": [2089.341, 2097.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2088.882}, "reply_to": "21764__1_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_059", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--That would be section 5.\nIt indicates the general retention for lands of this sort.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2097.741, 2099.41], "stop_times": [2099.41, 2102.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2097.741}, "reply_to": "21764__1_058", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_060", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "But 5 is subject to the Submerged Lands Act and the Submerged Lands Act brings you back to the reservation has to be explicit.\nAnd then... see, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2102.445, 2112.668], "stop_times": [2112.668, 2114.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2102.445}, "reply_to": "21764__1_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_061", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, Justice Breyer, again, if I can just complete the point--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2114.354], "stop_times": [2117.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2114.354}, "reply_to": "21764__1_060", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_062", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--That's why I was talking about Yellowstone.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2117.298], "stop_times": [2118.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.298}, "reply_to": "21764__1_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_063", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2118.07], "stop_times": [2118.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2118.07}, "reply_to": "21764__1_062", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_064", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "I was looking for something that would be obvious that they wouldn't have meant to transfer.\nHe comes back and says, well, very often States do control the water.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2118.199, 2122.689], "stop_times": [2122.689, 2126.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2118.199}, "reply_to": "21764__1_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_065", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Your Honor, I just need to make a point.\nI think it's very important for you to understand this point.\nFirst of all, that at page 57 of the Arctic Coast decision, this Court was clearly reading this language, the 6(e) proviso, as sufficient to provide a clear indication of transfer of title, and in doing so, it was recognizing what is clear in the proviso itself, that these particular items that are discussed there are not a part of the main clause and cannot be.\nAnd a good example of that is the third thing that's being transferred, facilities that are utilized in connection with general research activities related to fisheries and wildlife.\nNow, that is not going to be something that's specifically used for the sole purpose of conservation and protection of wildlife.\nIt's the antithesis of that.\nIt makes quite clear that our construction is correct.\nThe subset theory just doesn't work because the items that are here are not things that fit within the main clause.\nWhat Congress was doing here was drawing a very clear line--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2126.273, 2128.343, 2130.598, 2152.219, 2161.276, 2167.185, 2168.22, 2171.334, 2178.076], "stop_times": [2128.343, 2130.598, 2152.219, 2161.276, 2167.185, 2168.22, 2171.334, 2178.076, 2180.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2126.273}, "reply_to": "21764__1_064", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_066", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "But why... why doesn't (m) supersede that argument anyway?\nLet's... can't we say that, well, you may be right so far as the second clause of (e) is concerned, but you still have to deal with (m)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2180.982, 2187.078], "stop_times": [2187.078, 2193.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.982}, "reply_to": "21764__1_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21764__1_067", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Then you have to explain what happened in the Arctic Coast case, why we were able to retain the ANWR lands which did not fall within the main provision.\nAnd that is because Congress was making... because this Court concluded that Congress was making clear that wildlife lands are very important and they wanted to make absolutely clear that those lands would not be transferred.\nAnd even a provision that could be misconstrued, as I'm afraid this Court did in... in Arctic Coast... could be misconstrued to contain some of these lands, we need to make adequate assurance that... that the courts that read this realize a clear division is being made.\nWe are retaining these wildlife lands.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2193.953, 2202.327, 2214.523, 2229.377, 2231.654], "stop_times": [2202.327, 2214.523, 2229.377, 2231.654, 2232.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2193.953}, "reply_to": "21764__1_066", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_068", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Mr. Minear, I'm... I'm not sure I agree with you that... that that language, facilities used in connection with general research activities relating to fisheries or wildlife, is not a subpart of the earlier... of the earlier grant, namely property used for the sole purpose of conservation and protection of fisheries and wildlife.\nSurely one... one can readily regard general research activities relating to fisheries or wildlife to be part of the activity of conserving and protecting fisheries and wildlife.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2232.214, 2258.864], "stop_times": [2258.864, 2270.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2232.214}, "reply_to": "21764__1_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_069", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--But we're talking about a facility here.\nSo a facility that might conduct some... some research tangentially related to wildlife is not a facility that's used for the sole... specifically used for the sole purpose of conservation and wildlife.\nThere's a clear difference here.\nThese two... these two sets do not overlap, and it's even more so with regard to wildlife refuges.\nWildlife refuges and wildlife reservations are used for multiple purposes.\nAt the time of statehood, the... the regulations in place, the fisheries regulations and wildlife regulations, made clear that permits could be issued for purposes apart from wildlife conservation.\nAnd this Court's own decision in Udall v. Tallman recognized that one of the... the refuges that Alaska cites as being included in the main clause was being used for oil and gas purposes.\nIt was not being used solely for the purposes... specifically used solely for the purposes of conservation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2270.329, 2271.375, 2283.322, 2286.367, 2292.164, 2296.341, 2306.756, 2317.231], "stop_times": [2271.375, 2283.322, 2286.367, 2292.164, 2296.341, 2306.756, 2317.231, 2322.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2270.329}, "reply_to": "21764__1_068", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_070", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Mr. Minear, you know, I... I am just overwhelmed by the reality that this is a terrible mess of a statute.\nI can't figure out what it means.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2322.874, 2330.313], "stop_times": [2330.313, 2333.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2322.874}, "reply_to": "21764__1_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_071", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2333.098], "stop_times": [2334.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2333.098}, "reply_to": "21764__1_070", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_072", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "And... and it seems to me that's exactly why we have a clear statement rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2334.222], "stop_times": [2337.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2334.222}, "reply_to": "21764__1_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_073", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2337.988], "stop_times": [2338.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2337.988}, "reply_to": "21764__1_072", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_074", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "There are arguments here, there are arguments there, but it... it does not dawn upon me that... that anything is clear about this at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2338.606], "stop_times": [2347.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2338.606}, "reply_to": "21764__1_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_075", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Well, this... we believe the statute has been clear for 50 years.\nThat's why these issues have only arisen recently with regard to Glacier Bay National Park.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2347.903, 2350.313], "stop_times": [2350.313, 2354.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2347.903}, "reply_to": "21764__1_074", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_076", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Mr. Minear, what do you say are the practical consequences from the Federal Government's perspective of going... of disagreeing with the U.S. position?\nWhat harm is done?\nCan the U.S. protect itself in any event under other clauses?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2354.286, 2362.995, 2364.115], "stop_times": [2362.995, 2364.115, 2368.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2354.286}, "reply_to": "21764__1_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21764__1_077", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "We agree that the United States has the regulatory authority to protect... to limit vessel entries and protect commercial fishing, but that's not what our concern is.\nOur concern is with the actual use of the submerged lands.\nThis is a laboratory.\nThis is a laboratory for scientific research, and we occupy and use the submerged lands for that purpose.\nThat includes such things as withdrawing cores of materials so we can analyze its historic features.\nWe've installed a 5-mile cable with a hydrophone on the... on the submerged lands so we can listen to vehicle traffic and determine if the... the volume is sufficient to interfere with the whales that migrate through there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2368.626, 2376.909, 2379.726, 2381.229, 2387.495, 2393.32], "stop_times": [2376.909, 2379.726, 2381.229, 2387.495, 2393.32, 2404.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.626}, "reply_to": "21764__1_076", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_078", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Don't you do that on... on dry land in some States?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2404.957], "stop_times": [2408.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2404.957}, "reply_to": "21764__1_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_079", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Your Honor, in order to hear vehicle traffic--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2408.456], "stop_times": [2410.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2408.456}, "reply_to": "21764__1_078", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_080", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Doesn't your authority under the Commerce Clause or under... under... over navigable waters allow you to do that kind of stuff?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2410.515], "stop_times": [2415.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2410.515}, "reply_to": "21764__1_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_081", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Your Honor, we think that... that Alaska would have a realistic argument that we cannot withdraw materials from the submerged land which we use and study.\nAnd in fact, I would point out that the park superintendent's affidavit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2415.864, 2423.554], "stop_times": [2423.554, 2428.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2415.864}, "reply_to": "21764__1_080", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_082", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Are they likely to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2428.113], "stop_times": [2428.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.113}, "reply_to": "21764__1_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_083", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--What?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2428.257], "stop_times": [2429.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2428.257}, "reply_to": "21764__1_082", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_084", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Are they likely to do that?\nIs this a real problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2429.057, 2430.129], "stop_times": [2430.129, 2431.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2429.057}, "reply_to": "21764__1_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_085", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "There are 900 papers, scientific papers, that are cited in the affidavit of the park superintendent.\nThis is exhibit number 8 on count IV.\nAnd of those describing the type of research we do in Glacier Bay National Park--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2431.121, 2436.289, 2438.561], "stop_times": [2436.289, 2438.561, 2442.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2431.121}, "reply_to": "21764__1_084", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_086", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, I thought--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2442.977], "stop_times": [2443.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2442.977}, "reply_to": "21764__1_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_087", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--scores and perhaps hundreds of those involve submerged lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2443.521], "stop_times": [2446.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2443.521}, "reply_to": "21764__1_086", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_088", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--All right.\nGiven what you're saying... and I... you're not accepting this I think, and I... well, there is language in this act which maintains in the United States title to the park.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2446.631, 2446.843], "stop_times": [2446.843, 2458.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2446.631}, "reply_to": "21764__1_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_089", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2458.508], "stop_times": [2459.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2458.508}, "reply_to": "21764__1_088", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_090", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "All right.\nNow, I would have thought when you get title to the park, you mean the park, and by the park, you mean those essential parts of the park.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2459.665, 2460.177], "stop_times": [2460.177, 2467.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.665}, "reply_to": "21764__1_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_091", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2467.286], "stop_times": [2467.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2467.286}, "reply_to": "21764__1_090", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_092", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "And therefore, if you have a part of the park which is the only part of the park where people look at the park, and it's the only part of the park that brings them into the park, and it's the only part of the park where you do the research, et cetera, that's the park.\nJust as if I were to sell my house and I list the rooms and forget the kitchen, well, the kitchen is an essential part of the house.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2467.984, 2484.783], "stop_times": [2484.783, 2491.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2467.984}, "reply_to": "21764__1_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_093", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2491.167], "stop_times": [2492.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.167}, "reply_to": "21764__1_092", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_094", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Now... now, once I made that argument, he said that's a very clever argument, but really, there are all kinds of instances where States have reserved submerged land inside national parks and it's worked fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2492.394], "stop_times": [2505.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2492.394}, "reply_to": "21764__1_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_095", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--But those are instances--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2505.241], "stop_times": [2506.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2505.241}, "reply_to": "21764__1_094", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_096", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "What's your response to all this?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2506.355], "stop_times": [2507.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2506.355}, "reply_to": "21764__1_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_097", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--The instances... the examples they're giving are cases in which we've created those national monuments or parks after statehood.\nAnd in those cases, we cannot acquire those lands because they have already been transferred to the State at statehood.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2507.299, 2513.101], "stop_times": [2513.101, 2518.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2507.299}, "reply_to": "21764__1_096", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_098", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "It hasn't resulted in a... in a disaster.\nThat's the point that Justice Breyer is making.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2518.066, 2519.927], "stop_times": [2519.927, 2521.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2518.066}, "reply_to": "21764__1_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_099", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "But in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2521.938], "stop_times": [2523.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2521.938}, "reply_to": "21764__1_098", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_100", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "It has not resulted in a disaster.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2523.09], "stop_times": [2524.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2523.09}, "reply_to": "21764__1_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_101", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--But in this case, it is going to impede the... the activities we have there.\nAnd a good example of this is in the amicus brief at page 25 where Alaska does not even assent to our authority to control fish and wildlife.\nThe Alaska legislature has passed a statute in which it refuses to assent to our authority to control fish and wildlife within the park.\nThis gives you some sense of the type of difficulties that we're going to encounter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2524.093, 2528.359, 2537.19, 2544.017], "stop_times": [2528.359, 2537.19, 2544.017, 2547.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2524.093}, "reply_to": "21764__1_100", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_102", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2547.222], "stop_times": [2547.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2547.222}, "reply_to": "21764__1_101", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21764__1_103", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "And our chief concern--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2547.782], "stop_times": [2548.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2547.782}, "reply_to": "21764__1_102", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_104", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Mr. Minear, may I ask you?\nAt the time the statute was passed, was the national Government conducting these activities?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2548.497, 2550.129], "stop_times": [2550.129, 2556.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2548.497}, "reply_to": "21764__1_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21764__1_105", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Yes, it was.\nIt was created as a national monument.\nNow, in terms of what degree of activities, the record is not clear, but we're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2556.118, 2557.691, 2559.248], "stop_times": [2557.691, 2559.248, 2563.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.118}, "reply_to": "21764__1_104", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_106", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Maybe you were monitoring passages through to see whether the whales were going to be interfered with and doing that sort of thing.\nWere you taking core samples?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2563.696, 2569.103], "stop_times": [2569.103, 2570.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2563.696}, "reply_to": "21764__1_105", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21764__1_107", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--We were definitely studying the bed of the lake, and our... our briefs below explain.\nWe have an affidavit from our glaciologist which describes the type of research that was being done.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2570.798, 2575.544], "stop_times": [2575.544, 2579.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2570.798}, "reply_to": "21764__1_106", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_108", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "So in... in other words, you... you're saying it is fair to say that at the time of the passage, this would have been on the congressional mind, going back to Justice Breyer's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2579.795], "stop_times": [2589.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2579.795}, "reply_to": "21764__1_107", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21764__1_109", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "It... it definitely would have.\nAnd also I want to point out that when we created the national monument, we also preserved such things as the interglacial forests.\nThese are forests that are left behind as the glaciers retreat and go forward over these submerged lands.\nThe glacial forests are in the submerged lands, and so they become a part of it.\nAs these glaciers continue to retreat, it's likely that other glacial forests will be revealed, and those should remain a part of the park.\nThat was part of the purpose, was to study those--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2589.731, 2590.707, 2596.37, 2601.784, 2606.765, 2613.442], "stop_times": [2590.707, 2596.37, 2601.784, 2606.765, 2613.442, 2615.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2589.731}, "reply_to": "21764__1_108", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_110", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Should.\nNow, you're not... how far are you prepared to go?\nYou can't go more than your brief and your facts justify.\nAre you prepared to say that this water is an essential part of the park?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2615.304, 2615.698, 2618.226, 2622.695], "stop_times": [2615.698, 2618.226, 2622.695, 2626.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2615.304}, "reply_to": "21764__1_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_111", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2626.733], "stop_times": [2627.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2626.733}, "reply_to": "21764__1_110", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_112", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Yes?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2627.501], "stop_times": [2628.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2627.501}, "reply_to": "21764__1_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_113", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Yes.\nCertainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2628.168, 2628.695], "stop_times": [2628.695, 2629.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2628.168}, "reply_to": "21764__1_112", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_114", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Have you said that before this minute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2629.293], "stop_times": [2630.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2629.293}, "reply_to": "21764__1_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21764__1_115", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Not only have we said it, but the Park Service at statehood said that this is a water park when they were describing these lands and saying why they should be retained.\nThey told Congress... the... the park superintendent or the... the director of the Park Service said this is a water park that's mostly... this is, after all, Glacier Bay National Park.\nAnd in that... with that respect, I'd like to point out this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2630.263, 2640.433, 2649.814], "stop_times": [2640.433, 2649.814, 2653.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2630.263}, "reply_to": "21764__1_114", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_116", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Why did they keep the other 80 percent then?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2653.515], "stop_times": [2654.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2653.515}, "reply_to": "21764__1_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_117", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Excuse me, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2654.849], "stop_times": [2656.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2654.849}, "reply_to": "21764__1_116", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_118", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Why did they keep the other 80 percent?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2656.449], "stop_times": [2658.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.449}, "reply_to": "21764__1_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_119", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2658.625], "stop_times": [2659.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2658.625}, "reply_to": "21764__1_118", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_120", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "I gather only 20 percent of it is water.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2659.084], "stop_times": [2661.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2659.084}, "reply_to": "21764__1_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_121", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--It's slightly more than 20--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2661.222], "stop_times": [2662.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2661.222}, "reply_to": "21764__1_120", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_122", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "I want to make sure they're giving away the rest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2662.726], "stop_times": [2663.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2662.726}, "reply_to": "21764__1_121", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_123", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--We haven't given away.\nWe have all of these lands.\nThe... the uplands here are the glaciers and the mountains that are inaccessible except by the water.\nYou cannot reach these areas.\nThere are no roads in this park except for the park visitors center, and beyond that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2663.28, 2664.228, 2665.472, 2670.566, 2671.889], "stop_times": [2664.228, 2665.472, 2670.566, 2671.889, 2675.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2663.28}, "reply_to": "21764__1_122", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_124", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Then make it a water park.\nI mean, you want to say it's a... it's a water-accessible park, fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2675.889, 2676.758], "stop_times": [2676.758, 2679.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2675.889}, "reply_to": "21764__1_123", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_125", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Yes.\nBut, Your Honor, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2679.382, 2680.235], "stop_times": [2680.235, 2681.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2679.382}, "reply_to": "21764__1_124", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_126", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "20 percent of the park is under water.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2681.345, 2682.635], "stop_times": [2682.635, 2683.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.345}, "reply_to": "21764__1_125", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__1_127", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--More than 20 percent.\nRoughly 25.\nI'd say close to 25 percent of the park is... within the park boundaries is submerged lands.\nBut there's another point I'd like to make with regard to the establishment of the park.\nThis park was created under the Antiquities Act, and under the Antiquities Act, the President is given authority to create national monuments, but they cannot be disestablished except by act of Congress.\nNow, Congress could have disestablished this monument if it had meant to give up the land.\nIt could have disestablished some part of it, and it chose not to do so.\nAnd yet, that's another indication that Congress was intending to retain these lands.\nNow, I would like to move on to the other two counts we have here, unless we have further questions about... about Glacier Bay.\nBut I... I think one thing that I do... one thought I want you... to leave you with with regard to Glacier Bay is that these lands are essential to the park.\nThey are understood to be essential at the time that the park was created.\nAnd the... the line we're suggesting here is a very reasonable one with regard to this park.\nThose lands are... continue to be used... the submerged lands for scientific research that is vitally important.\nNow, I'd like to point out that the master also correctly rejected the claim that the archipelago straits are historic inland waters, and on that basis, Alaska failed to satisfy any part of the Court's three-part test.\nThis Court specifically failed to show a continuous assertion of... of sovereignty to exclude vessels that have... that are visiting the park or passing through in innocent passage or to indicate any acquiescence of foreign nations.\nDuring the past 150-year period, neither Alaska nor the United States ever attempted to exclude a vessel based on... merely on innocent passage.\nRather, Alaska... Alaska cannot point to a single incident in which we unambiguously did so.\nThe only--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2683.019, 2684.619, 2685.873, 2690.385, 2693.28, 2703.05, 2707.536, 2710.912, 2715.376, 2721.759, 2728.271, 2731.961, 2736.65, 2741.754, 2753.204, 2768.095, 2776.788, 2783.508], "stop_times": [2684.619, 2685.873, 2690.385, 2693.28, 2703.05, 2707.536, 2710.912, 2715.376, 2721.759, 2728.271, 2731.961, 2736.65, 2741.754, 2753.204, 2768.095, 2776.788, 2783.508, 2784.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2683.019}, "reply_to": "21764__1_126", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_128", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Alaska is arguing, as I understand it now, that the... the exclusion for purposes of fisheries regulation has the same implication as a matter of international law, which is a point that you disagree on.\nWhat... what is your response to their response to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2784.079, 2797.95], "stop_times": [2797.95, 2800.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2784.079}, "reply_to": "21764__1_127", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21764__1_129", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--The answer is in order to establish a historic inland water claim, you have to exclude a vessel based on this passing through in innocent passage.\nFisheries is not... engaging in fishing activity under the convention is not innocent passage.\nAnd so, therefore, an exclusion based on fisheries can never... can never give rise to a claim of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2800.867, 2808.803, 2814.697], "stop_times": [2808.803, 2814.697, 2821.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2800.867}, "reply_to": "21764__1_128", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_130", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--And what's... what's your best authority for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2821.55], "stop_times": [2822.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2821.55}, "reply_to": "21764__1_129", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21764__1_131", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Well, our best authority is the convention itself.\nThe convention makes clear under article 14 that fisheries is... that fisheries activities are not innocent passage.\nRather, innocent passage is merely transit through from one point to another.\nMoreover, the Marguerite incident that they describe involves a single incident; that is, it does not satisfy the continuity requirement that the inland... the historic inland waters test requires.\nAnd finally, it also didn't satisfy the acquiescence test since the British Government protested the seizure of the ship.\nAnd finally on top of that, this vessel... we don't know exactly where this vessel was at the time that it was seized.\nThere continues to be a dispute and the master was unable to determine whether that... the ship was in... inside or outside the 3-mile limit.\nNow, I'd also like to speak briefly to the juridical... juridical bay claim as well.\nThis is a matter that Alaska did not touch upon, but I imagine it would address on rebuttal.\nThe master correctly rejected Alaska's extraordinary claim that the Alexander Archipelago can be turned into two large... large juridical bays.\nAnd basically it attempted to do so by establishing a headland on an island.\nNow, that does not suffice the purpose of the convention.\nThe only way that it can establish a bay headland or... or closing point is by showing that it's on the mainland.\nIn order to establish that this is on the mainland, Alaska has to ignore four intervening bodies of water.\nAnd as the master recognized, these bodies of water are simply too substantial to ignore.\nIn the case of these bodies of water, Keku Strait is 41 miles long, on average 4 and a half miles wide.\nIt's... simply those intervening waters cannot be ignored in order to establish that this is... is part of the mainland.\nIt's also separated by Wrangell Narrows, which is a 12-mile-long strait that is an important passage for international navigation.\nThat too precludes it from being ignored and treated as dry land.\nThe failure of those two assimilations by itself is sufficient to establish that... that these... that these juridical bays do not exist.\nAnd even if that were not enough, the master went on to say that this would not be a well-marked indentation, that even if you were willing to assimilate these lands, it's still the case that the bay itself would not be... the supposed, imaginary bays that Alaska has created here would not be recognizable to a mariner who is passing by.\nFor all those reasons, the juridical bays here are... are simply not well founded, and the master was correct in rejecting them.\nSo what we see--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2822.482, 2825.303, 2832.555, 2836.327, 2849.041, 2855.425, 2860.97, 2868.571, 2874.47, 2879.984, 2889.414, 2893.899, 2896.827, 2904.667, 2910.549, 2915.205, 2921.973, 2929.707, 2937.36, 2941.547, 2950.912, 2967.829, 2974.384], "stop_times": [2825.303, 2832.555, 2836.327, 2849.041, 2855.425, 2860.97, 2868.571, 2874.47, 2879.984, 2889.414, 2893.899, 2896.827, 2904.667, 2910.549, 2915.205, 2921.973, 2929.707, 2937.36, 2941.547, 2950.912, 2967.829, 2974.384, 2975.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2822.482}, "reply_to": "21764__1_130", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_132", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Mr. Minear, could I go back to Glacier--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2975.744], "stop_times": [2979.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2975.744}, "reply_to": "21764__1_131", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21764__1_133", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Certainly, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2979.572], "stop_times": [2980.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2979.572}, "reply_to": "21764__1_132", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_134", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Park again for a moment and ask why the Government decided to base its claim to the lands in Glacier Bay exclusively on that murky provision of 6(e) rather than to talk about the standards set out in the Idaho case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2980.261], "stop_times": [2998.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2980.261}, "reply_to": "21764__1_133", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21764__1_135", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2998.953], "stop_times": [2999.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2998.953}, "reply_to": "21764__1_134", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_136", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Do you... do you not rely on that standard--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [2999.434], "stop_times": [3002.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2999.434}, "reply_to": "21764__1_135", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21764__1_137", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Quite--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [3002.447], "stop_times": [3002.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3002.447}, "reply_to": "21764__1_136", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_138", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--analysis?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [3002.927], "stop_times": [3003.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3002.927}, "reply_to": "21764__1_137", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21764__1_139", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Quite honestly we thought that under the Arctic Coast decision, the Court is required to create absolutely new... no new law.\nIt had already interpreted 6(e) and it was clear that section 6(e) applied to this case.\nWe think the Idaho provisions provide another opportunity for us to establish it.\nIt's quite clear that the purposes of the... the lands here, the submerged lands, are so essential to the park that it's simply inconceivable that Congress would have intended for those lands to pass out of ownership.\nHowever, we relied on--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [3003.652, 3010.825, 3015.55, 3019.401, 3029.956], "stop_times": [3010.825, 3015.55, 3019.401, 3029.956, 3031.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3003.652}, "reply_to": "21764__1_138", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_140", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Would you... would you tell us again why, if you do not prevail on this argument, you still go back before the... the special master to show certain facts?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [3031.224], "stop_times": [3039.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3031.224}, "reply_to": "21764__1_139", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21764__1_141", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--Well, first of all, Alaska has not moved for summary judgment.\nWe moved for summary judgment on some of our theories.\nOther theories would require some factual development.\nOne of the theories that we would... we would go forward with is that these lands are occupied under a claim of right, and that's another exception under the Submerged Lands Act.\nIn addition, we would renew the argument with regard to Antiquities Act, that once Congress takes an area and authorizes the President to set it aside under the Antiquities Act and provides that it cannot be disestablished except by act of Congress, we think that's a very clear indication of Congress' intent to retain those lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [3039.884, 3042.662, 3045.051, 3047.35, 3055.323], "stop_times": [3042.662, 3045.051, 3047.35, 3055.323, 3074.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3039.884}, "reply_to": "21764__1_140", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_142", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, given the absence of a summary judgment, we wouldn't have to address that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [3074.15], "stop_times": [3075.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3074.15}, "reply_to": "21764__1_141", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21764__1_143", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "No.\nYou would not have... we... we believe the master adverted to this claim, but we do not think that he foreclosed it.\nBut rather, I'd like to discuss briefly the relationship of Idaho and Alaska because I think it's important and worthwhile.\nWe think that this case falls squarely within the Alaska Arctic Coast case, and in particular we relied on it primarily because it provides an actual textual basis for showing that the... the United States retain those lands.\nWe do not need to go further and show purpose, although we certainly can.\nWe relied on the Alaska case because we think it provides a very clear example of why retention is... is required in this case.\nThe master agreed with us.\nHe analyzed the Arctic Coast decision and he concluded that the... the proviso here necessarily must be considered an independent retention clause.\nThere's no other way to understand the Arctic Coast decision except on that basis.\nAnd we think that's the right interpretation, and we think if we... if you focus on what the Court said on pages 56 to 57, it becomes quite clear.\nThe statement that Alaska relies on to create its so-called subset test is an afterthought at the end of the opinion.\nIt's a statement that's made in the Court's words to reinforce the conclusion it's already reached.\nIt doesn't provide a basis for... for departing from that.\nAnd in fact, as I hope I have showed to the Court, the subset test doesn't make any sense, that they're simply... all of those lands that fall within the proviso are lands that would not fall within the main clause.\nThe wildlife refuge is occupied for multiple purposes.\nIt's... the two wildlife refuges that they point to both the record shows were used for multiple purposes.\nThey were not used solely for conservation purposes.\nAnd in addition, they were... to the extent that those refuges adverted to any lands at all... any statutes, they were referring to a 1925 statute, not... not the 1943 statute.\nFurthermore, there are 24 other refuges that we believe that Congress intended to retain that Alaska has no answer for.\nOne... one of those refuges, in particular, the Semidi Islands, quite clearly describes within its boundaries submerged lands, reefs, and other areas.\nIt clearly is being used for those purposes.\nWe think the right interpretation of the proviso is clearly that it was meant to ensure, to provide the clarity that this Court needs to determine that Congress clearly did intend to retain these lands.\nThat was the point that... that this proviso, as Secretary Chapman himself indicated, and in fact, he stated in... the excerpt appears in page... on page 47, note 37 of our brief.\nHe stated that these reservations... the land and water would be reserved.\nHe clearly was aware and told Congress that that was the purpose here, to reserve both land and water.\nFinally, I'd like to ask the Court to step back and look at the big picture here.\nThe United States' position overall results in a very sensible division of submerged lands in this case.\nWe have not contested Alaska's right to the vast majority of the submerged lands here that are encompassed in Tongass National Forest.\nRather, we've identified two areas where the Federal Government interests are paramount.\nFirst of all, with regard to drawing international... developing international principles to establish baselines, which creates these bays and... and pockets, that's a necessary consequence of what our foreign policy requires.\nSecondly, where the United States has clearly reserved a unique treasure, namely Glacier Bay National Park.\nThis park was set aside for the benefit of the entire Nation.\nWe think that the Court should adopt the master's report in full.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [3075.93, 3076.342, 3080.821, 3087.178, 3099.947, 3103.21, 3110.304, 3111.344, 3120.8, 3124.399, 3131.653, 3139.835, 3144.165, 3147.274, 3159.269, 3162.741, 3168.532, 3170.863, 3183.594, 3191.653, 3200.239, 3202.373, 3213.407, 3225.497, 3229.966, 3236.003, 3239.859, 3246.286, 3252.771, 3257.299, 3271.065, 3277.134, 3280.403, 3283.716], "stop_times": [3076.342, 3080.821, 3087.178, 3099.947, 3103.21, 3110.304, 3111.344, 3120.8, 3124.399, 3131.653, 3139.835, 3144.165, 3147.274, 3159.269, 3162.741, 3168.532, 3170.863, 3183.594, 3191.653, 3200.239, 3202.373, 3213.407, 3225.497, 3229.966, 3236.003, 3239.859, 3246.286, 3252.771, 3257.299, 3271.065, 3277.134, 3280.403, 3283.716, 3284.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3075.93}, "reply_to": "21764__1_142", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "21764__1_144", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Minear.\nMr. Franklin, you have about 3 and a half minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [3284.718, 3286.424], "stop_times": [3286.424, 3290.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3284.718}, "reply_to": "21764__1_143", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21764__2_000", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nTo get back to the Idaho case, we are, in fact, advocating the principles of that case.\nIt is not sufficient that Congress be on notice of a reservation that might include submerged lands.\nCongress has to take some action to explicitly ratify that.\nThat was what happened in the Idaho case, according to the Court.\nAnd the United States has identified one statute and one statute only that it asserts can... ratifies the bay, and that's section 6(e), the proviso.\nWe think the plain language to section (e)... 6(e) is dispositive in this case.\nWe are operating here under a clear statement rule.\nThe presumption is, in fact, the strong presumption is, that if Congress does not expressly ratify the reservation, Congress is presumed not to have intended that the submerged lands... title to submerged lands be defeated.\nThere was... the statute says such transfer shall not include.\nThere simply was no need for Congress to have included... to have specified that such transfer, the main clause transfer, shall not include submerged lands when they were not included... or excuse me... shall not include properties that were not included in the first place.\nThat includes Glacier Bay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [3290.115, 3291.401, 3299.779, 3306.27, 3310.995, 3313.832, 3324.089, 3329.54, 3332.889, 3346.19, 3349.929, 3365.528], "stop_times": [3291.401, 3299.779, 3306.27, 3310.995, 3313.832, 3324.089, 3329.54, 3332.889, 3346.19, 3349.929, 3365.528, 3367.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3290.115}, "reply_to": "21764__1_144", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__2_001", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Would... would you respond to the... to the argument that the Alaska Arctic Coast case decided that the proviso goes beyond subsection (e)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [3367.305], "stop_times": [3379.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3367.305}, "reply_to": "21764__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21764__2_002", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, my... my first response is even the master, who ruled... who... who decided against us, did not find that the Alaska case decided that, and indeed, it could not have because the Court at pages 60 and 61 expressly assumed that the lands would fall within the proviso.\nTherefore... excuse me.\nThe main clause.\nTherefore the Court did not hold and could not have held that lands that did not fall within the main clause were included by the proviso.\nIt is important, though, to... to note this, that even if the statute is ambiguous... and we think that it is not... Alaska still prevails here because a... there is a clear statement rule and a clear statement rule cannot be satisfied by definition by an ambiguous statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [3379.406, 3394.366, 3395.117, 3395.912, 3404.718], "stop_times": [3394.366, 3395.117, 3395.912, 3404.718, 3420.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3379.406}, "reply_to": "21764__2_001", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__2_003", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "But the... the argument is that it is clear because the reservation without the reservation of the waters would be crazy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [3420.483], "stop_times": [3429.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3420.483}, "reply_to": "21764__2_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21764__2_004", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Well, it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [3429.032], "stop_times": [3430.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3429.032}, "reply_to": "21764__2_003", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__2_005", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Why isn't... I mean, what's... what's the answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [3430.274], "stop_times": [3432.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3430.274}, "reply_to": "21764__2_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21764__2_006", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "--We dispute that for the following reason, Your Honor, that... that the... the point of the monument was to study the glaciers and the effects of the glaciers as they recede on dry land.\nTitle to the submerged lands was simply not necessary for that purpose.\nBut I think their sky-is-falling argument really falls apart here.\nAll that the counsel can point to is the idea is that they would like scientists to go scuba diving down there and to perhaps look at the bottom.\nThere is absolutely no contention here that Alaska would... would prevent scientists who want to study this... these lands from doing that.\nWe let scientists onto all of our properties, all of our submerged lands when they have a good reason for doing it.\nWe hope to work cooperatively with the Federal Government on this.\nThe... the idea that Alaska is somehow going to be less receptive to scientific research here I think demeans our Federal structure.\nWe have a Federal structure here under which sovereignty of submerged lands is given to the States because they are viewed as the ones principally affected by the activities that go on there.\nWe are not planning on... on preventing scientists from scuba diving down there.\nBy the way, they did not at the time of the monument, Your Honor, do scuba diving because there... there really wasn't any scuba diving going on.\nBut to... to move on... I see my time is up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [3432.445, 3440.487, 3444.503, 3448.54, 3456.444, 3464.087, 3470.065, 3473.036, 3481.271, 3491.484, 3495.698, 3501.9], "stop_times": [3440.487, 3444.503, 3448.54, 3456.444, 3464.087, 3470.065, 3473.036, 3481.271, 3491.484, 3495.698, 3501.9, 3505.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3432.445}, "reply_to": "21764__2_005", "speaker": "jonathan_s_franklin"}
{"id": "21764__2_007", "conversation_id": "21764", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Franklin.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_128-orig", "start_times": [3505.884, 3507.319], "stop_times": [3507.319, 3508.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3505.884}, "reply_to": "21764__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22637__0_000", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "We'll hear argument now in American Trucking Associations v. Michigan Public Service Commission and a companion case.\nMr. Digges.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [0.0, 13.269], "stop_times": [13.269, 16.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22637__0_001", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case is a challenge to Michigan's $100 per truck flat annual fee that is imposed on all trucks that are registered to do point-to-point operations in the State of Michigan.\nWe submit that this fee, this flat per truck fee, has the same impermissible effects on interstate commerce as the two flat truck fees that were struck down by this Court in American Trucking Associations v. Scheiner.\nIn the American Trucking Associations v. Scheiner case, this Court looked at the practical effect of these fees and found that because of their unapportioned structure, that the fees had four interrelated types of impermissible effects on interstate commerce.\nFirst, the Court found that these kinds of flat fees were a financial barrier against out-of-state motor carriers even coming into the State that imposed the... the fee.\nThere's no question in this case that the Michigan flat fee has the same kind of protectionist quality.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [16.054, 18.504, 28.945, 41.337, 55.846, 66.237], "stop_times": [18.504, 28.945, 41.337, 55.846, 66.237, 71.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 16.054}, "reply_to": "22637__0_000", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_002", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, it... it does for trucks that want to deliver things within the State of Michigan.\nIt doesn't for anybody else.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [71.606, 76.693], "stop_times": [76.693, 78.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 71.606}, "reply_to": "22637__0_001", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__0_003", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Yes, it... it discriminates and it... it has an exclusory effect on trucks... out-of-state carriers that want to compete in the... and bring their trucks across the... the border of Michigan and compete against local carriers for intrastate hauls.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [78.295], "stop_times": [90.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 78.295}, "reply_to": "22637__0_002", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_004", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "It would have that... it certainly has that tendency.\nDo we have... do we know in fact what the effect is?\nIs it deterring anybody?\nHow many trucks does it affect?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [90.685, 92.385, 97.089, 98.958], "stop_times": [92.385, 97.089, 98.958, 100.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 90.685}, "reply_to": "22637__0_003", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__0_005", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "There was not a trial below.\nSo we don't have that fact.\nWe believe that as in the Scheiner case, these... these tendencies are inherent there.\nBecause of the structure of the fee, it not only has this effect, it has what this Court called a hydraulic pressure effect, and that is to... for carriers, once they have paid this fee as an entrance fee, to pull their trucks out of interstate commerce and to concentrate them into... in the State of Michigan in the local activities.\nAnd that... in fact, the State acknowledges that.\nBelow, the State said that motor carriers should allocate or dedicate their trucks to the State of Michigan in order to avoid these consequences.\nAnd even the Michigan Court of Appeals recognized that, saying a local carrier would be discouraged from operating in interstate commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [100.508, 101.66, 102.81, 107.045, 125.193, 128.727, 136.381], "stop_times": [101.66, 102.81, 107.045, 125.193, 128.727, 136.381, 143.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 100.508}, "reply_to": "22637__0_004", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_006", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Of course, it also... I mean, you say it... it favors the in-state... intrastate carrier because if you're doing nothing but intrastate carriage, you... you amortize the $100 over many more miles, whereas the interstate carrier, much of whose business is out-of-state, doesn't do that.\nOn the other hand, you can certainly argue that... that this tax discriminates against intrastate carriers in... in another respect, that is to say, interstate carriers who... who do nothing within the State do not pay it, whereas the... the Michigan carrier that does a lot of interstate business but if he does one piece of intrastate business... interstate business, he still pays it.\nIsn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [143.904, 166.602, 194.67], "stop_times": [166.602, 194.67, 195.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 143.904}, "reply_to": "22637__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__0_007", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I think what... what that's saying... and I know that was the argument made in the Solicitor General's brief... is that you can discriminate against one component of interstate commerce, those carriers that want to actually compete and do intrastate business in the State, as long as you give a benefit to another component of interstate commerce, those who just wish to operate in the... in the State of Michigan in interstate commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [195.937], "stop_times": [216.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 195.937}, "reply_to": "22637__0_006", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_008", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, it's not so much that you necessarily can do it, but it... it sort of interrupts the... the kind of the a priori reasoning and you're thrown back on a... on... on a practical effects analysis under Pike.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [216.6], "stop_times": [228.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 216.6}, "reply_to": "22637__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__0_009", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI think what happens is that... that there are the segment of carriers that would like to compete against intrastate carriers.\nThe fact that other carriers may be getting a break in terms of regulatory fees... and we don't know that to be the truth, getting the other interstate carriers.\nIt's the Boston Stock Exchange, and I think it was said again in the Scheiner case that... that you can't discriminate among interstate carriers.\nAnd as we pointed out in our brief, you could set up a situation in which a... a State discriminated in favor of interstate carriers in situations or industries where their locals had no interest in competing, but where their... their locals were interested in competing, they could set up a discriminatory system.\nSo you can protect timber industry in... in Oregon and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [228.51, 229.493, 235.08, 242.733, 249.756, 267.551], "stop_times": [229.493, 235.08, 242.733, 249.756, 267.551, 273.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 228.51}, "reply_to": "22637__0_008", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_010", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "But may I ask this question?\nSuppose you have an interstate carrier that does 100,000 miles of business in Michigan and you have an intrastate carrier that does a 100,000 miles of business in Michigan.\nThey both say the... pay the same tax, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [273.222, 274.172, 283.061], "stop_times": [274.172, 283.061, 285.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 273.222}, "reply_to": "22637__0_009", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22637__0_011", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--If they each do 100,000 miles of intrastate business in Michigan--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [285.947], "stop_times": [289.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 285.947}, "reply_to": "22637__0_010", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_012", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [289.299], "stop_times": [289.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 289.299}, "reply_to": "22637__0_011", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22637__0_013", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--they would pay the same flat fee.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [289.581], "stop_times": [291.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.581}, "reply_to": "22637__0_012", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_014", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "They would both pay the same tax, both the intra and the interstate.\nNow, that doesn't sound to me like discrimination against either one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [291.166, 295.285], "stop_times": [295.285, 298.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.166}, "reply_to": "22637__0_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22637__0_015", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "If... if this... if this tax was apportioned based on mileage, it would not be discrimination, but unfortunately, it is not and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [298.654], "stop_times": [304.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 298.654}, "reply_to": "22637__0_014", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_016", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "No, but I'm just saying if the intrastate and interstate carriers both have the same intrastate mileage, they both pay the same tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [304.658], "stop_times": [313.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 304.658}, "reply_to": "22637__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22637__0_017", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--And we... we would... and again, if this was a mileage-apportioned fee, it would be... it would be fine.\nBut the fact is as in Scheiner, the out-of-state carriers, because the interstate carrier is... is operating--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [313.014, 317.818], "stop_times": [317.818, 324.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 313.014}, "reply_to": "22637__0_016", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_018", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Yes, but you might have an intrastate carrier that does a smaller amount of mileage, only 50,000 miles, and an interstate carrier that pays... does 100,000 miles.\nThey both pay the same tax too.\nAnd everybody is treated alike on their intrastate business.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [324.055, 332.993, 335.045], "stop_times": [332.993, 335.045, 338.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 324.055}, "reply_to": "22637__0_017", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22637__0_019", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--That would be true but that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [338.314], "stop_times": [340.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 338.314}, "reply_to": "22637__0_018", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_020", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "And the tax only operates on intrastate business.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [340.683], "stop_times": [343.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 340.683}, "reply_to": "22637__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22637__0_021", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--The factual situation is going to be that the interstate carrier is just not going to have the opportunity to do as much business in Michigan as the intrastate carrier.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [343.116], "stop_times": [350.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 343.116}, "reply_to": "22637__0_020", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_022", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, it seems to me you should have introduced some evidence on that point.\nI mean, it... it really is an assumption of your unfairness argument that purely intrastate carriers do significantly more intrastate business than interstate carriers who choose to do some interstate business.\nNow, does that strike you as self-evident?\nIt does not need any--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [350.889, 353.241, 371.119, 374.504], "stop_times": [353.241, 371.119, 374.504, 375.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 350.889}, "reply_to": "22637__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__0_023", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Yes.\nYes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [375.72, 376.106], "stop_times": [376.106, 376.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 375.72}, "reply_to": "22637__0_022", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_024", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--demonstration?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [376.756], "stop_times": [377.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 376.756}, "reply_to": "22637__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__0_025", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "It does strike me as self-evident.\nIn fact, to courts below... we have... we've made this argument.\nWe've seen this argument now.\nThe cases have called it intuitively obvious.\nAnd from the discussion of... in the Scheiner case and from the discussion in the Nippert case, the very difference between interstate and intrastate commerce means that on average the interstate carrier is just not going to use the State's facilities as much as the in-state carrier.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [377.456, 378.106, 380.808, 381.574, 383.676], "stop_times": [378.106, 380.808, 381.574, 383.676, 397.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 377.456}, "reply_to": "22637__0_024", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_026", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Wouldn't we be better able to decide this question after a trial rather than speculation on both sides?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [397.603], "stop_times": [406.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 397.603}, "reply_to": "22637__0_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22637__0_027", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "I don't think a trial is necessary because, as I say, this... this Court quoted Justice Frankfurter clearly, and I think the Solicitor General in his brief says that on average the out-of-state carrier is not going to get as much benefit from this fee.\nThis is a variable cost fee.\nIn effect, the out-of-state carrier is having to pay more than its fair share of the cost of the... of the State's regulatory system.\nAnd again, that's something that was accepted in the Scheiner case, accepted in... in the Nippert case.\nAnd the intrastate carrier... every time that it operates in the State, it is using that privilege.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [406.042, 419.516, 420.968, 427.205, 431.907], "stop_times": [419.516, 420.968, 427.205, 431.907, 437.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 406.042}, "reply_to": "22637__0_026", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_028", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, Nippert was over 100 years ago, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [437.311], "stop_times": [440.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 437.311}, "reply_to": "22637__0_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22637__0_029", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "I think the Nippert case was from the 1940's I believe.\nIn any event, as we've been discussing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [440.53, 444.001], "stop_times": [444.001, 447.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 440.53}, "reply_to": "22637__0_028", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_030", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "It seems like 100 years ago.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [447.286, 448.786], "stop_times": [448.786, 449.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 447.286}, "reply_to": "22637__0_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22637__0_031", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--It's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [449.436], "stop_times": [450.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 449.436}, "reply_to": "22637__0_030", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_032", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Mr. Digges, this... the... the... there was a question about the ramifications of the position that you're presenting.\nThat is, there are many situations in which there is some kind of licensing fee that is imposed on everyone, the same dollar amount, although some people who are licensed will be doing because in other States and have to get licenses there as well.\nThe example that was featured in the... in the briefs on the other side of the lawyer who is licensed, say, in Massachusetts and also in D.C. does not get any break on his D.C. Bar admission because he is also admitted in Massachusetts, and in fact, does most of his practice out-of-state, out of the District.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [450.821, 460.677, 480.34], "stop_times": [460.677, 480.34, 509.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.821}, "reply_to": "22637__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22637__0_033", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nI know that... that example was given.\nI think there are a variety of flat fees that would be unaffected by this.\nThere are fees that would be administrative charges and... and if all the State is doing is charging, for example, the cost of a background investigation or the cost of a truck inspection, a fixed cost, then it's fair to ask the carrier to pay a fixed fee or to ask the taxpayer to pay a fixed fee.\nWith respect to the bar fees, they are obviously different than the trucking industry and... and the taxation of an instrumentality in interstate commerce.\nBut we think that there may be impracticalities in apportioning a bar fee.\nYou could have an attorney in his office in Virginia that is working for a California customer or California client that is being... for a case that is being tried in the court system of Oregon, and then for transaction work, he could be working for a customer or a client in... in Missouri for... a multi state.\nSo it may be difficult to apportion fees.\nWe haven't really examined that.\nBut we know from this Court's decisions that... that is easy and can be apportioned for truck fees, and truck fees... this Court said in Scheiner that the technology is now available to look at the extent of the activity and the taxpayer in... in... of the truck in the State, and later on in a subsequent decision said that you can easily track large physical objects over States.\nSo you can apportion these fees on trucks to their mileage in the State, to their loads, to the gross revenue associated with the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [509.008, 510.86, 512.811, 516.096, 531.539, 540.145, 544.581, 563.994, 565.794, 567.062, 588.026], "stop_times": [510.86, 512.811, 516.096, 531.539, 540.145, 544.581, 563.994, 565.794, 567.062, 588.026, 594.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 509.008}, "reply_to": "22637__0_032", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_034", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "But the Scheiner case didn't make a distinction based on in-state activity.\nI thought that that... that flat fee was applicable to every motor carrier that went on the roads in Pennsylvania.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [594.263, 599.267], "stop_times": [599.267, 606.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 594.263}, "reply_to": "22637__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22637__0_035", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--That is accurate, Your Honor, but... but nominally Scheiner... for instance, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the Scheiner case did say that... did uphold the fee because they said only Pennsylvania could charge for the privilege of using Pennsylvania's highways.\nSo like a lot of... like all interstate commerce, you can always... as... as the Court said in Nippert, you can always find... carve out a local activity to say that this is going to be the focus of the tax.\nI think a problem here is with the... the approach taken by the State and the Solicitor General is they suggest that you go back to the days in which you're trying to draw a line between interstate and intrastate activity, this time not because the intrastate activity is going to be immune from the tax, but this time because you're going to have some separate, different kind of test applicable to something that clearly is subject to Commerce Clause protections, but is... is, in their view, subject to a more lenient Commerce Clause protection.\nAnd I don't think this Court wants to retreat back to the days of having to draw a line between interstate and intrastate commerce and... and then having separate tests.\nIf there are no more questions, I'd like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [606.821, 620.331, 630.27, 659.289, 667.895, 670.847], "stop_times": [620.331, 630.27, 659.289, 667.895, 670.847, 671.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 606.821}, "reply_to": "22637__0_034", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__0_036", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Very well, Mr. Digges.\nMr. Hanson.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [671.464, 672.549], "stop_times": [672.549, 674.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.464}, "reply_to": "22637__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22637__1_000", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: In contrast to the ATA case, the question before the Court today in the Mid-Con case is whether the fee on vehicles operating solely in interstate commerce is preempted by 49 U.S.C., section 14504.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [674.149], "stop_times": [705.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.149}, "reply_to": "22637__0_036", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_001", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "It's the same fee we're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [705.787], "stop_times": [708.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.787}, "reply_to": "22637__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22637__1_002", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "It is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [708.722], "stop_times": [709.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 708.722}, "reply_to": "22637__1_001", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_003", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "But a different theory of invalidity.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [709.539], "stop_times": [711.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 709.539}, "reply_to": "22637__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22637__1_004", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--It is not the same fee.\nThe... the fee under subsection (1) that ATA is arguing about is an intrastate fee charged only to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [711.841, 713.407], "stop_times": [713.407, 719.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 711.841}, "reply_to": "22637__1_003", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_005", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Intrastate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [719.862], "stop_times": [720.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.862}, "reply_to": "22637__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22637__1_006", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--carriers that engage in intrastate activities.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [720.979], "stop_times": [722.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 720.979}, "reply_to": "22637__1_005", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_007", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Okay, and yours is the interstate fee.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [722.998], "stop_times": [725.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.998}, "reply_to": "22637__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22637__1_008", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "The subsection (2) fee under 478.1--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [725.198], "stop_times": [728.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 725.198}, "reply_to": "22637__1_007", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_009", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "And your fee applies to all Michigan-plated vehicles.\nAm I correct about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [728.468, 731.837], "stop_times": [731.837, 733.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 728.468}, "reply_to": "22637__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22637__1_010", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--That are operating solely in interstate commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [733.47], "stop_times": [734.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 733.47}, "reply_to": "22637__1_009", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_011", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [734.372], "stop_times": [735.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 734.372}, "reply_to": "22637__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22637__1_012", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Do... do I understand that the two distinctions in what is done with the... or the way the fee is collected and what's done with it is that the... the fee is charged against the... is it the operator as opposed to the owner, if there is a distinction?\nIs... is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [735.106, 749.299], "stop_times": [749.299, 750.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.106}, "reply_to": "22637__1_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_013", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "All of the fees under subsections (1) and (2) are charged against the motor carrier--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [750.866], "stop_times": [755.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 750.866}, "reply_to": "22637__1_012", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_014", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "The carrier.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [755.62], "stop_times": [756.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 755.62}, "reply_to": "22637__1_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_015", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [756.136], "stop_times": [756.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 756.136}, "reply_to": "22637__1_014", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_016", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "That's the term I should use.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [756.502], "stop_times": [757.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 756.502}, "reply_to": "22637__1_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_017", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "----motor carrier, not to the owner.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [757.904], "stop_times": [758.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 757.904}, "reply_to": "22637__1_016", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_018", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Which may not be the owner.\nAnd number two, as I understand it, as distinct from the registration fee, this fee goes to a different State department.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [758.621, 759.587, 766.157], "stop_times": [759.587, 766.157, 766.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 758.621}, "reply_to": "22637__1_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_019", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [766.957], "stop_times": [767.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 766.957}, "reply_to": "22637__1_018", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_020", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Now, let... that's... that's a premise for a question I want to ask you, and the question is in economic effect, is there any difference really between charging this $100 fee with those differences from the registration fee and simply jacking up the registration fee by $100?\nWould there... would there be any economic difference to the... to the public or... or indeed even to the carriers if they simply jacked up the... the registration fee by $100?\nBecause the... the registration fee is passed on to the carrier, if it's not the owner, and the carrier... it doesn't make any difference to the carrier whether the... whether the State diverts the $100 up front or... or divides the... the registration fee after it's paid.\nSo is there any economic difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [767.724, 786.404, 798.978, 815.138], "stop_times": [786.404, 798.978, 815.138, 816.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 767.724}, "reply_to": "22637__1_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_021", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Yes, there is and the reason why there is a difference is that the... the fees that are paid for plating are under the... under the International Reciprocity Plan, the registration plan, the IRP.\nAnd that is an apportioned fee.\nIt is charged to all vehicles, all commercial motor vehicles, regardless of whether it's for-hire or private, regardless of it's in state or... of interstate.\nSo everybody pays their apportioned amount based on mileage.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [816.84, 829.331, 831.516, 841.805], "stop_times": [829.331, 831.516, 841.805, 846.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 816.84}, "reply_to": "22637__1_020", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_022", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "No, but that... that... maybe I don't understand.\nThat... that tells us what happens to the money after it's paid, but it doesn't make any difference to the person who is paying the money, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [846.276, 849.395], "stop_times": [849.395, 857.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 846.276}, "reply_to": "22637__1_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_023", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Yes, it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [857.001], "stop_times": [857.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 857.001}, "reply_to": "22637__1_022", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_024", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Except that he only has to pay in one place, and... and if they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [857.851], "stop_times": [860.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 857.851}, "reply_to": "22637__1_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_025", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "He pays--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [860.619], "stop_times": [861.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 860.619}, "reply_to": "22637__1_024", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_026", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--increase the registration fee, he'd only have to pay in one place, once.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [861.036], "stop_times": [864.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 861.036}, "reply_to": "22637__1_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_027", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--But he would only pay the fee based on his mileage in the State.\nIt is not a flat fee if it is put onto the IRP fees.\nThose--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [864.07, 867.872, 872.01], "stop_times": [867.872, 872.01, 872.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 864.07}, "reply_to": "22637__1_026", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_028", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Who... who sets the fee for the plating?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [872.81], "stop_times": [876.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 872.81}, "reply_to": "22637__1_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22637__1_029", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--The... the State does.\nIt is administered by the Michigan Secretary of State--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [876.128, 878.414], "stop_times": [878.414, 880.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 876.128}, "reply_to": "22637__1_028", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_030", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [880.616], "stop_times": [881.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 880.616}, "reply_to": "22637__1_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22637__1_031", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--but I believe all of those are statutory fees.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [881.216], "stop_times": [882.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 881.216}, "reply_to": "22637__1_030", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_032", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--you could have... unlike the... the fee, the $10 fee, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [882.732], "stop_times": [890.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.732}, "reply_to": "22637__1_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22637__1_033", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "The SSRS.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [890.472], "stop_times": [891.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 890.472}, "reply_to": "22637__1_032", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_034", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--the Federal cap, this would... for plating it could be anything each individual State chooses it to be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [891.455], "stop_times": [899.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.455}, "reply_to": "22637__1_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22637__1_035", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "In terms of the plating fee?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [899.594], "stop_times": [902.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 899.594}, "reply_to": "22637__1_034", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_036", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [902.445], "stop_times": [903.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.445}, "reply_to": "22637__1_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22637__1_037", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Each State is free to charge its... its own amount as the plating fee.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [903.245], "stop_times": [907.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.245}, "reply_to": "22637__1_036", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_038", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Sure, but it... so... so regardless of what Michigan does with the apportioned amounts, the amount it charges to the... to the owner, in the case of the... the plating fee, is... is simply set by the State of Michigan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [907.78], "stop_times": [923.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.78}, "reply_to": "22637__1_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_039", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [923.908], "stop_times": [925.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 923.908}, "reply_to": "22637__1_038", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_040", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [925.741], "stop_times": [926.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 925.741}, "reply_to": "22637__1_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_041", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [926.091], "stop_times": [927.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 926.091}, "reply_to": "22637__1_040", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_042", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "So what... and... and the... the virtue of the apportionment is that the... that the owner or the... or the owner, I guess in this case, does not have to pay fees in 49 other States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [927.026], "stop_times": [938.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 927.026}, "reply_to": "22637__1_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_043", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [938.316], "stop_times": [940.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 938.316}, "reply_to": "22637__1_042", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_044", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "But he doesn't... it doesn't matter to... that's the value to him.\nIt doesn't matter to him how they apportion whatever that fee is that Michigan charges.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [940.268, 943.203], "stop_times": [943.203, 949.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 940.268}, "reply_to": "22637__1_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_045", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "If they apportion it, however, it is... it is not... it does not... if they put it into the IRP, it is not part of the registration process.\nThe thing that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [949.44, 959.415], "stop_times": [959.415, 960.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.44}, "reply_to": "22637__1_044", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_046", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "But who... I mean, is... that's... that's fine as a matter of administration, but in terms of the... the end effect on the person who has to pay it and on the consumers to whom it is ultimately passed on, what difference does it make?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [960.248], "stop_times": [975.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 960.248}, "reply_to": "22637__1_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_047", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Well, the... the difference for the person who is paying it under IRP is that if only 20 percent of their interstate miles as a solely interstate operating carrier, if only 20 percent are in the State, they would, in fact, only pay $20 per vehicle.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [975.025], "stop_times": [989.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 975.025}, "reply_to": "22637__1_046", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_048", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Can I ask a quick question?\nThe... there are three things.\nWere... were you finished?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [989.517, 990.55, 996.688], "stop_times": [990.55, 996.688, 998.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 989.517}, "reply_to": "22637__1_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__1_049", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "No, I don't think he... I didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [998.456], "stop_times": [1000.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 998.456}, "reply_to": "22637__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__1_050", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1000.423], "stop_times": [1000.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1000.423}, "reply_to": "22637__1_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__1_051", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--I don't understand your answer.\nIf you were finished, I don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1000.825, 1002.242], "stop_times": [1002.242, 1003.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1000.825}, "reply_to": "22637__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__1_052", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1003.944], "stop_times": [1004.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1003.944}, "reply_to": "22637__1_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__1_053", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "If it's... if it is put into a plating charge as opposed to a registration... part of the registration of a carrier for the privilege or the opportunity to carry on interstate trucking activities in the State of Michigan, that is the flat fee that we're talking about.\nUnder the SSRS we believe that $100 charge exceeds the $10 maximum and is therefore preempted.\nIf they put it into the IRP, that... IRP is charged against the owner of the vehicle, paid against the Secretary of... paid to the Secretary of State.\nIt is not a qualification under... for the privilege of engaging in interstate trucking in the State of Michigan.\nThe SSRS sets up the standards by which a carrier becomes qualified to operate in the State.\nMichigan exceeds those standards.\nIf you put those fees into the IRP fees, then the carrier... or then the owner of the vehicle pays only the proportionate amount based on his mileage in the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1004.36, 1020.703, 1026.772, 1036.796, 1044.568, 1051.472, 1053.174], "stop_times": [1020.703, 1026.772, 1036.796, 1044.568, 1051.472, 1053.174, 1064.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1004.36}, "reply_to": "22637__1_052", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_054", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "May I ask this question?\nSupposing the... Michigan changed its system and said we're going to charge you $90 for... as a plating fee.\nWe're only talking about vehicles that are plated in Michigan.\nWe're going to charge you $90 for a plating fee and now we're going to take 10... what used to part of the $100 and another $10 registration fee.\nWould that be permissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1064.713, 1065.982, 1073.069, 1075.152, 1082.675], "stop_times": [1065.982, 1073.069, 1075.152, 1082.675, 1084.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1064.713}, "reply_to": "22637__1_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22637__1_055", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "It would be permissible because the... if the $10 is charged to the carrier as part of the registration process, in order to be qualified to engage in interstate trucking.\nThe $90 would be charged to the owner of the vehicle and would be paid on an apportioned basis under IRP.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1084.291, 1093.732], "stop_times": [1093.732, 1099.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1084.291}, "reply_to": "22637__1_054", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_056", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Okay.\nWhat if he said $20 instead of $10?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1099.636, 1099.986], "stop_times": [1099.986, 1102.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1099.636}, "reply_to": "22637__1_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_057", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "If he said $20 was going to be put towards the... the State instead of... instead of $100?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1102.754], "stop_times": [1109.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1102.754}, "reply_to": "22637__1_056", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_058", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1109.325], "stop_times": [1109.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.325}, "reply_to": "22637__1_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_059", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "And $80 towards IRP?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1109.658], "stop_times": [1110.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1109.658}, "reply_to": "22637__1_058", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_060", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1110.824], "stop_times": [1111.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1110.824}, "reply_to": "22637__1_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_061", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "In that case, that would still violate the... the SSRS, if it is done as part of the registration process, which is what Michigan does.\nMichigan... even though you're properly SSRS registered, Michigan still requires, under its SSRS form... it directs the carrier to specifically identify vehicles by make, model, and serial number to obtain a decal by paying $100 for that fee.\nIf they pay $20, that exceeds the $10 maximum that Congress set up in the SSRS in order to be qualified to operate in interstate trucking in the State of Michigan, as an interstate carrier in... in Michigan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1111.274, 1118.78, 1134.623], "stop_times": [1118.78, 1134.623, 1146.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1111.274}, "reply_to": "22637__1_060", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_062", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "But that... that assumes it's an SSRS charge, and the State denies that it... it has anything to do with SSRS.\nDon't you have to establish that it's part of the SSRS program?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1146.681, 1152.668], "stop_times": [1152.668, 1156.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.681}, "reply_to": "22637__1_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__1_063", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "I think what you have to do is you have to look at what the... the standards do.\nThe... the registration standards in the SSRS are set up as the process by which a carrier has the privilege to enter into interstate trucking activities in Michigan.\nWhen you look at the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1156.037, 1160.924, 1170.53], "stop_times": [1160.924, 1170.53, 1172.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1156.037}, "reply_to": "22637__1_062", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_064", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Okay, but what... what if the State says, you can enter... enter into interstate activities for nothing?\nWe're simply going to increase the registration fee by $100.\nCouldn't the State do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1172.064, 1176.1, 1179.968], "stop_times": [1176.1, 1179.968, 1181.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1172.064}, "reply_to": "22637__1_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_065", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--The State could do that and that would be perfectly permissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1181.354], "stop_times": [1183.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1181.354}, "reply_to": "22637__1_064", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_066", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "So this is pure formalism.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1183.789], "stop_times": [1185.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1183.789}, "reply_to": "22637__1_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__1_067", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "It is not pure form.\nAny... what... what Congress did was say that in order to qualify a carrier... they were concerned about the burdens.\nWhen ISTEA was enacted in 1991, they were concerned about the burdens on carriers of individual State registration requirements.\nAnd they sought to... to alleviate that by making it so that carriers could only... would only have to register in one State so they could do business in all States on an interstate basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1185.706, 1187.074, 1194.162, 1201.668], "stop_times": [1187.074, 1194.162, 1201.668, 1211.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1185.706}, "reply_to": "22637__1_066", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_068", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Maybe they sought to but maybe they didn't succeed.\nAs I read the statute, it... it really applies to the... the limitation of $10 only to those fees that are SSRS fees, and these are not.\nSo maybe there's... there's a hole in the Federal statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1211.524, 1213.641, 1224.949], "stop_times": [1213.641, 1224.949, 1228.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1211.524}, "reply_to": "22637__1_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__1_069", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "And I don't believe that's the case, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1228.485], "stop_times": [1230.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1228.485}, "reply_to": "22637__1_068", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_070", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "You're trying to make the Federal statute work sensibly, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1230.853], "stop_times": [1233.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1230.853}, "reply_to": "22637__1_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__1_071", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1233.889], "stop_times": [1234.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1233.889}, "reply_to": "22637__1_070", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_072", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--I hate to tell you, but not all statutes work sensibly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1234.372], "stop_times": [1236.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1234.372}, "reply_to": "22637__1_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__1_073", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Right.\nI think what you have to do, though, is go back and look at what Michigan does.\nMichigan has a... a State statute, 478.7(1), that says in order to operate to carry property on an interstate basis in Michigan, you must register with the PSC and you must pay the required vehicle fees.\nThe registration standards are what they do as in accordance with SSRS: insurance, service of process, and operating authority.\nThen you have to pay a fee, and the fee is limited to $10 per vehicle.\nIn the case of Michigan, those vehicle fees are set forth in two different sections of the statutes.\nOne is.7(4), which is the $10 SSRS fee.\nThe other one is subsection... it's 2(2).\nThat fee is $100--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1236.924, 1237.374, 1241.376, 1254.885, 1263.408, 1269.062, 1275.882, 1279.918, 1284.322], "stop_times": [1237.374, 1241.376, 1254.885, 1263.408, 1269.062, 1275.882, 1279.918, 1284.322, 1286.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1236.924}, "reply_to": "22637__1_072", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_074", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Hanson.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1286.94], "stop_times": [1287.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1286.94}, "reply_to": "22637__1_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22637__1_075", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--in order for a Michigan-plated vehicle to engage in interstate commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1287.724], "stop_times": [1290.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1287.724}, "reply_to": "22637__1_074", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_076", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Your time is expired.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1290.059], "stop_times": [1290.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.059}, "reply_to": "22637__1_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22637__1_077", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1290.542], "stop_times": [1292.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1290.542}, "reply_to": "22637__1_076", "speaker": "james_h_hanson"}
{"id": "22637__1_078", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Mr. Boynton, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1292.159], "stop_times": [1295.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1292.159}, "reply_to": "22637__1_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22637__2_000", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe petitioner, American Trucking, began its reply brief with the claim that the central reality in this case is that the Michigan intrastate fee places significant burdens on interstate commerce.\nThe Michigan Court of Appeals rejected this claim squarely, saying that as a matter of... that that was a matter of pure speculation.\nThere's no evidence in the record before this Court that the trucking companies'route choices are affected by the intrastate fee.\nFurthermore, there is no evidence in the record that the intrastate fee keeps anyone out from engaging in intrastate trucking in Michigan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1295.26, 1300.514, 1314.424, 1324.213, 1333.236], "stop_times": [1300.514, 1314.424, 1324.213, 1333.236, 1340.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1295.26}, "reply_to": "22637__1_078", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_001", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "It sure does make sense to me, though.\nSurely it's the case that a company that does nothing but intrastate Michigan business will, by and large, log in many more miles intrastate than a company which does interstate business but part of its business is intrastate Michigan business.\nI... I just... it seems to me obvious that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1340.824, 1342.341, 1363.422], "stop_times": [1342.341, 1363.422, 1366.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1340.824}, "reply_to": "22637__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_002", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, the Michigan Court of Appeals said that that very well may be the case, but they pointed to the fact that there were no facts to support that finding.\nAnd this is completely different than in Scheiner.\nIn Scheiner you had a... a trial, you had evidence before the court.\nThis Court noted that the... the cost to an interstate trucker in that situation was five times greater than the cost to a trucker that was in Pennsylvania.\nYou just simply don't have those facts here.\nWhat you have is a discrete or a distinct local activity that is something that doesn't affect the interstate commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1366.809, 1375.581, 1378.047, 1382.485, 1395.309, 1397.745], "stop_times": [1375.581, 1378.047, 1382.485, 1395.309, 1397.745, 1408.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1366.809}, "reply_to": "22637__2_001", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_003", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--It... it's the case that a company that does only intrastate Michigan business logs all of its miles on... in Michigan.\nRight?\nNo miles outside of Michigan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1408.553, 1417.841, 1418.424], "stop_times": [1417.841, 1418.424, 1421.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1408.553}, "reply_to": "22637__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_004", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1421.11], "stop_times": [1421.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1421.11}, "reply_to": "22637__2_003", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_005", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "And it seems to me it's obvious that a... a company that does interstate business does not log all of its miles in... in Michigan, and likely... likely... very likely does... does less miles in Michigan than... than a purely intrastate Michigan trucker.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1421.776], "stop_times": [1438.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.776}, "reply_to": "22637__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_006", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia, that very well may be true, but we don't have any way of... of qualifying or quantifying the burden here because we don't have those facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1438.905], "stop_times": [1448.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1438.905}, "reply_to": "22637__2_005", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_007", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Is it difficult to apportion the intrastate fee based on the number of miles traveled intrastate?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1448.277], "stop_times": [1456.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1448.277}, "reply_to": "22637__2_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22637__2_008", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I... I think it is very difficult to do that.\nAs the United States noted in its brief, they didn't think that mileage would be appropriate because this... this fee doesn't support the maintenance of the highways.\nWhat this fee does is allows trucking companies or allows that truck to operate that truck in intrastate business.\nSo mileage isn't appropriate.\nOur position is that mileage isn't appropriate because it's next to impossible to try and figure out.\nWhat do you compare it to?\nDo you... do you compare it to interstate miles?\nDo you compare it to a ratio of interstate... intrastate to interstate?\nAnd if you do that, how... how can you come up with a accurate picture of, you know, what the value of that license is in Michigan?\nIt may be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1456.281, 1459.049, 1469.19, 1478.046, 1479.512, 1485.2, 1486.985, 1489.854, 1495.591, 1504.614], "stop_times": [1459.049, 1469.19, 1478.046, 1479.512, 1485.2, 1486.985, 1489.854, 1495.591, 1504.614, 1505.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1456.281}, "reply_to": "22637__2_007", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_009", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Does it make any difference how high the... the fee is set?\nIf it were $10,000 a truck, does that raise any concerns that are different?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1505.164, 1509.399], "stop_times": [1509.399, 1514.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1505.164}, "reply_to": "22637__2_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22637__2_010", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, the Michigan Court of Appeals had taken the position that this was a fee, not a tax, and under a fee... if... if a fee was $10,000, if the expenses matched the... the revenue from it, well, then it... it would be a... could be sustained as a fee.\nNow, if were a tax--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1514.385, 1532.597], "stop_times": [1532.597, 1534.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1514.385}, "reply_to": "22637__2_009", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_011", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "You... you defend that position, that... that it doesn't violate the Commerce Clause so long as it's a fee not a tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1534.216], "stop_times": [1540.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1534.216}, "reply_to": "22637__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_012", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Your Honor, we think that the... if it's a fee and not a tax, the Michigan Court of Appeals applied the correct standard, and that was the standard of Pike v. Bruce Church.\nAnd you would look to the... whether the statute regulated even-handedly, whether it affected a legitimate local--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1540.12, 1552.927], "stop_times": [1552.927, 1559.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1540.12}, "reply_to": "22637__2_011", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_013", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Whenever it's a fee, not a tax, you immediately go to Pike Church.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1559.498], "stop_times": [1563.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1559.498}, "reply_to": "22637__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_014", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--I think that... that that was what the Michigan Court of Appeals--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1563.902], "stop_times": [1568.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1563.902}, "reply_to": "22637__2_013", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_015", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "I know.\nI know that's what they said.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1568.787, 1569.12], "stop_times": [1569.12, 1570.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.787}, "reply_to": "22637__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_016", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Yes, and I... I think that's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1570.222], "stop_times": [1571.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1570.222}, "reply_to": "22637__2_015", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_017", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "I found it very strange.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1571.372], "stop_times": [1571.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1571.372}, "reply_to": "22637__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_018", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--I think that's an appropriate manner in dealing with it.\nBut if you... if you look at the Michigan Court of Appeals opinion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1571.922, 1574.024], "stop_times": [1574.024, 1579.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1571.922}, "reply_to": "22637__2_017", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_019", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "What makes it a fee instead of a tax other than the court saying so?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1579.245], "stop_times": [1583.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1579.245}, "reply_to": "22637__2_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22637__2_020", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Well, first of all, it provided a direct benefit to the intrastate truckers.\nThey were able to operate in the State of Michigan.\nSecond of all, they pointed out that it was in relation to the services granted, being able to do that, and then the third component would be the voluntariness, whether they could agree to... they didn't have to engage in intrastate trucking--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1583.864, 1590.636, 1593.671], "stop_times": [1590.636, 1593.671, 1611.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1583.864}, "reply_to": "22637__2_019", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_021", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "You could say the same about a tax.\nYou could say, you know, you only have to pay this tax if you operate in Michigan.\nYou don't want to operate; you don't have to pay it.\nAnd you could also say unless you pay the tax, you cannot operate in Michigan.\nDoes that make it a tax or a fee?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1611.197, 1612.549, 1615.767, 1617.869, 1621.821], "stop_times": [1612.549, 1615.767, 1617.869, 1621.821, 1624.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1611.197}, "reply_to": "22637__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_022", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Well, I think in the Michigan Court of Appeals opinion, it... it was a fee, and I think... I think what we come back to, Your Honor, is the idea is there a specific class of individuals or businesses that are benefitted.\nAnd I think that that's the distinction between a fee and tax.\nAlso, a tax is a general revenue-raising measure, whereas a fee is not.\nAnd that's another distinction of... of a tax.\nAnd indeed, this Court... in National Cable Industry v. the United States, which we cited in our brief, this Court said as whether an exaction is a tax or a fee depends on whether its purpose is to raise revenue or regulate an industry or services.\nOne of the things--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1624.54, 1641.068, 1643.702, 1648.739, 1651.774, 1666.533], "stop_times": [1641.068, 1643.702, 1648.739, 1651.774, 1666.533, 1667.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1624.54}, "reply_to": "22637__2_021", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_023", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "I'd like to get back just for a moment--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1667.885], "stop_times": [1669.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1667.885}, "reply_to": "22637__2_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22637__2_024", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1669.385], "stop_times": [1670.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1669.385}, "reply_to": "22637__2_023", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_025", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--to the answer you gave about apportionment because I wasn't quite sure I understood the answer.\nYou said, well, apportionment is very difficult.\nWhat are you supposed to do?\nWhat are you... what's the base?\nWell, and you said, should we apportion against... between in-state and out-of-state, and I would think the answer is yes.\nThat's the whole point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1670.069, 1673.789, 1675.689, 1676.741, 1678.058, 1685.347], "stop_times": [1673.789, 1675.689, 1676.741, 1678.058, 1685.347, 1686.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.069}, "reply_to": "22637__2_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22637__2_026", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1686.731], "stop_times": [1687.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1686.731}, "reply_to": "22637__2_025", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_027", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "And if we're talking about mileage here, maybe this is something that's eminently susceptible of apportionment.\nNow, it may be that administratively this is just too expensive.\nThat may be... that may be a very valid argument.\nBut so far as saying that there's no basis for apportionment, I didn't understand your answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1687.464, 1695.953, 1699.154, 1702.273], "stop_times": [1695.953, 1699.154, 1702.273, 1706.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.464}, "reply_to": "22637__2_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22637__2_028", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Well, I... I... maybe I misspoke myself.\nWhat I really meant to say was it would be very difficult to do.\nAnd in our joint appendix... in the joint appendix--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1706.177, 1708.796, 1713.414], "stop_times": [1708.796, 1713.414, 1716.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1706.177}, "reply_to": "22637__2_027", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_029", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "It would be difficult to do administratively.\nBut... just because of the cost of collecting all the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1716.866, 1718.318], "stop_times": [1718.318, 1721.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1716.866}, "reply_to": "22637__2_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22637__2_030", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I think that you got to look at what's the total cost here.\nThe cost is not only to the administrative aspect by the State, but this imposes another cost on the truckers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1721.687, 1725.556], "stop_times": [1725.556, 1731.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1721.687}, "reply_to": "22637__2_029", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_031", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--That... that... I agree that that is expensive.\nHowever, it seems to me that it would be easier to do it with trucks which have miles than with--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1731.726, 1733.245], "stop_times": [1733.245, 1739.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.726}, "reply_to": "22637__2_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22637__2_032", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "But, Your Honor, the problem is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1739.065], "stop_times": [1740.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1739.065}, "reply_to": "22637__2_031", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_033", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--than with, say, attorneys or accountants or whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1740.881], "stop_times": [1742.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1740.881}, "reply_to": "22637__2_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22637__2_034", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Your Honor, the problem with that is that this fee, this intrastate fee, does not go to maintain the highways as it was in Scheiner.\nThey make the argument that it's very easy that the mechanism... they, being American Trucking, makes the argument that it's very easy to just start logging up the miles and... and you have the mechanism there.\nBut the difference between Scheiner and this case is that in Scheiner you were measuring all intrastate miles, any miles traveled within that State.\nAnd there's a mechanism available administratively to do that.\nThe IRP requires that.\nBut here you're not logging all intrastate miles.\nYou're only logging those miles in the State that involve a point-to-point delivery, from one intrastate point to another.\nSo you don't... you'd have to get a whole new record keeping or you'd have to keep track of a while different set of miles than you would with respect to the IRP.\nAnd that's the thing that I find striking about this, that the American Trucking Association is basically saying to its members that they want to have them do more record keeping on their part.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1742.35, 1751.289, 1763.014, 1772.453, 1775.739, 1777.356, 1780.725, 1787.396, 1796.068], "stop_times": [1751.289, 1763.014, 1772.453, 1775.739, 1777.356, 1780.725, 1787.396, 1796.068, 1808.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1742.35}, "reply_to": "22637__2_033", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_035", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "But the American Trucking Association is... is willing to be thrown into the... into the briar bush apparently.\nIt certainly involves no... no difficulty for your Michigan intrastate truckers.\nAll of their miles are intrastate.\nAnd the plaintiffs here say we're... we're willing to... you know, to provide figures showing how much of our carriage was... was exclusively intrastate if you want to apportion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1808.976, 1815.982, 1822.219, 1824.337], "stop_times": [1815.982, 1822.219, 1824.337, 1834.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1808.976}, "reply_to": "22637__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_036", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, that may be, Your Honor, but the... the point is... what we're dealing with is a... a fee that has revenues of about $3 million.\nAnd if you have additional record keeping, how much of that $3 million is going to have to be devoted to paying for the administrative costs that are involved?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1834.027, 1842.716], "stop_times": [1842.716, 1853.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1834.027}, "reply_to": "22637__2_035", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_037", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "May I ask this question?\nIs the fee payable before the... a carrier may engage in business or is it after the carrier has paid?\nIs it... is it like a tax that's paid after the year is out?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1853.155, 1853.857, 1860.094], "stop_times": [1853.857, 1860.094, 1862.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1853.155}, "reply_to": "22637__2_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22637__2_038", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "It's paid before.\nThey... they have to have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1862.879, 1864.546], "stop_times": [1864.546, 1865.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.879}, "reply_to": "22637__2_037", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_039", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "If you had to pay it before, there would be no way to calculate it ahead of time because nobody would have had any mileage.\nIsn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1865.414, 1870.782], "stop_times": [1870.782, 1871.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1865.414}, "reply_to": "22637__2_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22637__2_040", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1871.318], "stop_times": [1873.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1871.318}, "reply_to": "22637__2_039", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_041", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "If you have to pay it before the year begins and before you're allowed to engage in the business, you would have no way of measuring the number of miles you're going to travel during the... the ensuing year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1873.934], "stop_times": [1884.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.934}, "reply_to": "22637__2_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22637__2_042", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "That's correct.\nYou would have to have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1884.226, 1885.009], "stop_times": [1885.009, 1886.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1884.226}, "reply_to": "22637__2_041", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_043", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, I suppose that's the same thing for the $10 fee for the whatever the acronym is there.\nThat's paid at the beginning of the year, isn't it?\nAnd it has to be apportioned among the States.\nAnd you don't know how to apportion it at the beginning of the year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1886.16, 1891.362, 1893.314, 1895.683], "stop_times": [1891.362, 1893.314, 1895.683, 1898.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.16}, "reply_to": "22637__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_044", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Now, you're talking about the interstate fee, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1898.135], "stop_times": [1899.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1898.135}, "reply_to": "22637__2_043", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_045", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Right, right.\nBut I'm saying the same problem arises when you do any apportioning.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1899.718, 1900.068], "stop_times": [1900.068, 1903.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1899.718}, "reply_to": "22637__2_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_046", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, it... let me back up.\nThe reason I asked with you... when you were referring to the $10 fee is because the intrastate fee... we have a $10 component in that as well.\nYou can obtain a temporary fee for $10 for 72 hours to conduct an intrastate operation.\nSo the statute in... structurally has some apportionment factor in it.\nSo you don't have to necessarily buy the $100 intrastate fee decal to conduct intrastate operations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1903.955, 1906.422, 1915.145, 1921.917, 1927.487], "stop_times": [1906.422, 1915.145, 1921.917, 1927.487, 1935.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1903.955}, "reply_to": "22637__2_045", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_047", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "It's like a 3-day fishing license.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1935.808], "stop_times": [1937.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1935.808}, "reply_to": "22637__2_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_048", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "I suppose that would be one way--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1937.01], "stop_times": [1939.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1937.01}, "reply_to": "22637__2_047", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_049", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "How... how does that work in... in practice?\nIs it easily accessible?\nSuppose the company--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1939.295, 1941.478, 1943.847], "stop_times": [1941.478, 1943.847, 1945.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1939.295}, "reply_to": "22637__2_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22637__2_050", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1945.116], "stop_times": [1945.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1945.116}, "reply_to": "22637__2_049", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_051", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--wants to fill up its truck and... and it said, well, this is going to be... the only haul this season for me, so I want the 3-day permit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1945.449], "stop_times": [1954.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.449}, "reply_to": "22637__2_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22637__2_052", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, you can obtain the permits in advance.\nYou don't have to have trucks lined up at the border waiting to get a decal or get a permit.\nYou can purchase them in advance.\nSo that... that's available to the truckers.\nThe one thing I should mention, though, is you have to have one... you already have to have one vehicle licensed intrastate.\nYou already have to have paid the fee on one vehicle, and then you would be eligible to purchase additional temporary permits as the need arose based on seasonal needs or an emergency situation.\nSo that... that allows the... the statute... I... I would submit to Your Honor, allows some apportioning in and of itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [1954.888, 1957.757, 1962.392, 1964.411, 1968.981, 1977.385, 1991.609], "stop_times": [1957.757, 1962.392, 1964.411, 1968.981, 1977.385, 1991.609, 2000.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1954.888}, "reply_to": "22637__2_051", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_053", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "This... this applies only to operations that are both licensed and registered in Michigan.\nIs that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2000.481, 2010.856], "stop_times": [2010.856, 2012.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.481}, "reply_to": "22637__2_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22637__2_054", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "No.\nYour Honor I think is referring to the interstate fee--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2012.039, 2012.456], "stop_times": [2012.456, 2015.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2012.039}, "reply_to": "22637__2_053", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_055", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Right, right, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2015.324], "stop_times": [2016.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.324}, "reply_to": "22637__2_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22637__2_056", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--which is a different fee, which is in the Mid-Con case.\nOur position--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2016.01, 2019.045], "stop_times": [2019.045, 2020.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2016.01}, "reply_to": "22637__2_055", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_057", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Are you going to address the Mid-Con question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2020.495], "stop_times": [2023.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2020.495}, "reply_to": "22637__2_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22637__2_058", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2023.83], "stop_times": [2024.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2023.83}, "reply_to": "22637__2_057", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_059", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Are you going to address the Mid-Con question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2024.616], "stop_times": [2026.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.616}, "reply_to": "22637__2_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22637__2_060", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "I was going to do that right now, Your Honor.\nThe position that the State of Michigan and the Michigan Public Service Commission has is the SSRS does not preempt the interstate fee.\nAnd the reason for that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2026.516, 2027.818, 2039.375], "stop_times": [2027.818, 2039.375, 2041.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2026.516}, "reply_to": "22637__2_059", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_061", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, what's the point of the limitation in SSRS to $10 if the State can impose any additional fee it wants just by calling it a different name?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2041.541], "stop_times": [2052.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2041.541}, "reply_to": "22637__2_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22637__2_062", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I think what you have to realize is you have... when you look at the text of the statute, I think what is very clear from reading the text is that the SSRS does not preempt all State fees and charges on motor carriers.\nIt only preempts those fees and charges that are specifically related to the registration of that motor carrier's interstate authority.\nThe interstate fee, or the Michigan-plated vehicle fee here, is not preempted because it's a regulatory fee that does not relate to the registration of the motor carrier's SSRS interstate authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2052.099, 2067.275, 2076.382], "stop_times": [2067.275, 2076.382, 2089.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2052.099}, "reply_to": "22637__2_061", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_063", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Of course, it... it does.\nNumber one, it's somewhat suspect at the outset because it applies only to interstate travel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2089.106, 2091.142], "stop_times": [2091.142, 2096.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2089.106}, "reply_to": "22637__2_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22637__2_064", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2096.26], "stop_times": [2096.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.26}, "reply_to": "22637__2_063", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_065", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "And... and then the... the other vehicles pay $100 for the... for the in-state fees, and so this seems to me that... that on... on its face shows that it's like a registration fee.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2096.894], "stop_times": [2114.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2096.894}, "reply_to": "22637__2_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22637__2_066", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I think a couple things.\nNumber one, I think that... I believe that if you look at the structure of the Michigan statute, you'll see that under section 2, which contains both the interstate fee and the intrastate fee, virtually all Michigan vehicles that are plated in Michigan... # the effect of it is that all vehicles that are plated in Michigan will have paid this $100 fee.\nAnd furthermore, if you look at section 7 of the Michigan statute, which is 478.7, that involves the registration procedure.\nThat's specifically applicable to the registration of interstate authority.\nAnd within that section 7, subsection (4) deals with the payment of the $10 fee for... and... and it's to be made by vehicles that are not plated in the State of Michigan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2114.238, 2117.59, 2139.205, 2149.661, 2154.715], "stop_times": [2117.59, 2139.205, 2149.661, 2154.715, 2167.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2114.238}, "reply_to": "22637__2_065", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_067", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "That's... that's the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2167.873], "stop_times": [2169.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2167.873}, "reply_to": "22637__2_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__2_068", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, that's the argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2169.325], "stop_times": [2171.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2169.325}, "reply_to": "22637__2_067", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_069", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "That's the problem because here we're dealing with the fee to be paid by the people who are plated in Michigan, and it looks like that $100 is the fee for them.\nWell, let me... I have a question.\nI'm trying to test this.\nSuppose that I have a company in Maine.\nAll right?\nAnd I have... I decide all my... I... I have all Maine plates, by the way.\nAnd I decide I want my... now, let's... one word is license plates.\nI'm going to talk about plating.\nAnother word is the ICC insurance.\nLet's call it a decal.\nAnd the third kind of a concept is whatever you refer to in your statute by a fee.\nThe $100.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2171.01, 2179.414, 2181.032, 2182.282, 2209.099, 2187.453, 2192.589, 2197.91, 2199.61, 2202.445, 2204.231, 2209.801], "stop_times": [2179.414, 2181.032, 2182.282, 2209.099, 2187.453, 2192.589, 2197.91, 2199.61, 2202.445, 2204.231, 2209.801, 2210.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2171.01}, "reply_to": "22637__2_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__2_070", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2210.868], "stop_times": [2211.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2210.868}, "reply_to": "22637__2_069", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_071", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "All right.\nNow, suppose in Maine what I do with my trucks is I say I want Michigan to be my home State for purposes of... what do you call it?\nThe SS?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2211.351, 2211.935, 2222.693], "stop_times": [2211.935, 2222.693, 2223.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2211.351}, "reply_to": "22637__2_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__2_072", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "SSRS.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2223.793], "stop_times": [2224.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2223.793}, "reply_to": "22637__2_071", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_073", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Yes.\nAnd so I go to Michigan, and now I pay all the registration fees here.\nDo I get a... a certificate of some kind, a decal or something to show I did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2224.978, 2225.345, 2231.465], "stop_times": [2225.345, 2231.465, 2236.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2224.978}, "reply_to": "22637__2_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__2_074", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "No.\nYour Honor, I... I... you say that you're a Maine company--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2236.802, 2237.302], "stop_times": [2237.302, 2240.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2236.802}, "reply_to": "22637__2_073", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_075", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2240.587], "stop_times": [2240.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.587}, "reply_to": "22637__2_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__2_076", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--but your principal place of business is in Michigan?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2240.987], "stop_times": [2242.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2240.987}, "reply_to": "22637__2_075", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_077", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Yes, yes.\nSo... that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2242.954, 2243.289], "stop_times": [2243.289, 2243.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2242.954}, "reply_to": "22637__2_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__2_078", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Okay.\nAnd your question is?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2243.906, 2244.256], "stop_times": [2244.256, 2246.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2243.906}, "reply_to": "22637__2_077", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_079", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Do I get a decal after I go through all this procedure?\nYou have a whole form.\nI pay $6 for Alabama.\nI pay $2 for Idaho, and... but... but I do it all in one shopping place which happens to be Michigan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2246.158, 2249.276, 2250.21, 2252.312], "stop_times": [2249.276, 2250.21, 2252.312, 2257.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.158}, "reply_to": "22637__2_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__2_080", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2257.847], "stop_times": [2258.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2257.847}, "reply_to": "22637__2_079", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_081", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Then do I get a little certificate to put on the truck to say I did it.\nI... I registered my ICC decal everywhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2258.365, 2261.25], "stop_times": [2261.25, 2264.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2258.365}, "reply_to": "22637__2_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__2_082", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "If that vehicle... if the vehicle you're registering is plated in Michigan--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2264.702], "stop_times": [2269.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2264.702}, "reply_to": "22637__2_081", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_083", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "No, it's not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2269.487], "stop_times": [2270.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.487}, "reply_to": "22637__2_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__2_084", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Okay.\nYou will pay nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2270.373, 2270.989], "stop_times": [2270.989, 2272.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2270.373}, "reply_to": "22637__2_083", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_085", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "I know for Michigan.\nBut I have to pay.\nBut Michigan is my... I can't ask the question until I get clear on this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2272.389, 2273.558, 2274.941], "stop_times": [2273.558, 2274.941, 2278.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2272.389}, "reply_to": "22637__2_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__2_086", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2278.712], "stop_times": [2279.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2278.712}, "reply_to": "22637__2_085", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_087", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Don't... when I... when I go under this... this 49 U.S.C. 14504 and I choose a home State--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2279.395], "stop_times": [2286.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.395}, "reply_to": "22637__2_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__2_088", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2286.949], "stop_times": [2287.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2286.949}, "reply_to": "22637__2_087", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_089", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--and I make all the relevant payments to that State, but they distribute, don't I get a piece of paper saying I did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2287.735], "stop_times": [2293.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.735}, "reply_to": "22637__2_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__2_090", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "I believe so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2293.037], "stop_times": [2294.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2293.037}, "reply_to": "22637__2_089", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_091", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Fine.\nNow, I'm now plated in Michigan, and I make Michigan my home State for this.\nAnd I go and I make... I say, Michigan, I'm going to give you this big check to distribute, but the amount I'm putting here for Michigan, by the way, is zero.\nAnd you say pay me $100.\nNo.\nI'm not going to do it.\nSo I haven't paid them the $100.\nI haven't paid Michigan everything, but I paid $2 for Idaho.\nDo I get the decal or don't I?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2294.555, 2295.005, 2302.509, 2312.8, 2315.267, 2316.018, 2317.768, 2319.87, 2323.155], "stop_times": [2295.005, 2302.509, 2312.8, 2315.267, 2316.018, 2317.768, 2319.87, 2323.155, 2325.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2294.555}, "reply_to": "22637__2_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__2_092", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "To get a decal from Michigan, you have to be Michigan-plated and you have to pay the $100.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2325.19], "stop_times": [2331.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2325.19}, "reply_to": "22637__2_091", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_093", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Excellent.\nNow, if I don't get the decal, because I didn't pay the $100, then that $100 is a charge that falls within the SSI.\nIt is a charge for a decal which shows that I registered the ICC and my insurance because otherwise, if it weren't, you'd give me the decal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2331.528, 2332.061, 2340.284], "stop_times": [2332.061, 2340.284, 2350.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2331.528}, "reply_to": "22637__2_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__2_094", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Your Honor, we believe that under the... the section 7 of the Michigan law, there is no fee charged for your SSRS.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2350.056], "stop_times": [2363.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2350.056}, "reply_to": "22637__2_093", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_095", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "I'm talking about a fee.\nI'm trying to... oh, fine.\nIf there's no fee charged and I didn't pay the $100 and I didn't pay anything else, you'd give me the decal.\nBut you said you wouldn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2363.114, 2363.68, 2365.232, 2369.768], "stop_times": [2363.68, 2365.232, 2369.768, 2371.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.114}, "reply_to": "22637__2_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22637__2_096", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Your Honor, you have to... you have to... if it's Michigan-plated, that's the triggering mechanism.\nIt's not the... that's... that's what triggers the $100 fee.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2371.302, 2377.539], "stop_times": [2377.539, 2381.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2371.302}, "reply_to": "22637__2_095", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_097", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Mr. Boynton, may I just... may I just ask this question?\nIs part of your position that the Federal statute does not prevent Michigan from waiving the $10 fee on... for this particular purpose?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2381.841, 2383.777], "stop_times": [2383.777, 2393.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2381.841}, "reply_to": "22637__2_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22637__2_098", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Our position, with respect to that, Your Honor, is the fact that under section 7 of the Michigan Motor Carrier Act, 478.7, Michigan has no authority to charge a Michigan-plated vehicle any fee at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2393.316], "stop_times": [2409.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.316}, "reply_to": "22637__2_097", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_099", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Right.\nSo that... but you're saying to Justice Breyer then is they have waived the $10 and they do it to a narrow class, those vehicles who are plated in Michigan because they've already charged them $100, a very heavy charge for the privilege of being plated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2409.678, 2410.278], "stop_times": [2410.278, 2422.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2409.678}, "reply_to": "22637__2_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22637__2_100", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, I don't know if I'm saying that, Your Honor.\nI'm saying that the... there's a zero charge, and then there's... there's another charge with respect to a vehicle fee.\nThe one thing that I need to point out here is that the SSRS is not vehicle-specific.\nIt talks about numbers of vehicles, but the Michigan decal fee for... or the interstate fee is vehicle-specific.\nYou have to identify the particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2422.835, 2424.954, 2432.424, 2438.078, 2445.851], "stop_times": [2424.954, 2432.424, 2438.078, 2445.851, 2447.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2422.835}, "reply_to": "22637__2_099", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_101", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Is that right?\nLet me... let me... I wanted to ask this question to see whether it's vehicle-specific.\nSuppose I have nine trucks.\nThey're Michigan-plated, so I have to pay $100 for each of the nine.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2447.886, 2448.32, 2452.338, 2454.039], "stop_times": [2448.32, 2452.338, 2454.039, 2458.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2447.886}, "reply_to": "22637__2_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_102", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Interstate commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2458.575], "stop_times": [2459.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2458.575}, "reply_to": "22637__2_101", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_103", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Now, suppose I... suppose I only pay the fee for eight of them.\nWhat happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2459.777, 2463.995], "stop_times": [2463.995, 2466.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.777}, "reply_to": "22637__2_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_104", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "And how do you want to use the truck?\nDo you want to use it in interstate commerce?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2466.264, 2471.085], "stop_times": [2471.085, 2473.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2466.264}, "reply_to": "22637__2_103", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_105", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "No.\nI've paid for eight, but I haven't paid for the ninth.\nAs I read the Michigan law, it says shall not operate any motor vehicle upon or over the highways of this State while any of the fees imposed by this act remain unpaid.\nNow, if... if I can't operate the other eight because I haven't paid for the nine, that sounds to me like a vehicle-specific tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2473.001, 2473.318, 2476.053, 2487.845], "stop_times": [2473.318, 2476.053, 2487.845, 2495.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2473.001}, "reply_to": "22637__2_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_106", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2495.283], "stop_times": [2499.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2495.283}, "reply_to": "22637__2_105", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_107", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "I mean... I mean the opposite.\nIt's... it's not vehicle-specific.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2499.152, 2501.37], "stop_times": [2501.37, 2503.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2499.152}, "reply_to": "22637__2_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_108", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2503.087], "stop_times": [2503.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2503.087}, "reply_to": "22637__2_107", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_109", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "I've paid for the eight, and I can't operate at all because I haven't paid for the ninth.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2503.837], "stop_times": [2508.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2503.837}, "reply_to": "22637__2_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_110", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, I think administratively that... that wouldn't happen.\nI... I think once you go--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2508.289, 2511.007], "stop_times": [2511.007, 2512.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2508.289}, "reply_to": "22637__2_109", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_111", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "It seems to me how it reads.\nAm I reading the law wrong?\nIt says, shall not operate any motor vehicle while any of the fees imposed by this act remain unpaid.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2512.776, 2513.626, 2514.626], "stop_times": [2513.626, 2514.626, 2521.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2512.776}, "reply_to": "22637__2_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_112", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--I suppose that if the... for... for nonpayment of fees, a motor carrier risks its authority to operate in the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2521.132], "stop_times": [2530.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2521.132}, "reply_to": "22637__2_111", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_113", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "At all.\nSo it's not really vehicle-specific.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2530.737, 2531.054], "stop_times": [2531.054, 2533.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2530.737}, "reply_to": "22637__2_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_114", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, I... I think it is.\nI would disagree with Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2533.272, 2534.989], "stop_times": [2534.989, 2536.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2533.272}, "reply_to": "22637__2_113", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_115", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, the computation is vehicle-specific, but you're using all the vehicles as hostage for the payment of... of any shortfall.\nThat's what you're doing, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2536.141, 2542.878], "stop_times": [2542.878, 2544.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2536.141}, "reply_to": "22637__2_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__2_116", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "So it's carrier-based.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2544.497], "stop_times": [2546.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2544.497}, "reply_to": "22637__2_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__2_117", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I would have to disagree with Your Honor respectfully.\nI think that the... that it is vehicle-specific because it identifies the particular vehicle that's involved here.\nAnd I... I think you have to read the statute, the preemption statute, the scope of what preemption has sought to do here, and not all State fees and charges on motor carrier vehicles are preempted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2546.197, 2551.068, 2558.222], "stop_times": [2551.068, 2558.222, 2573.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2546.197}, "reply_to": "22637__2_116", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_118", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Do you place any reliance in this scheme on the fact that the only people subject to it are people who have their principal place of business in Michigan?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2573.647], "stop_times": [2584.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.647}, "reply_to": "22637__2_117", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22637__2_119", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe triggering event for the interstate fee is the plating of the vehicle in Michigan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2584.872, 2585.589], "stop_times": [2585.589, 2590.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2584.872}, "reply_to": "22637__2_118", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_120", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "And... and anyone can choose to do that?\nI mean, going back to Justice Breyer's example, anybody can say, well, I think I'd like to be plated in Michigan even though I operate in... in other States.\nMy principal place of business is in another State.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2590.626, 2595.245, 2603.184], "stop_times": [2595.245, 2603.184, 2605.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2590.626}, "reply_to": "22637__2_119", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__2_121", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Right.\nI think all parties have noted, Your Honor, that the... under the SSRS it's much more stringent, more rigorous--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2605.703, 2606.153], "stop_times": [2606.153, 2613.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2605.703}, "reply_to": "22637__2_120", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_122", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "No.\nI'm just asking about what you do in Michigan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2613.058, 2613.374], "stop_times": [2613.374, 2615.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.058}, "reply_to": "22637__2_121", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__2_123", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Yes.\nYes, you can.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2615.058, 2615.358], "stop_times": [2615.358, 2615.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2615.058}, "reply_to": "22637__2_122", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_124", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "You really can do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2615.708], "stop_times": [2616.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2615.708}, "reply_to": "22637__2_123", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__2_125", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "You can plate wherever you have contacts with the State.\nIf your principal place of business is in Ohio but you have trucks going to and from Michigan, that... that would allow you to plate in State of Michigan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2616.176, 2618.962], "stop_times": [2618.962, 2627.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2616.176}, "reply_to": "22637__2_124", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_126", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "You... you can plate your whole fleet in Michigan under those circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2627.199], "stop_times": [2630.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2627.199}, "reply_to": "22637__2_125", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22637__2_127", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "You could... you can choose where to plate your feet... plate your trucks, and a number of considerations go into that.\nIt's not just the license plating fees.\nIt has everything to do... as we noted in our brief, it could have to do with no fault insurance, the weight limits on trucks.\nIt's an economic decision and there's a number of different factors that go into that decision of where to plate a vehicle.\nIn conclusion, I would say that the Michigan Court of Appeals correctly decided this case.\nAnd they... they found that the challenged fees in these cases are regulatory fees, that they serve the critical function of protecting the people of Michigan that use the highways.\nAnd the Michigan Court of Appeals should be affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2630.151, 2637.257, 2639.626, 2646.38, 2653.683, 2662.122, 2671.995], "stop_times": [2637.257, 2639.626, 2646.38, 2653.683, 2662.122, 2671.995, 2674.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2630.151}, "reply_to": "22637__2_126", "speaker": "henry_j_boynton"}
{"id": "22637__2_128", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Boynton.\nMr. Stewart, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2674.513, 2676.215], "stop_times": [2676.215, 2678.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2674.513}, "reply_to": "22637__2_127", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22637__3_000", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe United States as amicus curiae supports the State in American Trucking and the petitioner in Mid-Con.\nWith respect to American Trucking, in our view the central question in resolving the constitutional issue is not whether it would be possible to apportion the intrastate fee on a more precise basis.\nThe question is whether the Constitution requires it.\nAnd in the prior cases that we've cited in our brief, both the older cases dealing specifically with intrastate transportation and the more recent cases dealing with authority to engage in other intrastate businesses, this Court has repeatedly upheld the authority of States and municipalities to charge flat fees for the privilege of engaging in the local business within the jurisdiction during the... the relevant period of time.\nAnd that practice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2678.084, 2687.19, 2693.093, 2704.734, 2707.52, 2732.818], "stop_times": [2687.19, 2693.093, 2704.734, 2707.52, 2732.818, 2734.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2678.084}, "reply_to": "22637__2_128", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22637__3_001", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Gee, that seems to me really to go back on... on Scheiner.\nAnd I thought we tried to get away from deciding Commerce Clause questions on the basis of whether it is interstate commerce or local commerce, you know, the original package doctrine and things that succeeded it.\nAnd you're... you're just dragging back in this... this inquiry into whether it's really interstate or... or rather local.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2734.337, 2737.122, 2751.965], "stop_times": [2737.122, 2751.965, 2759.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2734.337}, "reply_to": "22637__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__3_002", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--Well, with... with respect, Your Honor, I think the Court has certainly abandoned the notion that there is a bright, absolute line between intrastate activities which are subject to plenary regulation by the States without any Commerce Clause inquiry and interstate commerce which is wholly immune from State regulation.\nThe Court has recognized that the question is more complicated than that.\nBut in cases like Jefferson Lines, for instance, the Court held that the sales price of a ticket for an interstate bus trip could be taxed in... in its entirety by the State in which the ticket was purchased because the sale of the ticket was regarded as a separate, discrete event properly severable from the underlying interstate transaction.\nAnd the case for severance is all the more powerful here.\nThat is, here we're dealing not with a... an aspect of an interstate transaction, we're dealing with point-to-point hauls within the State of Michigan.\nIt's true that those may be undertaken by trucks that also do interstate business, and it's even true that in some instances the intrastate load may be carried on the same truck at the same time that it's also carrying goods between the States.\nBut the intrastate haul is itself a discrete commercial transaction.\nTo the shipper it's wholly irrelevant, in most instances, that the... the truck is also doing an interstate business.\nAnd to differentiate this case from Scheiner, one of the things that the Court has looked at in the dormant Commerce Clause inquiry is the risk of multiple taxation.\nAnd the Court doesn't just mean multiple taxation in... in the abstract because it's necessarily going to be the case that an entity that does business in many States will be taxed in many States.\nRather the question is whether there's an undue risk of multiple taxation on the same transaction or the same conduct or the same activity.\nAnd that was at real risk in Scheiner because if you imagine a truck that's delivering cargo from Maine to Florida and passing through several States on the way, and it's required to pay a fee that is, in essence, a fee for entering the State, has nothing to do with the mileage traveled within the jurisdiction, it's entirely reasonable to say that the imposition of those cumulative trips... cumulative taxes for a single haul of goods from Maine to Florida is an instance of multiple taxation of the same event.\nHere we don't have a problem with that.\nThe tax is being levied solely on point-to-point hauls within the State of Michigan.\nIf a particular truck also makes point-to-point hauls in some other State within the calendar year, it may be subject to two taxes, but they can't be characterized as two taxes on the same conduct or the same transaction.\nThe second aspect of... of Scheiner--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2759.619, 2780.049, 2783.084, 2804.832, 2808.636, 2817.574, 2831.232, 2834.869, 2841.19, 2849.213, 2859.668, 2868.174, 2897.959, 2899.811, 2904.097, 2918.273], "stop_times": [2780.049, 2783.084, 2804.832, 2808.636, 2817.574, 2831.232, 2834.869, 2841.19, 2849.213, 2859.668, 2868.174, 2897.959, 2899.811, 2904.097, 2918.273, 2920.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2759.619}, "reply_to": "22637__3_001", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22637__3_003", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Yes, it could.\nI mean, if... if this... this truck is making one... one haul, it's carrying some goods from Texas to... to Maine, but some other goods it picks up along the way within Tennessee and just carries it to another place within Tennessee, and then it picks some other goods in New Jersey, carries it elsewhere to New Jersey, you're going to be taxed.\nIt seems to me it's... it's one trip.\nWe never used to... used to divide railroads on the basis of well, the ICC has jurisdiction over just the interstate portions and... and the two stops within a State can be regulated by the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2920.742, 2921.759, 2943.322, 2946.19], "stop_times": [2921.759, 2943.322, 2946.19, 2958.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2920.742}, "reply_to": "22637__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__3_004", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--I mean, I think you're right that it wouldn't be reasonable to regard the within-Texas segment or the within-Oklahoma segment of a transfer of goods between States as a discrete, separable event.\nBut if the truck is picking up goods at one point in Texas and depositing them at another point in Texas, again from the shipper's point of view, that's clearly a discrete transaction.\nThe shipper is unlikely to have any interest in whether the same truck is simultaneously carrying goods among the States.\nAnd it's reasonable to regard that as a discrete event that is taxable by the State in which it occurs.\nThe other point to make about Scheiner is that even if we assume, as the petitioner argues, that the average interstate truck that makes some point-to-point hauls within Michigan will do so less frequently than the average truck that does business solely within that State, there's still a whole different class of interstate truckers that makes substantial use of Michigan's roads that could be charged taxes on the basis of mileage traveled and they're being let off the hook because the State has chosen to focus this tax on intrastate activity.\nPetitioners'response to this is that you can't discriminate against one class and then make up for it by... by discriminating in favor of a different class.\nAnd if this were, to use title VII terminology, a disparate treatment case, we would agree.\nThat is, if a State overtly discriminates against one class of interstate or out-of-state activities and on the face of the law those people are treated less favorably, then we would entirely agree that the State couldn't make up for it by giving more favorable treatment to a different class of out-of-state entities.\nBut here the petitioner is making what amounts to a disparate impact claim, and the essence of a disparate impact claim is not that any particular individual has suffered unfair treatment.\nThe way you prove a disparate impact claim is to show the effect cumulatively upon the class, upon interstate truckers in this case in the aggregate.\nAnd there's really no way to feel any kind of confidence that interstate truckers won't do better as a group by virtue of Michigan's decision to focus this tax on intrastate activity rather than on the basis of mileage, which would sweep in a lot of out-of-state truckers that are not currently covered.\nI'd like to speak briefly at least about the... the Mid-Con case.\nAnd in our view the best way of understanding... to... to return to the historical antecedents of the current SSRS provision, in its original form, as enacted in 1965, the statute said it's not an unreasonable burden of... on interstate commerce to require an interstate carrier to register its Federal certificate so along as you do so in accordance with the standards of the ICC.\nIf you go beyond those standards, it's an unreasonable burden on commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [2958.867, 2969.806, 2979.78, 2986.684, 2992.838, 3027.194, 3035.265, 3041.085, 3059.213, 3069.168, 3078.841, 3097.136, 3100.67, 3124.868], "stop_times": [2969.806, 2979.78, 2986.684, 2992.838, 3027.194, 3035.265, 3041.085, 3059.213, 3069.168, 3078.841, 3097.136, 3100.67, 3124.868, 3129.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2958.867}, "reply_to": "22637__3_003", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22637__3_005", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "I'd like to know the text you rely on.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3129.153], "stop_times": [3130.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3129.153}, "reply_to": "22637__3_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__3_006", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "That was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3130.689], "stop_times": [3132.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3130.689}, "reply_to": "22637__3_005", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22637__3_007", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "For... for preemption, the text of the current statute that you rely on.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3132.005], "stop_times": [3135.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3132.005}, "reply_to": "22637__3_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__3_008", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--The text of the current statute is set forth at page 82 of the appendix to the certiorari petition in Mid-Con, and it's now 49 U.S.C. 14504(b).\nAnd the statute says, the first sentence, the requirement of a State that a motor carrier providing transportation subject to jurisdiction under subchapter 1 of chapter 135... and that refers to interstate transportation... providing interstate transportation and providing transportation in that State must register with the State is not an unreasonable burden on transportation referred to in section 13501.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3135.724, 3147.365], "stop_times": [3147.365, 3172.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3135.724}, "reply_to": "22637__3_007", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22637__3_009", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "13501 deals just with SSRS.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3172.116], "stop_times": [3174.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3172.116}, "reply_to": "22637__3_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__3_010", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "No. 13501 is the provision that... that defines the general regulatory jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation and the Surface Transportation Board.\nAnd it basically says these agencies have general regulatory jurisdiction over transportation between points in one State and points in another State and... or between points in the same State passing through another State.\nSo in... in using that shorthand reference, the Congress just means interstate transportation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3174.718, 3185.407, 3197.482], "stop_times": [3185.407, 3197.482, 3202.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3174.718}, "reply_to": "22637__3_009", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22637__3_011", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "May I ask this question?\nBecause I know your time is short.\nSupposing Michigan imposed a new $10 fee per... and it identified it precisely as in order to comply with that statute and then reduced its present plating fee from $100 to $90, would that be permissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3202.968, 3204.153, 3205.87], "stop_times": [3204.153, 3205.87, 3220.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3202.968}, "reply_to": "22637__3_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22637__3_012", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Well, as long as the... again, to... in our view the distinctive and disqualifying feature of the current statute is that subsection (2) is imposed specifically on vehicles that operate entirely in interstate commerce.\nAnd if Michigan reduced to $90 the extra--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3220.83, 3232.221], "stop_times": [3232.221, 3235.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3220.83}, "reply_to": "22637__3_011", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22637__3_013", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "I'm not saying... they reduced to $90 the plating fee, but then they enacted a new $10 fee specifically designed to comply with the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3235.007], "stop_times": [3243.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3235.007}, "reply_to": "22637__3_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22637__3_014", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--As long as--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3243.445], "stop_times": [3244.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3243.445}, "reply_to": "22637__3_013", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22637__3_015", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Could they do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3244.528], "stop_times": [3245.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3244.528}, "reply_to": "22637__3_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22637__3_016", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--As long as they were still imposing that additional... again--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3245.095], "stop_times": [3247.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3245.095}, "reply_to": "22637__3_015", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22637__3_017", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "The $90 is for plating.\nIt said only... only Michigan-plated vehicles pay the $90.\nEverybody else... everybody... and everybody also pays the $10.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3247.813, 3249.515, 3252.801], "stop_times": [3249.515, 3252.801, 3256.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3247.813}, "reply_to": "22637__3_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22637__3_018", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "--As long as that $90 fee was imposed not just on Michigan-plated vehicles generally, but specifically on Michigan-plated vehicles that operate entirely in interstate commerce, we would say that's preempted because our reading of the statute is that basically Congress has said there's a severe limit on what you can do to interstate carriers that you don't do to intrastate carriers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3256.419], "stop_times": [3277.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3256.419}, "reply_to": "22637__3_017", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22637__3_019", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Where does it say that?\nLet... let me come back to the... to the section of the statute you're quoting.\nYou didn't finish the sentence.\nIt says that it's not an unreasonable burden when the State registration is completed under standards of the Secretary under subsection (c).\nSubsection (c) is entitled SSRS, Single State Registration System.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3277.432, 3277.916, 3281.82, 3283.22, 3291.926], "stop_times": [3277.916, 3281.82, 3283.22, 3291.926, 3298.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3277.432}, "reply_to": "22637__3_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22637__3_020", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "May I answer, Mr. Chief Justice?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3298.58], "stop_times": [3300.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3298.58}, "reply_to": "22637__3_019", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22637__3_021", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Briefly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3300.382], "stop_times": [3301.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3300.382}, "reply_to": "22637__3_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22637__3_022", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "The State doesn't argue that this registration was completed in accordance with this standard.\nIt argues that the provision doesn't apply at all because this is not the sort of registration requirement that the statute speaks of.\nWe think it is because it's imposed strictly on interstate carriers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3301.232, 3305.935, 3312.355], "stop_times": [3305.935, 3312.355, 3315.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3301.232}, "reply_to": "22637__3_021", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22637__3_023", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stewart.\nMr. Digges, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3315.557, 3317.007], "stop_times": [3317.007, 3320.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3315.557}, "reply_to": "22637__3_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22637__4_000", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Thank you.\nI'd like to just briefly cover three points.\nFirst, I believe that... that is accurate to say that the Solicitor General's position is returning us to the pre-Complete Auto days of line-drawing, but more than that, the Solicitor General's position is ignoring the practical effect of these fees on taxpayers.\nI think the... the citation to the Peddler v. Drummer line of cases illustrates that.\nThe only difference between the Peddler cases and the Drummer cases was that in the... in the Nippert case and... and the Drummer case, they looked at the practical effect on an out-of-state salesman and whether that salesman would be discouraged by the $50 fee that was being imposed from coming into the State.\nIn the Wagner case, they simply said that the fee fell on an essentially local event, didn't look at the form of the fee, didn't look at the form of the fee on the out-of-state salesman.\nI don't think it can be disputed that to out-of-state... that out-of-state salesmen would be equally discouraged from coming into a State because a $50 fee or a $100 fee, whether or not they're carrying the goods with them in at that time or whether the goods are later mailed in.\nSo, again, it is returning to the line-drawing issues, and really there is no test that is made as to, after you... you draw these lines, what the appropriate test should be.\nThe second point is it... with respect to the administrative practicality of apportioning these fees.\nThe purpose of apportionment would not be, as in a highway tax, to... to show the amount of highway damage that was done by a truck.\nThe purpose of apportionment here is simply to show the extent of the taxpayer's level of activity in the State.\nIt would be like a general revenue tax in which we're trying to allocate the taxpayer's activity to particular States, make sure that that taxpayer is paying its fair share of the State's costs with respect... of the State's generic costs, in this case, generic regulatory costs.\nSo, again, I think that apportionment would be very easy.\nAs Justice Scalia said, the trucking industry is willing to take the onus of this.\nWe bill by the mile.\nYou could do it on number of loads.\nYou could do it in a lot... a lot of ways.\nAnd by apportioning the fee, you eliminate the burden and you make the out-of-state carrier, who would be otherwise prohibited from only hauling a load or two... he would then have the ability to haul that load and... and not be discriminated against.\nThe final area I'd like to talk about a little bit is the need for additional... the need for evidence in this case.\nAgain, in the Nippert and the Scheiner cases, there... they... they... it was expressly said that there was no need for evidence in the cases because in the general average of instances, the out-of-state trucker will always pay more than the in-state trucker.\nAnd in answer to your question, Justice Stevens, I think it was recognized in those cases that there would be some exceptions to that rule.\nThere would be a few out-of-state carriers that would operate more heavily in the State than in-state carriers.\nBut that exception wasn't... wasn't what was going to happen and the most often, and that the average of instances, it would always work to the disadvantage of the out-of-state carriers.\nAnd... and the final point is that with respect to evidence, you have here also a failure of internal consistency test, and this Court has said a number of times that failure internal... of internal consistency is not a test related... it doesn't rely on specific facts but it relies on hypotheticals.\nAnd in this instance, I think there's a very clear failure of internal consistency.\nLike in Scheiner, there's a cumulative burden on an out-of-state trucker.\nIf a trucker wants to operate in intrastate commerce around the country, it has to... and just haul one load in every State, it has to pay 48 times a $100 fee or pay $4,800 in eligible... in order to be eligible to haul in all of those States.\nSo that illustrates how that's going to balkanize commerce, that that carrier is not going to be able to pay that kind of entrance fee nationwide.\nSo that carrier will operate in less intrastate activities in... in only a few States or maybe none.\nAnd again, we think that that defeats the purpose.\nWhen Congress passed economic deregulation of the trucking industry, that they wanted to open it up to out-of-state carriers to be able to augment their interstate loads.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3320.278, 3327.099, 3329.384, 3342.109, 3346.845, 3361.938, 3370.675, 3385.284, 3394.909, 3400.563, 3407.883, 3414.037, 3427.63, 3431.498, 3435.367, 3437.002, 3439.271, 3441.154, 3453.531, 3460.602, 3473.742, 3479.896, 3484.531, 3492.97, 3510.765, 3515.069, 3518.937, 3534.531, 3541.802, 3548.706, 3551.075], "stop_times": [3327.099, 3329.384, 3342.109, 3346.845, 3361.938, 3370.675, 3385.284, 3394.909, 3400.563, 3407.883, 3414.037, 3427.63, 3431.498, 3435.367, 3437.002, 3439.271, 3441.154, 3453.531, 3460.602, 3473.742, 3479.896, 3484.531, 3492.97, 3510.765, 3515.069, 3518.937, 3534.531, 3541.802, 3548.706, 3551.075, 3560.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3320.278}, "reply_to": "22637__3_023", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__4_001", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Digges.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3560.848], "stop_times": [3561.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3560.848}, "reply_to": "22637__4_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22637__4_002", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3561.981], "stop_times": [3562.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3561.981}, "reply_to": "22637__4_001", "speaker": "robert_digges_jr"}
{"id": "22637__4_003", "conversation_id": "22637", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1230", "start_times": [3562.383], "stop_times": [3564.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3562.383}, "reply_to": "22637__4_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21453__0_000", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Arthur Andersen v. United States.\nMs. Mahoney.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [0.0, 7.21], "stop_times": [7.21, 8.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21453__0_001", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Government concedes that the destruction of documents in anticipation of a proceeding was not a crime in the fall of 2001 based upon a statutory rule that Congress had preserved for over a century.\nThe central question in this case is whether Congress, nevertheless, intended to make a polite request to engage in that lawful conduct, a form of witness tampering punishable by ten years in prison.\nWe ask this Court to reject that interpretation of the statute and to hold that Arthur Andersen did not commit a crime.\nI'd like to turn first to the term 1512 and explain why Arthur Andersen's interpretation represents not only a reasonable reading, but the best reading of the language in the statute.\nThe first thing that we see when we look at the statutory context is that Congress did not prohibit... did not prohibit... all persuasion to destroy documents for the specific purpose of making them unavailable for use in an official proceeding.\nIt did not, because it did not simply say,\n\"Anyone who persuades a witness to do this has violated the statute. \"\nIt added a very important limitation, and that is the word \"corruptly\"... \"corruptly persuades\".\nSo what kinds of requests are excluded from the definition?\nWhen is it that it's okay to persuade someone to destroy a document for use in an official proceeding?\nAnd the answer, we think, based on the traditional meaning of the term \"corruptly\", is that \"corruptly\" means that you have persuaded someone in a fashion that uses improper means, such as bribery, or you've asked the witness to violate duties imposed by other law, whether that's the duties imposed by contempt or the duties imposed by a whole range of statutes that govern the obligations of people in our society.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [8.831, 11.604, 27.322, 42.095, 50.41, 67.018, 86.281, 89.706, 94.602, 100.373, 106.735, 112.314], "stop_times": [11.604, 27.322, 42.095, 50.41, 67.018, 86.281, 89.706, 94.602, 100.373, 106.735, 112.314, 139.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8.831}, "reply_to": "21453__0_000", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_002", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "But suppose you persuaded... and I know that is not this case... suppose you persuaded the person to destroy the documents in order to conceal a fraud.\nWould that be corrupt?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [139.177, 148.874], "stop_times": [148.874, 151.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.177}, "reply_to": "21453__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21453__0_003", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "If... Your Honor, if it was a crime, then, yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [151.524], "stop_times": [155.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 151.524}, "reply_to": "21453__0_002", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_004", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, in order to... let's say it's a revenue audit, and you know that it's a fraud, and you persuade somebody to destroy the documents in order to conceal the fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [155.343], "stop_times": [163.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 155.343}, "reply_to": "21453__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21453__0_005", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Okay, if this is in a... in the course of a proceeding, of course, it's obviously going to be a crime, it's obviously going to be prohibited by Section 1512.\nIf it is in advance of a proceeding... and let's assume that you know that a proceeding--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [163.555, 172.223], "stop_times": [172.223, 176.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 163.555}, "reply_to": "21453__0_004", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_006", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [176.371], "stop_times": [176.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 176.371}, "reply_to": "21453__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21453__0_007", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--is likely, then the answer depends on whether you know that you are concealing... that you know a crime has been committed.\nAnd if you know that a crime has bee committed, then you are violating a federal statute, 18 U.S.C.--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [176.958, 185.32], "stop_times": [185.32, 192.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 176.958}, "reply_to": "21453__0_006", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_008", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "My question is, Does that give... would that give some content to the meaning of \"corruptly\", in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [192.62], "stop_times": [196.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 192.62}, "reply_to": "21453__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21453__0_009", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Well, in that case, if the witness knows that you have committed a crime, and you are asking them to violate, they have a duty, under those circumstances, not to assist you in concealing your offense.\nThat's a duty that's imposed by criminal law.\nSo if you ask them to violate that duty, then you are corrupting that witness; and, very definitely, that would fall within the interpretation of the statute that Arthur Andersen is advancing here.\nAnd it fits, Your Honor, with what Congress really did for a hundred years before 2002.\nWhat it did is, it said that... under the Pettibone rule, that it is not a crime to simply destroy documents in anticipation of a proceeding.\nBut if you know that... if you know that a crime has been... a crime has been committed and you destroy documents, that is a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [196.444, 207.581, 209.965, 220.919, 226.252, 234.935], "stop_times": [207.581, 209.965, 220.919, 226.252, 234.935, 243.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 196.444}, "reply_to": "21453__0_008", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_010", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "May I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [243.16], "stop_times": [243.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 243.16}, "reply_to": "21453__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__0_011", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "That's a crime--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [243.777], "stop_times": [243.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 243.777}, "reply_to": "21453__0_010", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_012", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--may I ask you about another provision, Section 1515(c)?\nAnd that says, this chapter... and it... and it's referring back to Section 1512...\n\"does not prohibit or punish the providing of lawful bona fide legal representation services in connection with, or anticipation of, an official proceeding. \"\nNow, how... did Ms. Temple invoke that provision in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [243.879, 250.279, 257.889, 269.649], "stop_times": [250.279, 257.889, 269.649, 277.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 243.879}, "reply_to": "21453__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__0_013", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Your Honor, the... that section was not argued to the District Court, but it was invoked in the following way, in two ways.\nFirst of all, there was evidence introduced in the case that she was providing legal advice.\nAnd since it is not in affirmative defense, it really was the Government's burden at all times, at least once there was evidence introduced that she was providing legal advice, to get a finding from the jury that she was not engaged in bona fide and lawful services, particularly in this case, Your Honor, where the Government argued, told the jury, that Nancy Temple was the, quote, \"central figure\", end quote, in this... in this episode.\nAnd in addition--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [277.606, 285.776, 291.627, 317.786], "stop_times": [285.776, 291.627, 317.786, 318.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 277.606}, "reply_to": "21453__0_012", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_014", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "How do you know it's not an affirmative defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [318.96], "stop_times": [320.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 318.96}, "reply_to": "21453__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__0_015", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Well, it doesn't read like an affirmative defense, Your Honor.\nIt doesn't say \"affirmative defense\".\nIt simply... and in... when it was introduced, it was listed in the legislation as a Rule of Construction.\nAnd I think that's exactly how it reads.\nIt doesn't purport to put the burden of proof on Andersen, or on Nancy Temple.\nAnd, Your honor, I think, actually--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [320.772, 323.354, 325.002, 332.628, 335.034, 341.199], "stop_times": [323.354, 325.002, 332.628, 335.034, 341.199, 343.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 320.772}, "reply_to": "21453__0_014", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_016", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, of course, it has the word \"lawful\",\n\"the providing of lawful bona fide legal representation services. \"\nSo, you know, it could be argued that if she violating the other provisions, she's still in violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [343.061, 345.162, 349.551], "stop_times": [345.162, 349.551, 355.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 343.061}, "reply_to": "21453__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__0_017", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, under the Government's definition of \"corruptly\", she couldn't have been providing lawful bona fide services.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [355.551], "stop_times": [362.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 355.551}, "reply_to": "21453__0_016", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_018", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, that's what I want to know, is, in light of the Government's position and the way this case was resolved, how does that fit, and what does it do to, that so-called safe-harbor provision?\nI'm just curious how it all plays out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [362.479, 375.187], "stop_times": [375.187, 377.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 362.479}, "reply_to": "21453__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__0_019", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Your Honor, I think it negates it in its entirety, because what the jury was instructed in this case was that any intent to impede the fact-finding ability of a possible future proceeding, even if the Andersen employee had a good-faith and sincere belief that their conduct conformed to the law, was corrupt.\nThey were instructed that they must find that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [377.095, 398.566], "stop_times": [398.566, 401.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 377.095}, "reply_to": "21453__0_018", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_020", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, does that have the effect of negating the safe-harbor provision, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [401.201], "stop_times": [405.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 401.201}, "reply_to": "21453__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__0_021", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Absolutely.\nBut I think, Your Honor... because I think it would be impossible to satisfy it under this instruction.\nIn addition, I also think that the... that this provision really just demonstrates that the Government's interpretation of \"corruptly\" is wrong, to begin with.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [405.702, 406.778, 411.673], "stop_times": [406.778, 411.673, 419.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 405.702}, "reply_to": "21453__0_020", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_022", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "What's the effect, in 1512(b), of the word \"knowingly\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [419.389], "stop_times": [424.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 419.389}, "reply_to": "21453__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__0_023", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "I think, Your Honor, that \"knowingly\" means, in this context... just as it means \"knowingly intimidate\", \"knowingly threatened\", \"knowingly corruptly persuade\"... that means that you have to know that your persuasion is asking the witness to violate their duties, to violate the law.\nYou have to know that it's corrupt.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [424.866, 443.66], "stop_times": [443.66, 445.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 424.866}, "reply_to": "21453__0_022", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_024", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Isn't that satisfied at least by the part of the definition that refers to \"subverting an official proceeding\"?\nI mean, that certainly carries, to me, the implication that you realize that you're doing something wrong.\nAn official proceeding is, prima facie at least, lawful, and you are subverting it.\nDoesn't that satisfy the \"knowingly\" requirement?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [445.33, 453.27, 459.783, 464.247], "stop_times": [453.27, 459.783, 464.247, 467.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 445.33}, "reply_to": "21453__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21453__0_025", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "I don't think so, Your Honor, because the definition that was given to this jury was\n\"subvert, undermine, or impede. \"\nand not just the integrity of the proceeding; but, rather, the fact-finding ability of a future proceeding--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [467.441, 471.131, 473.845], "stop_times": [471.131, 473.845, 480.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 467.441}, "reply_to": "21453__0_024", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_026", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [480.511], "stop_times": [480.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 480.511}, "reply_to": "21453__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21453__0_027", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--including a governmental inquiry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [480.649], "stop_times": [481.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 480.649}, "reply_to": "21453__0_026", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_028", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--I think I would go far in agreeing with you if the... if the instruction had been \"merely to impede\" or \"merely to undermine\".\nNow, I guess that gets to a question I wanted somebody to answer, and you can probably do it.\nDid the... did the Court, in giving the instructions, ever refer... in defining the term, ever refer to any of these three possibilities, separately, or did it do it simply as \"subvert, undermine, or\"... what was the third... \"impede\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [481.967, 491.065, 495.396], "stop_times": [491.065, 495.396, 513.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 481.967}, "reply_to": "21453__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21453__0_029", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Impede.\nI believe... I believe it was done as a... as a... as a group.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [513.427, 513.672], "stop_times": [513.672, 517.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 513.427}, "reply_to": "21453__0_028", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_030", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Okay.\nIt did--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [517.331, 517.885], "stop_times": [517.885, 518.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 517.331}, "reply_to": "21453__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21453__0_031", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "But it says \"or\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [518.003], "stop_times": [518.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 518.003}, "reply_to": "21453__0_030", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_032", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--I... one other question.\nIn anticipation of that instruction... I assume the counsel new what was coming... did the Government ever argue to the jury that \"merely impeding\", alone, or \"merely undermining\", alone, would be sufficient, as distinct from saying,\n\"If he subverts, undermines, and impedes? \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [518.674, 520.409, 539.517], "stop_times": [520.409, 539.517, 544.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 518.674}, "reply_to": "21453__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21453__0_033", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Your Honor, I'm not certain of the answer, except that I do know that the Government did argue that simply... the mere idea that David Duncan testified that, you know, he thought that the... somebody at the SEC might want to look at this information someday was sufficient to satisfy the instructions.\nAnd so, I think it is a fair inference that the way that they argued this case to the jury was that any intent to keep any kind of information away from the SEC was enough to satisfy the definition in this case.\nAnd, in fact, Your Honor, when the instructions were being debated, the pattern instruction for the Fifth Circuit for 1503, actually is... includes the words\n\"knowingly or dishonestly to subvert the integrity of the proceeding. \"\nThe Government insisted that the word \"dishonestly\" not be used, that the word \"impede\" be added, and they changed \"fact-finding\" a bit... changed it from \"subverting the proceedings\" to \"the fact-finding ability\".\nThey did everything they could to strip this instruction of any mens rea, and then went beyond that and said,\n\"And in addition, even if the Andersen employees had a good-faith and sincere belief that their conduct did not violate the law, it's still a crime. \"\nSo, what we have here is an array of testimony from people who say,\n\"We honestly believed that this was permissible conduct. \"\nbut the jury was told that they had to convict anyway if there was any possible partial motivation to impede possible future fact-finding--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [544.221, 562.382, 576.248, 586.652, 593.49, 604.983, 612.503, 622.978, 628.269, 632.29], "stop_times": [562.382, 576.248, 586.652, 593.49, 604.983, 612.503, 622.978, 628.269, 632.29, 642.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 544.221}, "reply_to": "21453__0_032", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_034", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "How does--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [642.898], "stop_times": [643.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 642.898}, "reply_to": "21453__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21453__0_035", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--of an inquiry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [643.842], "stop_times": [644.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 643.842}, "reply_to": "21453__0_034", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_036", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--how does... how does David Duncan's guilty plea... he entered a plea of guilty to a charge of obstruction, and he confessed the intent to impede the SEC investigation by shredding documents.\nSo, what were the elements of that offense that are absent in this one?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [644.669, 664.055], "stop_times": [664.055, 674.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 644.669}, "reply_to": "21453__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21453__0_037", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Your Honor, he plead guilty to the offense, as described to him and agreed upon between him and his lawyer; in other... and the Government... which is basically the instruction that was given in this case.\nWhen he testified in this proceeding, he repeatedly said, despite his guilty plea, that he did not believe, at the time, that he had done anything unlawful or improper.\nHe said,\n\"I thought my conduct was perfectly appropriate. \"\n\"I plead guilty because I was persuaded that it didn't matter what I thought at the time. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [674.22, 686.827, 697.835, 698.56, 701.782], "stop_times": [686.827, 697.835, 698.56, 701.782, 707.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.22}, "reply_to": "21453__0_036", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_038", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "What sentence did he get, by the way?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [707.158], "stop_times": [708.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.158}, "reply_to": "21453__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__0_039", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "He's not been sentenced yet, Your Honor.\nAnd he was explicit throughout.\nHe also said... he never testified that he even thought that an SEC proceeding was probable at the time; he just thought it was possible.\nNor did he say that he ever consciously tried to hide the truth or hide the facts.\nWhat he did say is that,\n\"Yes, part of what was on my mind at the time that I asked for compliance with this policy was that the SEC and others might want to look at these files someday, and I'd better get them in compliance with our retention policy, because I know that drafts and notes are the kinds of things that could be misused and misconstrued at some point in the future. \"\nThat was the basis of his guilty plea, that was the basis of his testimony in this case.\nAnd the Government's interpretation, the instructions that were given to this jury, deprived the term \"corruptly persuade\" of any of its ordinary and traditional meaning.\nUnder the Government's view, for instance, of \"corruptly\", bribery becomes irrelevant under this statute.\nI mean, if you look at this statute, and you say,\n\"What was Congress trying to prohibit here when it says. \"\n--it's a got a list of wrongful means of interfering with witnesses.\nIt says \"intimidate\" and \"threaten\" and \"use of physical force\", and it says \"corruptly persuades\".\nThe first thing that would come to your mind is bribery.\nBut bribery is irrelevant under the Government's interpretation, and let me explain why.\nBecause they say that,\n\"Well, yes, it's true, it says \"corruptly persuade\", but all that means if you... is if you had any intent to impede the fact-finding ability of a proceeding, then you're guilty, just for asking. \"\n\"It doesn't matter whether you used any money... monetary compensation in order to extract this behavior; you're automatically guilty. \"\n\"But if you use bribery-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [708.609, 710.704, 714.191, 722.067, 727.716, 729.438, 750.296, 755.97, 766.248, 772.7, 775.153, 778.832, 782.996, 788.542, 791.955, 796.6, 798.718, 810.237, 820.467], "stop_times": [710.704, 714.191, 722.067, 727.716, 729.438, 750.296, 755.97, 766.248, 772.7, 775.153, 778.832, 782.996, 788.542, 791.955, 796.6, 798.718, 810.237, 820.467, 823.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 708.609}, "reply_to": "21453__0_038", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_040", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "I assume it also would make \"intimidate\", and so forth, quite superfluous.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [823.133], "stop_times": [826.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 823.133}, "reply_to": "21453__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__0_041", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--It absolutely would, Your Honor, because it would basically cover any kind of request.\nBut, in addition, they say that under their definition what it really means is that if you did it for some other motive, if you got them to destroy the document so that it couldn't be used in an official proceeding... and that was your intent, that it couldn't be used in an official proceeding... and you bribed them to do it, but your motive was to avoid embarrassment, it would not be a crime.\nUnder Andersen's interpretation, it would still be a crime, because of course you have corruptly persuaded them to destroy a document for use in an official proceeding, even if... at the appropriate time, if there is a nexus... because it doesn't matter whether you were trying to avoid embarrassment; if you were bribing them to keep it out of the... of the proceeding, of course that would be covered by the traditional definition of \"corruptly persuade\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [826.391, 830.925, 853.565], "stop_times": [830.925, 853.565, 880.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 826.391}, "reply_to": "21453__0_040", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_042", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Suppose you're anticipating a revenue audit from the Internal Revenue Service or from the SEC, and you destroy certain documents that you're not required to keep, but that would make the officials' task easier; he you could perform the audit in just a couple of days, instead of... it's going to take him a week.\nCan you make it harder for him?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [880.685, 902.647], "stop_times": [902.647, 904.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 880.685}, "reply_to": "21453__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21453__0_043", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Your Honor, under Section 1519, now, it may well be that that is criminal behavior, because it... Congress has now, basically, required you to preserve documents.\nBut, at the time, no, that would not have been a crime.\nAnd if you could do it yourself, then asking your wife to throw them out instead can't be what Congress really had in mind under Section 1512.\nYou know, hypothetical, the man could throw it out himself and not go to jail, but if he asked his wife to do it, then he goes to jail for ten years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [904.22, 917.83, 920.368, 928.597], "stop_times": [917.83, 920.368, 928.597, 936.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 904.22}, "reply_to": "21453__0_042", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_044", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "There is, in the case, this lingering feeling that something's wrong out there.\nI know that we don't... we don't convict people on that basis; we require something more specific.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [936.841, 940.735], "stop_times": [940.735, 946.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 936.841}, "reply_to": "21453__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21453__0_045", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, and I think that this statute, reasonably read, Your Honor, tells you exactly what that specific thing is.\nIf you intimidate them, if you mislead them, if you use physical force, if you corruptly persuade them.\nAnd that means either you've used unlawful means, like bribery, or you asked them to violate their independent legal duties.\nAnd that definition, Your Honor, is quite consistent with the traditional interpretation of the term \"corruptly\", even in the obstruction statutes.\nAnd I'd like to just emphasize, for instance, in a tampering case, a juror tampering case that preceded the congressional adoption of the term \"corruptly persuades\", the Jackson case, the jury was specifically instructed that \"corruptly\" means\n\"knowingly and willfully, with the specific intent to influence a juror to violate his duties as a petit juror. \"\nSimilarly, in Aguilar, in the District Court, the jury was instructed... that was a tampering case... quote,\n\"an act is done corruptly if it is done voluntarily and intentionally to bring about either an unlawful result or a lawful result by some unlawful method. \"\nend quote.\nThis is exactly parallel to the interpretation that Andersen is asking this Court to adopt.\nAnd if that if that interpretation is adopted, it makes sense of this statute.\nIf this statute isn't read in reference to the violation of other legal duties, than it covers a whole range of conduct that is unquestionably innocent--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [946.692, 951.817, 957.855, 965.407, 973.439, 988.66, 995.374, 1003.245, 1013.414, 1013.879, 1021.121, 1025.415], "stop_times": [951.817, 957.855, 965.407, 973.439, 988.66, 995.374, 1003.245, 1013.414, 1013.879, 1021.121, 1025.415, 1037.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 946.692}, "reply_to": "21453__0_044", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_046", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Suppose I just don't like the IRS, and I know they're coming.\nI have some very detailed summaries which will give them the answer they need right away.\nI throw away those summaries and make them go back to the original records just to make it tough for them.\nCan I do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1037.126, 1040.81, 1047.478, 1052.8], "stop_times": [1040.81, 1047.478, 1052.8, 1053.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.126}, "reply_to": "21453__0_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21453__0_047", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Section 1519, I don't think you can.\nCould you have done that in the... in the fall of 2001?\nYes, Your Honor, you could.\nWhat that really reflects is the Pettibone rule.\nThe Pettibone rule, for a hundred years, was that destruction and other kinds of acts of potential obstruction in advance of a proceeding were not a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1053.403, 1056.762, 1060.725, 1062.047, 1065.295], "stop_times": [1056.762, 1060.725, 1062.047, 1065.295, 1076.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1053.403}, "reply_to": "21453__0_046", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_048", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Ms. Mahoney, we... you know, we all know that what are euphemistically termed \"record-retention programs\" are, in fact, record-destruction programs, and that one of the purposes of the destruction is to eliminate from the files information that private individuals can use for lawsuits and that Government investigators can use for investigations.\nAnd there has been nothing unlawful about having such a program, even if one of your purposes is not to leave lying around in the file stuff that can be used against you by either the government or a private individual.\nSo, I would have thought that your argument was very persuasive, except for the fact of 1519.\nI think that 1519 gives me cause to believe that Congress could, indeed, say, \"You can't have record-retention programs\".\nHow else do you interpret 1519?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1076.453, 1098.442, 1109.588, 1117.093, 1124.467], "stop_times": [1098.442, 1109.588, 1117.093, 1124.467, 1126.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1076.453}, "reply_to": "21453__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__0_049", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, they certainly hadn't said it in the fall of 2001, Your Honor.\nAnd so, for that reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1126.999, 1129.634], "stop_times": [1129.634, 1131.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1126.999}, "reply_to": "21453__0_048", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_050", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, but I... well, yeah, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1131.138], "stop_times": [1131.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1131.138}, "reply_to": "21453__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__0_051", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1131.921], "stop_times": [1132.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1131.921}, "reply_to": "21453__0_050", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_052", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--but your argument is, you know,\n\"It's inconceivable that they would have meant that. \"\nBut, my... they said it in 1519--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1132.14, 1133.277, 1135.068], "stop_times": [1133.277, 1135.068, 1137.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1132.14}, "reply_to": "21453__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__0_053", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1137.325], "stop_times": [1137.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1137.325}, "reply_to": "21453__0_052", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_054", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "----in 2002.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1137.633], "stop_times": [1138.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1137.633}, "reply_to": "21453__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__0_055", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--let me put it this way.\nIf they're gonna... if they're going to say it, though, they have to say it with very clear language, because, otherwise, there would be no fair warning.\nYou couldn't conclude from the language of the witness-tampering statute, which is designed to protect witnesses, that Congress had made all record-retention programs unlawful.\nI also think, Your Honor, that when it comes time to construe Section 1519, some kind of nexus will have to be, you know, reasonably read in there, because, otherwise, you are correct, all document retention policies, or virtually all of them, are fatally doomed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1138.37, 1138.993, 1146.56, 1156.267], "stop_times": [1138.993, 1146.56, 1156.267, 1173.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1138.37}, "reply_to": "21453__0_054", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_056", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "And what is a \"document\"?\nI mean, in Justice Kennedy's example, is it just some handwritten notes?\nDo they become \"documents\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1173.382, 1175.077, 1180.667], "stop_times": [1175.077, 1180.667, 1182.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1173.382}, "reply_to": "21453__0_055", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21453__0_057", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.\nAnd, in this case, the evidence was quite clear that, you know, Andersen retained its work papers, and the work papers were extremely extensive, and they were required to fully document the audit.\nThe only things that were thrown away were notes and preliminary drafts, which had already been incorporated, in effect, into the final conclusions in the work papers; and yet that was the whole theory of this case, is that there were some documents that were destroyed.\nThey were precisely the kinds of documents that document-retention policies are designed to eliminate, in part... for a variety of reasons, but, in part, because they are preliminary in character and they can be misconstrued.\nFor instance, Your Honor, the FBI agents, generally speaking, have the practice of not keeping their notes of interviews.\nThey take those notes, they make a file memorandum, they throw away the notes.\nWhy do they do that?\nOf course they know the defendant would love to have those notes when it comes time for a trial.\nThey do it because they feel that they have written it up in an accurate way, and enough's enough.\nThat's what we're talking about here, Your Honor.\nAnd there was nothing in the language of 1512 that would have put Andersen on notice that its document-retention policy was... well, in fact, the Government doesn't say its document retention was a crime; it says it wasn't a crime.\nInstead, the crime was when David Duncan asked his secretary to throw away documents that he could have thrown away, lawfully, himself.\nThis statute does not give fair warning that that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1182.384, 1183.323, 1194.725, 1209.514, 1222.826, 1229.663, 1233.946, 1234.922, 1240.19, 1245.182, 1247.906, 1261.197, 1268.658], "stop_times": [1183.323, 1194.725, 1209.514, 1222.826, 1229.663, 1233.946, 1234.922, 1240.19, 1245.182, 1247.906, 1261.197, 1268.658, 1271.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1182.384}, "reply_to": "21453__0_056", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_058", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Was Section 1519 at issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1271.709], "stop_times": [1274.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1271.709}, "reply_to": "21453__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__0_059", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nSection 1519 did not get passed until the year 2002.\nIt did not exist.\nInstead, the rule that was in force then was the Pettibone rule, the one that's reflected in the text of Section 1505; and that is, \"the proceeding must be pending\".\nThat's, no doubt, why the Government didn't charge Andersen with a crime under Section 1505.\nI mean, they make it sound like the culpability here is the destruction of records.\nWell, if so, then you would think that they would have charged Andersen with destroying documents--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1274.445, 1275.459, 1280.754, 1282.13, 1292.806, 1298.113, 1302.085], "stop_times": [1275.459, 1280.754, 1282.13, 1292.806, 1298.113, 1302.085, 1307.157], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1274.445}, "reply_to": "21453__0_058", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_060", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Wait a minute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1307.157], "stop_times": [1307.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1307.157}, "reply_to": "21453__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__0_061", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--but they didn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1307.844], "stop_times": [1307.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1307.844}, "reply_to": "21453__0_060", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_062", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--wasn't there another provision in effect that said it doesn't matter whether the... whether the proceeding is pending?\nI forget which one it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1307.951, 1312.921], "stop_times": [1312.921, 1313.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1307.951}, "reply_to": "21453__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__0_063", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, that... no, that's just 15--- that's 1512, for witness tampering.\nBut for the act of destroying documents to interfere with a proceeding--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1313.854, 1317.693], "stop_times": [1317.693, 1322.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1313.854}, "reply_to": "21453__0_062", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_064", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1322.674], "stop_times": [1322.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.674}, "reply_to": "21453__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__0_065", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--that's Section 1505, and the proceeding must be pending.\nAnd that is... that is still the rule today, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1322.813, 1326.193], "stop_times": [1326.193, 1329.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1322.813}, "reply_to": "21453__0_064", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_066", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "But I... just to make it clear, I take it you would still have the same objection to the deficiency of the corruption instruction, even if a proceeding were pending, or am I wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1329.232], "stop_times": [1338.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1329.232}, "reply_to": "21453__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21453__0_067", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, if a proceeding is... yes, we would, in this case.\nYes, absolutely.\nBut, you know, if a proceeding is pending, then it changed the... changes the way that you apply the definition of \"corruptly\".\nBut you're certainly right that the definition is the same.\nThe question is, under the proper definition of \"corruptly\", did you induce the witnesses to engage in this activity through improper means, such as bribery, or did you try to get them to violate their independent legal duties?\nFor instance, if they had duties, under Section 1519, not to destroy, then it makes perfect sense, because what you have done is, you have asked the witness to engage in conduct which violates the law, and that corrupts them, it harms them, it fits with the purposes of the statute, it fits with the structure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1338.948, 1342.526, 1343.789, 1351.447, 1355.911, 1369.5], "stop_times": [1342.526, 1343.789, 1351.447, 1355.911, 1369.5, 1388.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1338.948}, "reply_to": "21453__0_066", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_068", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "So, it was proper, then, for Michael Odom to tell the Andersen personnel when he's encouraging them to follow the policy... he said,\n\"If it's destroyed in the course of normal policy and litigation, and litigation is filed the next day, that's great. \"\n\"We followed our policy, and whatever there was that might have been of interest to somebody, it's gone and irretrievable. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1388.651, 1402.144, 1411.494], "stop_times": [1402.144, 1411.494, 1419.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.651}, "reply_to": "21453__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21453__0_069", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1419.59], "stop_times": [1420.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1419.59}, "reply_to": "21453__0_068", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_070", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "That's fine for him to make that linkage between,\n\"Destroy it. \"\n\"Maybe there's going to be litigation filed tomorrow. \"\n\"That's great. \"\n\"It will be gone? \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1420.62, 1424.924, 1426.038, 1429.35, 1430.406], "stop_times": [1424.924, 1426.038, 1429.35, 1430.406, 1431.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1420.62}, "reply_to": "21453__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21453__0_071", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Your Honor, at the time that he made that statement, what that statement actually reflects is the Pettibone rule.\nHe was accurate in his... in his statement about what the law was governing document destruction at the time.\nThat's a good-faith reasonable belief that was absolutely supported by the law.\nBut, more importantly, Your Honor, if we look at Mr. Odom's remarks, he wasn't working... he wasn't... this wasn't in connection with the Enron engagement; there were only, I think, ten people, out of, like, 80, at that training seminar that had anything to do with Enron.\nHe was talking about the firm's document-retention policy.\nThe jury asked to see that videotape.\nThey may have actually convicted Andersen based upon his remarks about the document-retention policy.\nThey, similarly, may have convicted Andersen based upon Nancy Temple's memos that... one of which was a reminder to the engagement team that they were supposed to applying... complying with the document-retention policy.\nThat's legal services.\nThis--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1431.467, 1437.946, 1445.492, 1450.617, 1464.046, 1467.331, 1471.017, 1477.352, 1490.946, 1492.252], "stop_times": [1437.946, 1445.492, 1450.617, 1464.046, 1467.331, 1471.017, 1477.352, 1490.946, 1492.252, 1493.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1431.467}, "reply_to": "21453__0_070", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_072", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Odom wasn't saying this in the abstract.\nThere were other proceedings, weren't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1493.713, 1496.187], "stop_times": [1496.187, 1498.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.713}, "reply_to": "21453__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21453__0_073", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--No, Your Honor, it was just a training session that was just a... a section of the training session.\nIt has... literally, I think there were 89 attendees, only about ten of them--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1498.528, 1504.228], "stop_times": [1504.228, 1507.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1498.528}, "reply_to": "21453__0_072", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_074", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "At the time of that training, were there not other proceedings involving Arthur Andersen?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1507.834], "stop_times": [1513.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1507.834}, "reply_to": "21453__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21453__0_075", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nNo, I don't believe so.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1513.007, 1513.796, 1515.289], "stop_times": [1513.796, 1515.289, 1515.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1513.007}, "reply_to": "21453__0_074", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_076", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "There were, involving Enron, at that point, isn't that correct?\nThe... Enron had gotten the letter?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1515.722, 1517.834], "stop_times": [1517.834, 1519.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.722}, "reply_to": "21453__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21453__0_077", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nThat was on October the 10th.\nThe letter did not come until October the 17th.\nAndersen learned about it on October the 19th.\nI'd like to save the remainder of my time for rebuttal, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1519.439, 1520.154, 1521.727, 1524.719, 1527.151], "stop_times": [1520.154, 1521.727, 1524.719, 1527.151, 1529.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1519.439}, "reply_to": "21453__0_076", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__0_078", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Very well, Ms. Mahoney.\nMr. Dreeben, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1529.993, 1531.576], "stop_times": [1531.576, 1533.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1529.993}, "reply_to": "21453__0_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21453__1_000", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nArthur Andersen's conduct in this case explains why Congress enacted a statute like Section 1512 that protects against the anticipatory destruction of documents when a proceeding is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1533.737, 1536.835], "stop_times": [1536.835, 1549.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1533.737}, "reply_to": "21453__0_078", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_001", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, Section 1519, enacted subsequently, comes closer to the mark, doesn't it, than 1512?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1549.742], "stop_times": [1558.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1549.742}, "reply_to": "21453__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__1_002", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, Section 1519 was enacted after the events--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1558.751], "stop_times": [1563.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1558.751}, "reply_to": "21453__1_001", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_003", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1563.273], "stop_times": [1563.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1563.273}, "reply_to": "21453__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__1_004", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--in this case in order to plug the loophole that Arthur Andersen has pointed out existed in Section 1512 at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1563.694], "stop_times": [1571.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1563.694}, "reply_to": "21453__1_003", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_005", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "So you think it's superfluous.\n1519, if you win this case, really is just an exercise in futility, because the law already did what 1519 said.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1571.768, 1572.963], "stop_times": [1572.963, 1580.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1571.768}, "reply_to": "21453__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_006", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "No.\nThe law did not already do what 1519 says.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1580.557, 1581.181], "stop_times": [1581.181, 1584.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1580.557}, "reply_to": "21453__1_005", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_007", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Wherein does it go further?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1584.627], "stop_times": [1585.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1584.627}, "reply_to": "21453__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_008", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "It reaches single-actor obstructive conduct.\nWhat Ms. Mahoney has said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1585.869, 1589.943], "stop_times": [1589.943, 1591.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1585.869}, "reply_to": "21453__1_007", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_009", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, what about the Pettibone interpretation that has been outstanding for a long time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1591.436], "stop_times": [1597.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1591.436}, "reply_to": "21453__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__1_010", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Pettibone applied, Justice O'Connor, to a specific statute, Section 1503, and it's similarly incorporated in 1505.\nThose statutes protected against obstruction of pending judicial, administrative, and congressional proceedings.\nThe innovation in Section 1512 was to reach beyond the existence of a pending proceeding and to ensure that basically the store doesn't get robbed before the proceeding starts.\nIf Arthur Andersen is correct, the anticipation of a grand jury investigation that is thought to occur the next day, a corporation can send out a directive to its employees and say, \"Shred all the smoking guns\".\nIt's the corporate equivalent of seeing something that looks like a crime scene and sending somebody in before the police can get the yellow tape up to wipe down the fingerprints.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1597.28, 1605.019, 1611.814, 1624.037, 1637.473], "stop_times": [1605.019, 1611.814, 1624.037, 1637.473, 1648.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1597.28}, "reply_to": "21453__1_009", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_011", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "When can they do it?\nYou didn't allege here that it was in anticipation of any particular proceeding.\nYou say they can't do it once they know that the investigation is on the way.\nBut your theory in this case is that they can't do it, whether they know the investigation is on the way or not.\nThey can't destroy any evidence that might be the subject of an investigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1648.052, 1649.439, 1655.31, 1659.198, 1664.366], "stop_times": [1649.439, 1655.31, 1659.198, 1664.366, 1668.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.052}, "reply_to": "21453__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_012", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "No, that's not our theory Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1668.19], "stop_times": [1670.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1668.19}, "reply_to": "21453__1_011", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_013", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "What is your theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1670.594], "stop_times": [1670.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.594}, "reply_to": "21453__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_014", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Our theory is that a person acts corruptly when anticipating a reasonable possibility of an investigation into a specific matter, directs another person to destroy documents that are potentially relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1670.712], "stop_times": [1684.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1670.712}, "reply_to": "21453__1_013", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_015", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "\"A reasonable possibility of an investigation. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1684.29], "stop_times": [1686.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.29}, "reply_to": "21453__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_016", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1686.69], "stop_times": [1687.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1686.69}, "reply_to": "21453__1_015", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_017", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "And you want criminal liability to turn upon that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1687.452], "stop_times": [1689.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.452}, "reply_to": "21453__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_018", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1689.762], "stop_times": [1690.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1689.762}, "reply_to": "21453__1_017", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_019", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Whether or not there is a reasonable possibility of an investigation.\nYou want somebody to go to jail on how a jury decides that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1690.93, 1694.317], "stop_times": [1694.317, 1698.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1690.93}, "reply_to": "21453__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_020", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--I don't think there's anything unusual about the decision of that kind of question at all.\nIt's a analogous, but different and quite distinguishable nexus requirement from the kind of nexus requirement that this Court interpreted Section 1503 to have in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1698.215, 1702.598], "stop_times": [1702.598, 1713.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1698.215}, "reply_to": "21453__1_019", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_021", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Suppose I have a company and I know that the pattern is, I'm going to be audited every five years by the IRS.\nAnd in year four, I... one year... one year before the investigation, I instruct my bookkeeping staff,\n\"Keep everything you need to document our expenses, but destroy everything that's remotely related to that, or indirectly related to that. \"\n\"Give them just a clean, simple file. \"\n\"Destroy anything that's... all supporting documentation. \"\n\"Give them what they need and what they're entitled to have, but nothing else. \"\n\"And step up that policy, because they're going to be here next year. \"\nUnder your... it seems to me that that violates your rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1713.542, 1719.142, 1728.459, 1739.041, 1741.857, 1746.279, 1748.934, 1751.959], "stop_times": [1719.142, 1728.459, 1739.041, 1741.857, 1746.279, 1748.934, 1751.959, 1754.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1713.542}, "reply_to": "21453__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21453__1_022", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, it turns on whether the intent there is to subvert, undermine, or impede the proceeding.\nAnd the answer is, if it is yes, then it would be prohibited by this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1754.79, 1760.475], "stop_times": [1760.475, 1764.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1754.79}, "reply_to": "21453__1_021", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_023", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, it would be prohibited to tell somebody to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1764.81], "stop_times": [1766.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1764.81}, "reply_to": "21453__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_024", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1766.692], "stop_times": [1767.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1766.692}, "reply_to": "21453__1_023", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_025", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "But you could do it.\nThe doing of it is perfectly okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1767.374, 1768.879], "stop_times": [1768.879, 1771.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1767.374}, "reply_to": "21453__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_026", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "That was a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1771.231], "stop_times": [1772.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1771.231}, "reply_to": "21453__1_025", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_027", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Doesn't that seem strange to you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1772.281], "stop_times": [1773.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1772.281}, "reply_to": "21453__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_028", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--It seemed strange to Congress, too.\nAnd when this case threw a spotlight on that omission in the statute, Congress didn't react--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1773.502, 1775.48], "stop_times": [1775.48, 1780.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1773.502}, "reply_to": "21453__1_027", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_029", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "I would suggest that it throws a spotlight on the fact that your theory is wrong.\nIt doesn't--\n[Laughter]\n--it doesn't make... it doesn't make any sense to make unlawful the asking of somebody to do something which is, itself, not unlawful, so that the person could do it, but if you asked them to do it, you're guilty, he's not guilty.\nAnd that's... that is weird.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1780.231, 1784.668, 1800.357, 1785.819, 1798.747], "stop_times": [1784.668, 1800.357, 1785.819, 1798.747, 1800.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1780.231}, "reply_to": "21453__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_030", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--What was weird about it, Justice Scalia, is that it allowed the person to do it himself.\nAnd when Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1800.506, 1806.421], "stop_times": [1806.421, 1807.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1800.506}, "reply_to": "21453__1_029", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_031", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, let me ask you about this precise thing.\nIs it Mr. Duncan?\nIf he had, himself, shredded the documents, or destroyed them, that was perfectly okay at the time it was done.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1807.173, 1809.919, 1811.636], "stop_times": [1809.919, 1811.636, 1821.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1807.173}, "reply_to": "21453__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__1_032", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--It wasn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1821.672], "stop_times": [1822.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1821.672}, "reply_to": "21453__1_031", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_033", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1822.247], "stop_times": [1822.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1822.247}, "reply_to": "21453__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__1_034", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--prohibited by this statute.\nAnd when--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1822.365, 1823.822], "stop_times": [1823.822, 1824.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1822.365}, "reply_to": "21453__1_033", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_035", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "It would not have been a violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1824.681], "stop_times": [1825.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1824.681}, "reply_to": "21453__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__1_036", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1825.688], "stop_times": [1826.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1825.688}, "reply_to": "21453__1_035", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_037", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "But the Government got the conviction, got him to plead guilty, apparently, on the basis that if he asked somebody else to do what was perfectly lawful for him to do, it would violate the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1826.408], "stop_times": [1839.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1826.408}, "reply_to": "21453__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__1_038", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "That's right, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1839.036], "stop_times": [1840.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1839.036}, "reply_to": "21453__1_037", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_039", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, what... how do you read that in coordination with the so-called safe-harbor provision for legal advice and so on?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1840.861], "stop_times": [1850.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1840.861}, "reply_to": "21453__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__1_040", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "I don't think that the safe-harbor provision substantially bears on this case at all.\nFirst of all, Arthur Andersen never raised the safe-harbor provision, so that the Government would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1850.108, 1855.179], "stop_times": [1855.179, 1861.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1850.108}, "reply_to": "21453__1_039", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_041", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "And the woman lawyer never raised it, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1861.413], "stop_times": [1864.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1861.413}, "reply_to": "21453__1_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__1_042", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Nancy Temple was not a defendant in this case, but her conduct was at issue, because, after having immediately recognized that an SEC investigation was highly probable, Nancy Temple sends out a document reminder saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1864.644], "stop_times": [1878.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.644}, "reply_to": "21453__1_041", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_043", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1878.574], "stop_times": [1878.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1878.574}, "reply_to": "21453__1_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__1_044", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--basically, \"purge the files\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1878.692], "stop_times": [1880.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1878.692}, "reply_to": "21453__1_043", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_045", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--But under this statute, with the safe-harbor provision in it, is it unlawful for her, as a lawyer, to say, \"You can destroy these documents\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1880.078], "stop_times": [1890.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1880.078}, "reply_to": "21453__1_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__1_046", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Yes, it is, in this case, if her intent was to subvert, undermine, or impede the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1890.835], "stop_times": [1897.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1890.835}, "reply_to": "21453__1_045", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_047", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "But your definition of IRS audit.\nIt seems to me that is a sweeping position, which will cause problems for every major corporation or small business in this country.\nI just... I just don't understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1897.677, 1905.714, 1916.349], "stop_times": [1905.714, 1916.349, 1917.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.677}, "reply_to": "21453__1_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21453__1_048", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--I don't think so, Justice Kennedy, because the Government's position here has never been that the mere existence of a document-destruction policy used under routine circumstances is a violation of the statute.\nWhat the Government focused on in this case was using a document-destruction policy as a pretext and a cover to clean up and purge files when a government investigation was anticipated and it was perceived that these materials would be relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1917.97, 1929.558], "stop_times": [1929.558, 1943.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1917.97}, "reply_to": "21453__1_047", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_049", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, that's like in... the old... the rule in the Army,\n\"Make two copies of everything you throw out. \"\nI mean, that's what they're going to have to do.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1943.884, 1946.14, 1947.676, 1949.068], "stop_times": [1946.14, 1947.676, 1949.068, 1950.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.884}, "reply_to": "21453__1_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21453__1_050", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "I don't see--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1950.647], "stop_times": [1952.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1950.647}, "reply_to": "21453__1_049", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_051", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "You used words--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1952.646], "stop_times": [1953.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1952.646}, "reply_to": "21453__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21453__1_052", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Under this statute, Justice Kennedy, that's not the issue.\nI think the timeline here is critical.\nThis was not a company that was routinely exercising a document-destruction policy, or document-retention policy, to maintain only that which was necessary for its ongoing business.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1953.174, 1955.77, 1958.169], "stop_times": [1955.77, 1958.169, 1969.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1953.174}, "reply_to": "21453__1_051", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_053", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Yes, it was.\nThe training session that you introduced in evidence was precisely that, a general training session for all employees, saying, \"This is our document\", quote, \"retention policy\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1969.252, 1970.233], "stop_times": [1970.233, 1982.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1969.252}, "reply_to": "21453__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_054", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Yes, but that was triggered, in part, by Nancy Temple's recognition... in the midst of serving on a crisis response team, recognizing that Enron was in the process of imploding, Arthur Andersen, which was basically on probation with the SEC... because it had been previously sanctioned, twice, during the prior summer, and was under a cease and desist order... and seeing the SEC coming down the pike, at that moment, she decides to remind the Enron team, which had not been at all compliant with this document-retention policy,\n\"It's time to get the files in line. \"\nThis wasn't because all of a sudden the company had become preoccupied with neatness; it was so that it could document, in its audit work papers, those things that supported its conclusions.\nThat's what its document policy said.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [1982.691, 2013.726, 2016.184, 2027.859], "stop_times": [2013.726, 2016.184, 2027.859, 2029.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1982.691}, "reply_to": "21453__1_053", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_055", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "He says that occurred before Enron had even gotten a letter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2029.901], "stop_times": [2033.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2029.901}, "reply_to": "21453__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_056", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "But not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2033.432], "stop_times": [2034.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2033.432}, "reply_to": "21453__1_055", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_057", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "That meeting.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2034.947], "stop_times": [2035.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2034.947}, "reply_to": "21453__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_058", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--not before Enron's problems had begun to become... surfacing in the Wall Street Journal, in the financial press, the stock price was sliding.\nEverybody who was sophisticated in this environment... and surely Arthur Andersen was... knew that when a Fortune 500 company is looking at a potential need to restate its income statements because the accountants have been... proved a black-and-white violation of GAAP, and they all knew that that was true, that SEC proceedings are likely to occur.\nEven the witness--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2035.486, 2043.538, 2063.335], "stop_times": [2043.538, 2063.335, 2064.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2035.486}, "reply_to": "21453__1_057", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_059", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "If you... if you had alleged that they did this in order to cover up a fraud, there would be no problem.\nBut what you're doing is to say it's illegal to do what every other company in the country can do if they don't have an audit immediately on the horizon.\nI just don't understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2064.183, 2069.59, 2079.552], "stop_times": [2069.59, 2079.552, 2080.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2064.183}, "reply_to": "21453__1_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21453__1_060", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--No other company in the country would do this, Justice Kennedy.\nThis is an extraordinary case precisely because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2080.554, 2083.663], "stop_times": [2083.663, 2086.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2080.554}, "reply_to": "21453__1_059", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_061", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "You say that it would be perfectly okay for this company, or any other one, to destroy their documents.\nWhat's bad is telling somebody to destroy the documents.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2086.377, 2091.837], "stop_times": [2091.837, 2096.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2086.377}, "reply_to": "21453__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_062", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--But in an organizational context, that's the only way that directives like this can be given out and implemented.\nThis wasn't a case of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2096.717, 2103.246], "stop_times": [2103.246, 2104.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.717}, "reply_to": "21453__1_061", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_063", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--I know you know that the... you've put your finger on a problem for me.\nYou have said, Would it be the case that a person, before the proceeding begins, could simply tell somebody else to destroy the smoking gun?\nI understand that you fear that Andersen's approach would lead to that result.\nAnd it's bothering me.\nTherefore, I'd like you whether the word \"corruptly\" could include a person who knows three things: one, that the investigation, which has not yet started, almost certainly will want this document; two, there is no legal right to withhold it; and, three, that if I tell him to do it, it will be destroyed... I mean, that it's important to the investigation.\nImportant to the investigation, they want it, it's cover-up, and they will, in fact, have no legal right to take it back.\nNow, would that be \"corrupt\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2104.21, 2108.646, 2120.769, 2127.766, 2129.249, 2158.758, 2165.809], "stop_times": [2108.646, 2120.769, 2127.766, 2129.249, 2158.758, 2165.809, 2167.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2104.21}, "reply_to": "21453__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21453__1_064", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Yes, it would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2167.319], "stop_times": [2168.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2167.319}, "reply_to": "21453__1_063", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_065", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2168.144], "stop_times": [2168.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.144}, "reply_to": "21453__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21453__1_066", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--be \"corrupt\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2168.289], "stop_times": [2168.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2168.289}, "reply_to": "21453__1_065", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_067", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Okay.\nIF that's \"corrupt\", then does that cover this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2168.715, 2168.811], "stop_times": [2168.811, 2172.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.715}, "reply_to": "21453__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21453__1_068", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "I think that it does cover this case, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2172.543], "stop_times": [2175.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2172.543}, "reply_to": "21453__1_067", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_069", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "How?\nBecause it seems to me there was quite a lot of... by the way, the person who's doing the persuading has to know this.\nThey have to know that it will be wanted, that it's important, and there is no legal right to withhold it.\nSo it seems to me that, on the one hand, that does cover your problem, and, on the other hand, it does not cover this case.\nNow, that's what I'd like you to reply to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2175.269, 2175.487, 2181.769, 2188.921, 2197.07], "stop_times": [2175.487, 2181.769, 2188.921, 2197.07, 2199.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2175.269}, "reply_to": "21453__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21453__1_070", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Well, Justice Breyer, I think that the facts of the case are subsumed within the description that you've given.\nThe jury instructions did not require findings on all of those features; and that is, in large part, because of the kinds of instructions that Arthur Andersen--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2199.277, 2204.514], "stop_times": [2204.514, 2213.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2199.277}, "reply_to": "21453__1_069", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_071", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "No.\nThe jury instruction left out the word \"corruptly\", as far as I can see, in the part that was critical.\nThey define \"corruptly\" as simply an intent to impede.\nAnd the word \"impede\" goes well beyond what I've said, both because it does not cover the three things, but, most particularly, because it does not say that it was dishonest or that the person who did the persuading knew that the jury or the grand jury or the investigation would have the legal right to get the material and there was no right to withhold it.\nThe words that Arthur Andersen suggested, while they don't say precisely that, were at least a step in the right direction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2213.425, 2213.68, 2220.276, 2224.154, 2249.674], "stop_times": [2213.68, 2220.276, 2224.154, 2249.674, 2256.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.425}, "reply_to": "21453__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21453__1_072", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--The jury instruction said less than what you have suggested, Justice Breyer, no question about it, but what they did require was that there be an intent to undermine, subvert, or impede the investigation.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2256.09, 2267.925], "stop_times": [2267.925, 2268.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2256.09}, "reply_to": "21453__1_071", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_073", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Wasn't... wasn't that instruction, itself, undermined by what I understand to be the instruction that good-faith belief in the legality of what was being done was no defense?\nI mean, if you had an instruction that depended upon the word \"subvert\", I could... I could understand your argument.\nBut it seems to me that the difficulty with your argument, and the difficulty with your answer to Justice Breyer, is that it went beyond \"subvert\" to merely \"impede\", and it included an instruction that good faith was no defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2268.276, 2278.409, 2288.408], "stop_times": [2278.409, 2288.408, 2301.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2268.276}, "reply_to": "21453__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21453__1_074", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Justice Souter, this is to statute, and the word \"corruptly\" is not a word, that has been ever construed to require consciousness of illegality.\nThat is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2301.214, 2309.283], "stop_times": [2309.283, 2310.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2301.214}, "reply_to": "21453__1_073", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_075", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "How about \"knowingly\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2310.035], "stop_times": [2311.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2310.035}, "reply_to": "21453__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_076", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Yeah, the word \"knowingly\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2311.171], "stop_times": [2312.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2311.171}, "reply_to": "21453__1_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__1_077", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "How about \"knowingly\"?\nDoes that... does that usually connote knowledge of the illegality?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2312.254, 2312.761], "stop_times": [2312.761, 2316.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.254}, "reply_to": "21453__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_078", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Definitely not.\nThe word \"knowingly\" usually connotes knowledge of the underlying facts.\nAnd, in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2316.621, 2317.699, 2321.257], "stop_times": [2317.699, 2321.257, 2321.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2316.621}, "reply_to": "21453__1_077", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_079", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "\"Knowingly corruptly\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2321.982], "stop_times": [2323.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2321.982}, "reply_to": "21453__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_080", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--The word \"knowingly\" does not travel down the statute to modify \"corruptly\".\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2323.304, 2327.555], "stop_times": [2327.555, 2327.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2323.304}, "reply_to": "21453__1_079", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_081", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "I don't see why it doesn't.\nI mean, there's no grammatical break.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2327.852, 2329.127], "stop_times": [2329.127, 2330.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2327.852}, "reply_to": "21453__1_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21453__1_082", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Well, there is a logical break, because if it travel down the statute and reach all the way to \"misleading conduct\", what Congress would have written is a statute, when you read the definition of \"misleading conduct\", that says,\n\"whoever knowingly knowingly makes a false statement. \"\nbecause the definition of misleading conduct includes \"knowingly making false statements\", \"knowingly omitting things\", \"intentionally engaging in deceptive behavior\".\nAnd you'd end up with a... in a redundancy that makes no sense whatsoever.\nIt makes sense for Congress to have said, \"knowingly used force or intimidation\".\nBut then when you get to the word \"threat\", there is inherent knowledge in it.\n\"Corruptly\" inherently embodies knowledge.\nAnd the definition of \"misleading conduct\" inherently--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2330.983, 2342.348, 2345.478, 2354.272, 2358.235, 2362.858, 2366.405, 2368.586], "stop_times": [2342.348, 2345.478, 2354.272, 2358.235, 2362.858, 2366.405, 2368.586, 2372.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2330.983}, "reply_to": "21453__1_081", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_083", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, it's certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2372.005], "stop_times": [2373.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2372.005}, "reply_to": "21453__1_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21453__1_084", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--embodies knowledge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2373.151], "stop_times": [2373.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.151}, "reply_to": "21453__1_083", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_085", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--I mean, I will... I will grant you that the definition that the Government asked for, and got, for \"corruptly persuades\", does have that implication, so far as the \"subvert\" prong is concerned.\nBut when you get beyond the \"subvert\" prong, and you get down to the third one, \"merely to impede\", you're getting pretty thin, so far as the... as the implication of knowledge of wrongdoing is concerned, and you've still go the problem of the instruction that negated good faith is a defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2373.268, 2388.157], "stop_times": [2388.157, 2408.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2373.268}, "reply_to": "21453__1_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21453__1_086", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Let me try to address each of those.\nFirst of all, the words were used as a definition of \"improper purpose\", and they were used together,\n\"subvert, undermine, or impede. \"\nand they logically have a relationship to each other.\nWhen the Court of Appeals looked at those words and defined them, which it did, it talked about subversion and undermining as being a ruining of the proceedings and an overthrow of the attempt that the Government was anticipated to make.\nAnd I think, \"impede\" has to be read logically in that group.\nNow, I will acknowledge that \"impeding\" can have broader connotations, but it's not a word that's is foreign to the obstruction--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2408.232, 2410.27, 2415.347, 2417.346, 2420.007, 2434.636, 2437.595], "stop_times": [2410.27, 2415.347, 2417.346, 2420.007, 2434.636, 2437.595, 2444.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2408.232}, "reply_to": "21453__1_085", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_087", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Why did... if that is so, why did you need it?\nIn other words, you had a... you had a pattern instruction, apparently, that was... that was keyed to \"subversion\", which I think would be an easy argument for you.\nIf the addition of \"impede\" really wasn't adding that much, why did you ask the Court to put it in there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2444.266, 2446.905, 2455.976], "stop_times": [2446.905, 2455.976, 2464.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2444.266}, "reply_to": "21453__1_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21453__1_088", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Here is what it adds, Justice Souter.\n\"Undermine\" and \"subvert\" have a connotation of completely preventing the performance of the official duty in the proceeding.\n\"Impede\" removes any implication that you need to totally thwart the government activity in order to be guilty of this crime.\nIt's enough to \"interfere\" with it, which is the word that the Court of Appeals used to define it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2464.584, 2466.206, 2476.295, 2483.709], "stop_times": [2466.206, 2476.295, 2483.709, 2488.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2464.584}, "reply_to": "21453__1_087", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_089", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "But you could undermine and be unsuccessful.\nIt's not as though undermine means that you're necessarily going to succeed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2488.258, 2491.363], "stop_times": [2491.363, 2498.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2488.258}, "reply_to": "21453__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21453__1_090", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "No, but it was to avoid any connotation that the jurors might put on the linkage of those words that the Government sought the use of the word \"impede\".\nAnd I should note that it appears, in Section 1503, Section 1505--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2498.466, 2505.969], "stop_times": [2505.969, 2510.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2498.466}, "reply_to": "21453__1_089", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_091", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "But not in 1512.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2510.273], "stop_times": [2511.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2510.273}, "reply_to": "21453__1_090", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__1_092", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--That's correct.\nThat's correct.\nBut what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2511.793, 2513.153, 2514.006], "stop_times": [2513.153, 2514.006, 2514.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2511.793}, "reply_to": "21453__1_091", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_093", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "It's not there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2514.486], "stop_times": [2515.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2514.486}, "reply_to": "21453__1_092", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__1_094", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--what the Government was doing in this instance was attempting to give content to the word \"corruptly\" that would enable the jurors to know that they can convict if the purpose that the defendant had in dusting off this document policy and using it as a pretext to destroy documents was to interfere with the fact-finding ability of an anticipated proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2515.163], "stop_times": [2536.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2515.163}, "reply_to": "21453__1_093", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_095", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, but it sounds like... actually, I'll grant you that it appears in the statute, but that's, in a sense, my problem.\nThe statute talks about\n\"corruptly persuading another person to destroy a paper with the intent to impair that paper's availability for use in an official proceeding. \"\nSo, then we look at the instruction, and the instruction speaks of\n\"destroying the paper with the intent, at least in part, to impede. \"\nFine.\nIt sounds like it's just the same as the statute, but for one thing, the omission in the instruction of the word \"corruptly\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2536.533, 2543.344, 2545.05, 2558.473, 2562.707, 2567.986, 2569.319], "stop_times": [2543.344, 2545.05, 2558.473, 2562.707, 2567.986, 2569.319, 2577.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2536.533}, "reply_to": "21453__1_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21453__1_096", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Justice Breyer, it's a definition of \"corruptly\" that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2577.676], "stop_times": [2582.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2577.676}, "reply_to": "21453__1_095", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_097", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "All right.\nSo to define \"corruptly\" as\n\"doing the same thing that the rest of the statute does. \"\nseems a little strange.\nIf I were a juror, I might think that there is missing here any dishonesty of purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2582.968, 2583.404, 2586.977, 2591.067, 2593.174], "stop_times": [2583.404, 2586.977, 2591.067, 2593.174, 2599.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2582.968}, "reply_to": "21453__1_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21453__1_098", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--The Court of Appeals addressed the argument, which Petitioner makes, that the definition of \"corruptly\" that was used in this case is redundant and superfluous in light of the additional intent that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2599.771], "stop_times": [2610.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2599.771}, "reply_to": "21453__1_097", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_099", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "It's not perfectly redundant.\nOne can imagine driving a wedge between making something unavailable, which the jury would find relevant, or the investigator would find relevant, and impeding the fact-finding ability of the investigator.\nThey're not logically identical, but they do strike me as so similar that it's hard to expect a juror to make much of a difference between those two phrases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2610.715, 2612.715, 2626.512], "stop_times": [2612.715, 2626.512, 2637.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2610.715}, "reply_to": "21453__1_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21453__1_100", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Well, I think that they have a very significant difference, an important function in ensuring that this statute is not applied beyond the scope of protection of the integrity of proceedings, which is what Congress intended it to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2637.946], "stop_times": [2649.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2637.946}, "reply_to": "21453__1_099", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_101", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, would you indulge me to go back to a previous answer you gave?\nI'm sorry, I didn't quite get it.\nIn responding to Justice Souter's inquiry concerning the word \"knowingly\", you said the word \"knowingly\" appears later, so that it would be... it would be reduplicative.\nWhat later appearance are you talking about, in 1512(b)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2649.87, 2653.988, 2655.694, 2671.799], "stop_times": [2653.988, 2655.694, 2671.799, 2677.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2649.87}, "reply_to": "21453__1_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_102", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Justice Scalia, on page 5(a)... or, I'm sorry, on page 3(a)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2677.752], "stop_times": [2683.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2677.752}, "reply_to": "21453__1_101", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_103", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "3(a), right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2683.192], "stop_times": [2683.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2683.192}, "reply_to": "21453__1_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_104", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--of the Government's appendix--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2683.789], "stop_times": [2685.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2683.789}, "reply_to": "21453__1_103", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_105", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2685.671], "stop_times": [2685.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2685.671}, "reply_to": "21453__1_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_106", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--to its brief, at the bottom of the page, subsection (b)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2685.911], "stop_times": [2689.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2685.911}, "reply_to": "21453__1_105", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_107", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2689.096], "stop_times": [2689.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2689.096}, "reply_to": "21453__1_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_108", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--appears,\n\"Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2689.645, 2690.193], "stop_times": [2690.193, 2692.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2689.645}, "reply_to": "21453__1_107", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_109", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2692.524], "stop_times": [2692.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2692.524}, "reply_to": "21453__1_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_110", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2692.779], "stop_times": [2693.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2692.779}, "reply_to": "21453__1_109", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_111", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2693.236], "stop_times": [2693.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2693.236}, "reply_to": "21453__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_112", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "The last phrase in the sequence is\n\"engages in misleading conduct towards another person. \"\nThat phrase is, in turn, defined in the statute on page 11(a) and 12(a) of the same appendix, the Government's appendix.\nIt's Section 1515(a)(3).\nAnd it says the term \"misleading conduct\" means\n\"knowingly making a false statement; intentionally omitting information from a statement; with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a writing; or, with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a sample. \"\nand, finally,\n\"knowingly using a trick scheme or device. \"\nSo, 1512 when it comes to defining the term \"engaging in misleading conduct\", so you would end up with a statute that Congress have, for some reason, drafted that includes the word \"knowingly\" at the beginning, and then \"knowingly\" later as the definition of one of the terms that the initial \"knowingly\"--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2693.788, 2695.602, 2698.764, 2712.747, 2717.611, 2720.337, 2735.03, 2735.798, 2737.606], "stop_times": [2695.602, 2698.764, 2712.747, 2717.611, 2720.337, 2735.03, 2735.798, 2737.606, 2760.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2693.788}, "reply_to": "21453__1_111", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_113", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "But I don't know how you can avoid that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2760.997], "stop_times": [2762.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2760.997}, "reply_to": "21453__1_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_114", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--You avoid it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2762.283], "stop_times": [2763.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2762.283}, "reply_to": "21453__1_113", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_115", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "\"Whoever knowingly engages in misleading conduct. \"\nwhich is later defined as--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2763.472, 2766.315], "stop_times": [2766.315, 2767.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2763.472}, "reply_to": "21453__1_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_116", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--No.\nIt's,\n\"Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force. \"\nThat's what \"knowingly\" applies to.\nAnd then the words\n\"threaten, corruptly persuade, and engages in misleading conduct. \"\nhave inherent knowledge in them.\nIn other words--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2767.52, 2768.283, 2768.683, 2771.621, 2773.861, 2774.614, 2777.866, 2779.727], "stop_times": [2768.283, 2768.683, 2771.621, 2773.861, 2774.614, 2777.866, 2779.727, 2780.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2767.52}, "reply_to": "21453__1_115", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_117", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Oh, I see.\nThe \"knowingly\" only applies to \"uses intimidation or physical force\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2780.442, 2781.253], "stop_times": [2781.253, 2784.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2780.442}, "reply_to": "21453__1_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_118", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--That's right, because 1512 is a direct lineal descendant from the fact that that word appears in Section 1503.\nWhen Congress enacted this statute, it had every reason to believe, because it intended to do this, that the definition of 1503, would be applied to 1512.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2784.933, 2797.812], "stop_times": [2797.812, 2813.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2784.933}, "reply_to": "21453__1_117", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_119", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Why--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2813.103], "stop_times": [2813.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2813.103}, "reply_to": "21453__1_118", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21453__1_120", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "And, in that context--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2813.518], "stop_times": [2814.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2813.518}, "reply_to": "21453__1_119", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_121", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--why isn't the answer to your argument that the requirement in (b)... (b) doesn't travel all the way down through the series, but it travels at least as far as \"corruptly persuades\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2814.11], "stop_times": [2831.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2814.11}, "reply_to": "21453__1_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21453__1_122", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Well, that's sort of reading the statute just to achieve a result.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2831.027], "stop_times": [2835.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2831.027}, "reply_to": "21453__1_121", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_123", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "No, but we know it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2835.293], "stop_times": [2836.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2835.293}, "reply_to": "21453__1_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21453__1_124", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "I think it's contrary to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2836.7], "stop_times": [2836.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2836.7}, "reply_to": "21453__1_123", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_125", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--applies to something at the beginning of the series.\nIt's got... it's got some work to do.\nYou've made an argument that it doesn't apply, or it would be logically absurd to apply it, to something at the end of the series, and we're somewhere in the middle.\nAnd why isn't the answer to your argument simply to say,\n\"Okay, it doesn't travel all the way to the end, but it travels up to the end, and it travels as far as this? \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2836.828, 2838.998, 2840.818, 2849.687, 2852.982], "stop_times": [2838.998, 2840.818, 2849.687, 2852.982, 2858.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.828}, "reply_to": "21453__1_124", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21453__1_126", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Because a \"threat\", itself, which is the third term in the series, and the one that precedes the term that's at issue here, also involves an element of scienter or knowledge.\nYou can use intimidation inadvertently.\nYou could be a very heavy, dangerous-looking guy, standing out in front of the grand jury room, and a witness might come along and see you and realize, to himself,\n\"Uh-oh, I'm in trouble if I testify. \"\nIf you haven't done that knowingly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2858.614, 2868.283, 2870.949, 2879.595, 2881.141], "stop_times": [2868.283, 2870.949, 2879.595, 2881.141, 2882.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2858.614}, "reply_to": "21453__1_125", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_127", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "So that big, heavy guy would violate the statute just by standing there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2882.991], "stop_times": [2888.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2882.991}, "reply_to": "21453__1_126", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21453__1_128", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--He wouldn't, Chief Justice Rehnquist, precisely because it requires that he knowingly use intimidation.\nSo that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2888.848, 2896.175], "stop_times": [2896.175, 2896.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2888.848}, "reply_to": "21453__1_127", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_129", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "I don't think you can... you can use intimidation unknowingly, any more than you can threaten unknowingly.\nIf they felt it necessary to put \"knowingly\" before \"use intimidation\", I think they would have felt it necessary to put \"knowingly\" before \"threaten\".\nThe two terms are just about identical.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2896.767, 2905.107, 2912.51], "stop_times": [2905.107, 2912.51, 2914.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2896.767}, "reply_to": "21453__1_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__1_130", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--Well, I think that they're actually quite different in the context of this statute, but even if the Court were to conclude that \"knowingly\" did travel down and produce a phrase, \"knowingly corruptly\", the word \"knowingly\" generally in the criminal law refers to\n\"knowledge of the facts that make your conduct unlawful. \"\nArthur Andersen here is asking for a very--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2914.403, 2929.474, 2932.051], "stop_times": [2929.474, 2932.051, 2934.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2914.403}, "reply_to": "21453__1_129", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_131", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "No, the... in general terms, when you speak of \"general interpretation\", I suppose I think it possible to approach ambiguous criminal statutes with the following idea.\nCongress did not intend to try to make of the statute a highly general weapon for the Justice Department to pick and choose.\nThat's a notification problem.\nIt's also because we don't want one law,\n\"It is a crime to do wrong, in the opinion of the Attorney General. \"\nYou know, I mean, we want to have narrow criminal statutes.\nNow, is it reasonable to start with that frame of mind?\nAnd if it is, doesn't that tend to cut against you in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2934.557, 2948.588, 2959.783, 2961.873, 2964.172, 2967.361, 2970.887, 2974.492], "stop_times": [2948.588, 2959.783, 2961.873, 2964.172, 2967.361, 2970.887, 2974.492, 2979.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.557}, "reply_to": "21453__1_130", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21453__1_132", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--I don't think that it does, Justice Breyer.\nThere are, of course, contexts where the Court concludes that a statute, after applying all the tools of statutory construction, is ambiguous, and then rules of construction do apply to narrow it; but there is no provision that says that the Court should approach the question of construction with a view to narrow it.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2979.073, 2981.223, 2997.793], "stop_times": [2981.223, 2997.793, 2998.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2979.073}, "reply_to": "21453__1_131", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_133", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Well, how about the rule of lenity in the criminal statutes?\nIf this thing is so confusing, how's the business person supposed to know what they can do?\nHow's the lawyer supposed to know?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [2998.31, 3001.429, 3007.866], "stop_times": [3001.429, 3007.866, 3010.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2998.31}, "reply_to": "21453__1_132", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21453__1_134", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--I don't think that it is that confusing, Justice O'Connor.\nThis is a statute that was enacted against the backdrop of Section 1503 in a well-understood meaning of the word \"corruptly\".\nThe same word appears in Section 1505.\nWhen the D.C. Circuit concluded that that provision was vague, as applied to a particular case, Congress came back with a definition that legislatively overruled the D.C. Circuit decision and said \"corruptly\" means \"acting with an improper purpose\".\nThe \"improper purpose\" in an obstruction-of-justice case has traditionally been \"the purpose to obstruct justice\".\nThat definition logically applies to Section 1512, because Congress enacted the corruptly-persuades provision to remedy a deficiency in prior law, because it had not included non-coercive, non-deceptive witness-tampering in the statute, originally.\nAnd some courts concluded that it was no longer punishable under Section 1503, either.\nTo fix that situation, Congress looked to the model of Section 1503 case law, where there had been a variety of acts that are covered that under Petitioner's test would not be, such as secreting a witness, or sequestering a witness, in anticipation of a subpoena so that the witness would be unavailable to testify, or destroying documents before a subpoena had been issued, but in an anticipation that the subpoena was likely.\nThose kinds of acts were considered to be unlawful.\nSimilarly, giving advice, even as a lawyer, to an individual to assert the Fifth Amendment in bad faith, not to protect that individual's own interest, but to obstruct justice by protecting other members of a criminal organization, or, indeed, the lawyer himself, lower courts had recognized could be prosecuted; not uniformly had recognized, but they had uniformly recognized it at the time of the enactment of this statute.\nAnd Congress specifically said,\n\"We want 1512 to be able to pick up the kinds of cases that some courts have said are no longer prosecutable under Section 1503, and that had not been included in the original version of 1512. \"\nSo that there is history here that explains how these terms should be applied.\nAnd as far as Petitioner's contention that the word \"corruptly\" does nothing and leads to a series of horrible hypotheticals, actually a sensitive and appropriate use of the word \"corruptly\" solves those problems.\nPetitioners talk about how people should be able to urge each other not to cooperate with a voluntary investigation, that it's part of citizenship to be able to engage in those conversations.\nBut if an entity has subpoena authority and it doesn't invoke it, and it simply invites people voluntarily to cooperate, it is not going to be an intent to subvert, undermine, or impede that proceeding to invite them to exercise that right.\nIf the agency wants their testimony, it can get it through compulsion.\nSimilarly, Petitioners argue that document policies are, per se, made unlawful under the Government's approach.\nBut as the Court of Appeals specifically recognized in this case, a sound application of the word \"corruptly\" would look to whether there is a threat of some kind of specific proceeding that might trigger an obligation not to destroy the documents before the proceeding gets started.\nAnd, as well, there are intents that are simply not intents to subvert the administration of justice, that may result in rendering certain evidence unavailable.\nAnd if a person engages in that conduct, it may well violate another provision of criminal law, but it doesn't have to violate 1512.\nAnd a sound use of \"corruptly\" prevents all of those hypotheticals from materializing and leading to the conclusion that the statute is unduly broad.\nNow, Petitioner in this case, in addition to attacking the word \"corruptly\", also has advanced a number of arguments that there was inadequate instruction on some connection that had to be required between the Defendant's intent in a possible future proceeding.\nBut the reason that there was no adequate instruction on those issues is largely because Petitioner, itself, deliberately decided to ask for two instructions that were contrary to the statute, and never asked for what it's asked this Court to impose today.\nIt never asked that the Defendant must be shown to believe that some particular proceeding was likely to occur in the near future.\nInstead, what it did is say that the Defendant had to have an intent to impair an object's availability for use in a particular proceeding.\nAnd what the Court of Appeals said is that if there was any problem in that, it's not reversible error; it's harmless, because everybody knew that the proceeding that was anticipated was an SEC investigation of Enron.\nAnd the other instruction that Petitioners asked for in the District Court is that the official proceeding must be ongoing or scheduled to be commenced in the future.\nBut that instruction is flatly contrary to the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [3010.128, 3013.397, 3020.778, 3023.36, 3037.77, 3044.287, 3062.677, 3067.705, 3093.604, 3097.011, 3122.375, 3125.064, 3137.602, 3142.258, 3155.318, 3167.696, 3182.095, 3186.95, 3195.077, 3212.837, 3224.138, 3231.946, 3242.032, 3255.845, 3270.048, 3277.306, 3286.379, 3298.858, 3308.693], "stop_times": [3013.397, 3020.778, 3023.36, 3037.77, 3044.287, 3062.677, 3067.705, 3093.604, 3097.011, 3122.375, 3125.064, 3137.602, 3142.258, 3155.318, 3167.696, 3182.095, 3186.95, 3195.077, 3212.837, 3224.138, 3231.946, 3242.032, 3255.845, 3270.048, 3277.306, 3286.379, 3298.858, 3308.693, 3311.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3010.128}, "reply_to": "21453__1_133", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "21453__1_135", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Dreeben.\nMs. Mahoney, you have four minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [3311.717, 3313.402], "stop_times": [3313.402, 3316.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3311.717}, "reply_to": "21453__1_134", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21453__2_000", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Thank you.\nI'd like to first address the fact that much of the Government's argument is focused on this nexus, the imminence of the proceeding, that sort of thing, but actually the jury was not required to find any nexus whatsoever, and was told the wrong definition of an \"official proceeding\", to boot.\nIt was told that the informal inquiry by the SEC staff was an official proceeding, and that an official proceeding was already going on at the time of the events at issue here; in fact, even before Nancy Temple even knew about that informal inquiry, which, in and of itself, is reversible error.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [3316.661, 3318.202, 3336.937, 3355.95], "stop_times": [3318.202, 3336.937, 3355.95, 3356.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3316.661}, "reply_to": "21453__1_135", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__2_001", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "What do you think it should have been?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [3356.835], "stop_times": [3358.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3356.835}, "reply_to": "21453__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21453__2_002", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "--The SEC, which is commenced by a vote of the Commission and has compulsory process available.\nIt is certainly not a staff person sitting in their office in Houston opening a file and doing some Internet searches.\nThat's the Government's definition.\nThat's in... a matter within the jurisdiction of an agency, and that's not the language that appears in this statute.\nAlso, in terms of whether Andersen raised this argument, of course they did.\nThey asked for an instruction that the proceeding be ongoing or scheduled, because that was Fifth Circuit law at the time.\nAndersen wasn't supposed to guess that the Fifth Circuit was going to change what it had held in case called Shively.\nAnd the Fifth Circuit understood that Andersen had preserved the argument, and expressly says in its opinion that the issue is, What is the concreteness of the Defendant's expectation of a proceeding that should be required under this statute +/?\nand found that \"feared\" was enough.\nThat's not enough.\n\"Possible\" is not enough, especially if a broad definition, like the one the Government wants to have... there's got to be a serious nexus.\nNexus problems can be avoided, though, if the more traditional definition of 1503.\nAs I read to you, the definitions of \"corruptly\" are completely consistent with Andersen's definition.\nThe Government says,\n\"Oh, no. \"\n\"In fact, all it meant under 1503 was an intent to obstruct justice. \"\nThat can't possibly be what Congress intended for Section 1512, because this Court had held, for... a hundred years ago, that you necessarily lack the evil intent to obstruct if a proceeding is not pending.\nAnd 1512 does apply even before proceedings begin, so the definition had to be tailored to the precise circumstances of Section 1512.\nIt couldn't import the precise thing.\nPlus, the definition under 1503 has never been any intent to impede the fact-finding ability is a prohibited intent.\nThat would require lawyers and clients all over the country to go to jail.\nIt's that you intend to subvert and undermine the integrity of the due administration of justice.\nAnd that term does not mean simply to impede the fact-finding; it means that you intend to disobey those duties that are imposed upon you in the course of a proceeding.\nAnd cases, including the Howard case cited in our brief and cited by the Government, make that crystal clear.\nIt is not translated to what this jury instruction was, which is that... any intent to impede fact-finding.\nJust take a look at the examples, if the Government were correct about this.\nIf I were to ask my lawyer to assert, let's say, a reporter's privilege that is debatable, under the Government's... and I do it, because I know that that document is harmful, and I want to keep it out of the proceeding... under the Government's definition, that is corrupt, because I am trying to get another person to withhold a document in order to impede the fact-finding ability of the decision-maker.\nIt makes no sense to define \"corruptly\" that way.\nIf you, instead, define it with reference to duties, it makes perfect sense.\nThat's not corrupt, because there is no duty to provide a document when you have a good-faith claim of privilege.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [3358.755, 3371.789, 3379.053, 3380.551, 3386.562, 3392.231, 3399.447, 3406.044, 3419.217, 3421.36, 3422.207, 3429.705, 3443.875, 3449.906, 3451.144, 3451.709, 3456.855, 3470.807, 3480.662, 3482.705, 3492.326, 3496.118, 3504.198, 3515.056, 3520.774, 3527.392, 3531.483, 3555.658, 3558.699, 3562.955, 3571.552], "stop_times": [3371.789, 3379.053, 3380.551, 3386.562, 3392.231, 3399.447, 3406.044, 3419.217, 3421.36, 3422.207, 3429.705, 3443.875, 3449.906, 3451.144, 3451.709, 3456.855, 3470.807, 3480.662, 3482.705, 3492.326, 3496.118, 3504.198, 3515.056, 3520.774, 3527.392, 3531.483, 3555.658, 3558.699, 3562.955, 3571.552, 3572.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3358.755}, "reply_to": "21453__2_001", "speaker": "maureen_e_mahoney"}
{"id": "21453__2_003", "conversation_id": "21453", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Mahoney.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-368", "start_times": [3572.896, 3574.224], "stop_times": [3574.224, 3575.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3572.896}, "reply_to": "21453__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21523__0_000", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "The Court will now hear argument in Ballard against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.\nMr. Shapiro.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [0.0, 7.142], "stop_times": [7.142, 7.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__0_001", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nJudge Cudahy stated in his dissent in the Seventh Circuit that disclosure of the rule 183 report in this case should be required on both statutory and constitutional grounds.\nAs Judge Cudahy put it, there is no item of more significance in evaluating a Tax Court's decision on fraud than the unfiltered findings of the STJ.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [7.802, 10.569, 22.291], "stop_times": [10.569, 22.291, 32.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7.802}, "reply_to": "21523__0_000", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_002", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Mr. Shapiro, can this case, in your view, be decided solely on the statutory question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [32.944], "stop_times": [40.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 32.944}, "reply_to": "21523__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21523__0_003", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Oh, yes, Your Honor.\nWe believe it can.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [40.018, 40.661], "stop_times": [40.661, 41.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 40.018}, "reply_to": "21523__0_002", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_004", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "There also are due process allegations, and I'm not sure I even quite understand what the precise due process violation is that's alleged.\nBut I would like you to address both and to tell us, first of all, how it would be resolved solely on a statutory basis from your perspective.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [41.737, 53.914], "stop_times": [53.914, 64.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 41.737}, "reply_to": "21523__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21523__0_005", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "The readiest ground for decision is the statutory basis, and we believe that the statute is a good means to avoid a complex due process question.\nThere are two statutes that are key here.\nOne is the appellate review statute.\nThe other is the public record statute.\nThe public record statute says all reports of the Tax Court are public records, and we're talking about a report of the Tax Court in this case.\nThe legislative history of that provision shows Congress had the broadest possible intent to make all practices in the Tax Court completely transparent.\nAll steps in the adjudication were supposed to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [64.438, 73.066, 75.19, 77.319, 80.125, 89.041, 98.579], "stop_times": [73.066, 75.19, 77.319, 80.125, 89.041, 98.579, 101.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 64.438}, "reply_to": "21523__0_004", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_006", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, would that include... if a Tax Court judge had a law clerk, would it include law clerk memos to the judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [101.551], "stop_times": [109.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 101.551}, "reply_to": "21523__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21523__0_007", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--We... we don't take that position.\nIt refers to reports of judges, and this is a report of a trial judge who heard the witnesses.\nThe report is presumed correct under rule 183.\nIt's the only independent evaluation of witness credibility--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [109.232, 110.634, 117.238, 120.87], "stop_times": [110.634, 117.238, 120.87, 124.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 109.232}, "reply_to": "21523__0_006", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_008", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Now, why... why do you say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [124.38], "stop_times": [125.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 124.38}, "reply_to": "21523__0_007", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_009", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--and the only judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [125.661], "stop_times": [125.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 125.661}, "reply_to": "21523__0_008", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_010", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Would you elaborate for this reason?\nBecause the briefs and you again today keep talking about that first document.\nYou use the word report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [125.866, 127.518, 132.553], "stop_times": [127.518, 132.553, 133.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 125.866}, "reply_to": "21523__0_009", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_011", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [133.834], "stop_times": [134.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 133.834}, "reply_to": "21523__0_010", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_012", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, to me that's the whole conclusion of the case.\nI'm prepared to assume, at least for the moment, if you can convince me that that's the report they're talking about, you'd win.\nBut that isn't what the Government says.\nThe Government says that's a piece of paper, preliminary.\nWe... like my draft.\nI write drafts all the time.\nSo... so do trial judges.\nAnd he goes and brings the draft to the other two judges and says, let's sit down and talk about it.\nAnd they sit down and talk about it, and he changes his mind and writes a different document.\nAnd that different document, of course, is totally public.\nThe whole opinion of the Tax Court.\nThere is that document.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [134.389, 136.99, 143.699, 146.671, 150.098, 152.698, 154.267, 156.702, 162.153, 167.188, 170.448, 172.693], "stop_times": [136.99, 143.699, 146.671, 150.098, 152.698, 154.267, 156.702, 162.153, 167.188, 170.448, 172.693, 174.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 134.389}, "reply_to": "21523__0_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_013", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "There is only one rule 183 report.\nUnder the rule, it's the report the trial judge prepares and submits to the chief judge at the completion of the trial, which contains his independent credibility findings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [174.529, 177.689], "stop_times": [177.689, 187.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 174.529}, "reply_to": "21523__0_012", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_014", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "How do we know that?\nNow... now, what is the answer specifically in the statute?\nLet's call it document 1 and document 2.\nAnd it really didn't help me that much in the briefs to see document 1 continuously labeled with the word report when I thought that's the key question.\nIs it?\nIs it that report they're referring to?\nSo now, go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [187.599, 188.092, 191.147, 193.626, 202.581, 202.952, 205.181], "stop_times": [188.092, 191.147, 193.626, 202.581, 202.952, 205.181, 206.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 187.599}, "reply_to": "21523__0_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_015", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Under rule 183(b) there is a report denominated as such.\nThere's no question here it was submitted to the court.\nIf you look at page 114a of the Kanter appendix, it says that the special trial judge submitted a report, as required by rule 183(b).\nAnd this case was then referred to Judge Dawson.\nHe had no involvement with the case until this report was given to him.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [206.09, 210.011, 212.695, 223.364, 226.524], "stop_times": [210.011, 212.695, 223.364, 226.524, 230.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 206.09}, "reply_to": "21523__0_014", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_016", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Which--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [230.156], "stop_times": [231.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 230.156}, "reply_to": "21523__0_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_017", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [231.271], "stop_times": [232.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 231.271}, "reply_to": "21523__0_016", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_018", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Which... which brief--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [232.385], "stop_times": [233.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 232.385}, "reply_to": "21523__0_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_019", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Oh.\nIt's the petition for cert. The Kanter petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [233.461, 233.871], "stop_times": [233.871, 236.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 233.461}, "reply_to": "21523__0_018", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_020", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "At least--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [236.722], "stop_times": [237.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.722}, "reply_to": "21523__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__0_021", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "What... what page did you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [237.631], "stop_times": [238.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 237.631}, "reply_to": "21523__0_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_022", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--What... what page?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [238.474], "stop_times": [239.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 238.474}, "reply_to": "21523__0_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_023", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "114a, 114a.\nAnd throughout--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [239.283, 241.612], "stop_times": [241.612, 242.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.283}, "reply_to": "21523__0_022", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_024", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Mr. Shapiro, why don't you simply read the text of 183(b)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [242.15], "stop_times": [247.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.15}, "reply_to": "21523__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__0_025", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [247.928], "stop_times": [248.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 247.928}, "reply_to": "21523__0_024", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_026", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--which is in the Government's brief at 4a?\nIt says, special trial judge's report.\nIt is the only report to which the Tax Court rules refer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [248.921, 251.15, 254.244], "stop_times": [251.15, 254.244, 258.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.921}, "reply_to": "21523__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__0_027", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nAnd it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [258.702, 260.188], "stop_times": [260.188, 260.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 258.702}, "reply_to": "21523__0_026", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_028", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "And... and if in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [260.726], "stop_times": [261.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 260.726}, "reply_to": "21523__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__0_029", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--it is presumed correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [261.923], "stop_times": [262.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 261.923}, "reply_to": "21523__0_028", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_030", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--you rely on the rule, do we even have to resolve the issue of meaning of report in the statute?\nCan't we simply, from your position, rely on the rule and say you've got to follow your own rules?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [262.462, 267.663], "stop_times": [267.663, 273.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 262.462}, "reply_to": "21523__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__0_031", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Absolutely.\nThis is a report that must be submitted.\nIt is presumed correct under this rule.\nIt's an independent evaluation of credibility from the only judge who heard the witnesses, and of course, it's part of the record.\nAnd it doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [273.236, 273.691, 276.208, 278.287, 284.382], "stop_times": [273.691, 276.208, 278.287, 284.382, 285.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 273.236}, "reply_to": "21523__0_030", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_032", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "So you've really got three arguments.\nYou've got the rule.\nYou've got the statute, and you have due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [285.004, 285.997, 286.552], "stop_times": [285.997, 286.552, 288.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 285.004}, "reply_to": "21523__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__0_033", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--And it doesn't make the slightest difference that the superior judge caused the subordinate judge to say, I have changed my mind at a later stage in the proceeding, because it is the original report that is presumed correct under the rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [288.598], "stop_times": [301.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 288.598}, "reply_to": "21523__0_032", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_034", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "All right.\nNow, what... what was the page?\nPlease.\nYou're going quite... and I want to... because Justice Ginsburg referred to a statement in the Government's brief that you said yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [301.851, 302.101, 303.316, 303.67], "stop_times": [302.101, 303.316, 303.67, 311.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 301.851}, "reply_to": "21523__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_035", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "No, not the Government's brief.\nThe Tax Court rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [311.722, 312.769], "stop_times": [312.769, 314.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.722}, "reply_to": "21523__0_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__0_036", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "That's... that's appendix 4a.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [314.255], "stop_times": [316.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 314.255}, "reply_to": "21523__0_035", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_037", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "4a of the Government's brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [316.007], "stop_times": [316.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 316.007}, "reply_to": "21523__0_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__0_038", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "It's the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [316.463], "stop_times": [316.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 316.463}, "reply_to": "21523__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_039", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Yes, it's the rule itself, 183(b).\nAnd it makes it clear that there must be a report filed with the chief judge.\nThe docket here says that that was done.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [316.918, 319.064, 324.059], "stop_times": [319.064, 324.059, 326.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 316.918}, "reply_to": "21523__0_038", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_040", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Can you make the argument that... maybe you can't... that the special trial judge can go to the Tax Court judge, with the permission of the chief judge, and say, now, here's what... kind of what I'm thinking?\nIt's not my report, but here's what I'm thinking.\nAnd then the... the Tax Court judge says, well, why don't you have some more findings on X and Y and Z?\nHe says, okay, and then he goes back.\nCan you make the argument that that first document is not the report?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [326.494, 339.952, 342.635, 347.837, 349.528], "stop_times": [339.952, 342.635, 347.837, 349.528, 352.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 326.494}, "reply_to": "21523__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21523__0_041", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "The first... there is only one--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [352.583], "stop_times": [355.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 352.583}, "reply_to": "21523__0_040", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_042", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, I guess another way of saying it is, do the rules permit any consultation before the report is submitted?\nI... I guess that's my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [355.888, 361.749], "stop_times": [361.749, 362.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 355.888}, "reply_to": "21523__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21523__0_043", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--The rules are silent on that, but Judge Dawson has no involvement in the case until the report is submitted.\nThen the case is assigned to Judge Dawson, and then he is supposed to review it under a presumptive correctness standard.\nSo it would be surprising if there were consultation of that sort.\nBut what we contend is if there is consultation behind the scenes about credibility determinations, then it is critically important that the report be submitted and made part of the record and not concealed, and that the deferential standard of review be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [362.947, 368.641, 375.412, 378.384], "stop_times": [368.641, 375.412, 378.384, 394.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 362.947}, "reply_to": "21523__0_042", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_044", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Would... would that problem be overcome if the special trial judge simply... if his... the proceedings before him were simply videotaped and then the reviewing judge, Judge Dawson in this case, could look at the trial proceedings and would have as much of a notion of the credibility of the witnesses as the special tax judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [394.238], "stop_times": [419.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 394.238}, "reply_to": "21523__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__0_045", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--I suppose that's a possibility, but in Anderson, the Court said absent some procedure like that, the trial judge is uniquely situated to evaluate demeanor and tone of voice, and because of that, great deference has to be given to the independent evaluation of the trial judge.\nMaybe in a... in the future the Tax Court would want to use a procedure like that to mitigate the Raddatz problem that they now have.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [419.623, 435.309], "stop_times": [435.309, 441.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 419.623}, "reply_to": "21523__0_044", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_046", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "In which case, they... they might well revise the language of their rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [441.519], "stop_times": [444.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 441.519}, "reply_to": "21523__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_047", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Yes, they... they might, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [444.187], "stop_times": [445.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 444.187}, "reply_to": "21523__0_046", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_048", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Which currently requires that the finding of facts of the trial judge be presumed to be correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [445.673], "stop_times": [451.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 445.673}, "reply_to": "21523__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_049", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--That's correct, and after all, we should remember that the Government was supposed to present clear and convincing evidence of fraud in this case, and if there was a flip-flop of this sort going on behind the scenes, leaving no trace in the record, what could be more important to the reviewing court than to know what had occurred at the first stage and the second stage here?\nIf the trial judge found no underpayment and no fraud, which we have reason to believe he did... three Tax Court judges stated that to us... if that was... that was his finding and he found our witnesses to be credible, then an unexplained overturning of that credibility determination with no trace in the record would surely be a candidate for reversal on appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [451.989, 471.391], "stop_times": [471.391, 492.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 451.989}, "reply_to": "21523__0_048", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_050", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Let... let me ask this question, if I may.\nSuppose the... a special trial judge hears the witnesses, makes a report.\nIt's assigned by the chief judge to a Tax Court judge, and the Tax Court judge looks it over it and says, you know, before I... before I really spend a lot of time on this, you really didn't explore these three problems.\nWould you please do it over again?\nIs he permitted to do that or is that a violation of the rule that he shall presume the report to be correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [492.567, 495.047, 500.452, 511.886, 513.456], "stop_times": [495.047, 500.452, 511.886, 513.456, 523.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 492.567}, "reply_to": "21523__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21523__0_051", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, we haven't challenged the conversations as such.\nWe think it is... it is suspect, however.\nUnder Raddatz, if somebody who has not heard the witnesses is telling somebody who has heard the witnesses, I don't agree or I think you may be wrong in your credibility determination, I'd like you to reconsider that, that's a serious Raddatz problem.\nAnd the only cure for that is to make the first report part of the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [523.115, 526.747, 528.855, 541.608], "stop_times": [526.747, 528.855, 541.608, 545.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 523.115}, "reply_to": "21523__0_050", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_052", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "I'm asking if it's a violation of... of the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [545.118], "stop_times": [546.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 545.118}, "reply_to": "21523__0_051", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21523__0_053", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [546.232], "stop_times": [547.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 546.232}, "reply_to": "21523__0_052", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_054", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Because the... the rule says a special report shall be presumed to be correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [547.058], "stop_times": [551.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 547.058}, "reply_to": "21523__0_053", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21523__0_055", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [551.311], "stop_times": [551.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 551.311}, "reply_to": "21523__0_054", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_056", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "And if there's this initial review, he says, you know, I think it's really pretty incomplete until you do X, Y, Z, please do it over again, is that a violation of the rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [551.682], "stop_times": [562.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 551.682}, "reply_to": "21523__0_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21523__0_057", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, I think the rule is silent on that, but the spirit of the rule, frankly, is that the STJ does his job.\nHe completes his report.\nHe submits it, and the reviewing judge examines it under a presumed-correct standard in... in the same orderly fashion that ordinarily occurs when there is an initial judgment from a... from a trial judge about credibility with deferential review that comes later.\nBut the rule doesn't tell us much about these consultations, and we do submit that if... if they do take place, as the Government suggests, there's importuning and changing of minds going on through consultations, do this on record.\nTurn square corners because it would be quite important to the appellate court to know if there was a good reason for the overturning of these credibility determinations.\nAnd we... we've seen that kind of review in the Stone case in the D.C. Circuit, which is very similar to this case.\nFactually the cases are quite similar.\nAnd the reviewing court, Judge Williams, found clear error based on what the rule 183 report stated about witness credibility.\nThere was an elaborate explanation why particular witnesses were credible and incredible, and the court could use that to evaluate the judgment of the Tax Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [562.169, 569.228, 570.358, 585.119, 597.379, 605.637, 611.785, 613.56, 622.642], "stop_times": [569.228, 570.358, 585.119, 597.379, 605.637, 611.785, 613.56, 622.642, 631.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.169}, "reply_to": "21523__0_056", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_058", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Of course, what you're asking us to do would... would just solve your problem in this case, and... and in the future, I suppose they could revise rule 183 as simply not to require a report.\nThere... there's nothing in the statute that requires this report, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [631.93, 646.337], "stop_times": [646.337, 650.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 631.93}, "reply_to": "21523__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_059", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, that's true.\nThey could cease using the STJ's, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [650.219, 650.795], "stop_times": [650.795, 653.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 650.219}, "reply_to": "21523__0_058", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_060", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, they could... they could use them, but just say, instead of filing a report, he'll consult with the... with the deciding judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [653.024], "stop_times": [661.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.024}, "reply_to": "21523__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_061", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--I... I suppose that could happen.\nIf there is... if there is no report written, we couldn't contend it has to be disclosed under these statutes, and that... that might be.\nBut it... there could be a Raddatz issue in that scenario that you present, Justice Scalia.\nIf one judge heard the witnesses and the other judge didn't hear the witnesses and... and the... the superior judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [661.364, 663.221, 670.364, 675.277], "stop_times": [663.221, 670.364, 675.277, 681.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 661.364}, "reply_to": "21523__0_060", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_062", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, they confer with each other.\nMaybe, maybe.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [681.1, 681.843], "stop_times": [681.843, 683.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 681.1}, "reply_to": "21523__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_063", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--But it... it would be... it would be quite strange to have credibility determinations made by a judge who had never heard from any of the witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [683.701], "stop_times": [689.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 683.701}, "reply_to": "21523__0_062", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_064", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--What happens in cases in agencies, you know, where... where... suppose the agency itself or a member thereof is going to make a decision, and there might be other members who would hear the witnesses.\nAnd I was thinking of that analogy.\nIt's possible.\nIt happens in the Federal Communications Commission where the staff, you know, consults back and forth in ratemaking cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [689.728, 702.648, 704.672, 705.249], "stop_times": [702.648, 704.672, 705.249, 711.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 689.728}, "reply_to": "21523__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_065", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Oh, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [711.359], "stop_times": [711.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 711.359}, "reply_to": "21523__0_064", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_066", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "It's hard to find precisely the analogy, but it seems likely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [711.981], "stop_times": [715.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 711.981}, "reply_to": "21523__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_067", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "The... the closest analogy in this Court's decisions is the Morgan II decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [715.157], "stop_times": [719.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 715.157}, "reply_to": "21523__0_066", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_068", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Yes, which gives and takes away.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [719.327], "stop_times": [721.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.327}, "reply_to": "21523__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_069", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Now, Morgan II is really on point because there, a subordinate official drafted up findings, proposed findings, didn't serve them on the parties, but did give them to the decision-maker, the agency.\nAnd this Court held that was a violation of due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [721.185, 732.952], "stop_times": [732.952, 735.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.185}, "reply_to": "21523__0_068", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_070", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "You have to have an opportunity to refute the information that's going to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [735.857], "stop_times": [741.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.857}, "reply_to": "21523__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_071", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [741.984], "stop_times": [742.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 741.984}, "reply_to": "21523__0_070", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_072", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [742.356], "stop_times": [742.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 742.356}, "reply_to": "21523__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_073", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "And... and every administrative body that we know of in the Federal courts and in the State too... Chief Judge Vanderbilt pointed that out in the Mazza case.\nEvery State in the Union requires disclosure of these administrative law decisions to the parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [742.606, 751.977], "stop_times": [751.977, 758.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 742.606}, "reply_to": "21523__0_072", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_074", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "If you analogize the STJ to the administrative ALJ.\nBut you might also analogize him to a member of the agency itself, and if you make that analogy, it doesn't become so far-fetched, particularly when you look at Morgan as also not allowing you to probe at what's going on.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [758.21, 762.751], "stop_times": [762.751, 776.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 758.21}, "reply_to": "21523__0_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_075", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Yes.\nWell, we... we've avoided suggesting that any depositions should be taken of... of judicial personnel here.\nThat's not our view.\nOur view is simply that the report that was prepared... it was prepared... should be made part of the record by virtue of two statutes.\nThere is an appellate review statute, Justice O'Connor, that states quite expressly that Congress expected review to take place here just as it does in the district court, to the same degree, to the same extent, and in the same manner.\nAnd in the district court, if an adjunct judge makes a finding of fact, whether it's a master or a magistrate or bankruptcy judge, that is always disclosed to the parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [776.786, 777.529, 783.268, 783.945, 791.73, 803.785], "stop_times": [777.529, 783.268, 783.945, 791.73, 803.785, 813.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 776.786}, "reply_to": "21523__0_074", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_076", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Mr. Shapiro, is there any evidence in this record that the special trial judge in fact changed his report beyond the hearsay affidavit?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [813.195], "stop_times": [826.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.195}, "reply_to": "21523__0_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21523__0_077", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "We don't know what is contained in that first report.\nWe have heard from three of the judges, including the chief judge of the STJ's, that... that what happened was that Judge Dawson rewrote the credibility findings.\nNow, we won't know until we see this.\nThat could be wrong.\nBut... but it should be part of the record for the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [826.077, 829.913, 838.913, 840.399, 841.059], "stop_times": [829.913, 838.913, 840.399, 841.059, 844.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 826.077}, "reply_to": "21523__0_076", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_078", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Mr. Shapiro, on credibility, which you have been emphasizing, are you overstating the case for it?\nBecause credibility is more than just observing the witnesses' demeanor.\nI mean, Judge Dawson could have said, yes, they... these witnesses might have looked honest to the special trial judge, but considering this documentary evidence in the record, it's clear to me that what the witness said on the stand was a lie.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [844.197, 854.312, 858.399], "stop_times": [854.312, 858.399, 877.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.197}, "reply_to": "21523__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__0_079", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, you'll see in perhaps a dozen situations, he says, I simply don't believe that witness, none of whom he heard.\nAnd this is a case where credibility was key.\nWas there a bribery scheme of the kind that the IRS claimed?\nEvery witness who testified said no, it didn't exist.\nThese are simple investments with the proceeds being paid to the corporations, and yet, the Government's theory was there is some nefarious bribery scheme that every witness denied.\nAnd there is no documentary evidence of that.\nThe evidence of the proceeds flowing to these corporations was simply the result of their investing money in real estate deals.\nAnd so credibility was the key to this whole case.\nAnd the... the Government, I don't think, can be serious when it tells this Court that this first report is some confidential document, that it's privileged internal deliberative material.\nFor 40 years, the... the Tax Court made these reports available to the public.\nIt... they were routinely served on the parties.\nFor 40 years there was no suggestion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [877.429, 885.436, 888.036, 891.547, 894.808, 904.096, 906.241, 913.755, 915.817, 926.508, 932.247, 934.809], "stop_times": [885.436, 888.036, 891.547, 894.808, 904.096, 906.241, 913.755, 915.817, 926.508, 932.247, 934.809, 936.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 877.429}, "reply_to": "21523__0_078", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_080", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Would... would you comment on that?\nI... I understood from the brief there was a suggestion that if you prevail, we're going to have a huge volume of... of printed material that we're not troubled with now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [936.667, 937.371], "stop_times": [937.371, 945.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 936.667}, "reply_to": "21523__0_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21523__0_081", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Oh, yes.\nThat's a post hoc rationale.\nThere was no such explanation when this rule was changed, and there's not a bit of work or a bit of expense resulting from our position.\nWe simply ask for a copy of a report that exists.\nThey can serve it on us electronically.\nIt won't cost them a cent.\nWe're making a very modest request under these statutes and under the Due Process Clause.\nAnd there was no explanation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [945.916, 946.659, 948.478, 955.787, 959.047, 961.11, 962.019, 967.22], "stop_times": [946.659, 948.478, 955.787, 959.047, 961.11, 962.019, 967.22, 968.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 945.916}, "reply_to": "21523__0_080", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_082", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, now, wait.\nUnder the Due Process Clause, I assume you would be asking for more than just access to the report.\nYou... if... if you're really relying on Morgan II, he who hears must decide, I think you would be saying that after reading the report, you should have the opportunity to argue to the... to Dawson here, to... to the Tax Court judge that the report should not be adopted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [968.956, 969.161, 976.386], "stop_times": [969.161, 976.386, 996.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 968.956}, "reply_to": "21523__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_083", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Well, we defer to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [996.16], "stop_times": [997.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 996.16}, "reply_to": "21523__0_082", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_084", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Isn't that part of your due process case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [997.729], "stop_times": [999.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 997.729}, "reply_to": "21523__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_085", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--It... it really is not.\nWe're asking--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [999.504, 1000.58], "stop_times": [1000.58, 1001.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 999.504}, "reply_to": "21523__0_084", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_086", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "You think it satisfies due process just to show you the report, and then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1001.202], "stop_times": [1003.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1001.202}, "reply_to": "21523__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_087", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--To give... and make it part of the appellate record.\nWe're not asking for any remand to the Tax Court.\nIf the Tax Court doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1003.681, 1005.372, 1007.768], "stop_times": [1005.372, 1007.768, 1009.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1003.681}, "reply_to": "21523__0_086", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_088", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Well, then... then you're not relying on Morgan II.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1009.133], "stop_times": [1010.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1009.133}, "reply_to": "21523__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_089", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Well, we... we just rely on that as an example of the need to disclose this at an appropriate juncture.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1010.823], "stop_times": [1017.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1010.823}, "reply_to": "21523__0_088", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_090", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "There wasn't a need to disclose the point that Morgan II made.\nIt was he who hears must decide.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1017.799, 1021.886], "stop_times": [1021.886, 1023.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1017.799}, "reply_to": "21523__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_091", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, in Morgan II, the... the point was that any... any proposed findings that are drafted up have to be shared with the parties.\nNow, there they had to be shared with the parties at the administrative level.\nWe're not going that far.\nIf the Tax Court tells us that they don't want to have that layer of review within the Tax Court, they don't want to receive our comments on the initial report, that's fine with us.\nWe want it to be made part of the appellate record so that the judges who are interested in this and believe it will shed a strong light on the issue of clear and convincing evidence can have this be part of the record.\nAnd already the Fifth Circuit has overturned the finding of fraud in this very same case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1023.372, 1031.135, 1034.023, 1035.343, 1044.176, 1055.201], "stop_times": [1031.135, 1034.023, 1035.343, 1044.176, 1055.201, 1060.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1023.372}, "reply_to": "21523__0_090", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_092", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Do... do I understand that you would be satisfied if the Court simply looked to... what is it... 7482(a)(1), the appellate review section, which says that the Tax Court decisions shall be reviewed in the same manner and to the same extent as district court decisions?\nAnd that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1060.152, 1080.176], "stop_times": [1080.176, 1080.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1060.152}, "reply_to": "21523__0_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__0_093", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Yes.\nWe'd be satisfied because that is a sufficient basis to say the record has to include the rule 183 report.\nAnd it is not up to the trial court to tell the appellate court what's in the record on appeal.\nIt's up to the appellate court to... to determine what goes into that... that record.\nThis... the case in the Second Circuit on that is IBM v. United States where the Second Circuit analyzed rule 10(a) and said it is not the province of the trial court to dictate to the reviewing court what is in that record.\nAnd this Court in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1080.176, 1080.714, 1087.606, 1092.231, 1097.227, 1109.237], "stop_times": [1080.714, 1087.606, 1092.231, 1097.227, 1109.237, 1110.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1080.176}, "reply_to": "21523__0_092", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_094", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--And where is it?\nIt's... it is specified someplace, but when you review a district court decision in... in a court of appeals, the... certainly the magistrate's report would be included, but there's someplace where it lists the contents, some rule that lists--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1110.435, 1110.973], "stop_times": [1110.973, 1126.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1110.435}, "reply_to": "21523__0_093", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__0_095", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Oh, yes.\nIt's rule 10(a) and it's... it's very general.\nIt says that all the original papers in the trial court come before the appellate court, and an original report is an original document submitted in the trial court.\nAnd this Court confronted that question in Universal Camera 50 years ago, and the Government made the same arguments then that it's making now and it lost 7 to 2 in that case.\nIt... it said that the report--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1126.289, 1126.782, 1128.889, 1139.086, 1148.186], "stop_times": [1126.782, 1128.889, 1139.086, 1148.186, 1149.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1126.289}, "reply_to": "21523__0_094", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_096", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Institutional memory.\nIsn't that... that's a good institutional memory--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1149.672, 1150.787], "stop_times": [1150.787, 1153.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1149.672}, "reply_to": "21523__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_097", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--It goes back.\n[Laughter]\nThe same argument was made that the report is an irrelevance.\nIt's just an aid to the decision-maker, and the decision-maker can do what it wants and has ultimate judgmental power.\nSo there's no need to include that report in the record, and no weight should be given to it.\nThis Court said, we will not adopt an exclusionary rule for the administrative law judge's report.\nAnd this is an a fortiori case because this report is presumed correct.\nIn Universal Camera, there was no presumption of correctness at all.\nSo that... that case, you know, goes further than... than what the Court has to do here.\nAnd the Government's argument that... that somehow this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1153.182, 1153.388, 1154.131, 1158.467, 1164.495, 1168.127, 1174.359, 1179.394, 1182.616, 1186.824], "stop_times": [1153.388, 1154.131, 1158.467, 1164.495, 1168.127, 1174.359, 1179.394, 1182.616, 1186.824, 1189.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1153.182}, "reply_to": "21523__0_096", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_098", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Of course, that... that was decided under the APA, wasn't it?\nI mean, that was an APA case, which this isn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1189.962, 1192.191], "stop_times": [1192.191, 1194.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1189.962}, "reply_to": "21523__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_099", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Well, yes, that's true.\nBut, you know, the Court reached out to the APA for guidance in construing the labor laws.\nThe labor laws were silent on this issue, but under the APA, the Court said the general policy is to disclose these reports and we are going to say that that is applicable to the NLRB.\nNow, the Government says all of this changes the course because the judge changed his mind, but you know, there are so many opinions and orders and reports in the Federal judicial system where a mind is changed and an opinion is suppressed or... or vacated or replaced and that first opinion is still part of the record.\nIt's a fallacy to say it's not part of the record just because it's been abandoned.\nFor example, if I seek summary judgment in the district court and it's denied and then I ask for reconsideration and it's granted, the opinion has been abandoned, but it's still part of the record.\nAnd if I... if an appeal is taken, it's going to be exhibit A in any appeal, and it may result in a reversal.\nSame thing when a case goes en banc.\nThe panel opinion is vacated, but then when... when cert is granted, the argument before this Court may convince this Court that the panel was right.\nEven though it's been abandoned, it's still very important.\nOr if a jury verdict is set aside... the... the district court says, judgment as a matter of law... on appeal, the jury... jury verdict may get sustained.\nSo it's just a logical fallacy to say that because somebody has changed his mind, if that's what happened here, that... that the first report drops out of the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1194.626, 1196.112, 1200.82, 1211.427, 1228.806, 1232.976, 1242.552, 1247.919, 1249.694, 1257.579, 1259.974, 1269.262], "stop_times": [1196.112, 1200.82, 1211.427, 1228.806, 1232.976, 1242.552, 1247.919, 1249.694, 1257.579, 1259.974, 1269.262, 1277.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1194.626}, "reply_to": "21523__0_098", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_100", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Would the... the Tax Court rule... now, this 183(c)... says... it describes the special trial judge's report, which is submitted to the chief judge, and then the chief judge assigns a Tax Court judge, and then it says that... that the Tax Court judge may modify it, modify the special trial judge's report, or may reject it in whole or in part.\nDoes the Tax Court ever modify a special trial judge's report?\nDoes it ever reject it in whole or in part?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1277.89, 1305.094, 1311.244], "stop_times": [1305.094, 1311.244, 1314.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1277.89}, "reply_to": "21523__0_099", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__0_101", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Oh, yes, and... and the remarkable thing is that every time it does that, it recites, we hereby adopt the findings and opinions of the trial judge.\nNow, in the old days, that was not a problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1314.01, 1323.132], "stop_times": [1323.132, 1325.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1314.01}, "reply_to": "21523__0_100", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_102", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "But that's one thing that they can do.\nThey can adopt it, but my question is, do they always adopt and never use... never use the term modify it or reject?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1325.694, 1326.287], "stop_times": [1326.287, 1339.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1325.694}, "reply_to": "21523__0_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__0_103", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Oh, no.\nThey... they do modify and reject.\nIt's just it's hard to determine, when they are doing that.\nIn the old days--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1339.357, 1339.745, 1341.048, 1343.277], "stop_times": [1339.745, 1341.048, 1343.277, 1344.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1339.357}, "reply_to": "21523__0_102", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_104", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "They... they never say so in their opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1344.475], "stop_times": [1346.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1344.475}, "reply_to": "21523__0_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_105", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--They don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1346.211], "stop_times": [1346.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1346.211}, "reply_to": "21523__0_104", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_106", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "They always say that they adopt the trial judge's report.\nDon't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1346.887, 1349.488], "stop_times": [1349.488, 1349.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.887}, "reply_to": "21523__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_107", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Yes.\nThat's entirely correct. And now, in the old days, before they amended the rule, you could compare the two and see what was changed, but now you can't.\nYou can't tell what has been changed.\nAnd in this instance, we believe there's been a complete rewrite of that first report, and the appellate courts can't tell what's going on.\nWas there a reason for doing this?\nWas deference given?\nWas some other agenda at work in this decision?\nNo one can tell because it is all off the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1349.86, 1350.01, 1355.461, 1357.44, 1363.756, 1365.325, 1366.523, 1369.04], "stop_times": [1350.01, 1355.461, 1357.44, 1363.756, 1365.325, 1366.523, 1369.04, 1371.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1349.86}, "reply_to": "21523__0_106", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_108", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "What... what is... can I ask you a really esoteric administrative law question, which I have never been able to figure out?\nIt's probably relevant, but I... this is an agency.\nThat's what... my great tax professor, Ernie Brown, used to say there is no Tax Court.\nHe says, the Board of Tax Appeals shall be known as the Tax Court.\nWhat he meant by that is it's not... it isn't the Tax Court, just known as.\nSo... so this is an agency, an administrative agency.\nSo I look to the APA for guidance, and the APA, when you look at the section, says this initial decision can be made by a 556-qualified person.\nNow, a 556-qualified person can include the agency itself or a member of the agency or an ALJ.\nThen when you to look at what happens in 557, after that presiding employee makes an initial decision, it says you have to give a chance to the party to respond to the initial decision, which you like, in the case where the presiding employee... presiding person is a subordinate employee.\nAnd so, that's what I was just checking here.\nAnd so... so what's supposed to happen where the presiding person under 556 for that initial or tentative decision is not a subordinate employee, but rather, quote, one or more members of the body which comprise the agency?\nI've never run into that before.\nMaybe you haven't.\nMaybe they didn't mean anything by it, but maybe they did.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1371.724, 1377.874, 1381.589, 1386.79, 1390.589, 1395.501, 1398.368, 1409.142, 1417.581, 1437.628, 1441.509, 1457.197, 1458.683, 1459.631], "stop_times": [1377.874, 1381.589, 1386.79, 1390.589, 1395.501, 1398.368, 1409.142, 1417.581, 1437.628, 1441.509, 1457.197, 1458.683, 1459.631, 1463.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1371.724}, "reply_to": "21523__0_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_109", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, I... I haven't either.\nBut the judge here certainly was subordinate and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1463.157, 1464.543], "stop_times": [1464.543, 1467.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1463.157}, "reply_to": "21523__0_108", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_110", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "He was a subordinate employee?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1467.228], "stop_times": [1469.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1467.228}, "reply_to": "21523__0_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_111", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Yes, he was.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1469.373], "stop_times": [1470.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1469.373}, "reply_to": "21523__0_110", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_112", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Rather than a member... is... is... if he's a subordinate employee, that's easy.\nThen the case is easy I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1470.116, 1474.574], "stop_times": [1474.574, 1476.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1470.116}, "reply_to": "21523__0_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_113", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "He... he is a subordinate because as the Government keeps telling us, the Tax Court judge is the only official spokesman for the court.\nThey get to make the final judgment.\nAnd the Tax Court judge reviews what the STJ has done.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1476.06, 1482.376, 1484.028], "stop_times": [1482.376, 1484.028, 1488.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1476.06}, "reply_to": "21523__0_112", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_114", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "These... these--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1488.652], "stop_times": [1488.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1488.652}, "reply_to": "21523__0_113", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__0_115", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "But you're... you're not asserting that the APA governs this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1488.858], "stop_times": [1490.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1488.858}, "reply_to": "21523__0_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_116", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Oh--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1490.716], "stop_times": [1490.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1490.716}, "reply_to": "21523__0_115", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_117", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "No.\nI'm just looking--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1490.899, 1490.982], "stop_times": [1490.982, 1491.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1490.899}, "reply_to": "21523__0_116", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__0_118", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Isn't there an express exception for... for--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1491.354], "stop_times": [1493.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1491.354}, "reply_to": "21523__0_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__0_119", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Yes, and this a court.\nThis is an Article I court, this Court has held.\nAnd Congress has created very specific appellate review procedures for this court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1493.461, 1494.88, 1497.835], "stop_times": [1494.88, 1497.835, 1503.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1493.461}, "reply_to": "21523__0_118", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_120", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--The... the special trial judge has no tenure, does she?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1503.697], "stop_times": [1510.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1503.697}, "reply_to": "21523__0_119", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__0_121", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "That's correct.\nHe... those judges could be terminated at will, including because there is not sufficient work for the judge.\nThey can be terminated on that basis.\nAnd that, we think, colors the analysis here for the reasons Judge Cudahy gave.\nThis is not an independent judge.\nWhen he is persuaded by his superior to change his mind, it's obvious that he... in our view, that he's going to be heavily influenced by that.\nIt's a serious Raddatz problem.\nThe only cure is to make this part of the record and to enforce the rule 183 presumption of correctness, which creates a clear error standard of review.\nI see my time has run out.\nMay I reserve the rest for--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1510.467, 1512.242, 1518.269, 1519.755, 1524.419, 1526.648, 1534.344, 1536.102, 1544.647, 1546.133], "stop_times": [1512.242, 1518.269, 1519.755, 1524.419, 1526.648, 1534.344, 1536.102, 1544.647, 1546.133, 1548.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1510.467}, "reply_to": "21523__0_120", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__0_122", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Yes, you may, of course.\nMr. Hungar.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1548.074, 1548.983], "stop_times": [1548.983, 1549.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1548.074}, "reply_to": "21523__0_121", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_000", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThe central flaw in petitioners' case is that both of the trial court judges responsible for evaluating the evidence in the record reached the same conclusion regarding all of the factual issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1549.81, 1558.355], "stop_times": [1558.355, 1572.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1549.81}, "reply_to": "21523__0_122", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_001", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Mr. Hungar, before you proceed to your legal argument, I was very curious why the Government is defending this practice because the Government, after all, is on the other side of every case.\nAnd aren't there situations where it might be that the special trial judge would call a credibility question in the Government's favor and then the Government loses the case before the Tax Court judge and might like to know, before it goes to the court of appeals, how solid the credibility findings were?\nI mean, I... I... the Government being a party to all these proceedings, why is it satisfied with not knowing what the report of the special tax judge... special trial judge was?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1572.101, 1587.705, 1614.826], "stop_times": [1587.705, 1614.826, 1630.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1572.101}, "reply_to": "21523__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_002", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, we do know what the report of the special trial judge was.\nIt is in the record.\nJudge Couvillion's name is on his report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1630.43, 1634.516, 1635.714], "stop_times": [1634.516, 1635.714, 1640.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1630.43}, "reply_to": "21523__1_001", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_003", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "No, it is not the report.\nIt is called an opinion.\nIt isn't even called the report, and if you will read 183(b), that describes the report.\nDoes anything else describe the report?\nAnd what is this report?\nThere is a report.\nIt is submitted to the chief judge.\nWhat would you call that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1640.794, 1642.28, 1644.713, 1654.018, 1657.612, 1660.113, 1662.563, 1664.421], "stop_times": [1642.28, 1644.713, 1654.018, 1657.612, 1660.113, 1662.563, 1664.421, 1666.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.794}, "reply_to": "21523__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_004", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "The report is the... contains the recommended findings of fact and opinion, analysis of the law and application of the law to the fact, of the special trial judge.\nThe report is the findings of fact plus, quote, the opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1666.733, 1678.479], "stop_times": [1678.479, 1681.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1666.733}, "reply_to": "21523__1_003", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_005", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Now, what is the 183(b) report?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1681.617], "stop_times": [1683.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1681.617}, "reply_to": "21523__1_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_006", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1683.846], "stop_times": [1685.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1683.846}, "reply_to": "21523__1_005", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_007", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "There--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1685.044], "stop_times": [1686.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1685.044}, "reply_to": "21523__1_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_008", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--The... under rule 183(b), the... the special trial judge submits his report to the chief judge.\nIt is then referred to a Tax Court judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1686.158, 1691.338], "stop_times": [1691.338, 1693.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1686.158}, "reply_to": "21523__1_007", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_009", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--So that report, the special trial judge's report, is a document prepared by the special trial judge which he gives to the chief judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1693.567], "stop_times": [1702.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1693.567}, "reply_to": "21523__1_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_010", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Correct.\nBut the important thing to understand, Your Honor, is that nothing in the rule precludes, during the course of the deliberative process that then follows, the special trial judge from concluding that he has made a mistake, that he no longer agrees with the... the stated findings of fact in that... in that original report, from withdrawing and submitting a corrected report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1702.483, 1703.392], "stop_times": [1703.392, 1723.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1702.483}, "reply_to": "21523__1_009", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_011", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "But that's not the way the rule reads.\nThe rule reads, as I understand it, under (c) that the court itself may accept, reject, or modify.\nIt doesn't say anything about the special trial judge reconsidering and rewriting his report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1723.704, 1724.547, 1733.158], "stop_times": [1724.547, 1733.158, 1738.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1723.704}, "reply_to": "21523__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_012", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "It doesn't preclude it either, Your Honor.\nThere's a longstanding practice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1738.293, 1739.845], "stop_times": [1739.845, 1741.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1738.293}, "reply_to": "21523__1_011", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_013", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Yes, it does because it... it goes on to say that due regard shall be given to the circumstance that the special trial judge had the opportunity to evaluate and the findings of fact recommended by the special trial judge shall be presumed to be correct.\nBut if those findings of fact are simply the same findings of fact that he agrees with the rest of the... the panel on, it just makes no sense at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1741.414, 1755.449], "stop_times": [1755.449, 1765.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.414}, "reply_to": "21523__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__1_014", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--The Tax Court judge cannot report in... in the opinion that is issued by the Tax Court, he cannot say I'm adopting the opinion and findings of the special trial judge if the... if the Tax Court judge does not agree with those and the... and the special trial judge adheres to his original decision.\nThe only way it is possible for there to be a change is for the special trial judge himself to determine, in the exercise of his responsibility as a judicial officer, that he made a mistake.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1765.191, 1781.455], "stop_times": [1781.455, 1790.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1765.191}, "reply_to": "21523__1_013", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_015", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "What report goes to the chief judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1790.743], "stop_times": [1792.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.743}, "reply_to": "21523__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__1_016", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Originally the original report goes to the chief judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1792.684], "stop_times": [1795.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1792.684}, "reply_to": "21523__1_015", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_017", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "That's a report.\nIs that not a report?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1795.573, 1796.649], "stop_times": [1796.649, 1797.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1795.573}, "reply_to": "21523__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__1_018", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "It is a report, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1797.68], "stop_times": [1798.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1797.68}, "reply_to": "21523__1_017", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_019", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Why doesn't that... why isn't that required to be... to be made public?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1798.961], "stop_times": [1801.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1798.961}, "reply_to": "21523__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__1_020", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Because if... because the... because the Tax Court has determined that it will not be made public, that it is part of internal deliberation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1801.274], "stop_times": [1807.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1801.274}, "reply_to": "21523__1_019", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_021", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "It's a report.\nThe statute says that the reports have to be made public.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1807.59, 1807.84], "stop_times": [1807.84, 1809.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1807.59}, "reply_to": "21523__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__1_022", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1809.613], "stop_times": [1810.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1809.613}, "reply_to": "21523__1_021", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_023", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "That is a report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1810.439], "stop_times": [1810.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1810.439}, "reply_to": "21523__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__1_024", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1810.911], "stop_times": [1811.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1810.911}, "reply_to": "21523__1_023", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_025", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "And it goes to the--\n--No?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1811.366, 1811.654], "stop_times": [1811.654, 1812.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1811.366}, "reply_to": "21523__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__1_026", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "With respect, the tax... the... the statute says a report of the Tax Court must be made public.\nA... a report--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1812.332, 1818.731], "stop_times": [1818.731, 1820.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1812.332}, "reply_to": "21523__1_025", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_027", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, but the rule... the rule says that the first report, the document 1, has to be given deference.\nIt's presumed to be correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1820.467, 1826.699], "stop_times": [1826.699, 1828.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1820.467}, "reply_to": "21523__1_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21523__1_028", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Well, Justice Kennedy, if I may, I'd like first to finish my response to Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1828.39], "stop_times": [1832.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1828.39}, "reply_to": "21523__1_027", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_029", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1832.272], "stop_times": [1832.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1832.272}, "reply_to": "21523__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21523__1_030", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "The statutes... the... the disclosure requirement applies only to reports of the Tax Court.\nIt is perfectly clear that a report, the original report, or any report of a special trial judge is not and cannot be the report of the Tax Court unless it is first adopted and approved by a Tax Court judge, and then goes through the next step of... of being submitted--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1832.372, 1837.268], "stop_times": [1837.268, 1852.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1832.372}, "reply_to": "21523__1_029", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_031", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, it's... it's very hard to understand how appellate review can function if that first report of the special trial judge is never disclosed.\nI just don't see how the appellate review can function properly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1852.007, 1863.896], "stop_times": [1863.896, 1868.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.007}, "reply_to": "21523__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21523__1_032", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "And how do we know that it was... that it was presumed to be correct under the rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1868.354], "stop_times": [1872.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1868.354}, "reply_to": "21523__1_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21523__1_033", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Yes.\nHow does the appellate court know whether deference, as required by the rules, was given unless the appellate court can see it?\nIt's such a strange procedure.\nWhy, in answer to Justice Ginsburg, does the government take the view it does?\nWouldn't you like to see it if it went against you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1872.441, 1872.607, 1882.722, 1885.422, 1892.01], "stop_times": [1872.607, 1882.722, 1885.422, 1892.01, 1895.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.441}, "reply_to": "21523__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21523__1_034", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--We submit, Your Honor, that there is no evidentiary or probative value in an initial conclusion that the... that the person who reached that conclusion has abandoned, has concluded was wrong.\nSpecial Trial Judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1895.353, 1906.953], "stop_times": [1906.953, 1907.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1895.353}, "reply_to": "21523__1_033", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_035", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, the rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1907.946], "stop_times": [1908.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1907.946}, "reply_to": "21523__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21523__1_036", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Couvillion rejected--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1908.084], "stop_times": [1909.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1908.084}, "reply_to": "21523__1_035", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_037", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--the rule... the rule 183 does provide for a certain degree of deference to be given to those findings of the special trial judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1909.16], "stop_times": [1918.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1909.16}, "reply_to": "21523__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21523__1_038", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--To the recommended findings of the special trial judge.\nAnd I submit that if the special trial judge has concluded that his initial recommendations were mistaken because, based upon further consideration as a judicial officer in the exercise of his obligations, he has realized he made a mistake, I submit it would be bizarre to require a Tax Court judge to give some sort of... of deference to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1918.076, 1920.927], "stop_times": [1920.927, 1940.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1918.076}, "reply_to": "21523__1_037", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_039", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Mr. Hungar, do you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1940.124], "stop_times": [1940.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.124}, "reply_to": "21523__1_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_040", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--abandoned findings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1940.95], "stop_times": [1942.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1940.95}, "reply_to": "21523__1_039", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_041", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Do you see somewhat of a problem, that we are not dealing here with the relationship between peers?\nJudge Dawson is appointed, what, for a 15-year term.\nThe special trial judge is appointed by the Tax Court and his job is at the Tax Court's grace.\nAnd if you have compared in your brief that relationship to, say, a discussion among colleagues, I think it's worlds different.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1942.065, 1950.032, 1954.202, 1966.379], "stop_times": [1950.032, 1954.202, 1966.379, 1976.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1942.065}, "reply_to": "21523__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_042", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, Judge Dawson actually is a senior judge who was recalled.\nSo he doesn't have the 15-year term protection.\nBut it's true that special trial judges are... are appointed by the chief judge, not by the Tax Court judges, but by the chief judge, so that Judge Dawson wasn't, in a sense, his... his appointing, employing official.\nBut more to the point, special--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1976.493, 1981.24, 1983.181, 1995.358], "stop_times": [1981.24, 1983.181, 1995.358, 1997.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1976.493}, "reply_to": "21523__1_041", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_043", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "He has had a special... a... a long term and he is well-known and respected as a Tax Court judge who was appointed, as all other members of the court were appointed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [1997.67], "stop_times": [2010.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1997.67}, "reply_to": "21523__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_044", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Well, Judge Couvillion has been a special trial judge, I think, for nearly 20 years.\nBut the point is special trial judges are bound by the code of conduct.\nThe Tax Court has adopted for both Tax Court judges and special trial judges the same code of conduct that applies to Federal judges under Article III, which--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2010.839, 2014.017, 2018.558], "stop_times": [2014.017, 2018.558, 2026.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2010.839}, "reply_to": "21523__1_043", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_045", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "It seems to me--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2026.526], "stop_times": [2027.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2026.526}, "reply_to": "21523__1_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_046", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--obligates independent decision-making.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2027.436], "stop_times": [2028.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2027.436}, "reply_to": "21523__1_045", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_047", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--It seems to me that it's very much like, if you have to compare it with something, the relationship between a magistrate and a Federal district court judge.\nThe magistrate also hears testimony, makes a report, findings, and a recommendation.\nWhat's the difference between those two?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2028.734, 2037.717, 2046.921], "stop_times": [2037.717, 2046.921, 2050.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2028.734}, "reply_to": "21523__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_048", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, one difference is that the district court judges, as I understand it, appoint the magistrate, not the chief judge.\nBut a more significant difference is that the statute and rules applicable to magistrates require disclosure of their reports and do not treat them as part of the internal deliberative process.\nThe Tax Court has determined that it is inefficient to have disclosure of the original report, then have exceptions and have that whole process followed that they used to follow.\nThey have determined that they will treat the Tax Court... excuse me... the special trial judge's report--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2050.06, 2056.126, 2067.643, 2077.014], "stop_times": [2056.126, 2067.643, 2077.014, 2081.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2050.06}, "reply_to": "21523__1_047", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_049", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "So where does it say that?\nWhere does it say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2081.472, 2081.927], "stop_times": [2081.927, 2082.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2081.472}, "reply_to": "21523__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__1_050", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "They're not requiring the... this case doesn't involve the question of whether they can make objections to the finding in... in the special report.\nIt's just whether it's disclosed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2082.737, 2088.531], "stop_times": [2088.531, 2089.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2082.737}, "reply_to": "21523__1_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_051", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nBut the... but the Tax Court has determined not to disclose it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2089.728, 2091.01], "stop_times": [2091.01, 2094.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2089.728}, "reply_to": "21523__1_050", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_052", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "No, I understand.\nBut your argument about how it would make the proceeding more cumbersome, it seems to me, is... is misplaced.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2094.315, 2094.891], "stop_times": [2094.891, 2100.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2094.315}, "reply_to": "21523__1_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_053", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, it certainly would be more cumbersome if they followed the procedure that they used to follow, which we submit, although the record is... they did not specifically state--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2100.835], "stop_times": [2109.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2100.835}, "reply_to": "21523__1_052", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_054", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "But they're not asking for that.\nAm... am I wrong on--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2109.174, 2109.933], "stop_times": [2109.933, 2111.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2109.174}, "reply_to": "21523__1_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_055", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Yes, that's true, Your Honor.\nWhat they're asking for here, what they say they want is merely disclosure of the original report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2111.685, 2112.223], "stop_times": [2112.223, 2117.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.685}, "reply_to": "21523__1_054", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_056", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--And it's a particularly strong argument in a case... in several of the issues.\nI remember Judge Fromm's opinion turned on the credibility of oral testimony, and in one case, Judge Fromm found the... the judge here made an erroneous ruling on credibility on one issue, if I remember correctly.\nAnd it seems to me that's a case in which it would be particularly relevant to know the reasons pro and con on why credibility determinations were made by the person who heard the witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2117.219, 2120.729, 2133.073], "stop_times": [2120.729, 2133.073, 2143.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.219}, "reply_to": "21523__1_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_057", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "But the person who heard the witnesses is Special Trial Judge Couvillion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2143.968], "stop_times": [2147.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2143.968}, "reply_to": "21523__1_056", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_058", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Has been convinced that he was wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2147.562], "stop_times": [2148.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2147.562}, "reply_to": "21523__1_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_059", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2148.509], "stop_times": [2148.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2148.509}, "reply_to": "21523__1_058", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_060", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "And the question is, well, what was his... what was the basis for his original position when you're evaluating whether you've got a valid argument to make on appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2148.981], "stop_times": [2157.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.981}, "reply_to": "21523__1_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_061", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Under that rationale, Justice Stevens, every time a district court judge changes his mind, after giving further thought to a case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2157.526], "stop_times": [2163.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2157.526}, "reply_to": "21523__1_060", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_062", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "No, no, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2163.803], "stop_times": [2163.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2163.803}, "reply_to": "21523__1_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_063", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--before he issues his final opinion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2163.992], "stop_times": [2165.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2163.992}, "reply_to": "21523__1_062", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_064", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Only if he is required by a rule to make certain findings and to deliver a completed report to someone else.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2165.19], "stop_times": [2170.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.19}, "reply_to": "21523__1_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_065", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Well, again, the... the rule does not preclude the practice.\nIt is a common practice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2170.206, 2173.716], "stop_times": [2173.716, 2174.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2170.206}, "reply_to": "21523__1_064", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_066", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "It doesn't forbid it.\nYou're right.\nIt doesn't forbid it in so many words.\nBut I just wonder, does it comport with your normal notions of a fair way to conduct a fair hearing, letting the parties know what the basis for decision was and who thought what about the witnesses and so forth?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2174.997, 2175.452, 2175.824, 2177.697], "stop_times": [2175.452, 2175.824, 2177.697, 2187.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.997}, "reply_to": "21523__1_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_067", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Absolutely, Your Honor.\nIf the... in a... when a... when a court has a collegial deliberative process involving more than one person that is involved in the decision-making... certainly this is an unusual process in that... and there is no identical analog, but we see no due process problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2187.795, 2188.538], "stop_times": [2188.538, 2203.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2187.795}, "reply_to": "21523__1_066", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_068", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "No. But I don't see what is consistent with your notion of a deliberative process as producing the report and the presumption of correctness in the rule.\nThe rule presumes that some original document, which you are treating as provisional, enjoys a presumption of correctness, and I don't see the consistency between provisionality and deliberate character on the one hand and presumption on the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2203.027, 2210.086], "stop_times": [2210.086, 2225.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2203.027}, "reply_to": "21523__1_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_069", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "If I may, Your Honor, the rule does not state that the, quote, original report shall receive a presumption of correctness.\nIt doesn't even say that... that any report shall receive a presumption of correctness.\nIt says the findings of fact recommended by the special trial judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2225.03, 2232.255, 2235.682], "stop_times": [2232.255, 2235.682, 2238.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2225.03}, "reply_to": "21523__1_068", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_070", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "And aren't those findings of fact the findings of fact that are delivered to the chief judge in the report that is made to the chief judge before it is even assigned to a Tax Court judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2238.904], "stop_times": [2246.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2238.904}, "reply_to": "21523__1_069", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_071", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Not if... not if the tax... if the special trial judge has abandoned those recommendations, withdrawn those recommendations, and replaced them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2246.706], "stop_times": [2253.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2246.706}, "reply_to": "21523__1_070", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_072", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "But he hasn't abandoned them at the point that he delivers them to the chief judge, and if that's what this is referring to, then the presumption of the... of... of correctness necessarily has to apply to whatever the document is that's delivered to the chief judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2253.931], "stop_times": [2265.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2253.931}, "reply_to": "21523__1_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_073", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, it applies to the report, but I submit that if the special trial judge withdraws in order to correct an error in the report, what he submits as the corrected report is then the, quote, report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2265.548], "stop_times": [2277.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2265.548}, "reply_to": "21523__1_072", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_074", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "You're... you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2277.504], "stop_times": [2277.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2277.504}, "reply_to": "21523__1_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21523__1_075", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Why isn't that explained in the rules, if that's the process?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2277.876], "stop_times": [2280.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2277.876}, "reply_to": "21523__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_076", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--have a condition subsequent.\nIt seems to me that you're saying, Mr. Hungar, that the last sentence of 183 is unenforceable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2280.476, 2283.82], "stop_times": [2283.82, 2291.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2280.476}, "reply_to": "21523__1_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21523__1_077", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "The... the credibility... the due regard and presumption of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2291.872], "stop_times": [2297.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2291.872}, "reply_to": "21523__1_076", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_078", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "The presumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2297.899], "stop_times": [2298.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2297.899}, "reply_to": "21523__1_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_079", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Well, it's important to understand also that, in fact, it would violate the Internal Revenue Code.\nThis rule must be construed to be consistent with the Internal Revenue Code.\nThe Internal Revenue Code makes very clear, and this Court held in Freytag, that the Tax Court judge, not the special trial judge, is the decision-maker, the only finder of fact in these kinds of cases under subsection (b)(4) of the statute.\nThis Court so held in Freytag and the... and the statute makes that very clear.\nSo it would violate the statute to construe this, as petitioners do, to require some sort of deferential clear error review.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2298.76, 2302.93, 2306.895, 2320.974, 2323.575], "stop_times": [2302.93, 2306.895, 2320.974, 2323.575, 2330.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2298.76}, "reply_to": "21523__1_078", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_080", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "So you're saying the rule itself in that respect is invalid?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2330.512], "stop_times": [2333.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.512}, "reply_to": "21523__1_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_081", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "If construed as petitioners would have it, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2333.5], "stop_times": [2335.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2333.5}, "reply_to": "21523__1_080", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_082", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, how else could you possibly construe it?\nThere's no presumption operating at all on your reading.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2335.895, 2337.298], "stop_times": [2337.298, 2340.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2335.895}, "reply_to": "21523__1_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_083", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "In the tax context, Your Honor, the... there is a presumption of correctness that attaches to assessments and deficiency notices issued by--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2340.575], "stop_times": [2350.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2340.575}, "reply_to": "21523__1_082", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_084", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "No, but you're saying there is... there is no presumption of correctness that can operate with respect to the report that goes first to the chief judge because, I understood you to say, to do that would violate the Internal Revenue Code provision that the fact-finder and the only fact-finder is the Tax Court judge.\nAnd therefore, I think the implication of what you're saying is that the rule on its face is invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2350.856, 2368.772], "stop_times": [2368.772, 2373.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2350.856}, "reply_to": "21523__1_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_085", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Your Honor, presumption of correctness does not necessarily equate with clear error, deferential review.\nThat's my point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2373.64, 2380.411], "stop_times": [2380.411, 2380.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.64}, "reply_to": "21523__1_084", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_086", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "I'm... I'm not even getting to whatever the standard of review may be.\nI presume the word presumption means something other than it's there unless you want to change it later after the person who employs you objects to it.\nIt's got to mean something more than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2380.949, 2384.126, 2394.119], "stop_times": [2384.126, 2394.119, 2396.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2380.949}, "reply_to": "21523__1_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_087", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "What the presumption of correctness means in the tax context, with respect to deficiency determinations and the like, is that the burden of going forward is on the party seeking to change what... what... the determination that is presumed correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2396.143], "stop_times": [2407.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2396.143}, "reply_to": "21523__1_086", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_088", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "But there's no party who is seeking to change at this point because the parties don't know what's in it.\nThey're not going forward.\nThis is, as you point out, an internal process that is going on here.\nSo that definition can't apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2407.948, 2412.695, 2414.264, 2418.351], "stop_times": [2412.695, 2414.264, 2418.351, 2420.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2407.948}, "reply_to": "21523__1_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_089", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nIf... there... there are two processes that go on.\nThe Tax Court judge, quite appropriately, we... we assume and have... have no reason to disagree, confers with, discusses with the special trial judge.\nIf... if in the course of that discussion, one or both of them come to the conclusion that something is wrong in the original report and if the special trial judge agrees, the special trial judge has the option of withdrawing his original report, submitting a corrected report, and having the presumption of correctness, whatever it means, apply to his corrected report.\nIf... if--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2420.291, 2420.913, 2423.718, 2431.481, 2450.633], "stop_times": [2420.913, 2423.718, 2431.481, 2450.633, 2451.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2420.291}, "reply_to": "21523__1_088", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_090", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "In... in that discussion, does the Tax Court judge have to give great weight to the findings of fact of the... of the special judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2451.255], "stop_times": [2463.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.255}, "reply_to": "21523__1_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__1_091", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--No, Your Honor, not great weight because, again, that would violate the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2463.802], "stop_times": [2467.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2463.802}, "reply_to": "21523__1_090", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_092", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Any weight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2467.229], "stop_times": [2467.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2467.229}, "reply_to": "21523__1_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_093", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "He is to give due... the due regard provision we think is essentially precatory, as the... as the Seventh Circuit said.\nIt reminds the... the Tax Court judge that he should not lightly set aside the credibility determinations.\nBut again, that's not what happened here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2467.601, 2473.917, 2478.847], "stop_times": [2473.917, 2478.847, 2480.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2467.601}, "reply_to": "21523__1_092", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_094", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "So I... I think your... I think your answer then is not that this is invalid.\nIt is simply unenforceable.\nIt is precatory language, looks okay, but there's no way to police it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2480.583, 2483.184, 2485.003], "stop_times": [2483.184, 2485.003, 2488.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2480.583}, "reply_to": "21523__1_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_095", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "It's certainly not enforceable in an appellate court.\nThat's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2488.84, 2491.691], "stop_times": [2491.691, 2492.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2488.84}, "reply_to": "21523__1_094", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_096", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Judicially it cannot be enforced.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2492.146], "stop_times": [2493.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2492.146}, "reply_to": "21523__1_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_097", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "That's correct, because otherwise it would violate the statute if it imposed some meaningful limitation.\nBut again, it's important to understand here the Tax Court judge did not exercise his authority in this case to reverse or set aside the special trial judge's findings.\nHe could have done so--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2493.361, 2496.483, 2505.521], "stop_times": [2496.483, 2505.521, 2506.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2493.361}, "reply_to": "21523__1_096", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_098", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Do they... do they ever?\nI mean, this... this says, this decision... it's labeled... the... the court agrees with and adopts the opinion of the special trial judge.\nAre there Tax Court cases where the Tax Court says, instead of that, the court modifies the decision of the special trial judge or the court rejects, in whole or in part, the report of the special trial judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2506.347, 2507.257, 2522.982], "stop_times": [2507.257, 2522.982, 2544.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2506.347}, "reply_to": "21523__1_097", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_099", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--We cite--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2544.242], "stop_times": [2545.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2544.242}, "reply_to": "21523__1_098", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_100", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Do Tax Court opinions come out that way?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2545.523], "stop_times": [2547.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2545.523}, "reply_to": "21523__1_099", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_101", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--We cite in footnote 4 a small number of cases from prior to the last rule change in which that occurred.\nIn addition, there are at least a couple of cases since the rule change in which the Tax Court judge rejected parts of the opinion, but not the findings.\nWe're not aware of any cases in which the Tax Court judge has rejected the findings, but there are other cases... Little against Commissioner, 103 T.C. 285; Walker against Commissioner, 101 T.C. 537... in which the Tax Court judge expressed a disagreement with a portion of the opinion of the special trial judge and then proceeded to decide the case in the manner he or she thought--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2547.38, 2553.713, 2563.272], "stop_times": [2553.713, 2563.272, 2583.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2547.38}, "reply_to": "21523__1_100", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_102", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Because if one were just to rule this... read this rule straight: first, the report that goes to the chief judge, and then it says that the Tax Court judge may modify it, reject it in whole... adopt, modify, or reject in whole or in part.\nYou would expect, if we were having truth in labeling, that whenever, with consultation, without, there's a difference between the two documents, the Tax Court judge, in combination with the special trial judge or without, would say, action on the report... action on the report, which is the special trial judge's report, is it is modified or it is rejected or it is rejected in part.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2583.5, 2598.256, 2629.031], "stop_times": [2598.256, 2629.031, 2630.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2583.5}, "reply_to": "21523__1_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_103", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Well, again, that assumes that the... that the... the rule compels the interpretation that the special trial judge is prohibited from withdrawing, correcting, and resubmitting his report.\nI submit it does not compel that interpretation, and the Tax Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2630.6, 2640.26], "stop_times": [2640.26, 2642.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2630.6}, "reply_to": "21523__1_102", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_104", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--The rule... the rule doesn't say anything about this consultation that you've described.\nAnd if that's the Tax Court's procedure, why isn't it laid out in the rules so everyone can see it instead of being deceived by reading here is the special trial judge's report, and now what the Tax Court will do is either adopt, modify, or reject in whole or in part?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2642.861, 2647.569], "stop_times": [2647.569, 2664.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2642.861}, "reply_to": "21523__1_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_105", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Well, I don't think it... I mean, I don't think it's... it's deceitful, the... the possibility that a court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2664.203], "stop_times": [2669.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2664.203}, "reply_to": "21523__1_104", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_106", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Misleading.\nBecause when I just read this rule cold, that's what I assumed, that we have the initial report and then it goes to the Tax Court judge, and that judge does something with it, and that something may be adopt, it may be modify, it may be reject in whole or in part.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2669.404, 2670.313], "stop_times": [2670.313, 2687.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.404}, "reply_to": "21523__1_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_107", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Your Honor, when the Tax Court adopted its present procedures in 1984, it... it certainly did not do so in as artful a manner as it could have.\nBut the question is whether it violates the statute or due process for it to do what it has done.\nLet me just... we've been spending most of our time talking about this issue of whether the Tax Court... the special trial judge is permitted to change his report under rule 183.\nThat's not even one of the questions in the questions presented.\nThe only rule 183 question in the questions presented is whether the rule requires clear error review.\nWe submit the answer to that is no because it would violate the Internal Revenue Code.\nSo this... this question about whether the report permits... whether the rule permits the report to be changed isn't even one of the questions presented.\nThe courts of appeals upheld the judgment on the premise that it was permissible for the Tax Court judge and the trial... the special trial judge to engage in the deliberative process and for the special trial judge to revise his findings as he did--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2687.237, 2696.115, 2701.521, 2711.84, 2714.358, 2721.007, 2724.555, 2731.575], "stop_times": [2696.115, 2701.521, 2711.84, 2714.358, 2721.007, 2724.555, 2731.575, 2743.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2687.237}, "reply_to": "21523__1_106", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_108", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "I don't think there's any... any question they can change the report, but the one... the one... I'd like to ask you a question as a matter of information.\nThe first sentence of 183(c) refers to the possibility that the judge to whom the case is assigned may direct the filing of additional briefs to receive further evidence and oral argument.\nDoes it ever happen that before the judge to whom it's assigned decides whether or not to go along with the recommended findings, that he will direct oral argument?\nDoes that ever happen?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2743.714, 2749.369, 2762.494, 2772.775], "stop_times": [2749.369, 2762.494, 2772.775, 2774.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2743.714}, "reply_to": "21523__1_107", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_109", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--I don't know the answer to that, Your Honor.\nI'm not aware of that, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2774.444, 2775.542], "stop_times": [2775.542, 2776.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2774.444}, "reply_to": "21523__1_108", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_110", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Because if he did, it would seem almost necessary for him to disclose to the parties what the report they're arguing about would say.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2776.657], "stop_times": [2783.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2776.657}, "reply_to": "21523__1_109", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_111", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Again, I... this is a holdover from the prior version of the rule in which the exceptions process was followed, and again, it may be that had the Tax Court given it further consideration, they might have viewed that unnecessary.\nBut we're not aware of that happening.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2783.798, 2796.43], "stop_times": [2796.43, 2798.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2783.798}, "reply_to": "21523__1_110", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_112", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "But it certainly seems to contemplate deliberation by the judge to whom the case is assigned about whether or not to accept the report and deliberation which might be informed from input... input from the parties.\nThat's a fair reading of the rule, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2798.454, 2811.252], "stop_times": [2811.252, 2813.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2798.454}, "reply_to": "21523__1_111", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_113", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "If--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2813.936], "stop_times": [2814.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2813.936}, "reply_to": "21523__1_112", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_114", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Maybe it's not practiced.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2814.102], "stop_times": [2815.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2814.102}, "reply_to": "21523__1_113", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_115", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--if the Tax Court judge so determines, yes.\nThe rule certainly allows that, but it doesn't obviously require that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2815.067, 2818.273], "stop_times": [2818.273, 2820.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2815.067}, "reply_to": "21523__1_114", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_116", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "And if he did then ask for further briefings, do you think that there would then have been a requirement to disclose the report?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2820.974], "stop_times": [2826.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2820.974}, "reply_to": "21523__1_115", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_117", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, presumably it would be a waste of everyone's time unless he... I don't know that he would have to disclose the report, but he would need to direct their attention to the issue he would like them to brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2826.075], "stop_times": [2834.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2826.075}, "reply_to": "21523__1_116", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_118", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "It seems to me that the author of this subsection (c) must have contemplated the possibility of disclosure of the report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2834.127], "stop_times": [2840.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2834.127}, "reply_to": "21523__1_117", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_119", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, again, Your Honor, this language was adopted at a time when they followed the exception--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2840.359], "stop_times": [2844.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2840.359}, "reply_to": "21523__1_118", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_120", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "When they followed a different procedure, and the question is to how much... how much did they intend the... to change that prior procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2844.074], "stop_times": [2849.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2844.074}, "reply_to": "21523__1_119", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_121", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Well, we know that the Tax Court has interpreted its rule to permit precisely the practice it followed here because it said so.\nAnd it would be quite extraordinary, we submit, for this Court to reverse the Tax Court, which is surely entitled to considerable deference in interpreting its own rules, since, after all, the Tax Court has exclusive statutory authority to promulgate its own rules, and particularly with respect to this issue about whether the special trial judge can change his report, since that was not even one of the questions presented.\nIf I may turn to... back to the statutory question.\nSection 7461 requires disclosure of reports of the Tax Court.\nThe special trial judge report is not the report of the Tax Court.\nIndeed, even a Tax Court judge's opinion and report does not become the report of the Tax Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2849.897, 2856.789, 2878.625, 2882.219, 2888.413, 2891.923], "stop_times": [2856.789, 2878.625, 2882.219, 2888.413, 2891.923, 2898.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2849.897}, "reply_to": "21523__1_120", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_122", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Does the statute you just quoted prohibit the disclosure of other reports if we call this first draft something other than a report?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2898.527], "stop_times": [2908.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2898.527}, "reply_to": "21523__1_121", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21523__1_123", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "The statute doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2908.475], "stop_times": [2910.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2908.475}, "reply_to": "21523__1_122", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_124", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "In other words, would... would the rule go further than the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2910.294], "stop_times": [2913.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2910.294}, "reply_to": "21523__1_123", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21523__1_125", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--The statute does not prohibit the disclosure of other reports, but the rule clearly does not require the disclosure of reports.\nThe Tax Court in 1984 amended the rule to make perfectly clear that... that initial reports of special trial judges are not to be disclosed.\nThe Tax Court said in its orders in this case the reason for that is that those are now internal deliberative processes.\nThe Tax Court has made clear that its rules permit exactly what it's doing here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2913.676, 2923.13, 2930.849, 2937.332], "stop_times": [2923.13, 2930.849, 2937.332, 2940.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2913.676}, "reply_to": "21523__1_124", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_126", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Mr. Hungar, you started to say that... that even the opinion of a... of a Tax Court judge is not a report of the Tax Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2940.797], "stop_times": [2949.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.797}, "reply_to": "21523__1_125", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__1_127", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2949.221], "stop_times": [2950.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2949.221}, "reply_to": "21523__1_126", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_128", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "How does that work?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2950.064], "stop_times": [2950.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2950.064}, "reply_to": "21523__1_127", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__1_129", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Page 2a of the appendix to the gray brief, at the bottom of the page, section 7460(b) provides that the report of the division... and the Tax Court is now and has for many years been divided into one-judge divisions.\nThey used to sit en banc or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2950.911, 2967.425], "stop_times": [2967.425, 2968.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2950.911}, "reply_to": "21523__1_128", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_130", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "I was... I was going to ask you what... what 7461 referred to when it says the Tax Court and its divisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2968.994], "stop_times": [2975.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2968.994}, "reply_to": "21523__1_129", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__1_131", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2975.477], "stop_times": [2976.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2975.477}, "reply_to": "21523__1_130", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_132", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "It also is referred to there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2976.015], "stop_times": [2976.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.015}, "reply_to": "21523__1_131", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__1_133", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "For a brief period of time, they sat in... in panels.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2976.758], "stop_times": [2979.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2976.758}, "reply_to": "21523__1_132", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_134", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2979.359], "stop_times": [2979.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2979.359}, "reply_to": "21523__1_133", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__1_135", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "But they... the... the press of work force them to... to divide into one-judge divisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2979.896], "stop_times": [2984.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2979.896}, "reply_to": "21523__1_134", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_136", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "So it's a single judge is a division of the Tax Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2984.149], "stop_times": [2986.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2984.149}, "reply_to": "21523__1_135", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__1_137", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Yes, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2986.09], "stop_times": [2986.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2986.09}, "reply_to": "21523__1_136", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_138", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "And the publicity of proceedings does say... it does say that all reports of the Tax Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2986.19], "stop_times": [2995.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2986.19}, "reply_to": "21523__1_137", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__1_139", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2995.545], "stop_times": [2996.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2995.545}, "reply_to": "21523__1_138", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_140", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--And all evidence received by the Tax Court and its divisions, meaning its single judges.\nWell, what happens with... with a single judge's opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [2996.409, 3002.808], "stop_times": [3002.808, 3005.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2996.409}, "reply_to": "21523__1_139", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__1_141", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "He... he prepares it and submits it to the chief judge under rule... under statute... under the statute 7460(b) where it says the report of the division shall become the report of the Tax Court within 30 days after such report by the division, unless the chief judge directs it to be reviewed by the full court.\nSo... so even a Tax Court judge's opinion is not the report of the Tax Court.\nSurely the report of the special trial judge is not either.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3005.326, 3023.12, 3027.495], "stop_times": [3023.12, 3027.495, 3030.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3005.326}, "reply_to": "21523__1_140", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_142", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "It's like an en banc.\nI... I have written decisions for a panel in my years on the court of appeals, and there's been an en banc and my opinion gets vacated.\nIt's no longer counts for anything.\nAnd isn't that exactly what the Tax Court is?\nThey have the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3030.717, 3030.922, 3040.953, 3044.835, 3047.557], "stop_times": [3030.922, 3040.953, 3044.835, 3047.557, 3048.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3030.717}, "reply_to": "21523__1_141", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_143", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe... the opinion is not made public.\nIn fact, the statute precludes it from being made... made a part of the record.\nThe last sentence of that same section 7460(b) at the top of page 3a, it says the report of a division shall not be a part of the record in any case in which the chief judge directs that such report shall be reviewed by the Tax Court.\nAnd that's a very important point.\nCongress has mandated by statute essentially the same procedure that the Tax Court follows here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3048.633, 3048.822, 3050.558, 3054.189, 3066.921, 3068.391], "stop_times": [3048.822, 3050.558, 3054.189, 3066.921, 3068.391, 3074.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3048.633}, "reply_to": "21523__1_142", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_144", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Oh, no.\nNo, no, no.\nHow often, when there is a decision reviewed by the court, so that the initial judge's decision is changed, does that judge dissent, so all the world knows what that judge's initial position was?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3074.873, 3075.078, 3075.178], "stop_times": [3075.078, 3075.178, 3089.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3074.873}, "reply_to": "21523__1_143", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_145", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "The... the Tax Court judge certainly has the authority to dissent, just as a special trial judge has the authority and, indeed, the obligation under the code of conduct to refuse to put his name on a... on a report if he doesn't agree with it.\nIf he doesn't agree with the Tax Court judge's view, he has the obligation, the ethical obligation... and we presume he follows it... to say I don't agree.\nThis is my report.\nIf you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3089.667, 3102.92, 3110.45, 3111.443], "stop_times": [3102.92, 3110.45, 3111.443, 3111.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3089.667}, "reply_to": "21523__1_144", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_146", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Then he... then he can publish his... he can publish his dissent, just as a Tax Court judge can?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3111.936], "stop_times": [3115.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3111.936}, "reply_to": "21523__1_145", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_147", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--No, but he can preclude the Tax Court judge from doing what the Tax Court judge did in this case, which is simply adopting his report.\nIf the... if the special trial judge refuses to change his report--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3115.834, 3122.422], "stop_times": [3122.422, 3125.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3115.834}, "reply_to": "21523__1_146", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_148", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "But then we still won't know what his report is.\nYes, he can say, I won't sign this.\nTax Court says, fine.\nThis rule says I can reject your findings in whole or in part.\nI don't need your name on this decision of the Tax Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3125.001, 3127.335, 3129.071, 3130.679, 3135.675], "stop_times": [3127.335, 3129.071, 3130.679, 3135.675, 3139.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3125.001}, "reply_to": "21523__1_147", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_149", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, if... if that were the case here, obviously our arguments would be more difficult.\nBut that is not what happened here.\nIf... if--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3139.845, 3145.994, 3147.563], "stop_times": [3145.994, 3147.563, 3148.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3139.845}, "reply_to": "21523__1_148", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_150", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "I'm asking you just as the... the judge who disagrees with the... the full court can publish his dissent, can the special trial judge who disagrees with the Tax Court judge publish his dissent?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3148.389], "stop_times": [3167.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3148.389}, "reply_to": "21523__1_149", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_151", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--In the... the one case involving a change in the opinion, where the Tax Court judge said, I don't adopt a portion of the opinion of the special trial judge, there was no published opinion of the special trial judge.\nSo I don't believe there's a procedure for the dissent.\nBut the point is the court of appeals--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3167.048, 3179.225, 3181.0], "stop_times": [3179.225, 3181.0, 3182.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3167.048}, "reply_to": "21523__1_150", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_152", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Has there ever been?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3182.586], "stop_times": [3183.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3182.586}, "reply_to": "21523__1_151", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_153", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--A published dissent by a special trial judge?\nNot that I'm aware of.\nBut the point is the court of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3183.855, 3186.417, 3187.215], "stop_times": [3186.417, 3187.215, 3188.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3183.855}, "reply_to": "21523__1_152", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_154", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "And how... how often does the... is there a dissent when there's... when there's a full court review decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3188.124], "stop_times": [3194.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3188.124}, "reply_to": "21523__1_153", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__1_155", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Well, there's often a dissent.\nIt's... it's hard to know from the standpoint of a researcher when... when it is that the judge who heard the evidence and tried the case is the one who's dissenting, unless they happen to say it in their opinion, because again, there's no original opinion issued by the Tax Court judge who first heard the case.\nThat's kept confidential by statute, which again is an important point.\nCongress has mandated confidentiality of the initial reports prepared even by Tax Court judges, and it has given the Tax Court plenary authority to promulgate rules governing special trial judges.\nIt is hardly surprising, let alone impermissible under the statute or Due Process Clause, for the Tax Court to follow a similar process for special trial judges.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3194.251, 3195.01, 3209.733, 3213.281, 3224.882], "stop_times": [3195.01, 3209.733, 3213.281, 3224.882, 3234.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3194.251}, "reply_to": "21523__1_154", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_156", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Except that the... the relationship between the... the one judge and the full Tax Court is a relationship basically of people who are in the same boat with respect to what they know about or can know about law and what they can know about the evidence and the facts of the case; whereas the relationship between the special trial judge and the judge to whom it is assigned is... is quite different because only one of them has heard evidence and only one of them is the source of conclusion about fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3234.048], "stop_times": [3260.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3234.048}, "reply_to": "21523__1_155", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_157", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nIt's identical.\nThe... the full Tax Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3260.631, 3260.881, 3261.724], "stop_times": [3260.881, 3261.724, 3263.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3260.631}, "reply_to": "21523__1_156", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_158", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "It certainly is not identical in... in the sense that the... the Tax Court judge then goes and listens to evidence.\nHe doesn't.\nThat's the whole point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3263.832, 3270.352, 3271.012], "stop_times": [3270.352, 3271.012, 3271.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3263.832}, "reply_to": "21523__1_157", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_159", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Well, neither does the full Tax Court when it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3271.838], "stop_times": [3273.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3271.838}, "reply_to": "21523__1_158", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_160", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Neither does the full Tax Court, but if the full Tax Court is disagreeing with one judge, the one judge and the full Tax Court are in the same boat.\nThey have access to the same material.\nTheir limits are exactly the same in each case.\nThat is not true in the relationship between the single Tax Court judge and the special Tax Court judge.\nThe special Tax Court judge is the only one who has heard evidence and can find facts based upon the evidence that he heard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3273.696, 3280.344, 3282.628, 3285.463, 3290.789], "stop_times": [3280.344, 3282.628, 3285.463, 3290.789, 3298.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3273.696}, "reply_to": "21523__1_159", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_161", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nThe... the tax... the full Tax Court doesn't go back and... and hold a new trial, just like the individual Tax Court judges--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3298.109, 3298.731], "stop_times": [3298.731, 3305.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3298.109}, "reply_to": "21523__1_160", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_162", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "I... I am quite aware of that.\nThat's not... that's not the point.\nI'm... I'm saying that you cannot draw an analogy between one judge and full Tax Court and use that as an analogy to legitimize the relationship between one judge and a trial master.\nThey are in different positions.\nThey are not in parallel positions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3305.873, 3306.039, 3307.442, 3320.9, 3322.924], "stop_times": [3306.039, 3307.442, 3320.9, 3322.924, 3324.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3305.873}, "reply_to": "21523__1_161", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_163", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Well, then if... if I understand the point you're making, it's a point of the... the... it's the hierarchy issue, if that's... if that's the point you're making.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3324.903], "stop_times": [3332.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3324.903}, "reply_to": "21523__1_162", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_164", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "It's the knowledge issue.\nThe special Tax Court judge heard somebody.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3332.212, 3332.871], "stop_times": [3332.871, 3336.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3332.212}, "reply_to": "21523__1_163", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_165", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "So did the Tax Court judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3336.553], "stop_times": [3337.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3336.553}, "reply_to": "21523__1_164", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_166", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Nobody on the Tax Court did.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3337.918], "stop_times": [3340.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3337.918}, "reply_to": "21523__1_165", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_167", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nThat's incorrect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3340.063, 3340.723], "stop_times": [3340.723, 3341.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3340.063}, "reply_to": "21523__1_166", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_168", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "In other words, they're... they're sitting hearing witnesses?\nThey are... they are redoing the trial?\nSurely not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3341.261, 3343.202, 3344.566], "stop_times": [3343.202, 3344.566, 3345.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3341.261}, "reply_to": "21523__1_167", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_169", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Your Honor, in a review... if a Tax Court judge... most Tax Court cases are tried by Tax Court judges.\nTax Court judges are trial judges, and if a Tax Court judge tries a case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3345.514, 3350.799], "stop_times": [3350.799, 3354.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3345.514}, "reply_to": "21523__1_168", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_170", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "But we are talking about situations in which the trial judge is the special judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3354.309], "stop_times": [3359.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3354.309}, "reply_to": "21523__1_169", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21523__1_171", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Well, I'm talking about the full Tax Court, Your Honor.\nIf the full Tax Court reviews an individual Tax Court judge's decision, the Tax Court judge has presided over the trial, heard the evidence, just like the special trial judge here, and then the full Tax Court judge reviews it.\nThat's exactly what happened in the Estate of Varian case, which is in our briefs, out of the Ninth Circuit.\nThe parties complained that they wanted access to the original judge's report because he had been reversed... been reversed by the full court after trial on an... on an evidentiary issue, and the Ninth Circuit said no.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3359.155, 3360.913, 3371.854, 3375.774], "stop_times": [3360.913, 3371.854, 3375.774, 3385.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3359.155}, "reply_to": "21523__1_170", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_172", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Mr. Hungar, I think we understand your answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3385.805], "stop_times": [3386.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3385.805}, "reply_to": "21523__1_171", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__1_173", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3386.631], "stop_times": [3387.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3386.631}, "reply_to": "21523__1_172", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "21523__1_174", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Mr. Shapiro, you have about 4 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3387.17], "stop_times": [3389.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3387.17}, "reply_to": "21523__1_173", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__2_000", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "The question came up whether rule 183 forbids disclosure of this report.\nThe answer is it does not forbid disclosure of the report.\nIt is silent on the point.\nBut the press release the Tax Court issued in 1983, coming from the chief judge of the court, said that this simply meant that it would not automatically be disclosed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3389.649, 3394.85, 3397.284, 3398.77], "stop_times": [3394.85, 3397.284, 3398.77, 3408.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3389.649}, "reply_to": "21523__1_174", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__2_001", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Why does 7461 require its... its disclosure?\nBecause it does say that the... it's only the decision of the Tax Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3408.718, 3413.548], "stop_times": [3413.548, 3418.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3408.718}, "reply_to": "21523__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__2_002", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3418.089], "stop_times": [3419.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3418.089}, "reply_to": "21523__2_001", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__2_003", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "That reports of the Tax Court that have to be disclosed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3419.137], "stop_times": [3422.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3419.137}, "reply_to": "21523__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__2_004", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Our view is that of... of the Tax Court means any report emanating from the Tax Court.\nThat's the literal meaning of that language.\nIt doesn't mean final.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3422.564, 3427.476, 3429.128], "stop_times": [3427.476, 3429.128, 3430.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3422.564}, "reply_to": "21523__2_003", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__2_005", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, that... that would mean that... that you would have to make public the... the reports of a regular Tax Court judge in cases that then go on to the full court.\nAnd that's not done, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3430.409, 3439.531], "stop_times": [3439.531, 3440.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3430.409}, "reply_to": "21523__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__2_006", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "There's an exception for the en banc situation because legal issues are addressed en banc, not the factual issues.\nAnd there's an opportunity to dissent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3440.607, 3446.013], "stop_times": [3446.013, 3447.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3440.607}, "reply_to": "21523__2_005", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__2_007", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, but it doesn't matter.\nIt would still be a report of the Tax Court if you don't take that language literally.\nIf you say any report coming out of the institution is a report of the Tax Court, you would have to make public the reports of the individual Tax Court judges, which is not done.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3447.749, 3447.971, 3454.558], "stop_times": [3447.971, 3454.558, 3464.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3447.749}, "reply_to": "21523__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__2_008", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Oh, we say there's a special statute dealing with the en banc situation that... that governs in that situation.\nAnd that the publicity--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3464.96, 3470.783], "stop_times": [3470.783, 3472.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3464.96}, "reply_to": "21523__2_007", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__2_009", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Why is that?\nWhat... what statute is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3472.641, 3472.807], "stop_times": [3472.807, 3473.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3472.641}, "reply_to": "21523__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__2_010", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--That... that's the en banc provision that counsel referred to that said that when the case is heard en banc, the trial... the... the single judge's report is not made part of the record.\nCongress' assumption there was that there would be a new... new report issued.\nPeople would be able to dissent if they disagreed.\nAnd this process focuses on legal issues.\nThere is no presumption of correctness.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3473.634, 3482.3, 3486.553, 3488.616, 3491.111], "stop_times": [3482.3, 3486.553, 3488.616, 3491.111, 3492.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3473.634}, "reply_to": "21523__2_009", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__2_011", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "That's not a... that's not a de novo... they can rehear matters de novo on the en banc Tax Court, can they not?\nThat's a de novo hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3492.969, 3498.913], "stop_times": [3498.913, 3499.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3492.969}, "reply_to": "21523__2_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21523__2_012", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Yes, but it addresses legal issues.\nIt's not a device to second guess factual determinations, and there's a special statute that deals with that, which does not apply to this STJ situation, where there's a presumption of correctness applicable to what the trial judge does.\nAnd there is the general disclosure statute that applies there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3499.839, 3502.051, 3514.6], "stop_times": [3502.051, 3514.6, 3517.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3499.839}, "reply_to": "21523__2_011", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__2_013", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "I don't know if I'm getting... so that's his basic point.\nThe rule doesn't require the disclosure because they've interpreted it differently within their... within their discretion.\nThe statute doesn't require it and the Constitution doesn't require it.\nIf we have to go to the Constitution, I don't see exactly the implications.\nSo I'm nervous.\nAnd now, the reports... he says, go read 7460(b).\nThat's what they're talking about.\nAnd then... and again, I don't know what I'm getting into once I read it more broadly than that.\nAnd what about all evidence received by the Tax Court, including a transcript.\nOf course, this isn't evidence but neither is a transcript.\nAnd... and so maybe that word evidence can be read more broadly, given the fact that it's to include a transcript of the stenographic report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3517.86, 3520.794, 3527.52, 3531.197, 3535.776, 3536.436, 3541.432, 3542.631, 3547.21, 3553.237, 3556.088], "stop_times": [3520.794, 3527.52, 3531.197, 3535.776, 3536.436, 3541.432, 3542.631, 3547.21, 3553.237, 3556.088, 3563.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3517.86}, "reply_to": "21523__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__2_014", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "I think you're right, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3563.518], "stop_times": [3563.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3563.518}, "reply_to": "21523__2_013", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__2_015", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "You think I'm right just suddenly for the for the first time?\nYou have thought of this?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3563.518, 3565.459], "stop_times": [3565.459, 3566.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3563.518}, "reply_to": "21523__2_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21523__2_016", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "--Well, I... I think that the intent of this provision... and I know Your Honor consults the legislative history.\nThe intent was to make all of the steps in the adjudicative process transparent, including the evidence, including the... the stenographer's report, and all reports from the Tax Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3566.119, 3571.189], "stop_times": [3571.189, 3582.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3566.119}, "reply_to": "21523__2_015", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__2_017", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "There's... there's a very careful use of language.\nIt says all reports of the Tax Court and all evidence received by the Tax Court and its divisions.\nSo it's only the evidence that... that's received by the individual judges has to be made public, not the reports.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3582.706, 3584.525, 3593.192], "stop_times": [3584.525, 3593.192, 3600.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3582.706}, "reply_to": "21523__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21523__2_018", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Well, we believe that the word all is a broad, generic inclusive term that should be applied, as Judge Cudahy stated, to an STJ report that actually has to be submitted to the chief judge and that has legal effect.\nIt's not just a casual document like a law clerk memorandum.\nIt has legally operative effect.\nCongress' purpose here was very broad, to have transparency, applicable to all the steps along the way in the Tax Court.\nIt was quite clear on that, that there are arbitrary actions at each step of the way.\nIf you look at the Senate report and Congressman LaGuardia's statements, they said secrecy is a vicious practice in this context, and it... it should be avoided.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3600.418, 3613.05, 3616.188, 3617.962, 3624.733, 3629.191], "stop_times": [3613.05, 3616.188, 3617.962, 3624.733, 3629.191, 3637.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3600.418}, "reply_to": "21523__2_017", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__2_019", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "But we... we don't have to get into any of that if we accept your argument about 7482(a)(1), that is, the record will be in the same manner and to the same extent as decisions of the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3637.326], "stop_times": [3649.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3637.326}, "reply_to": "21523__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21523__2_020", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.\nThere... there are three separate bases for ruling in our favor.\nOne is the appellate review statute.\nThe other is the disclosure statute.\nThe third is due process.\nAnd due process should inform the construction of these statutes.\nThis Court tries to avoid serious due process issues through its interpretation of legislation.\nJudge Cudahy suggested that was the right way to decide this case and we agree that it is.\nWe thank the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3649.958, 3650.208, 3652.93, 3655.121, 3656.811, 3658.214, 3661.475, 3666.388, 3670.846], "stop_times": [3650.208, 3652.93, 3655.121, 3656.811, 3658.214, 3661.475, 3666.388, 3670.846, 3671.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3649.958}, "reply_to": "21523__2_019", "speaker": "stephen_m_shapiro"}
{"id": "21523__2_021", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Shapiro.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3671.961, 3673.158], "stop_times": [3673.158, 3674.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3671.961}, "reply_to": "21523__2_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21523__2_022", "conversation_id": "21523", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-184", "start_times": [3674.356], "stop_times": [3678.359], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3674.356}, "reply_to": "21523__2_021", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22803__0_000", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "We'll hear argument in Bates against Dow AgroSciences.\nMr. Frederick.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [0.0, 7.8], "stop_times": [7.8, 8.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__0_001", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nPesticides are economic poisons designed to kill living things.\nSometimes they do not work as designed.\nFor more than a century until the 1990's, courts routinely permitted farmers to bring claims against pesticide manufacturers for crop damage caused by pesticides.\nIn enacting amendments to FIFRA in 1972, Congress did not intend to displace those preexisting State law remedies.\nThe farmers here allege claims for defective design, defective manufacturing, fraud, breach of warranty, and failure to warn for a brand new product that severely damaged their peanut crops.\nI'd like to start with our narrowest theories for reversal and demonstrate for three reasons why those claims survive preemption.\nThe defective design and manufacturing claims challenge the product's composition, not its label.\nThe fraud, warranty, and negligence claims involve general legal duties, not pesticide-specific requirements, and the failure to warn and fraud claims are not different from or in addition to FIFRA requirements.\nNow, with respect to the first point, Dow concedes at pages 43 and 49 of its brief that defective design and manufacturing claims generally are not preempted.\nThat concession warrants a remand here, as this case was decided before discovery, enable the farmers to develop their claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [8.815, 25.207, 31.005, 35.355, 47.404, 56.926, 71.556, 81.075, 89.694, 107.945, 119.019], "stop_times": [25.207, 31.005, 35.355, 47.404, 56.926, 71.556, 81.075, 89.694, 107.945, 119.019, 126.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8.815}, "reply_to": "22803__0_000", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_002", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "But couldn't you make every failure to warn claim a defective design claim?\nThat is, they didn't warn about the effects, but those effects would not have been present if the product had been designed to assure that there wouldn't be any adverse effect on the peanut crop.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [126.815, 135.096], "stop_times": [135.096, 155.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 126.815}, "reply_to": "22803__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22803__0_003", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, the way the Restatement of Torts and Product Liability in sections 1 and 2 describe, there are basically three theories that products liability claims can proceed on: a defective design, defective manufacturing, and defective warnings.\nThe restatement explains that they are distinct legal theories that go to different problems that the manufacturer has caused with respect to the product.\nA defective design claim asserts that the composition was inadequate and that a properly designed product could have been put on the market that would not cause the harm.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [155.335, 172.105, 182.176], "stop_times": [172.105, 182.176, 195.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 155.335}, "reply_to": "22803__0_002", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_004", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Mr. Frederick, on the defective design claim, presumably that's based on a factual theory that Dow could have reasonably designed Strongarm to be safe for growing peanuts in high-acid soil.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [195.374], "stop_times": [211.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 195.374}, "reply_to": "22803__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__0_005", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [211.015], "stop_times": [211.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 211.015}, "reply_to": "22803__0_004", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_006", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "But doesn't that mean your client should have to put forward some evidence establishing a material issue of disputed fact on that point?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [211.645], "stop_times": [224.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 211.645}, "reply_to": "22803__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__0_007", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Certainly, but here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [224.111], "stop_times": [225.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 224.111}, "reply_to": "22803__0_006", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_008", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "And it didn't do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [225.239], "stop_times": [225.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 225.239}, "reply_to": "22803__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__0_009", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Well here, Your Honor, the motion for summary judgment that Dow filed was not based on the merits of the claims.\nIt was based on them being preempted, displaced as a matter of Federal law.\nThey also asserted a limitation of... of remedy provision.\nBut we never had discovery in this case.\nThe district court, after finding jurisdiction, considered Dow's motion for summary judgment on preemption and locked us out of the courthouse door before we ever had a chance to prove that a safer design for the product could have been made.\nAnd that's where we think the court's decision below was overbroad and should be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [225.836, 231.777, 236.897, 239.558, 242.066, 258.135], "stop_times": [231.777, 236.897, 239.558, 242.066, 258.135, 262.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 225.836}, "reply_to": "22803__0_008", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_010", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "The... the problem I have with... with the Government's case and with the respondent's case is that... it's really the obverse of what Justice Ginsburg said.\nTheir problem is that they would recast everything as a warning.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [262.655, 272.33], "stop_times": [272.33, 275.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 262.655}, "reply_to": "22803__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22803__0_011", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "That's absolutely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [275.696], "stop_times": [276.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 275.696}, "reply_to": "22803__0_010", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_012", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Does the restatement have some specific provisions that say no matter how good the warning is, you're still entitled to proceed when there's a... I don't know... dangerous product or defective product or something?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [276.827], "stop_times": [288.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 276.827}, "reply_to": "22803__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22803__0_013", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Yes.\nRestatement sections 1 and 2 address this, and what the restatement says is that if you can show that the product could have been reformulated to be properly designed, then the existence of a warning that might go to certain of its uses would not negate a defective design claim.\nThe Texas Supreme Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [288.081, 288.744, 307.981], "stop_times": [288.744, 307.981, 309.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 288.081}, "reply_to": "22803__0_012", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_014", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Even... even if the warning specifically covered that design defect?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [309.277], "stop_times": [314.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 309.277}, "reply_to": "22803__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22803__0_015", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--That... that's... that's correct.\nAnd what the restatement--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [314.043, 315.305], "stop_times": [315.305, 316.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 314.043}, "reply_to": "22803__0_014", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_016", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "So even if this product said, warning: may not be effective in high pH soils, that's not good enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [316.201], "stop_times": [323.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 316.201}, "reply_to": "22803__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22803__0_017", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Under the restatement rule, which Texas has adopted in the Uniroyal case, which we've cited in our brief I think at page 47, that is true because the restatement explains that there are certain warnings that could be ignored or not observed or not understood properly and that if it can be proved that a properly designed product would be on the market, there are public policy reasons why that's what we want to encourage manufacturers to do.\nI mean, under--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [323.29, 351.14], "stop_times": [351.14, 352.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 323.29}, "reply_to": "22803__0_016", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_018", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "At any cost?\nI mean, what if it... you know, yes, I can... I can sell you stuff that will... that will work in high pH soil, but it's going to be three times as effective.\nDo I have to sell it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [352.033, 353.192, 361.372], "stop_times": [353.192, 361.372, 362.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 352.033}, "reply_to": "22803__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__0_019", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [362.999], "stop_times": [364.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 362.999}, "reply_to": "22803__0_018", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_020", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Can't I just sell it for those people who don't need it for... for high pH soil at a third the price with a warning that says, hey, by the way, don't use this in high pH soil?\nIt's crazy to say you can't do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [364.037, 372.487], "stop_times": [372.487, 374.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 364.037}, "reply_to": "22803__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__0_021", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Justice Scalia, to answer your question in several ways, that's a jury determination to... to ascertain the reasonableness of the alternate design that the manufacturer would be asked to... to do or to market a separate product that was separately designed for high-acid soils.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [374.372], "stop_times": [395.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 374.372}, "reply_to": "22803__0_020", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_022", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "But it's never a question of the reasonableness or the adequacy of the warning?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [395.34], "stop_times": [397.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 395.34}, "reply_to": "22803__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22803__0_023", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "I don't think it's a question of warnings in this sense, Justice Kennedy.\nIf you take their theory, which is that a defective design claim always collapses to a failure to warn, they can put out a defectively designed product that admittedly causes harm, and all they have to do is change the label and say, if used in these particular circumstances, it may cause harm, because that would necessitate a change to the label--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [397.248, 401.395], "stop_times": [401.395, 424.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 397.248}, "reply_to": "22803__0_022", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_024", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Oh, not necessarily.\nIt wouldn't be always either way.\nI would think that if in fact you have a product and the product causes harm in a subset of cases, which you could warn against, then a jury could decide whether the unreasonableness consists of not having designed the super-safe product or the unreasonableness consists of not having had a different label.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [424.396, 425.001, 425.956], "stop_times": [425.001, 425.956, 449.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 424.396}, "reply_to": "22803__0_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22803__0_025", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--And that... there are... that's why the restatement makes clear that there are distinctive theories for defect--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [449.146], "stop_times": [454.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 449.146}, "reply_to": "22803__0_024", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_026", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "And you're arguing that in this case you have the first.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [454.967], "stop_times": [458.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 454.967}, "reply_to": "22803__0_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22803__0_027", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [458.881], "stop_times": [460.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 458.881}, "reply_to": "22803__0_026", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_028", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "It seems implausible on... you know,--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [460.038], "stop_times": [462.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 460.038}, "reply_to": "22803__0_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22803__0_029", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Well, we have both actually.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [462.342], "stop_times": [463.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.342}, "reply_to": "22803__0_028", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_030", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--because all they'd have to do is don't use it in pH soil.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [463.489], "stop_times": [465.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 463.489}, "reply_to": "22803__0_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22803__0_031", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "No.\nWe have defective warning too, and... and if I can address that as well.\nThe statute here prohibits in section 136q(1) any false or misleading statement in the label as to any particular.\nOur position is that the 2000 label said, suitable for peanut-growing areas in all places where peanuts are grown.\nThat was false.\nUnder the statute, that is a misbranding, and that is actionable as... both as a failure to warn, as a fraud claim, and as a breach of warranty.\nNow, the Medtronic majority made absolutely clear that that kind of claim is not preempted, and in fact all nine Justices agreed that when the State law claim is parallel to the Federal requirements, the existence of a State law remedy is not an additional requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [465.728, 466.349, 469.669, 481.125, 489.598, 490.671, 501.888], "stop_times": [466.349, 469.669, 481.125, 489.598, 490.671, 501.888, 523.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 465.728}, "reply_to": "22803__0_030", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_032", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "So on... on that aspect of the case, you put in your pleadings that this was a violation of FIFRA.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [523.618], "stop_times": [529.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 523.618}, "reply_to": "22803__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22803__0_033", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "We don't necessarily need to say a violation of FIFRA is... so long as the requirement is the same, although we can certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [529.878], "stop_times": [537.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.878}, "reply_to": "22803__0_032", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_034", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Well, that's a... that's a bit different.\nYou were... you were asserting a moment ago I thought... please correct me if I'm wrong... that this was a violation of FIFRA because it was misbranded.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [537.747, 539.428], "stop_times": [539.428, 547.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 537.747}, "reply_to": "22803__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22803__0_035", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [547.472], "stop_times": [549.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 547.472}, "reply_to": "22803__0_034", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_036", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "So it seems to me that you then have a suit under FIFRA, but I don't think that was the theory of your complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [549.105], "stop_times": [554.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.105}, "reply_to": "22803__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22803__0_037", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--No.\nThe theory of our complaint was a failure to warn both for negligence and as a defective product.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [554.388, 554.636], "stop_times": [554.636, 560.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 554.388}, "reply_to": "22803__0_036", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_038", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "But the reason for that, I take it, is that FIFRA does not... I mean, I think you agree FIFRA does not provide an independent private right of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [560.123], "stop_times": [567.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 560.123}, "reply_to": "22803__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22803__0_039", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [567.516], "stop_times": [568.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 567.516}, "reply_to": "22803__0_038", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_040", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "So you've got to sue under State law, but you would... you would kind of have a slam dunk for your position, I suppose, if your pleading said, the failure to warn only to the extent that in fact the... the warning given in compliance with FIFRA was an inadequate warning.\nThat would... that would keep you within the... the... in effect, the... the Federal limit, and it would also make clear that you had a State law cause of action, not a Federal cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [568.251, 589.182], "stop_times": [589.182, 601.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.251}, "reply_to": "22803__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22803__0_041", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "That's correct, and because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [601.738], "stop_times": [602.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 601.738}, "reply_to": "22803__0_040", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_042", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "And... and that's in effect what you're arguing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [602.624], "stop_times": [603.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 602.624}, "reply_to": "22803__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22803__0_043", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Yes.\nAnd... and because of the preliminary of this suit, Justice Kennedy, we certainly should have the opportunity to amend our complaint.\nThere are counterclaims that this is done at the motion for declaratory judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [603.693, 604.023, 610.209], "stop_times": [604.023, 610.209, 614.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 603.693}, "reply_to": "22803__0_042", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_044", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "In your view... in your... your opinion, if you were to follow that, would EPA... suppose EPA does the following.\nEPA looks into this and they publish a reg that says in this case or in this subset of cases, or some kind of description that fits yours, we think that the labeling should be thus and so and we think that State tort suits will interfere with our ability to promote the uniform labeling and therefore they're preempted.\nCan the EPA do that on your theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [614.037, 620.47, 643.184], "stop_times": [620.47, 643.184, 644.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 614.037}, "reply_to": "22803__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22803__0_045", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Yes, it can and the... the interesting aspect of this, Justice Breyer, is that of course EPA hasn't done that.\nEPA has made very clear it never tested for efficacy.\nIt never even gave notice and comment so that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [644.966, 651.507, 654.848], "stop_times": [651.507, 654.848, 657.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 644.966}, "reply_to": "22803__0_044", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_046", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Well, EPA has... has waived efficacy data requirements.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [657.31, 662.232], "stop_times": [662.232, 663.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 657.31}, "reply_to": "22803__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__0_047", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [663.105], "stop_times": [663.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 663.105}, "reply_to": "22803__0_046", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_048", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Now, is it your position that a State can pass a law requiring labels to have efficacy claims?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [663.533], "stop_times": [673.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 663.533}, "reply_to": "22803__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__0_049", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "They have to do it pursuant to their powers under 136v(a) which is the regulation of sale or use or under 136v(c) which says that when a State designates a particular locality requirement and a special need, it can impose a label... it can impose requirements that the manufacturer has to comply with.\nNow, the EPA importantly... and this is in their regulations at 163.152... has specifically said that States have labeling authority.\nThe States can impose labeling requirements.\nNow, there's no reason why--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [673.494, 696.344, 706.653, 709.554], "stop_times": [696.344, 706.653, 709.554, 711.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 673.494}, "reply_to": "22803__0_048", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_050", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "But you're not relying on that in this cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [711.12], "stop_times": [714.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 711.12}, "reply_to": "22803__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__0_051", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--No, Justice... no, Justice O'Connor, except to the extent that if the State can affirmatively do it through a positive regulation, their theory has to be wrong that the... that any incidental effect that induces a change to label is preempted.\nThat theory has to be wrong, and that's what the Fifth Circuit relied on.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [714.581, 732.594], "stop_times": [732.594, 736.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 714.581}, "reply_to": "22803__0_050", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_052", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Well, does... does FIFRA require the manufacturer to say on the label what the item can be used for?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [736.32], "stop_times": [744.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 736.32}, "reply_to": "22803__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__0_053", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Yes, but I want to address--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [744.206], "stop_times": [747.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 744.206}, "reply_to": "22803__0_052", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_054", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "So how... how does an express warranty claim escape preemption--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [747.818], "stop_times": [752.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 747.818}, "reply_to": "22803__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__0_055", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--As the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [752.751], "stop_times": [753.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.751}, "reply_to": "22803__0_054", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_056", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--where... where Dow just says the federally mandated statement is included on my label and it's true?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [753.959], "stop_times": [762.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 753.959}, "reply_to": "22803__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__0_057", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--A warranty claim, Justice O'Connor, as this Court made clear in the Cipollone case, is not a requirement under State law because it's a voluntary contractual arrangement between the parties.\nThe Court I think has made clear that what has to be ascertained here is does the State cause of action or the State law create a requirement.\nThat's not true in the warranty case because FIFRA doesn't speak to requirements in... as to warranties.\nIt speaks to requirements in other ways.\nSo what Dow did here with its warranty was completely voluntary, and the fact that it breached that warranty by putting on the market a product that was not suitable for the use in all areas where peanuts are grown is a breach of a warranty that it voluntarily undertook.\nBreach of that is not a requirement imposed under State law.\nAnd that has been, I think, verified by seven Justices of this Court in the... in the Cipollone case.\nNow, if I could speak to the fraud claim, it is important to understand that in both Cipollone and in a footnote in Medtronic, the Court made clear that where there are general legal duties that are not observed by the manufacturer that don't go to the specific product itself, those claims are not preempted.\nHere our assertion is that Dow put on the market a... a product that was mislabeled and that they went out and told people fraudulently was suitable for their uses.\nWe acted in reliance on that and we suffered damages.\nThose are general legal duties, not pesticide-specific ones.\nAnd the existence of the preemption clause of 136v(b) does not displace us from the opportunity to try to prove to a court that fraud was committed here.\nNow, if I could briefly address two points.\nOne is that the inducement to change theory should be rejected.\nThat was the basis on which the Fifth Circuit decided this case and it is an overly broad theory for several reasons.\nFirst, it's not supported by the text of 136v(b) which says requirements for labeling.\nIt doesn't say requirements that induce a change to the label.\nAnd that's how many of the courts have gone off track since the Cipollone decision was announced by this Court.\nThey have read FIFRA as saying just because the word requirements is 136v(b), thereby any State law claim that imposes a requirement that might induce a manufacturer to change the label is thereby preempted.\nWe think that's overly broad because it confers way too much discretion on manufacturers to decide what to put on labels, and they can claim immunity for any overly broad claim of efficacy so long as when they are sued, they can say we're induced to change the label.\nBecause EPA does not evaluate the specific contents with respect to efficacy or the claims that are made on... on a label, if a manufacturer makes an overly ambitious statement as to efficacy, all the manufacturer has to do under the inducement to change theory is go to court and say we would have to change the label and thereby 136v(b) preempts it.\nNow, I'd also like to stress that the other side's theory creates a huge regulatory gap.\nAs your question, Justice O'Connor, noted, the EPA does not evaluate efficacy on the front end.\nAnd in fact, the history behind these provisions is that EPA understood from the very beginning that common law claims would serve an important incidental regulatory effect.\nIf we could review the history for a moment.\nPrior to the 1972 changes to FIFRA, for decades farmers had brought claims against manufacturers for design defect, for failure to warn, for the kinds of common law claims that we have asserted in this case.\nIt was so well established by 1972 that there was a huge section in the American Law Reports that annotated all the cases and explained what the common law duties of pesticide manufacturers were.\nYet, notwithstanding that, when Congress enacted the 1972 act, despite thousands of pages of hearings, committee reports, legislative debates, there is not one mention of any effort to displace those preexisting common law claims.\nAnd when EPA, in discharging its responsibilities under the 1972 act, got overwhelmed by the requirement that it re-register products that were already out on the market, pursuant to the 1972 act's standards, it very promptly went to Congress and said, you should waive efficacy requirements because we simply can't do this.\nCongress responded, but importantly in the administrations on both sides, EPA has always understood except until just a couple of years ago when the Solicitor General changed the position of the Government, that these kinds of incidental common law suits would have an important regulatory effect.\nIf we could just take the case of DDT.\nFor 30 years, manufacturers were sued for DDT and awarded damages until it became clear that the groundswell over the course of decades that DDT needed to be banned, and it was only at the back end that the expert agency regulators determined that in fact the product needed to be banned, but that was only after a very long history in which common law suits had provided remedies to farmers and others who were harmed by that product.\nNow, in 1982, the Reagan administration's EPA expanded the efficacy waiver and it included far greater products than had been done in the Carter administration in 1979.\nAnd in the Federal Register notice announcing that it was intending to expand that efficacy waiver, the EPA in 1982 said the reason why we think this can be done is because suits can be brought against manufacturers who put on the market ineffective products.\nWe cited that on page 31 of our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [762.471, 774.697, 785.756, 792.727, 795.157, 811.006, 815.417, 823.217, 844.557, 859.357, 861.976, 865.986, 877.467, 881.713, 886.611, 893.747, 901.167, 906.206, 912.717, 928.006, 946.341, 969.513, 978.418, 985.191, 998.019, 1000.566, 1015.308, 1027.733, 1045.791, 1069.835, 1090.466, 1092.685, 1121.76, 1134.829, 1152.296], "stop_times": [774.697, 785.756, 792.727, 795.157, 811.006, 815.417, 823.217, 844.557, 859.357, 861.976, 865.986, 877.467, 881.713, 886.611, 893.747, 901.167, 906.206, 912.717, 928.006, 946.341, 969.513, 978.418, 985.191, 998.019, 1000.566, 1015.308, 1027.733, 1045.791, 1069.835, 1090.466, 1092.685, 1121.76, 1134.829, 1152.296, 1155.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 762.471}, "reply_to": "22803__0_056", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_058", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "But do you take the position that juries can do what a State regulation cannot do, or are they much... are they on a par?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1155.895], "stop_times": [1164.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1155.895}, "reply_to": "22803__0_057", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22803__0_059", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Well, our broadest theory, Justice Kennedy, is that the word requirements in 136v(b) doesn't include common law claims at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1164.22], "stop_times": [1171.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1164.22}, "reply_to": "22803__0_058", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_060", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Suppose we disagree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1171.813], "stop_times": [1173.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1171.813}, "reply_to": "22803__0_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22803__0_061", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "If you disagree with that, then they would have to be the same, and that's why our point about the existence of the parallel requirements is the same.\nI want to address the point of the discordance between what State juries can decide and what State regulators can decide because Dow and the Government have featured that in their case.\nThe Government in the Medtronic case at page 27 of its amicus brief there said there was no problem to be had with juries rendering supposedly inconsistent decisions so long as they were following one Federal standard.\nThe Federal standard here is clear: falsity.\nTell the truth.\nThat's what manufacturers are obliged to do under the statute and under the regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1173.388, 1181.509, 1190.657, 1206.12, 1209.857, 1211.157], "stop_times": [1181.509, 1190.657, 1206.12, 1209.857, 1211.157, 1216.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1173.388}, "reply_to": "22803__0_060", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_062", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Yes, that's their strong point.\nSo what is the response to that?\nBecause you can easily get two juries in different parts of the country to decide absolutely opposite things as to what the label should say, and in those circumstances, they say, well, they're in an impossible situation and that's why Congress passed the statute, to be sure it would be EPA and not two juries in different places.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1216.749, 1219.0, 1220.571], "stop_times": [1219.0, 1220.571, 1240.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1216.749}, "reply_to": "22803__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22803__0_063", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "First, the juries... unlike a... a declaratory judgment or an injunctive type remedy, Justice Breyer, a jury for a common law damages claim is not saying what affirmatively should be on the labels.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1240.249], "stop_times": [1254.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1240.249}, "reply_to": "22803__0_062", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_064", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "I'm speaking practically.\nAnd I don't have to go into all the argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1254.022, 1255.415], "stop_times": [1255.415, 1257.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1254.022}, "reply_to": "22803__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22803__0_065", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1257.101], "stop_times": [1257.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1257.101}, "reply_to": "22803__0_064", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_066", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "You know the argument.\nIt's a very familiar argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1257.432, 1257.958], "stop_times": [1257.958, 1258.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1257.432}, "reply_to": "22803__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22803__0_067", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Sure.\nThe answer is that... that Congress was prepared to accept a certain level of disuniformity when it enacted 136v because it made very clear in sandwiching the preemption provision of 136b... surround... by (a) and (c) that it was prepared to allow States to depart in significant respects from what was nationally uniform.\nAnd the way it did so was to say States can regulate sale or use and they can also impose extra requirements for special locations.\nNow, what Dow did here I think illustrates the way the system is supposed to work, which is that when a problem was identified with their product in the States of Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, within 7 months it petitioned the EPA to append to its national uniform label a supplemental label.\nAnd that supplemental label says it is for distribution in those three States only and it provided 10 important changes to the label that it otherwise had as a nationally uniform label.\nThat's how the system is supposed to work.\nIf the incidental regulatory effect of jury verdicts or common law claims induces or causes some kind of change to the label, that can be done without an adverse effect to national uniformity through the supplemental labeling process.\nAnd what Dow did here was it has its label and then it attaches the supplemental label that addresses the particular conditions that exist in the State.\nAnd the EPA has recognized that as a perfectly appropriate and valid way to address the geographic, environmental, and climatic conditions that exist in the different regions of the country that engage in agriculture.\nThere's nothing that is uncertain about that if you accept the premise of the Government's argument in Medtronic, which is that juries can be properly instructed, if it came to that, so that they could follow the appropriate Federal standard.\nNow, I would like to turn... sorry.\nDid you... no, go ahead.\nI would like to turn briefly to the... the requirements aspect of the case because we do think that, under our broadest theory, this is a different situation than Medtronic and Cipollone, and because of the important statutory indications that are in the provision 136v.\nUnlike in Medtronic, there is an explicit provision that is a non-preempted provision, and that is different from Medtronic.\nWhere in Medtronic there was a provision that allowed the FDA to impose its own decisions as to requirements and whether or not the States should be displaced, here Congress made the determination in 136v(a) and in (c) that those kinds of requirements can be imposed.\nThey're in addition to what the Federal standard is.\nThat means that you have to look at requirements in a somewhat different way because the States have this authority that they did not have under the Medical Device Amendments.\nThere's a textual indicator under (b) also which refers to (a) in the sense that (b) says such State that shall issue these requirements.\nSuch... the meaning of it in Webster's means what has been already described... is in (a), and in (a) the States are authorized to promulgate regulations.\nSo we think that there is a textual basis for distinguishing the word requirements that this Court... five Justices in this Court in Medtronic said would encompass common law claims.\nIf there are no further questions at this time, I'd like to reserve the balance--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1258.953, 1259.312, 1281.538, 1290.563, 1311.306, 1324.133, 1326.297, 1342.383, 1350.235, 1363.504, 1380.302, 1385.898, 1387.066, 1413.407, 1421.247, 1440.737, 1443.686, 1455.833, 1466.646, 1476.737, 1487.511], "stop_times": [1259.312, 1281.538, 1290.563, 1311.306, 1324.133, 1326.297, 1342.383, 1350.235, 1363.504, 1380.302, 1385.898, 1387.066, 1413.407, 1421.247, 1440.737, 1443.686, 1455.833, 1466.646, 1476.737, 1487.511, 1490.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1258.953}, "reply_to": "22803__0_066", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_068", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Let me ask one because I think you'll hear some variation of this, and you have a minute, which is the... the statute sets up a perfectly good way of keeping this branded stuff off the market.\nAll any complaining farmer has to do is to go to EPA and ask them to pull it, and pulling it is an unbelievable sanction.\nIt's like the atomic bomb on the company.\nAnd so that's very strong.\nAnd the only thing that leaves out is the possibility of damage remedies, but if you want your damage remedy, just go to EPA and tell them to give it to you because they can write the rule the other way that I was suggesting.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1490.828, 1500.609, 1507.115, 1508.988, 1511.006], "stop_times": [1500.609, 1507.115, 1508.988, 1511.006, 1521.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1490.828}, "reply_to": "22803__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22803__0_069", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Well, I don't think that EPA could write a rule requiring damages to be done.\nIt doesn't have the statutory authority--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1521.359, 1526.609], "stop_times": [1526.609, 1528.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1521.359}, "reply_to": "22803__0_068", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_070", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "They would just say it doesn't preempt.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1528.564], "stop_times": [1529.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1528.564}, "reply_to": "22803__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22803__0_071", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Well, there's no indication here that EPA can do that kind of thing.\nIn FIFRA, it certainly doesn't have that kind of provision.\nI mean, certainly there are different ways that the statute could have been written.\nThat isn't the choice that Congress made.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1529.364, 1537.895, 1540.515, 1543.994, 1546.415], "stop_times": [1537.895, 1540.515, 1543.994, 1546.415, 1548.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1529.364}, "reply_to": "22803__0_070", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__0_072", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Mr. Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1548.151], "stop_times": [1552.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1548.151}, "reply_to": "22803__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_000", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nFIFRA's preemption provision, which Congress specifically amended in 1978 to add the title uniformity, preempts by its terms, quote, requirements for labeling different from those required under FIFRA.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1552.402, 1558.219], "stop_times": [1558.219, 1577.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1552.402}, "reply_to": "22803__0_072", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_001", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Why... why doesn't the other amendment limit your argument?\nBecause Congress has also passed an amendment to the effect that unless EPA chooses to get in to the business of... of passing on efficacy, it... it need not do so.\nAnd in fact we know it is not doing so.\nWhy, therefore, doesn't the uniformity argument go to those subjects that EPA does review for and why doesn't the subject of efficacy, in effect, drop out of... of the... the whole preemption claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1577.256, 1582.935, 1594.12, 1597.14], "stop_times": [1582.935, 1594.12, 1597.14, 1611.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1577.256}, "reply_to": "22803__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22803__1_002", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "There are... there are two fundamental reasons.\nThe first is that it is a principal requirement of FIFRA, and has been since 1972 and remains, that a manufacturer may only sell a registered pesticide with the precise labeling to the word and font size that EPA has approved, and that requirement applies whether the wording relates to human safety, environmental protection, or efficacy.\nNow, the specific amendment in 1978 was, as Mr. Frederick indicated, represented a representation by EPA to Congress... and Congress'... the... the committee report plainly indicates this... that the EPA was not saying we are no longer regulating efficacy, we are no longer concerned with efficacy.\nWhat they said was because the Department of Agriculture and the extension services and the State universities are all involved in this and, in particular, are involved in the statutory requirement that before a manufacturer can even apply for registration, even submit a registration application, the manufacturer must do extensive, rigorous efficacy testing, which Congress has indicated correctly is very expensive--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1611.211, 1613.516, 1643.222, 1666.745], "stop_times": [1613.516, 1643.222, 1666.745, 1697.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1611.211}, "reply_to": "22803__1_001", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_003", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "But it's not monitored at all.\nThe... the manufacturer can say... make up reports and EPA is never going to look at them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1697.655, 1699.367], "stop_times": [1699.367, 1704.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1697.655}, "reply_to": "22803__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22803__1_004", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--If the manufacturer makes up reports, it has committed a felony.\nEPA can enforce it.\nIt can refer it to the Attorney General.\nIt's just like the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1704.786, 1709.115, 1711.206, 1713.277], "stop_times": [1709.115, 1711.206, 1713.277, 1714.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1704.786}, "reply_to": "22803__1_003", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_005", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "But maybe it isn't a labeling violation.\nI mean, there are claims made here that I have trouble shoehorning into your theory.\nFor instance, why does a claim that Dow negligently failed to field test its product on peanuts on acid soil impose a label requirement?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1714.803, 1718.382, 1723.934], "stop_times": [1718.382, 1723.934, 1735.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1714.803}, "reply_to": "22803__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__1_006", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1735.624], "stop_times": [1736.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1735.624}, "reply_to": "22803__1_005", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_007", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "I... I just don't understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1736.463], "stop_times": [1738.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1736.463}, "reply_to": "22803__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__1_008", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, I think... I will address the negligent testing and, of course, the design defect--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1738.568], "stop_times": [1742.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1738.568}, "reply_to": "22803__1_007", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_009", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1742.929], "stop_times": [1743.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1742.929}, "reply_to": "22803__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__1_010", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--discussion that's figured so prominently in my colleague's argument.\nIt's very, very important to understand that unlike in Sprietsma and Medtronic and so many of the... and, for that matter, with respect to the preempted claims in Cipollone, the claims that were preempted below, we didn't file a rule 12 motion to dismiss.\nWe couldn't have with respect to at least one of those two claims.\nWe filed a motion for summary judgment that said with respect to... let me take design defect first.\nWith respect to design defect, it is possible under Texas State law to state a claim for products liability under defective design without impeaching the labeling.\nAnd there is a brief filed in this case by Dean Powers, the University of Texas Law School, for the... the Texas Chemistry Council who's an expert on Texas tort law, and he goes through the Texas torts in detail to show why they are all preempted and all invalid under independent and adequate State grounds.\nBut what we did is we didn't move to dismiss.\nWe filed a motion for summary judgment, and in that motion for summary judgment, we pointed the respondents in this case to this Court's decision in Celotex v. Catrett, and we said, in effect, we know that you can allege a design defect claim without impeaching the labeling, but we think that what you are complaining about does impeach the labeling.\nTherefore, show us what you have.\nNow, under rule 56, they had two alternatives.\nThey could have filed an affidavit or a request under rule 56(f), as this Court referenced in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, and said, hey, we don't know how this was made.\nWe don't know how this was tested.\nWe don't know how this was manufactured.\nWe're entitled to discovery, and district courts recognize that all the time.\nWhat they did--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1743.509, 1747.268, 1764.488, 1769.829, 1777.393, 1791.451, 1811.169, 1813.829, 1837.75, 1841.077, 1844.807, 1856.75, 1858.23, 1860.369, 1865.169], "stop_times": [1747.268, 1764.488, 1769.829, 1777.393, 1791.451, 1811.169, 1813.829, 1837.75, 1841.077, 1844.807, 1856.75, 1858.23, 1860.369, 1865.169, 1866.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1743.509}, "reply_to": "22803__1_009", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_011", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "And they didn't do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1866.419], "stop_times": [1867.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1866.419}, "reply_to": "22803__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__1_012", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--They did not do that, and what they did was to submit affidavits and documentary evidence, including expert affidavits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1867.82], "stop_times": [1876.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1867.82}, "reply_to": "22803__1_011", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_013", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Mr.... Mr. Waxman, you said they didn't file a motion to dismiss.\nI thought you brought the lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1876.275, 1878.916], "stop_times": [1878.916, 1880.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.275}, "reply_to": "22803__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_014", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "We brought the lawsuit and we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1880.206], "stop_times": [1882.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1880.206}, "reply_to": "22803__1_013", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_015", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "But then they couldn't file--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1882.371], "stop_times": [1883.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1882.371}, "reply_to": "22803__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_016", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--No, no, no.\nI said we didn't file a motion to dismiss--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1883.11, 1884.0], "stop_times": [1884.0, 1886.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1883.11}, "reply_to": "22803__1_015", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_017", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--You didn't file a motion to dismiss your own complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1886.279], "stop_times": [1887.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.279}, "reply_to": "22803__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_018", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--No, no.\nTheir counterclaims.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1887.376, 1887.935], "stop_times": [1887.935, 1888.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1887.376}, "reply_to": "22803__1_017", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_019", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Oh, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1888.881], "stop_times": [1889.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1888.881}, "reply_to": "22803__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_020", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "In other words, this wasn't decided... Mr. Frederick's reply brief talks over and over and over again about how this was decided on the pleadings, and you know, there was no discovery allowed.\nUnder rule 56, they could have asked for discovery when we basically said, okay, let's show our hands.\nWe got two jacks.\nWhat do you got?\nAnd what their expert said and what their response said was if the 2001 amended label had been on it, we wouldn't have been injured.\nNow, rule 56(c) says that when you oppose a summary judgment motion with affidavit evidence, the burden is on the adverse... the adverse party must by affidavits, or otherwise provided in this rule, set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, and they didn't do that.\nNow, the classic design defect... let me... let me give you an example.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1889.94, 1900.93, 1906.97, 1907.831, 1908.7, 1919.32, 1943.24], "stop_times": [1900.93, 1906.97, 1907.831, 1908.7, 1919.32, 1943.24, 1946.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1889.94}, "reply_to": "22803__1_019", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_021", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Well, let's just try to boil it down a little bit for my purposes.\nDo you concede that there could be a claim based on no testing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1946.922, 1950.587], "stop_times": [1950.587, 1955.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1946.922}, "reply_to": "22803__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__1_022", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1955.093], "stop_times": [1955.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1955.093}, "reply_to": "22803__1_021", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_023", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--that there could be a claim based on design defect, that there could be a claim saying there were off-label oral statements made that amounted to fraud or misleading--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1955.973], "stop_times": [1970.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1955.973}, "reply_to": "22803__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__1_024", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--I'll take them in your precise order.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1970.289], "stop_times": [1971.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1970.289}, "reply_to": "22803__1_023", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_025", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1971.134], "stop_times": [1971.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1971.134}, "reply_to": "22803__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__1_026", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Under Texas law... and the court of appeals opinion, the Grinnell opinion cited by the court of appeals opinion, says this, as does Dean Powers.\nUnder Texas law, negligent testing is not an independent tort.\nIt is of necessity a subset of inadequate warnings.\nIt is an element of a... the tort... the claim of product defect related to warnings.\nAnd so it is not possible under Texas law, settled Texas law.\nOther States are different, but Texas in its sovereign capacity has chosen to make claims of negligent testing an element of the tort of defective product by failure to warn, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [1971.673, 1981.425, 1986.492, 1991.688, 1997.704, 2002.865], "stop_times": [1981.425, 1986.492, 1991.688, 1997.704, 2002.865, 2017.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1971.673}, "reply_to": "22803__1_025", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_027", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "And the way you proceeded in this case, you made it clear that it would be impossible for the Texas court itself to weigh in on this because you jumped the gun.\nThey wanted to proceed in Texas court, and then we would have known what Texas law was on these subjects.\nYou said, no, we want to be in the Federal forum.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2017.262, 2027.545, 2033.871], "stop_times": [2027.545, 2033.871, 2036.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2017.262}, "reply_to": "22803__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22803__1_028", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--We want... as the... as the Fifth Circuit found and the district court found, we filed a declaratory judgment in Texas after we received their demand letters because we wanted this to be adjudicated in a single forum, which the Texas venue rules would not have allowed, and we... we actually filed this in Lubbock, Texas, which is the geographic center of where these 29 farmers operate.\nNow, with respect to defective design, yes, under Texas law if they had a... they have to allege and they have to prove that there is a safer alternative design for this product, which they never even introduced one quantum of evidence about.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2036.397, 2061.196, 2078.501], "stop_times": [2061.196, 2078.501, 2079.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2036.397}, "reply_to": "22803__1_027", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_029", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "It seems to me you're... you're arguing the merits of the tort claims rather than the preemption issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2079.37], "stop_times": [2083.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2079.37}, "reply_to": "22803__1_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_030", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Well, what we said was your claims are preempted if they impeach the labeling that we are required by Federal law to use.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2083.815], "stop_times": [2094.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2083.815}, "reply_to": "22803__1_029", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_031", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "But they now say they don't.\nThey ought to be able to proceed on those claims.\nWhat do we do with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2094.413, 2096.014, 2098.59], "stop_times": [2096.014, 2098.59, 2099.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2094.413}, "reply_to": "22803__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__1_032", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Well, what this... what... what happens under rule 56--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2099.988], "stop_times": [2104.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2099.988}, "reply_to": "22803__1_031", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_033", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "And also the... also the claims of false, misleading statements outside the label.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2104.103], "stop_times": [2110.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2104.103}, "reply_to": "22803__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__1_034", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Yes.\nI'm going to get to the false and misleading statements outside the labeling in a minute, but just to finish the design defect point, they filed a complaint... a counterclaim which had as a count this was defectively designed.\nIt is possible under Texas law to prove that something is defectively designed.\nIf they had come in and said, but we filed a motion for summary judgment that says here's our evidence and we don't think that you can satisfy... that you are, in fact, complaining about a defective design--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2110.004, 2110.453, 2122.005, 2127.552], "stop_times": [2110.453, 2122.005, 2127.552, 2141.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2110.004}, "reply_to": "22803__1_033", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_035", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "But if they did allege a defective design claim under Texas law, would that have been preempted?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2141.427], "stop_times": [2146.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2141.427}, "reply_to": "22803__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_036", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--No.\nIf... if they had said, look, the problem with this, which as footnote 9 of our brief indicates, it's not a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2146.898, 2147.498], "stop_times": [2147.498, 2155.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2146.898}, "reply_to": "22803__1_035", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_037", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "It seems to me your argument is not whether there's preemption.\nIt's whether there's a State cause of... State law cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2155.693, 2157.764], "stop_times": [2157.764, 2160.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2155.693}, "reply_to": "22803__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_038", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--No, no, no.\nIt's... it's both.\nWith respect to defective design, what we said is, your claim is preempted because you aren't going to go to the jury on defective design without impeaching the label.\nIf we're wrong, prove it in response to our summary judgment submission.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2160.649, 2160.95, 2161.988, 2172.969], "stop_times": [2160.95, 2161.988, 2172.969, 2178.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2160.649}, "reply_to": "22803__1_037", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_039", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "But you can--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2178.414], "stop_times": [2178.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2178.414}, "reply_to": "22803__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22803__1_040", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Is that their burden?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2178.918], "stop_times": [2179.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2178.918}, "reply_to": "22803__1_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__1_041", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "It is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2179.414], "stop_times": [2179.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2179.414}, "reply_to": "22803__1_040", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_042", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Is that their burden or is your burden to show--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2179.901], "stop_times": [2181.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2179.901}, "reply_to": "22803__1_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__1_043", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--It is... it is absolutely their burden in... as the responding party to a motion for summary judgment, to show that there are material facts that are either in dispute or there are material facts that would allow them to go to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2181.668], "stop_times": [2196.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2181.668}, "reply_to": "22803__1_042", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_044", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--But on your theory there is no material fact, it seems to me, because your... you say they cannot make good on that claim without impeaching the label.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2196.977], "stop_times": [2205.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2196.977}, "reply_to": "22803__1_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22803__1_045", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "And they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2205.274], "stop_times": [2206.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2205.274}, "reply_to": "22803__1_044", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_046", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Every time they sue on the... on the ground that... let's say, that... that the... the actual use was inconsistent with what the label described, you could say, gee, if their theory is correct, we'd have to change our label to say that what's on the label now is in fact not properly descriptive of the product.\nSo it's not a... a question of needing more fact.\nOn your theory, whenever they, in effect, sue on the basis of what you say, your response is going to be, as a matter of law, well, if they're correct, we'd have to say something else.\nThat impeaches the label.\nTherefore, preemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2206.199, 2230.998, 2234.299, 2247.604, 2249.327], "stop_times": [2230.998, 2234.299, 2247.604, 2249.327, 2250.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2206.199}, "reply_to": "22803__1_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22803__1_047", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--That is exactly right.\nWhat they could have done in response to our motion for summary judgment is to say this product assertedly harms... when it is applied before the seed is planted, will harm the product it is... the plant that it's supposed to protect if the soil pH is too high.\nThey could have easily have come back and said if they had a... a design defect claim that didn't impeach the label to say you should have... there was a way to manufacture this product.\nYou could have it in pellet form rather than in the soluble form or if the problem was the alkalinity of the soil, there is a way to design this so that it is dissolved in a more acidic solution.\nThe classic case, which is referenced in the NRDC brief, which has many, many examples of true design defect claims that don't impeach labels, is a case involving rat poison.\nIt's a case called Banks v. ICI America.\nIt's a Georgia Supreme Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2250.72, 2252.529, 2271.79, 2283.33, 2293.83, 2306.341, 2309.77], "stop_times": [2252.529, 2271.79, 2283.33, 2293.83, 2306.341, 2309.77, 2310.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2250.72}, "reply_to": "22803__1_046", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_048", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "So you quite clearly have both.\nI understand that.\nLet me ask you a question about the... the preemption point because what I think they're saying is go read the red brief, your brief, pages 6 and 7, and there you see a statutory requirement and you see regulatory requirements, regulation.\nAnd I think one of their claims is we are arguing that that statutory requirement, without any change in the regulatory, that... that it was violated.\nThese are false.\nThey're misbranded.\nSo we are not imposing a requirement different from or in addition to the requirement of Federal law.\nWe are enforcing a requirement that is the same as the requirement of Federal law, and if, by the way, the EPA were to think that tort suits in those circumstances in practice are too disuniform, let them promulgate a regulation to that effect.\nBut they haven't.\nNow, what... what is the answer to that argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2310.902, 2311.954, 2312.795, 2330.613, 2344.665, 2346.276, 2347.235, 2355.664, 2375.942, 2377.266], "stop_times": [2311.954, 2312.795, 2330.613, 2344.665, 2346.276, 2347.235, 2355.664, 2375.942, 2377.266, 2380.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2310.902}, "reply_to": "22803__1_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22803__1_049", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--The answer is threefold.\nNumber one, a challenge to a... the wording of a statement on the label on the grounds that it is false and misleading is... does impose a requirement different than Federal law, not the requirement that... that labeling not be false and misleading, but the fundamental requirement that a... unless and until the EPA says otherwise, the manufacturer can only sell this product with the precise labeling that EPA has approved.\nAnd it... if you look at page 63a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2380.035, 2382.145, 2414.98], "stop_times": [2382.145, 2414.98, 2417.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.035}, "reply_to": "22803__1_048", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_050", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Mr. Waxman, do I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2417.788], "stop_times": [2418.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2417.788}, "reply_to": "22803__1_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22803__1_051", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--of the joint appendix--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2418.441], "stop_times": [2419.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2418.441}, "reply_to": "22803__1_050", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_052", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Mr. Waxman, do I take it from what you have just said that there is no... even though the statute prohibits misbranding, that there is no way that that can be privately enforced, that misbranding is something strictly for EPA to deal with, that the statute has a prohibition on misbranding?\nI can see the argument that all we're doing is enforcing the provision that says no misbranding.\nSo is EPA the only the player in the misbranding league--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2419.117, 2442.645, 2449.668], "stop_times": [2442.645, 2449.668, 2454.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.117}, "reply_to": "22803__1_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22803__1_053", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Insofar as labeling is concerned, the answer is yes, and that's because the statute... the statute has many, many instances in which it makes it clear that in service of the objective of a nationally uniform label, the expert agency that approves and dictates the language of that label be the one to decide what is or isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2454.317], "stop_times": [2479.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2454.317}, "reply_to": "22803__1_052", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_054", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Mr. Waxman--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2479.152], "stop_times": [2479.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.152}, "reply_to": "22803__1_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_055", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Where does it say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2479.724], "stop_times": [2480.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.724}, "reply_to": "22803__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22803__1_056", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--can I ask you one question here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2480.078], "stop_times": [2481.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2480.078}, "reply_to": "22803__1_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_057", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Because you were just going to point out where it says that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2481.248], "stop_times": [2481.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2481.248}, "reply_to": "22803__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22803__1_058", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "It goes to your--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2481.888], "stop_times": [2482.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2481.888}, "reply_to": "22803__1_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_059", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--which I think is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2482.668], "stop_times": [2483.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.668}, "reply_to": "22803__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22803__1_060", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2483.118], "stop_times": [2483.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2483.118}, "reply_to": "22803__1_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_061", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2483.778], "stop_times": [2484.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2483.778}, "reply_to": "22803__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22803__1_062", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Just let me ask this one question. Supposing the label says, this product contains vitamin A.\nPeriod.\nAnd it doesn't contain vitamin A, and they prove that in court.\nAnd you say you would have to change the label.\nI suggest you could change the product by putting vitamin A in it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2484.227, 2485.258, 2489.987, 2493.538, 2496.097], "stop_times": [2485.258, 2489.987, 2493.538, 2496.097, 2499.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2484.227}, "reply_to": "22803__1_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_063", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Well, you can... you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2499.618], "stop_times": [2503.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2499.618}, "reply_to": "22803__1_062", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_064", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Why isn't that an answer to the misbranding?\nYou change the product not necessarily the label.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2503.107, 2505.112], "stop_times": [2505.112, 2508.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2503.107}, "reply_to": "22803__1_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_065", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Because the difference between a... that would be a... a manufacturing defect, which are cases that have been decided--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2508.178], "stop_times": [2515.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2508.178}, "reply_to": "22803__1_064", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_066", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "It would be a false statement in the label.\nThe label happened to be false, a misrepresentation in it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2515.402, 2516.793], "stop_times": [2516.793, 2520.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.402}, "reply_to": "22803__1_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_067", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--If... if the... if it contains... I'm sorry.\nWas it vitamin A?\nIf it contains vitamin A because that's what the manufacturer intended and that's what the manufacturer produced--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2520.463, 2523.036, 2523.819], "stop_times": [2523.036, 2523.819, 2529.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2520.463}, "reply_to": "22803__1_066", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_068", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "No.\nThe manufacturer knew it didn't contain it.\nHe falsely put that in the statement--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2529.336, 2529.605, 2531.188], "stop_times": [2529.605, 2531.188, 2532.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2529.336}, "reply_to": "22803__1_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_069", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Oh, I see.\nSaid that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2532.703, 2532.924], "stop_times": [2532.924, 2533.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2532.703}, "reply_to": "22803__1_068", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_070", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--and... and it's... it's a misbranded, false statement.\nNow, does he have to change the label or could he change the product?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2533.435, 2536.222], "stop_times": [2536.222, 2539.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2533.435}, "reply_to": "22803__1_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_071", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Well, I believe that you have... you would have to... I mean, would it be efficacious with vitamin A?\nI don't know, but if it... if it requires a change in the label, it has to be done by EPA because the manufacturer commits a Federal law violation if it sells the product with any different label.\nIf you... if I can just direct the Court's attention to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2539.874, 2546.644, 2561.674], "stop_times": [2546.644, 2561.674, 2565.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2539.874}, "reply_to": "22803__1_070", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_072", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "No, but I'm suggesting he could sell the product with the same label if he just changed the product to correct the misstatement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2565.05], "stop_times": [2570.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2565.05}, "reply_to": "22803__1_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__1_073", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Well, the test, as the Fifth Circuit stated, Justice Stevens, is whether a judgment against Dow... I'm quoting.\nQuote: whether a judgment against Dow would cause it to need to alter the Strongarm label.\nI'm... and that's the... those are... that's the test that was applied here and is always applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2570.538, 2578.84, 2584.86], "stop_times": [2578.84, 2584.86, 2590.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2570.538}, "reply_to": "22803__1_072", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_074", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Okay, but why--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2590.26], "stop_times": [2591.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2590.26}, "reply_to": "22803__1_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22803__1_075", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "That is, does the State law cause of action... is it premised on a State law duty that there... that different labeling be used--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2591.085], "stop_times": [2601.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2591.085}, "reply_to": "22803__1_074", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_076", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--No, but neither--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2601.724], "stop_times": [2602.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2601.724}, "reply_to": "22803__1_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22803__1_077", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--that is, a little bit different than what Federal law requires.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2602.501], "stop_times": [2604.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2602.501}, "reply_to": "22803__1_076", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_078", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--The problem that I think some of... several of us are having is that both the... as I understand it, the Fifth Circuit test in your argument draws no distinction between the two following kinds of situations.\nSituation A: there's something that the manufacturer should have told you, should have put on the label, but the manufacturer didn't.\nSituation B: the manufacturer puts something on the label which in fact is wrong and in Justice Stevens' example is in fact false and it causes harm.\nIt makes sense, it seems to me, for preemption purposes to say if the person who sues sues simply on the ground that I bought it in reliance on the label, the label was false, I should get damages for... for whatever harm was caused, that situation should be dealt with for preemption purposes differently from the situation in which the... the manufacturer made no false statement.\nHe simply should have said more.\nAnd if... if you don't distinguish between those two situations, then the... the prohibition against mislabeling means absolutely nothing because... because it can never be enforced, in effect, except with respect to some prospective user.\nIt can never be enforced with respect to the actual user.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2604.132, 2616.464, 2626.012, 2638.174, 2669.299, 2672.164, 2693.214], "stop_times": [2616.464, 2626.012, 2638.174, 2669.299, 2672.164, 2693.214, 2696.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.132}, "reply_to": "22803__1_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22803__1_079", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Justice Souter, that is a choice that Congress could have made.\nIt is plainly not a choice that Congress did make because it applied the preemption provision to requirements that are either in addition to or different than.\nAnd whether a label is assertedly misleading because it fails to include something on the EPA-approved label or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2696.394, 2700.715, 2710.214], "stop_times": [2700.715, 2710.214, 2717.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2696.394}, "reply_to": "22803__1_078", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_080", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Requirements for labeling or packaging--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2717.987], "stop_times": [2719.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2717.987}, "reply_to": "22803__1_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__1_081", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2719.877], "stop_times": [2720.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2719.877}, "reply_to": "22803__1_080", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_082", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--that are in addition to or different.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2720.629], "stop_times": [2722.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2720.629}, "reply_to": "22803__1_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__1_083", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Yes.\nI... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2722.399, 2722.939], "stop_times": [2722.939, 2723.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2722.399}, "reply_to": "22803__1_082", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_084", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Requirements for labeling or packaging.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2723.409], "stop_times": [2725.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2723.409}, "reply_to": "22803__1_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__1_085", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Yes, and... and if it... if the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2725.114], "stop_times": [2727.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2725.114}, "reply_to": "22803__1_084", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_086", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Yes, and the argument that's being made is that we ought to... we ought to read... we ought to read the limitation, which Justice Scalia has just described, with respect to labeling and packaging, in a relatively narrow way to allow the suit to go forward and, therefore, we ought to make a distinction between the two kinds of situations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2727.364], "stop_times": [2747.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.364}, "reply_to": "22803__1_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22803__1_087", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--The allegation in this suit... the claims in this suit... and I... I see that my time has expired.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2747.616], "stop_times": [2753.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2747.616}, "reply_to": "22803__1_086", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22803__1_088", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Ms. Blatt.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2753.28], "stop_times": [2757.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2753.28}, "reply_to": "22803__1_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__2_000", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nIt would entirely destroy the uniformity contemplated by... contemplated by the statute if the EPA-approved and mandated label were subject to jury-by-jury invalidation based on a jury's determination of whether a label is false.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2757.611, 2766.067], "stop_times": [2766.067, 2781.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2757.611}, "reply_to": "22803__1_088", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_001", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "This is a new position for the Government, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2781.75], "stop_times": [2784.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2781.75}, "reply_to": "22803__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__2_002", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Yes, we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2784.039], "stop_times": [2786.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2784.039}, "reply_to": "22803__2_001", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_003", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "You used to take the opposite position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2786.051], "stop_times": [2787.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.051}, "reply_to": "22803__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__2_004", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2787.314], "stop_times": [2787.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2787.314}, "reply_to": "22803__2_003", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_005", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "And we're dealing here, as... nobody has mentioned it, but there... there's a clear statement rule for preemption, isn't there?\nDoesn't the preemption of... of traditional State powers have to be clear in the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2787.943, 2794.159], "stop_times": [2794.159, 2800.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.943}, "reply_to": "22803__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__2_006", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "We... we think subsection (b) is unambiguous in preempting any statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2800.532], "stop_times": [2806.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2800.532}, "reply_to": "22803__2_005", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_007", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "It's... it's ambiguous enough that the Government... the... the chief beneficiary of the... of the supposed preemption didn't see it.\nIt used to come out the other way.\nHow can you possibly say it's clear?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2806.011, 2811.867, 2813.939], "stop_times": [2811.867, 2813.939, 2815.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2806.011}, "reply_to": "22803__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__2_008", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Well, the agency is allowed to change its position and we realize--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2815.567], "stop_times": [2818.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2815.567}, "reply_to": "22803__2_007", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_009", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "I understand.\nIt's... it's welcome to change it, but it... it's one thing to change it.\nIt's another thing to change it and come in to say that the question is clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2818.633, 2819.113, 2822.306], "stop_times": [2819.113, 2822.306, 2825.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2818.633}, "reply_to": "22803__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__2_010", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Well, we think that... we realize that our position was inconsistent with not only the Court's decision in Cipollone and in Medtronic that recognizes that requirement extends to common law duties.\nBut more importantly, a system where a jury by jury on the same facts could come up with completely different reasons why a label is false--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2825.542, 2836.569], "stop_times": [2836.569, 2844.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2825.542}, "reply_to": "22803__2_009", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_011", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "All right.\nSo... so if you have one administration thinking the one thing and the other thinking the other thing, why isn't the answer that the agency can promulgate the reg it wants?\nAnd therefore if the reg... if the agency comes to that conclusion, let them promulgate that reg.\nAnd if a different one thinks it can work with the tort suits, let them promulgate that reg.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2844.232, 2844.494, 2852.913, 2858.075], "stop_times": [2844.494, 2852.913, 2858.075, 2861.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2844.232}, "reply_to": "22803__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22803__2_012", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Well, unlike Medtronic where preemption occurred by virtue of the FDA's regulation, under FIFRA there's preemption by virtue of the statute itself.\nAnd I just want to give one--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2861.954, 2870.704], "stop_times": [2870.704, 2871.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2861.954}, "reply_to": "22803__2_011", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_013", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Yes, but why isn't there a big difference, for purposes of your argument, between the Medtronic situation and this one for the simple reason in this case you've got a statute that authorizes EPA to do absolutely nothing on the subject of efficacy?\nAnd EPA does nothing on the subject of efficacy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2871.81, 2885.53], "stop_times": [2885.53, 2888.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2871.81}, "reply_to": "22803__2_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22803__2_014", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Well, that's just not true, with all due respect.\nI mean, they... the... we don't verify the accuracy of the efficacy labeling, but the requirement, both in the preemption provision and in the requirement to use the EPA label, clearly extends to efficacy.\nAnd you can have disuniform context whether it's safety or efficacy.\nImagine a label that directs a product to be mixed for 20 minutes.\nOne jury could find the label was false because the product should have only been mixed for 10 minutes.\nAnother jury in the same courthouse could find the label was false because the product should have been mixed for at least 30 minutes.\nAnd this case is another really good example.\nNow the petitioners are saying the label says that the soil only should be a 7.2 level.\nTheir expert says--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2888.739, 2891.6, 2904.07, 2908.633, 2912.389, 2916.91, 2922.65, 2924.921, 2930.509], "stop_times": [2891.6, 2904.07, 2908.633, 2912.389, 2916.91, 2922.65, 2924.921, 2930.509, 2931.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2888.739}, "reply_to": "22803__2_013", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_015", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Yes, but the remedy to that would not necessarily be to change the label.\nIt might be to change the quality of the product that requires how much time for mixing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2931.854, 2934.596], "stop_times": [2934.596, 2939.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2931.854}, "reply_to": "22803__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__2_016", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--And we think it's critical that our position is that this statute only operates in the area of labeling, and it preempts only those State labeling requirements--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2939.085], "stop_times": [2946.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2939.085}, "reply_to": "22803__2_015", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_017", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "What do you say about my vitamin A example?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2946.762], "stop_times": [2948.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2946.762}, "reply_to": "22803__2_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__2_018", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--I think your vitamin A example is an excellent example of a non-preempted claim.\nIf a manufacturer says that this is a pesticide and he puts Clorox in the bottle, the plaintiff wants to get to the jury on the theory that a reasonable manufacturer would not have used Clorox.\nHe would have used the pesticide.\nIf the argument, on the other hand, is Clorox was fine.\nI don't have a problem with Clorox, I just wish I would have been given a warning, but that's not the way a plaintiff would frame his complaint.\nWe think it's critical that our theory is if the plaintiff's theory of recovery is necessarily... necessarily predicated on a requirement that the manufacturer used a label different than the EPA-approved label the Federal law required it use--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2948.56, 2953.335, 2963.081, 2964.35, 2968.581, 2974.241], "stop_times": [2953.335, 2963.081, 2964.35, 2968.581, 2974.241, 2989.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2948.56}, "reply_to": "22803__2_017", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_019", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Well, let's... let's be specific here.\nIf it's a failure to test, if it's a... a design defect requirement, if it's an off-labeled, false misrepresentation, why are they preempted?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [2989.437, 2990.166], "stop_times": [2990.166, 3001.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2989.437}, "reply_to": "22803__2_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22803__2_020", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--On the face of the complaint, we agree that they're not preempted.\nOur only position is by the time it got to summary judgment, the courts decided that they had no evidence on what would have been non-preempted claims.\nIf another farmer wants to bring an expert that says Strongarm can be manufactured--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3001.946, 3006.174, 3013.906], "stop_times": [3006.174, 3013.906, 3018.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3001.946}, "reply_to": "22803__2_019", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_021", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "But then do you endorse the theory of the court of appeals in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3018.369], "stop_times": [3020.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3018.369}, "reply_to": "22803__2_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__2_022", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Well, we think the court of appeals took it claim by claim and read the affidavit... or at least the district court did--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3020.751], "stop_times": [3025.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3020.751}, "reply_to": "22803__2_021", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_023", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "And you think just mere inducement to change a label is sufficient to create preemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3025.532], "stop_times": [3030.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.532}, "reply_to": "22803__2_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__2_024", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Mere inducement only to the extent that that's a shorthand way of saying the label was... necessarily had to be required.\nLet me give you an example.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3030.25, 3036.691], "stop_times": [3036.691, 3037.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3030.25}, "reply_to": "22803__2_023", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_025", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "If Congress wanted that, surely it could have stated it more clearly than simply saying the State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging.\nA tort suit because of... of mislabeling is not a requirement for labeling or packaging.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3037.761, 3050.623], "stop_times": [3050.623, 3057.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3037.761}, "reply_to": "22803__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__2_026", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "If the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3057.913], "stop_times": [3058.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3057.913}, "reply_to": "22803__2_025", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_027", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "And if Congress wanted to say that, they could have said it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3058.487], "stop_times": [3060.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3058.487}, "reply_to": "22803__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__2_028", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Well, I think they did say if a common law duty is necessarily premised on the requirement that the manufacturer used a different label than Federal law required him to use.\nIn this case, the common law duty of a failure to warn is saying the manufacturer should have put something on--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3060.499, 3070.409], "stop_times": [3070.409, 3076.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3060.499}, "reply_to": "22803__2_027", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_029", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "You have... you have that provision which talks about requirements for labeling or packaging in conjunction with another provision that authorizes the State to regulate the sale or use.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3076.515], "stop_times": [3087.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3076.515}, "reply_to": "22803__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__2_030", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3087.744], "stop_times": [3090.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3087.744}, "reply_to": "22803__2_029", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_031", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "I mean, you... you have to make sense of the two.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3090.583], "stop_times": [3092.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3090.583}, "reply_to": "22803__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__2_032", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Right, and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3092.383], "stop_times": [3093.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3092.383}, "reply_to": "22803__2_031", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_033", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "And it seems to me that means the State can impose certain requirements upon the seller to the consumer--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3093.026], "stop_times": [3098.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.026}, "reply_to": "22803__2_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__2_034", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Not on labeling.\nJustice Scalia, every day--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3098.64, 3099.173], "stop_times": [3099.173, 3100.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3098.64}, "reply_to": "22803__2_033", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_035", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Well, every change... virtually every change... virtually everyone... if... if you believe the respondent's theory, virtually any State regulation of the substance of the sale will require a change in the label.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3100.559], "stop_times": [3110.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3100.559}, "reply_to": "22803__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__2_036", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--That's just not true.\nEvery day States and localities around the country are imposing use restrictions.\nThey tell... they tell applicators and users when and where to apply the pesticide and what types of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3110.463, 3111.229, 3115.949], "stop_times": [3111.229, 3115.949, 3121.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3110.463}, "reply_to": "22803__2_035", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_037", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Sale... sale or use is what it says.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3121.024], "stop_times": [3122.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3121.024}, "reply_to": "22803__2_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__2_038", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--That's right and they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3122.984], "stop_times": [3123.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3122.984}, "reply_to": "22803__2_037", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_039", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Say... if they regulate the sale or use.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3123.815], "stop_times": [3125.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3123.815}, "reply_to": "22803__2_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__2_040", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--That's right, and they do that every day without imposing labeling requirements.\nImagine... imagine--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3125.854, 3129.402], "stop_times": [3129.402, 3130.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3125.854}, "reply_to": "22803__2_039", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_041", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Give me sale examples.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3130.348], "stop_times": [3131.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3130.348}, "reply_to": "22803__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22803__2_042", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--They require the manufacturer, in order to sell the product, be registered with the State, and they can impose whatever sale restrictions they want--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3131.309], "stop_times": [3138.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3131.309}, "reply_to": "22803__2_041", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_043", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "And can they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3138.198], "stop_times": [3138.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3138.198}, "reply_to": "22803__2_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22803__2_044", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--that don't go to the labeling.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3138.704], "stop_times": [3139.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3138.704}, "reply_to": "22803__2_043", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_045", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Can they do the same thing by... through jury verdicts?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3139.565], "stop_times": [3141.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3139.565}, "reply_to": "22803__2_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22803__2_046", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Absolutely not.\nIt would be bad enough if a manufacturer had to shop his label around 50 States and had each--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3141.758, 3143.543], "stop_times": [3143.543, 3149.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3141.758}, "reply_to": "22803__2_045", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_047", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "So now... so now you say a State can do something by regulation that a jury can't do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3149.269], "stop_times": [3153.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3149.269}, "reply_to": "22803__2_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22803__2_048", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--No.\nA State absolutely cannot impose labeling restrictions on a manufacturer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3153.294, 3153.616], "stop_times": [3153.616, 3157.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3153.294}, "reply_to": "22803__2_047", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_049", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "I'm asking if the... if juries can do anything that the... are... are prohibited under your view from doing anything that the State could do by a State regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3157.544], "stop_times": [3166.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3157.544}, "reply_to": "22803__2_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22803__2_050", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Right.\nI'm sorry.\nUnder... it... the alternative theory would give more power to the jury to impose labeling restrictions than the State, and we don't think the State can do it.\nAnd it would be far more pernicious if a label were subject to jury-by-jury invalidation.\nNo one would read the label, much less understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3166.406, 3166.224, 3166.634, 3175.305, 3179.793], "stop_times": [3166.224, 3166.634, 3175.305, 3179.793, 3182.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3166.406}, "reply_to": "22803__2_049", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_051", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Ms. Blatt, there's a brief in this case... there's a brief in this case that just shows hundreds, if not thousands, of crop damage claims.\nAnd your theory is that with this ambiguous provision Congress wiped all that out.\nIt's hard to believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3182.099, 3190.609, 3200.188], "stop_times": [3190.609, 3200.188, 3202.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3182.099}, "reply_to": "22803__2_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22803__2_052", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "No.\nCongress just wiped out labeling and only those labeling requirements--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3202.067, 3202.253], "stop_times": [3202.253, 3205.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3202.067}, "reply_to": "22803__2_051", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_053", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "But everything becomes... but every... every time... my crop was stunted.\nOkay.\nYou have to change the label so you can't bring that suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3205.329, 3209.45, 3210.399], "stop_times": [3209.45, 3210.399, 3213.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3205.329}, "reply_to": "22803__2_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22803__2_054", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, it's just not true.\nThe lower courts well understand this distinction, and they... they let go all the time claims as not preempted that are true manufacturing defect or true design defect claims.\nThis is not a complete immunity.\nThis is a narrowly targeted one as to labeling.\nThere is a famous example of the Benlate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3213.017, 3214.83, 3223.702, 3225.398, 3227.837], "stop_times": [3214.83, 3223.702, 3225.398, 3227.837, 3230.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3213.017}, "reply_to": "22803__2_053", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_055", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "He says their claim is... is very simple.\nYou didn't tell us that using this in our kind of soil would stunt the crop and wouldn't kill the weeds.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3230.183, 3232.299], "stop_times": [3232.299, 3239.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3230.183}, "reply_to": "22803__2_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22803__2_056", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3239.538], "stop_times": [3240.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3239.538}, "reply_to": "22803__2_055", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_057", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "But you're saying that kind of claim can't be brought anymore.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3240.53], "stop_times": [3243.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3240.53}, "reply_to": "22803__2_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22803__2_058", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "It can be brought if there's State law and evidence to support the State law that doesn't attack the labeling.\nAnd our--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3243.573, 3249.099], "stop_times": [3249.099, 3249.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3243.573}, "reply_to": "22803__2_057", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_059", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "I've described a set of facts which your position I think you have to say affects the label.\nThe... the farmer says I bought this bottle.\nIt said okay for all peanuts.\nMy crop grew and it was stunted and the weeds stayed alive.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3249.943, 3255.402, 3258.164, 3259.616], "stop_times": [3255.402, 3258.164, 3259.616, 3263.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3249.943}, "reply_to": "22803__2_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22803__2_060", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--If they found an expert that said if you had manufactured this differently or if you had designed it differently and there was evidence to support that, our view is that those claims aren't preempted.\nAnd the alternative to let juries--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3263.945, 3274.044], "stop_times": [3274.044, 3276.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3263.945}, "reply_to": "22803__2_059", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_061", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "No.\nI'm not giving you that case.\nI'm giving you exactly what happened.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3276.525, 3276.867, 3278.168], "stop_times": [3276.867, 3278.168, 3280.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3276.525}, "reply_to": "22803__2_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22803__2_062", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--This case... they didn't have any evidence other than saying that the label was inaccurate.\nBut the next... another jury could rely on the respondent's evidence to say the label was inaccurate because it works better on high pH soil, and another jury could say, well, we need a margin of safety and the label should have said 6.8 instead of 7.0, which is what their expert says.\nAnd you can have this time and time again with how often the pesticide has to be applied, when it has to be applied.\nAnd to... and the... the whole point of section 136v(b) was to have reliability--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3280.003, 3284.344, 3298.654, 3304.685], "stop_times": [3284.344, 3298.654, 3304.685, 3309.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3280.003}, "reply_to": "22803__2_061", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_063", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Was that happening when EPA took the opposite view?\nWas there this tremendous disparity with juries going every which way--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3309.806, 3312.474], "stop_times": [3312.474, 3316.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3309.806}, "reply_to": "22803__2_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22803__2_064", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "--Well, there's... there's been preemption at least since the late '80's, and I don't know of cases where juries... or the theory for recovery was invalidating the label.\nThere are lots of cases that are true manufacturing defect claims, and I direct your attention to the Benlate where the manufacturer contaminated his product.\nIf I'm the plaintiff, my theory... the theory was you mismanufactured this product.\nA reasonable manufacturer would have taken practices to prevent contamination, and it destroyed a lot of crops and EPA actually took enforcement action against that manufacturer.\nThe rat poison example... a 9-year-old kid died of rat poisoning because it tasted like a candy bar.\nThe theory of recovery was all the manufacturer had to do was put a bittering agent in it that would have made the kid throw up and the rats still would have loved the poisoning.\nThat has nothing to do with the label.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3316.384, 3323.695, 3331.984, 3337.361, 3345.516, 3351.845, 3360.264], "stop_times": [3323.695, 3331.984, 3337.361, 3345.516, 3351.845, 3360.264, 3361.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3316.384}, "reply_to": "22803__2_063", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22803__2_065", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Blatt.\nYou have about 4 minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3361.953, 3365.121], "stop_times": [3365.121, 3368.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3361.953}, "reply_to": "22803__2_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22803__3_000", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "I just have two points to make.\nWith respect to the summary judgment posture of the case, the way this unfolded was that on one day the district court decided the motion for jurisdiction, that it had jurisdiction.\nOn the very next day, Dow rushed into court with its motion for summary judgment.\nAnd what Mr. Waxman cites as the Celotex invocation merely says that on... on this point it is neither unfair nor premature to require defendants to produce evidence in support of their claims now as the Celotex trilogy requires.\nI'm reading from their motion for summary judgment.\nThat was filed before the counterclaims.\nThe only thing that they knew about was the deceptive trade practices notice letter that the farmers had filed pursuant to State law.\nSo they didn't know what our claims were, and they were requiring or saying that the district court could throw us out of court without giving us any opportunity to file counterclaims, much less try to develop evidence that would prove them.\nNow, with respect to the disuniformity point, when Congress amended the statute in 1988 to add the word uniformity, it said in that public law that it was a technical amendment.\nWe don't know why Congress put the word uniformity in.\nThe legislative history is barren.\nIt just says this is a technical amendment.\nIt didn't change the substantive provisions that empowered States to impose regulations that would have the effect of disuniformity.\nNow, at the end of the day, we've got claims that have been brought historically since the late 19th century.\nUntil EPA had a sudden change of heart, there were decades in which juries made these decisions with respect to these kinds of products, and those preemption decisions really didn't take hold until after this Court announced Cipollone in 1992.\nAnd it was only at that point that the courts began to have preemption, but for the previous 2 decades, juries routinely decided these kinds of cases.\nThe sky did not fall.\nEPA didn't come in and say there's labeling disuniformity as a result of this.\nThere simply were no problems.\nBut what did happen was that the farmers who used products were able to get compensation when pesticides damaged their crops.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3368.716, 3370.325, 3381.894, 3385.625, 3399.645, 3401.733, 3405.525, 3415.124, 3427.173, 3441.814, 3444.558, 3446.54, 3448.53, 3459.081, 3466.7, 3483.399, 3493.584, 3495.149, 3499.458, 3501.187, 3510.638], "stop_times": [3370.325, 3381.894, 3385.625, 3399.645, 3401.733, 3405.525, 3415.124, 3427.173, 3441.814, 3444.558, 3446.54, 3448.53, 3459.081, 3466.7, 3483.399, 3493.584, 3495.149, 3499.458, 3501.187, 3510.638, 3513.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3368.716}, "reply_to": "22803__2_065", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22803__3_001", "conversation_id": "22803", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-388", "start_times": [3513.349], "stop_times": [3515.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3513.349}, "reply_to": "22803__3_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__0_000", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Ricky Bell v. Gregory Thompson.\nMs. Smith.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [0.0, 7.439], "stop_times": [7.439, 62.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__0_001", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWhen the Sixth Circuit withdrew its judgment affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief 6 months after this Court denied certiorari review, it exceeded its authority to act under both the rules of appellate procedure and this Court's decision in Calderon v. Thompson.\nAs to the rules, rule 41(d)(2)(D) requires, without exception, that the court issue a mandate immediately upon the filing of an order of this Court denying certiorari.\nThat did not happen in this case.\nBut because the court had no discretion under the rule to do anything other than to issue that mandate, its subsequent action withdrawing its judgment was tantamount to a recall of the mandate, which, under this Court's precedent in Calderon, cannot be justified in this case because the evidence simply does not support a miscarriage of justice, which under Calderon means actual innocence of the offense or actual innocence of the death penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [62.442, 68.047, 83.7, 94.266, 96.148], "stop_times": [68.047, 83.7, 94.266, 96.148, 122.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 62.442}, "reply_to": "21504__0_000", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_002", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "If you're... if you're going to... if you're going to consider something that wasn't a recall of a mandate as if it was, why don't you consider it as a rule 41(b) action?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [122.19], "stop_times": [131.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 122.19}, "reply_to": "21504__0_001", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21504__0_003", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Your Honor, we don't read rule 41(b) as allowing any sort of recall authority.\nRule 41(b)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [131.566, 138.036], "stop_times": [138.036, 139.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 131.566}, "reply_to": "21504__0_002", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_004", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "They didn't recall it, didn't... did they?\nDid they recall it?\nThey issued it and then recalled it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [139.182, 141.011, 141.854], "stop_times": [141.011, 141.854, 143.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.182}, "reply_to": "21504__0_003", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21504__0_005", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--The mandate was not recalled--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [143.384], "stop_times": [145.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 143.384}, "reply_to": "21504__0_004", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_006", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [145.853], "stop_times": [146.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 145.853}, "reply_to": "21504__0_005", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21504__0_007", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--because it was never issued.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [146.158], "stop_times": [146.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 146.158}, "reply_to": "21504__0_006", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_008", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Correct.\nSo we did... they didn't recall it.\nSo, of course, 41(b) does not have to do with recalls.\n41(b) has to do with issuances, and 41(b) says the court may shorten or extend the time for issuing.\nNow, why wouldn't that be the obvious rule to apply to what occurred here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [146.995, 147.566, 149.742, 152.889, 161.587], "stop_times": [147.566, 149.742, 152.889, 161.587, 167.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 146.995}, "reply_to": "21504__0_007", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21504__0_009", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Your Honor, that is not... not the rule applicable here because that rule applies in a different context.\nThat applies at an earlier stage of the post-judgment proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [167.368, 172.455], "stop_times": [172.455, 175.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 167.368}, "reply_to": "21504__0_008", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_010", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Where does it say earlier?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [175.714], "stop_times": [176.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.714}, "reply_to": "21504__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21504__0_011", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Rule 41(b) specifically deals with the 7-day period of... of time for issuance following the expiration of the time for a petition for rehearing or the disposition of that petition for rehearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [176.893], "stop_times": [189.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 176.893}, "reply_to": "21504__0_010", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_012", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "And the court can... can extend it or... or in fact truncate it, can't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [189.575], "stop_times": [192.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 189.575}, "reply_to": "21504__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21504__0_013", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "It can, Your Honor, at that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [192.742], "stop_times": [195.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 192.742}, "reply_to": "21504__0_012", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_014", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "What... what if the court then... I'm... let me just get to... and I think this is consistent with Justice Breyer's question.\nWhat if the court, at the... at the point cert was denied and rehearing was denied, simply said, I... we're now operating under (b) and we're extending the time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [195.462, 199.392], "stop_times": [199.392, 209.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 195.462}, "reply_to": "21504__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21504__0_015", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Because the more specific provision... what the court had actually done was to stay the mandate pending a petition for writ of certiorari.\nThe... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [209.445, 219.088], "stop_times": [219.088, 220.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 209.445}, "reply_to": "21504__0_014", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_016", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Oh.\nThat's... that's what it did, but what if the court had... had been more articulate about what... what it... it was doing or may have been doing and... and simply said... at the moment at which the... the rehearing period expired for cert, said, all right, we're still not issuing the mandate and we're operating under subsection (b), we're extending the time?\nWould... is... is there anything in the rule that, at least in terms, would have precluded the court from doing that if it had said that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [220.052, 220.318, 241.309], "stop_times": [220.318, 241.309, 249.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 220.052}, "reply_to": "21504__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21504__0_017", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--I think that simply a plain reading of the rule and looking at the rule as a whole would preclude that result.\nAnd the reason is that the... the specific language that... that Your Honor is referring to speaks in terms of shortening or extending the time, the time being the 7-day period for issuance.\nThat 7-day period is simply a period to allow the clerk a window of time to get the mandate out after the rehearing period has expired or after the rehearing has been disposed of.\nBut it does not give the court carte blanche to simply withhold the mandate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [249.069, 257.016, 267.075, 277.933], "stop_times": [257.016, 267.075, 277.933, 285.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 249.069}, "reply_to": "21504__0_016", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_018", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Well, there are... are they any--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [285.346], "stop_times": [286.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 285.346}, "reply_to": "21504__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__0_019", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Well, you... you would make the same argument to that that... that you were making earlier, I assume, that to read it that way would... would be to nullify Calderon.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [286.834], "stop_times": [293.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 286.834}, "reply_to": "21504__0_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__0_020", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "That... that's exactly right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [293.58], "stop_times": [295.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 293.58}, "reply_to": "21504__0_019", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_021", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Well, are there any circumstances in which the court can... and let's again, as Justice Souter said, say that it put it on the record what it was going to do, that we hereby, after the Supreme Court has ruled in the case, will withhold... order that the mandate shall be withheld for a period of 30 days because there is a... a new case coming out on a different issue that may affect our... our holdings?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [295.692], "stop_times": [325.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 295.692}, "reply_to": "21504__0_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__0_022", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "The court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [325.072], "stop_times": [325.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 325.072}, "reply_to": "21504__0_021", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_023", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Or that a new case has been... has been released and we think that bears on... on the outcome.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [325.846], "stop_times": [330.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 325.846}, "reply_to": "21504__0_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__0_024", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--After the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [330.81], "stop_times": [331.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 330.81}, "reply_to": "21504__0_023", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_025", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "And we want to consider that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [331.659], "stop_times": [332.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 331.659}, "reply_to": "21504__0_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__0_026", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--After the denial of cert, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [332.506], "stop_times": [334.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 332.506}, "reply_to": "21504__0_025", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_027", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Yes, or after disposition by this Court on it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [334.309], "stop_times": [337.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 334.309}, "reply_to": "21504__0_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__0_028", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [337.396], "stop_times": [337.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 337.396}, "reply_to": "21504__0_027", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_029", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--when cert is granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [337.524], "stop_times": [338.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 337.524}, "reply_to": "21504__0_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__0_030", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--The rule does not allow for that withholding of the mandate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [338.725], "stop_times": [344.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 338.725}, "reply_to": "21504__0_029", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_031", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "No... so no circumstances can the issuance of the mandate be extended after this Court has denied the petition for writ of certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [344.202], "stop_times": [356.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 344.202}, "reply_to": "21504__0_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__0_032", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "If the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [356.815], "stop_times": [357.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 356.815}, "reply_to": "21504__0_031", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_033", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Under no circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [357.535], "stop_times": [358.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 357.535}, "reply_to": "21504__0_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__0_034", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--If the mandate has been stayed pending the petition for writ of certiorari and that petition has been denied, the rule requires the immediate issuance.\nNow, there... there may be and... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [358.4, 369.306], "stop_times": [369.306, 371.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 358.4}, "reply_to": "21504__0_033", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_035", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "But... but you accepted the petition for rehearing in this Court would also count, although the rule doesn't say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [371.881], "stop_times": [378.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.881}, "reply_to": "21504__0_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21504__0_036", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [378.093], "stop_times": [379.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 378.093}, "reply_to": "21504__0_035", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_037", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "The rule speaks about the mandate should issue when cert is denied, but in this case, there was a further extension while this Court was considering a petition for rehearing.\nDo you say that that was also outside the rules so that the mandate would have to issue when cert is denied even if there is a petition for rehearing and a request to continue the stay during the pendency of that rehearing petition?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [379.975, 395.574], "stop_times": [395.574, 414.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 379.975}, "reply_to": "21504__0_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21504__0_038", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe mandate should have issued--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [414.891, 415.035], "stop_times": [415.035, 416.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.891}, "reply_to": "21504__0_037", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_039", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "So you say that that was wrong in this case too.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [416.726], "stop_times": [418.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 416.726}, "reply_to": "21504__0_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21504__0_040", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--That was in excess of the court's authority under the rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [418.843], "stop_times": [422.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 418.843}, "reply_to": "21504__0_039", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_041", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "So... so your view--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [422.202], "stop_times": [423.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 422.202}, "reply_to": "21504__0_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21504__0_042", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "I just want to get... if I may just get... you say there are no circumstances in which... where (d) is otherwise applicable, the mandate can... can be... the issuance of the mandate can be extended.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [423.264], "stop_times": [434.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 423.264}, "reply_to": "21504__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__0_043", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "In our view the rule does not allow any other circumstances.\nRule 41 does not allow any other circumstances.\nIf that authority--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [434.708, 438.318, 440.6], "stop_times": [438.318, 440.6, 441.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 434.708}, "reply_to": "21504__0_042", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_044", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Did the prosecutor... did the prosecutor object when there was a further extension given for the pendency of the petition for rehearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [441.986], "stop_times": [450.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 441.986}, "reply_to": "21504__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21504__0_045", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--The State did not object to the... to the extension, Your Honor, because the... the mandate was of no consequence to the State in terms of the State's actual... a State court proceedings.\nThe State did not need the mandate to go forward with its proceedings, and in fact, the State was not authorized under State law to even seek an... an execution date until the time had expired for rehearing.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [450.37, 460.418, 471.378], "stop_times": [460.418, 471.378, 471.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 450.37}, "reply_to": "21504__0_044", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_046", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "I... I guess I'm... I'm not clear about the facts here.\nDid... did the court... did the court comply with (b)?\nDid it shorten or extend the time?\nWas there any issuance of a... of a... of an order shortening or extending the time, or did the court just ignore the deadline and... and act later?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [471.768, 474.38, 481.287, 484.621], "stop_times": [474.38, 481.287, 484.621, 493.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 471.768}, "reply_to": "21504__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__0_047", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--The court simply ignored the... the... the process of... of the case... the extension ability in subsection (b) was never invoked by the court.\nThere was a timely petition for rehearing filed, which automatically stayed the mandate under subsection (d)(1).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [493.069, 502.759], "stop_times": [502.759, 510.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 493.069}, "reply_to": "21504__0_046", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_048", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "So there... there is nothing from the court that... that says we... we shorten or extend the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [510.151], "stop_times": [514.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 510.151}, "reply_to": "21504__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__0_049", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "That's absolutely correct, Your Honor.\nThe court never invoked subsection (b) as authority for exaction.\nAfter... when the petition for... for rehearing was denied, the 7-day period in subsection (b) then came into play.\nThe petitioner, or the... the petitioner below, Mr. Thompson, filed a motion to withhold the matter, stay the mandate pending a petition for writ of certiorari, and that was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [514.811, 515.798, 518.756, 527.008], "stop_times": [515.798, 518.756, 527.008, 537.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 514.811}, "reply_to": "21504__0_048", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_050", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [537.274], "stop_times": [538.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 537.274}, "reply_to": "21504__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21504__0_051", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Then I guess that the... that the conclusion would be, if you read 41(b), that if the court has not shortened the time, the court's mandate must issue 7 calendar days after.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [538.255], "stop_times": [548.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.255}, "reply_to": "21504__0_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__0_052", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--That is our reading of the rule, yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [548.814], "stop_times": [550.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 548.814}, "reply_to": "21504__0_051", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_053", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--But isn't that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [550.713], "stop_times": [551.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 550.713}, "reply_to": "21504__0_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21504__0_054", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Does that reading of the rule require that a decision to extend the time be set forth in any particular form of order or any written document?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [551.651], "stop_times": [558.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 551.651}, "reply_to": "21504__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__0_055", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "It's our... it's our reading of the rule that... that the language employed in subsection (b) implies some affirmative action of... of the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [558.599], "stop_times": [566.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 558.599}, "reply_to": "21504__0_054", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_056", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Well, maybe they internally did affirmatively decide to extend the time, but they just didn't enter an order.\nWould that count?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [566.013, 570.695], "stop_times": [570.695, 571.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 566.013}, "reply_to": "21504__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__0_057", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "I don't think so, Your Honor.\nA court in... in our view--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [571.671, 573.24], "stop_times": [573.24, 574.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 571.671}, "reply_to": "21504__0_056", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_058", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "What if they called counsel and said, we've decided to delay extending the time?\nWould that... but we're... we're going to extend the time, but we're not going to bother to enter an order.\nWould that constitute an extension?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [574.45, 577.895, 582.029], "stop_times": [577.895, 582.029, 583.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 574.45}, "reply_to": "21504__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__0_059", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--I don't think that would constitute an extension.\nI think the language in subsection (b) requires some--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [583.448, 585.48], "stop_times": [585.48, 589.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 583.448}, "reply_to": "21504__0_058", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_060", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "It requires a written document--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [589.304], "stop_times": [590.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 589.304}, "reply_to": "21504__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__0_061", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--some affirmative order--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [590.225], "stop_times": [591.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 590.225}, "reply_to": "21504__0_060", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_062", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--saying for how long it's going to be extended?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [591.019], "stop_times": [592.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 591.019}, "reply_to": "21504__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__0_063", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Some affirmative order of the court not only saying we're going to extend the... the time, but to give an alternative time.\nThat... subsection (b) does not allow for... for an indefinite withholding of a mandate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [592.306, 598.797], "stop_times": [598.797, 603.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 592.306}, "reply_to": "21504__0_062", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_064", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Well, they apparently did decide to extend the time for whatever time it took them necessary to review the files that this particular judge became aware of during this period.\nThey did, in fact, extend the time because they didn't issue it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [603.229, 611.938], "stop_times": [611.938, 615.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 603.229}, "reply_to": "21504__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__0_065", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "All this record shows, Your Honor, is that the mandate did not issue.\nSo the reason for that is... is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [615.202, 618.797], "stop_times": [618.797, 621.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.202}, "reply_to": "21504__0_064", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_066", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Did the court give any explanatory reason for what it did?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [621.565], "stop_times": [627.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 621.565}, "reply_to": "21504__0_065", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__0_067", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nThere is no order in this record explaining why the mandate did not issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [627.848, 628.556], "stop_times": [628.556, 632.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 627.848}, "reply_to": "21504__0_066", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_068", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "No, but the opinion of Judge Suhrheinrich... I forget his name... explains in great detail why he thought they needed more time before the mandate issued.\nI don't know why that isn't explaining why he extended the mandate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [632.429, 640.471], "stop_times": [640.471, 644.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 632.429}, "reply_to": "21504__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__0_069", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "But a single judge doesn't have the authority, does he?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [644.573], "stop_times": [647.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 644.573}, "reply_to": "21504__0_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__0_070", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Your Honor, I believe that a single judge would have the authority to extend the mandate, but a single judge would not have the authority to grant rehearing because that would be a determination of... of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [647.767], "stop_times": [659.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 647.767}, "reply_to": "21504__0_069", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_071", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Ms. Smith, this... unlike the Calderon, which is a... was a... a court has authority to recall a mandate that has already issued, this seemed to be a really idiosyncratic case.\nI mean, this was an extraordinary situation where a judge said, my goodness, I wrote an opinion that assumed this person was mentally okay, and now I discovered in the file things I never saw before.\nThis is a death case.\nI have reason to suspect that this person may not have been competent when he committed the crime, may not have been competent when he... when he stood trial, may not be competent at this very moment.\nA judge in that situation... he finds something that looks like it's the... it's... it's the key piece of evidence in favor of the defendant.\nSomehow it never got submitted.\nA judge, knowing that he has written an opinion saying this man, as far as the Federal courts are concerned, goes to the State and they can set their date of execution and all that... that was an... this case is so idiosyncratic that I'm concerned about dealing with 41(b) and mandates for this really unusual situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [659.084, 673.014, 690.331, 691.792, 707.013, 719.588, 721.919], "stop_times": [673.014, 690.331, 691.792, 707.013, 719.588, 721.919, 748.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.084}, "reply_to": "21504__0_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21504__0_072", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "It is an unusual situation, Your Honor, but the court did more than simply write an opinion.\nThe court entered a judgment on that opinion, and that judgment became final and became the final word of the court upon entry--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [748.81, 754.367], "stop_times": [754.367, 761.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 748.81}, "reply_to": "21504__0_071", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_073", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "He couldn't have recalled the opinion because of the extraordinary circumstance.\nMy God, I made a mistake.\nHe couldn't recall the opinion, could he?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [761.326, 765.284, 766.451], "stop_times": [765.284, 766.451, 768.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 761.326}, "reply_to": "21504__0_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__0_074", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--The court always have the... the safety valve of... of its recall power under extraordinary circumstances.\nNow, in a habeas case, that extraordinary circumstance has to be more than just this... for some reason, I overlooked this.\nAnd... and bear in mind as well that this evidence was in front of the court.\nJudge Suhrheinrich had this deposition for 21 months before that first opinion was entered and that first judgment was entered.\nSo this was not something--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [768.542, 775.138, 780.621, 783.507, 789.89], "stop_times": [775.138, 780.621, 783.507, 789.89, 790.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 768.542}, "reply_to": "21504__0_073", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_075", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Let... let me ask you this.\nYour... I think you say that you... you cannot extend the period for issuance of a mandate after the Supreme Court has denied the petition.\nCould the court then issue the mandate and then recall it under Calderon?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [790.866, 791.804, 803.083], "stop_times": [791.804, 803.083, 808.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 790.866}, "reply_to": "21504__0_074", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__0_076", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--That's precisely what the court should have done in this case, Your Honor, in... in our view.\nThe mandate was required to issue and then the court should have looked at this extraordinary circumstance, this... this unusual circumstance, and made the determination under Calderon whether that met the standard for a miscarriage of justice under the habeas decisions of this Court, specifically Calderon.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [808.288, 812.374], "stop_times": [812.374, 828.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 808.288}, "reply_to": "21504__0_075", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_077", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Have you surveyed the circuits?\nI know this... what... what you describe as the practice certainly wouldn't have been in the First Circuit.\nMaybe in the D.C. it was, but I mean, we would have thought that we have the power over our own mandate.\nAnd of course, if it hasn't issued and some extraordinary thing comes along requiring a revision, we would have revised it.\nSo when you read the rules and you say that's what we argue, you're not arguing it about any court that I'm familiar with as an appeals court.\nSo... so have you looked up the appeals courts and found that in fact there is at least one court or two or maybe more that follow the interpretation that you're arguing for?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [828.448, 829.718, 834.545, 840.016, 848.374, 856.065], "stop_times": [829.718, 834.545, 840.016, 848.374, 856.065, 866.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 828.448}, "reply_to": "21504__0_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21504__0_078", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Your Honor, we have not done that type of... of inventory.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [866.843], "stop_times": [870.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 866.843}, "reply_to": "21504__0_077", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_079", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Well, if you have not, then my experience would be you're arguing for a rule that no appeals court follows, that... that all think they have power over the mandate, and that the question becomes one of whether or not there was a good reason for delaying the mandate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [870.246], "stop_times": [883.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 870.246}, "reply_to": "21504__0_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21504__0_080", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [883.962], "stop_times": [884.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 883.962}, "reply_to": "21504__0_079", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_081", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "If there was a good reason, they could, and if there wasn't, maybe they couldn't.\nBut Justice Ginsburg has set forth what sounds to me like an excellent reason, that the judge discovered he had made an error that could mean life or death or jail or innocence, and before that opinion issues, I want to be sure it's correct.\nNow... now, that's how I'm thinking, that the general practice is contrary to what you say, that the question is a good reason, and that here there could hardly be a better one.\nSo what is your response?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [884.784, 888.276, 902.532, 912.895], "stop_times": [888.276, 902.532, 912.895, 914.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 884.784}, "reply_to": "21504__0_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21504__0_082", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Your Honor, our response to that is... is twofold.\nNumber one, I don't think that... that the Rules of... of Appellate Procedure can be abrogated by the consensus of the circuits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [914.495, 916.713], "stop_times": [916.713, 923.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 914.495}, "reply_to": "21504__0_081", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_083", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "And all the circuits have just been wrong in their interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [923.747], "stop_times": [926.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 923.747}, "reply_to": "21504__0_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21504__0_084", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "If the circuits are not complying with the plain language of the rule, then... then, yes, they have.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [926.808], "stop_times": [930.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 926.808}, "reply_to": "21504__0_083", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_085", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "We don't know that all the circuits have that interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [930.781], "stop_times": [932.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 930.781}, "reply_to": "21504__0_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__0_086", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "I don't either.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [932.973], "stop_times": [933.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 932.973}, "reply_to": "21504__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21504__0_087", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Has Justice Breyer conducted the kind of investigation he asked you about?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [933.81, 937.112], "stop_times": [937.112, 938.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 933.81}, "reply_to": "21504__0_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__0_088", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Well, how many cases very similar to that... this exists?\nIt struck me as just procedurally bizarre.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [938.572, 946.028], "stop_times": [946.028, 949.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 938.572}, "reply_to": "21504__0_087", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__0_089", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "This is an unusual case in the way that it's set out in Judge Suhrheinrich's opinion, Your Honor.\nBut if you look at it and... and look at it in the way that... that it should have played out... and the way it should have played out was that the mandate should have issued after this Court denied cert. This Court then went on after that to deny rehearing and the State moved forward.\nIf at that point Judge Suhrheinrich looked at this deposition and believed that it established or showed an extraordinary circumstance, than a recall would... would have occurred, and then that would have been an issue.\nBut if you look at the evidence itself, it simply does not rise to the level of... of extraordinary circumstances.\nIt does not show actual innocence of the offense.\nGregory Thompson has all along admitted that he committed this offense.\nThere was no defense of it at trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [949.218, 954.594, 968.69, 979.073, 984.555, 987.295, 992.047], "stop_times": [954.594, 968.69, 979.073, 984.555, 987.295, 992.047, 993.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.218}, "reply_to": "21504__0_088", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_090", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Let's... let's take the hypothetical where there is an extraordinary... where it... it does rise to the very high level.\nAnd then you have these facts.\nThey just don't say anything and... and they keep the case.\nIf they could have issued the mandate and then recalled it, what difference does it really make, assuming there is an extraordinary circumstance?\nI know you deny that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [993.401, 998.328, 1000.252, 1003.862, 1012.331], "stop_times": [998.328, 1000.252, 1003.862, 1012.331, 1013.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 993.401}, "reply_to": "21504__0_089", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__0_091", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Assuming there is an extraordinary circumstance, I think to prevent the result of having to issue and then immediately recall, I think the court in that circumstance, assuming there was actually an extraordinary circumstance, actual innocence of the offense or actual innocence of the death penalty, which we don't think was shown in this case... what the court could do in our view is to invoke its authority under rule 2 to suspend the rules for good cause.\nAnd in that circumstance, given the finality of the judgment, the good cause must rise to the level of a miscarriage of justice under Calderon.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1013.173, 1037.882], "stop_times": [1037.882, 1045.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1013.173}, "reply_to": "21504__0_090", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_092", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Well, it wouldn't have to suspend the rules for good cause since it has authority to extend the time for issuing the mandate.\nIt can comply with 41(b).\nSo I think the most you can say is that the court, when it's faced with extraordinary circumstances of... of the sort that could overcome Calderon, should issue and order extending the mandate because, and explaining why, because there's this evidence which, if true, would, you know, produce a miscarriage of justice in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1045.001, 1053.117, 1056.019], "stop_times": [1053.117, 1056.019, 1077.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1045.001}, "reply_to": "21504__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__0_093", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "I think that's one interpretation of the rule, Your Honor.\nWe read that... the rule a little bit stricter than that, and we limit that extension in our reading to the 7-day period after the expiration of the time to seek rehearing or the denial.\nBut I think that that is a... that is a reading--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1077.325, 1079.934, 1088.824], "stop_times": [1079.934, 1088.824, 1090.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1077.325}, "reply_to": "21504__0_092", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_094", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Tell me again.\nHow do you... you read the rule to say?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1090.728, 1091.267], "stop_times": [1091.267, 1093.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1090.728}, "reply_to": "21504__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__0_095", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--We read the rule (b), the extension period--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1093.042], "stop_times": [1096.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1093.042}, "reply_to": "21504__0_094", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_096", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1096.584], "stop_times": [1096.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1096.584}, "reply_to": "21504__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__0_097", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--to be limited to the 7-day period after the expiration of the time to seek rehearing or the disposition of the petition for rehearing en banc or by panel or the disposition of a motion to stay the mandate.\nWe limit that to... that interpretation to a different phase of the proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1096.856, 1108.706], "stop_times": [1108.706, 1112.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1096.856}, "reply_to": "21504__0_096", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_098", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Well, it doesn't expressly say that in that last sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1112.162], "stop_times": [1115.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1112.162}, "reply_to": "21504__0_097", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21504__0_099", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "It... it doesn't, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1115.852], "stop_times": [1117.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1115.852}, "reply_to": "21504__0_098", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_100", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Are you going to address the seriousness with which this evidence should be viewed?\nBecause it is disturbing.\nIt certainly would go to whether a death penalty should be given.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1117.905, 1123.691, 1125.616], "stop_times": [1123.691, 1125.616, 1132.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1117.905}, "reply_to": "21504__0_099", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21504__0_101", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "I would like to address that, Your Honor, because I think that... that the seriousness of this evidence has been vastly overstated in the concurring opinion of the Sixth Circuit.\nThe evidence itself was... was quite simply a deposition of a clinical psychologist who opined based on her... some additional... some additional meetings with family members and a review of the transcripts and other evidence that the petitioner suffered from a mental illness at the time of the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1132.48, 1141.414], "stop_times": [1141.414, 1162.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1132.48}, "reply_to": "21504__0_100", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_102", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Didn't she interview the... the petitioner herself?\nDid she not interview the... the defendant himself?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1162.843, 1164.208], "stop_times": [1164.208, 1166.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.843}, "reply_to": "21504__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__0_103", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "She did.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1166.939], "stop_times": [1167.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1166.939}, "reply_to": "21504__0_102", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_104", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1167.482], "stop_times": [1167.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1167.482}, "reply_to": "21504__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__0_105", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "She conducted some... some--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1167.68], "stop_times": [1169.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1167.68}, "reply_to": "21504__0_104", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_106", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "At two different points in time, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1169.626], "stop_times": [1172.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1169.626}, "reply_to": "21504__0_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21504__0_107", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Yes, she did, Your Honor, but her ultimate opinion was couched in the language of Tennessee's statutory mitigating circumstance, that... that Mr. Thompson at the time of the offense suffered from a mental illness or defect that... that impaired his ability to... to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, but that was not sufficient to meet the legal definition of insanity.\nThat is the... that is the... exactly the language under Tennessee's mitigator that... that Dr. Sultan's opinion was specifically limited to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1172.159, 1191.177], "stop_times": [1191.177, 1199.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1172.159}, "reply_to": "21504__0_106", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_108", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Do you disagree with the factual point that I think one of the opinions made, that this study was not, in fact, known to exist by the members of the court of appeals panel who decided the merits of the case before the petition for cert was filed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1199.71], "stop_times": [1211.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1199.71}, "reply_to": "21504__0_107", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__0_109", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Your Honor, there is a disagreement in the opinion itself that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1211.613], "stop_times": [1216.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1211.613}, "reply_to": "21504__0_108", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_110", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "As to how serious it was.\nI understand.\nBut do you... do you disagree with what I understood to be a representation of Judge Suhrheinrich that he did not know about this study, did not know... it had not gotten into the record, and neither did anybody else on the panel, even though, it seems to me, sort of strange that nobody did know it?\nI have to confess that.\nBut do you dispute the factual predicate or the fact that... that they did not know that this study was available?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1216.55, 1217.709, 1218.316, 1233.542, 1234.363], "stop_times": [1217.709, 1218.316, 1233.542, 1234.363, 1242.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1216.55}, "reply_to": "21504__0_109", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__0_111", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Judge Suhrheinrich represented that he was unaware of the deposition, and I have no way to dispute that except to say... I have no way to dispute his own personal representation.\nBut Judge Moore pointed out in the majority opinion that the deposition was, in fact, before the court and had been presented for... 21 months earlier than the initial opinion was entered.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1242.747, 1251.979], "stop_times": [1251.979, 1263.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1242.747}, "reply_to": "21504__0_110", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_112", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "How would it have been presented?\nBecause it wasn't... it wasn't even in the record in the district court.\nI mean, that was what Suhrheinrich was so bewildered about, that here was what seemed to be the strongest evidence of the defendant, and at the end of the proceeding in the district court, it's not even made formally a part of the record.\nIt was a deposition.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1263.243, 1263.594, 1267.918, 1282.206, 1283.199], "stop_times": [1263.594, 1267.918, 1282.206, 1283.199, 1284.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1263.243}, "reply_to": "21504__0_111", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21504__0_113", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "It was a deposition.\nIt was attached to a motion to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the disposition of a rule 60 motion in the district court.\nThat's how it came before the... before the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1284.031, 1285.113, 1291.358], "stop_times": [1285.113, 1291.358, 1293.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1284.031}, "reply_to": "21504__0_112", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_114", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "So it wasn't... it wasn't in the district court record.\nIt wasn't in the record that went from the district court to the court of appeals.\nIt wasn't in the record on appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1293.806, 1297.838, 1301.838], "stop_times": [1297.838, 1301.838, 1303.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1293.806}, "reply_to": "21504__0_113", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21504__0_115", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "It was... it was before the court by way of that motion.\nIt was not properly in the record.\nBut then again, it was not any more proper to consider after its opinion than it was to consider before it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1303.16, 1305.895, 1307.127], "stop_times": [1305.895, 1307.127, 1311.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1303.16}, "reply_to": "21504__0_114", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_116", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Was... was it before the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1311.522], "stop_times": [1312.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1311.522}, "reply_to": "21504__0_115", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__0_117", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "But wasn't the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1312.258], "stop_times": [1312.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1312.258}, "reply_to": "21504__0_116", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21504__0_118", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--court of appeals in the petition for rehearing after the court of appeals made its decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1312.546], "stop_times": [1318.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1312.546}, "reply_to": "21504__0_117", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__0_119", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--It was quoted in the petition for rehearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1318.929], "stop_times": [1321.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1318.929}, "reply_to": "21504__0_118", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_120", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "So... so it was referenced in the petition for rehearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1321.089], "stop_times": [1322.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1321.089}, "reply_to": "21504__0_119", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__0_121", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "It was directly quoted.\nThe ultimate opinion, with regard to the mitigator, was directly quoted.\nBut the... the point that I was making earlier, this deposition in no way renders the... the defendant ineligible for the death penalty because it does not undermine any of the three aggravating circumstances.\nIt does not even make a prima facie showing of insanity under Tennessee law, as I've stated earlier.\nIt simply tracked the mitigating circumstance under the statute, and as this court held in Sawyer v. Whitley, simply additional mitigating circumstances does not rise to the level of innocence of the death penalty.\nSo it neither... it demonstrates neither innocence of the... the offense or of the death penalty.\nAnd even more so than that, it would not have even defeated--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1322.917, 1323.931, 1327.226, 1337.428, 1341.907, 1352.617, 1356.632], "stop_times": [1323.931, 1327.226, 1337.428, 1341.907, 1352.617, 1356.632, 1360.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1322.917}, "reply_to": "21504__0_120", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_122", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "You... you think it could not have been considered in mitigation in the decision whether to give a death sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1360.556], "stop_times": [1367.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1360.556}, "reply_to": "21504__0_121", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21504__0_123", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Your Honor, I think it would have been one element of... that... that may have been considered.\nBut in terms of the extraordinary circumstance, innocent of the death penalty or innocence of the offense, it would not rise to that level.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1367.208, 1371.463], "stop_times": [1371.463, 1377.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1367.208}, "reply_to": "21504__0_122", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_124", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Calderon requires not just that it might have been additional mitigation, but that the defendant would have been ineligible for the death penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1377.191], "stop_times": [1384.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1377.191}, "reply_to": "21504__0_123", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__0_125", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "That's... that's exactly right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1384.3], "stop_times": [1385.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1384.3}, "reply_to": "21504__0_124", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_126", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "That's how I read the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1385.131], "stop_times": [1385.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1385.131}, "reply_to": "21504__0_125", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__0_127", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "In Sawyer v. Whitley, this Court specifically said that and rejected the... the contention that additional mitigation... mitigating evidence would render a defendant ineligible of the death penalty.\nSo this does not satisfy the actual innocence extraordinary circumstances.\nNor would it have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1385.397, 1394.676, 1398.878], "stop_times": [1394.676, 1398.878, 1399.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1385.397}, "reply_to": "21504__0_126", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_128", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Well, that... that may be but the... the fact that this sort of evidence would ultimately be kept out from the court of appeals and ultimately from the district court may be a very good reason for us not to adopt your analysis that what happened here is the equivalent of a mandate issuing and a mandate being recalled.\nIt may be a very good reason to prefer a different analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1399.726, 1420.664], "stop_times": [1420.664, 1423.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1399.726}, "reply_to": "21504__0_127", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21504__0_129", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Your Honor, we... we... it would be mere speculation to... for... for this Court or any court to... to conclude why this evidence was not presented to the district court.\nThere are any number of reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1423.752, 1433.746], "stop_times": [1433.746, 1434.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1423.752}, "reply_to": "21504__0_128", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_130", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "We... we don't have to conclude why it was not presented.\nAll we have to be concerned with or what, I think, we have to be concerned with is this.\nIs this very important evidence?\nThe answer is yes.\nIt may not go to eligibility, but it's very significant.\nNumber two, if we accept your Calderon analysis, this evidence will be kept out forever.\nIf it's that important, that may be a good reason not to accept your Calderon analysis and say if the mandate hasn't issued, it hasn't issued.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1434.968, 1437.208, 1441.917, 1444.76, 1446.088, 1448.935, 1455.634], "stop_times": [1437.208, 1441.917, 1444.76, 1446.088, 1448.935, 1455.634, 1464.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1434.968}, "reply_to": "21504__0_129", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21504__0_131", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1464.305], "stop_times": [1465.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1464.305}, "reply_to": "21504__0_130", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_132", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "That's... that's my point and... and you may want to respond to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1465.869], "stop_times": [1468.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.869}, "reply_to": "21504__0_131", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21504__0_133", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Your Honor, my response to that is it is not that important, and when I say that, it is not that important because it would not even have defeated summary judgment.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1468.167, 1475.457], "stop_times": [1475.457, 1475.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1468.167}, "reply_to": "21504__0_132", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_134", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "I... I presume your... your answer would also be that if it's a good reason for... for not issuing the mandate, as you're supposed to, it would equivalently be a good reason to recall the mandate.\nWe... we crossed that bridge in Calderon.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1475.883, 1488.564], "stop_times": [1488.564, 1490.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1475.883}, "reply_to": "21504__0_133", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__0_135", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--That is precisely the argument that we are making, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1490.906], "stop_times": [1493.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1490.906}, "reply_to": "21504__0_134", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_136", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--And I take it you also recognize that the bridge that we did not cross in Calderon was... # was in answering the question whether... in a case in which a court does not issue the mandate, we are going to construe the court's authority, its... its discretion narrowly or broadly.\nAnd that is the issue before us here, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1493.54, 1511.103], "stop_times": [1511.103, 1513.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.54}, "reply_to": "21504__0_135", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21504__0_137", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "It is, Your Honor.\nThe issue here is... is whether Calderon extends to this situation.\nWe think it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1513.209, 1516.702, 1520.002], "stop_times": [1516.702, 1520.002, 1520.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1513.209}, "reply_to": "21504__0_136", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_138", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "What you're saying is... essentially is we should regard this as though what wasn't done had been done because it was supposed to have been done.\nIn other words, you're saying treat this just as if the mandate issued and was being recalled.\nThat's what I get to be the gist of your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1520.834, 1529.35, 1535.809], "stop_times": [1529.35, 1535.809, 1538.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.834}, "reply_to": "21504__0_137", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21504__0_139", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "That is what we're saying, Your Honor, because the effect on the State of Tennessee is precisely the same.\nThe finality is the same.\nThe judgment was... was entered and final at the point that the court entered it the first time in January of 2003.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1538.7, 1542.465, 1543.558], "stop_times": [1542.465, 1543.558, 1551.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1538.7}, "reply_to": "21504__0_138", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_140", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "But let me ask you this.\nWhy should not the proper standard of being... deciding... the court of appeals panel has decided a case.\nThey... they learn something that would have caused them to come to a different conclusion had they not... had they known it in time.\nShould not that be a sufficient reason to extend the 7-day period?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1551.399, 1551.75, 1557.434, 1564.506], "stop_times": [1551.75, 1557.434, 1564.506, 1568.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1551.399}, "reply_to": "21504__0_139", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__0_141", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "I do not think that that would be a sufficient reason, Your Honor, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1568.624], "stop_times": [1574.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1568.624}, "reply_to": "21504__0_140", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_142", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1574.196], "stop_times": [1574.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1574.196}, "reply_to": "21504__0_141", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__0_143", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--the extension period--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1574.798], "stop_times": [1575.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1574.798}, "reply_to": "21504__0_142", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_144", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Why does it have to be miscarriage of justice?\nThey just say we goofed for an inexcusable reason.\nWe now realize there's something very important we failed to... failed to find out.\nWe now know it, and we would decide the case differently had we known it a week ago.\nIs that not a sufficient reason to say let's postpone the 7 days?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1575.353, 1577.093, 1580.165, 1584.959, 1589.168], "stop_times": [1577.093, 1580.165, 1584.959, 1589.168, 1593.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1575.353}, "reply_to": "21504__0_143", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__0_145", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--If the court felt... the 7-day period is not to allow the court to rehear the case.\nIf the court wishes to invoke--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1593.05, 1597.156], "stop_times": [1597.156, 1598.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1593.05}, "reply_to": "21504__0_144", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_146", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1598.313], "stop_times": [1598.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.313}, "reply_to": "21504__0_145", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__0_147", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--a rehearing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1598.435], "stop_times": [1598.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1598.435}, "reply_to": "21504__0_146", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_148", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "I'm just asking whether if you were on the... on the court of appeals, wouldn't you think that would be a sufficient reason to say, hey, don't issue the mandate?\nHold it for a week so we can look at this.\nYou don't think that would be permissible for an appellate judge to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1598.91, 1604.963, 1606.525], "stop_times": [1604.963, 1606.525, 1610.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.91}, "reply_to": "21504__0_147", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__0_149", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--That would not be permissible.\nThat is not the purpose of the extension.\nIt is not to allow a court to continue to mull over a case once a final judgment has been entered.\nThe mandate is not the judgment.\nThe judgment is the decision of the court, and once the... the court has affirmed that judgment, the judgment dismissing, denying habeas relief, the State's interests become paramount.\nParticularly at the point when this Court has denied cert, all avenues of review have been exhausted, the State at that point ought to be able to rely on the finality and ought to be able to rely on a court to comply with the plain language of the rules that govern it.\nIf any... if any body should be... should be bound by the rules, it should be a court, and they should not be able to be abrogated by some consensus or just the fact that courts don't ordinarily follow them or... or may or may not think that... that it's appropriate under a particular circumstance.\nMr. Chief Justice, may I reserve the remainder of my time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1610.184, 1611.176, 1612.637, 1616.958, 1618.557, 1629.379, 1642.242, 1656.795], "stop_times": [1611.176, 1612.637, 1616.958, 1618.557, 1629.379, 1642.242, 1656.795, 1660.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1610.184}, "reply_to": "21504__0_148", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__0_150", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Very well, Ms. Smith.\nMr. Shors.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1660.055, 1661.191], "stop_times": [1661.191, 1662.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.055}, "reply_to": "21504__0_149", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__1_000", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nBefore it relinquished jurisdiction over this case, the court of appeals engaged in sua sponte reconsideration to correct a clear error in its prior decision which called into question the reliability of Mr. Thompson's death sentence.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1662.449, 1671.777, 1686.358], "stop_times": [1671.777, 1686.358, 1687.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1662.449}, "reply_to": "21504__0_150", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_001", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "For how long after the judgment becomes final can a court engage in sua sponte consideration of whether to grant a rehearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1687.793], "stop_times": [1697.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.793}, "reply_to": "21504__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__1_002", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Your Honor, if the court is acting pursuant to 41(b), which we believe can occur without a formal stay order, it... it can do that at any time before it issues the mandate.\nWe're unaware of circumstances in which that's extended for indefinite periods of time, and I think this case is a perfect illustration as to why.\nThis is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1697.52, 1708.448, 1715.893], "stop_times": [1708.448, 1715.893, 1716.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1697.52}, "reply_to": "21504__1_001", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_003", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "What do you do about... about the provision not of 41(b) but of 41(d)(2)?\nThere had been a petition for certiorari here, which was denied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1716.766, 1725.242], "stop_times": [1725.242, 1729.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1716.766}, "reply_to": "21504__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__1_004", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1729.082], "stop_times": [1730.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1729.082}, "reply_to": "21504__1_003", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_005", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1730.175], "stop_times": [1730.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1730.175}, "reply_to": "21504__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__1_006", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "That's correct, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1730.286], "stop_times": [1731.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1730.286}, "reply_to": "21504__1_005", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_007", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "And... and (d)(2)(D) says the court of appeals must issue the mandate immediately when a copy of a Supreme Court order denying the petition for writ of certiorari is filed.\nThat didn't happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1731.454, 1744.291], "stop_times": [1744.291, 1745.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.454}, "reply_to": "21504__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__1_008", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "That's correct, Justice Scalia.\n(d)(2)(D) sets forth the endpoint of a stay entered pending a petition for certiorari in this Court.\nThat is not the only reason a court of appeals may stay or delay issuance of its mandate.\nIn fact, if you look at other sections of the rule, (d)(1) affirmatively sets forth a separate basis for staying issuance of the mandate if there is a petition for rehearing filed.\nAnd the mere fact that you could have competing stays in a case we think illustrates the incorrectness of the State's view that (d)(2)(D) eclipses everything else and requires issuance of the mandate under all circumstances.\nThe ultimate power at issue in this case is rule 41(b) which gives the court the power to shorten or extend the time for which to issue its mandate.\nAs we've set forth in the brief, there are all kinds of reasons why a court of appeals may occasionally continue to do that beyond the denial of certiorari review by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1745.539, 1746.936, 1753.725, 1759.533, 1769.581, 1782.903, 1792.856], "stop_times": [1746.936, 1753.725, 1759.533, 1769.581, 1782.903, 1792.856, 1803.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1745.539}, "reply_to": "21504__1_007", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_009", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Don't you think it has to issue an order?\nThe State here, having received a judgment and... and seemingly a mandate has to issue after the judgment unless there's an order extending the time... went ahead with proceedings to... to set the execution, to have the... the person examined to be sure that he was competent to be executed, going through many stages, and was it proper for this court without... without ever issuing an order extending the time for the mandate, simply to come back... what... 18 months later and say, oh, by the way?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1803.512, 1805.293], "stop_times": [1805.293, 1835.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.512}, "reply_to": "21504__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__1_010", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Justice Scalia, it was proper for several reasons.\nFirst, rule 41(b) does not require a court order.\nUnlike other provisions of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, including rule 40, it simply says, may extend or shorten the time.\nIf you look at the history of the rule, one of the reasons the advisory committee specifically rejected a reading of rule 41(c) that would have made the mandate effective when it should have issued is that you can never know from looking at the docket alone whether the non issuance of the mandate was because of a clerical error or because of a judge's intervention in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1835.662, 1838.909, 1842.071, 1849.026], "stop_times": [1838.909, 1842.071, 1849.026, 1870.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1835.662}, "reply_to": "21504__1_009", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_011", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "You're on... you're on the court of appeals.\nThey're proceeding for execution.\nThe families of the victims know.\nThe... the accused, the condemned man, is being... you tell your colleagues, let's just say nothing about this.\nYou think that's good practice?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1870.333, 1872.115, 1873.725, 1875.32, 1881.335], "stop_times": [1872.115, 1873.725, 1875.32, 1881.335, 1882.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1870.333}, "reply_to": "21504__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__1_012", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "I don't think it's necessarily good practice, Justice Kennedy, but it is consistent with the rule.\nAnd their attack on... on rule 41 in this case is an attack on the general authority of courts of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1882.45, 1886.956], "stop_times": [1886.956, 1893.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1882.45}, "reply_to": "21504__1_011", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_013", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "It's consistent with the rule not to enter an order that you're extending the time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1893.18], "stop_times": [1897.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1893.18}, "reply_to": "21504__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__1_014", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Absolutely it is, Justice Kennedy, because as I noted, the rule doesn't say by order.\nThe practice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1897.984, 1902.694], "stop_times": [1902.694, 1903.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1897.984}, "reply_to": "21504__1_013", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_015", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "That's a very strange reading of the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1903.445], "stop_times": [1904.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1903.445}, "reply_to": "21504__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__1_016", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Do you know any precedent, any case, in which rule 41(b) has been invoked after there has been a petition for cert and petition for cert has been denied?\nIn practice, is there any other case in the world like this?\nI don't know of any.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1904.592, 1919.647, 1925.759], "stop_times": [1919.647, 1925.759, 1926.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1904.592}, "reply_to": "21504__1_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21504__1_017", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Your Honor, there are cases we've cited and rules where the question comes up, does there have to be a formal order entered.\nWe've cited the Sparks case, the Alphin case, and the First Gibraltar case.\nAnd... and there are some cases in which, following the denial of certiorari, courts of appeal continue to engage in reconsideration of the matter.\nWe think that's what happened in the Fairchild case cited in the... in the red brief, and to a lesser extent, it's what happened in the Muntaqim case coming out of the Second Circuit.\nAnd the reason is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1926.928, 1933.657, 1937.589, 1945.695, 1954.106], "stop_times": [1933.657, 1937.589, 1945.695, 1954.106, 1955.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1926.928}, "reply_to": "21504__1_016", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_018", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Were... were those cases in which they issued an order saying what they were doing?\nI. e., we extend under (b)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1955.205, 1958.324], "stop_times": [1958.324, 1960.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1955.205}, "reply_to": "21504__1_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21504__1_019", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Justice Souter, in the Sparks case, as well as in the Rivera case, no, there was no such order.\nAnd what the Sparks court said, reading rule (b) correctly we believe, is there's no provision in rule 41(b) that requires a formal order.\nThat's what's set forth in (d) in response to motions.\nAnd the reason is a case is not final until the court of appeals issues its mandate.\nAnd so the burden is on the litigant--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1960.175, 1966.633, 1975.924, 1978.526, 1983.892], "stop_times": [1966.633, 1975.924, 1978.526, 1983.892, 1985.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1960.175}, "reply_to": "21504__1_018", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_020", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Is that... is that really true?\nIs... you have a judgment, and it doesn't have preclusive effect from the time it issues?\nIt... it's just sort of suspended there with no effect until the mandate issues?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [1985.892, 1986.574, 1995.661], "stop_times": [1986.574, 1995.661, 2000.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1985.892}, "reply_to": "21504__1_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21504__1_021", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, it has some effects, but the... the critical point for this case is the power to reconsider is not eclipsed until the mandate issues.\nThat's what this Court held in Forman v. United States, and we think it's what the advisory committee notes of rule 35 and 40 indicate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2000.936, 2010.679], "stop_times": [2010.679, 2018.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.936}, "reply_to": "21504__1_020", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_022", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Shouldn't the State at least be notified of the pendency of this sort of thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2018.36], "stop_times": [2024.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2018.36}, "reply_to": "21504__1_021", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__1_023", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, the... the State was effectively notified when the mandate did not issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2024.205], "stop_times": [2029.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2024.205}, "reply_to": "21504__1_022", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_024", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Well, now, that... that really doesn't add up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2029.928], "stop_times": [2032.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2029.928}, "reply_to": "21504__1_023", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__1_025", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Well, Mr. Chief Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2032.621], "stop_times": [2034.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2032.621}, "reply_to": "21504__1_024", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_026", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "That might be a clerical error all by itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2034.093], "stop_times": [2036.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2034.093}, "reply_to": "21504__1_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__1_027", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--It... it could be a clerical error, Mr. Chief Justice, and we... we think that's exactly why the advisory committee note... notes indicate that an attorney who believes that a mandate should have issued should confirm that he or she has secured a final judgment before assuming that the court of appeals jurisdiction over a case is completed.\nThat didn't happen in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2036.477, 2055.083], "stop_times": [2055.083, 2056.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2036.477}, "reply_to": "21504__1_026", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_028", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "But there was no doubt that there was a final judgment here in the death sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2056.94], "stop_times": [2060.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2056.94}, "reply_to": "21504__1_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__1_029", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "For... for purposes of appeal, that... that would be true, but in... in this case, as we think the advisory committee notes made clear, the... the burden is on the party, seeking to secure a final judgment, to confirm that a mandate has issued.\nIn fact, in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2060.481, 2074.491], "stop_times": [2074.491, 2075.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2060.481}, "reply_to": "21504__1_028", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_030", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "But it's so remarkable, isn't it, that the court did not notify the State and... and the defendant about what it was considering?\nIt didn't enable them to address the issues by briefs, memos, or argument.\nI mean, this... this... it's just an amazing sequence, don't you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2075.504, 2088.393, 2094.725], "stop_times": [2088.393, 2094.725, 2101.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2075.504}, "reply_to": "21504__1_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21504__1_031", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2101.465], "stop_times": [2103.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2101.465}, "reply_to": "21504__1_030", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_032", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "And how... how could they possibly do the best job they could on the opinion without letting the parties know what they were trying to do and to address the issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2103.245], "stop_times": [2113.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2103.245}, "reply_to": "21504__1_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21504__1_033", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, the... the panel did get the decision right in the second case, and it did so in response to a thorough review of the entire record.\nCourts of appeal frequently engage in reconsideration without requiring additional briefing and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2113.699, 2122.227], "stop_times": [2122.227, 2128.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2113.699}, "reply_to": "21504__1_032", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_034", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "This was... this was how long after cert had been denied?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2128.69], "stop_times": [2132.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2128.69}, "reply_to": "21504__1_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__1_035", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Cert. was denied on December 1st and the second opinion was June 23rd.\nSo it was a period of about 6 and a half months.\nIt's less than that if you consider that there was a second petition to stay the mandate filed and granted, which didn't expire until January 23rd when the court of appeals received word that this Court had also denied a petition for rehearing.\nWe think that in any case the burden is on a litigant seeking to secure a final judgment and to ensure that the court of appeals jurisdiction over a case has ended.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2132.337, 2137.328, 2139.29, 2153.279], "stop_times": [2137.328, 2139.29, 2153.279, 2163.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2132.337}, "reply_to": "21504__1_034", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_036", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "But that's why I'm quite curious, but I only have experience in one circuit.\nAnd... and I have an impression, but I need to know what is the general practice.\nI would have thought... but this is highly impressionistic... that probably the mandates didn't always issue within 7 days, that it wasn't totally uncommon to have them 10 days or 12, and it was fairly informal.\nCertainly there were no notice, but maybe other circuits do it differently.\nIt's an area that's obscure to me, and I'd like to know how do people actually handle it.\nIs it something that is generally within the... up to the individual court of appeals to provide notice or not or whatever as it wishes?\nIs it that some delays, 6 months, might be really much too late?\nIs it... how does it work in the circuits?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2163.311, 2167.86, 2174.776, 2188.302, 2193.394, 2199.864, 2212.461, 2216.082], "stop_times": [2167.86, 2174.776, 2188.302, 2193.394, 2199.864, 2212.461, 2216.082, 2219.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2163.311}, "reply_to": "21504__1_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21504__1_037", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Justice Breyer, our understanding is that the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits, including the decision below, have all come to the conclusion that the ultimate decision of when to issue the mandate lies within the broad discretion of the court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2219.965], "stop_times": [2232.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2219.965}, "reply_to": "21504__1_036", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_038", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "And they don't normally give notice or... or something like that?\nThey say, it will be here in 7 days, but we'll tell you we've delayed it.\nThey just do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2232.274, 2236.215, 2239.425], "stop_times": [2236.215, 2239.425, 2240.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2232.274}, "reply_to": "21504__1_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21504__1_039", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "That's correct, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2240.429], "stop_times": [2241.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2240.429}, "reply_to": "21504__1_038", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_040", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "I think we might have handled it that way, but I don't know if that's the right way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2241.975], "stop_times": [2244.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2241.975}, "reply_to": "21504__1_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21504__1_041", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "That... that occasionally happens, and... and there are some cases clearly where there is a formal stay order in place if the court is acting pursuant to (d), which we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2244.731], "stop_times": [2253.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2244.731}, "reply_to": "21504__1_040", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_042", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "They... they just do it even when they're delaying it for 18 months in order to reconsider the case?\nI can understand they're just doing it when... you know, for clerical or other reasons, it... it comes out in 10 days or even 2 weeks instead of... if that's what you're talking about, that I can understand.\nBut here we're talking about a decision for a lengthy delay in order that the court may reconsider the case.\nI would be astonished if it were regular practice for a court to do something like that without notifying the parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2253.814, 2260.053, 2270.454, 2277.366], "stop_times": [2260.053, 2270.454, 2277.366, 2283.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2253.814}, "reply_to": "21504__1_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__1_043", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Justice Scalia, it... we're not... it's not regular practice.\nIt does happen, and the reason it happens, as we've set forth in the brief, have nothing to do with this Court's decision to deny review.\nThere are instances, which Justice Kennedy pointed out, in which following the denial of certiorari review, a court of appeals recognizes the clear error of its prior decision.\nThe question in this case is does it have to send out that decision even though it realizes it's in clear error.\nAnd the other reason it sometimes happens over a period of time is that reconsideration, much like the initial decision-making process, is a fluid process.\nRules 35 and 40 give the court sua sponte the power to engage in reconsideration, and that's exactly the power the court exercised in this case.\nThere are particular reasons in this case, as the panel noted, that there was no unfair surprise to the State in this case, Justice O'Connor.\nFirst, the State took Dr. Sultan's deposition in July of 1999.\nThe briefing on that subject was... was a matter of days following that deposition, and as the panel correctly noted, there was no unfair surprise to the State.\nThe critical, factual issue in this case was as the result of egregious attorney malfeasance not included in the district court record.\nIn addition, the court of appeals--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2283.408, 2286.895, 2293.514, 2303.396, 2309.093, 2319.796, 2329.514, 2337.567, 2343.332, 2354.217, 2362.293], "stop_times": [2286.895, 2293.514, 2303.396, 2309.093, 2319.796, 2329.514, 2337.567, 2343.332, 2354.217, 2362.293, 2364.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2283.408}, "reply_to": "21504__1_042", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_044", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Well, to say there's no surprise to the State, that may be the State probably knew as much as the defendant about what was in the record, but certainly it was a surprise to the State to know that the court of appeals, after cert was denied, was pondering all this for that long a time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2364.372], "stop_times": [2385.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2364.372}, "reply_to": "21504__1_043", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__1_045", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, I don't believe that was unfair surprise.\nThe court of appeals called for the record back from the district court after it had otherwise finished with the case and while cert was pending.\nThat was reflected in the docket sheet, and we've cited that in the joint appendix at page 8.\nThere was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2385.454, 2388.163, 2395.833, 2399.342], "stop_times": [2388.163, 2395.833, 2399.342, 2400.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2385.454}, "reply_to": "21504__1_044", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_046", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "So the counsel should go to the... see the docket sheet regularly to see whether the court of appeals might be doing something?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2400.286], "stop_times": [2408.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2400.286}, "reply_to": "21504__1_045", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__1_047", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, at a minimum, an attorney seeking to secure a final judgment should check the docket sheet to ensure that a mandate has issued in accordance with when the practitioner believes the mandate should have issued.\nThat's exactly what the advisory committee--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2408.664, 2420.157], "stop_times": [2420.157, 2422.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2408.664}, "reply_to": "21504__1_046", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_048", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "And you say the State should have known what the court of appeals... before cert was ever considered because it was on a docket sheet.\nBut the case was over, so far as the parties were concerned, in the court of appeals and in the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2422.06, 2430.609], "stop_times": [2430.609, 2439.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2422.06}, "reply_to": "21504__1_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__1_049", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, I don't believe so.\nIt's not that one reason.\nIt's a combination of reasons.\nIf you consider the fact that the State was aware it had benefitted from a clear factual error with the fact that the docket was returned to the court of appeals reflected on the docket sheet, with the fact that the State itself initiated collateral litigation in the fall of 2003 to preclude the Federal Public Defenders Office from representing Mr. Thompson in the State court competency proceedings.\nAnd even their brief, the Wolfel case that they cite says that alone might be a reason a court of appeals might want to hold onto its mandate because it was an issue that was immediately relevant on... on remand in the State court proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2439.313, 2441.259, 2442.315, 2443.557, 2466.431], "stop_times": [2441.259, 2442.315, 2443.557, 2466.431, 2479.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2439.313}, "reply_to": "21504__1_048", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_050", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "What I don't understand is how your argument fits in with... with the rule that you can't recall the mandate.\nI mean, you have the same horrific situation.\nMy God, we made a mistake.\nAnd we've held you can't recall the mandate unless these very high standards are met.\nNow, are we going to hang on that technical distinction between not issuing the mandate forever and ever and recalling the mandate?\nThe court... a court has inherent power to recall a mandate, but we said you will not do it unless these very serious obstacles are... are eliminated.\nAnd it seems to me, just as a court does have power to extend the time for issuance of the mandate, it makes sense to say the same thing.\nYou shouldn't do it unless these very serious obstacles are eliminated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2479.519, 2485.673, 2488.622, 2490.178, 2495.832, 2504.456, 2515.192, 2524.284], "stop_times": [2485.673, 2488.622, 2490.178, 2495.832, 2504.456, 2515.192, 2524.284, 2527.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.519}, "reply_to": "21504__1_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__1_051", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Justice Scalia, I don't believe it's a technical difference.\nThis Court has always drawn a sharp distinction between a court's ability to grab back a case from another court after that case has passed beyond its authority to... as opposed to reconsidering it before ever relinquishing jurisdiction over a case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2527.751, 2530.231], "stop_times": [2530.231, 2546.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2527.751}, "reply_to": "21504__1_050", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_052", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Yes, but they did grab it back from us.\nI mean, if what you say is true, we should deny cert in all cases where the mandate hasn't issued or where the only stay for the mandate is pending disposition of... of cert. We should... we should put that in our rules.\nThey did snatch it back from us, didn't they?\nWhat if we had granted cert?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2546.176, 2547.718, 2562.523, 2565.814], "stop_times": [2547.718, 2562.523, 2565.814, 2567.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2546.176}, "reply_to": "21504__1_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__1_053", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Justice Scalia, I don't think that even the State's view would affect this Court's doctrine about what happens to the mandate if the Court grants cert because they're only talking here about cases in which cert is denied.\nThe denial of cert is not a final decision on the merits, and there are reasons, as we've cited in the brief, for reconsideration sometimes continued after that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2567.402, 2578.138], "stop_times": [2578.138, 2586.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2567.402}, "reply_to": "21504__1_052", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_054", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "What if we had granted cert?\nYou... you say they then could not... what... what would happen then?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2586.693, 2587.509], "stop_times": [2587.509, 2590.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2586.693}, "reply_to": "21504__1_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__1_055", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "I think it would depend on whether the mandate was stayed by the court of appeals.\nIf... if... I think it's pretty--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2590.939, 2595.055], "stop_times": [2595.055, 2596.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2590.939}, "reply_to": "21504__1_054", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_056", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "It wasn't stayed.\nIt just wasn't issued.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2596.697, 2597.198], "stop_times": [2597.198, 2598.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2596.697}, "reply_to": "21504__1_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__1_057", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--If the mandate hadn't been issued, then I think no matter how the Court decides this case, that depending on the circumstances, the court of appeals might be able to alert this Court to a... a change in the facts that might lead this Court to dismiss the petition as improvidently granted.\nThese are not things that happen all the time.\nThey are things that sometimes happened.\nAnd I did want to get back to the final reason I think that the State was not the victim of unfair surprise in this case, and that is there was a Federal court stay of execution in this case.\nThe State was perfectly well aware of the importance of securing a final judgment in the court of appeals before returning to State court.\nAnd as this Court held in Calderon, this Court rejected the State's view that a Federal habeas appeal is final when cert is denied.\nThat was the view of the State of California in that case.\nThis Court instead specifically tied the State's interest in finality to issuance of the appellate court mandate.\nThat's consistent with the unbroken history, we think, of drawing a sharp distinction between the moment at which the court of appeals relinquishes jurisdiction over a case and permitting the court to correct errors before then.\nIn fact, this Court also in Calderon specifically noted that it was not a case where the mandate had been stayed pursuant to a (d)(1) motion.\nThere is no reason to distinguish a case involving the non-issuance of a mandate under rule 41(b) from a case involving a stay of the mandate under rule (d)(1).\nThose are both circumstances in which the court of appeals still has the case, and if the court of appeals still has the case and recognizes a clear error in its prior decision or wishes to apply a new precedent to its decision or discovers that new evidence bears on a question, it has wide discretion to reconsider that judgment before relinquishing jurisdiction over the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2598.114, 2612.294, 2614.325, 2616.127, 2625.961, 2633.283, 2641.71, 2644.228, 2651.203, 2663.305, 2672.664, 2683.426], "stop_times": [2612.294, 2614.325, 2616.127, 2625.961, 2633.283, 2641.71, 2644.228, 2651.203, 2663.305, 2672.664, 2683.426, 2707.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2598.114}, "reply_to": "21504__1_056", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_058", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "What if the court of appeals were talking about a point of law and the court of appeals issued an opinion saying we agree with three circuits and disagree with four others?\nThe losing party brings it here and we deny certiorari.\nIt goes back.\nAnd then one of the judges on the panel says, gee, I think we should have gone with the other circuits.\nCan they do that at that point?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2707.181, 2718.412, 2723.015, 2724.018, 2729.693], "stop_times": [2718.412, 2723.015, 2724.018, 2729.693, 2731.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2707.181}, "reply_to": "21504__1_057", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__1_059", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, we're not saying that this power is plenary.\nIt is an abuse of discretion standard.\nThere would have to be a reason for doing so.\nIf the court sua sponte decided it had reached the wrong result and wished to reconsider it, I don't think there's anything in rule 41(b) that would forbid it.\nThat does occasionally happen in en banc cases, and those are salutary appellate practices.\nIf, for an example, there's a national security case or some other case and the court of appeals resolves it and denies an en banc petition without prejudice, thinking that it's an important enough case that it should come immediately to this Court, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the court of appeals reconsidering en banc the decision if this Court denies review.\nThose are the kinds of circumstances that... that happen that are good appellate practices--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2731.922, 2736.514, 2738.295, 2740.205, 2748.311, 2753.895, 2774.487], "stop_times": [2736.514, 2738.295, 2740.205, 2748.311, 2753.895, 2774.487, 2780.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2731.922}, "reply_to": "21504__1_058", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_060", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "But that's an intervening circumstance.\nIt's not a single judge changing his mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2780.46, 2782.198], "stop_times": [2782.198, 2785.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2780.46}, "reply_to": "21504__1_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__1_061", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--That's true, Mr. Chief Justice, but... but we think that the fact that this is a single judge changing his mind is exactly why there is no abuse and why this isn't a case like Calderon where the full court stepped in 2 days before the execution.\nThis is a case where the same three judges who denied all habeas relief and denied rehearing came back later and said, you know what?\nWe made a serious mistake.\nMr. Thompson deserves an evidentiary hearing to test the reliability of his death sentence.\nThose are not circumstances unlike recall of the mandate by a full court of appeals--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2785.222, 2797.766, 2805.51, 2807.386, 2811.77], "stop_times": [2797.766, 2805.51, 2807.386, 2811.77, 2817.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.222}, "reply_to": "21504__1_060", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_062", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Well, we might address the... the issue of whether this is that extraordinary.\nNumber one, the court of appeals did have reference to this deposition in the petition for rehearing that was filed with it.\nNumber two, the... the testimony of... of the psychiatrist that bears on the issue but the... there was a hearing on that point and another psychiatrist disagreed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2817.156, 2820.505, 2826.916], "stop_times": [2820.505, 2826.916, 2839.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2817.156}, "reply_to": "21504__1_061", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__1_063", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, I don't think that's a reason that it is an abuse of discretion to fix that error.\nThe State makes a... a lot of an issue in their reply brief of a fact that the court of appeals should have gotten this right the first time.\nThat is exactly why we have reconsideration.\nThat is a quintessential illustration of why reconsideration is a good idea.\nThe court should have gotten something right the first time, didn't, recognizes its error, and while it still has jurisdiction over the case, fixes that error.\nI think far from showing it's an abuse of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2839.891, 2845.629, 2852.578, 2856.05, 2860.045, 2869.096], "stop_times": [2845.629, 2852.578, 2856.05, 2860.045, 2869.096, 2871.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2839.891}, "reply_to": "21504__1_062", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_064", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Well, but let's... let's assume for the moment... you may disagree.\nLet's assume for the moment that the Calderon standard applies.\nThere has to be an extraordinary showing.\nAnd the State has made an argument here that this isn't that extraordinary.\nWe see these cases all the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2871.111, 2873.996, 2876.56, 2878.337, 2882.006], "stop_times": [2873.996, 2876.56, 2878.337, 2882.006, 2883.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2871.111}, "reply_to": "21504__1_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__1_065", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, I think that the Calderon standard should not be applied for several reasons.\nFirst, that this is a... a challenge to a rule of general application, rule 41.\nThere is no explanation in the State's brief, and indeed their amicus concedes that... that our reading of rule 41(b) is consistent with AEDPA.\nIt is basically... reconsideration is permitted by Federal law, and the only question is whether the State's interest in finality becomes somehow more significant the moment this Court denies certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2883.771, 2888.481, 2893.58, 2903.009], "stop_times": [2888.481, 2893.58, 2903.009, 2914.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2883.771}, "reply_to": "21504__1_064", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_066", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "So is recall permitted.\nI mean, courts have inherent right to recall too.\nI mean, the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2914.743, 2915.584, 2918.507], "stop_times": [2915.584, 2918.507, 2919.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2914.743}, "reply_to": "21504__1_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__1_067", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Justice Scalia, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2919.436], "stop_times": [2920.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2919.436}, "reply_to": "21504__1_066", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_068", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--the same situation existed in... in Calderon.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2920.699], "stop_times": [2923.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2920.699}, "reply_to": "21504__1_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__1_069", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I think it's a little different only because in Calderon it was only an inherent power question, and this Court read the exercise of that inherent power in light of AEDPA.\nThis case involves a rule of general application that authorizes a practice.\nAnd the... the proper standard of review for... for that practice is the abuse of discretion standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2923.386, 2932.501, 2937.488], "stop_times": [2932.501, 2937.488, 2943.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2923.386}, "reply_to": "21504__1_068", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_070", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Why wouldn't... but why wouldn't that be read in light of AEDPA as well?\nI mean, whether it's a common law rule or a rule that... that's written down, why equally shouldn't they be read in light of AEDPA?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2943.77, 2946.612], "stop_times": [2946.612, 2953.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.77}, "reply_to": "21504__1_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__1_071", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "The abuse of discretion standard absolutely would vary depending on the facts and circumstances of a case.\nAnd if it appeared that a particular exercise of rule 41(b) power was contrary to AEDPA, it would surely be an abuse of the court's discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2953.732, 2959.267], "stop_times": [2959.267, 2967.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2953.732}, "reply_to": "21504__1_070", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_072", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Of course, isn't it also true that in Calderon the Court didn't merely hold that it was an abuse of discretion, they held it was a grave abuse of discretion, but even... even more serious in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2967.774], "stop_times": [2976.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2967.774}, "reply_to": "21504__1_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__1_073", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Absolutely, Justice Stevens, and... and the Court's opinion suggests that even if it hadn't applied the miscarriage of justice standard, it would have had grave doubts about the exercise of that power precisely because it involved the extraordinary circumstance of reaching out and taking the case back from the State court system.\nThe... the fact that the Federal stay of execution was in place I think is especially important to... in addressing the State's argument, that there was nothing preventing the State from going back and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [2976.855, 2993.659], "stop_times": [2993.659, 3003.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2976.855}, "reply_to": "21504__1_072", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_074", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Well, of course, this court... this... in this case the State court thought it was in the system.\nIt... it set an execution date.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3003.649, 3006.854], "stop_times": [3006.854, 3008.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3003.649}, "reply_to": "21504__1_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__1_075", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, it did set an execution date but it was not informed either that the mandate hadn't issued or that there was a Federal court stay in place.\nIn a decision in which both of those two facts were brought to its attention, the Alley case, which we cite in the red brief, the Tennessee Supreme Court refused to set an execution date, ruling that it was premature.\nAnd that's consistent with 28 U.S.C., section 2251, which says that if there's a Federal court stay of execution in place, any execution date set by the State court is null and void.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3008.678, 3019.136, 3031.803], "stop_times": [3019.136, 3031.803, 3043.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3008.678}, "reply_to": "21504__1_074", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_076", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "What was the... what court had granted the stay?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3043.274], "stop_times": [3047.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3043.274}, "reply_to": "21504__1_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__1_077", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "The district court on February 17th of 2000 had... had granted the stay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3047.206], "stop_times": [3052.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3047.206}, "reply_to": "21504__1_076", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_078", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "And it remained in effect all that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3052.027], "stop_times": [3054.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3052.027}, "reply_to": "21504__1_077", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__1_079", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "It remained in effect.\nThe... the Fifth Circuit has come to that conclusion that... that if... unless the court of appeals takes a contrary action or this Court takes a contrary action vacating the stay, that stay remains in place until the case is out of the Federal court system.\nBecause this case never became final, as the advisory committee notes made clear... and we think that the cases that we've cited in the brief are largely undisputed on this point... a court of appeals decision is not final until it issues its mandate.\nEven the State in the blue brief concedes that's true.\nAnd so the question in this case really is, if you still have jurisdiction over a case, under what circumstances can you correct an error?\nAnd I think the miscarriage of justice standard is just way too harsh of a test under the circumstances because this case is a perfect illustration.\nThere are overwhelmingly persuasive reasons for the court of appeals to have fixed its mistake in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3054.827, 3056.449, 3069.014, 3082.544, 3085.338, 3092.826, 3100.533], "stop_times": [3056.449, 3069.014, 3082.544, 3085.338, 3092.826, 3100.533, 3106.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3054.827}, "reply_to": "21504__1_078", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_080", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Well, we don't... we don't have to be that harsh.\nWe can... I don't think that's the question.\nI think the question is under what circumstances can you correct the error without having formally acted to extend the time for issuance of the mandate.\nI think one can draw a distinction between the court just sitting there and doing nothing for a year and a half and... and then, you know, during which it's reconsidering the case without notice to anybody, and a situation in which a court takes formal action.\nWe're extending the time.\nWe could have a much lower standard for the latter than... than for the former.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3106.576, 3108.33, 3110.495, 3120.884, 3135.722, 3136.879], "stop_times": [3108.33, 3110.495, 3120.884, 3135.722, 3136.879, 3140.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3106.576}, "reply_to": "21504__1_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__1_081", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Justice Scalia, that's true, but that imposes a burden under rule 41(b) that simply does not exist in the text of the rule.\nThe rule does not say by order.\nPrevious versions of the rule did.\nOther rules in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure do, and to graft that onto it, despite the absence of that language and an understanding that that's how courts given the ministerial function of... of issuing mandates do their practice would be unfair.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3140.762, 3147.082, 3149.258, 3151.258], "stop_times": [3147.082, 3149.258, 3151.258, 3167.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3140.762}, "reply_to": "21504__1_080", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_082", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Well, this is... it's an abuse of discretion standard, and... and it is certainly reasonable to apply one standard for abuse of discretion where the court has entered an order notifying all parties that it's reconsidering the case and a different standard when it hasn't done that.\nI don't... I don't think it has to be spelled out in the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3167.684, 3182.91], "stop_times": [3182.91, 3185.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.684}, "reply_to": "21504__1_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21504__1_083", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia, I think that the rule does permit this practice, and if you look at the history of the rule, it makes it even more clear.\nThe... the advisory committee rejected a rule, akin to what the State is arguing today, that a mandate should be effective when it should have issued.\nAnd the reason they denied that rule was because you can't tell from looking at the docket whether the reason is a clerical error or the act of a judge delaying issuance in the mandate.\nThat alone makes clear that the committee had in mind circumstances in which judges would delay issuing their mandates without issuing formal orders to that effect.\nNumerous courts of appeals have come to that conclusion, and we think that's entirely consistent with the rules, in addition to the reasons I... I stated earlier, that I think in this case particularly, there were reasons that the State was aware of the fact that the court was engaged in sua sponte reconsideration of its decision.\nIf there are no further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3185.235, 3192.088, 3200.926, 3211.278, 3220.675, 3237.55], "stop_times": [3192.088, 3200.926, 3211.278, 3220.675, 3237.55, 3241.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3185.235}, "reply_to": "21504__1_082", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_084", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Shors.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3241.144], "stop_times": [3243.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3241.144}, "reply_to": "21504__1_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__1_085", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3243.427], "stop_times": [3244.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3243.427}, "reply_to": "21504__1_084", "speaker": "matthew_m_shors"}
{"id": "21504__1_086", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Ms. Smith.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3244.494], "stop_times": [3245.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3244.494}, "reply_to": "21504__1_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21504__2_000", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Just briefly responding to the question of the stay of execution under section 2251, there was a stay of execution extended by the district court pending the disposition of appeal... of the appeal, but appeals are disposed of by judgments, and that judgment was entered in January of 2003.\nThe State had a judgment which was final.\nThe court of appeals denied rehearing both by the panel and en banc.\nAt that point, the State, particularly after this Court denied cert, was entitled to rely on the finality of that judgment.\nThe State did not need the mandate in order to proceed.\nA mandate simply directs the district court what to do next.\nIt was not necessary.\nIt is not... it is completely independent and... and separate from the disposition of the case on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3245.694, 3266.061, 3268.237, 3272.168, 3278.583, 3281.99, 3285.612, 3287.382], "stop_times": [3266.061, 3268.237, 3272.168, 3278.583, 3281.99, 3285.612, 3287.382, 3293.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3245.694}, "reply_to": "21504__1_086", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__2_001", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Did... did the stay remain in effect in the district court, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3293.9], "stop_times": [3297.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3293.9}, "reply_to": "21504__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__2_002", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "The stay of execution?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3297.868], "stop_times": [3300.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3297.868}, "reply_to": "21504__2_001", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__2_003", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Yes.\nRespondent represents that the stay of execution was entered in the district court and it stayed in effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3300.171, 3301.057], "stop_times": [3301.057, 3307.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3300.171}, "reply_to": "21504__2_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__2_004", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "The stay of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3307.808], "stop_times": [3308.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3307.808}, "reply_to": "21504__2_003", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__2_005", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "At what point in your view did that stay become dissolved?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3308.735], "stop_times": [3312.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3308.735}, "reply_to": "21504__2_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21504__2_006", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--The stay of execution dissolved upon the disposition of the appeal.\nThe stay was pending the appeal.\nThe appeal in our view was disposed of upon the affirmance of the denial of rehearing.\nThat judgment was final when entered.\nFinality was suspended only during the timely filed petition for rehearing.\nSo once the court of appeals declined to exercise its error-correcting authority to... to rehear a case... rehear the case either en banc or by panel--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3312.622, 3316.477, 3317.757, 3323.634, 3327.288, 3331.991], "stop_times": [3316.477, 3317.757, 3323.634, 3327.288, 3331.991, 3340.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3312.622}, "reply_to": "21504__2_005", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__2_007", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "I know that's your position, but has any judge so ruled in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3340.188], "stop_times": [3342.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3340.188}, "reply_to": "21504__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__2_008", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "--Your Honor, we have cited two cases on page 13 of... of our reply brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3342.768], "stop_times": [3348.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3342.768}, "reply_to": "21504__2_007", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__2_009", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "You may be right.\nIn this case did any... either the court of appeals or the district court terminate the stay?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3348.235, 3348.682], "stop_times": [3348.682, 3353.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3348.235}, "reply_to": "21504__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21504__2_010", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "No.\nThere was no formal dissolution of the stay.\nIn our view it dissolved as an... by operation of law.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3353.983, 3354.313, 3356.707, 3359.176], "stop_times": [3354.313, 3356.707, 3359.176, 3361.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3353.983}, "reply_to": "21504__2_009", "speaker": "jennifer_l_smith"}
{"id": "21504__2_011", "conversation_id": "21504", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Smith.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-514", "start_times": [3361.907, 3363.907], "stop_times": [3363.907, 3365.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3361.907}, "reply_to": "21504__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22645__0_000", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Margaret Bradshaw v. John David Stumpf.\nMr. Cole.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [0.0, 7.949], "stop_times": [7.949, 9.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22645__0_001", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nJohn Stumpf pleaded guilty to the aggravated murder of Mary Jane Stout.\nThe evidence shows he is, in fact, guilty of that crime.\nThe court below, nonetheless, vacated his conviction on habeas review citing two grounds.\nIts reasoning on each directly conflicts with this Court's opinions and significantly undermines the finality of the hundreds of thousands of State court criminal convictions based on pleas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [9.523, 15.213, 20.473, 23.645, 28.869], "stop_times": [15.213, 20.473, 23.645, 28.869, 38.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.523}, "reply_to": "22645__0_000", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_002", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Counsel, I... I think he was given the death sentence.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [38.506, 43.573], "stop_times": [43.573, 44.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 38.506}, "reply_to": "22645__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__0_003", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [44.187], "stop_times": [45.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 44.187}, "reply_to": "22645__0_002", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_004", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "At the end of the day.\nAnd there was a separate sentencing hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [45.275, 45.841], "stop_times": [45.841, 49.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 45.275}, "reply_to": "22645__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__0_005", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "There was a separate mitigation hearing under Ohio law, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [49.076], "stop_times": [52.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 49.076}, "reply_to": "22645__0_004", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_006", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "And was it argued at that hearing by the State that Stumpf was the triggerman?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [52.294], "stop_times": [57.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 52.294}, "reply_to": "22645__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__0_007", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Your Honor, the State said that they... they thought there was evidence to support that.\nThey said, I don't believe it's necessary for this court to conclude he was the actual shooter, and that's in the joint appendix at 186.\nSo the death penalty is appropriate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [57.355, 63.753, 69.741], "stop_times": [63.753, 69.741, 71.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 57.355}, "reply_to": "22645__0_006", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_008", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "But it was argued.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [71.564], "stop_times": [72.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 71.564}, "reply_to": "22645__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__0_009", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--The court... or I'm sorry.\nThe prosecutor argued that there was sufficient evidence to show it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [72.32, 74.105], "stop_times": [74.105, 76.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 72.32}, "reply_to": "22645__0_008", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_010", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "And was there evidence at the recent habeas hearing that at least one of the sentencers relied on the fact that the judge thought Stumpf was the triggerman and the murderer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [76.278], "stop_times": [88.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 76.278}, "reply_to": "22645__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__0_011", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Your Honor, after... at the time of the original sentencing hearing there was no other evidence, this new evidence of which he's complaining--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [88.683], "stop_times": [97.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 88.683}, "reply_to": "22645__0_010", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_012", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [97.155], "stop_times": [97.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 97.155}, "reply_to": "22645__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__0_013", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--didn't exist.\nWhen it came into being,--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [97.382, 97.841], "stop_times": [97.841, 99.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 97.382}, "reply_to": "22645__0_012", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_014", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [99.551], "stop_times": [99.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 99.551}, "reply_to": "22645__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__0_015", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--he then moved to vacate his sentence at the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [99.733], "stop_times": [102.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 99.733}, "reply_to": "22645__0_014", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_016", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [102.161], "stop_times": [102.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 102.161}, "reply_to": "22645__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__0_017", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--court.\nAnd the judge there from the original panel--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [102.378, 102.832], "stop_times": [102.832, 105.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 102.378}, "reply_to": "22645__0_016", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_018", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [105.045], "stop_times": [105.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 105.045}, "reply_to": "22645__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__0_019", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--one of the judges said, it may have made a difference.\nOf course, they had before them a motion to vacate the... the sentence at that time, and they denied that motion.\nSo apparently it didn't make a difference to that judge.\nTwo other Ohio courts have independently reweighed all of the evidence and found that the death sentence was appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [105.814, 108.058, 113.329, 115.484], "stop_times": [108.058, 113.329, 115.484, 122.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 105.814}, "reply_to": "22645__0_018", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_020", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, I guess my concern actually is more with the sentencing proceeding here, in light of what's happened, than with the guilty plea.\nAnd I suppose it's possible that that stands, but conceivably he's entitled to a hearing on the sentencing aspect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [122.526, 133.062], "stop_times": [133.062, 140.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 122.526}, "reply_to": "22645__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__0_021", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "I... I guess that would be conceivable, Your Honor, although I note that there's only one due process claim he's making.\nHe's making one form of constitutional error claim predicated on the Due Process Clause, and if there was no due process violation with respect to his conviction, which is the claim that he was pressing before the Sixth Circuit, there's similarly no due process violation with respect to his sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [140.826, 148.0], "stop_times": [148.0, 162.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 140.826}, "reply_to": "22645__0_020", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_022", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Why--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [162.169], "stop_times": [162.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 162.169}, "reply_to": "22645__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__0_023", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Do you think he has waived any due process claim insofar as it applies to the sentencing?\nDo you think that's waived?\nIs that clear?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [162.453, 169.23, 170.441], "stop_times": [169.23, 170.441, 171.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 162.453}, "reply_to": "22645__0_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__0_024", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "No, Your Honor, I wouldn't say that.\nIn his Sixth Circuit briefs, he does... in a section that's entitled I hereby challenge my conviction, he does also note in that section that he's got some concerns about his sentencing hearing.\nSo I don't know that he's waived that.\nBut I don't believe that there's a valid due process claim that he has with regard to either his conviction or his sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [171.476, 173.254, 183.306, 184.531], "stop_times": [173.254, 183.306, 184.531, 189.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 171.476}, "reply_to": "22645__0_023", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_025", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Why do you argue that if there is no due process violation with respect to the actual plea, there is, therefore, no due process violation with respect to the sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [189.863], "stop_times": [199.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 189.863}, "reply_to": "22645__0_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__0_026", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, because his theory, Justice Souter, is the same with regard to both.\nHe says this... the use of this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [199.371, 203.919], "stop_times": [203.919, 205.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 199.371}, "reply_to": "22645__0_025", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_027", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Yes, but we... we may say the theory really is... is not sufficiently relevant with respect to the plea but that it is with respect to the sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [205.529], "stop_times": [213.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 205.529}, "reply_to": "22645__0_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__0_028", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--That's conceivable, Your Honor.\nWe understand that the... we understood the Sixth Circuit opinion to be directed toward his conviction.\nSo the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [213.612, 215.815, 220.557], "stop_times": [215.815, 220.557, 221.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 213.612}, "reply_to": "22645__0_027", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_029", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "I... I... no question about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [221.232], "stop_times": [223.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 221.232}, "reply_to": "22645__0_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__0_030", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--the thrust of our arguments before this Court were directed towards the conviction.\nThe other side then raised, oh, the State has waived their claim about the sentencing, and... and we were just making--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [223.095, 226.502], "stop_times": [226.502, 231.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 223.095}, "reply_to": "22645__0_029", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_031", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [231.746], "stop_times": [231.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 231.746}, "reply_to": "22645__0_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__0_032", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--clear that, A, we haven't, but B, in any event, the due process theory sounds the same in both.\nAnd so if there's not a due process problem, with respect to these arguably inconsistent theories, then there's not a due process problem with respect to his sentence either.\nHe hasn't brought any other set of facts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [231.961, 238.691, 247.443], "stop_times": [238.691, 247.443, 249.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 231.961}, "reply_to": "22645__0_031", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_033", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "No.\nI... I understand that.\nMay I go back just to one factual issue before we go on and forget it?\nYou... you stated, in response to Justice O'Connor, that the State argued in... in the Stumpf case that there was sufficient evidence to find that he was the triggerman.\nDid the State stop there and say, in effect, we don't care whether you find him the triggerman or not?\nWe're just telling you there's enough evidence.\nI... I assumed the State went on to say there is enough and you ought to find that he is the triggerman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [249.04, 249.224, 250.127, 253.901, 262.938, 269.654, 272.269], "stop_times": [249.224, 250.127, 253.901, 262.938, 269.654, 272.269, 277.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 249.04}, "reply_to": "22645__0_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__0_034", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, referring to page 187 and 188 of the joint appendix, he says, given those circumstances, although we believe the evidence does prove he was the shooter of Mary Jane Stout, legally, technically, I don't believe it makes any difference when you have two people acting in concert for the joint and unlawful purpose of committing an aggravated robbery and... and murder results.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [277.39], "stop_times": [297.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 277.39}, "reply_to": "22645__0_033", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_035", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Did... did the prosecutor ever say he was the triggerman?\nThe evidence supports it and... and that's the conclusion that ought to be drawn: he was the triggerman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [297.515, 302.406], "stop_times": [302.406, 306.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 297.515}, "reply_to": "22645__0_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__0_036", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "He said there's ample evidence from which the court could conclude--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [306.587], "stop_times": [309.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 306.587}, "reply_to": "22645__0_035", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_037", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "But did he take the second step and say there's ample evidence and he was, in fact, the triggerman and you should so find, or in so many words?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [309.619], "stop_times": [317.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 309.619}, "reply_to": "22645__0_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__0_038", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--In so many words, Your Honor, in connection with the mitigation phase, in... in connection with the factual basis hearing even, he put on the evidence saying, you know, Mr. Stumpf says he wasn't the shooter and gives a lot of reasons to discount that evidence.\nSo he's arguing that in fact Mr. Stumpf was the shooter.\nI think it's a fair implication if he doesn't say the express words, but it's a fair implication.\nOf course, at that time, there was absolutely no evidence to the contrary.\nMr. Wesley had not yet been extradited from Texas.\nHe hadn't even made this alleged statement to Mr. Eastman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [317.242, 332.003, 334.408, 338.626, 342.007, 344.457], "stop_times": [332.003, 334.408, 338.626, 342.007, 344.457, 347.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 317.242}, "reply_to": "22645__0_037", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_039", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, the... the evidence was Stumpf... Stumpf himself who said Wesley was the triggerman with respect to Mrs. Stout.\nBut I wanted to ask you a question about... that... it relates to the sentencing part and it follows up Justice O'Connor's question.\nThe... the... you... as... if I understood you right, you said, well, there was a motion that came before two of the three judges that were part of the guilty plea and the sentencing.\nThis was a plea, so no jury trial.\nIt was three judges.\nOne of them had died.\nThe... the two who remained... one of them said, but if we had not been satisfied that Stumpf was, in fact, the triggerman, and we were satisfied that he was, in fact, an aider or abetter, that may very well have had an effect on the court's determination whether the death penalty should follow.\nI'm not saying it would, but it's possible.\nAnd then you said, but then he went ahead and voted to deny the motion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [347.674, 357.653, 368.195, 384.923, 387.714, 388.455, 390.282, 413.967, 415.842], "stop_times": [357.653, 368.195, 384.923, 387.714, 388.455, 390.282, 413.967, 415.842, 421.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 347.674}, "reply_to": "22645__0_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22645__0_040", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "To vacate the sentence, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [421.215], "stop_times": [423.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 421.215}, "reply_to": "22645__0_039", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_041", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Yes.\nBut there's no explanation at all.\nThe only expression that we have from that judge is... he said, well, it's conceivable, although it wouldn't affect guilt, we would have come out with a different sentence, and then going from that statement to nothing, just a denial without explanation.\nYou... you want us to infer from that silent denial that the judge must have resolved his own difficulty and decided it wouldn't make any difference on the sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [423.842, 424.033, 426.91, 447.591], "stop_times": [424.033, 426.91, 447.591, 462.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 423.842}, "reply_to": "22645__0_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22645__0_042", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, A, I think that's an inference that's supported by the fact that he voted to deny the motion, but B, in any event, there's been an independent reweighing of all of the evidence in the Ohio intermediate appellate court and that court said that... very specifically said, even if we didn't believe he was the principal... or principal offender, the actual shooter... we do believe that.\nBut even if we didn't, the death sentence here would be appropriate.\nAnd this Court noted in Clemons that an independent reweighing by an appellate court of the evidentiary record can be sufficient to secure... or to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [462.195, 482.275, 484.75], "stop_times": [482.275, 484.75, 493.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.195}, "reply_to": "22645__0_041", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_043", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "But it would be appropriate because the statute permits it.\nBut the decision-maker has three choices.\nAnd if the evidence had come in that Wesley was the triggerman, maybe the... this panel of judges would have done what the jury did in Wesley's case, that is, it's the same crime, but not give the death penalty for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [493.239, 496.698, 500.386], "stop_times": [496.698, 500.386, 522.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 493.239}, "reply_to": "22645__0_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22645__0_044", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Well, Justice... Justice Ginsburg, the... the evidence wasn't available at the time of the original sentence.\nSo the failure to have that part of the record at the time of the original sentencing hearing, of course, can't violate due process.\nAnd then the question would be, did something that happened later violate due process?\nBut I just don't think it can be the case that anytime new evidence comes up that might cause a judge to say, boy, if we'd have had that evidence before when we... when we reached the sentencing decision, we might have reached a different result--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [522.08, 530.522, 536.167, 540.033], "stop_times": [530.522, 536.167, 540.033, 551.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 522.08}, "reply_to": "22645__0_043", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_045", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, what... what is the rule if there are two successive... there are successive trials with different defendants and there can only be one shooter and in each trial it's found that the defendant is the shooter?\nWhat should be the rule, or does the... does the second person get the advantage?\nDoes the State have to begin all over again with both?\nOr... or does the State have no obligation to correct either?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [551.818, 568.593, 575.117, 579.121], "stop_times": [568.593, 575.117, 579.121, 583.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 551.818}, "reply_to": "22645__0_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22645__0_046", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Well, Justice Kennedy, I... I think it depends, at least in part, on what role that finding played.\nIf those two verdicts each had as an essential component this fact, this person is the shooter and this person is the shooter, so that the verdicts are necessarily inconsistent so that we know the State has actually got someone in jail they're punishing that's innocent, we would concede there may be a substantive due process right of the... against the State because the State at that point--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [583.567, 589.612], "stop_times": [589.612, 613.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 583.567}, "reply_to": "22645__0_045", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_047", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "By whom?\nBy which one of the two?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [613.568, 614.158], "stop_times": [614.158, 615.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 613.568}, "reply_to": "22645__0_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__0_048", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Your Honor, I... I think that's a great question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [615.571], "stop_times": [618.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.571}, "reply_to": "22645__0_047", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_049", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Do we flip a coin?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [618.054], "stop_times": [618.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 618.054}, "reply_to": "22645__0_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__0_050", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, I... I think the point is probably both would have some kind of claim in that I don't think the State can pursue and convict two people on necessarily inconsistent theories because at that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [618.653], "stop_times": [630.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 618.653}, "reply_to": "22645__0_049", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_051", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Why... why is that?\nI mean, it seems to me due process requires that there be enough evidence to... for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that... that the person was the shooter.\nAnd if in... if there is, indeed, in both cases enough such evidence, it seems to me there is no denial of due process, and that the usual manner of accommodating for that apparent injustice is... is for the Governor to grant clemency to one of the two, have him figure out which one of the two wasn't the shooter, or to apply for... for reopening of the... of the... of one of cases.\nBut I don't know that there is automatically a due process violation which allows one or the other of the cases... proper convictions.\nEach one is fully proper.\nI don't know that there's a due process violation that allows one of them to be set aside.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [630.408, 631.223, 643.125, 670.523, 679.334, 680.955], "stop_times": [631.223, 643.125, 670.523, 679.334, 680.955, 685.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 630.408}, "reply_to": "22645__0_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__0_052", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--And I don't know that there is either, Your Honor.\nWe'd be willing to concede that for purposes of this argument because even if there is, it doesn't apply here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [685.645, 688.394], "stop_times": [688.394, 693.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 685.645}, "reply_to": "22645__0_051", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_053", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Due... due process doesn't mean perfection.\nIt doesn't mean that each jury has to always reach the right result.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [693.102, 694.936], "stop_times": [694.936, 698.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 693.102}, "reply_to": "22645__0_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__0_054", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--I... I agree with that, Your Honor, and I hate to argue against my position, so I... I do this gently.\nBut at the same time, the court has noted and... and one of the old saws of American law is... is it's better one guilty person should go free than that one innocent person should be punished.\nAnd if the State knows, as a matter of fact, that it secured two convictions for a crime that only one committed, the State knows at that point that it's punishing at least one innocent person and that might violate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [698.337, 703.674, 715.486], "stop_times": [703.674, 715.486, 726.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 698.337}, "reply_to": "22645__0_053", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_055", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "When... when did this new evidence come to light?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [726.176], "stop_times": [729.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 726.176}, "reply_to": "22645__0_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22645__0_056", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--The new evidence came to light some 6 months after his plea was entered and after the sentence was announced.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [729.222], "stop_times": [735.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 729.222}, "reply_to": "22645__0_055", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_057", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Did the other guy confess to a... kind of a jailhouse snitch?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [735.793], "stop_times": [739.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.793}, "reply_to": "22645__0_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22645__0_058", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "To... to a jailhouse informant, yes, Your Honor.\nAnd the prosecutor put that evidence on at trial, at Wesley's trial, but it's interesting to note what he did with that evidence at Wesley's trial.\nHe put it on but then in closing very expressly noted that while there's been this evidence, even if you don't believe he's the principal offender, you can still find him guilty of aggravated murder.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [739.991, 742.276, 749.399], "stop_times": [742.276, 749.399, 761.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 739.991}, "reply_to": "22645__0_057", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_059", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "But it is the case that he argued that... that you should find him guilty because he was the triggerman.\nI mean, that was an alternative argument.\nSo the... I mean, I think what's the... the concern following Justice Kennedy's question, the concern that I have is not with the... the guilt or innocence as such here.\nIt's with the sentencing.\nAnd as... it seems to me fair to say that as the record stands now, the State has made two arguments: one that Stumpf was the triggerman, one that Wesley was the triggerman.\nIt has to be the case that one of those arguments, if accepted, would lead to a false result.\nAnd the question... I think the due process question is whether the State can pursue those inconsistent arguments, even if it starts out innocently doing it, but can it pursue two inconsistent arguments knowing that in one case the argument must be for a false result, without there being any kind of... of process to correct the State's inconsistent positions?\nWhat... I mean, what's your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [761.596, 766.983, 769.01, 779.175, 780.707, 794.565, 804.415, 830.296], "stop_times": [766.983, 769.01, 779.175, 780.707, 794.565, 804.415, 830.296, 832.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 761.596}, "reply_to": "22645__0_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__0_060", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, Your Honor, first, I... I don't think they're... he was without process.\nMr. Stumpf had abundant process within the State system.\nHe got all the evidence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [832.031, 835.43, 840.324], "stop_times": [835.43, 840.324, 841.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 832.031}, "reply_to": "22645__0_059", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_061", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Oh, he could... he could get into court, but as I understand it, there was no recognition here that there is... that there is in fact something wrong with the two inconsistent... or the two arguments of the State, each of which, if accepted, will necessarily result in one false conclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [841.455], "stop_times": [859.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 841.455}, "reply_to": "22645__0_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__0_062", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, the... again, the intermediate appellate court independently reweighed this evidence and concluded that even if we conclude that Mr. Stumpf is not the shooter, even if that's our... our conclusion... it isn't, but even were we to conclude that, the death penalty would still be appropriate here.\nSo there's been an independent reweighing of the evidence minus the mitigating evidence or minus the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [859.848, 876.988], "stop_times": [876.988, 882.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 859.848}, "reply_to": "22645__0_061", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_063", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Maybe... maybe that's enough.\nLet me, with respect to that, just ask you one final question.\nAnd I'm assuming the... the answer, but I want to be sure.\nI assume that at the point of this intermediate court's reweighing, the intermediate court was aware of the... the evidence of... of... the hearsay evidence of Wesley's confession and was aware that the State argued in the second case that Wesley was the triggerman.\nAm I correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [882.156, 883.314, 886.384, 889.326, 906.711], "stop_times": [883.314, 886.384, 889.326, 906.711, 907.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.156}, "reply_to": "22645__0_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__0_064", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nHe... the prosecutor, in fact, stipulated to the admissibility of the Eastman and the Wesley evidence from Wesley's trial back into the Stumpf proceeding in the original trial court before the two judges... the two of the three judges that were remaining at that point, and then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [907.561, 908.241], "stop_times": [908.241, 925.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 907.561}, "reply_to": "22645__0_063", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_065", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "And... and I take it also--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [925.315], "stop_times": [925.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 925.315}, "reply_to": "22645__0_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__0_066", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--That was part of the record on appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [925.961], "stop_times": [927.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 925.961}, "reply_to": "22645__0_065", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_067", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--stipulated or represented or admitted, whatever, that in fact the State had argued in the second case that Wesley was the triggerman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [927.087], "stop_times": [934.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 927.087}, "reply_to": "22645__0_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__0_068", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "I believe so, Your Honor.\nThe indictment in Wesley's case included a specification that he was the principal offender, so at the very least, the indictment would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [934.151, 935.844], "stop_times": [935.844, 944.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 934.151}, "reply_to": "22645__0_067", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_069", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Because of being... because of being the triggerman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [944.229], "stop_times": [945.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.229}, "reply_to": "22645__0_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__0_070", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--The only way to be the principal offender under that specification is to be the triggerman.\nSo that... that's clear from the face of the indictment in... in Wesley's case that the State had argued that.\nNow, the jury, importantly in Wesley's case, found that he should be acquitted on that aggravating circumstance.\nIt's not an element of the crime, but it's one of the aggravating circumstances that the State could rely on in seeking the death penalty in Wesley's case, and the jury specifically rejected that aggravating circumstance and... and found that the State had not proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.\nThroughout the... throughout the appellate process, with regard to the sentence, the State's attorney argued that, yes, there's evidence in the record from which you could conclude that he's the actual shooter, but in any event, it doesn't matter.\nAnd the... the State's attorney was correct in that, as a matter of Ohio law, aiders and abetters can both be found guilty of aggravated murder under Ohio law and are subject to the death penalty.\nThe two... the two aggravating circumstances... I'm sorry.\nThe one aggravating circumstance that remained after the plea deal turned merely on the reason why Mrs. Stout had been put to death.\nIt did not turn at all on who was the person who put her to death.\nSo as an accomplice, aider, and abetter, with liability for the aggravated murder, he was also subject to the death penalty under that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [945.635, 949.223, 955.403, 961.492, 976.97, 993.367, 1003.358, 1006.385, 1013.419, 1017.042], "stop_times": [949.223, 955.403, 961.492, 976.97, 993.367, 1003.358, 1006.385, 1013.419, 1017.042, 1024.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 945.635}, "reply_to": "22645__0_069", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_071", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "But, General Cole, isn't there a distinction between eligibility for the death penalty and actually making the decision to impose the death penalty?\nAnd it's perfectly clear... you're dead right, of course.\nHe's eligible under either theory.\nBut is it not likely that the sentencer would be more likely to sentence the defendant to death if the sentencer thought he had been the actual shooter?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1024.539, 1031.696, 1034.151, 1035.556], "stop_times": [1031.696, 1034.151, 1035.556, 1045.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1024.539}, "reply_to": "22645__0_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22645__0_072", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--I... I think it's definitely a fact that the court weighs, although here we have evidence that at least one Ohio court took that possibility into account and said even in light of that fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1045.648], "stop_times": [1055.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1045.648}, "reply_to": "22645__0_071", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_073", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1055.536], "stop_times": [1055.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1055.536}, "reply_to": "22645__0_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22645__0_074", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--we still conclude that the death sentence is appropriate.\nSo I don't know that we can say that in this case it in any way would change the outcome.\nIn fact, the record--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1055.981, 1057.966, 1062.316], "stop_times": [1057.966, 1062.316, 1063.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1055.981}, "reply_to": "22645__0_073", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_075", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, and the original sentencer might... might not have done the same thing.\nWe don't really know that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1063.049, 1065.655], "stop_times": [1065.655, 1066.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1063.049}, "reply_to": "22645__0_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22645__0_076", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Well, this did go back in front of the two... two of the three original sentencers and they declined to allow him to vacate his sentence.\nThe intermediate appellate court then independently reweighed and expressly said, whether he's the shooter or not, he's eligible for the death sentence.\nSo there have been a number of Ohio judges that have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1066.55, 1072.871, 1079.498], "stop_times": [1072.871, 1079.498, 1081.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1066.55}, "reply_to": "22645__0_075", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_077", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "As I understand the facts, even if he hadn't shot the wife to death, which was what the prosecution was for, he had tried to kill the husband, shooting him twice in the head?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1081.843], "stop_times": [1093.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1081.843}, "reply_to": "22645__0_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__0_078", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Twice at the head from essentially point-blank range, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1093.683], "stop_times": [1096.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1093.683}, "reply_to": "22645__0_077", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_079", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "From point-blank range.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1096.75], "stop_times": [1097.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1096.75}, "reply_to": "22645__0_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__0_080", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1097.629], "stop_times": [1098.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1097.629}, "reply_to": "22645__0_079", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_081", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "And then there was some discussion that the... that the lying, seriously wounded husband heard between the two perpetrators, and then there was shooting of the wife.\nWhether he pulled the trigger or not, could that possibly make a difference?\nHe did pull the trigger trying to kill the husband.\nIs it difficult to... to think that... that he willingly allowed his... his cohort to do the same to the wife?\nI... I can't imagine it would make any difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1098.059, 1109.893, 1116.514, 1119.2, 1129.227], "stop_times": [1109.893, 1116.514, 1119.2, 1129.227, 1131.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1098.059}, "reply_to": "22645__0_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__0_082", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Your Honor, we agree and that certainly falls well within the... the range of culpability that this Court set out in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1131.322], "stop_times": [1138.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1131.322}, "reply_to": "22645__0_081", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_083", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "There's no doubt that they could have... the trier of fact could have reached the same conclusion.\nBut I guess the problem is that when you go back to reopen the evidence the second time and the judges are sitting there, someone might have thought, well, the husband didn't die, and we don't know if he actually pulled the trigger on the wife.\nAnd we're trying to guess what those judges would have done if they thought that.\nI don't know.\nIt could be that people don't want to impose capital punishment without thinking I know that this person has killed somebody, and if that's so, they wouldn't have reached the same conclusion.\nNow, I guess that's the problem because at that time on reopening, the State told that panel of judges pretty clearly by implication that the State thought that the evidence did support Stumpf having pulled the trigger, even though at that point the State knew and indeed referred to the statement to... you know, the confession and all the things in the second trial.\nNow, what do you think about that problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1138.497, 1144.746, 1162.655, 1168.871, 1169.961, 1183.598, 1219.399], "stop_times": [1144.746, 1162.655, 1168.871, 1169.961, 1183.598, 1219.399, 1222.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1138.497}, "reply_to": "22645__0_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__0_084", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Well, first, Your Honor, I don't think we have to guess what the judges would do because the judges did what they did.\nThey denied the motion to vacate and then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1222.597, 1227.504], "stop_times": [1227.504, 1229.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1222.597}, "reply_to": "22645__0_083", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_085", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "They denied it, but as I read what the Ohio court said after the denial, I thought it did probably rest upon their determination that Stumpf had pulled the trigger.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1229.163], "stop_times": [1241.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1229.163}, "reply_to": "22645__0_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__0_086", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--And certainly the intermediate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1241.427], "stop_times": [1244.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1241.427}, "reply_to": "22645__0_085", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_087", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Did you think that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1244.008], "stop_times": [1244.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1244.008}, "reply_to": "22645__0_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__0_088", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Well, the intermediate appellate court expressly said that its determination did not turn on who had pulled the trigger, that they would have reached the same conclusion independent of who pulled the trigger.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1244.438], "stop_times": [1252.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1244.438}, "reply_to": "22645__0_087", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_089", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "But the panel... the panel that didn't reopen... there was no reopening because they denied the motion.\nBut they didn't say one way or another.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1252.536, 1257.758], "stop_times": [1257.758, 1261.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1252.536}, "reply_to": "22645__0_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22645__0_090", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "It's the Supreme Court of Ohio that then I think I got my impression from, and of course, they don't know either.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1261.077], "stop_times": [1268.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1261.077}, "reply_to": "22645__0_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__0_091", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1268.364], "stop_times": [1268.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1268.364}, "reply_to": "22645__0_090", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_092", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "The fact is we don't know what that original panel thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1268.934], "stop_times": [1272.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1268.934}, "reply_to": "22645__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__0_093", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1272.427], "stop_times": [1272.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1272.427}, "reply_to": "22645__0_092", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_094", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, it isn't that... isn't one of the answers to Justice Breyer's questions that you... you never know exactly what a fact finder would do.\nWhat you have to deal with are reasonable likelihoods and reasonable possibilities.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1272.897, 1279.663], "stop_times": [1279.663, 1283.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1272.897}, "reply_to": "22645__0_093", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22645__0_095", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1283.958], "stop_times": [1284.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1283.958}, "reply_to": "22645__0_094", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_096", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "And when... and when you have someone who shoots the first person and is obviously attempting to kill him, and then there's an apparent discussion... not... not 100 percent clear that those were the two voices.\nIt's pretty clear because there were only two other people there.\nSo we talk about reasonable likelihoods, don't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1284.732, 1295.207, 1298.434], "stop_times": [1295.207, 1298.434, 1301.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.732}, "reply_to": "22645__0_095", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22645__0_097", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--I would think that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1301.573], "stop_times": [1302.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1301.573}, "reply_to": "22645__0_096", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_098", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Absolutely right.\nOf course, that's right.\nWe can't be sure what they would have done, and because we can't be sure what they would have done, I guess it might well have made a difference that the State told that panel we think Stumpf pulled the trigger.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1302.955, 1304.014, 1305.179], "stop_times": [1304.014, 1305.179, 1319.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1302.955}, "reply_to": "22645__0_097", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__0_099", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1319.992], "stop_times": [1320.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1319.992}, "reply_to": "22645__0_098", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_100", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "And that's what gives rise to the problem in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1320.461], "stop_times": [1323.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.461}, "reply_to": "22645__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__0_101", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--But, Justice Breyer, I think it... it's always going to be the case that after a sentence is announced, there's the possibility that new evidence might come up that would cause us to say we can't know for sure what this panel would have done with that new evidence.\nAnd so there needs to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1323.617, 1336.494], "stop_times": [1336.494, 1337.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1323.617}, "reply_to": "22645__0_100", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_102", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--the State say when it comes to the panel, the reopening panel, we'll tell you something.\nWe think, indeed, that's what we argued, that the State... in the last case we argued that Stumpf didn't pull the trigger, that the balance of evidence is against that, but nonetheless, he should be sentenced to death.\nThat would make your position absolutely consistent with what you argued in that second trial with Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1337.384, 1344.125, 1362.311], "stop_times": [1344.125, 1362.311, 1370.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.384}, "reply_to": "22645__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__0_103", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Mr. Wesley.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1370.106], "stop_times": [1370.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1370.106}, "reply_to": "22645__0_102", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_104", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Mr. Wesley.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1370.627], "stop_times": [1371.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1370.627}, "reply_to": "22645__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__0_105", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "But, Your Honor, I'm not sure that that would have been the State's position.\nI don't believe after the Wesley trial, that the balance of the evidence necessarily showed that Wesley was the shooter versus Stumpf.\nThat was one person's testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1371.307, 1374.576, 1380.832], "stop_times": [1374.576, 1380.832, 1382.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1371.307}, "reply_to": "22645__0_104", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_106", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Yes.\nNow, the... the jury in the Wesley trial rejected that position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1382.326, 1382.621], "stop_times": [1382.621, 1385.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1382.326}, "reply_to": "22645__0_105", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22645__0_107", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "They did, Your Honor, and Mr. Wesley... it isn't as though all the new evidence is in Mr. Stumpf's favor.\nMr. Wesley, the only other eyewitness who's testified, came and sat on the witness stand and said, yes, Mr. Stumpf pulled the trigger.\nAt the end of the day, the only two people who know exactly who pulled the trigger are Mr. Wesley and Mr. Stumpf, and they have every reason to point their finger at the other person.\nSo if that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1385.833, 1390.267, 1397.047, 1406.387], "stop_times": [1390.267, 1397.047, 1406.387, 1407.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1385.833}, "reply_to": "22645__0_106", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_108", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Okay, but wait.\nWho did the... who was the last person the State pointed its finger at?\nYou... you told me in... in response to earlier questions that when the case back before the two remaining members of the panel, that in fact the State brought the... called to their attention the fact that Wesley had confessed and... and it was... it was clear one way or another that... that they had argued in Wesley's trial that he was the triggerman.\nWhen they... at that point when they are back before the two remaining members of the panel in Stumpf's case, did the State say we now go back to our original position that Stumpf was the triggerman and Wesley wasn't, or did they say we think... we think Wesley is the triggerman and Stumpf wasn't?\nOr did the State simply stand there agnostic?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1407.225, 1407.492, 1411.516, 1434.072, 1459.915], "stop_times": [1407.492, 1411.516, 1434.072, 1459.915, 1463.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.225}, "reply_to": "22645__0_107", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__0_109", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--The State... and I would encourage the Court to look at the State's response to that motion, which is in joint appendix at 126.\nBut what the State says on 126 is... essentially there's a lot of agnosticism in the response.\nIt says, look, there's this new evidence.\nWe don't know.\nIt seems like from this record you could conclude that Stumpf was the shooter, but then the State says even deleting that finding, even if you don't agree with us, or even if you don't agree that's the case, because the State isn't really saying this is our position anymore, even if you delete that finding, there's still sufficient evidence here to support a death penalty against Mr. Stumpf.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1463.306, 1471.689, 1477.418, 1479.338, 1480.107], "stop_times": [1471.689, 1477.418, 1479.338, 1480.107, 1498.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1463.306}, "reply_to": "22645__0_108", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_110", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Could... could I get one fact?\nWesley didn't confess or we don't know that he confessed.\nHe... he said he wasn't the shooter at trial, didn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1498.559, 1499.564, 1503.921], "stop_times": [1499.564, 1503.921, 1507.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1498.559}, "reply_to": "22645__0_109", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__0_111", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1507.434], "stop_times": [1508.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1507.434}, "reply_to": "22645__0_110", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_112", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "But what was introduced was... was the testimony of one of his jailhouse companions who said that Wesley had told him that he was the shooter.\nSo who was the shooter was... was as much an issue in Wesley's trial as it was in Stumpf's trial, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1508.568, 1517.03], "stop_times": [1517.03, 1522.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1508.568}, "reply_to": "22645__0_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__0_113", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "As the court expressly... or as... as the State expressly noted in its closing in that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1522.964], "stop_times": [1526.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1522.964}, "reply_to": "22645__0_112", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_114", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Yes, but the State's position was that the jailhouse informant had told the truth, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1526.979], "stop_times": [1530.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1526.979}, "reply_to": "22645__0_113", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22645__0_115", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--In closing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1530.813], "stop_times": [1532.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1530.813}, "reply_to": "22645__0_114", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_116", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "At the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1532.096], "stop_times": [1532.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1532.096}, "reply_to": "22645__0_115", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22645__0_117", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--In... in closing at that trial, Your Honor, the... the prosecutor was relatively agnostic, frankly.\nHe said, look, you could conclude--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1532.651, 1538.161], "stop_times": [1538.161, 1539.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1532.651}, "reply_to": "22645__0_116", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_118", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "He at least put in the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1539.982], "stop_times": [1541.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1539.982}, "reply_to": "22645__0_117", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22645__0_119", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--He... he put in the evidence, and then he said, look, from this evidence you could conclude that Wesley was the shooter.\nYou could also--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1541.113, 1546.5], "stop_times": [1546.5, 1547.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1541.113}, "reply_to": "22645__0_118", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_120", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "And normally you don't put in evidence unless you think it will support a proposition that you... that you're in favor of.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1547.404], "stop_times": [1551.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1547.404}, "reply_to": "22645__0_119", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22645__0_121", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Well, and Your Honor, I... I think if he could show Wesley was the shooter, that would, of course, support a conviction against Wesley, but he recognized that the jury didn't necessarily need to believe that, and in fact, he wasn't relying on that in order to secure the conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1551.698], "stop_times": [1563.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1551.698}, "reply_to": "22645__0_120", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_122", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "May I ask you one final question?\nAs a matter of due process, why shouldn't the State... after learning of the supposed admission in Wesley, after taking Wesley's position, why shouldn't the State, when it gets back to the Stumpf case before the remaining two members of the panel, have to fish or cut bait on a position and say we think he's the triggerman and we want you to affirm on that basis, or we don't think he was the triggerman because we've taken this other position?\nWhy can the State, as a matter of due process, stand there agnostic?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1563.898, 1565.867, 1594.724], "stop_times": [1565.867, 1594.724, 1598.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1563.898}, "reply_to": "22645__0_121", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__0_123", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Because, Your Honor, the State is not the fact finder.\nThe judge is the fact finder.\nThe State needs to put the evidence in and allow counsel for the defendant, counsel for the State to argue positions, and let the fact finder make the ultimate determination.\nWith the Court's permission, I'd like to reserve the rest of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1598.379, 1600.537, 1601.662, 1609.167], "stop_times": [1600.537, 1601.662, 1609.167, 1611.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1598.379}, "reply_to": "22645__0_122", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__0_124", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Very well, Mr. Cole.\nMr. Freedman, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1611.693, 1612.746], "stop_times": [1612.746, 1615.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1611.693}, "reply_to": "22645__0_123", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22645__1_000", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "In light of the questioning, I'd like to indicate what exactly was argued below and what was the rulings.\nIn... in the first Stumpf trial, they... they argued that there was, quote/unquote, ample evidence to point--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1615.053, 1623.58], "stop_times": [1623.58, 1631.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1615.053}, "reply_to": "22645__0_124", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_001", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Who is they?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1631.146], "stop_times": [1632.306], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1631.146}, "reply_to": "22645__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22645__1_002", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--The prosecutors.\nI'm sorry.\nMr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe prosecutors argued that there was ample evidence, quote/unquote, pointed--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1632.306, 1635.945, 1636.688, 1639.05], "stop_times": [1635.945, 1636.688, 1639.05, 1649.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1632.306}, "reply_to": "22645__1_001", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_003", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Mr. Freedman, it wasn't a trial.\nIt was a... it was a plea hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1649.573, 1650.585], "stop_times": [1650.585, 1652.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.573}, "reply_to": "22645__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22645__1_004", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--That's correct, but there was... but... but in Ohio there's a requirement to have an actual prove-up of the aggravating factor itself.\nAnd they argued that there was ample evidence, quote/unquote, pointed to Stumpf as the killer, and that's in joint appendix 186 to 187.\nUltimately they... and they urged that he was the shooter.\nThen when the Wesley trial took place, at the trial they did the same thing.\nThey used the same terms, quote/unquote, ample evidence that Wesley was the shooter.\nThey urged a finding that Wesley was... was the shooter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1652.497, 1661.091, 1672.441, 1676.202, 1680.439, 1685.734], "stop_times": [1661.091, 1672.441, 1676.202, 1680.439, 1685.734, 1689.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1652.497}, "reply_to": "22645__1_003", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_005", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "I... I thought the prosecutor in closing in the Wesley trial said, it could have been Stumpf, but it doesn't make any difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1689.533], "stop_times": [1696.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.533}, "reply_to": "22645__1_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22645__1_006", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "They--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1696.231], "stop_times": [1697.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1696.231}, "reply_to": "22645__1_005", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_007", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "I thought they argued both?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1697.159], "stop_times": [1697.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1697.159}, "reply_to": "22645__1_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22645__1_008", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--That... they really didn't argue both.\nThey... they... effect... that was the throwaway argument.\nThey came in there... what... what I think is critical in both trials and later on in the proceedings is what they were urging, what they were recommending the... to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1697.995, 1700.195, 1702.742], "stop_times": [1700.195, 1702.742, 1712.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1697.995}, "reply_to": "22645__1_007", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_009", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, but it's at the bottom of page 187.\nWe're on this same point.\nGiven these circumstances--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1712.069, 1714.178, 1715.209], "stop_times": [1714.178, 1715.209, 1717.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1712.069}, "reply_to": "22645__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22645__1_010", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "What... what page is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1717.26], "stop_times": [1718.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1717.26}, "reply_to": "22645__1_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__1_011", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--187 like the... of the joint appendix.\nGiven these circumstances, although we believe the evidence does prove he was the shooter, I don't believe it makes any difference when you have two people acting in concert for the joint and unlawful purpose of committing an aggravating robbery.\nThat's at the top of 188.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1718.086, 1720.97, 1733.25], "stop_times": [1720.97, 1733.25, 1734.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1718.086}, "reply_to": "22645__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22645__1_012", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "But the... but they urged.\nThey recommended.\nThey didn't come in and say... and throughout this proceeding... we don't know who the shooter is.\nWe don't care who the shooter is.\nThey both deserve the death penalty.\nThey... they were... the prosecutors were aware that the... the death penalty is what stirs the pot here, and so they were urging somebody to be the shooter to get the death penalty.\nIf this wasn't a death penalty case, I don't think they... it would have mattered who killed who.\nAnd so they were urging--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1734.284, 1735.652, 1736.367, 1741.417, 1743.324, 1744.943, 1755.928, 1761.416], "stop_times": [1735.652, 1736.367, 1741.417, 1743.324, 1744.943, 1755.928, 1761.416, 1762.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1734.284}, "reply_to": "22645__1_011", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_013", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, I think there's quite a difference in... in case A where you say our position is that Stumpf was the shooter, pure and simple.\nThat's it.\nIn case B, they say we think Stumpf was the shooter.\nWe're not 100 percent sure, but he should get the death penalty.\nThe alternative is before the sentencer and the sentencer can make that determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1762.304, 1771.07, 1771.498, 1774.565, 1778.098], "stop_times": [1771.07, 1771.498, 1774.565, 1778.098, 1782.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1762.304}, "reply_to": "22645__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22645__1_014", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--But... but they took the position of actually urging, making a recommendation.\nI... I don't think there would be a due process violation if they said, we don't know.\nThey didn't take that.\nThey... they urged a position, and I think that's the key factor when the... in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1782.202, 1786.665, 1791.689, 1792.628], "stop_times": [1786.665, 1791.689, 1792.628, 1797.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1782.202}, "reply_to": "22645__1_013", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_015", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "What... what was the due process violation here?\nYou're talking about due process in the second trial, in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1797.316, 1799.19], "stop_times": [1799.19, 1801.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1797.316}, "reply_to": "22645__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__1_016", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "The due process violation, Your Honor, would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1801.493], "stop_times": [1804.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1801.493}, "reply_to": "22645__1_015", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_017", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Was in the first trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1804.55], "stop_times": [1805.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1804.55}, "reply_to": "22645__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__1_018", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--No, of course, there wasn't in the first trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1805.379], "stop_times": [1806.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1805.379}, "reply_to": "22645__1_017", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_019", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "But that's the trial that you're trying to get set aside here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1806.943], "stop_times": [1809.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1806.943}, "reply_to": "22645__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__1_020", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "We submit that the due process error is at the motion to vacate.\nAt that time, again, after taking the position that Wesley was the shooter, they came back and urged that... that Stumpf was the shooter, that the record was ample enough to support Stumpf being the shooter--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1809.791, 1814.407], "stop_times": [1814.407, 1827.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1809.791}, "reply_to": "22645__1_019", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_021", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, it was.\nThey're... they're just... they're just arguing that the evidence we introduced supported the jury verdict.\nWhat... what is wrong with arguing that?\nThere's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1827.683, 1828.095, 1833.039, 1835.168], "stop_times": [1828.095, 1833.039, 1835.168, 1835.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1827.683}, "reply_to": "22645__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__1_022", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Because they've taken inconsistent positions.\nThe... the violation here is in the positions itself, not in necessarily the results.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1835.695, 1837.876], "stop_times": [1837.876, 1844.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1835.695}, "reply_to": "22645__1_021", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_023", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Not... not if they said in the second trial it doesn't matter whether he's the shooter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1844.786], "stop_times": [1848.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1844.786}, "reply_to": "22645__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__1_024", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "I think they did more than it didn't... it just didn't matter.\nI think they urged the position.\nIt would... I mean, a lot of the cases in the lower courts have made that distinction when the... when the State comes in and says, we don't know what happens.\nWe can't tell you who the shooter is or not, and we don't care who the shooter is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1848.847, 1851.531, 1853.079, 1860.395], "stop_times": [1851.531, 1853.079, 1860.395, 1864.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1848.847}, "reply_to": "22645__1_023", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_025", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Suppose the State had said on motion for resentencing in Stumpf's trial, Your Honor, we took the position that Wesley was the shooter in Wesley's trial.\nThe jury disbelieved that.\nWe accept the jury's verdict.\nOur position now is that... that Stumpf was the shooter.\nWe've learned from the jury verdict in the Wesley trial.\nWe've had 12 people.\nThey heard the evidence.\nWe'll accept that.\nAny difference in that case and what we have here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1864.786, 1874.978, 1877.28, 1879.292, 1882.427, 1885.106, 1886.01, 1886.729, 1887.727], "stop_times": [1874.978, 1877.28, 1879.292, 1882.427, 1885.106, 1886.01, 1886.729, 1887.727, 1890.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1864.786}, "reply_to": "22645__1_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22645__1_026", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "It's different, but that's not what happened.\nIt's different if they've taken... if they've taken the position--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1890.261, 1893.007], "stop_times": [1893.007, 1895.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1890.261}, "reply_to": "22645__1_025", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_027", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "It... it would... in the case I put, would your argument be the same, and if so, why?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1895.266], "stop_times": [1899.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1895.266}, "reply_to": "22645__1_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22645__1_028", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--I... I put it that it's not the same because they... first of all, in reality, that's not what they did.\nBut let's talk in terms of the hypothetical that... that you've asked me.\nIt is that you have to also look at what actually happened in the Wesley trial to determine due process for Stumpf because Wesley... what happened in this case through the whole circular reasoning, Wesley didn't get the death penalty here because they were informed that Stumpf pled guilty, was found to be the principal offender, and was sentenced to death.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1899.331, 1907.911, 1910.944, 1932.996], "stop_times": [1907.911, 1910.944, 1932.996, 1934.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1899.331}, "reply_to": "22645__1_027", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_029", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "That was introduced by Wesley, not by the prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1934.246], "stop_times": [1937.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1934.246}, "reply_to": "22645__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22645__1_030", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--That's correct.\nThe prosecution in the Wesley trial originally did not want the... the jury to hear at all what happened in Stumpf's trial.\nThey wanted to argue the complete... that... that Stumpf's verdict was not even... should be informed.\nThe sentence of death shouldn't be informed or the sentence of death.\nAnd in fact, that's when they started to throw in a little bit of the alternative theory after that evidence did subsequently get in.\nThe record shows that they originally did not get it in and they allowed the defense counsel... prevented defense from getting... in the Wesley trial from getting in the evidence of the Stumpf trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1937.402, 1938.338, 1947.283, 1952.842, 1956.758, 1964.359], "stop_times": [1938.338, 1947.283, 1952.842, 1956.758, 1964.359, 1977.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1937.402}, "reply_to": "22645__1_029", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_031", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Mr. Freedman, you're trying to read back now into what apparently you recognize is... is not a flawed initial sentencing hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1977.669], "stop_times": [1991.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1977.669}, "reply_to": "22645__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22645__1_032", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1991.454], "stop_times": [1992.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1991.454}, "reply_to": "22645__1_031", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_033", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "And it might be more persuasive if the trier were a jury when the motion to vacate is made, but these are judges whose business it is to preside over these kinds of cases.\nThey presided over that first hearing and now the same prosecutor... was the same prosecutor in both?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [1992.55, 2010.808], "stop_times": [2010.808, 2020.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1992.55}, "reply_to": "22645__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22645__1_034", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2020.777], "stop_times": [2021.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2020.777}, "reply_to": "22645__1_033", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_035", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Comes back to them and says, judges, don't vacate the sentence that you yourself entered.\nIt's... given that we're dealing with sophisticated judges, the same panel in both episodes, it's a little hard to... to see where the due process violation is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2021.88, 2029.495], "stop_times": [2029.495, 2043.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2021.88}, "reply_to": "22645__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22645__1_036", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "The due process violation is that at the minimum, assuming that... that a weighing is even appropriate here, they never weighed it, and clearly any indication that there was a waiver... a... a weighing of whether Mr. Stumpf would be put to death as an aider and abetter.\nThey never took Eastman's testimony as true and... and the prosecution's position as true, and then ultimately said it would make no difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2043.01, 2060.21], "stop_times": [2060.21, 2069.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2043.01}, "reply_to": "22645__1_035", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_037", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, they didn't have to take it as true.\nAs I understand it, when they went back before the... the two original judges on the motion to vacate, they didn't have to take the... the testimony about the jailhouse admission as true, and they didn't have to take the State's position at the Wesley trial as true.\nIt was evidence.\nIt was before them.\nThey were in... they were required to consider it.\nBut as I understand it, the State at that point essentially was... was agnostic.\nThe State said, you know, this is what happened, this is what we said, this is what the jury did in the second trial, but regardless of how you determine... of... of any determination about triggerman, this man Stumpf still deserves death, so don't vacate the sentence.\nAnd... and there was nothing I guess... number one, there doesn't seem to be at that point a... a problem with the State taking inconsistent positions, i.e., with its position in... in the... in the Wesley case, and there doesn't seem to be any... any lack of candor.\nThere may be a... a lack of initiative on the State's part to fish or cut bait, but there's no lack of candor.\nSo where does the due process violation come at that point?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2069.614, 2071.484, 2089.495, 2092.136, 2093.174, 2095.888, 2102.382, 2120.234, 2138.591, 2144.329], "stop_times": [2071.484, 2089.495, 2092.136, 2093.174, 2095.888, 2102.382, 2120.234, 2138.591, 2144.329, 2148.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2069.614}, "reply_to": "22645__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__1_038", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "We submit the due process violation comes at the time of the motion to vacate.\nWe urge... we're urging that they've not take an agnostic position as prosecutors.\nThey're... they're urging again saying the... the evidence is ample to support that... that Stumpf was... was the shooter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2148.032, 2152.741, 2156.706], "stop_times": [2152.741, 2156.706, 2164.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2148.032}, "reply_to": "22645__1_037", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_039", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "But it... I mean, that... that statement is true, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2164.729], "stop_times": [2167.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2164.729}, "reply_to": "22645__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__1_040", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "But... but they're also urging a position.\nThe State at some point should take a position on what the evidence is.\nAt that position... at that point, after urging that Mr. Wesley is the shooter, they... were they untrue?\nWere they... I mean, the prosecutors at that point maybe then... if they were believing that... that Eastman was testifying truthfully, why wouldn't they now believe that he was testifying truthfully now in the motion to vacate?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2167.413, 2169.488, 2173.511, 2180.264], "stop_times": [2169.488, 2173.511, 2180.264, 2191.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2167.413}, "reply_to": "22645__1_039", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_041", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, because it seems to me they... they would have two arguments.\nOne is even if he wasn't the shooter, you... you should... you would have imposed the death penalty anyway, but argument number two is, wait a minute.\nYou know, yes, we... we don't know who the shooter is but there's a... there was no violation of due process here.\nThere was plenty of evidence for you to find that he was the shooter.\nThat evidence is still there.\nDo you expect them to throw away that argument?\nI mean, it's... it's very true and it goes to whether this conviction and sentence deserve to be set aside.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2191.839, 2196.055, 2204.756, 2212.466, 2215.631, 2216.837, 2220.234], "stop_times": [2196.055, 2204.756, 2212.466, 2215.631, 2216.837, 2220.234, 2228.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2191.839}, "reply_to": "22645__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__1_042", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "We... we proffer to the Court that they shouldn't be taking inconsistent positions as to... in a death penalty case in the sentencing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2228.46], "stop_times": [2236.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2228.46}, "reply_to": "22645__1_041", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_043", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "What should... what... was Wesley then denied due process?\nBecause at the time of Stumpf's initial plea hearing, Eastman hadn't appeared and there was only Stumpf's testimony that he was not the triggerman and the prosecutor's evidence that he was.\nThen we get to Wesley, and Eastman shows up.\nThe prosecutors have already taken the position that Stumpf was the triggerman.\nIs Wesley denied due process because they're taking inconsistent positions at his trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2236.643, 2239.659, 2255.634, 2260.449, 2265.571], "stop_times": [2239.659, 2255.634, 2260.449, 2265.571, 2271.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.643}, "reply_to": "22645__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22645__1_044", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--I... I don't believe that Wesley was denied due process.\nThey discovered the evidence afterwards and ultimately at that trial they had... the Wesley jury had the opportunity to hear what happened in the Stumpf trial, and they were able to weigh that case along with the evidence of the Stumpf finding and sentence of death and the finding that he was the principal offender.\nThat's something we submit has not happened in this death penalty case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2271.736, 2274.711, 2291.905], "stop_times": [2274.711, 2291.905, 2296.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2271.736}, "reply_to": "22645__1_043", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_045", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, do you concede that the evidence presented in the Stumpf proceeding was sufficient to support a finding of guilt as an aider and abetter?\nWas there enough evidence that the fact finder could so find?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2296.255, 2307.584], "stop_times": [2307.584, 2312.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2296.255}, "reply_to": "22645__1_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__1_046", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Without the Wesley evidence, I... I... at the initial trial, I certainly would concede that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2312.506], "stop_times": [2318.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2312.506}, "reply_to": "22645__1_045", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_047", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Right, right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2318.103], "stop_times": [2319.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2318.103}, "reply_to": "22645__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__1_048", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "As... as to... as to whether the evidence that you learn from the Wesley trial... that's a much closer question because the... the aggravating factor in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2319.134], "stop_times": [2330.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2319.134}, "reply_to": "22645__1_047", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_049", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "She asked as aider or abetter, not as shooter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2330.385], "stop_times": [2332.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.385}, "reply_to": "22645__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__1_050", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Okay, all right.\nI'm just... that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2332.703, 2333.932], "stop_times": [2333.932, 2335.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2332.703}, "reply_to": "22645__1_049", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_051", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "And as to that, it seems to me the guilty plea can stand and the only question that, it seems to me, I would have would be with the sentencing, and I'm not sure that has to be overturned.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2335.962], "stop_times": [2350.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2335.962}, "reply_to": "22645__1_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__1_052", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2350.904], "stop_times": [2352.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2350.904}, "reply_to": "22645__1_051", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_053", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "So it would help to focus on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2352.032], "stop_times": [2354.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2352.032}, "reply_to": "22645__1_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__1_054", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2354.126], "stop_times": [2354.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2354.126}, "reply_to": "22645__1_053", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_055", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Did you address, on behalf of Stumpf, some allegation that he has to be resentenced?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2354.86], "stop_times": [2361.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2354.86}, "reply_to": "22645__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__1_056", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--That's correct, and that's what the Sixth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2361.316], "stop_times": [2363.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2361.316}, "reply_to": "22645__1_055", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_057", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Is that still before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2363.846], "stop_times": [2364.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.846}, "reply_to": "22645__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__1_058", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--That... that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2364.817], "stop_times": [2366.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2364.817}, "reply_to": "22645__1_057", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_059", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Or has that been subsumed somehow?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2366.167], "stop_times": [2368.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2366.167}, "reply_to": "22645__1_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__1_060", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "No.\nThat's before you.\nIn fact, there's a... there's a question of whether they even challenge that.\nBut clearly, that the sentence by the Sixth... the sentence was challenged by the Sixth Circuit and found to be defective and a violation of due... of due process, and that's in the cert--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2368.13, 2368.694, 2369.448, 2372.884], "stop_times": [2368.694, 2369.448, 2372.884, 2383.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.13}, "reply_to": "22645__1_059", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_061", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "I thought a State appellate court had effectively reweighed and effectively resentenced, saying that this additional evidence would, in our view, have made no difference.\nAnd we... we allow that to happen all the time.\nWe speculate as to what the... what the sentencer would have done had an invalid factor not been there.\nI mean, when... when a... an aggravating factor is... is invalidated, the State supreme court can determine, you know, whether the same sentence of death would have been imposed even without that aggravating factor.\nWhy is this any different?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2383.555, 2397.645, 2400.315, 2410.03, 2424.071], "stop_times": [2397.645, 2400.315, 2410.03, 2424.071, 2425.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2383.555}, "reply_to": "22645__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__1_062", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Well... well, I'd like to ask... answer that in two ways.\nFirst, the... we would submit that a reweighing isn't necessary.\nThis is not like vacating an aggravating factor.\nThis is determining a constitutional error of due process.\nBut let's assume for the moment that reweighing is... is adequate.\nThere was no reweighing, proper reweighing, in either the appellate court or the Ohio Supreme Court.\nThe... the appellate court, which is the intermediate court in Ohio, came out and said both Wesley and Stumpf were principal slayers as if they were both shooters.\nAnd the whole opinion is hinged on the assumption that Mr. Stumpf pled guilty to being the shooter.\nIf you... I mean, that's... we submit that's just a fair reading of the opinion.\nAnd also, if you go to their main opinion, which is the final opinion, which this Court reviews, the Ohio Supreme Court... they did the same circular reasoning.\nUltimately they said he pled guilty.\nHe was the shooter, and therefore, Eastman's testimony will have little weight as hearsay to... to vacate the death sentence.\nThey never independently weighed the case saying, let's take Eastman as true, let's look at this case as an aider and abetter--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2425.188, 2428.964, 2434.418, 2437.465, 2441.417, 2445.012, 2451.37, 2463.587, 2472.057, 2475.311, 2484.632, 2487.058, 2495.402], "stop_times": [2428.964, 2434.418, 2437.465, 2441.417, 2445.012, 2451.37, 2463.587, 2472.057, 2475.311, 2484.632, 2487.058, 2495.402, 2503.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2425.188}, "reply_to": "22645__1_061", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_063", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "What is your best case, Mr. Freedman, for the idea that an inconsistency, such as you say was present here, is a violation of due process?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2503.866], "stop_times": [2514.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2503.866}, "reply_to": "22645__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22645__1_064", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--The best case we cite in our brief is Green v. Georgia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2514.634], "stop_times": [2518.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.634}, "reply_to": "22645__1_063", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_065", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Which one?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2518.618], "stop_times": [2520.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2518.618}, "reply_to": "22645__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__1_066", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Green v. Georgia where they came in with inconsistent positions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2520.667], "stop_times": [2525.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2520.667}, "reply_to": "22645__1_065", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_067", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Mr. Freedman, you've... you've argued just a second ago that both of the appellate courts decided the case or went through so-called reweighing on a false premise that he had pleaded guilty to being the shooter.\nLet me go back to the... to the two remaining members of the original trial panel.\nI take it they did not make that... in your judgment that error.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2525.101, 2537.914, 2543.844], "stop_times": [2537.914, 2543.844, 2548.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.101}, "reply_to": "22645__1_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__1_068", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "In all candor, I don't know.\nThere's no finding.\nThey simply said denied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2548.215, 2550.471, 2552.08], "stop_times": [2550.471, 2552.08, 2553.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2548.215}, "reply_to": "22645__1_067", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_069", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Yes.\nLet me... let me ask you what your position would be if a hypothetical Justice Kennedy suggested earlier in the argument were true.\nWhat if the State had gone back at the... at the hearing before the original two in response to the motion to vacate and had said, we did argue in the Wesley case that he was the triggerman?\nThe jury rejected that argument.\nThey found that... that he was not.\nWe've... we've learned from... from our own experience and... and we now no longer think that... that the evidence from the jailhouse informant should be accepted.\nWe're back to the position that we took in the... at the Stumpf sentencing hearing originally, that... that he was the triggerman.\nIf the State had taken that position, would you have a due process claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2553.176, 2553.689, 2563.279, 2577.094, 2580.634, 2583.489, 2593.635, 2602.477], "stop_times": [2553.689, 2563.279, 2577.094, 2580.634, 2583.489, 2593.635, 2602.477, 2609.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2553.176}, "reply_to": "22645__1_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__1_070", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "On... on this... on this record, we would have a due process claim for twofold.\nWe submit that the... that the error is in the attempt not necessarily the success, and particularly in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2609.54, 2616.28], "stop_times": [2616.28, 2623.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2609.54}, "reply_to": "22645__1_069", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_071", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "I'm... I'm not getting it.\nWhat do you mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2623.316, 2624.351], "stop_times": [2624.351, 2625.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2623.316}, "reply_to": "22645__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__1_072", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--I mean... I mean, it's... it's that they honestly believed that Wesley... that in the Wesley trial, that Eastman testified truthfully.\nThey believed that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2625.061, 2632.392], "stop_times": [2632.392, 2633.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2625.061}, "reply_to": "22645__1_071", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_073", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, can't they... can't they profit from the jury's verdict?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2633.786], "stop_times": [2637.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2633.786}, "reply_to": "22645__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__1_074", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Perhaps, but not in this particular case because what the jury weighed in Wesley was not only Eastman's testimony, they weighed the fact that Stumpf pled guilty, was found to be the principal offender, and was sentenced to death.\nThat's a... I mean, that's going to lead to... I... I... maybe I'm off base here, but that's going to lead a jury to come out in a conclusion to find Wesley the aider and abetter and not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2637.153, 2652.46], "stop_times": [2652.46, 2663.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2637.153}, "reply_to": "22645__1_073", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_075", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "The jury simply decided they didn't want to sentence two people to death for the same offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2663.214], "stop_times": [2667.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2663.214}, "reply_to": "22645__1_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22645__1_076", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Right.\nI mean, they already had the principal offender.\nThey already had somebody sentenced to death for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2667.539, 2668.12, 2670.015], "stop_times": [2668.12, 2670.015, 2672.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2667.539}, "reply_to": "22645__1_075", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_077", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Can I ask you a procedural question here?\nWhen I read the... the Ohio Supreme Court opinion, my impression of their due process part of it is that they found a violation because of the inconsistency between the Wesley trial and the Stumpf sentencing proceeding.\nWhen you started to talk to Justice Scalia, you agreed that couldn't be right.\nRather, you said there is an inconsistency between what the prosecutor said at the Wesley trial and what the prosecutor said when Stumpf made his motion to vacate.\nNow, if that's so, I'm not sure that the Ohio Supreme Court or the lower courts have addressed that question to determine whether they really were inconsistent, and if so, what or why or what difference it made.\nBut I haven't read the record thoroughly, and my impression might be wrong.\nSo I'd appreciate your telling me what are the facts there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2672.037, 2675.499, 2695.812, 2701.184, 2715.808, 2731.992, 2735.85], "stop_times": [2675.499, 2695.812, 2701.184, 2715.808, 2731.992, 2735.85, 2738.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2672.037}, "reply_to": "22645__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__1_078", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "They... they argued generally in... in the record, and it was... it was somewhat cryptic.\nThey argued that it was unfair--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2738.769, 2745.245], "stop_times": [2745.245, 2747.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2738.769}, "reply_to": "22645__1_077", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_079", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "All right.\nWho is they?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2747.189, 2747.591], "stop_times": [2747.591, 2748.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.189}, "reply_to": "22645__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__1_080", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nI apologize.\nThe... the defense counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2748.903, 2749.571, 2750.155], "stop_times": [2749.571, 2750.155, 2753.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2748.903}, "reply_to": "22645__1_079", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_081", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "I'm not interested in what defense counsel did or did not say.\nI'm interested in what the Ohio courts did or did not say.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2753.694, 2757.84], "stop_times": [2757.84, 2762.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2753.694}, "reply_to": "22645__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__1_082", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2762.799], "stop_times": [2763.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2762.799}, "reply_to": "22645__1_081", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_083", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "And my point there is my... do I repeat it or do you have it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2763.382], "stop_times": [2767.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2763.382}, "reply_to": "22645__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__1_084", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "I have it now, yes.\nThe... the Ohio... the Ohio Supreme Court simply... simply used... simply used some sort of circular reasoning.\nThey... they hung to the position that Stumpf was the shooter, and then after that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2767.112, 2768.013, 2781.013], "stop_times": [2768.013, 2781.013, 2786.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2767.112}, "reply_to": "22645__1_083", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_085", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "All right.\nLet's go to the circuit court of appeals.\nWhen I read the decision of the circuit court of appeals in the due... what... what am I reading, which is... this is in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2786.78, 2787.221, 2789.523], "stop_times": [2787.221, 2789.523, 2798.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.78}, "reply_to": "22645__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__1_086", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2798.406], "stop_times": [2798.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2798.406}, "reply_to": "22645__1_085", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_087", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "They went on both grounds, first the confession... sorry... the guilty plea, and second, the inconsistency.\nNow, there I thought that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was... now, I think I misspoke because I think that's where I see the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2798.693, 2805.648], "stop_times": [2805.648, 2815.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2798.693}, "reply_to": "22645__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__1_088", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2815.463], "stop_times": [2815.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2815.463}, "reply_to": "22645__1_087", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_089", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "You understand what the problem is or shall I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2815.882], "stop_times": [2818.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2815.882}, "reply_to": "22645__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__1_090", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Yes, I see it.\nYou want to know somewhere in the Sixth Circuit opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2818.517, 2818.89], "stop_times": [2818.89, 2822.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2818.517}, "reply_to": "22645__1_089", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_091", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--The Sixth Circuit seemed to be addressing the inconsistency between the sentencing proceeding of Stumpf and the Wesley trial.\nWell, you say the inconsistency we should focus upon is between the Wesley trial and the motion to vacate.\nAnd I think you're right about that because I can't imagine the other being a problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2822.57, 2831.965, 2839.651], "stop_times": [2831.965, 2839.651, 2845.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2822.57}, "reply_to": "22645__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__1_092", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "I... I... maybe I should clarify.\nI... I think that you have to compare the Wesley trial with the Stumpf trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2845.125, 2847.246], "stop_times": [2847.246, 2851.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2845.125}, "reply_to": "22645__1_091", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_093", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "It's relevant in terms of evidence, but I think you're asking us to say that there is a due process violation because of the inconsistency between what the prosecutor said at the Wesley trial and what the prosecutor said when Stumpf made his motion to vacate.\nAm I right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2851.549, 2869.542], "stop_times": [2869.542, 2870.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2851.549}, "reply_to": "22645__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__1_094", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2870.249], "stop_times": [2870.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2870.249}, "reply_to": "22645__1_093", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_095", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "All right.\nI'm asking you if the Sixth Circuit or the Ohio courts has addressed that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2870.703, 2871.185], "stop_times": [2871.185, 2876.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2870.703}, "reply_to": "22645__1_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__1_096", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "I'm uncertain.\nI... I think they did it in a generic fashion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2876.951, 2878.279], "stop_times": [2878.279, 2880.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2876.951}, "reply_to": "22645__1_095", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_097", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "So I read this.\nYou can't point to anything in which they have addressed that question.\nMy quick reading of it... I couldn't find anything in which they addressed that question.\nAnd if that's so, what should we do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2880.268, 2881.448, 2887.243, 2892.885], "stop_times": [2881.448, 2887.243, 2892.885, 2896.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2880.268}, "reply_to": "22645__1_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22645__1_098", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, as an... as an alternative, the Court could remand back to have the Sixth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2896.53], "stop_times": [2906.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2896.53}, "reply_to": "22645__1_097", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_099", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Did you raise that argument before the Sixth Circuit, the one that you're making now?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2906.478], "stop_times": [2910.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2906.478}, "reply_to": "22645__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22645__1_100", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--With absolute certainty, Mr. Chief Justice, yes, because they asked the same questions.\nThey asked where did the error occur, and that the line of the questionings were almost... on that point was identical.\nThey asked questions where did the error come, and of course, it wasn't in the first trial.\nThe error occurred at the motion to vacate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2910.918, 2915.594, 2922.885, 2927.77], "stop_times": [2915.594, 2922.885, 2927.77, 2929.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2910.918}, "reply_to": "22645__1_099", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_101", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "What if... what if Wesley comes in with a... with a motion to vacate now and... and he points to the inconsistency with the... with the Stumpf trial?\nWould he also be entitled to get his sentence vacated because of the same inconsistency that you're pointing out?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2929.609, 2940.381], "stop_times": [2940.381, 2947.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2929.609}, "reply_to": "22645__1_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__1_102", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Well, he certainly wouldn't have the death sentence.\nThat was... is solely as to the guilt part of the case, Justice Scalia?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2947.62, 2949.625], "stop_times": [2949.625, 2954.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2947.62}, "reply_to": "22645__1_101", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_103", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2954.798], "stop_times": [2955.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2954.798}, "reply_to": "22645__1_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__1_104", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "He might.\nHe might because the... the... I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2955.521, 2957.087], "stop_times": [2957.087, 2959.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2955.521}, "reply_to": "22645__1_103", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_105", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "So a jury, having found both of them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and possibly on a basis that... or not a jury but the judges and possibly on a basis that has nothing to do with whether they were the shooter, you think both of them are entitled to have the death sentence vacated.\nI think that's extraordinary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2959.394, 2979.246], "stop_times": [2979.246, 2980.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2959.394}, "reply_to": "22645__1_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__1_106", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Well, in all due respect, only one has the sentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2980.789], "stop_times": [2982.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2980.789}, "reply_to": "22645__1_105", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_107", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Which one?\nI mean, doesn't Wesley have just as much of a complaint as your client does?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2982.861, 2984.212], "stop_times": [2984.212, 2988.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2982.861}, "reply_to": "22645__1_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__1_108", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Not... not as to the death... not as to... not as to the death sentence, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2988.092], "stop_times": [2991.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2988.092}, "reply_to": "22645__1_107", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_109", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2991.743], "stop_times": [2991.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2991.743}, "reply_to": "22645__1_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__1_110", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Why?\nOne, he didn't... let's assume arguendo that he received the death sentence.\nHe had an opportunity--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2991.924, 2992.49, 2996.008], "stop_times": [2992.49, 2996.008, 2997.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2991.924}, "reply_to": "22645__1_109", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_111", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "I thought Wesley didn't receive a death sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [2997.824], "stop_times": [3000.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2997.824}, "reply_to": "22645__1_110", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22645__1_112", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--No, he did not.\nThat's what... but you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3000.435, 3001.001], "stop_times": [3001.001, 3001.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3000.435}, "reply_to": "22645__1_111", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_113", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "No.\nThat's... that's my mistake.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3001.544, 3001.799], "stop_times": [3001.799, 3002.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3001.544}, "reply_to": "22645__1_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22645__1_114", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Okay.\nHe didn't receive the... the death penalty.\nWhat would his argument be with respect to guilt or innocence?\nIt seems to me that the issue only goes to penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3002.698, 3003.073, 3004.882, 3007.564], "stop_times": [3003.073, 3004.882, 3007.564, 3009.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3002.698}, "reply_to": "22645__1_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__1_115", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--There's still an issue out there because this is killing a witness.\nAs... he would have a tougher role.\nI don't think Wesley would... would have much of a chance.\nThe... the version of Mr. Stumpf's facts, whether it's a difficult row to hoe is that he... he drops the gun.\nThat was one of the... and... and shortly leaves the scene after that.\nSo that he... there's no intent, notwithstanding Justice Scalia's position that you... attempt to shoot Mr. Stout, that he's automatically... the specific intent is inferred.\nBut it's not absolutely clear, leaving the scene, that the intent could be inferred to kill another witness.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3009.929, 3013.405, 3015.626, 3018.131, 3026.935, 3031.156, 3042.943], "stop_times": [3013.405, 3015.626, 3018.131, 3026.935, 3031.156, 3042.943, 3049.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3009.929}, "reply_to": "22645__1_114", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_116", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "But that's Stumpf's case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3049.395], "stop_times": [3050.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3049.395}, "reply_to": "22645__1_115", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__1_117", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Yes, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3050.301], "stop_times": [3051.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3050.301}, "reply_to": "22645__1_116", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_118", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Yes.\nSo I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3051.103, 3051.251], "stop_times": [3051.251, 3051.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3051.103}, "reply_to": "22645__1_117", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__1_119", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "So I'm saying that he would not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3051.832], "stop_times": [3052.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3051.832}, "reply_to": "22645__1_118", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_120", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--I don't see where Wesley--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3052.346], "stop_times": [3054.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3052.346}, "reply_to": "22645__1_119", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__1_121", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--No, Wesley would not have... Wesley would not have that scenario under--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3054.191], "stop_times": [3056.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3054.191}, "reply_to": "22645__1_120", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_122", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--So... so Wesley would have neither a... a due process claim with respect to sentence nor with respect to guilt.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3056.666], "stop_times": [3062.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3056.666}, "reply_to": "22645__1_121", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__1_123", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--That's correct.\nThat's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3062.603, 3062.934], "stop_times": [3062.934, 3063.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3062.603}, "reply_to": "22645__1_122", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_124", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "But now your... your part about the guilt, the Sixth Circuit agreed with you because it vacated not only the sentence, but the conviction.\nAnd what is your argument that the conviction is infirm?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3063.593, 3075.381], "stop_times": [3075.381, 3081.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3063.593}, "reply_to": "22645__1_123", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22645__1_125", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "And... and what they... they deduced from that is that the... the evidence of the Wesley trial... their position is that... and the position that... that the prosecutor took and the evidence that Eastman took, that there would be no specific intent as to the killing of... of Mary Jane Stout inferred from the shooting of Norman Stout because he dropped the gun.\nI mean, you don't... but there's no... in... in Ohio a plan is required.\nThere's no foreseeability or reckless disregard for the death... for the eligibility for the death penalty.\nIt's one of the few States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3081.181, 3106.784, 3112.254, 3118.442], "stop_times": [3106.784, 3112.254, 3118.442, 3119.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3081.181}, "reply_to": "22645__1_124", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_126", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "I... I thought the... the specific intent element would be satisfied if... if they, by plan, went to the scene with... with deadly weapons.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3119.336], "stop_times": [3127.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.336}, "reply_to": "22645__1_125", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__1_127", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "I believe under Ohio law that that's not correct.\nI mean, it's one of the few States.\nAnd I believe even the cases that are cited by the State would infer that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3127.691, 3131.685, 3134.054], "stop_times": [3131.685, 3134.054, 3138.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3127.691}, "reply_to": "22645__1_126", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_128", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "I thought the State argued that knowledge... there's this plan, and they had a common design to rob.\nIs that right?\nAnd then the State said that common design plus knowledge that an inherently dangerous instrument would be employed to perpetuate the felony or that the felony and its manner of accomplishment would be reasonably likely to produce death.\nThat's what the State argued was the law of Ohio.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3138.682, 3147.375, 3148.392, 3168.555], "stop_times": [3147.375, 3148.392, 3168.555, 3171.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3138.682}, "reply_to": "22645__1_127", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22645__1_129", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "But I... I believe that they needed a plan for... for the killing of a witness.\nThey needed that plan at the time for killing the witness.\nIt's not enough just to plan the robbery for the specific intent.\nAnd... and they... in the Wesley trial, I want to refer you to page--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3171.023, 3177.446, 3179.922, 3183.38], "stop_times": [3177.446, 3179.922, 3183.38, 3187.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3171.023}, "reply_to": "22645__1_128", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_130", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Did... did any judge say that, any judge on the Sixth Circuit say that that was the Ohio law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3187.006], "stop_times": [3191.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3187.006}, "reply_to": "22645__1_129", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22645__1_131", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--I believe so.\nThat's my reading of the Sixth Circuit opinion.\nThey said that there was an element of... of intent that was... I believe that's the... the way I interpret the holding.\nI would like to refer you just to page 295 of the joint appendix, even the last sentence or so in the first paragraph.\nThey imply that in the Wesley trial, talking about the same scenario, that there's not necessarily a plan coming in to kill the witnesses.\nThere would have to be a plan while they're in the house.\nAnd... and the scenario of Mr. Stumpf dropping the gun I believe is arguably that there's no specific intent.\nI... I would just like to sum up and indicate that... that the State argued in both cases urging the death of two individuals based on killing the same person, and ultimately there was not adequate review in Mr. Stumpf's case indicating that he would have gotten the death penalty notwithstanding Eastman's testimony, notwithstanding their position that he would have gotten the death penalty as an aider and abetter, which is a rather rare circumstance not only in Ohio but also in this country.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3191.617, 3193.187, 3194.966, 3202.486, 3212.085, 3223.124, 3225.926, 3233.745], "stop_times": [3193.187, 3194.966, 3202.486, 3212.085, 3223.124, 3225.926, 3233.745, 3276.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3191.617}, "reply_to": "22645__1_130", "speaker": "alan_m_freedman"}
{"id": "22645__1_132", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Freedman.\nMr. Cole, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3276.493, 3280.204], "stop_times": [3280.204, 3282.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3276.493}, "reply_to": "22645__1_131", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22645__2_000", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, to respond to your question, under Ohio law you do not need to... to plan to kill the witness in order to have specific intent for aggravated murder.\nI would refer the Court to the In re Washington and State v. Scott cases that we cite in our brief that say that participation in an aggravated robbery where that's going to be done through force or violence or in a manner reasonably likely to result in death is sufficient to support a... an intent... a... an inference of specific intent.\nSo there's... there's no need to find that they planned to kill the witnesses.\nIf... if I heard Mr. Freedman correctly, he admitted that Wesley would not have a due process argument here because he said the fact finders were apprised of Mr. Stumpf's proceedings.\nWell, exactly the same is true in Mr. Stumpf's case.\nAs soon as that testimony became available, as soon as Mr.... as the prosecutor had knowledge of Mr. Eastman's testimony, that testimony was then placed back in the record for further proceedings in the Stumpf matter.\nThe prosecutor made arguments, but I don't think that the Due Process Clause requires--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3282.464, 3297.702, 3317.848, 3321.337, 3331.457, 3335.275, 3348.07], "stop_times": [3297.702, 3317.848, 3321.337, 3331.457, 3335.275, 3348.07, 3352.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3282.464}, "reply_to": "22645__1_132", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__2_001", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "You... you mean at the hearing on the motion to vacate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3352.754], "stop_times": [3354.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3352.754}, "reply_to": "22645__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22645__2_002", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "--Hearing on the motion to vacate and further appellate review.\nI don't think the Due Process Clause requires the State to admit the ultimate truth of everything that Mr. Eastman testified to at that other trial.\nThe question was did they have a good faith basis for putting him on, and they did.\nAnd did they have a good faith basis then for arguing that notwithstanding what he said, that the conviction and the sentence in Mr. Stumpf's case were appropriate?\nAnd I believe the record supports that they did have a good faith basis for making that argument.\nIf we look at the arguments they made, they were arguments in the nature of, look, there's this evidence in the record.\nYou may believe it, you may not.\nEither way, Mr. Stumpf is correctly eligible for the death sentence under Ohio law and that sentence is appropriate.\nAnd the courts found, based on that argument, that Mr. Stumpf had appropriately been sentenced to death.\nThis Court has noted that the principal function of habeas is to assure that no man has been incarcerated under a procedure which creates an impermissibly large risk that an innocent person will be convicted.\nWell, we don't have that risk here.\nStumpf has knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty, removing any risk about that.\nAnd if we look to this sentencing hearing, there's no risk that he received an impermissibly large sentence because the prosecutor made the evidence available, and Stumpf's counsel used that evidence and argued it, and the court simply rejected it.\nIf the Court has no further questions, I'll stop.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3354.11, 3356.931, 3366.13, 3370.148, 3377.92, 3381.775, 3387.999, 3390.363, 3396.333, 3401.82, 3412.756, 3414.824, 3418.715, 3432.368, 3435.999], "stop_times": [3356.931, 3366.13, 3370.148, 3377.92, 3381.775, 3387.999, 3390.363, 3396.333, 3401.82, 3412.756, 3414.824, 3418.715, 3432.368, 3435.999, 3436.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3354.11}, "reply_to": "22645__2_001", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22645__2_003", "conversation_id": "22645", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Cole.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-637", "start_times": [3436.591, 3437.437], "stop_times": [3437.437, 3439.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3436.591}, "reply_to": "22645__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21668__0_000", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "We will now hear argument in Brown against Payton.\nMs. Cortina.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [0.0, 6.937], "stop_times": [6.937, 7.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21668__0_001", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nIn this case, the Ninth Circuit violated AEDPA by reversing the California Supreme Court's decision affirming Payton's 1982 death sentence.\nThe California Supreme Court applied the exact right case, namely Boyde v. California, in the very manner contemplated that... by that decision when assessing Payton's claim that his jury misunderstood the court's instructions and, in particular, factor (k) so as to unconstitutionally preclude consideration of his mitigating evidence.\nThe California Supreme Court's application of Boyde is precisely the type of good faith application of Federal constitutional law to which AEDPA demands deference.\nIt is manifestly not objectively unreasonable, and this can be demonstrated in three aspects of the decision.\nThe first is that the California Supreme Court recognized Boyde's specific holding that factor (k) facially comported with the Eighth Amendment.\nThe second is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [7.985, 10.94, 19.03, 38.888, 47.926, 55.811, 63.863], "stop_times": [10.94, 19.03, 38.888, 47.926, 55.811, 63.863, 64.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7.985}, "reply_to": "21668__0_000", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_002", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, I thought the holding was that factor (k), standing alone, does... does not raise a... does... does not, standing alone, raise a question of reasonable probability of... of misunderstanding or misapplication of the law.\nAnd that's not what they're claiming here.\nThey're claiming here that there was something much more than (k) standing alone.\nAs I understand it, they're claiming that the difference between this and Boyde and why this is not a standalone kind of case is that the prosecutor deliberately argued or argued law that was in fact wrong and... and continued to do so even after the court interrupted the argument and that the court never gave an instruction that corrected the erroneous statements of law that the prosecutor had made.\nSo that's... that's why they're... they're saying this is not a Boyde situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [64.894, 84.585, 87.269, 92.015, 120.622], "stop_times": [84.585, 87.269, 92.015, 120.622, 125.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 64.894}, "reply_to": "21668__0_001", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21668__0_003", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Your Honor, Boyde has two specific components to its decision, which is, first, what factor (k) means standing alone, and you need to resolve that issue, which California did, in deciding the impact of the prosecutor's misstatements concerning factor (k).\nSo that, first, you start from the premise, as the California Supreme Court did, in following Boyde, that factor (k) facially directed for consideration of Payton's mitigating evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [125.574, 140.806], "stop_times": [140.806, 150.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 125.574}, "reply_to": "21668__0_002", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_004", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, no, no.\nThe... the mitigating evidence that Boyde held could be considered without a... (k) being a bar, was mitigating evidence about the... the character of the individual prior to or at least up to the moment of the crime.\nSo this is... this is different kind of evidence, and I... I mean, this is post-crime evidence.\nAnd... and I don't see that... that Boyde's holding is so broad as obviously to cover this at all.\nIt might be a... it would be a... a closer question if it hadn't been for the prosecutor's argument and the judge's failure to correct it.\nBut even... even without those elements, there would be a serious question whether Boyde covered this at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [150.094, 150.565, 167.062, 172.179, 178.124, 186.669], "stop_times": [150.565, 167.062, 172.179, 178.124, 186.669, 193.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 150.094}, "reply_to": "21668__0_003", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21668__0_005", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Your Honor, the... respectfully I disagree.\nI believe that the California Supreme Court correctly and... and reasonably determined that Boyde's holding encompassed Payton's character mitigating... Payton's mitigating character evidence because the holding in Boyde... or the issue directly presented by Boyde was whether factor (k) limited consideration to circumstances related to the crime or allowed for non-crime related mitigating evidence in deciding the appropriate penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [193.44, 196.988], "stop_times": [196.988, 221.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 193.44}, "reply_to": "21668__0_004", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_006", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "What do we make of the Chief Justice's fear statement, not once but twice, in Boyde?\nThe prosecutor never suggested that background and character evidence could not be considered.\nSo mustn't we take Boyde with that qualification when we have a case where the prosecutor, indeed, suggested that this information could not be taken into consideration as a mitigating factor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [221.387, 228.407, 237.817], "stop_times": [228.407, 237.817, 252.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 221.387}, "reply_to": "21668__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21668__0_007", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "No, Justice Ginsburg.\nFirst, you must assess factor (k) facially and that's what Boyde did.\nThen the next question is did the prosecutor's misstatements concerning factor (k) mislead the jury to believe that they could no longer consider Payton's mitigating character evidence.\nAnd that would be the second component of Boyde which is a general test for assessing the reasonable likelihood a jury misunderstood the instructions in the context of the proceedings.\nAnd the particularly relevant and important inquiry in this case is the California Supreme Court's application of Boyde's reasonable likelihood test in the context of the proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [252.966, 254.99, 258.91, 270.799, 278.851], "stop_times": [254.99, 258.91, 270.799, 278.851, 289.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 252.966}, "reply_to": "21668__0_006", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_008", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, do we take... do we take the case on the assumption that the trial court erred in not giving a curative instruction and in saying, well, this is a matter for the attorneys to argue?\nYou... you don't argue about what a statute means.\nThat's a question of law.\nYou don't argue that.\nYou can argue the facts, that it's mitigating or not mitigating or that it's extenuating or not extenuating, which is I think how you can interpret a lot of this.\nBut it... it seems to me that the trial judge does make a mistake when he says, well, well, this is for the... this is for them to argue when the... the point of the objection was that there was a misinterpretation of the instruction.\nThat's a legal point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [289.086, 303.659, 306.055, 307.086, 308.117, 316.207, 331.894], "stop_times": [303.659, 306.055, 307.086, 308.117, 316.207, 331.894, 333.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 289.086}, "reply_to": "21668__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__0_009", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "And that is a fact that was expressly considered by the California Supreme Court in appropriately applying Boyde's general test for whether the jury misunderstood the court's instructions and an instruction that facially called for consideration--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [333.214], "stop_times": [346.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 333.214}, "reply_to": "21668__0_008", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_010", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Not that... that the jury misunderstood the judge's instruction, that there was no instruction.\nI mean, the... the picture that's given here is the defense attorney says, I can use this to mitigate.\nThe prosecutor says this is not legitimate mitigating evidence, and he said that several times.\nAnd the judge said, well, you could both argue it, and the judge never instructed the jury.\nHe left it to the prosecutors to argue the law to the jury and for the jury to make that legal determination.\nIt... it seems to me that that... that is surely an error.\nNow, you could still say, well, even so, it was harmless.\nBut... but I don't think... can there be any doubt when the judge tells the attorneys, you argue the law to the jury and let the jury decide what the law is?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [346.467, 350.637, 358.689, 365.415, 371.981, 379.699, 385.105, 388.449], "stop_times": [350.637, 358.689, 365.415, 371.981, 379.699, 385.105, 388.449, 397.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 346.467}, "reply_to": "21668__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21668__0_011", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Yes.\nThere... there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury did not take the prosecutor's statements so as to preclude consideration of Payton's mitigating evidence because the prosecutor's statements cannot--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [397.82, 398.646], "stop_times": [398.646, 408.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 397.82}, "reply_to": "21668__0_010", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_012", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, even... even if... even if that's argument is... is on point, just taking your... your response on its own terms, where do you get a reasonable likelihood?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [408.966], "stop_times": [415.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 408.966}, "reply_to": "21668__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21668__0_013", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Because the prosecutor's statements cannot be construed in a vacuum.\nYou have to look, as Boyde required and as California did, at the context of the entire proceedings.\nWhat we're here... what the jury was doing in Payton was deciding whether Payton should live or die, the sentencing determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [415.449, 418.959, 423.994], "stop_times": [418.959, 423.994, 431.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 415.449}, "reply_to": "21668__0_012", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_014", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Yes, but let's get specific.\nYou... you said there isn't a reasonable possibility.\nWhy?\nGet... get down to facts.\nWhy isn't there a reasonable possibility?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [431.014, 431.962, 434.562, 435.034, 436.792], "stop_times": [431.962, 434.562, 435.034, 436.792, 438.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 431.014}, "reply_to": "21668__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21668__0_015", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Why there is not a reasonable likelihood the jury misunderstood?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [438.938], "stop_times": [441.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 438.938}, "reply_to": "21668__0_014", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_016", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Yes.\nThe prosecutor stands there and twice says, before the judge interrupts him and after the judge interrupts him... says, you cannot legally consider this evidence.\nIt does not fall within (k), and the judge never corrects it.\nWhy is there not a... a reasonable likelihood of... of jury mistake?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [441.538, 441.827, 450.388, 454.709], "stop_times": [441.827, 450.388, 454.709, 460.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 441.538}, "reply_to": "21668__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21668__0_017", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "One, Your Honor, the judge admonished the jury that the prosecutor's statements were that of an advocate, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [460.669], "stop_times": [467.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 460.669}, "reply_to": "21668__0_016", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_018", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "No.\nPrecisely, if I recall... and you correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought what the judge said was that the prosecutor's statements were... were not evidence.\nOf course, they're not evidence.\nThe issue isn't whether they were evidence.\nThey were statements of the law.\nThe judge didn't say anything about whether they were correct or incorrect statements of the law.\nIt seems to me that the judge's response to the objection was totally beside the point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [467.423, 467.589, 477.098, 479.273, 481.252, 483.36, 488.6], "stop_times": [467.589, 477.098, 479.273, 481.252, 483.36, 488.6, 493.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 467.423}, "reply_to": "21668__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21668__0_019", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--The... nevertheless, the judge's response relegated the prosecutor's statements as to his personal opinion as to that of a... some... as... as... of... of... to argument, which is a statement of an advocate.\nAnd the jury, from the time it was empaneled, guilt phase, and through the penalty phase, and at the concluding instructions was repeatedly instructed that they would be getting the instruction on the law from the court.\nAnd here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [493.308, 506.516, 519.147], "stop_times": [506.516, 519.147, 519.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 493.308}, "reply_to": "21668__0_018", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_020", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "And the court didn't give them an instruction on this contested point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [519.602], "stop_times": [522.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 519.602}, "reply_to": "21668__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21668__0_021", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--I respectfully disagree.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [522.945], "stop_times": [524.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 522.945}, "reply_to": "21668__0_020", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_022", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "He didn't come out and say, yes, you can consider this under (k).\nHe never said that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [524.431, 528.146], "stop_times": [528.146, 529.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 524.431}, "reply_to": "21668__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21668__0_023", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "No, but (k) says you can consider it under (k).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [529.444], "stop_times": [532.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.444}, "reply_to": "21668__0_022", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_024", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "(k) says you can consider evidence that... that goes to the gravity of the crime.\nI will be candid to say I think you're stretching things about as far as you can stretch, as Boyde held, that... that character evidence pre and up to the time of crime can be considered reasonably under that factor.\nBut certainly evidence of what an individual did after the crime is committed does not naturally fall within (k) at all, and I don't know why any juror would consider it unless a judge came out and said flatly you can.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [532.687, 537.806, 550.77], "stop_times": [537.806, 550.77, 563.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 532.687}, "reply_to": "21668__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21668__0_025", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Your Honor, the California Supreme Court reasonably applied Boyde's holding, that factor (k) did call for consideration of character evidence, and that's precisely what Payton presented--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [563.152], "stop_times": [572.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 563.152}, "reply_to": "21668__0_024", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_026", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, what if we conclude that there was an error here?\nIs there a harmless error argument that you fall back on?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [572.607, 576.61], "stop_times": [576.61, 582.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 572.607}, "reply_to": "21668__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21668__0_027", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, there is a harmless error, but before we even get to harmless error, the fact that you disagree with the ultimate conclusion of the California Supreme Court under AEDPA is not sufficient.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [582.554], "stop_times": [592.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 582.554}, "reply_to": "21668__0_026", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_028", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "May I ask--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [592.214], "stop_times": [592.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 592.214}, "reply_to": "21668__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21668__0_029", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "The California Supreme Court's decision--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [592.957], "stop_times": [593.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 592.957}, "reply_to": "21668__0_028", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_030", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--May I ask a question that goes sort of to the beginning?\nWhat is your position on whether or not the prosecutor correctly stated the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [593.988, 596.589], "stop_times": [596.589, 602.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 593.988}, "reply_to": "21668__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21668__0_031", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--The State concedes, and as the California Supreme Court recognized, the prosecutor misstated the law, but the jury would not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [602.162], "stop_times": [608.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 602.162}, "reply_to": "21668__0_030", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_032", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Do you also concede he did so deliberately?\nDo you concede there was prosecutorial misconduct is what I'm really asking.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [608.356, 610.623], "stop_times": [610.623, 616.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 608.356}, "reply_to": "21668__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21668__0_033", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Absolutely not, Your Honor.\nThe prosecutor did not commit misconduct.\nThe prosecutor made a mistake, and the misconduct analysis, which is similar to what Boyde contemplated when they set forth the general standard for assessing whether a jury would misunderstood... misunderstand an instruction is... is almost the same when... when you're analyzing whether the question is prosecutorial misconduct.\nBoyde sets forth the test for how to assess a misstatement by the prosecutor, and Boyde said that at the first instance, a statement of the prosecutor is not to be considered as having the same force as instructions from the court.\nAnd that principle was recognized by the California Supreme Court and reinforced--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [616.568, 617.932, 620.283, 638.57, 651.945], "stop_times": [617.932, 620.283, 638.57, 651.945, 656.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 616.568}, "reply_to": "21668__0_032", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_034", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Of course, that... that statement went to whether the jury was apt to accept it, not to the question of whether the prosecutor acted improperly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [656.32], "stop_times": [662.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 656.32}, "reply_to": "21668__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21668__0_035", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor.\nThe... in this case, the prosecutor made a mistake.\nI don't think that there's any evidence to support the conclusion that the prosecutor committed misconduct in this case, particularly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [662.719, 665.608, 668.209], "stop_times": [665.608, 668.209, 675.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.719}, "reply_to": "21668__0_034", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_036", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, I... I can see that a... a prosecutor could say, you know, this isn't factor (k) evidence, as a way of saying that this evidence is of little weight.\nHe did say at... at one... at one time, you have not heard any legal evidence of mitigation, and... and that... that's the troublesome part.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [675.722, 686.225], "stop_times": [686.225, 699.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 675.722}, "reply_to": "21668__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__0_037", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Your Honor, the... the State concedes that the... the prosecutor did make misstatements, but I think that the bulk... as you pointed out, the bulk of the prosecutor's argument went to the weight to be attributed to Payton's mitigating evidence, and actually most of the argument by the prosecutor indicating that Payton's evidence didn't mitigate the seriousness of his rape and murder is... there were arguments that were made by the prosecutor in Boyde and which Boyde found were not objectionable.\nBut again, the important scrutiny is that the California Supreme Court evaluated the prosecutor's statements within the correct analytical framework matrix established by Boyde.\nThey considered all the correct principles, the... the effect of argument of counsel.\nThey considered the instructions, and like Boyde, they found that factor (k) facially directed the consideration--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [699.416, 732.564, 743.339, 748.252], "stop_times": [732.564, 743.339, 748.252, 754.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.416}, "reply_to": "21668__0_036", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_038", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Suppose... suppose I were to take the view that it is a violation of clearly established law for a court to allow a prosecutor repeatedly to misstate the law, misinform the jury about what the law is on a life or death question without correcting that misstatement, without saying to the jury, jury, it's not for the prosecutor to argue what the law is.\nI tell you what the law.\nIf the judge doesn't do that, then that meets any standard of violating clearly established law about which there should be no doubt that when the prosecutor makes a misstatement on a life or death question, it is the judge's obligation to say, jury, he is wrong.\nYou take your instruction from me and here's my instruction.\nSuppose that's my view of this case.\nI don't... Boyde and all these other cases... it just strikes me that that's clearly wrong.\nWhat do I do with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [754.196, 785.487, 787.261, 810.295, 813.928, 816.24, 823.67], "stop_times": [785.487, 787.261, 810.295, 813.928, 816.24, 823.67, 825.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 754.196}, "reply_to": "21668__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21668__0_039", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Well, you can find that the court was wrong and not like what you did... what the court did, but the inquiry is whether the jury misunderstood the instructions as a result of the court's conduct.\nAnd that requires an analysis of the context of the proceedings, and that is precisely what the California Supreme Court did.\nThey--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [825.528, 836.469, 843.649], "stop_times": [836.469, 843.649, 844.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 825.528}, "reply_to": "21668__0_038", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_040", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, now you're getting to the question I think that Justice O'Connor raised a few minutes ago about are you urging, yes, this is error, but it was harmless?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [844.187], "stop_times": [855.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.187}, "reply_to": "21668__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21668__0_041", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--No, I am not agreeing that this was error at all.\nI agree that the prosecutor made a misstatement and that the California Supreme Court thoroughly and properly evaluated that statement--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [855.145, 858.221], "stop_times": [858.221, 865.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 855.145}, "reply_to": "21668__0_040", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_042", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, but just on that point, if the prosecutor makes a misstatement, doesn't the trial judge have an obligation to correct it if it's significant?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [865.652], "stop_times": [873.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 865.652}, "reply_to": "21668__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__0_043", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--The... in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [873.371], "stop_times": [877.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 873.371}, "reply_to": "21668__0_042", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_044", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Or am I wrong?\nOr am I wrong about that?\nThe judge just kind of watches the ship sail over the waterfall?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [877.336, 877.912, 878.822], "stop_times": [877.912, 878.822, 881.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 877.336}, "reply_to": "21668__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__0_045", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--The... I mean, the... the trial court did correct it.\nIt may not be the sufficient correction in this Court's eye, but the court did give an admonition that relegated the prosecutor's statements to that of the advocate and not to the instructions of the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [881.423, 884.19], "stop_times": [884.19, 894.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 881.423}, "reply_to": "21668__0_044", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_046", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, what if the prosecutor had said several times to the jury during the course of his arguments that the burden of proof by the State is by a preponderance, not beyond a reasonable doubt?\nAnd the judge just says the prosecutor's arguments are just that, they're not the law.\nI'll instruct you.\nBut he never says anything.\nIs that okay?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [894.676, 908.915, 916.717, 917.71, 919.318], "stop_times": [908.915, 916.717, 917.71, 919.318, 920.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 894.676}, "reply_to": "21668__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21668__0_047", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "It's not what we'd optimally want the court to do, but that's not the inquiry that's presented and answered by Boyde.\nThe question is as a result of what happened.\nTrials are not error-free.\nWe wish that they were, but they're not.\nThe question is how do you respond to when a... when a prosecutor makes a misstatement of law.\nAnd Boyde addresses that question.\nBoyde--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [920.683, 927.863, 930.258, 932.2, 933.807, 938.887, 940.661], "stop_times": [927.863, 930.258, 932.2, 933.807, 938.887, 940.661, 941.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 920.683}, "reply_to": "21668__0_046", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_048", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, normally we would think the trial judge would correct a misstatement of the law by counsel.\nWe would normally think that, wouldn't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [941.032, 949.866], "stop_times": [949.866, 952.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 941.032}, "reply_to": "21668__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21668__0_049", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [952.716], "stop_times": [953.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 952.716}, "reply_to": "21668__0_048", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_050", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "And it wasn't clearly done here.\nI mean, the... the jury was reminded that arguments of counsel are just that.\nBut there was no attempt to correct what appeared to be a misstatement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [953.748, 955.977, 961.921], "stop_times": [955.977, 961.921, 967.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 953.748}, "reply_to": "21668__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21668__0_051", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "The court's admonition was sufficient.\nBut we're... we... we have to respond to the case that's before you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [967.41, 969.845], "stop_times": [969.845, 972.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 967.41}, "reply_to": "21668__0_050", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_052", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "What... what admonition was sufficient?\nThe court said something about evidence and everybody... I mean, there's no question what the prosecutor said isn't evidence.\nBut he didn't tell them he has misstated the law.\nWe're not talking about evidence is not at issue all.\nNeither side suggests that it is.\nIt's a question is what is the law that governs this controversy, what is the law that the jury must apply to make a life or death decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [972.983, 974.569, 982.271, 987.844, 992.136, 994.819], "stop_times": [974.569, 982.271, 987.844, 992.136, 994.819, 1003.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 972.983}, "reply_to": "21668__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21668__0_053", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Right, and what was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1003.903], "stop_times": [1005.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1003.903}, "reply_to": "21668__0_052", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_054", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "And... and you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1005.139], "stop_times": [1005.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1005.139}, "reply_to": "21668__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21668__0_055", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1005.882], "stop_times": [1006.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1005.882}, "reply_to": "21668__0_054", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_056", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--you said the judge corrected it, and I read this joint appendix.\nI could not find any correction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1006.254, 1010.506], "stop_times": [1010.506, 1012.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1006.254}, "reply_to": "21668__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21668__0_057", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "The court's admonition that the prosecutor's argument was not evidence but argument of counsel relegated the statements of the prosecutor to that of an advocate and did not take the prosecutor's arguments and elevate it in place of the instructions given--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1012.569], "stop_times": [1027.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1012.569}, "reply_to": "21668__0_056", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_058", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Then... then it... then it has another problem with it because then the judge is saying that's an argument.\nJury, you've heard arguments on both sides.\nYou decide.\nBut it isn't for the jury to decide what the law is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1027.512, 1032.343, 1034.755, 1035.686], "stop_times": [1032.343, 1034.755, 1035.686, 1039.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1027.512}, "reply_to": "21668__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21668__0_059", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--But the analysis is whether there was a reasonable likelihood the jury misunderstood the court's instructions so as to preclude consideration of Payton's mitigating evidence, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1039.031], "stop_times": [1048.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1039.031}, "reply_to": "21668__0_058", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_060", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Did the judge instruct the jury that you are to consider all of the evidence which has been received during any part of the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1048.03], "stop_times": [1055.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1048.03}, "reply_to": "21668__0_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__0_061", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, and actually that's one of the inquiries that Boyde required, is that you look at the instruction itself, the other instructions, and that's an inquiry the California Supreme Court did, in fact, conduct.\nAnd that is, the jury was presented with... with a instruction that said, you shall consider all the evidence unless otherwise instructed, and nothing out of any of the factors (a) through (k) limited the jury's consideration of Payton's mitigating evidence or precluded... pardon me--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1055.339, 1065.12], "stop_times": [1065.12, 1081.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1055.339}, "reply_to": "21668__0_060", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_062", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Oh, are you taking the position that as a matter of California procedure, the jury was entitled to consider matters that... matter that was not within (a) through (k)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1081.838], "stop_times": [1095.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1081.838}, "reply_to": "21668__0_061", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__0_063", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--I think that the instructions encompassed the jury considering something not specifically in (a) through (k) for purposes of mitigating evidence because the instructions say, you shall consider the evidence presented, and that was Payton's evidence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1095.463], "stop_times": [1109.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1095.463}, "reply_to": "21668__0_062", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_064", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Have the California courts said that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1109.513], "stop_times": [1110.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.513}, "reply_to": "21668__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__0_065", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--That?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1110.778], "stop_times": [1112.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1110.778}, "reply_to": "21668__0_064", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_066", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Have the California courts said that (a) through (k) are... is not intended to be exhaustive at the pre-Payton... pardon me.\nYes.\nHave they said that pre-Payton?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1112.636, 1123.039, 1123.676], "stop_times": [1123.039, 1123.676, 1124.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1112.636}, "reply_to": "21668__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__0_067", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "I don't think that that issue has been presented and decided by the California Supreme Court specifically--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1124.708], "stop_times": [1130.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1124.708}, "reply_to": "21668__0_066", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_068", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "I... I thought the case was being argued to us... correct me if I'm wrong... on... on the theory that this was factor (k) evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1130.347], "stop_times": [1137.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1130.347}, "reply_to": "21668__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__0_069", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--It is our position that it... it does fall within factor (k) evidence, but in deciding whether the... whether Payton's jury was unconstitutionally precluded from considering the evidence, you look to the... all the instructions.\nAnd when you consider the direction to consider all... that you shall consider all the evidence and then the concluding instruction--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1137.694, 1149.295], "stop_times": [1149.295, 1156.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1137.694}, "reply_to": "21668__0_068", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_070", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "But Ms. Cortina, the... the red brief... maybe it's not accurate.\nThey say the instruction was all the evidence received during any part of the trial in this case, except as you may hereafter be instructed, and then that followed what... the factor (k) discussion came after that.\nSo would it not have been possible that the jury would have thought except for the following things?\nOr is there something more that I missed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1156.104, 1158.704, 1171.586, 1176.703], "stop_times": [1158.704, 1171.586, 1176.703, 1178.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1156.104}, "reply_to": "21668__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21668__0_071", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--No.\nThe written instruction followed the arguments of counsels.\nAnd what... and so no, there was no instruction after that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1178.478, 1178.932, 1181.905], "stop_times": [1178.932, 1181.905, 1186.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1178.478}, "reply_to": "21668__0_070", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_072", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "So if they misunderstood the factor (k) instruction, they would have thought they could not consider all the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1186.075], "stop_times": [1191.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1186.075}, "reply_to": "21668__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21668__0_073", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "There was no reasonable likelihood that they felt that they could not consider Payton's evidence under factor (k), and the California Supreme Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1191.21], "stop_times": [1199.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1191.21}, "reply_to": "21668__0_072", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_074", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, if they believed the prosecutor, they would have thought they couldn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1199.483], "stop_times": [1202.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1199.483}, "reply_to": "21668__0_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21668__0_075", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--But there... but as analyzed by the California Supreme Court, it is not reasonably likely that the jury would have accepted the prosecutor's first few misstatements.\nAnd as I was saying, to do so, the jury would have had to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1202.439, 1210.695], "stop_times": [1210.695, 1213.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1202.439}, "reply_to": "21668__0_074", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_076", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "But all... all I'm directing my inquiry to is to the significance of the instruction to consider all the evidence.\nI think it's they could consider all the evidence, except that which may not be admissible, as I now... or may not be relevant as I shall hereafter instruct you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1213.38, 1219.407], "stop_times": [1219.407, 1226.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1213.38}, "reply_to": "21668__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21668__0_077", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--However, nothing in the following instruction says you shall not consider Payton's mitigating evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1226.959], "stop_times": [1233.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1226.959}, "reply_to": "21668__0_076", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_078", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "No, but the prosecutor said that if you interpret the last instruction properly, you shall not do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1233.275], "stop_times": [1237.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1233.275}, "reply_to": "21668__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21668__0_079", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "He said that it didn't fall within factor (k).\nHowever, the... the jury would... there is no reasonable likelihood and the California Supreme Court was not objectively unreasonable, including... in concluding that the... that the jury would have accepted the prosecutor's first few misstatements and chosen to disregard Payton's mitigating evidence because the jury just sat through eight witnesses testifying to Payton's post-crime remorse and rehabilitation.\nThey sat through that without any misstatements by the prosecutor.\nSo they recognized that they had heard this evidence and that it was relevant and that it was subject to consideration.\nThen they heard the arguments of counsel concerning the weight to be attributed to Payton's mitigating evidence.\nAnd although the prosecutor did make the misstatements, his statements were relegated to that of an advocate.\nAnd to conclude that the jury would disregard the repeated instructions to follow the... to take the law from the court and their inevitable, long-held societal beliefs that remorse and rehabilitation are relevant to making an appropriate moral reasoned response in deciding the life or death sentence is not a reasonable conclusion.\nAnd we know that the fact... in fact, that the jury did consider Payton's mitigating evidence by virtue of the questions that the juries... the jury asked the court during deliberations.\nThe jury asked whether Payton would be eligible for parole and whether any change in the law could retroactively make him eligible for parole.\nYou only get to a consideration of whether... what the effect is of saving Payton's life, under the California sentencing scheme that was... existed at that time, if you believe that there's mitigation evidence to consider because California, at the time of Payton's sentencing, instructed the jury that if the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, you shall impose death.\nTheir... pardon me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1237.157, 1239.962, 1263.368, 1267.25, 1273.444, 1279.472, 1286.159, 1308.655, 1319.057, 1328.345, 1349.356], "stop_times": [1239.962, 1263.368, 1267.25, 1273.444, 1279.472, 1286.159, 1308.655, 1319.057, 1328.345, 1349.356, 1351.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1237.157}, "reply_to": "21668__0_078", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_080", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "They... they might have thought that the aggravating circumstances were entitled to... to great weight.\nI mean, we don't know how they evaluated the aggravating circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1351.175, 1357.408], "stop_times": [1357.408, 1361.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1351.175}, "reply_to": "21668__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21668__0_081", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "That might be one reasonable conclusion, but the other reasonable conclusion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1361.327], "stop_times": [1364.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1361.327}, "reply_to": "21668__0_080", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_082", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "But I mean, that... that is a possible conclusion, and therefore, it doesn't follow from the fact that they raised the question about life without parole that they necessarily had found... that they were necessarily considering the mitigating evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1364.467], "stop_times": [1376.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1364.467}, "reply_to": "21668__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21668__0_083", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--It's a reasonable inference to be made from the questions asked, and that's what you're looking at.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1376.577], "stop_times": [1380.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1376.577}, "reply_to": "21668__0_082", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_084", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "It's... it's one possibility.\nIsn't that all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1380.997, 1382.15], "stop_times": [1382.15, 1383.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1380.997}, "reply_to": "21668__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21668__0_085", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "It's one reasonable inference, and that's what's the important inquiry, is that the trial... the California Supreme Court reasonably considered the relevant, pertinent facts and all the applicable law in reaching a decision that Payton's jury was not unconstitutionally precluded from considering his mitigating character evidence.\nAnd I think that... that the California Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that it applied Boyde to the letter faithfully and methodically, and that it... it considered all the relevant facts and that its decision under these circumstances is manifestly not objectively unreasonable.\nAnd that is the requirement, and that is the inquiry that we're here today to resolve.\nThe... the Ninth Circuit failed to give the appropriate deference to the California Supreme Court's decision in deciding that the penalty should be... Payton's penalty should be reversed.\nAnd the Ninth Circuit instead conflated objectively unreasonable with a determination that it personally felt that there was constitutional error and doesn't respect the distinction recognized in AEDPA between a incorrect decision... or a correct decision, incorrect decision, unreasonable decision, and the higher threshold of objectively unreasonable.\nAnd unless this Court has any further questions, Justice Stevens, I would like to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1383.059, 1400.437, 1418.353, 1423.926, 1434.495, 1454.929], "stop_times": [1400.437, 1418.353, 1423.926, 1434.495, 1454.929, 1461.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1383.059}, "reply_to": "21668__0_084", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_086", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "How long did the penalty phase take?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1461.904], "stop_times": [1464.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1461.904}, "reply_to": "21668__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__0_087", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "The penalty phase took about a day with eight witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1464.504], "stop_times": [1469.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1464.504}, "reply_to": "21668__0_086", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__0_088", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Gits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1469.623, 1473.959], "stop_times": [1473.959, 1475.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.623}, "reply_to": "21668__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21668__1_000", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nI'd like to start off, if I may, by addressing some of the points that were brought up just earlier, and I'd like to indicate to this Court that the California Supreme Court has held that factors (a) through (k) are the exclusive considerations that the jury must encompass in deciding whether or not to impose death or life.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1475.278, 1479.571], "stop_times": [1479.571, 1502.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1475.278}, "reply_to": "21668__0_088", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_001", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Has factor (k) been supplemented with a CALJIC instruction since Payton?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1502.028], "stop_times": [1506.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1502.028}, "reply_to": "21668__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__1_002", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "It has.\nIn 1983, 2 years after Payton's trial, it was supplemented to include all of the mitigating evidence that this Court has indicated the jury is entitled to consider.\nBut what is important--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1506.486, 1507.163, 1519.323], "stop_times": [1507.163, 1519.323, 1521.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1506.486}, "reply_to": "21668__1_001", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_003", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Excuse me.\nDo they still call it factor (k) or do they just have a supplemental instruction that follows factor (k)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1521.885, 1522.295], "stop_times": [1522.295, 1527.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1521.885}, "reply_to": "21668__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__1_004", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--It's been a couple of years since I've done a death penalty trial, but I think it's still called factor (k).\nIt's just supplemented and changed that way.\nThe second thing is that this Court has indicated some concern over the jury question that was raised first in... in the State's reply argument.\nAnd I need to put the Court, I think, in... in proper context as to what occurred in... in that jury question.\nThe case was given to the jury at 11:55 on the date of... of the determination, and the jury was told to select a foreman.\n5 minutes... they went into the deliberations room.\n5 minutes later they came out and went to lunch.\nThey didn't commence their deliberations thereafter until 1 o'clock.\nAt 1:10, they came out with a... the question that is now before the Court.\nAnd I want to suggest to this Court that it is not reasonable to believe that during that 10-minute span of time the jury considered the... whether or not factor (k) was applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1527.125, 1532.948, 1536.375, 1549.228, 1556.187, 1565.475, 1568.818, 1571.502, 1575.506, 1581.45], "stop_times": [1532.948, 1536.375, 1549.228, 1556.187, 1565.475, 1568.818, 1571.502, 1575.506, 1581.45, 1594.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1527.125}, "reply_to": "21668__1_003", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_005", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "And what was the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1594.386], "stop_times": [1595.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1594.386}, "reply_to": "21668__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__1_006", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "The question... there were really two questions.\nOne... and I'm paraphrasing... is there any possibility Mr. Payton could be released on parole if we give him life, and the second one is if the law is amended, could that be construed to be retroactively applicable to Mr. Payton.\nThose were the two questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1595.856, 1597.797, 1613.196], "stop_times": [1597.797, 1613.196, 1614.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1595.856}, "reply_to": "21668__1_005", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_007", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Those don't sound as if they thought his conversion to Christianity made a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1614.765], "stop_times": [1620.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1614.765}, "reply_to": "21668__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__1_008", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "I think, Your Honor, what the jury articulated is what this Court has seen on many occasions, the jury's concern about does life without possibility mean life without.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1620.088], "stop_times": [1630.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1620.088}, "reply_to": "21668__1_007", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_009", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1630.779], "stop_times": [1631.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.779}, "reply_to": "21668__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__1_010", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "They never went beyond that at this point in time.\nSo what I'm suggesting to this Court is that the short span that they had to write that question, which I agree, given enough time, might permit an inference that they did consider factor (k), isn't applicable in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1631.079, 1633.38], "stop_times": [1633.38, 1645.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1631.079}, "reply_to": "21668__1_009", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_011", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, an equal inference is they just felt that it was entitled to no weight at all given the horrific nature of this... of this crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1645.89], "stop_times": [1652.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1645.89}, "reply_to": "21668__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__1_012", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Yes, I agree.\nAnd my position isn't that... that the short span of... you know, assists our position.\nOur position is that this won't assist this Court in arriving at a decision about whether the jury considered it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1652.139, 1652.577, 1658.521], "stop_times": [1652.577, 1658.521, 1665.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1652.139}, "reply_to": "21668__1_011", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_013", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "And you have to show there's a reasonable likelihood that the jury might have come to an opposite conclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1665.702], "stop_times": [1670.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1665.702}, "reply_to": "21668__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__1_014", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Yes.\nAnd Boyde teaches that the way to do that is to look at the context of the entire case in conjunction with the... the instruction that was given in this case.\nAnd I want to start out that I... I agree with the State that the first thing this Court should do is look at the instruction standing alone.\nAnd I want to indicate that without reference to the context of the case, the instruction standing alone does not support the inference that Payton's post-crime evidence could be considered.\nNow, I agree that in the context of the case, the context of the case could change that consideration.\nFor instance, if the court, as this... some member of this Court already indicated, told the jury that factor (k) is to encompass Payton's evidence, or even if the prosecutor may have said to the jury during his argument, ladies and gentlemen, although it might not seem like Payton's evidence could be considered by you under factor (k), in fact it can, then we would be left with a situation very similar to Boyde where there really is no argument among counsel as to whether or not the evidence could be subsumed under (k).\nAnd that, in the context of that case, would permit it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1670.326, 1670.781, 1679.902, 1688.176, 1701.451, 1708.592, 1742.689], "stop_times": [1670.781, 1679.902, 1688.176, 1701.451, 1708.592, 1742.689, 1746.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1670.326}, "reply_to": "21668__1_013", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_015", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, on... on that point... and I... I recognize it's... it's not nearly as clean as the hypothetical you present... he did say... this is the prosecutor.\nThe law in its simplicity is that if the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, the sentence should be death, and so let's just line these up, and then he talks about the... the conversion.\nSo there were other parts of his argument that indicated by one interpretation this is not mitigating under special (k)... under factor (k).\nBut here he does say that you line that up and you weigh one against the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1746.3, 1755.692, 1764.776, 1776.004], "stop_times": [1755.692, 1764.776, 1776.004, 1780.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1746.3}, "reply_to": "21668__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__1_016", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "I... I would respond to that by saying two things.\nHe does say that, but after he says, ladies and gentlemen, I want to address some of... of Payton's evidence.\nI'm not suggesting and I'm... and I don't believe that it applies under factor (k).\nBut then he went on to discuss that evidence.\nAnd I agree he did.\nI certainly can't say he didn't.\nBut... but the real issue here is what effect likely did that have on the jury, and I... I'm indicating that... that given the preliminary... his preliminary part about it still doesn't apply but I will address it, that is unlikely to give the jury any confidence that that evidence could be considered.\nSo it's not at all a concession that occurred in this case whatsoever.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1780.628, 1783.063, 1790.372, 1795.778, 1798.545, 1799.781, 1802.343, 1821.412], "stop_times": [1783.063, 1790.372, 1795.778, 1798.545, 1799.781, 1802.343, 1821.412, 1826.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1780.628}, "reply_to": "21668__1_015", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_017", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, why wouldn't the jury conclude... why isn't it the most logical conclusion that, gee, the judge had us sit here through eight witnesses and listen to all that and he didn't exclude any part of it, so of course we must consider it because otherwise we wouldn't have been exposed to all of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1826.409], "stop_times": [1849.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1826.409}, "reply_to": "21668__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21668__1_018", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "That was a relevant consideration in Boyde and I think a powerful consideration in Boyde and in California v. Brown.\nBecause of the context of this case, it's not relevant here.\nOnce the judge permits both counsel... one counsel to argue one way and the other counsel to argue the other way, the jury is now being relegated as the... the finder of the law.\nIn order to evaluate whether or not they could consider that evidence, they had to look at the evidence that was presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1849.033, 1855.942, 1859.474, 1872.106], "stop_times": [1855.942, 1859.474, 1872.106, 1879.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1849.033}, "reply_to": "21668__1_017", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_019", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, they... they always have to say whether or not we're going to really weigh this or is it just too tangential, and that's one way of saying, well, this really isn't mitigating.\nAnd we know as lawyers that it is mitigating in a sense that is... that is relevant and that it's there for the jury to give it the weight that it chooses.\nBut jurors say, well, you know, this... this just is not important is what they're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1879.415, 1888.99, 1897.907], "stop_times": [1888.99, 1897.907, 1903.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1879.415}, "reply_to": "21668__1_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__1_020", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, when the prosecutor says this doesn't fall under (k) and the defense attorney says it does fall under (k), all I'm indicating is that the argument that this would be viewed as a charade no longer has any effect.\nIt is now a preliminary thing that the court... that the jury must look to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1903.646, 1916.317], "stop_times": [1916.317, 1920.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1903.646}, "reply_to": "21668__1_019", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_021", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, it's a shorthand for saying it doesn't fall under (k) because it just is of so little weight.\nNow, that's I think how the jury might have interpreted it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1920.858, 1923.913], "stop_times": [1923.913, 1926.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1920.858}, "reply_to": "21668__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__1_022", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, they might.\nBut the issue here is whether or not there's a reasonable likelihood that the jury did not consider that, and... and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1926.225, 1927.545], "stop_times": [1927.545, 1935.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1926.225}, "reply_to": "21668__1_021", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_023", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Actually that isn't really the issue.\nI think... I find that easy.\nThe harder issue is... is whether the... a person who thought about it differently than me, a judge, would have... be objectively unreasonable.\nAt least for me, that's the hard question.\nThe question you're arguing is not hard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1935.802, 1937.371, 1939.805, 1955.881, 1958.093], "stop_times": [1937.371, 1939.805, 1955.881, 1958.093, 1960.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1935.802}, "reply_to": "21668__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__1_024", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Yes.\nI don't think I understand Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1960.589, 1960.944], "stop_times": [1960.944, 1962.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1960.589}, "reply_to": "21668__1_023", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_025", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "I mean, I would perhaps have come to a different conclusion than California Supreme Court on that question, but we can overturn them only if they're objectively unreasonable.\nAnd that's... that's the hard thing because... for me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1962.634, 1973.408], "stop_times": [1973.408, 1976.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1962.634}, "reply_to": "21668__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__1_026", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Yes.\nI... there is very... relatively little guidance that we have so far on the AEDPA.\nI think the... the cases that do have some relevance are both Wiggins v. Smith and Taylor v. Williams.\nWiggins v. Smith dealt with the failure of the State court to actually evaluate evidence that occurred in this case.\nThe California Supreme Court opinion on the issue of whether or not the... the court properly conducted itself has one sentence, and the sentence says... and I'm paraphrasing... something to the effect of the fact that the court refused to adorn factor (k) is not in itself a... an error.\nWell, we all, I think, would... would concur that that's true, but that doesn't address what happened here.\nIt's a complete failure to address an all-encompassing event that happened, something close... and I have to be careful here... something close to structural error where the judge gives over the obligation to decide what the law is to the jury.\nThe California Supreme Court not once ever considered that, and there is no reference to them doing anything other than making that one--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [1976.564, 1977.7, 1985.381, 1994.047, 2004.161, 2028.227, 2035.286, 2052.254], "stop_times": [1977.7, 1985.381, 1994.047, 2004.161, 2028.227, 2035.286, 2052.254, 2060.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1976.564}, "reply_to": "21668__1_025", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_027", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, no, but I mean, that's... that's really wrong what the judge did.\nBut... but the... that... that's tangential to the question.\nThe question is, is it reasonably likely, if that hadn't occurred, that the jury would have considered the evidence that he was converted?\nBut since it did occur, you know, they... they didn't consider it.\nIs it reasonably likely they never considered it?\nThat's... that's the question.\nAnd then I can imagine, for what reason that Justice Ginsburg said, myself sitting in the California Supreme Court and saying, well, they heard the evidence for 2 days or a day, six witnesses, eight witnesses.\nThey're not technicians, the jury.\nAnd... and of course, they considered it.\nI can imagine that and that's why I'm having... even though I don't agree with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2060.056, 2062.86, 2067.031, 2076.152, 2083.172, 2085.524, 2087.67, 2099.353, 2101.295, 2103.274], "stop_times": [2062.86, 2067.031, 2076.152, 2083.172, 2085.524, 2087.67, 2099.353, 2101.295, 2103.274, 2106.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2060.056}, "reply_to": "21668__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__1_028", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Yes.\nConsidered I agree.\nThey certainly considered the evidence, but they also, if they were following their obligation under the law, they considered whether or not they were entitled to give that any weight under factor (k).\nThat was the primary function that was given to them.\nSo certainly they discussed the evidence, but then did they arrive... did they go in that room and arrive at a decision that maybe we can't by law consider this evidence?\nAnd I think that's the focal point here and that's the thing this Court doesn't know what happened in that jury room.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2106.868, 2107.222, 2109.59, 2119.621, 2122.609, 2133.162], "stop_times": [2107.222, 2109.59, 2119.621, 2122.609, 2133.162, 2139.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2106.868}, "reply_to": "21668__1_027", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_029", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Except if they heard so much of the evidence, isn't it unlikely that the jury thought they couldn't consider what they heard?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2139.477], "stop_times": [2151.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.477}, "reply_to": "21668__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21668__1_030", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "The more evidence they hear, the more likely it is I think that human beings are going to consider the evidence.\nThe evidence... the... the penalty evidence took place over a 2-day period of time, but I want to indicate that it took place over two half-day periods of time, and that if you put the time together, I think it comes to around 70 pages, which should be substantially less than a half-day altogether.\nNow, it encompassed eight witnesses, and there was a lot of evidence brought out about post-crime conduct.\nBut it... it wasn't a massive amount such as there was in Boyde, 400 pages and weeks of testimony.\nSo I think that that's a... a... an important consideration too.\nThe... the Court's concern about whether or not the jury would likely consider that, it seems to me, starts with the... an examination of... of factor (k) itself.\nAnd... and I want to indicate that Mr. Payton really didn't start out at the same mark as... as the State did in its case.\nThe language of factor (k) just doesn't on its face appear to permit consideration of that evidence.\nAnd... and so, therefore, something had to have happened in the trial, we assert, to change that, to make the ambiguous, at least as applied to Payton, evidence of factor (k) applicable so that the jury would reasonably likely consider it.\nThe events that could have happened during the context of that trial didn't happen.\nIn fact, everything happened against the defendant.\nHe starts off with an instruction that's against him that supports, under any natural reading, the prosecutor's language, and then he's buttressed with a prosecutor that given the plain and natural meaning of the language, is going to have a far more compelling position with the jury about whether or not it could be considered.\nAnd the... and the defense attorney's position is really nothing more than an assertion, when he looks at the language itself... an assertion that it was awkwardly worded.\nNow... now, the defense attorney made reference to if this was the kind of evidence... if I was a juror and I was considering this, I would think this would be important evidence.\nAnd the answer to that is of course, it is important evidence, but that's not the question.\nThe question is whether or not it could be considered under (k).\nHe gives... he, the defense attorney, gives his position that... that (k) was meant to be a catchall factor and it was meant to consume and take into effect Payton's evidence, but he had nothing to support that.\nHe had no legal position to support it.\nHe was faced with the plain language of the statute that didn't permit him to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2151.654, 2158.796, 2178.404, 2185.751, 2193.803, 2198.261, 2213.244, 2223.358, 2230.334, 2248.621, 2253.451, 2257.166, 2278.221, 2289.012, 2298.322, 2303.894, 2307.488, 2320.984, 2323.213], "stop_times": [2158.796, 2178.404, 2185.751, 2193.803, 2198.261, 2213.244, 2223.358, 2230.334, 2248.621, 2253.451, 2257.166, 2278.221, 2289.012, 2298.322, 2303.894, 2307.488, 2320.984, 2323.213, 2327.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2151.654}, "reply_to": "21668__1_029", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_031", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Doesn't it?\nI mean, it... it says that... what's... what's the exact language of that statute?\nI just had it here.\nIt's... it's gravity.\nIt's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2327.672, 2329.158, 2333.495, 2334.525, 2336.217], "stop_times": [2329.158, 2333.495, 2334.525, 2336.217, 2337.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2327.672}, "reply_to": "21668__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__1_032", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "It is any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2337.126], "stop_times": [2341.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2337.126}, "reply_to": "21668__1_031", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_033", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Of the crime.\nYou could say it.\nYes, his... his later conversion extenuated the gravity of the crime, not the... not the... when I try to think of this person, who is not me, thinking of that, I say, well, plausible.\nPlausible, not perhaps the best, but plausible, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2341.956, 2342.533, 2343.442, 2360.077], "stop_times": [2342.533, 2343.442, 2360.077, 2363.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2341.956}, "reply_to": "21668__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__1_034", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, as we pointed out in our brief, this Court in... in Skipper... some Justices in... in that decision indicated that... well, in fact, the majority indicated that the post-crime evidence of rehabilitation in prison is, in fact, not anything that relates to culpability.\nFactor (k), however way you look at it... and I agree that it's sufficiently ambiguous to where, given the right context, the right events happening at trial, a jury would reasonably likely look at it as covering that.\nBut not under this case, though, because there wasn't anything that happened in Payton's trial which permitted a reasonable inference that in fact that evidence should be considered.\nAnd as to harmless error, I... as we pointed out in our brief, it... under the California statute, which in effect requires that if the aggravating evidence outweighs the mitigating evidence, the jury shall return a verdict of death, if there's no reasonable likelihood that the jury considered factor (k), then in effect Bill Payton was left without any mitigating evidence to be considered by the jury at all.\nAnd that means that the jury had to come back with a verdict of death.\nNow, that brings this Court, once the Court... if the Court becomes satisfied as to constitutional error, that brings the Court, I think, very closely to... to this case... this Court's case in Penry v. Johnson because there the jury will not have had a vehicle in order to give effect to Payton's mitigating evidence.\nIn Penry v. Johnson, in fact, in discussing at least the Eighth Amendment issue, this Court never really even discussed harmless error.\nIt was reversed without any discussion.\nNow, I don't want to suggest the Court didn't engage in a harmless error--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2363.338, 2383.666, 2396.092, 2407.033, 2439.272, 2444.595, 2467.629, 2476.629, 2479.518], "stop_times": [2383.666, 2396.092, 2407.033, 2439.272, 2444.595, 2467.629, 2476.629, 2479.518, 2482.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2363.338}, "reply_to": "21668__1_033", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_035", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "I... I see where you're going, and I... I see that there's some parallel.\nThe problem in Penry was that the jury... the jurors had to actually violate their instructions, and you have to escalate your argument a bit before you get to that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2482.656, 2488.146], "stop_times": [2488.146, 2500.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.656}, "reply_to": "21668__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__1_036", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Yes, I... I agree.\nIt's not exactly identical, but we're very close to... to that point in Penry.\nBeyond that, the prosecutor did argue vociferously that the jury should... in its determination, should be concerned about whether or not Bill Payton is going to stab the prison guards in the back, in effect, argued dangerousness, which was appropriate.\nBut if the jury... he also argued that the jury couldn't consider evidence which plainly pointed to his lack of dangerousness, his good adjustment in prison, his conversion to Christianity.\nSo, in effect, the prosecutor was able to argue its side and... and the jury wasn't able, when you get to the harmless error analysis, to argue its side.\nAnd that's what makes this, it seems to me, a very strong showing that... that harmless error... that the error in this case is not harmless.\nIt had a clearly important effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2500.861, 2502.181, 2507.482, 2530.211, 2544.245, 2555.308, 2566.908], "stop_times": [2502.181, 2507.482, 2530.211, 2544.245, 2555.308, 2566.908, 2569.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2500.861}, "reply_to": "21668__1_035", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_037", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Is it relevant at all?\nThis happened 24 years ago.\nWe're sitting here trying to think of what a jury would have been thinking in a state of the law that's a quarter of a century old and facts... I don't know what to think.\nI guess that's just irrelevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2569.137, 2570.335, 2573.224, 2586.023], "stop_times": [2570.335, 2573.224, 2586.023, 2588.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2569.137}, "reply_to": "21668__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__1_038", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, it's certainly relevant to Bill Payton, and... and I don't demean the position of the Court.\nIt's not relevant in terms of its impact as to future cases.\nThere are some cases left that are still dealing... out there, dealing with factor (k).\nThe best of our knowledge, we've... we've done a search and we believe there is about 70 cases dealing with the old, unadorned factor (k), but of those 70 cases, none of them from... and we haven't reviewed all of them, but of the ones we've reviewed, none of them deal both with Payton's pure post-crime evidence, coupled with the prosecutor's unrelenting position to the government that they cannot consider that evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2588.539, 2595.804, 2600.716, 2606.372], "stop_times": [2595.804, 2600.716, 2606.372, 2637.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2588.539}, "reply_to": "21668__1_037", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_039", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "So all this was at a time before Penry was decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2637.764], "stop_times": [2640.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2637.764}, "reply_to": "21668__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__1_040", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "It is the time before Penry v. Johnson was decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2640.636], "stop_times": [2644.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2640.636}, "reply_to": "21668__1_039", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_041", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2644.927], "stop_times": [2645.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2644.927}, "reply_to": "21668__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__1_042", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "It is not the time before Penry v. Lynaugh was decided.\nAnd when I say--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2645.216, 2648.271], "stop_times": [2648.271, 2649.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2645.216}, "reply_to": "21668__1_041", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_043", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Which is the Texas... the Texas... you know, the ones--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2649.014], "stop_times": [2651.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2649.014}, "reply_to": "21668__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__1_044", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Both are the Texas case.\nBoth deal with Mr. Penry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2651.493, 2653.639], "stop_times": [2653.639, 2655.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2651.493}, "reply_to": "21668__1_043", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_045", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Yes, one and two.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2655.041], "stop_times": [2655.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2655.041}, "reply_to": "21668__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__1_046", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2655.868], "stop_times": [2656.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2655.868}, "reply_to": "21668__1_045", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_047", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2656.24], "stop_times": [2657.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.24}, "reply_to": "21668__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21668__1_048", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Yes.\nAnd when I say it was not before that, I'm talking about on the date of the California Supreme Court's decision.\nAt the time of the jury determination, this Court only had... or that court only had Lockett to make a determination as to whether the evidence could be... could be considered.\nAnd the court made the decision that he thought the... it could be considered, but then refused to make any adjustments once it became clear that both counsel were going to argue their respective positions on the law.\nThe... the Court earlier talked about other instructions as impacting upon the... the context of the case, and those were important considerations in Boyde, especially the observation that the jury was to consider any other evidence presented at either time in the trial.\nBut in the context of this case, Your Honor, it means nothing.\nAs I've indicated, the jury was required to ignore any evidence it heard at either phase of the trial unless it fit within factors (a) through (k).\nIf it didn't fit within there, even though they heard that evidence, they were instructed to ignore it.\nBeyond that, they were also instructed that the... that they were to consider the arguments of counsel.\nNow, being that there was no clear instruction to the jury that they had to consider factor (k) as being relevant evidence, the jury then likely put greater weight on counsel's argument, and that's why it becomes important.\nSo the other instructions, when you put them all together, rather than putting in proper context what did occur in this case, in effect make it even harder for Bill Payton's position that the jury should consider factor (k) to be relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2657.354, 2658.18, 2664.124, 2675.641, 2687.985, 2710.193, 2714.075, 2724.615, 2729.429, 2735.911, 2752.174], "stop_times": [2658.18, 2664.124, 2675.641, 2687.985, 2710.193, 2714.075, 2724.615, 2729.429, 2735.911, 2752.174, 2766.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2657.354}, "reply_to": "21668__1_047", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_049", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "The... the prosecutor, at the very end of his closing to the jury, did seem, even if grudgingly with it, to recognize that... that this evidence was mitigating.\nI'm looking at page 76 of the joint appendix at the top of the page.\nHe makes the statement, the law is simple.\nIt says aggravating factors outweigh mitigating, and then how do those factors line up?\nWell, the facts of the case showing the violence, et cetera... that's on the aggravating side.\nAnd then against that, defendant really has nothing except newborn Christianity and the fact that he's 28 years old.\nSo that... in that final word to the jury, the prosecutor seems to be saying, yes, they have mitigating factors, but they're insubstantial, 28 years old and the claim that he's a newborn Christian.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2766.542, 2784.951, 2790.458, 2792.959, 2799.153, 2805.59, 2818.593], "stop_times": [2784.951, 2790.458, 2792.959, 2799.153, 2805.59, 2818.593, 2833.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2766.542}, "reply_to": "21668__1_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21668__1_050", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "It'll be up to this Court to make a determination as to where the prosecutor was going and whether or not this constitutes a concession that... that the jury could consider the evidence.\nI... our position is that viewed as a whole, he did not go to that.\nCertainly he permitted the jury, and he did address the issue of if the jury does consider that.\nHe premised it by saying, I don't think this is relevant, but if... and I'm paraphrasing here.\nBut if you think it's relevant, it's still not entitled to weight.\nIf the issue before this Court is whether or not there's a reasonable likelihood that the jury considered that evidence, then given the context of that statement, I don't think the jury can hardly be satisfied that the prosecutor in fact gave in and agreed that Payton's evidence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2833.083, 2843.485, 2850.877, 2858.612, 2864.639, 2868.271], "stop_times": [2843.485, 2850.877, 2858.612, 2864.639, 2868.271, 2885.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2833.083}, "reply_to": "21668__1_049", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_051", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Do... do we have a transcript of that hearing here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2885.898], "stop_times": [2888.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.898}, "reply_to": "21668__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__1_052", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Of what hearing, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2888.871], "stop_times": [2890.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2888.871}, "reply_to": "21668__1_051", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_053", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Well, the penalty phase.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2890.357, 2891.571], "stop_times": [2891.571, 2891.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2890.357}, "reply_to": "21668__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__1_054", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2891.843], "stop_times": [2892.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2891.843}, "reply_to": "21668__1_053", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_055", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--one way... if I'm having trouble, I'll just read it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2892.42], "stop_times": [2893.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2892.42}, "reply_to": "21668__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__1_056", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "It is in the... in the joint appendix, the entire--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2893.989], "stop_times": [2897.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2893.989}, "reply_to": "21668__1_055", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_057", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "The whole thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2897.128], "stop_times": [2897.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2897.128}, "reply_to": "21668__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__1_058", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Yes, the entire penalty evidence and all argument and the instructions is in there.\nAnd that's... unless the Court has any additional questions, I have nothing further.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2897.5, 2903.073, 2913.808], "stop_times": [2903.073, 2913.808, 2915.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2897.5}, "reply_to": "21668__1_057", "speaker": "dean_r_gits"}
{"id": "21668__1_059", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Gits.\nMs. Cortina, you have a little over 5 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2915.127, 2916.53], "stop_times": [2916.53, 2920.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2915.127}, "reply_to": "21668__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21668__2_000", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Justice Stevens, the real inquiry is whether the California Supreme Court's decision was objectively unreasonable.\nIt is not whether there was a reasonable likelihood.\nAnd Payton, like the Ninth Circuit... Payton's counsel--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2920.041, 2928.215, 2931.27], "stop_times": [2928.215, 2931.27, 2934.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2920.041}, "reply_to": "21668__1_059", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__2_001", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Could you help me on that?\nI thought it was two steps.\nI thought the question is whether there's a reasonable likelihood that the jury was misled, and then you have to ask whether it was unreasonable for the State supreme court to conclude that there was that reasonable likelihood.\nOr correct me if I'm wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2934.38, 2936.138, 2938.262, 2951.908], "stop_times": [2936.138, 2938.262, 2951.908, 2953.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.38}, "reply_to": "21668__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__2_002", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--That is one way of approaching the case, but I think under AEDPA, what you'd look at, which would be the more appropriate way, is how the California Supreme Court analyzed the claim and not first conduct a de novo review about whether there was a reasonable likelihood.\nI don't think that in the end that there's much difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2953.106, 2968.05], "stop_times": [2968.05, 2971.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2953.106}, "reply_to": "21668__2_001", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__2_003", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "But you can't overturn it on habeas unless there's a reasonable likelihood.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2971.105], "stop_times": [2976.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2971.105}, "reply_to": "21668__2_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21668__2_004", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Right.\nThat would be... right.\nYou would have to find that the... you would have to find an error and one that was objectively... and then the California Supreme Court objectively unreasonable in not finding the error.\nThis is true.\nSo obviously the reasonable likelihood test is a... is a relevant inquiry, but it is not the inquiry.\nAnd I think that... that that's what Payton's argument demonstrates and the Ninth Circuit's analysis demonstrates, is that they are effectively equating a decision that the California Supreme Court's conclusion was incorrect with their personal... in their subjective opinion with a... with the standard that the decision must be objectively unreasonable.\nAnd in this case, the California Supreme Court's decision was manifesting not objectively unreasonable.\nWe know... we... we know that objectively unreasonable doesn't have a clear definition.\nWe do have an example of what is objectively unreasonable, and that was cited in Payton's brief and that is a failure to consider particular facts or relevant law.\nAnd we know that that didn't occur in this case.\nThe very argument and facts that Payton insists were not considered by the California Supreme Court in applying Boyde... it's not in the majority opinion... are found within Justice Kennard's dissent.\nSo we have no question that the California Supreme Court identified the correct case and the correct principles within the case and considered all the necessary facts.\nAnd that should make this decision subject to deference under AEDPA.\nThis Court last term provided additional guidance on how to assess the range of reasonable judgment through the lens of AEDPA in Yarborough v. Alvarado.\nAnd one of the things that the Ninth Circuit and Payton's analysis keeps overlooking is the... Boyde's specific holding concerning factor (k).\nAnd when you analyze the... the range of reasonable judgment of the California Supreme Court concerning factor (k), the specific rule of factor (k), the... the range of reasonable judgment was less.\nThe California Supreme Court had little to no leeway to conclude otherwise.\nBoyde's holding is broad.\nBoyde held that factor (k) was a broad, catchall mitigation instruction that allowed for any other circumstance that counseled a sentence less than death and specifically found that background and character fell within the ambit of factor (k).\nAnd no decision of this Court or the California Supreme Court in analyzing character has ever drawn a distinction between post-crime and pre-crime character evidence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [2976.883, 2979.112, 2980.31, 2988.65, 2989.681, 2995.708, 3018.454, 3023.861, 3031.253, 3039.548, 3041.877, 3053.005, 3063.12, 3071.044, 3080.786, 3092.015, 3103.449, 3107.703, 3109.476, 3122.851], "stop_times": [2979.112, 2980.31, 2988.65, 2989.681, 2995.708, 3018.454, 3023.861, 3031.253, 3039.548, 3041.877, 3053.005, 3063.12, 3071.044, 3080.786, 3092.015, 3103.449, 3107.703, 3109.476, 3122.851, 3132.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2976.883}, "reply_to": "21668__2_003", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__2_005", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "There's a footnote in Boyde that seems to draw that distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [3132.427], "stop_times": [3135.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3132.427}, "reply_to": "21668__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21668__2_006", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--The footnote in Boyde actually supports more California's position that factor (k) encompasses any other circumstance that would counsel a sentence less than death as opposed to the Ninth Circuit and Payton's interpretation that factor (k) is limited to the crime.\nIn both the first part of footnote 5, the... the... Chief Justice Rehnquist rejects the dissent's argument that the gravity of the crime focused the consideration to the circumstances of the crime.\nRather, it allowed the jury to assess the seriousness of what the defendant has done in light of what's the appropriate punishment, and that involves a consideration of the defendant's background and character.\nAnd then the last part of footnote 5 expressly recognizes that factor (k) allows for consideration of good character evidence, and good character evidence is only relevant to a decision about whether the person should live or die, not to circumstances related to the crime.\nAnd good character evidence under Payton and the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of factor (k) would not and could not, whether it existed pre or post-crime, fall under the meaning of factor (k).\nSo the footnote 5 actually bolsters the ultimate broad interpretation that the California Supreme Court adopted when it applied Boyde... Boyde's specific holding concerning factor (k) to the analysis of Payton's claim.\nAnd although they did, in footnote 5, distinguish the fact that it did not involve post-crime evidence in mitigation, it didn't decide the question.\nIt was simply noting a fact that distinguished the case from Skipper.\nAnd... and AEDPA requires that we follow the holdings of the Court and not dicta.\nSo when we start--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [3135.4, 3151.746, 3166.607, 3178.003, 3195.586, 3205.162, 3220.766, 3229.272, 3231.912, 3237.279], "stop_times": [3151.746, 3166.607, 3178.003, 3195.586, 3205.162, 3220.766, 3229.272, 3231.912, 3237.279, 3238.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3135.4}, "reply_to": "21668__2_005", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__2_007", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Thank you, Ms.... go ahead and make one more sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [3238.849], "stop_times": [3241.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3238.849}, "reply_to": "21668__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21668__2_008", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--The California Supreme Court's decision was a reasonable application of Boyde and the Ninth Circuit's reversal of it is... and this Court should--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [3241.178], "stop_times": [3251.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3241.178}, "reply_to": "21668__2_007", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__2_009", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "I think we understand you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [3251.852], "stop_times": [3254.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3251.852}, "reply_to": "21668__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21668__2_010", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "--Exactly.\nThank you.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [3254.453, 3255.074, 3255.733], "stop_times": [3255.074, 3255.733, 3255.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3254.453}, "reply_to": "21668__2_009", "speaker": "andrea_n_cortina"}
{"id": "21668__2_011", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "Thank you.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [3255.899, 3256.808], "stop_times": [3256.808, 3258.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3255.899}, "reply_to": "21668__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21668__2_012", "conversation_id": "21668", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until Monday next at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1039", "start_times": [3258.006], "stop_times": [3263.495], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3258.006}, "reply_to": "21668__2_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22725__0_000", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "We'll hear argument on number 04-278, the Town of Castle Rock versus Jessica Gonzales.\nMr. Eastman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [0.0, 9.252], "stop_times": [9.252, 10.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22725__0_001", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nWhat happened here is undeniably tragic.\nA father shot and killed his own daughters.\nHe was under a restraining order, so the issue for this Court is whether the order restraining Mr. Gonzales also gave to Mrs. Gonzales and her children a property interest put against the police giving Mrs. Gonzales an entitlement to the arrest of her estranged husband.\nMore precisely, the issue is whether the State of Colorado intended to create such a property interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [10.639, 13.69, 16.735, 19.541, 36.143], "stop_times": [13.69, 16.735, 19.541, 36.143, 42.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.639}, "reply_to": "22725__0_000", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_002", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Tell us how we know exactly how much discretion the State of Colorado wanted to give to the police.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [42.842], "stop_times": [50.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 42.842}, "reply_to": "22725__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22725__0_003", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Well, Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [50.863], "stop_times": [52.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 50.863}, "reply_to": "22725__0_002", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_004", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Without a statute that uses the word shall enforce.\nDo we know how Colorado has interpreted that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [52.335, 57.076], "stop_times": [57.076, 62.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 52.335}, "reply_to": "22725__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22725__0_005", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Well, they have in other cases, as we note in our brief, that the word shall is not always mandatory, particularly here, I think, Justice O'Connor, when we have such a backdrop of law enforcement discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [62.03], "stop_times": [76.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 62.03}, "reply_to": "22725__0_004", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_006", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Well, are there Colorado cases that tell us how we should read those statutes?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [76.158], "stop_times": [81.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 76.158}, "reply_to": "22725__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22725__0_007", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Not in particular on this statute.\nThey only... the Colorado case law on the word shall says that you have to read it in context of the entire statute.\nAnd here the word shall is used several different places pointing several different directions in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [81.539, 83.623, 90.065], "stop_times": [83.623, 90.065, 95.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 81.539}, "reply_to": "22725__0_006", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_008", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "So do you concede that if shall means shall, that it creates a property interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [95.318], "stop_times": [101.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 95.318}, "reply_to": "22725__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__0_009", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "No, Justice Scalia, I do not.\nThere is a long way between giving direction, even mandatory direction, to law enforcement and creating a property interest.\nI think that was the essence of this Court's holding in Sandin.\nAnd it's that distinction that even if you read shall in these statutes as requiring a particular outcome, and we don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [101.585, 102.945, 110.896, 114.208], "stop_times": [102.945, 110.896, 114.208, 120.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 101.585}, "reply_to": "22725__0_008", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_010", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Mr. Eastman, would you comment on the extent of deference that we should give to the court of appeals' interpretation of Colorado while in view of what we said in Bishop against Wood?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [120.219], "stop_times": [130.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 120.219}, "reply_to": "22725__0_009", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__0_011", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Yes, I don't think here, because it's not just an application of Colorado law here.\nWe have identical statutes in 19 or 20 different states around the country.\nAnd what you do--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [130.005, 134.959, 138.787], "stop_times": [134.959, 138.787, 140.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 130.005}, "reply_to": "22725__0_010", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_012", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But the Colorado statute is the one that's controlling in this case and normally, at least according to Bishop against Wood, we defer to the interpretation of the court of appeals as the issue of state law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [140.483], "stop_times": [151.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 140.483}, "reply_to": "22725__0_011", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__0_013", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Well, what you're asking is that the court of appeals that created... that read this statute shall, without any Colorado court interpretation, and did so without any greater indication from the Colorado legislature, that it intended more than just to give direction to police.\nIt intended to create a property interest.\nI understand the question from Bishop versus Wood, but I don't think we can defer to the Tenth Circuit here in creating something that Colorado did not intend to create.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [151.762, 166.492, 167.879], "stop_times": [166.492, 167.879, 177.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 151.762}, "reply_to": "22725__0_012", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_014", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Of course, that's the issue, whether Colorado intended to create it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [177.644], "stop_times": [181.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 177.644}, "reply_to": "22725__0_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__0_015", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Well, but I think there is a big difference.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [181.532, 183.542], "stop_times": [183.542, 183.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 181.532}, "reply_to": "22725__0_014", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_016", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "The reading in Bishop against Wood was really counterintuitive also, as the dissenters pointed out, as you would agree, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [183.744], "stop_times": [191.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 183.744}, "reply_to": "22725__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__0_017", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Yes, and I think when you're looking at a statute such as this, that is invoking the federal court's... I mean, what we're using is a state law to invoke federal protections.\nAnd I think it's that deference to the state that I think is more critical.\nAnd I don't think you can allow the federal courts to make that decision when Colorado itself has not been... has been as ambiguous as it is.\nI think we need a clearer statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [191.887, 205.333, 207.956, 215.534], "stop_times": [205.333, 207.956, 215.534, 216.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 191.887}, "reply_to": "22725__0_016", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_018", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Did you suggest to the federal court that it certify the question of the meaning of Colorado law to this Colorado Supreme Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [216.899], "stop_times": [225.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 216.899}, "reply_to": "22725__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__0_019", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "No, we did not, because I don't think the statute gets us over the hurdle to make that even necessary.\nThere is nothing in this statute that is intended... that uses the language of property interest or entitlement.\nI think if this Court would look to its decision in Gonzaga, for example, in an analogous context--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [225.474, 230.306, 235.725], "stop_times": [230.306, 235.725, 241.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 225.474}, "reply_to": "22725__0_018", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_020", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Wait, wait.\nI thought we were just talking here about state law as to whether shall means shall.\nDo you think that it's a matter of state law whether, if it does mean shall, it creates a property interest for purposes of the Federal Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [241.308, 242.118, 247.798], "stop_times": [242.118, 247.798, 258.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 241.308}, "reply_to": "22725__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__0_021", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--No, Justice Scalia, I don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [258.341], "stop_times": [259.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 258.341}, "reply_to": "22725__0_020", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_022", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "You don't concede that that's a state question at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [259.829], "stop_times": [262.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 259.829}, "reply_to": "22725__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__0_023", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "No.\nAnd what we're talking about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [262.31, 262.897], "stop_times": [262.897, 265.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 262.31}, "reply_to": "22725__0_022", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_024", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Well, isn't that what we squarely held in Bishop?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [265.275], "stop_times": [267.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 265.275}, "reply_to": "22725__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__0_025", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Well, what we have to look at is whether, first, the state, under Roth, intended to create a property interest rather than just giving mandatory direction to its officers.\nAnd I think the critical question there is what the default rule ought to be on a statute that is not clear on that question.\nAnd I think Roth tells us that for purposes of federal constitutional law, the default cannot be that we assume the state created a property interest, at least in this kind of nontraditional property interest.\nAnd I think it's important to focus on what kind of property interest we're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [267.221, 275.844, 282.191, 292.442], "stop_times": [275.844, 282.191, 292.442, 296.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 267.221}, "reply_to": "22725__0_024", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_026", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Suppose shall does mean shall.\nFine.\nBut you might have a statute that says the fire department shall respond to fires, the police department shall respond to crimes, the Army shall respond to attacks.\nEven the word shall doesn't necessarily mean that this is the kind of interest that, like property, the Duke of Rutland relied upon Blackacre, that welfare recipients rely upon continuing to receive money.\nWhat is it about this that makes it like property, even if shall does mean shall?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [296.25, 298.617, 299.065, 313.848, 329.981], "stop_times": [298.617, 299.065, 313.848, 329.981, 336.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 296.25}, "reply_to": "22725__0_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22725__0_027", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Justice Breyer, I agree, and the difference between even mandatory language directing law enforcement to behave in a certain way is a far cry from actually creating a property interest in Mrs. Gonzales herself.\nThis Court in Sandin held that in the prison context, and I think the analogy in this Court's implied right of action cases such as Gonzaga is a good one.\nIn order to take a statute and try and find a property interest, we would want to have it phrased in terms of the beneficiary rather than the person restrained.\nWe would want to see an actionable entitlement created.\nNone of that is here.\nAnd I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [336.317, 349.08, 359.848, 367.571, 371.16, 372.077], "stop_times": [349.08, 359.848, 367.571, 371.16, 372.077, 372.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 336.317}, "reply_to": "22725__0_026", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_028", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But if you compare it to... this is a court order and it's enforceable.\nThere is no question about that, is there?\nThis is a court order that enforcement officials carry out.\nHow does it differ from, say, a money judgment and executing... levying execution on property?\nJudgment creditor says, here is my judgment, marshal, sheriff, go out and find some of the defendant's property.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [372.818, 381.948, 385.243, 390.065, 398.322], "stop_times": [381.948, 385.243, 390.065, 398.322, 406.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 372.818}, "reply_to": "22725__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__0_029", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Well, Justice Ginsburg, you know, the analogy we cite in our reply brief and the U.S. marshal statute, 42 U.S.C. 1990 that says that there is a right in the beneficiary to have a warrant issued.\nAnd if the marshal refuses to do that, that he can be challenged and held to a thousand dollar fine for the benefit of the person whose arrest warrant he was supposed to serve.\nNow, even that doesn't quite go far enough because there is not a private right of action by the beneficiary about a warrant to bring the suit directly.\nBut at least that kind of statute is getting closer to acknowledging a property interest.\nThis is enforceable against Mr. Gonzales, and Ms. Gonzales could go back in and get a contempt proceeding.\nI know here, after the fact, that's not going to do any good.\nBut the restraining order is issued against Mr. Gonzales.\nIt's not issued to the police.\nAnd all we have then is how its violation by Mr. Gonzales will be enforced.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [406.305, 421.468, 431.196, 439.244, 445.078, 450.982, 453.91, 457.457, 458.886], "stop_times": [421.468, 431.196, 439.244, 445.078, 450.982, 453.91, 457.457, 458.886, 464.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 406.305}, "reply_to": "22725__0_028", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_030", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But isn't that true of all injunctive orders, they're not issued to the police.\nAnd yet the police... don't the police have an obligation to enforce that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [464.455, 468.075], "stop_times": [468.075, 473.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 464.455}, "reply_to": "22725__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__0_031", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "To my knowledge, we've never held that the police have an actionable obligation to enforce them.\nBut the state--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [473.34, 478.177], "stop_times": [478.177, 479.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 473.34}, "reply_to": "22725__0_030", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_032", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But wouldn't you concede that in the case of the injunction in which there is a specific order in relation to a specific respondent, that the police have much less discretion than they would have when there is in effect a general statute saying, respond in these kinds of situations?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [479.142], "stop_times": [502.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 479.142}, "reply_to": "22725__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__0_033", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Justice Souter, they still have a great deal of discretion here.\nThe statute says reasonable means of enforcement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [502.416, 505.179], "stop_times": [505.179, 508.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 502.416}, "reply_to": "22725__0_032", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_034", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "In the case of the statute that we're talking with, but they don't have that kind of discretion, do they, in Justice Ginsburg's example?\nWhat I'm getting at is, if you're going to take the example that Justice Ginsburg has given you as equivalent to the example that we have before us, I think you're fighting uphill and I don't think you have to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [508.24, 515.289], "stop_times": [515.289, 531.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.24}, "reply_to": "22725__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__0_035", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Well, let me take your invitation, then, and respond back.\nI mean, if the terms of the restraining order cut out all of the discretion whatsoever and that they specifically are written in terms of the property interest creates an entitlement in the beneficiary of the restraining order, as against not just the person restrained or the person whose property is going to be attached, but an entitlement to enforcement by the police itself, then I think we would be on the step toward creating a property interest.\nThe Colorado statute here does none of those things.\nIt continues to give the police a great deal of discretion.\nReasonable means--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [531.973, 535.487, 560.724, 563.503, 567.391], "stop_times": [535.487, 560.724, 563.503, 567.391, 569.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 531.973}, "reply_to": "22725__0_034", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_036", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But is discretion... does discretion on the means to use include discretion to do nothing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [569.109], "stop_times": [576.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 569.109}, "reply_to": "22725__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__0_037", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Well, it includes a finding of probable cause.\nIt includes a... seek an arrest or make an arrest or seek a warrant arrest when the arrest is impractical.\nIf the arrest is impractical, such as when--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [576.052, 579.977, 587.69], "stop_times": [579.977, 587.69, 590.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 576.052}, "reply_to": "22725__0_036", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_038", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But were any of those determinations made here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [590.404], "stop_times": [593.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 590.404}, "reply_to": "22725__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__0_039", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Well, we don't know.\nWe don't know because this case comes up here on a motion to dismiss.\nAll we have are the allegations.\nThe allegations are that they didn't enforce the restraining order, all right?\nBut we don't know whether it's because they made a determination of no probable cause, whether there was probable cause but because he wasn't in the jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [593.189, 595.455, 598.606, 600.009, 603.903], "stop_times": [595.455, 598.606, 600.009, 603.903, 610.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 593.189}, "reply_to": "22725__0_038", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_040", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "So are you requesting that there are insufficient fact findings here, so it should be returned--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [610.952], "stop_times": [615.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 610.952}, "reply_to": "22725__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__0_041", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--No, Justice Ginsburg, because what we're saying is that there is not a property interest at all and it doesn't matter, even if these allegations are true, there is no underlying property interest that would invoke the procedural protections of the Fourteenth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [615.922], "stop_times": [628.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.922}, "reply_to": "22725__0_040", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_042", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Mr. Eastman, can I ask you this question?\nSupposing this case came to us through the Colorado state system instead of through the federal system, and the Colorado Supreme Court had written precisely the same opinion that the Tenth Circuit ruled.\nWould we have jurisdiction to overturn their holding that there was a property interest here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [628.268, 629.677, 639.954], "stop_times": [629.677, 639.954, 644.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 628.268}, "reply_to": "22725__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22725__0_043", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Justice Stevens, you're asking whether, for purposes of federal constitutional law, the state court decision that Colorado had created a property interest is dispositive.\nAnd I'm not sure it is, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [644.519, 654.754], "stop_times": [654.754, 659.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 644.519}, "reply_to": "22725__0_042", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_044", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Then your answer is no, we would not have jurisdiction in that event.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [659.313], "stop_times": [662.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.313}, "reply_to": "22725__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__0_045", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Well, no, I was saying that yes, you would, because what we're talking about is looking to the state legislature on whether they've created a property interest for purposes of federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [662.151], "stop_times": [671.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.151}, "reply_to": "22725__0_044", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_046", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "We could say that they had misconstrued Colorado law?\nI don't think you really mean that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [671.334, 675.734], "stop_times": [675.734, 678.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.334}, "reply_to": "22725__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__0_047", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [678.005], "stop_times": [678.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 678.005}, "reply_to": "22725__0_046", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_048", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But I think you meant--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [678.901], "stop_times": [680.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 678.901}, "reply_to": "22725__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__0_049", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Perhaps what you mean is that what is a property interest for purposes of Colorado law, if Colorado chooses to nominate some utterly zany thing of property interest, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a property interest for purposes of the Federal Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [680.778], "stop_times": [698.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 680.778}, "reply_to": "22725__0_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__0_050", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Justice Scalia, I'm happy to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [698.735], "stop_times": [701.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 698.735}, "reply_to": "22725__0_049", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_051", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--You can do that, but you won't find any cases making that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [701.598], "stop_times": [705.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 701.598}, "reply_to": "22725__0_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__0_052", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "No, you won't, but it makes perfect sense--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [705.357], "stop_times": [708.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 705.357}, "reply_to": "22725__0_051", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_053", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "I don't think you need a case for that, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [708.882], "stop_times": [710.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.882}, "reply_to": "22725__0_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__0_054", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--No, but it makes perfect sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [710.322], "stop_times": [711.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 710.322}, "reply_to": "22725__0_053", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_055", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But you have cases saying the contrary.\nThat's the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [711.421, 712.694], "stop_times": [712.694, 713.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 711.421}, "reply_to": "22725__0_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__0_056", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "What we want to find out is whether the Colorado--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [713.474], "stop_times": [717.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 713.474}, "reply_to": "22725__0_055", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_057", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Do we have any cases involving a zany property interest having been found by a state?\nI don't think we have any.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [717.752, 722.46], "stop_times": [722.46, 723.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 717.752}, "reply_to": "22725__0_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__0_058", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--We don't even have any cases involving a property interest to enforcement against somebody else.\nAll we have are cases to the contrary.\nLinda R.S., for example, this Court held that there is no right to arrest or enforcement against somebody else.\nAnd so I think at least in the context of these very non-zany property interest claims, that we need to have a pretty clear statement, not even from the Colorado courts, but from the legislature itself that the legislature intended, as a matter of state policy, to have a property interest created and all of the consequences that would flow from that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [723.394, 728.072, 730.375, 737.336], "stop_times": [728.072, 730.375, 737.336, 756.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 723.394}, "reply_to": "22725__0_057", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_059", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--May I stop you?\nYou cited that Linda R.S., whatever, I thought that was a standing case saying it's not going to do you any good to have them locked up in jail if what you want to do is get money from him.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [756.94, 757.499], "stop_times": [757.499, 767.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 756.94}, "reply_to": "22725__0_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__0_060", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "It was, but the case has been relied on by several subsequent decisions including in the Second Circuit in the Attica case, inmates of Attica, for the proposition that there is just simply no right to an enforcement against somebody else, that there is no entitlement.\nNow, I'm not saying that the Colorado legislature never could create such an entitlement, but given the backdrop of Linda R.S., and also given the backdrop of traditional law enforcement discretion, I think we need a much clearer statement from the Colorado legislature itself, both that it's written in terms of the beneficiary... getting her an entitlement against the police, rather than in terms of what the person restrained is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [767.834, 783.909], "stop_times": [783.909, 809.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 767.834}, "reply_to": "22725__0_059", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_061", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Mr. Eastman, assuming for the moment there is no due... procedural due process right here, on the facts of this case, does Colorado law provide any alternative remedy for Mrs. Gonzales?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [809.493], "stop_times": [826.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 809.493}, "reply_to": "22725__0_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22725__0_062", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor, it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [826.858], "stop_times": [828.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 826.858}, "reply_to": "22725__0_061", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_063", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "And what would that be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [828.821], "stop_times": [830.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 828.821}, "reply_to": "22725__0_062", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22725__0_064", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "There are several remedies.\nIn the first instance, any violation of a restraining order, she can petition the court for a contempt order, even against the police.\nIf their conduct was willful and wanton--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [830.496, 831.557, 840.047], "stop_times": [831.557, 840.047, 842.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 830.496}, "reply_to": "22725__0_063", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_065", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "So she could presumably ask for some relief under that notion, against the police and possibly the town?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [842.239], "stop_times": [851.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 842.239}, "reply_to": "22725__0_064", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22725__0_066", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Against the police and... not the town.\nThe town has absolute immunity but against the police under the tort statute, the police are not immune if their conduct is willful and wanton.\nAnd I think this Court in DeShaney addressed that very question when it looked like if the state wanted to create an interest here, that it could do so by modifying the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [851.268, 853.353, 861.705], "stop_times": [853.353, 861.705, 870.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 851.268}, "reply_to": "22725__0_065", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_067", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "You say the tort statute means something like the Federal Tort Claims Act.\nDoes Colorado have something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [870.169, 876.227], "stop_times": [876.227, 878.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 870.169}, "reply_to": "22725__0_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22725__0_068", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--It does.\nAnd there is a Colorado Governmental Immunity Act that gives immunity to police except when their conduct is willful and wanton.\nAnd so that tort remedy does exist and if the Colorado legislature wanted to lower the threshold on that and make it negligent omissions or what have you, whatever the allegations are, they could do so.\nThe fact that they haven't done so I think is a pretty strong indication that they did not intend to create a property interest here.\nIf there is a property interest... let me just say one minute about the procedures that were given, and then I'll reserve the remainder of my time.\nAt most we would have here, if there is a property interest, is the opportunity for Mrs. Gonzales to tell the police that she believed the restraining order was violated and that they responded to her however they did.\nShe received whatever process might be due assuming we have a property interest here.\nIf there are no more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [878.462, 878.979, 885.934, 897.384, 903.736, 915.155, 928.52, 932.723], "stop_times": [878.979, 885.934, 897.384, 903.736, 915.155, 928.52, 932.723, 935.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 878.462}, "reply_to": "22725__0_067", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__0_069", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Very well, Mr. Eastman.\nMr. Elwood, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [935.421, 936.962], "stop_times": [936.962, 939.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 935.421}, "reply_to": "22725__0_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22725__1_000", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nFor two reasons the holders of restraining orders lack a property right to police enforcement of those orders.\nFirst, Respondent's claim has to be evaluated in light of the fundamental background principles that private citizens lack a judicially cognizable interest in arrest and in prosecution of third parties.\nAnd that executive decisions not to enforce criminal statutes are presumptively beyond the scope of judicial review.\nNothing in the Colorado statute reflects an intent to depart from those background presumptions and to create an individual right to enforcement.\nUnlike statutes where this Court has recognized a protected property interest, the provisions at issue here did not regulate the Plaintiff or Respondent, but rather regulate a third party.\nAnd the provisions do not mention the restraining order holder, much less state that she has an entitlement to review.\nIn addition, the provisions do not afford the holder of restraining orders procedural protections or judicial review of the sort that this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [939.043, 951.768, 957.255, 969.138, 975.293, 982.402, 992.391, 999.917], "stop_times": [951.768, 957.255, 969.138, 975.293, 982.402, 992.391, 999.917, 1009.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 939.043}, "reply_to": "22725__0_069", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_001", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "What good is... what does the restraining order do, then, other than give her a right to sue the person who is restrained for contempt?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1009.436], "stop_times": [1020.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1009.436}, "reply_to": "22725__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__1_002", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--I think it does two main things.\nFirst of all, it gives her rights against her husband which are enforceable through contempt and are enforceable by asking the police to enforce them.\nAnd second, which has the benefit... it has the effect basically of creating a new arrest statute that lowers the threshold of what conduct is criminal from something that would be a freestanding crime to basically just violating one of the terms of the order.\nAnd that is the interest the restraining order gives her.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1020.566, 1023.67, 1032.613, 1046.794], "stop_times": [1023.67, 1032.613, 1046.794, 1050.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1020.566}, "reply_to": "22725__1_001", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_003", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But only to ask the police and the police are not obliged to respond.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1050.784], "stop_times": [1055.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1050.784}, "reply_to": "22725__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__1_004", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "That is correct.\nShe has the ability to ask the police to enforce the order, but the police have discretion, under our reading of the statute, not to enforce the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1055.392, 1056.464], "stop_times": [1056.464, 1065.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1055.392}, "reply_to": "22725__1_003", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_005", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Do the police have any duty at all, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1065.53], "stop_times": [1067.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1065.53}, "reply_to": "22725__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__1_006", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--The police... I don't believe that the police have any sort of actionable duty.\nI think that what the statute creates is basically it's a direction from the legislature that this is what they want them to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1067.876, 1074.142], "stop_times": [1074.142, 1080.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1067.876}, "reply_to": "22725__1_005", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_007", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Could the police just issue an order saying ignore all orders of this kind?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1080.728], "stop_times": [1086.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1080.728}, "reply_to": "22725__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__1_008", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "I think that if they were to do that, I do not think that there would be sort of any individual right to challenge that.\nI think that they would be adopting a policy decision that would probably be different than the one the Colorado legislature has made--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1086.738, 1094.172], "stop_times": [1094.172, 1099.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1086.738}, "reply_to": "22725__1_007", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_009", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "That's the sort of aggressive sort of thing that the Colorado courts could conclusively decide.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1099.814], "stop_times": [1104.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1099.814}, "reply_to": "22725__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22725__1_010", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--That's something the Colorado courts decide, and it's something that would be... that could be addressed through the political process as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1104.533], "stop_times": [1110.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.533}, "reply_to": "22725__1_009", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_011", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Are there any extreme cases we could imagine where the police have a duty to protect the citizen?\nThe policeman sees four people beating up on the victim, no race involved, and he just enjoys watching the fight.\nDoes he have a duty under the Constitution to intervene?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1110.506, 1117.786, 1128.768], "stop_times": [1117.786, 1128.768, 1132.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1110.506}, "reply_to": "22725__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22725__1_012", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "I think any duty that there would be would be a substantive duty.\nAnd this Court indicated in DeShaney that it would require basically state creation of the harm or state increasing the vulnerability of the person.\nSo for example--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1132.384, 1136.512, 1143.995], "stop_times": [1136.512, 1143.995, 1144.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1132.384}, "reply_to": "22725__1_011", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_013", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Did DeShaney stand for the proposition there could never be an affirmative duty to intervene, under what you're talking about the Constitution here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1144.847], "stop_times": [1151.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1144.847}, "reply_to": "22725__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22725__1_014", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--I think it would be, in a case, for example, where a prisoner was handcuffed in his cell with a cell mate who the authorities knew to be basically interested in harming him.\nBecause they had affirmatively restrained him, I think that that would be a case where the state had created the danger or increased the vulnerability.\nSo I think there is something left to the requirement of police protection substantively under DeShaney.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1151.205, 1161.983, 1170.248], "stop_times": [1161.983, 1170.248, 1175.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1151.205}, "reply_to": "22725__1_013", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_015", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But there has to be some state... the state has to have created the risk somehow?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1175.314], "stop_times": [1180.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1175.314}, "reply_to": "22725__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22725__1_016", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Under DeShaney, the state has to have created the risk or increased the vulnerability of the person.\nNow, in addition to the fact that the Colorado statute does not speak to the Plaintiff, it essentially speaks to the restrained party.\nAnd under... as Mr. Eastman mentioned, under Gonzaga and this Court's 1983 cases, that when a statute speaks in terms of the regulated party instead of the protected party, there is no implication of an intent to create a federal right.\nAnd I think that that principle would apply even more clearly in the context of the state rights, because there there is a question of imposing federal liability which shouldn't really be done in the absence of an indication that the state really meant to do that.\nAnother reason is... not to assume that there is a property right here, is that the state statute does not create any sort of procedural remedies or judicial remedies which this Court has in the past taken as an indication that the state really did mean to create a protective right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1180.338, 1184.967, 1193.926, 1207.36, 1219.68], "stop_times": [1184.967, 1193.926, 1207.36, 1219.68, 1237.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1180.338}, "reply_to": "22725__1_015", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_017", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "What's your response to the fact that the Tenth Circuit found otherwise and that we usually defer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1237.488], "stop_times": [1245.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1237.488}, "reply_to": "22725__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__1_018", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "I think our response would be that it's not simply... well, first of all, I don't want to make too much of the fact that it's obviously a very close question of state law because the Tenth Circuit was divided by a single vote.\nBut even aside from that, you basically have to adopt not simply a question of what the state law says, but what the federal courts are going to do with it.\nAnd we are of the opinion that given what a tremendous departure it would be, what a procedural innovation it would be to give complaining witnesses essentially a right in the process, that in the absence of a very clear statement, the federal court should not imply a right or imply... should not infer, rather, that the state legislature intended to create a right.\nSo essentially, what we're asking for is a clear statement rule.\nAnd in the absence of a clear statement, we should presume that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1245.765, 1261.625, 1270.415, 1291.182, 1294.874], "stop_times": [1261.625, 1270.415, 1291.182, 1294.874, 1297.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1245.765}, "reply_to": "22725__1_017", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_019", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Do you agree that if this case stands with the state system, we would have to accept their holding on the property right issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1297.967], "stop_times": [1304.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.967}, "reply_to": "22725__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__1_020", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Obviously, I think there would be a much closer question at a minimum.\nThere may be something to the fact that we should... this is the sort of thing we would want a statement from the Colorado legislature.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1304.062, 1308.947], "stop_times": [1308.947, 1314.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1304.062}, "reply_to": "22725__1_019", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_021", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "No, let's say the Supreme Court has said, this is what the statute means and so forth and so on, wouldn't that be binding on this?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1314.499], "stop_times": [1321.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.499}, "reply_to": "22725__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__1_022", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "I think it would be binding.\nI mean, it would still be the federal question of whether that applied federal law correctly.\nBut given that it's basically a question of what is a state property right, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1321.549, 1322.647, 1325.841], "stop_times": [1322.647, 1325.841, 1329.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1321.549}, "reply_to": "22725__1_021", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_023", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Or whether the question of property right... the property right issue is not a question of federal law, it is a question of state law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1329.797], "stop_times": [1333.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1329.797}, "reply_to": "22725__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__1_024", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "That is correct.\nThere is something of a federal overlay to sort of correct that at the margin--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1333.875, 1334.008], "stop_times": [1334.008, 1337.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1333.875}, "reply_to": "22725__1_023", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_025", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "What did they hold in the Tenth Circuit?\nI mean, shall could be mandatory.\nYou can have a mandatory duty, but that doesn't mean that the victim has a legal right to enforce that duty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1337.122, 1339.565, 1342.162], "stop_times": [1339.565, 1342.162, 1350.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.122}, "reply_to": "22725__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22725__1_026", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--That's absolutely correct, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1350.641], "stop_times": [1352.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1350.641}, "reply_to": "22725__1_025", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_027", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "So what did they hold in the Tenth Circuit in respect to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1352.56], "stop_times": [1354.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1352.56}, "reply_to": "22725__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22725__1_028", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Basically they said that because it is... because the statute was mandatory, they basically leapt from that to an inference that because it was mandatory, it was a duty that she could enforce.\nBut there is no tradition in that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1354.543, 1364.724], "stop_times": [1364.724, 1366.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1354.543}, "reply_to": "22725__1_027", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_029", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "They should reask the certified question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1366.585], "stop_times": [1368.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1366.585}, "reply_to": "22725__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22725__1_030", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--I don't think that they need to because that is something that, again, it would be a useful thing given that there are 50 legislatures out there and there are probably at least 20 and perhaps 31 similar statutes that rather than certify the question and then have to certify on a state-by-state basis, just to adopt a background rule that this Court applies.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1368.958], "stop_times": [1390.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1368.958}, "reply_to": "22725__1_029", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_031", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But a background rule is awfully tough.\nI mean, you could have lots of shalls in all kinds of statutes.\nIf they said shall, the sanitation department shall inspect your home for tuberculosis, maybe that does give a right.\nIf they say to the fire department, you shall put out fires, I wouldn't think they meant that every possible homeowner had a right to a lawyer and a full judicial hearing before they go and respond to an alarm.\nYou know, I mean, it depends on the area.\nI don't know how to create a background rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1390.466, 1392.562, 1396.451, 1404.37, 1415.432, 1417.944], "stop_times": [1392.562, 1396.451, 1404.37, 1415.432, 1417.944, 1419.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1390.466}, "reply_to": "22725__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22725__1_032", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Well, I think the rule that the Court could create is that in a criminal context, which is all that is at stake here, there is a background presumption that individuals lack a judicially cognizable right to arrest or prosecution.\nFor example, an arrest warrant, although there is some question about whether or not that really is mandatory.\nIt's certainly couched in mandatory terms.\nIt's directed to the marshal.\nTo the marshal, you are hereby commanded to arrest Jane Doe or whoever.\nBut there is a very established body of law that even the people who basically agitate for the arrest warrant don't have a grounds to complain if the arrest warrant isn't executed.\nAt the federal level, there is Leek versus Timmerman, where the court held there is no protective interest or there is no cognizable interest in the arrest of another party.\nAnd at the state level, there is a lot of case law indicating that officers are not liable to private citizens for failure to execute arrest warrants.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1419.693, 1431.623, 1436.604, 1438.274, 1439.245, 1442.78, 1451.59, 1459.035], "stop_times": [1431.623, 1436.604, 1438.274, 1439.245, 1442.78, 1451.59, 1459.035, 1467.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1419.693}, "reply_to": "22725__1_031", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_033", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But is it not true that the Colorado legislature could create such a right if it did it with sufficient specificity?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1467.093], "stop_times": [1472.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1467.093}, "reply_to": "22725__1_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__1_034", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "I think that that is correct.\nThis Court has not placed really many limits on what kind of rights could be created under Roth.\nThere is some indication in cases like Sandin that there might be limits at the margins or rather at least limits presumptively--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1472.945, 1474.582, 1480.321], "stop_times": [1474.582, 1480.321, 1486.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1472.945}, "reply_to": "22725__1_033", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_035", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "The Constitution does say property right.\nI mean, it has to be a property right, doesn't it?\nIs that meaningless?\nIs everything in the world either life, liberty or property?\nDoes that describe everything in the world?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1486.646, 1488.224, 1490.437, 1491.653, 1494.774], "stop_times": [1488.224, 1490.437, 1491.653, 1494.774, 1496.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1486.646}, "reply_to": "22725__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__1_036", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Justice Scalia, all I'm saying is that the Roth cases haven't really indicated that there might be limits on that.\nI think that there are reasons--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1496.907, 1506.047], "stop_times": [1506.047, 1507.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1496.907}, "reply_to": "22725__1_035", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_037", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Well, because there has been no case that really did not involve something that could reasonably be called property.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1507.14], "stop_times": [1511.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1507.14}, "reply_to": "22725__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__1_038", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Correct.\nAnd I think that this is a case where courts might want to exercise some caution because there is a reason why they don't involve private citizens in the prosecution.\nAnd that is because our system is built around the idea that to... basically, we want to interpose brakes between the complaining witness and the courts and power of the state, as the Court indicated in Young versus United States ex rel. Vuitton.\nThe prosecutor there, because it was a prosecutor, basically serves as a circuit breaker to prevent people from going straight to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1511.971, 1512.403, 1522.146, 1535.447], "stop_times": [1512.403, 1522.146, 1535.447, 1542.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1511.971}, "reply_to": "22725__1_037", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_039", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "That's the state's problem.\nI mean, if the state doesn't want that, sure, the state can take that away.\nBut if the state does, do I still have to call it property just because the state does?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1542.784, 1544.149, 1547.364], "stop_times": [1544.149, 1547.364, 1551.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1542.784}, "reply_to": "22725__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__1_040", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--I think that you would require a much clearer statement before accepting that kind of procedural innovation.\nI see my time has expired.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1551.049, 1556.814], "stop_times": [1556.814, 1557.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1551.049}, "reply_to": "22725__1_039", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "22725__1_041", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Yes, it has.\nThank you, Mr. Elwood.\nMr. Reichel, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1557.72, 1558.526, 1559.545], "stop_times": [1558.526, 1559.545, 1563.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1557.72}, "reply_to": "22725__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22725__2_000", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court:\nA public high school student threatened with suspension receives more process under this Court's holding in Goss versus Lopez than Castle Rock is willing to provide to a holder of a court-issued protective order.\nInstead of providing Ms. Gonzales with any opportunity to be heard in any meaningful manner, Castle Rock repeatedly ignored Ms. Gonzales's pleas to have her children returned to her and the restraining order enforced.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1563.123, 1569.133, 1583.138], "stop_times": [1569.133, 1583.138, 1597.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1563.123}, "reply_to": "22725__1_041", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_001", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "What process do you think your client was entitled to?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1597.25], "stop_times": [1602.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1597.25}, "reply_to": "22725__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22725__2_002", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "We believe that what my client seeks is much less than what police officers do every day.\nWe would ask this Court to hold that Ms. Gonzales was entitled to an objective, reasoned and good faith consideration of her complaint of a restraining order violation, and a good faith assessment of probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1602.386, 1610.508], "stop_times": [1610.508, 1626.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1602.386}, "reply_to": "22725__2_001", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_003", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Could that simply be made by the person on the desk?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1626.119], "stop_times": [1629.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1626.119}, "reply_to": "22725__2_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22725__2_004", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "It can, Your Honor, but it needs to be a probable cause determination that is actually communicated to the holder of the restraining order, whether it be a favorable or adverse determination, there needs to be some notice provided to the holder of a restraining order of what the police officers intend to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1629.756], "stop_times": [1648.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1629.756}, "reply_to": "22725__2_003", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_005", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Well, does--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1648.87], "stop_times": [1649.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.87}, "reply_to": "22725__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22725__2_006", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "That... no, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1649.562], "stop_times": [1652.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.562}, "reply_to": "22725__2_005", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__2_007", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--The basic problem that I have is you just put your finger on.\nI mean, on your view of the facts here, which I will accept, it's outrageous what happened and a terrible tragedy, but it wasn't that they didn't hear her.\nThey heard her.\nThat's the problem.\nThey heard her and they didn't do anything.\nSo if you proceed under state law, you will, if you're right, get a holding that the police behaved very badly, that would help your client, and it would help future people in the same position.\nIf you proceed under federal law, the most you get is somebody at the desk saying, well, we think other things are more important.\nAnd at that point, your client may or may not be helped and other people won't be helped.\nSo don't you have a misfit between the remedy that you're trying to get and the harm that was done?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1652.277, 1656.058, 1666.811, 1668.027, 1670.213, 1672.202, 1685.579, 1693.989, 1700.075], "stop_times": [1656.058, 1666.811, 1668.027, 1670.213, 1672.202, 1685.579, 1693.989, 1700.075, 1707.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1652.277}, "reply_to": "22725__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22725__2_008", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "No, Your Honor, I don't believe so.\nWe're asking for a specific process here.\nAnd Ms. Gonzales wants the right to prove a pattern and practice on the part of Castle Rock of not responding properly to complaints and pleas of this type.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1707.936, 1710.005, 1712.543], "stop_times": [1710.005, 1712.543, 1722.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1707.936}, "reply_to": "22725__2_007", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_009", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But that's not the kind that you've brought, as I understand it.\nAs I understand it, you've brought a claim simply that she was hurt and was not given process.\nThat's all you have to prove.\nIf you can prove a pattern, sure, it's easy to prove an individual case.\nBut your only claim is damage as a result of a denial of some procedural right in this case, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1722.612, 1725.882, 1732.916, 1734.431, 1737.967], "stop_times": [1725.882, 1732.916, 1734.431, 1737.967, 1746.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.612}, "reply_to": "22725__2_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__2_010", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "As the case stands now, it is a Monell claim, Your Honor.\nIt is a pattern and practice claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1746.543, 1750.383], "stop_times": [1750.383, 1751.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1746.543}, "reply_to": "22725__2_009", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_011", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But it's not a class action, is it?\nIt's not a claim under some statute... civil rights statute.\nIt's a claim for the benefit of this client and if this client wins, this client presumably will get a money judgment, isn't that the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1751.946, 1755.225, 1760.58], "stop_times": [1755.225, 1760.58, 1767.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1751.946}, "reply_to": "22725__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__2_012", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Yes, you are correct, Your Honor.\nYou are correct.\nBut the ignoring here, the allegations in the complaint, Your Honors, is that Castle Rock has this custom and policy, this pattern and practice of just ignoring these types of complaints.\nAnd the ignoring, as the law enforcement amicus brief filed on our behalf points out, the ignoring is a classic example of how police have traditionally responded to these types of complaints.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1767.61, 1768.798, 1769.487, 1781.716], "stop_times": [1768.798, 1769.487, 1781.716, 1795.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1767.61}, "reply_to": "22725__2_011", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_013", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "I'll grant you that, but as I understand it, what stands between or what would stand between your ignoring complaint and success would simply be the police's statement of a reason because, as I take it, I take it that you don't deny she was heard, they answered the phone, they talked to her.\nShe got a result.\nAfter she had talked with them on the phone, she knew that they weren't going to do anything or that they weren't going to do anything satisfactory.\nSo as I understand it, on your theory, the only thing she didn't get that she would be entitled to would be a statement by them as to why they were not going to do something for her.\nIs that what it boils down to?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1795.054, 1819.384, 1821.512, 1828.381, 1841.47], "stop_times": [1819.384, 1821.512, 1828.381, 1841.47, 1843.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1795.054}, "reply_to": "22725__2_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__2_014", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "No.\nWhat it boils down to, Your Honor, is we're looking for a probable cause determination to be made in good faith.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1843.714, 1843.932], "stop_times": [1843.932, 1850.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1843.714}, "reply_to": "22725__2_013", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_015", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "And if they had said, we don't think there is probable cause, that would be the end of your case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1850.145], "stop_times": [1855.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1850.145}, "reply_to": "22725__2_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__2_016", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "As long as there was a good faith determination.\nIf there was a mistaken belief that there was a lack of probable cause, then there is no violation of due process.\nThe process has been provided.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1855.345, 1857.355, 1864.155], "stop_times": [1857.355, 1864.155, 1865.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1855.345}, "reply_to": "22725__2_015", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_017", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Suppose they just say, look, in our experience, children come home in two or three hours and, moreover, we have other things to do that are more important.\nIs that a sufficient answer?\nBoth things, by the way, most people who look into this would say are completely wrong.\nBut I mean, the police would say just what I said.\nIs that sufficient?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1865.568, 1876.649, 1877.962, 1883.226, 1886.89], "stop_times": [1876.649, 1877.962, 1883.226, 1886.89, 1887.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1865.568}, "reply_to": "22725__2_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22725__2_018", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "No, Your Honor, that is not a thoughtful, objective--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1887.648], "stop_times": [1892.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1887.648}, "reply_to": "22725__2_017", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_019", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "So what you really want is what they should do, is they should respond?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1892.639], "stop_times": [1894.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1892.639}, "reply_to": "22725__2_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22725__2_020", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--They should respond by making an objective probable cause determination--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1894.708], "stop_times": [1900.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1894.708}, "reply_to": "22725__2_019", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_021", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But in this case, you would say they should respond?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1900.143], "stop_times": [1902.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1900.143}, "reply_to": "22725__2_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22725__2_022", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--They should have made the probable cause determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1902.084], "stop_times": [1905.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1902.084}, "reply_to": "22725__2_021", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_023", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But then your complaint is the result, not the procedure.\nIt's true that a procedural case is designed so that the right result can be reached most of the time.\nI understand that.\nBut all we ask is whether or not the procedure was added.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1905.96, 1908.045, 1916.94, 1917.703], "stop_times": [1908.045, 1916.94, 1917.703, 1920.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1905.96}, "reply_to": "22725__2_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22725__2_024", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "There was no procedure here, Your Honor, and that's the point of our lawsuit is that the fact that Castle Rock has an official custom and policy of ignoring, of not applying any procedure to these types of claims is the crux of our complaint in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1920.252], "stop_times": [1935.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1920.252}, "reply_to": "22725__2_023", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_025", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Why was your procedure, assuming your entitled to a procedure, why did it have to come from Castle Rock?\nWhy wasn't your proper recourse to the court that issued the restraining order?\nDid you try to do that, to go to the judge that issued the restraining order and say, the police are not enforcing the restraining order that you issued, I would like directive from the court that they enforce it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1935.308, 1941.755, 1947.292], "stop_times": [1941.755, 1947.292, 1957.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1935.308}, "reply_to": "22725__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__2_026", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "At the point at which she realized the police weren't really going to do anything, she found out her children were dead.\nThat would have been at that point in time a meaningless process.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1957.75, 1964.757], "stop_times": [1964.757, 1968.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1957.75}, "reply_to": "22725__2_025", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_027", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Well, just as she could have complained to the police earlier, she could have gone to the court earlier when she saw that the police weren't doing anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1968.433], "stop_times": [1975.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1968.433}, "reply_to": "22725__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__2_028", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But the police told her to continue to wait.\nThey strung her along, Your Honor.\nThat's... the crux of the problem here is that she relied upon the police to enforce her restraining order.\nThey told her to hold on--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1975.819, 1979.621, 1980.88, 1989.643], "stop_times": [1979.621, 1980.88, 1989.643, 1991.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1975.819}, "reply_to": "22725__2_027", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_029", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "That may be a tort, but it's not necessarily a denial of process if the proper place to seek that process was from the court that issued the restraining order.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [1991.248], "stop_times": [2000.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1991.248}, "reply_to": "22725__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__2_030", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--But the restraining order has no meaning, Your Honor, unless the police are willing to enforce it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2000.629], "stop_times": [2005.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.629}, "reply_to": "22725__2_029", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_031", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "That's right, and the court can make sure that they enforce it upon complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2005.887], "stop_times": [2009.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2005.887}, "reply_to": "22725__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__2_032", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "In this case, it's our position that the legislature has done so as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2009.923], "stop_times": [2015.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2009.923}, "reply_to": "22725__2_031", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_033", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Let me ask you a question that is suggested by Justice Scalia's question.\nAnd it goes basically simply to the practical problems that your position seems to entail.\nYou answered him by saying that the point at which she realized they were denying her whatever she was entitled to was the point at which the children were dead.\nHow would a reviewing court know when this particular right had been denied?\nI take it from your answer to Justice Scalia that there had not been a denial of the right and hence a violation of procedural due process after the first telephone conversation.\nI take it from your answer that there wasn't one after the second conversation.\nAnd I take it the only... that there was no ripening, as it were, of the facts into a denial of what she was entitled to until the 3:00 a.m. call, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2015.0, 2022.425, 2030.462, 2041.427, 2052.745, 2065.177, 2071.112], "stop_times": [2022.425, 2030.462, 2041.427, 2052.745, 2065.177, 2071.112, 2086.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.0}, "reply_to": "22725__2_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__2_034", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "No, Your Honor, and I apologize if I misstated... if I gave you that impression.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2086.706], "stop_times": [2092.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2086.706}, "reply_to": "22725__2_033", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_035", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Well, my general question, then, is how does a reviewing court determine when or the point at which there has been a denial?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2092.702], "stop_times": [2102.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2092.702}, "reply_to": "22725__2_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__2_036", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "The initial contact with the police department we're saying has to involve appropriate processes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2102.312], "stop_times": [2109.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2102.312}, "reply_to": "22725__2_035", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_037", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "So following the first phone call, they would have to have made an express probable cause determination?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2109.293], "stop_times": [2115.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2109.293}, "reply_to": "22725__2_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__2_038", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--They would have had to have made a probable cause determination in good faith and conveyed and communicated--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2115.244], "stop_times": [2121.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2115.244}, "reply_to": "22725__2_037", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_039", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "And communicate that to her.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2121.399], "stop_times": [2122.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2121.399}, "reply_to": "22725__2_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__2_040", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Communicated that to her, which they never did.\nInstead they just kept telling her, you can call back later, call back later.\nThey never made the probable cause determination and conveyed it to her.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2122.429, 2124.214, 2128.94], "stop_times": [2124.214, 2128.94, 2131.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2122.429}, "reply_to": "22725__2_039", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_041", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Did they simply have to take her word as to the facts on the probable cause issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2131.773], "stop_times": [2140.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2131.773}, "reply_to": "22725__2_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22725__2_042", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "No, not at all, Your Honor, and I believe that the whole intent of Goss versus Lopez was to allow a high school student to understand the interpretation of the principal's view of the facts, and allow the student the opportunity to clarify or to fill in any missing points in terms of the understanding being--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2140.21], "stop_times": [2162.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2140.21}, "reply_to": "22725__2_041", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_043", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "That's true, but Goss versus Lopez, to my knowledge... you may know more about it.\nBut to my knowledge, there are not a lot of federal cases which second guess the principal or the teacher, once the teacher or the principal gives a plausible reason for suspending the student.\nAnd of course my fear is that that is precisely what would occur here.\nThere would be procedure, there would be a reason.\nThe reason is we're too busy.\nAll right?\nAnd courts won't second guess that.\nBut if you take the other route, you get what you need, which is an instruction to the police department that when a child is missing, you don't wait.\nBut I don't see how you can get that instruction on this procedural route.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2162.492, 2166.295, 2180.215, 2185.905, 2190.273, 2192.321, 2193.584, 2196.198, 2207.323], "stop_times": [2166.295, 2180.215, 2185.905, 2190.273, 2192.321, 2193.584, 2196.198, 2207.323, 2214.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.492}, "reply_to": "22725__2_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22725__2_044", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Your Honor, we're not asking for the Court to instruct the police department they have to draw--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2214.79], "stop_times": [2220.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2214.79}, "reply_to": "22725__2_043", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_045", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Exactly.\nAnd that seems to me to be the problem, because you have a case where the problem was the delay and that's apparently a common problem.\nAnd I don't see how this route that you take gets at that problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2220.241, 2220.886, 2233.547], "stop_times": [2220.886, 2233.547, 2239.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.241}, "reply_to": "22725__2_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22725__2_046", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Your Honor, if I could respond, the delay issue is not the crux of the problem.\nThe crux of the problem is that the police officers here never told Ms. Gonzales that they believed that there was or was not probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2239.403, 2246.133], "stop_times": [2246.133, 2257.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2239.403}, "reply_to": "22725__2_045", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_047", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "What good could that have done anyone?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2257.856], "stop_times": [2260.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.856}, "reply_to": "22725__2_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__2_048", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "It would have allowed her the opportunity--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2260.005], "stop_times": [2261.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2260.005}, "reply_to": "22725__2_047", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_049", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "She knew, as it was, that they weren't going to do anything.\nWhat good would it have done her to know that, oh, it's nice to know that they've gone through a probable cause determination in coming to the conclusion that they're not going to do anything.\nI mean, what is the social value of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2261.637, 2265.37, 2275.397], "stop_times": [2265.37, 2275.397, 2277.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2261.637}, "reply_to": "22725__2_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__2_050", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Your Honor, I don't believe the record is such that we've alleged that Ms. Gonzales knew that they weren't going to do anything.\nIn fact, it's just the opposite, that she relied upon--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2277.328, 2284.479], "stop_times": [2284.479, 2287.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2277.328}, "reply_to": "22725__2_049", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_051", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "They said call back in two hours and whatnot.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2287.738], "stop_times": [2290.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.738}, "reply_to": "22725__2_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__2_052", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--And she continued to do that, to follow their instructions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2290.175], "stop_times": [2292.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2290.175}, "reply_to": "22725__2_051", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_053", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "And each time at the end of the call, she knew that they weren't going to do... they weren't going to go out and look and they weren't going to enforce the order at that point, didn't she?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2292.447], "stop_times": [2300.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2292.447}, "reply_to": "22725__2_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__2_054", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "I'm not sure that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2300.446], "stop_times": [2302.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2300.446}, "reply_to": "22725__2_053", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_055", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "I mean, I can understand you're making an argument... you have made it, but I can understand you're making an argument that the point of procedure is to force people, in this case the police, to face facts.\nIf they really know that she has made out probable cause that something is wrong here, if they are forced to face that as a result of procedure, they will then do something about it.\nIt's not as easy to be irresponsible in that case.\nBut the trouble with that argument, it seems to me, although it's sound as far as it goes, is that it's an argument that would apply with respect to every statute in which there is mandatory language to the police to enforce it.\nAnd that seems to me to suggest a completely nonadministerable system and one which is totally at odds with the normal accord of police discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2302.457, 2315.758, 2327.72, 2331.181, 2346.999], "stop_times": [2315.758, 2327.72, 2331.181, 2346.999, 2358.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2302.457}, "reply_to": "22725__2_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__2_056", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2358.913], "stop_times": [2359.792], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2358.913}, "reply_to": "22725__2_055", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_057", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "I mean, how do you get around that dilemma?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2359.792], "stop_times": [2361.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2359.792}, "reply_to": "22725__2_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__2_058", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--We believe that the process test that we're articulating here is unique to domestic violence mandatory arrest statutes across the country.\nThe reason being is that these statutes were enacted precisely because of this problem, the problem of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2361.969, 2373.766], "stop_times": [2373.766, 2382.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2361.969}, "reply_to": "22725__2_057", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_059", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Then why weren't they enacted with an express provision saying, and by the way, the police have got to go, either through the following procedure or, by the way, this statute creates a right on the part of the protected party.\nIn other words, if the response to what I understand the problem to have been, if the response was the response that you think the legislature made, why didn't the legislature say something that would take these statutes out of the run of the mill criminal law statutes in which the police, subject to mandatory language, have an apparent obligation to do something to enforce?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2382.075, 2398.752], "stop_times": [2398.752, 2423.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.075}, "reply_to": "22725__2_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__2_060", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--I would respectfully submit, Your Honor, that they have, especially in Colorado.\nThis statute is much more detailed than a run of the mill criminal or civil statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2423.6, 2427.797], "stop_times": [2427.797, 2433.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2423.6}, "reply_to": "22725__2_059", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_061", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But it doesn't say that people like your client have a personal right to enforcement with a damage remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2433.168], "stop_times": [2440.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.168}, "reply_to": "22725__2_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22725__2_062", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "It doesn't, Your Honor, but the fact that there is a court order here in place individualizes the entitlement.\nIt makes it personal.\nMs. Gonzales went into court and aired her dirty laundry under the assumption, mistakenly here, that she was going to be provided protection from the state.\nThat if she went in and explained the situation to the courts, the courts would issue her an order that meant something.\nAnd it could only mean something if police officers are willing to enforce it.\nThe legislature in turn has said, if a person has this kind of order, you shall use every reasonable means to enforce it.\nNow, in order to enforce it, the police officers are going to have to, as they respond to every criminal complaint, make an initial probable cause determination.\nThat's part of every day law enforcement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2440.772, 2446.607, 2448.81, 2459.972, 2468.607, 2472.692, 2480.853, 2491.903], "stop_times": [2446.607, 2448.81, 2459.972, 2468.607, 2472.692, 2480.853, 2491.903, 2494.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2440.772}, "reply_to": "22725__2_061", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_063", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Mr. Reichel, how would you describe, briefly, the property that your client has been deprived of?\nWhat is the property?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2494.111, 2503.552], "stop_times": [2503.552, 2506.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2494.111}, "reply_to": "22725__2_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__2_064", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "The property is an entitlement to enforcement of her order.\nThat's the property, Your Honor.\nThat's how it was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2506.149, 2509.935, 2512.282], "stop_times": [2509.935, 2512.282, 2513.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2506.149}, "reply_to": "22725__2_063", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_065", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "The entitlement to enforcement of an order is property?\nDo you know any case that is... what's the closest case that you would say has held something to be property that is an entitlement to have an order enforced as opposed to an entitlement to a job, an entitlement to money, an entitlement to what I would consider property?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2513.557, 2518.148], "stop_times": [2518.148, 2540.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2513.557}, "reply_to": "22725__2_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__2_066", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--There is no opinion of this Court that talks about orders per se.\nThere is, however, what I would classify as a more quirky property interest, and that was the Logan versus Simmerman Brush case.\nThat case dealt with the situation where there was a statute that provided a cutoff for when somebody could sue for unemployment benefits or discriminatory allegations in the State of Illinois.\nAnd the court there held that while there is really a right in this process, to go through this process and by cutting it off without any opportunity for notice or a hearing, the State of Illinois--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2540.105, 2546.377, 2555.011, 2571.214], "stop_times": [2546.377, 2555.011, 2571.214, 2585.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2540.105}, "reply_to": "22725__2_065", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_067", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Yeah, but it's, at the end of the day, they were unemployment benefits, right?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2585.731, 2589.534], "stop_times": [2589.534, 2589.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2585.731}, "reply_to": "22725__2_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__2_068", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2589.912], "stop_times": [2590.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2589.912}, "reply_to": "22725__2_067", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_069", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Wouldn't the better analogy be to assume she made a contract with a private detective agency to protect her from these events.\nAnd if something arises, to go get the police and act on it?\nThat would be a property right if she had a private contract with a private detective agency to do exactly what the police were supposed to do here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2590.563, 2599.026, 2601.703], "stop_times": [2599.026, 2601.703, 2608.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2590.563}, "reply_to": "22725__2_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__2_070", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Well, Your Honor, that's true, although when she went into court, I think she believed that she had a contract with the State of Colorado, at least a promise by the State of Colorado that she would obtain some protection.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2608.786], "stop_times": [2621.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2608.786}, "reply_to": "22725__2_069", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_071", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But it seems to me a contract for protection would be a familiar kind of property, is what I'm suggesting.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2621.8], "stop_times": [2627.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2621.8}, "reply_to": "22725__2_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__2_072", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Exactly.\nAnd here the order--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2627.751, 2628.653], "stop_times": [2628.653, 2629.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2627.751}, "reply_to": "22725__2_071", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_073", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--But there is no contract here, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2629.639], "stop_times": [2631.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2629.639}, "reply_to": "22725__2_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22725__2_074", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--There is no contract but there is an order.\nThere is a court issued order based upon her allegations and based upon her submissions to the court.\nYour Honors, again, Ms. Gonzales took the risk here of seeking an order of protection and airing her dirty laundry in public, and she did so with the reasonable expectation that the order meant something, that law enforcement would enforce it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2631.399, 2633.517, 2638.194], "stop_times": [2633.517, 2638.194, 2654.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2631.399}, "reply_to": "22725__2_073", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_075", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Could you be precise about what is the due process?\nYou're saying it's not a hearing that you're seeking.\nNot just that she could be listened to and no action taken.\nBut what precisely is the process to which she is due?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2654.513, 2659.185, 2661.99, 2666.017], "stop_times": [2659.185, 2661.99, 2666.017, 2671.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2654.513}, "reply_to": "22725__2_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__2_076", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "We believe that there has to be an objective, thoughtful, reasoned evaluation of her complaint of a violation.\nAnd that involves necessarily an evaluation in good faith of probable cause, a determination of whether probable cause exists, an articulation of that determination--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2671.046, 2679.893], "stop_times": [2679.893, 2691.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2671.046}, "reply_to": "22725__2_075", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_077", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But you said a moment ago, this could be done by the sergeant on duty at the desk who probably had three other calls waiting.\nDo you still think that could be done?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2691.658, 2701.344], "stop_times": [2701.344, 2704.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2691.658}, "reply_to": "22725__2_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22725__2_078", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Certainly, Your Honor.\nI believe if you take a look at some of the model policies already in place by police departments around the country that are attached to the amicus brief of the law enforcement agencies that filed on our behalf, you'll see some policies whereby the person at the desk taking the information is required to have certain types of questions and provide certain types of responses to those questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2704.33, 2705.38], "stop_times": [2705.38, 2732.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2704.33}, "reply_to": "22725__2_077", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_079", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But on any timetable?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2732.142], "stop_times": [2733.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.142}, "reply_to": "22725__2_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__2_080", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Yeah, we're not asking for the police department to drop everything.\nWe're just asking that they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2733.443, 2738.34], "stop_times": [2738.34, 2740.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2733.443}, "reply_to": "22725__2_079", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_081", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "If I understand your position correctly, I know what the allegations are here, but if the evidence should show later on that in response to one of these telephone calls, the desk sergeant said, send a squad car out and see if you can locate the kids, you would lose?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2740.531], "stop_times": [2755.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2740.531}, "reply_to": "22725__2_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__2_082", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--No, Your Honor, that's not what I'm saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2755.533], "stop_times": [2758.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2755.533}, "reply_to": "22725__2_081", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_083", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Because that would have been a good faith response by somebody to try and find out whether there was probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2758.973], "stop_times": [2765.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2758.973}, "reply_to": "22725__2_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__2_084", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "There has to be an articulation of the determination of probable cause to the holder of the restraining order to allow her to, for example, clarify facts, to perhaps talk to a superior or perhaps, in this case, go somewhere else for help, go to the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2765.005], "stop_times": [2781.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2765.005}, "reply_to": "22725__2_083", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_085", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "but where do you get that?\nI know that the Tenth Circuit tried to stick to the language of the statute.\nBut where do you get the requirement, A, that police inform her and, B, that it give reasons for nonenforcement?\nThose were not within what the Tenth Circuit said.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2781.597, 2782.45, 2787.254, 2798.266], "stop_times": [2782.45, 2787.254, 2798.266, 2802.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2781.597}, "reply_to": "22725__2_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__2_086", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "I believe it was wrapped within the concept of a probable cause determination.\nAnd they did specifically state that if there was an adverse determination, that notice of that determination has to be conveyed to her.\nThat was, I believe, the fourth prong of our analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2802.773, 2808.085, 2815.092], "stop_times": [2808.085, 2815.092, 2818.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2802.773}, "reply_to": "22725__2_085", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_087", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "So the notice... yeah, did it say with a statement of reasons?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2818.041], "stop_times": [2821.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2818.041}, "reply_to": "22725__2_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__2_088", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "With a statement of reasons, it did, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2821.736], "stop_times": [2823.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2821.736}, "reply_to": "22725__2_087", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_089", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Where does that come from?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2823.865], "stop_times": [2826.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2823.865}, "reply_to": "22725__2_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__2_090", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Well, the statement of reasons, Your Honor, allows again for there to be communication on both sides.\nSo that if the statement of reasons turned out to be based upon false information--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2826.877, 2834.408], "stop_times": [2834.408, 2838.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2826.877}, "reply_to": "22725__2_089", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_091", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "I know that it would be a fair process that you're describing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2838.43], "stop_times": [2840.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2838.43}, "reply_to": "22725__2_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__2_092", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--A meaningful process.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2840.84], "stop_times": [2841.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2840.84}, "reply_to": "22725__2_091", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_093", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But is it an essential one, that is, that nothing spells out... in most of the cases that involve property and a procedural due process right, it's a hearing that the person is seeking.\nAre they entitled to benefit or are they not?\nBut here, this is not what you want.\nYou want the police to enforce.\nAnd if they don't enforce, to give you a reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2841.495, 2859.057, 2861.548, 2864.492, 2866.454], "stop_times": [2859.057, 2861.548, 2864.492, 2866.454, 2869.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2841.495}, "reply_to": "22725__2_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__2_094", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Well, I believe that the enforcement of the order flows from the probable cause determination.\nThe obligation to enforce is triggered by a finding of probable cause of a violation.\nSo the process we're looking for involves the probable cause determination.\nIt's our position that by simply ignoring that process, you're depriving somebody potentially of their property right in enforcement of the order.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2869.014, 2874.773, 2879.685, 2884.778], "stop_times": [2874.773, 2879.685, 2884.778, 2895.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2869.014}, "reply_to": "22725__2_093", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_095", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But if the police... let's say, focusing on this case, suppose they had looked at this order and said, wow, it gives him weekends with the girls, it gives him summertime with the girls and, subject to his ex-wife's agreement, dinner time with the girls, this can't be all that urgent because if he would harm the girls then why is the judge allowing him so much sole time with them?\nSo wouldn't... looking at this particular order, wouldn't there be reasons why the police would say, the judge is allowing the father to spend time with the girls, this can't be that urgent?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2895.817, 2929.848], "stop_times": [2929.848, 2944.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2895.817}, "reply_to": "22725__2_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__2_096", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "There could have been, Your Honor, but again, those reasons were never articulated to my client and any reasons the police officers may have had are not in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2944.536], "stop_times": [2951.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2944.536}, "reply_to": "22725__2_095", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_097", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "But this is such a new sort of a requirement you're seeking us to develop here.\nI just don't know of any past case that would suggest such a requirement when it comes to law enforcement requests by citizens of police.\nIt would be a major step, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2951.848, 2959.555, 2972.776], "stop_times": [2959.555, 2972.776, 2975.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2951.848}, "reply_to": "22725__2_096", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22725__2_098", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "It would be a different kind of case, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2975.182], "stop_times": [2979.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2975.182}, "reply_to": "22725__2_097", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_099", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Yes.\nAre there any indications that any of the police in this instance will face disciplinary action for their response here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2979.107, 2979.245], "stop_times": [2979.245, 2989.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2979.107}, "reply_to": "22725__2_098", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22725__2_100", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "I really have no idea, Your Honor.\nI really have no idea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2989.255, 2991.089], "stop_times": [2991.089, 2993.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2989.255}, "reply_to": "22725__2_099", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_101", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Could you still bring a state tort suit?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2993.143], "stop_times": [2996.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2993.143}, "reply_to": "22725__2_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22725__2_102", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI believe that as was conceded in Petitioner's reply brief, they're really under our governmental immunity laws.\nThey're probably the strictest in the country.\nThere really is no viable tort--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [2996.252, 2996.978, 3002.876, 3005.031], "stop_times": [2996.978, 3002.876, 3005.031, 3007.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2996.252}, "reply_to": "22725__2_101", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_103", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Why?\nBecause it is willful and wanton, and you've made out a claim they didn't even give an answer, they didn't do anything, they have a practice of doing nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3007.148, 3007.622], "stop_times": [3007.622, 3016.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3007.148}, "reply_to": "22725__2_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22725__2_104", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--I believe that centers more around the causation and foreseeability issues that are triggered by that type of a claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3016.374], "stop_times": [3025.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3016.374}, "reply_to": "22725__2_103", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_105", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Well, if the state cares so little about enforcing what its officers do under its own laws, isn't that some indication that it did not intend to create the property interest that you're arguing for?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3025.445], "stop_times": [3037.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.445}, "reply_to": "22725__2_104", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22725__2_106", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "No, Your Honor, I don't believe that at all.\nAnd in fact, again, going back to some of the Court's prior cases and the Roth series of case law, if you look, for example, at Logan versus Simmerman Brush, there was a good deal of discussion about whether there was a tort law remedy and, in fact, there was in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3037.467, 3039.685], "stop_times": [3039.685, 3057.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3037.467}, "reply_to": "22725__2_105", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_107", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Do you have any other cases besides Logan?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3057.647], "stop_times": [3061.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3057.647}, "reply_to": "22725__2_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22725__2_108", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "On that issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3061.376], "stop_times": [3063.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3061.376}, "reply_to": "22725__2_107", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_109", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3063.338], "stop_times": [3064.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3063.338}, "reply_to": "22725__2_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22725__2_110", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Not with that elaborate of a discussion on the issue, although I would submit that the existence of a post-depravation remedy, so to speak here, is irrelevant under, again, Logan, simply because we're left now with the Monell claim.\nWe're left with the allegations of state action, a custom and policy of a state entity here.\nAnd the existence of a post-depravation state law tort remedy is irrelevant to the analysis of whether there is a due process violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3064.068, 3083.23, 3088.985], "stop_times": [3083.23, 3088.985, 3098.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3064.068}, "reply_to": "22725__2_109", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_111", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "If there had been a question certified to the Colorado Supreme Court, and the Colorado Supreme Court said we weren't intending to create any entitlement here, evidence that we don't even have a tort action that's willful or wanton conduct, no liability at all in the municipality.\nSo suppose the State Supreme Court has said, we didn't mean to create any entitlement, then where would you be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3098.419, 3119.368], "stop_times": [3119.368, 3126.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3098.419}, "reply_to": "22725__2_110", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22725__2_112", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "We probably wouldn't be here, Your Honor.\nThat question simply never got certified to the Tenth Circuit.\nAnd I believe you do have to give deference to the Tenth Circuit's analysis of Colorado law on that issue.\nYour Honors, at issue here is a specific order of protection, a legislative mandate requiring enforcement of a protective order and a pattern and practice of the Castle Rock police department of ignoring and failing to enforce court issued protective orders.\nThis case does not turn on decisions made by police officers based solely on the facts of this case.\nThis case involves allegations of a pattern and practice, an official policy and custom on the part of Castle Rock of not taking complaints of restraining order violations seriously.\nThis pattern and practice that's... in and of itself proves there was no process.\nMs. Gonzales merely seeks the opportunity to prove at a trial on the merits that no matter what she said to the Castle Rock police officers, they were not going to do anything about her--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3126.221, 3127.966, 3132.185, 3138.846, 3156.206, 3163.038, 3173.918, 3179.315], "stop_times": [3127.966, 3132.185, 3138.846, 3156.206, 3163.038, 3173.918, 3179.315, 3189.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3126.221}, "reply_to": "22725__2_111", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_113", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "May I ask you whether you would favor or disfavor our certifying the question whether there is a property right here to the Colorado Supreme Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3189.496], "stop_times": [3196.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3189.496}, "reply_to": "22725__2_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__2_114", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--At this point in time, I suppose I would disfavor it, because I believe that Bishop versus Wood is controlling.\nYour Honors, we respectfully request that this Honorable Court affirm the Tenth Circuit's ruling in this matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3196.695, 3206.594], "stop_times": [3206.594, 3214.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3196.695}, "reply_to": "22725__2_113", "speaker": "brian_j_reichel"}
{"id": "22725__2_115", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Reichel.\nMr. Eastman, you have four minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3214.396, 3215.911], "stop_times": [3215.911, 3218.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3214.396}, "reply_to": "22725__2_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22725__3_000", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI want to go pack to Justice Scalia's point about the property interest.\nThis is such a unique claim of a property interest.\nI think it would be appropriate to find that even if you were to accept Justice Stevens' contention of a contract, an ADT type of guarantee of protective services, that looks a lot more like the type of entitlements under Roth that this Court has recognized.\nI think it may well be the case that you never reach a property interest in the enforcement against somebody else, that that's a different thing in kind from this traditional contract protective services.\nSo if there was a statute that said, when somebody has a protective order that implicates... particularly when there is a finding of dangerousness that's been made by a court that has nothing to do with the restraining order that was issued here, and that the police are obligated to provide 24-hour, seven days a week police... squad car out in front of her house until she goes to testify at a hearing, for example, that would be I think a property interest.\nBut it would meet the criteria that this Court set out in Gonzaga, that it's defined in terms of rights to her, not just benefits that might flow from a criminal law more generally.\nIt's phrased in terms of the person benefitting and it has an unmistakable focus.\nThat's the phrase from Gonzaga.\nAnd that there is an intent to create a private remedy as well, not just the private right.\nI think those kind of things would give rise to a Roth type property interest that would lead to the invocation of procedural due process requirements.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3218.674, 3224.167, 3231.314, 3233.959, 3248.962, 3261.586, 3288.385, 3298.764, 3303.499, 3305.386, 3309.967], "stop_times": [3224.167, 3231.314, 3233.959, 3248.962, 3261.586, 3288.385, 3298.764, 3303.499, 3305.386, 3309.967, 3317.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3218.674}, "reply_to": "22725__2_115", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__3_001", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "What about the willful and wanton... suppose the facts were just as they say, long-standing practice, not responding, doing nothing, doing nothing here despite evidence of serious danger, and being told you shouldn't do anything, don't pay any attention he'll come home, would that show willful and wanton?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3317.343], "stop_times": [3334.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3317.343}, "reply_to": "22725__3_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22725__3_002", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "I believe under Colorado law, that would show willful and wanton and their tort claim would be available against the police.\nBut it's precisely because of that tort claim is available and only on those limited circumstances that I think you cannot read the Colorado legislature as having created a property interest here, because the remedies that would be available would not be so limited.\nWe would not be limited to willful and wanton conduct.\nWe would have all sorts of remedies beyond what the State of Colorado specifically said.\nAnd you would go a long way toward making constitutional provisions the font of Colorado tort law, and completely supplant--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3334.655, 3340.282, 3354.592, 3356.927, 3361.631], "stop_times": [3340.282, 3354.592, 3356.927, 3361.631, 3367.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3334.655}, "reply_to": "22725__3_001", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__3_003", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "May I ask you the same question I asked your opponent?\nWould you favor or disfavor our certifying the property law issue to the Colorado Supreme Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3367.823, 3369.854], "stop_times": [3369.854, 3374.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3367.823}, "reply_to": "22725__3_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22725__3_004", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "--Disfavor.\nI think there is nothing in this statute that would even make it reasonable for the Colorado Supreme Court to hold that there is a property interest here.\nAnd to go back to your earlier point about Bishop, it's not a determinative rule.\nYou give deference to the Tenth Circuit.\nBut when the Tenth Circuit's decision is not based on any even developments in Colorado law, and based on a Colorado statute and takes the step that this statute simply doesn't comply with, I don't think you need to give the kind of absolute deference here that you might have given other cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3374.402, 3374.903, 3380.988, 3385.953, 3387.532], "stop_times": [3374.903, 3380.988, 3385.953, 3387.532, 3402.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3374.402}, "reply_to": "22725__3_003", "speaker": "john_c_eastman"}
{"id": "22725__3_005", "conversation_id": "22725", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Eastman.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-278", "start_times": [3402.022, 3406.945], "stop_times": [3406.945, 3408.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3402.022}, "reply_to": "22725__3_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21984__0_000", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "We will now hear argument in the Cherokee Nation against Thompson and Thompson against the Cherokee Nation.\nMr. Miller.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [0.0, 9.166], "stop_times": [9.166, 10.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__0_001", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThese two contract cases concern whether the Government is liable in money damages under the Contract Disputes Act and section 110 of the Indian Self-Determination Act when the Secretary fails to fully pay a contract price for the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [10.774, 14.755], "stop_times": [14.755, 27.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.774}, "reply_to": "21984__0_000", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_002", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Would you mind explaining to us how these two cases relate?\nThe Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision went one way and the Tenth Circuit went another.\nAnd are the claims at all overlapping?\nHow are they differentiated?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [27.553, 32.216, 39.813, 43.323], "stop_times": [32.216, 39.813, 43.323, 46.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 27.553}, "reply_to": "21984__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__0_003", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--No, Justice O'Connor.\nThey're... they're not overlapping.\nThe claims in the Federal Circuit case involved three contracts covering fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996.\nAnd the Cherokee contract at issue in the case that went through the Tenth Circuit is fiscal year 1997 contract and funding agreement.\nThe section... remedial section of the act, section 110--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [46.19, 47.038, 48.114, 55.666, 62.065], "stop_times": [47.038, 48.114, 55.666, 62.065, 66.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 46.19}, "reply_to": "21984__0_002", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_004", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "But they're certainly at odds on the legal theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [66.812], "stop_times": [72.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 66.812}, "reply_to": "21984__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__0_005", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Yes, they are, Your Honor.\nThe Federal Circuit applied standard, bedrock Government contracting law, primarily the rule that when a contract payment is conditioned on there being an appropriation, the payment right vests in full once the appropriation is enacted by Congress.\nAnd secondly, the court ruled that the Indian Self-Determination Act does not bar the payment of the contracts in this case under the circumstances presented.\nAnd to the contrary.\nWe submit that the Secretary's construction of that clause would undo the act, would undo section 106(b) of the act--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [72.18, 73.766, 87.784, 96.079, 97.936], "stop_times": [73.766, 87.784, 96.079, 97.936, 104.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 72.18}, "reply_to": "21984__0_004", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_006", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Are the circumstances any different in the two situations, the Cherokee Nation case and the one in the Federal Circuit?\nAre... are the circumstances, giving rise to the claim, different in any respect that could account for a difference in outcome?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [104.706, 113.623], "stop_times": [113.623, 122.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 104.706}, "reply_to": "21984__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__0_007", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--No, Justice O'Connor.\nThere... there is no difference in that respect, and there is an overlap in... in this sense.\nThe Shoshone-Paiute contract that arose through the Tenth Circuit case did involve fiscal year 1996, the same fiscal year as the Cherokee contract that covered fiscal year 1996.\nSo in that sense, both cases involved the... the same relevant issues.\nThe... the key, we think, to the resolution of the act is found in the act on page 12a of the appendix to our opening blue brief.\nThe act was amended in this section twice, in 1988 and in 1994, for three reasons: to secure contract funding, to reduce the Federal bureaucracy, and to eliminate secretarial funding discretion over contract funding issues.\nIn section 12a, 450j-1(a), the bottom half of the page, it is stated in subparagraph (1) that the amount of funds provided under the terms of self-determination contracts entered into pursuant to this subchapter shall not be less than the appropriate Secretary would have otherwise provided.\nAnd then directly pertinent to this case is subparagraph (2), which directs... which addresses contract support costs.\nThere shall be added to the amount required by paragraph (1) contract support costs which shall consist of certain items.\nIncidentally, these items typically cover the cost of insurance, audit costs, procurement costs that might otherwise be administered for the Government by the Office of Personnel Management or personnel costs that might otherwise be administered by the Office of Personnel Management.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [122.994, 124.935, 129.598, 139.918, 143.527, 155.028, 169.722, 187.434, 194.038, 202.227], "stop_times": [124.935, 129.598, 139.918, 143.527, 155.028, 169.722, 187.434, 194.038, 202.227, 217.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 122.994}, "reply_to": "21984__0_006", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_008", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Does the... do the actual contracts reduce the... the CSC's to a dollar amount or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [217.277], "stop_times": [224.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.277}, "reply_to": "21984__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__0_009", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Yes, they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [224.13], "stop_times": [224.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 224.13}, "reply_to": "21984__0_008", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_010", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--So... so we know... they... they knew at the moment the contract was signed what it was going to cost.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [224.79], "stop_times": [229.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 224.79}, "reply_to": "21984__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__0_011", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "That is correct, Justice Souter.\nIn the case of the Shoshone-Paiute contract, when the parties decided to renegotiate the contract amount, they entered into an amendment to specify the new, updated contract amount.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [229.537, 231.273], "stop_times": [231.273, 242.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 229.537}, "reply_to": "21984__0_010", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_012", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "I don't want to get ahead of you in taking us through the statute, so you can defer the question if... if you choose.\nBut it seems to me relevant to (a).\nDoes... is... is part of the submission that the Government used some of the funds that otherwise would have gone to you for its own monitoring and... of... of health contracts and that that's what's in dispute?\nOr was it just general overhead for other programs it used?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [242.419, 249.765, 252.366, 271.313], "stop_times": [249.765, 252.366, 271.313, 274.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.419}, "reply_to": "21984__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21984__0_013", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "It... it is precisely, Justice Kennedy, what... what you stated.\nIn fact, we can turn directly to page 14a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [274.907, 277.629], "stop_times": [277.629, 279.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 274.907}, "reply_to": "21984__0_012", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_014", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "I... I stated an or.\nI... what I... I stated at the outset?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [279.653, 280.601], "stop_times": [280.601, 282.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 279.653}, "reply_to": "21984__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21984__0_015", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--The... the Government took money for its own Federal functions instead of... including contract monitoring--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [282.42], "stop_times": [288.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 282.42}, "reply_to": "21984__0_014", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_016", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Including contract monitoring.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [288.403], "stop_times": [289.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 288.403}, "reply_to": "21984__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21984__0_017", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Including contract monitoring.\nIncluding contract monitoring.\nIn fact, they say so in their brief and... and defend that action.\nThe... the sections on page 12a and 13a articulate in quite a lot of detail the nature of the contract support costs that must be added.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [289.479, 290.344, 291.558, 294.059], "stop_times": [290.344, 291.558, 294.059, 304.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.479}, "reply_to": "21984__0_016", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_018", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "These are strange contracts, of course, aren't they?\nI mean, are there any other contracts that the Government has to enter into?\nI mean, the Secretary has to give these tribes the authority to take over, in effect, implementation of the... of a Federal health program, doesn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [304.378, 307.162, 310.944], "stop_times": [307.162, 310.944, 324.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 304.378}, "reply_to": "21984__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_019", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "That is correct, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [324.319], "stop_times": [325.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 324.319}, "reply_to": "21984__0_018", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_020", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, I... why would you expect that this strange kind of contract should... should, prima facie, be governed by the same rules as to appropriations as other contracts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [325.433], "stop_times": [337.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 325.433}, "reply_to": "21984__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_021", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [337.116], "stop_times": [338.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 337.116}, "reply_to": "21984__0_020", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_022", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--where... where an agency, having due regard to how much money is appropriated, will limit the number of contracts it enters into?\nBut... but here you're creating a situation where the agency has to contract and yet has no control over having enough money to... to meet the contractual obligations.\nIt seems to me a... a strange way to run a railroad.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [338.436, 348.262, 358.664], "stop_times": [348.262, 358.664, 361.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 338.436}, "reply_to": "21984__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_023", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--It... it is a unique contractual situation, Justice Scalia, but one that Congress fully anticipated.\nAnd... and I would explain it this way.\nFirst of all, there is the Contract Disputes Act which Congress said applies to these contracts.\nThe contracts were so unique that prior to 1988, the Interior Board of Contract Appeals, in a decision called the Busby case, had ruled that these contracts could not be enforced under the Contract Disputes Act precisely for the reason Justice Scalia articulated.\nCongress changed that.\nIn 1988, Congress amended section 110 of the act, reproduced at the bottom of page 26a, and gave the Court of Claims, then the Court of Claims, and the district courts concurrent jurisdiction over money damages claims under the Contract Disputes Act.\nAnd the legislative history explains that Congress did this precisely to overcome the Busby decision and to make these contracts enforceable for the stated contract price.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [361.265, 366.179, 368.901, 373.525, 386.612, 387.848, 401.223], "stop_times": [366.179, 368.901, 373.525, 386.612, 387.848, 401.223, 410.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.265}, "reply_to": "21984__0_022", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_024", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "But further to Justice Scalia's point, don't the contracts in question themselves contain clauses that say this is not a procurement contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [410.594], "stop_times": [419.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 410.594}, "reply_to": "21984__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21984__0_025", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "The... the procurement contract... that is correct.\nNot the contracts themselves, Your Honor.\nThe... the act says that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [419.51, 422.566, 424.423], "stop_times": [422.566, 424.423, 427.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 419.51}, "reply_to": "21984__0_024", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_026", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Oh, the act says that they're not procurement contracts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [427.395], "stop_times": [429.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 427.395}, "reply_to": "21984__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21984__0_027", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--the contracts are not procurement contracts, Justice Kennedy.\nThat's correct.\nThese contracts began as procurement contracts.\nThey had been procurement contracts, and even still, they were not enforced under the Court of... the Interior Board of Contract Appeals decision in the Busby decision.\nCongress relieved the contractors of the procurement system because they felt that the agency had built up an enormous contract monitoring bureaucracy which it wanted to eliminate.\nAnd for that reason, it eliminated the procurement rules in the hopes that the contract monitoring bureaucracy would be eliminated along with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [429.214, 429.89, 430.989, 432.968, 440.36, 449.481], "stop_times": [429.89, 430.989, 432.968, 440.36, 449.481, 456.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 429.214}, "reply_to": "21984__0_026", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_028", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Mr. Miller, do--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [456.745], "stop_times": [458.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 456.745}, "reply_to": "21984__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21984__0_029", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [458.026], "stop_times": [459.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 458.026}, "reply_to": "21984__0_028", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_030", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--on... on the interpretation you've just explained to us, does that mean that the Secretary has no authority under this statute or generally to reserve some portion of this for what you call Federal functions, that it... every penny of the appropriation could go to the costs of this contract and nothing left in the till for the so-called Federal functions?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [459.102], "stop_times": [493.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 459.102}, "reply_to": "21984__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21984__0_031", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I... I would put my answer in this context.\nThere are many sources from which the Government could have reprogrammed to pay these contracts.\nIt could have been, yes, as we submit, from the funds spent on Federal functions and secretarial administration.\nIt could have been from the up to $88 million increases Congress was making every year.\nIt could have been from the up to $98 million in leftover appropriations the agencies had every year, and it could have been from the regional and headquarters offices that the agencies had where they don't administer services.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [493.299, 497.507, 502.237, 507.704, 511.979], "stop_times": [497.507, 502.237, 507.704, 511.979, 522.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 493.299}, "reply_to": "21984__0_030", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_032", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "But your... your answer is, yes, if it came to that, they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [522.753], "stop_times": [525.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 522.753}, "reply_to": "21984__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21984__0_033", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "That's the duty Congress imposed upon the Secretary.\nThe Secretary was free not to reprogram.\nThat's... that's a choice the Secretary had and the Secretary made it.\nThe question is what are the ramifications of that choice and we submit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [525.891, 528.576, 530.516, 533.527], "stop_times": [528.576, 530.516, 533.527, 537.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 525.891}, "reply_to": "21984__0_032", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_034", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Well, let me ask you another question related.\nSuppose... this is an individual action.\nThese are individual actions.\nThey're not class actions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [537.204, 542.915, 546.935, 548.554], "stop_times": [542.915, 546.935, 548.554, 549.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 537.204}, "reply_to": "21984__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21984__0_035", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [549.974], "stop_times": [551.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 549.974}, "reply_to": "21984__0_034", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_036", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Do the ones who come to court to sue get paid in full even though there may be many other self-determination contracts out there, and that if you gave them all their fair share, none of them would be paid in full?\nDoes it just depend on first come to court, first served, and the less litigious are just out of luck?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [551.171, 572.431], "stop_times": [572.431, 578.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 551.171}, "reply_to": "21984__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21984__0_037", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Your Honor, we... we do not believe that that... that should be the outcome.\nThat would advantage the contractors that came forward and not take account of the entire situation.\nWe think the global situation has to be looked at.\nThe total amount of the contracts that were not paid in fiscal year 1994--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [578.935, 582.651, 588.14, 589.998], "stop_times": [582.651, 588.14, 589.998, 595.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 578.935}, "reply_to": "21984__0_036", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_038", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "I mean, you can't get blood out of a turnip.\nI mean, Justice Ginsburg is asking the question, what if there is not enough money to go around?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [595.465, 597.057], "stop_times": [597.057, 603.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.465}, "reply_to": "21984__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_039", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--If there were only sufficient money to pay half of the contract shortfalls--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [603.744], "stop_times": [608.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 603.744}, "reply_to": "21984__0_038", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_040", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [608.202], "stop_times": [608.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 608.202}, "reply_to": "21984__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_041", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--without violating the clause and the Secretary had the discretion not to reduce appropriations, or he could, for programs serving other tribes, and then the tribes would only be entitled to half of the shortfall, if there was only a sufficient amount of money.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [608.368], "stop_times": [621.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 608.368}, "reply_to": "21984__0_040", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_042", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Didn't the tribes get notice they might not get the full amount of the... the CSC, and so they had ample opportunity to cut back on their spending?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [621.593], "stop_times": [630.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 621.593}, "reply_to": "21984__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21984__0_043", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "No, Justice Kennedy, and... and to the contrary.\nIn fiscal year 1994, the Indian Health Service was telling everybody they were paying them in full.\nThey told the General Accounting Office they paid everybody in full on page 32 of the GAO report cited in the Government's brief.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [630.222, 632.08, 636.349, 641.716], "stop_times": [632.08, 636.349, 641.716, 642.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 630.222}, "reply_to": "21984__0_042", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_044", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "So these... these are reliance damages in a sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [642.376], "stop_times": [644.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 642.376}, "reply_to": "21984__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21984__0_045", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--The... the tribes expected to be paid.\nThe Shoshone-Paiute tribes were told they would be paid in full in the first year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [644.401, 647.389], "stop_times": [647.389, 650.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 644.401}, "reply_to": "21984__0_044", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_046", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "I mean, they... they were out of pocket for money they spent before they knew, other than the statutory notice they had, that they wouldn't get the full amount?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [650.34], "stop_times": [659.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 650.34}, "reply_to": "21984__0_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21984__0_047", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [659.218], "stop_times": [659.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 659.218}, "reply_to": "21984__0_046", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_048", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, when do the tribal contractors know how much money the Government actually will have available to spend?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [659.856], "stop_times": [667.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.856}, "reply_to": "21984__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__0_049", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "The contractors don't know until the year is over because throughout the year, the Government reserves the power, although not exercised, but stated in a circular, to reprogram.\nAnd the appropriations--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [667.103, 675.565], "stop_times": [675.565, 676.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 667.103}, "reply_to": "21984__0_048", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_050", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "What... what do you mean by that?\nYou said a second ago the Secretary had the option to reprogram.\nWhat do you mean by reprogram?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [676.846, 677.673, 681.016], "stop_times": [677.673, 681.016, 682.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 676.846}, "reply_to": "21984__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__0_051", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--When the Secretary prepares a budget to the Congress, it states usually a lump sum amount of, say, $1.8 billion.\nWe... we take $400 million off the top or $300 million off the top because that was specified by Congress for certain purposes.\nBut the balance is a lump sum.\nThe Secretary crafts a budget.\nThe budget is not adopted by Congress, just a dollar amount is adopted by Congress.\nNow, Congress can step in and take a particular item and earmark that item and cap it if it chooses, but it didn't do that in these years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [682.624, 690.592, 696.249, 697.485, 699.321, 703.695], "stop_times": [690.592, 696.249, 697.485, 699.321, 703.695, 712.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 682.624}, "reply_to": "21984__0_050", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_052", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Yes, but the... the tribes have to enter contracts not knowing how much money is going to be there at the end of the day?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [712.406], "stop_times": [718.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.406}, "reply_to": "21984__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__0_053", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "The tribes enter into contracts, as most Government contractors do when they enter into contracts before an appropriation is made, not knowing if the agency will have the money to pay them.\nThat's okay.\nThe problem is when the statute says it's subject to the availability of appropriations and Congress enacts the appropriations.\nIt's been the law for 120 years that at that point, the right to payment vests and the tribe is entitled to be paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [718.267, 727.184, 728.177, 733.954], "stop_times": [727.184, 728.177, 733.954, 738.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 718.267}, "reply_to": "21984__0_052", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_054", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "All right.\nSo how was that appropriation money in fact used by the Federal Government, do you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [738.95, 739.321], "stop_times": [739.321, 745.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 738.95}, "reply_to": "21984__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__0_055", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "The Federal Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [745.1], "stop_times": [746.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 745.1}, "reply_to": "21984__0_054", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_056", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "There was the appropriation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [746.936], "stop_times": [748.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 746.936}, "reply_to": "21984__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__0_057", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [748.422], "stop_times": [748.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 748.422}, "reply_to": "21984__0_056", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_058", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "And the tribes had already entered into contracts.\nNow, how was that lump sum used?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [748.96, 751.106], "stop_times": [751.106, 753.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 748.96}, "reply_to": "21984__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__0_059", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "The agency then, under this Court's teaching in Lincoln v. Vigil, has complete discretion over how it spends its appropriation except insofar as--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [753.502], "stop_times": [762.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 753.502}, "reply_to": "21984__0_058", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_060", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Is that what you mean by programming?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [762.956], "stop_times": [763.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 762.956}, "reply_to": "21984__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__0_061", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Yes, thank you, Justice Souter, for taking me back to your question.\nWhat we mean is that the Secretary submits a budget, but the budget is not binding on the Secretary.\nIt's not binding as a matter of law because Congress didn't adopt it.\nAnd as conditions change over the course of the year, the agency readjusts its budget, which we call reprogramming.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [763.533, 766.755, 771.146, 774.202], "stop_times": [766.755, 771.146, 774.202, 780.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 763.533}, "reply_to": "21984__0_060", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_062", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "So programming is allocating various segments of the lump sum to various purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [780.972], "stop_times": [786.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 780.972}, "reply_to": "21984__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__0_063", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [786.834], "stop_times": [787.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 786.834}, "reply_to": "21984__0_062", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_064", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [787.206], "stop_times": [787.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 787.206}, "reply_to": "21984__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__0_065", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "And the Secretary retains complete discretion as this Court taught--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [787.66], "stop_times": [790.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 787.66}, "reply_to": "21984__0_064", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_066", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "And is that done without regard to the contract amounts that the tribes have entered into?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [790.882], "stop_times": [797.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 790.882}, "reply_to": "21984__0_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__0_067", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Well, it should not be done without regard to the contract amounts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [797.009], "stop_times": [799.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.009}, "reply_to": "21984__0_066", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_068", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Is that in fact how it was done?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [799.798], "stop_times": [801.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 799.798}, "reply_to": "21984__0_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__0_069", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--That is in fact how it was done.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [801.285], "stop_times": [802.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 801.285}, "reply_to": "21984__0_068", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_070", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "And is it still done that way?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [802.482], "stop_times": [804.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 802.482}, "reply_to": "21984__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__0_071", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, the times have changed.\nSince 1998, fiscal year 1998, Congress has imposed caps on the contracts and court costs that the agency has.\nSo there's no question the agency cannot pay more than Congress gives it.\nWhen Congress only gives it $100 million or $200 million for contract support costs, that's it.\nThe Secretary cannot be sued for failing to pay more.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [804.135, 806.214, 812.242, 815.735, 820.937], "stop_times": [806.214, 812.242, 815.735, 820.937, 822.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 804.135}, "reply_to": "21984__0_070", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_072", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "But didn't... didn't Congress, even before that, impose a significant limitation on how much the Secretary could pay?\nWhat do you with the provision in... in (b) of... of the section that you were reading from?\nNotwithstanding any other provision in this subchapter, the provision of funds under this subchapter is subject to the availability of appropriations and the Secretary is not required to reduce funding for programs, projects, or activities serving a tribe to make funds available to another tribe or tribal organization under this chapter.\nI mean, what... what money that the Secretary expends is... is not expended for programs, projects, or activities that serve a tribe?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [822.878, 830.186, 835.138, 855.504], "stop_times": [830.186, 835.138, 855.504, 865.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 822.878}, "reply_to": "21984__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_073", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Justice Scalia, we read this... this clause with... keeping in mind the first sentence first of the sentence.\nThe first sentence, which begins on the preceding page, page 14a, says that the amount of funds required by subsection (a), (1) shall not be reduced to make funding available for contract monitoring or administration by the Secretary.\nAnd the subparagraph (3) in the middle of page 15a, shall not be reduced by the Secretary to pay for Federal functions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [865.026, 872.457, 885.747], "stop_times": [872.457, 885.747, 892.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 865.026}, "reply_to": "21984__0_072", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_074", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, that's all very good, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [892.352], "stop_times": [893.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 892.352}, "reply_to": "21984__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_075", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "But then there's an exception.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [893.566], "stop_times": [894.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 893.566}, "reply_to": "21984__0_074", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_076", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--then the last paragraph begins with the word notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter.\nSo this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [894.847, 900.419], "stop_times": [900.419, 901.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 894.847}, "reply_to": "21984__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_077", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [901.412], "stop_times": [901.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 901.412}, "reply_to": "21984__0_076", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_078", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--it seems to me, overrides everything else.\nUnless... unless you can persuade me that that... that that provision doesn't give the Secretary the authority to... to allocate the available funds among other activities that serve tribes, I... I think it trumps whatever else you appeal to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [901.595, 903.807], "stop_times": [903.807, 920.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 901.595}, "reply_to": "21984__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_079", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Justice Scalia, for... for two reasons we think it cannot.\nFirst of all, if that exception swallowed up the rule set forth in the first sentence, it would defeat the whole purpose of the act.\nAnd more, in the statute on page 21, there is a mandatory rule of construction that Congress has articulated which, interestingly enough, the Government never cites in the statutory interpretation case.\nAnd this rule says on page 21, 1(a)(2), each provision of the act--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [920.359, 922.838, 930.019, 940.809], "stop_times": [922.838, 930.019, 940.809, 946.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 920.359}, "reply_to": "21984__0_078", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_080", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Wait.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [946.01], "stop_times": [946.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 946.01}, "reply_to": "21984__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_081", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Page... sorry--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [946.382], "stop_times": [948.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 946.382}, "reply_to": "21984__0_080", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_082", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "21 of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [948.49], "stop_times": [949.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 948.49}, "reply_to": "21984__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_083", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--21a of our opening blue brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [949.112], "stop_times": [950.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.112}, "reply_to": "21984__0_082", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_084", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Okay, 21a, good.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [950.802], "stop_times": [952.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 950.802}, "reply_to": "21984__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_085", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "21a, correct.\nEach provision of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and each provision of this contract shall be liberally construed for the benefit of the contractor.\nThat statement is repeated as well in every--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [952.167, 954.246, 964.548], "stop_times": [954.246, 964.548, 967.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 952.167}, "reply_to": "21984__0_084", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_086", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Oh, fine, but you still have to look at that last sentence in subsection (b) and grapple with what it means.\nThe Secretary is not required to reduce funding for programs, projects, or activities serving a tribe to make funds available to another tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [967.232, 974.458], "stop_times": [974.458, 985.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 967.232}, "reply_to": "21984__0_085", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__0_087", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--So what could it mean?\nThat's our challenge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [985.436, 986.362], "stop_times": [986.362, 986.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 985.436}, "reply_to": "21984__0_086", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_088", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Now, what does it mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [986.984], "stop_times": [987.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 986.984}, "reply_to": "21984__0_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__0_089", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "We have to give it meaning.\nWe believe it means the... as the Secretary always said when... and... and said at the time these amendments were adopted in 1988, that's services on the ground, the hospitals and clinics.\nIf I walked into the office of the headquarters of the Indian Health Service in Rockville, Maryland, I'm not going to see doctors and nurses in white jackets.\nI'm not going to see patients and counselors.\nThere aren't programs serving tribes in these headquarters offices, and in these area offices, large portions of what they do are administrative functions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [987.522, 988.47, 998.38, 1006.197, 1007.668], "stop_times": [988.47, 998.38, 1006.197, 1007.668, 1016.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 987.522}, "reply_to": "21984__0_088", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_090", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "All right.\nMay... may I interrupt you there?\nAnd tell me if I understand the... the position in your brief correctly.\nI thought the position that you took there was ultimately regardless of what the notwithstanding clause means, there's enough money to pay all the contracts in the appropriation that is actually made.\nAnd if any money is going to be squeezed, the person who's going to be squeezed or the... is the... is the agency itself.\nIts bureaucracy is going to have less money.\nAnd I understood your argument to be that given the provisions you read earlier in this section, Congress has made a positive decision that if there's a choice between paying the contract amounts and squeezing the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy gets squeezed.\nIs that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1016.334, 1017.039, 1018.275, 1021.868, 1038.253, 1047.17, 1050.142, 1069.09], "stop_times": [1017.039, 1018.275, 1021.868, 1038.253, 1047.17, 1050.142, 1069.09, 1069.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1016.334}, "reply_to": "21984__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__0_091", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "That is our position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1069.916], "stop_times": [1070.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1069.916}, "reply_to": "21984__0_090", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_092", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "If that is your position, do you have to even grapple with difficulties about the notwithstanding clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1070.659], "stop_times": [1076.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1070.659}, "reply_to": "21984__0_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__0_093", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, we still need to provide some meaning to the... to the provision that says the Secretary may not... does not have to reduce funding for programs serving other tribes.\nI guess, I think we do need to grapple with the clause in order not to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1076.026, 1086.966], "stop_times": [1086.966, 1090.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1076.026}, "reply_to": "21984__0_092", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_094", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "But... but I thought you were saying you could... you could... the... the Secretary doesn't have to reduce funding for other tribes.\nThe Secretary can pay the full contract costs, and if anybody is going to get the short end, it's going to be the bureaucracy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1090.104, 1096.625], "stop_times": [1096.625, 1104.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1090.104}, "reply_to": "21984__0_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__0_095", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--It's going to be the bureaucracy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1104.139], "stop_times": [1105.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.139}, "reply_to": "21984__0_094", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_096", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Just give them the... just give them the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1105.148], "stop_times": [1105.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.148}, "reply_to": "21984__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__0_097", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "It's not going to be the programs on the ground serving the tribes.\nIt's going to be the bureaucracy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1105.254, 1107.937], "stop_times": [1107.937, 1109.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1105.254}, "reply_to": "21984__0_096", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_098", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1109.34], "stop_times": [1109.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.34}, "reply_to": "21984__0_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__0_099", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Now, it may be felt--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1109.978], "stop_times": [1111.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1109.978}, "reply_to": "21984__0_098", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_100", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "To put it... this is a competition between two bureaucracies, the tribal bureaucracy that is administering the program and the Secretary's bureaucracy which is administering the program of programs.\nI mean, it's... it's not as though it's a bureaucracy against the people.\nThe whole purpose of this was to turn over the bureaucratic management of these programs from Government bureaucrats to tribal bureaucrats.\nI mean, it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1111.259, 1125.682, 1128.72, 1139.494], "stop_times": [1125.682, 1128.72, 1139.494, 1141.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1111.259}, "reply_to": "21984__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_101", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Well, I would... I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1141.602], "stop_times": [1142.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1141.602}, "reply_to": "21984__0_100", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_102", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--you... you paint it as though the... you know, who cares about the bureaucrats.\nThe... the Government just wasn't interested in the bureaucrats.\nThat may well be, but there... there are bureaucrats at both ends of this thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1142.14, 1144.946, 1148.084], "stop_times": [1144.946, 1148.084, 1151.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1142.14}, "reply_to": "21984__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_103", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--I say that for two reasons.\nFirst of all, the... the Congress, in our opinion, clearly privileged the tribal contracts over the Secretary's Federal functions.\nBut more practically, let's look at the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes.\nThey took over a hospital that had a $5 million budget in round numbers, and the contract support costs requirement was $2 million.\nSo the contract was in round numbers $7 million.\nSo they get the hospital, $5 million to run it.\nThey don't get the $2 million.\nNow, they have $3 million to run the hospital.\nIt's not that they didn't get their bureaucracy.\nThey didn't get the full hospital operational budget because they had to pay the fixed costs of carrying insurance, undertaking the audits required by Federal law.\nThere were actual reductions in services so severe, in fact, that the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe nearly lost accreditation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1151.223, 1152.542, 1160.921, 1164.059, 1170.746, 1173.513, 1176.319, 1177.6, 1180.134, 1182.225, 1190.703], "stop_times": [1152.542, 1160.921, 1164.059, 1170.746, 1173.513, 1176.319, 1177.6, 1180.134, 1182.225, 1190.703, 1195.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1151.223}, "reply_to": "21984__0_102", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_104", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Can I ask you a basic question--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1195.987], "stop_times": [1196.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1195.987}, "reply_to": "21984__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__0_105", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Yes, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1196.359], "stop_times": [1197.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1196.359}, "reply_to": "21984__0_104", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_106", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--which maybe others understand, but I'm confused.\nImagine that this has nothing to do with Indians.\nIt is simply an ordinary contract.\nNow, my understanding is that ordinary contracts say subject to appropriations.\nSo we have to decide was there an appropriation.\nIn our imaginary department of Government, the appropriation is $1 billion.\nNothing is earmarked for anything.\nThey enter into contracts that amount to $999 million.\nNow, they pay out $990 million, and their... what the department says is, look, everybody knows we need at least $10 million to run our central bureaucracy.\nSo there's no valid contract here.\nThe appropriation wasn't made.\nNow, my understanding of ordinary Government contract law is to decide whether that $10 million was in principle available for the contracts.\nYou look to something called the purpose-time-amount test.\nSo was it during the same time?\nYes.\nIs it in an appropriate amount?\nBut is it available for this purpose?\nAh, I'm not sure.\nAll right.\nNow, I want... if I have the... the theory of it right, I want you to tell me what the money was in your case that is the equivalent of the $10 million in my example that you believe in principle was available to pay these... for this Indian expenditure.\nJust pretend it's a regular contract.\nWhat is the equivalent of that $10 million?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1197.268, 1198.754, 1203.129, 1205.729, 1212.5, 1215.761, 1221.955, 1224.472, 1232.108, 1242.982, 1245.361, 1247.712, 1258.486, 1261.912, 1267.281, 1265.173, 1268.395, 1271.96, 1274.44, 1275.576, 1294.895, 1297.002], "stop_times": [1198.754, 1203.129, 1205.729, 1212.5, 1215.761, 1221.955, 1224.472, 1232.108, 1242.982, 1245.361, 1247.712, 1258.486, 1261.912, 1267.281, 1265.173, 1268.395, 1271.96, 1274.44, 1275.576, 1294.895, 1297.002, 1299.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.268}, "reply_to": "21984__0_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__0_107", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "The equivalent of the $10 million would be sums not spent on anything--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1299.453], "stop_times": [1304.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1299.453}, "reply_to": "21984__0_106", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_108", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1304.804], "stop_times": [1305.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1304.804}, "reply_to": "21984__0_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__0_109", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--in this case, up to $100 million.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1305.442], "stop_times": [1306.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1305.442}, "reply_to": "21984__0_108", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_110", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Yes, okay.\nAnd anything else?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1306.828, 1307.859], "stop_times": [1307.859, 1309.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1306.828}, "reply_to": "21984__0_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__0_111", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Any of the increases, any of the sums.\nAnd then we move to this statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1309.224, 1311.619], "stop_times": [1311.619, 1314.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1309.224}, "reply_to": "21984__0_110", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_112", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, forget this statute for a second because I'll stop you there.\nI want you to tell me why those sums... I get the time.\nI get the amount.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1314.237, 1317.109, 1320.164], "stop_times": [1317.109, 1320.164, 1321.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.237}, "reply_to": "21984__0_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__0_113", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Why the purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1321.484], "stop_times": [1322.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1321.484}, "reply_to": "21984__0_112", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_114", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Explain to me why it is one of the purposes for which those appropriations were made, i.e., the equivalent of the $10 million, to go pay for this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1322.865], "stop_times": [1331.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.865}, "reply_to": "21984__0_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__0_115", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, that's one of the things the... the Government and we agree upon.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1331.515], "stop_times": [1334.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1331.515}, "reply_to": "21984__0_114", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_116", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "It was one of the purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1334.737], "stop_times": [1336.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1334.737}, "reply_to": "21984__0_115", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__0_117", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "One of the purposes was paying contracts, and that's because in this act, the appropriation says here's $1.4 billion or $1.8 billion to carry out the Indian Self-Determination Act.\nSo that satisfies the purpose test.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1336.428, 1344.89], "stop_times": [1344.89, 1346.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1336.428}, "reply_to": "21984__0_116", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_118", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "All right.\nSo you think... you and the Government agree then that were this an ordinary contract case, there is no doubt that a legally binding contract would have been entered into and the clause, subject to appropriations, would not work for the Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1346.376, 1346.748], "stop_times": [1346.748, 1363.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.376}, "reply_to": "21984__0_117", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__0_119", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1363.344], "stop_times": [1364.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1363.344}, "reply_to": "21984__0_118", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_120", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1364.597], "stop_times": [1365.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1364.597}, "reply_to": "21984__0_119", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__0_121", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, you can't say that the Government agrees to that.\nYou certainly agree to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1365.285, 1368.007], "stop_times": [1368.007, 1369.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1365.285}, "reply_to": "21984__0_120", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21984__0_122", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "No, no.\nWere it an ordinary--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1369.1, 1369.472], "stop_times": [1369.472, 1370.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.1}, "reply_to": "21984__0_121", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__0_123", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "The Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1370.198], "stop_times": [1371.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1370.198}, "reply_to": "21984__0_122", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_124", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--were it an ordinary contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1371.145], "stop_times": [1372.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1371.145}, "reply_to": "21984__0_123", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__0_125", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--In... in the hypothetical.\nNo.\nI think the Government would agree that the rule of Ferris and Blackhawk, the Dougherty rule from the Court of Claims, 1983, all stand for the proposition when you sign a contract with the Government and a lump sum appropriation comes, it's not your job to start monitoring Government operations and figuring out how much do they want to boost their functions for this or that or the other, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1372.51, 1372.747, 1372.83], "stop_times": [1372.747, 1372.83, 1389.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1372.51}, "reply_to": "21984__0_124", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_126", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "So our issue as far as you're concerned... and I'll ask the Government the same question... is, is this contract different from an ordinary contract because of A, B, C, D Indian reservations, et cetera?\nAnd your claim is, I can't find any difference.\nAnd their claim is there will be some difference.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1389.837, 1405.541, 1407.548, 1409.915], "stop_times": [1405.541, 1407.548, 1409.915, 1411.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1389.837}, "reply_to": "21984__0_125", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__0_127", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--That is correct.\nThey claim these aren't contracts... Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1411.385, 1412.023], "stop_times": [1412.023, 1414.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1411.385}, "reply_to": "21984__0_126", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_128", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, you did say the... these contracts were unique.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1414.607], "stop_times": [1417.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1414.607}, "reply_to": "21984__0_127", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21984__0_129", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "These contracts are unique.\nThe contracts in Winstar were unique.\nThe contracts in the United States v. New Mexico advance costs... advance funded cost reimbursable contracts.\nMany contracts are unique.\nThe question is whether the distinction makes a difference in the law.\nThe distinction here that these are not procurement contracts, that can't be decisive.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1417.329, 1419.353, 1421.749, 1427.732, 1428.929, 1431.797], "stop_times": [1419.353, 1421.749, 1427.732, 1428.929, 1431.797, 1436.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1417.329}, "reply_to": "21984__0_128", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_130", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, the Government says it's unique because the tribes are providing governmental services.\nIt doesn't really cite us a case where, say, a city or a subdivision has sued under a contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1436.36, 1440.463], "stop_times": [1440.463, 1447.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1436.36}, "reply_to": "21984__0_129", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21984__0_131", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "But that's not unique either because the... the Government, the Department of Defense in Iraq contracts out governmental services, the provision of food to our troops in Iraq.\nThat's a quintessential governmental services, feeding the military.\nBut they contract it out.\nNo one would suggest there that just because it's a governmental service, it qualifies that contract as a lesser contract than any other contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1447.301, 1456.422, 1459.394, 1460.797], "stop_times": [1456.422, 1459.394, 1460.797, 1468.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1447.301}, "reply_to": "21984__0_130", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_132", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, they didn't contract it out to the government of Iraq.\nThey contracted it out to a private contractor.\nI mean, what... what makes this unique is that the whole purpose of it was to give these... these tribes more governmental power, more self-determination.\nThe whole purpose was to enable the tribes to act as governments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1468.932, 1477.31, 1481.108, 1490.768], "stop_times": [1477.31, 1481.108, 1490.768, 1494.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1468.932}, "reply_to": "21984__0_131", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_133", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Absolutely.\nAnd even Congress considered--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1494.583, 1495.697], "stop_times": [1495.697, 1496.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1494.583}, "reply_to": "21984__0_132", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_134", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "That's... that's what makes it different from private contracts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1496.773], "stop_times": [1499.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1496.773}, "reply_to": "21984__0_133", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_135", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--We--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1499.745], "stop_times": [1500.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1499.745}, "reply_to": "21984__0_134", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_136", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--even... even with Halliburton.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1500.217], "stop_times": [1501.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.217}, "reply_to": "21984__0_135", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_137", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--We--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1501.703], "stop_times": [1502.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1501.703}, "reply_to": "21984__0_136", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_138", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "I mean, Halliburton is not an Indian tribe and doesn't purport to be governing anybody.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1502.241], "stop_times": [1506.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1502.241}, "reply_to": "21984__0_137", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__0_139", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--We submit that that difference was considered by Congress.\nIn the 1988 amendments, there's even language that says, we're thinking about maybe calling this an intergovernmental agreement, but we've decided to call it a contract because we want it to be enforceable as a contract, just as other Government contracts for goods and services are enforced.\nAnd that was the language of the... of the Senate report.\nThey then imposed the Contract Disputes Act and provided a remedy in money damages.\nIn those respects, along with the canon of construction, we believe that these contracts are fully enforceable for the stated contract amount.\nI'd like to reserve the balance of my time, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1506.616, 1509.755, 1523.789, 1526.223, 1530.188, 1537.823], "stop_times": [1509.755, 1523.789, 1526.223, 1530.188, 1537.823, 1540.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1506.616}, "reply_to": "21984__0_138", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__0_140", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Srinivasan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1540.052, 1540.507], "stop_times": [1540.507, 1545.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1540.052}, "reply_to": "21984__0_139", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__1_000", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nApart from the roughly 2 percent of the annual lump sum appropriation that the Secretary withheld for performance of those core agency functions that the agency itself was required to perform, the Secretary allocated the entire remaining 98 percent of its lump sum appropriation among tribes.\nNow, the tribes have to point to some source of funding within that lump sum appropriation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1545.171, 1554.996, 1572.17], "stop_times": [1554.996, 1572.17, 1577.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1545.171}, "reply_to": "21984__0_140", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_001", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, they just did, the 2 percent.\nSo my question to you is the same.\nI asked, let's imagine this had nothing to do with tribes, nothing to do with it.\nIt was a typical, ordinary Government contract for pencils.\nAll right?\nOr for soda water.\nNow, and everything were the same.\nUnder those circumstances, just an ordinary contract... and they point to that 2 percent and they say that is legally speaking... we didn't expect you to pay it.\nWe just won a lawsuit in the Court of Claims.\nBut... but we have... we have a contract here.\nOkay?\nThat's what we're just saying.\nThe... the subject to appropriation clause doesn't nix the contract because that 2 percent is available, legally speaking, time, purpose, and... and amount.\nClassic.\nNow, what's the Government's view there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1577.1, 1577.371, 1579.766, 1585.256, 1589.154, 1589.526, 1591.739, 1594.461, 1605.113, 1606.804, 1619.209, 1609.3, 1609.96, 1619.581, 1620.945], "stop_times": [1577.371, 1579.766, 1585.256, 1589.154, 1589.526, 1591.739, 1594.461, 1605.113, 1606.804, 1619.209, 1609.3, 1609.96, 1619.581, 1620.945, 1622.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1577.1}, "reply_to": "21984__1_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_002", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1622.924], "stop_times": [1623.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1622.924}, "reply_to": "21984__1_001", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_003", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Is it available or not were this an ordinary contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1623.75], "stop_times": [1626.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1623.75}, "reply_to": "21984__1_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_004", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "No.\nWith respect to the 2 percent that's reserved for inherent Federal functions, that's not available.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1626.518, 1627.011], "stop_times": [1627.011, 1630.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1626.518}, "reply_to": "21984__1_003", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_005", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "I'm asking... all right.\nAre... is the Government's view then let's treat this just as an ordinary contract?\nStill it... there was no money available.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1630.621, 1632.007, 1636.299], "stop_times": [1632.007, 1636.299, 1641.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.621}, "reply_to": "21984__1_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_006", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "With respect to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1641.872], "stop_times": [1642.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1641.872}, "reply_to": "21984__1_005", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_007", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Legally speaking under the time-purpose-amount test.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1642.986], "stop_times": [1645.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1642.986}, "reply_to": "21984__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_008", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Well, Justice Breyer, I'm drawing a distinction between the 2 percent that's reserved for core agency functions and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1645.753], "stop_times": [1651.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1645.753}, "reply_to": "21984__1_007", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_009", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1651.037], "stop_times": [1651.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1651.037}, "reply_to": "21984__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_010", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--it's been a background principle of Government contracting law that there are certain core agency functions that... that the Government is required to perform for itself and that it can't contract out.\nSo I think that informs the interpretation of the subject to availability clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1651.326, 1661.523], "stop_times": [1661.523, 1665.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1651.326}, "reply_to": "21984__1_009", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_011", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Now, I would like an answer to my question, yes or no.\nIf this were an ordinary contract with a subject to appropriations clause, is... would the Government be saying this is invalid because the appropriations were not there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1665.86, 1668.089], "stop_times": [1668.089, 1680.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1665.86}, "reply_to": "21984__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_012", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, you have to look at the particular context.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1680.636], "stop_times": [1683.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1680.636}, "reply_to": "21984__1_011", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_013", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "There must be a yes or no answer to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1683.115], "stop_times": [1684.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.115}, "reply_to": "21984__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_014", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "It would be no if this statutory regime governed, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1684.434], "stop_times": [1687.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1684.434}, "reply_to": "21984__1_013", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_015", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "No.\nWhat it is is a contract for pencils.\nCan you not... is it impossible--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1687.589, 1687.922, 1690.644], "stop_times": [1687.922, 1690.644, 1694.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.589}, "reply_to": "21984__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_016", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "If... if all--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1694.609], "stop_times": [1694.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1694.609}, "reply_to": "21984__1_015", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_017", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--to make... you see what I'm driving--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1694.947], "stop_times": [1696.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1694.947}, "reply_to": "21984__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_018", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--If... if all that's at issue is a standard subject to availability clause in a contract and there were no reduction clause, as there is in this statute, and you're dealing with the standard procurement context, then there is a Court of Claims decision, the Blackhawk decision, that suggests, albeit in a footnote, that in that situation, there are funds available in the sense that they're legally unrestricted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1696.516], "stop_times": [1716.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1696.516}, "reply_to": "21984__1_017", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_019", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Correct, and which are the funds that are... that would be available here?\nWhich are they?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1716.661, 1720.105], "stop_times": [1720.105, 1720.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1716.661}, "reply_to": "21984__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_020", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "There aren't any funds that are available here in our view because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1720.748], "stop_times": [1724.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1720.748}, "reply_to": "21984__1_019", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_021", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "If this were under Blackhawk.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1724.092], "stop_times": [1725.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1724.092}, "reply_to": "21984__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_022", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Under Blackhawk, it would be... it would... it would essentially affect the entire lump sum appropriation because there's no legal requirement that the lump sum appropriation be... be directed in any particular manner.\nNow, there are some provisions in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1725.206, 1739.118], "stop_times": [1739.118, 1740.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1725.206}, "reply_to": "21984__1_021", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_023", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "That includes the 2 percent that you keep referring to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1740.77], "stop_times": [1742.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1740.77}, "reply_to": "21984__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__1_024", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--That... that would include in the... that would include the 2 percent.\nBut there are provisions, I should note parenthetically, in the appropriations act that say specifically, for example, that not to exceed a certain amount is to be used for a particular function or at least a certain amount is to be used, for example, for contract health services.\nSo you'd have to take into account--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1742.794, 1745.273, 1756.995], "stop_times": [1745.273, 1756.995, 1758.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1742.794}, "reply_to": "21984__1_023", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_025", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Okay.\nThen let me do this then.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1758.11, 1758.481], "stop_times": [1758.481, 1759.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1758.11}, "reply_to": "21984__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_026", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--those particular provisos.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1759.24], "stop_times": [1759.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1759.24}, "reply_to": "21984__1_025", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_027", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "You say if this were a classic, ordinary contract, the money would have been available legally speaking.\nNobody says practically speaking, and they could have brought their lawsuit.\nNow, tell me specifically, if you can... and this may take you the whole time.\nYou want to make whatever argument you want.\nWhat is it that's special about this contract that brings it out of ordinary contracting principles?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1759.695, 1767.392, 1770.469, 1774.844, 1776.496], "stop_times": [1767.392, 1770.469, 1774.844, 1776.496, 1784.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1759.695}, "reply_to": "21984__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_028", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, first and foremost, the text of the statute.\nIf you look at page 15a of the appendix to... to the tribes' briefs, this isn't your standard, garden variety subject to availability clause.\nYou have to look at the particular context in which this statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1784.836, 1787.558, 1794.989], "stop_times": [1787.558, 1794.989, 1798.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1784.836}, "reply_to": "21984__1_027", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_029", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, the language is the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1798.128], "stop_times": [1799.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1798.128}, "reply_to": "21984__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__1_030", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--It's not, Justice O'Connor, with respect.\nIt says, notwithstanding any other provision... and I'm reading at the bottom of page 15a... the provision of funds under this subchapter is subject to the availability of appropriations and... and this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1799.53, 1801.676], "stop_times": [1801.676, 1812.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1799.53}, "reply_to": "21984__1_029", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_031", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "That phrase is the same, subject to the availability of appropriations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1812.988], "stop_times": [1817.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1812.988}, "reply_to": "21984__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__1_032", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--That particular phrase resembles the one that Justice Breyer posited in his hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1817.174], "stop_times": [1821.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1817.174}, "reply_to": "21984__1_031", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_033", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1821.882], "stop_times": [1822.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1821.882}, "reply_to": "21984__1_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__1_034", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "But the term available... and I think this is critical.\nThe term available is repeated in what's been referred to as the reduction clause, and I don't think one can understand what the term available means unless it considers the meaning of that term throughout that entire sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1822.137, 1824.483], "stop_times": [1824.483, 1834.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1822.137}, "reply_to": "21984__1_033", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_035", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "But... but the other... the other side says you don't have to get to that because you could have paid the contract amounts here without reducing funds available for other tribes.\nIt's simply that it would have squeezed you in your budget, your... your headquarters operating budget for IHS.\nSo they say, if I understand them, that the... that the nonreduction clause doesn't save you here because you could have paid it without reducing things for other tribes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1834.969, 1846.403, 1854.166], "stop_times": [1846.403, 1854.166, 1865.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1834.969}, "reply_to": "21984__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__1_036", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "I... I think that argument is incorrect.\nFirst of all, it's an incorrect interpretation of the terms of the reduction clause.\nBut second of all, the notion that funds for inherent Federal functions, the 2 percent that the agency reserved to perform its core agency functions, were available for contracting is contrary to... to the terms of the ISDA itself.\nAnd if you'll look at page 12a... and I'm quoting from 450j-1(a)(1)... what provision says is the amount of funds provided under the terms of self-determination contracts include the amount that the Secretary, quote, would have otherwise provided.\nAnd then later on down in the paragraph--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1865.145, 1867.458, 1871.006, 1884.009, 1899.901], "stop_times": [1867.458, 1871.006, 1884.009, 1899.901, 1901.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1865.145}, "reply_to": "21984__1_035", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_037", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "I don't see that.\nWhere?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1901.72, 1902.956], "stop_times": [1902.956, 1903.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1901.72}, "reply_to": "21984__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__1_038", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nIt's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1903.616, 1903.882], "stop_times": [1903.882, 1904.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1903.616}, "reply_to": "21984__1_037", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_039", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Not less.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1904.359, 1905.557], "stop_times": [1905.557, 1906.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1904.359}, "reply_to": "21984__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__1_040", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Shall not... shall be not less than the amount that the appropriate Secretary would have otherwise provided.\nAnd then further down in the paragraph in the last... in the last clause, including support of administrative functions that are otherwise contractable.\nAnd what otherwise contractable denotes is that there are certain functions that are not otherwise contractable, namely those core, inherent Federal functions that the agency itself is required to provide.\nAnd so what 450j-1(a) implements is the background understanding that funds for core agency functions don't have to be turned over to the contracting tribes because the agency requires those funds in order to continue essentially to exist as a Federal agency.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1906.567, 1912.039, 1920.296, 1929.994], "stop_times": [1912.039, 1920.296, 1929.994, 1945.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1906.567}, "reply_to": "21984__1_039", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_041", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "But... but I thought the submission of the petitioners' counsel was that some of these funds were used to monitor the contracts which are functions the tribes could have performed.\nSo is there a factual disagreement here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1945.864, 1958.108], "stop_times": [1958.108, 1960.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.864}, "reply_to": "21984__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21984__1_042", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "I don't think so, Justice Kennedy.\nI think it's more of a characterization disagreement.\nThere... it's true that in a descriptive sense, one might refer to some of these funds as used for contract monitoring, but what 450j-1(a) says is that whatever you might call it, the funds that are used for core agency functions are outside the funds to be... to be turned over.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1960.353, 1962.832, 1965.516], "stop_times": [1962.832, 1965.516, 1981.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1960.353}, "reply_to": "21984__1_041", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_043", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "It doesn't say that.\nWhat it says is otherwise contractable.\nAnd they could certainly... for a lay person like me in this, you'd think, well, we could have a provision that says $180,000 is hereby authorized to be spent only for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs or Secretary of Interior.\nWell, if it said that, then that's not otherwise contractable because there's a statutory limit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [1981.574, 1982.029, 1984.796, 2003.494], "stop_times": [1982.029, 1984.796, 2003.494, 2008.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.574}, "reply_to": "21984__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_044", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "But... but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2008.695], "stop_times": [2009.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2008.695}, "reply_to": "21984__1_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__1_045", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "So otherwise contractable sounds like a... a statutory question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2009.438], "stop_times": [2012.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2009.438}, "reply_to": "21984__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_046", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--But it... it's not talking about money that's otherwise contractable.\nIt says, including supportive administrative functions that are otherwise contractable.\nIt's talking about a limitation upon the contractability of functions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2012.699, 2016.292, 2022.358], "stop_times": [2016.292, 2022.358, 2027.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2012.699}, "reply_to": "21984__1_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__1_047", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2027.521], "stop_times": [2028.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2027.521}, "reply_to": "21984__1_046", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_048", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--not the use of funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2028.143], "stop_times": [2029.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2028.143}, "reply_to": "21984__1_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__1_049", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, it's talking about both because the... the first part of subparagraph (1) is the amount of funds.\nIt's relating to the amount of funds that are required to be transferred, and what it stands for is that funds for supportive administrative functions that are not otherwise contractable, i.e., those core agency functions that the agency is required to perform itself, those funds aren't required to be turned over to contracting tribes.\nAnd that just reflects the common sense principle that the agency has to continue to exist to perform some core functions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2029.007, 2035.573, 2052.413], "stop_times": [2035.573, 2052.413, 2059.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2029.007}, "reply_to": "21984__1_048", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_050", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "But how do you... how do you square that with the... on page 14a... reductions and, as Mr. Miller read to us, shall not be reduced to make funding available for contract managing... monitoring or administration by the Secretary, shall not be reduced by the Secretary to pay for Federal functions, including but not limited to, and then a string of what I assume falls under the heading Federal functions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2059.1], "stop_times": [2088.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2059.1}, "reply_to": "21984__1_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21984__1_051", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, the way we square that under the statute is that the leading... the initial sentence in subsection (b) says the amount of funds required by subsection (a) of this section.\nAnd our view of the statute is that funds for inherent Federal functions were never required to be transferred under subsection (a) to begin with.\nAnd so what (b) deals with is the funds that are left over after the funds for inherent Federal functions are taken off the top.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2088.699, 2099.036, 2105.912], "stop_times": [2099.036, 2105.912, 2112.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2088.699}, "reply_to": "21984__1_050", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_052", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "So are these noninherent Federal functions shall not be reduced to pay for Federal functions?\nSo there's inherent Federal functions and noninherent?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2112.394, 2116.481], "stop_times": [2116.481, 2119.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2112.394}, "reply_to": "21984__1_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21984__1_053", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Oh, absolutely there are.\nThe Federal functions is the broader set of... it could essentially encompass everything the Federal Government does.\nInherent Federal functions refers to that core set of functions that the agency itself is required to perform.\nAnd the distinction between inherent Federal functions and Federal functions, although it might seem trivial as a semantic matter, is reflected in fact in the definitions in title V of the ISDA where it specifically defines inherent Federal functions as a subset of Federal functions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2119.453, 2120.651, 2126.429, 2132.184], "stop_times": [2120.651, 2126.429, 2132.184, 2145.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2119.453}, "reply_to": "21984__1_052", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_054", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Does it ever define them as noncontractable?\nI mean, I... I... your answer, I suppose, is well, what... what do you think they're talking about, but does it ever expressly get to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2145.665, 2148.265], "stop_times": [2148.265, 2155.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.665}, "reply_to": "21984__1_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__1_055", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "It... it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2155.779], "stop_times": [2156.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2155.779}, "reply_to": "21984__1_054", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_056", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--the point of contractability?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2156.977], "stop_times": [2157.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.977}, "reply_to": "21984__1_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__1_057", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "It does, Justice Scalia... Justice Souter.\nExcuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2157.637, 2160.859], "stop_times": [2160.859, 2161.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2157.637}, "reply_to": "21984__1_056", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_058", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Thank you, but apologize to him.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2161.23, 2163.581], "stop_times": [2163.581, 2165.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2161.23}, "reply_to": "21984__1_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__1_059", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "And we describe the... the relevant provision in our brief, if you'll bear with me for just one second, on page 31.\nWhen Congress enacted the title IV self-governance provisions that relate to the BIA... and this is at the beginning of the first partial paragraph that begins with of particular significance.\nThere's a provision there, 25 U.S.C. 458cc(k).\nAnd the provision reads that nothing in this section is intended or shall be construed to expand or alter existing statutory authorities so as to authorize the Secretary to enter into any agreement with respect to functions that are inherently Federal.\nAnd I think what that signifies is that there are some functions that are not contractable and can't be turned over to the tribes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2165.439, 2173.49, 2186.881, 2192.248, 2203.849], "stop_times": [2173.49, 2186.881, 2192.248, 2203.849, 2209.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2165.439}, "reply_to": "21984__1_058", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_060", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "That... that all may be true, of course.\nThey're talking about don't contract out to the Indians something that should be done in Washington.\nBut what has that got to do with the issue?\nWe're talking, I thought, about... about Government contracts.\nPeople who enter into Government contracts need certainty.\nThey have to know whether that word, subject to appropriations, invalidates the contract or whether they have a valid contract.\nAnd a set of principles have come up that are used to decide that.\nAnd under that set of principles, money is available to pay for the contract if it's time, purpose, and amount.\nOkay?\nThat's the principle.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2209.505, 2210.127, 2216.814, 2218.504, 2223.251, 2226.556, 2233.904, 2238.583, 2246.451, 2247.028, 2247.937], "stop_times": [2210.127, 2216.814, 2218.504, 2223.251, 2226.556, 2233.904, 2238.583, 2246.451, 2247.028, 2247.937, 2248.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.505}, "reply_to": "21984__1_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_061", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "You don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2248.846], "stop_times": [2249.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2248.846}, "reply_to": "21984__1_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__1_062", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--and I don't see anything contrary to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2249.423], "stop_times": [2250.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2249.423}, "reply_to": "21984__1_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_063", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Justice Breyer, one background principle... and it's reflected, by the way, in the terms of the contracts themselves.\nOne background principle is that funds for inherent Federal functions are not required to be transferred to tribes.\nAnd the contracts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2250.909, 2256.11, 2263.335], "stop_times": [2256.11, 2263.335, 2263.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2250.909}, "reply_to": "21984__1_062", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_064", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Well, Mr. Srinivasan, do you say that the contracts that were entered into by IHS and the tribes did somehow contract away Federal... inherent Federal functions?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2263.957], "stop_times": [2276.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.957}, "reply_to": "21984__1_063", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__1_065", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--No.\nThey specifically--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2276.793, 2277.164], "stop_times": [2277.164, 2277.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.793}, "reply_to": "21984__1_064", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_066", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "They didn't violate that section, did they?\nThe contracts that we're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2277.702, 2279.848], "stop_times": [2279.848, 2281.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2277.702}, "reply_to": "21984__1_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__1_067", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--They specifically did not transfer--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2281.872], "stop_times": [2283.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2281.872}, "reply_to": "21984__1_066", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_068", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "No.\nSo we're not dealing with that.\nWe're dealing with contracts that didn't violate that section.\nAnd you're just saying that some of the lump sum appropriation was diverted by the Government to pay for some kind of core Federal function, not that the contracts violated that provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2283.608, 2283.896, 2285.753, 2290.045], "stop_times": [2283.896, 2285.753, 2290.045, 2304.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2283.608}, "reply_to": "21984__1_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__1_069", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--No.\nThe... that's correct, Justice O'Connor.\nWhat I'm responding to is the suggestion that funds that were allocated by the Secretary to pay for inherent Federal functions were required to be diverted to pay for the indirect costs--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2304.535, 2304.906, 2306.558], "stop_times": [2304.906, 2306.558, 2315.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2304.535}, "reply_to": "21984__1_068", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_070", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "You're not saying... you're addressing not what was contracted out, but what funds are available.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2315.929], "stop_times": [2321.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2315.929}, "reply_to": "21984__1_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21984__1_071", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2321.38], "stop_times": [2322.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2321.38}, "reply_to": "21984__1_070", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_072", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "That's where your argument is going.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2322.306], "stop_times": [2322.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2322.306}, "reply_to": "21984__1_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21984__1_073", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Correct.\nIt relates to the funds that are available.\nAnd the tribes' position--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2322.844, 2323.132, 2324.785], "stop_times": [2323.132, 2324.785, 2326.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2322.844}, "reply_to": "21984__1_072", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_074", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "And you rely on the statement in (a) that the... the only funds that are available are funds that include funds to... to pay for supportive administrative functions that are otherwise contractable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2326.0], "stop_times": [2341.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2326.0}, "reply_to": "21984__1_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__1_075", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Right.\nNot funds--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2341.398, 2342.496], "stop_times": [2342.496, 2343.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2341.398}, "reply_to": "21984__1_074", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_076", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "And not funds that are used to pay for administrative functions that are not contractable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2343.322], "stop_times": [2347.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2343.322}, "reply_to": "21984__1_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__1_077", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Right.\nWe think that funds for inherent Federal functions were taken off... off the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2347.631, 2348.085], "stop_times": [2348.085, 2351.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2347.631}, "reply_to": "21984__1_076", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_078", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Can I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2351.036], "stop_times": [2351.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.036}, "reply_to": "21984__1_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__1_079", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "You said that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2351.369], "stop_times": [2352.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.369}, "reply_to": "21984__1_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__1_080", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Can I ask you sort of a basic question that I'm having trouble following?\nAs I understand, you're saying 98 percent of the appropriation have been allocated to programs, projects, activities, and so forth that can't be reduced.\nNow, is there anything in the statute that would have prevented the Secretary from allocating only 96 percent of the budget to those funds?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2352.445, 2356.92, 2365.315], "stop_times": [2356.92, 2365.315, 2373.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2352.445}, "reply_to": "21984__1_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__1_081", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Well, there is, Justice Stevens, in the following sense.\nIt's not at all the case that the Secretary had unfettered discretion in composing the allocation scheme in any fiscal year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2373.66, 2377.541], "stop_times": [2377.541, 2384.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.66}, "reply_to": "21984__1_080", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_082", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "But his budget that he actually worked out with the 98 percent was not mandated by the statute, as I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2384.561], "stop_times": [2389.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2384.561}, "reply_to": "21984__1_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__1_083", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "In... in part it was mandated by the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2389.185], "stop_times": [2390.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2389.185}, "reply_to": "21984__1_082", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_084", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "In part but not in whole.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2390.937], "stop_times": [2391.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2390.937}, "reply_to": "21984__1_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__1_085", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Perhaps not in whole--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2391.886], "stop_times": [2394.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2391.886}, "reply_to": "21984__1_084", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_086", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, that's the point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2394.636], "stop_times": [2396.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2394.636}, "reply_to": "21984__1_085", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__1_087", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--but at least in significant part.\nAnd let me... but I think this is significant, and if I can just walk the Court through the process by which the budget is developed and any appropriation ultimately is allocated.\nThe Secretary has always, both before the ISDA and after the ISDA, taken the current year's allocation across programs as a given, as a baseline from which the next year's allocation will be built.\nAnd that's reflected in the terms of the statute on pages 14a to 15a of the appendix to the blue brief.\nThere's a provision, 450j-1(b)(2), that says that the amount that's transferred to contractors shall not be reduced by the Secretary in subsequent years except pursuant to certain limited criteria and one of which, the principal one of which, is the reduction in appropriations.\nBut we're not dealing with that in the relevant fiscal years.\nThere was always an increase.\nAnd so the Secretary, pursuant to the statute, kept the funding for across programs at least at the level that it was at the previous fiscal year.\nNow, in addition to that, the Secretary builds two... two considerations on top.\nThe first is mandatory across-the-board increases for things such as salary COLA's and inflationary adjustments.\nAnd that's a standard feature of budgeting, and it's reflected again in the terms of the statute.\nAnd that... I'd point the Court to page 9 of the Government's brief, the gray brief, where we cite a provision, 25 U.S.C. 1680a.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2396.001, 2396.455, 2404.667, 2414.864, 2421.385, 2436.579, 2438.847, 2439.59, 2448.013, 2453.215, 2458.703, 2463.633], "stop_times": [2396.455, 2404.667, 2414.864, 2421.385, 2436.579, 2438.847, 2439.59, 2448.013, 2453.215, 2458.703, 2463.633, 2471.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2396.001}, "reply_to": "21984__1_086", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_088", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Is the... is the nub of what you're trying to tell me is that the 98 percent was, in fact, mandated by a statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2471.352], "stop_times": [2479.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2471.352}, "reply_to": "21984__1_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__1_089", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "It was... I... I think in principal part it was mandated by the... by--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2479.304], "stop_times": [2482.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2479.304}, "reply_to": "21984__1_088", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_090", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Principal part, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2482.648], "stop_times": [2483.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.648}, "reply_to": "21984__1_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__1_091", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Well, let--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2483.474], "stop_times": [2484.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2483.474}, "reply_to": "21984__1_090", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_092", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Does that mean that there was not enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2484.383], "stop_times": [2485.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2484.383}, "reply_to": "21984__1_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__1_093", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--At least as far--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2485.498], "stop_times": [2486.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2485.498}, "reply_to": "21984__1_092", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_094", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "They could have made it 97 percent--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2486.036], "stop_times": [2487.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2486.036}, "reply_to": "21984__1_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__1_095", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--insofar as what I've said with respect--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2487.522], "stop_times": [2488.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2487.522}, "reply_to": "21984__1_094", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_096", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--and had enough money--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2488.265], "stop_times": [2489.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2488.265}, "reply_to": "21984__1_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__1_097", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2489.091], "stop_times": [2489.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2489.091}, "reply_to": "21984__1_096", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_098", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--to pay these contract obligations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2489.38], "stop_times": [2490.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2489.38}, "reply_to": "21984__1_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__1_099", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "No, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2490.577], "stop_times": [2491.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2490.577}, "reply_to": "21984__1_098", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_100", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "See, the thing that troubles me is it seems to me your reading of the statute makes the contractual problem... provision illusory because they can always allocate funds to all these other projects and say, well, we've already used up the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2491.199], "stop_times": [2504.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2491.199}, "reply_to": "21984__1_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__1_101", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "No, I don't think that they have discretion to do that.\nAnd that's what I'm trying to explain.\nAt least with respect to the existing baseline and a mandatory across-the-board increases, it's mandated by the statute that the... that the Secretary conduct his budgeting allocation process in the way that he's done.\nWith respect to the mandatory across-the-board increases, on page 9 of the Government's brief, 25 U.S.C. 1680a, a provision that relates specifically to the administration of the Self-Determination Act, it requires the Secretary to provide funds to contracting tribes for, quote, cost-of-living increases, closed quote, and, quote, other expenses relating to the provision of health services, closed quote, on the, quote, same basis as such funds are provided to programs and services operated directly.\nIn other words, with respect to mandatory across-the-board increases, the Secretary has to allocate those proportionately amongst contracting tribes and non-contracting tribes.\nAnd that leaves the additional set of an increase from one year to the next year that deals with specific targeted items, and principally that would include, for example, staffing of new facilities that come on board during the course of a particular fiscal year.\nAnd with respect to those specific targeted items, the critical point is that the contracting tribes often benefit from the addition of those and from the enforcement by the Secretary of those sorts of earmarks.\nFor example, in this particular case, the... one of the facilities that's at issue is the Stillwell clinic in Oklahoma.\nThat was a new facility that came on board in the early 1990s and for which the... for which the Cherokee Nation assumed administration of it through a self-determination agreement.\nNow, the staffing for that facility was specifically earmarked in the Secretary's budget submissions and in... in Congress' appropriation committee reports.\nAnd it, of course, is in the Cherokee Nation's interest to ensure that those earmarks are honored.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2504.218, 2506.264, 2507.174, 2517.781, 2542.961, 2551.878, 2564.759, 2576.442, 2582.386, 2591.22, 2599.848], "stop_times": [2506.264, 2507.174, 2517.781, 2542.961, 2551.878, 2564.759, 2576.442, 2582.386, 2591.22, 2599.848, 2604.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2504.218}, "reply_to": "21984__1_100", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_102", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Are you telling me that the committee reports are... are binding law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2604.101], "stop_times": [2606.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.101}, "reply_to": "21984__1_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__1_103", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "They're not binding law, Justice Stevens.\nWe fully recognize that.\nBut at the same time, I don't think that what Congress intended to do was to require the Secretary to completely ignore the committee reports.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2606.058, 2608.559, 2609.879], "stop_times": [2608.559, 2609.879, 2616.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2606.058}, "reply_to": "21984__1_102", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_104", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--No.\nBut you got a conflict apparently between the committee reports and what seems to be pretty clear law, which says we're going to treat these contracts as contracts, not as intergovernmental agreements.\nAnd in... in that conflict, I don't see why contracting principles don't trump the committee reports.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2616.156, 2616.649, 2629.381], "stop_times": [2616.649, 2629.381, 2635.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2616.156}, "reply_to": "21984__1_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__1_105", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "It's not just the committee reports, Justice Souter.\nIt's the reduction clause.\nThe reduction clause is a part of the statute and no one has ever suggested the reduction clause doesn't inform the proper interpretation of the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2635.475, 2638.736, 2640.322], "stop_times": [2638.736, 2640.322, 2646.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2635.475}, "reply_to": "21984__1_104", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_106", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "And... and their... their argument is that you can pay the contract amount without robbing other tribes of the amounts that the... that the nonreduction clause refers to.\nThey are saying... I think they're saying, look, you, the governmental bureaucracy, get squeezed.\nYes.\nAnd if so, the contract comes first and you have to live with the squeeze and go back to Congress and say, we're doing what you told us and we're getting squeezed out of existence.\nI think that's what they're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2646.266, 2657.783, 2665.464, 2666.207, 2679.21], "stop_times": [2657.783, 2665.464, 2666.207, 2679.21, 2680.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2646.266}, "reply_to": "21984__1_105", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__1_107", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "That is what they're saying, Justice Souter, but with respect to, I think it's incorrect.\nThe Government bureaucracy consists of two separate types of bureaucracy.\nThere's that core bureaucracy that is the inherent Federal functions.\nAnd one of their arguments is that the Secretary was required to divest himself of the funds that were necessary to perform those functions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2680.325, 2684.04, 2687.959, 2691.099], "stop_times": [2684.04, 2687.959, 2691.099, 2697.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2680.325}, "reply_to": "21984__1_106", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_108", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "No, he's not.\nBut if... if... where I'm really coming from, to be honest... and I'd like... you might as well reply to what I'm actually... is why I'm asking these slightly hostile questions.\n[Laughter]\nI... I read here... look, the question really is was this money like the bureaucracy money.\nIs it legally speaking an appropriation available, not practically speaking but legally?\nAnd here it seems to me, in looking through this somewhat quickly, that you say no, but the Board of Contract Appeals say yes.\nAnd so I think in my mind, you know, one group of people who really know about this is the Board of Contract Appeals.\nSo if they're saying that money from a contract point... a point of normal contract law is legally available, I promise you I'm predisposed to think they're right.\nSo I might as well expose that to you so you can tell me now why I'm wrong or they're wrong or whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2697.043, 2698.073, 2706.452, 2706.907, 2713.239, 2718.357, 2727.712, 2734.044, 2744.141], "stop_times": [2698.073, 2706.452, 2706.907, 2713.239, 2718.357, 2727.712, 2734.044, 2744.141, 2750.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2697.043}, "reply_to": "21984__1_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_109", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Because, Justice Breyer, I think the core of it is that even if you think that they're right, that these funds are legally available, that's not enough under the ISDA because the ISDA specifically reserves to the Secretary the discretion that he not be required to reduce funding for programs, projects, or activities serving a tribe in order to make funds available to another tribe under this subchapter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2750.829], "stop_times": [2769.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2750.829}, "reply_to": "21984__1_108", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_110", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, there is... is... the kind... the money that's available to one tribe can't be taken for the other.\nBut I thought the Board of Contract Appeals was saying taking that into account, there's still enough money left over.\nAm I wrong about that?\nI thought you should take money from one tribe to give it to another.\nWhat did they think?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2769.405, 2774.978, 2781.848, 2783.789, 2786.495], "stop_times": [2774.978, 2781.848, 2783.789, 2786.495, 2787.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.405}, "reply_to": "21984__1_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_111", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "No.\nThey thought... the... the board... the Federal Circuit at least, which echoed the Board of Contract Appeals, thought--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2787.959, 2788.602], "stop_times": [2788.602, 2793.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2787.959}, "reply_to": "21984__1_110", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_112", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, I'm thinking the Board of Contract Appeals and the Federal Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2793.022], "stop_times": [2795.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2793.022}, "reply_to": "21984__1_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__1_113", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Well, I don't think the Board of... of Contract Appeals really wrestled directly with where the funds were coming from.\nThey just thought that legal availability would be sufficient.\nNow, what the Federal Circuit said was that funds for inherent Federal functions are available.\nAnd we think that's wrong for the reasons I've said.\nI don't think those funds ever came into the group of funds that were subject to be transferred to begin with.\nBut even if you thought that they did, I think it's clear that funds for inherent Federal functions are funds for programs, projects, or activities serving a tribe in the sense that one example of a core Federal function--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2795.455, 2800.491, 2802.986, 2808.664, 2810.605, 2815.146], "stop_times": [2800.491, 2802.986, 2808.664, 2810.605, 2815.146, 2826.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2795.455}, "reply_to": "21984__1_112", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_114", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "No, but if that's true, then everything... then every penny in the... in the IHS bureaucracy qualifies.\nI mean, that swallows the... that swallows the entire budget.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2826.253, 2832.957], "stop_times": [2832.957, 2836.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2826.253}, "reply_to": "21984__1_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__1_115", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Well, let's... Justice Souter, if I... if I could, let's look at the particular sources--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2836.134], "stop_times": [2839.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2836.134}, "reply_to": "21984__1_114", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_116", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "No, no.\nBut I mean, just conceptually isn't that... isn't that the... the implication of what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2839.932, 2840.098], "stop_times": [2840.098, 2843.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2839.932}, "reply_to": "21984__1_115", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__1_117", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "You... you can't limit it to inherent Government functions.\nBoth the inherent and the noninherent Government functions would fall within this provision--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2843.83, 2847.834], "stop_times": [2847.834, 2853.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2843.83}, "reply_to": "21984__1_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__1_118", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2853.778], "stop_times": [2854.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.778}, "reply_to": "21984__1_117", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__1_119", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--if you read it as broadly as you've just read it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2854.233], "stop_times": [2856.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2854.233}, "reply_to": "21984__1_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__1_120", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Well, I... I guess the way I'd like to make the point is to say that the sources of funds that they point to, which include inherent Federal functions and the... the noninherent Federal function bureaucracy that supports the administration of programs that serve tribes that are directly served by the Federal Government, those two are in fact programs, projects, or activities serving a tribe.\nWith respect to the administrative support--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2856.257, 2879.125], "stop_times": [2879.125, 2881.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2856.257}, "reply_to": "21984__1_119", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_121", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "On... on that point... on that point, in the Federal Circuit Judge Dyke expressed considerable displeasure with the Government because he said three times I said, tell me what existing programs with other tribes would have been reduced if these contract support costs are paid in full.\nAnd he said, I asked them again and again and again, and they were unresponsive.\nSo since the Government declined to tell the court what programs... existing programs with other tribes would have been reduced, mustn't we assume, as I think the Federal Circuit did, that the proof is unavailable and no existing program with other tribes would have been diminished?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2881.604, 2907.322, 2914.502], "stop_times": [2907.322, 2914.502, 2941.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2881.604}, "reply_to": "21984__1_120", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21984__1_122", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--I don't... I don't think so, Justice Ginsburg.\nI mean, one straightforward reason why you don't have to take that assumption is that it's not only the Federal Circuit case that's before the Court, it's also the Tenth Circuit case.\nAnd there's... there are declarations in the Tenth Circuit case that specifically assert that diverting funding for... to pay for the contract support costs of these tribes would have required reducing funds for programs, projects, or activities serving a tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2941.335, 2944.019, 2951.654], "stop_times": [2944.019, 2951.654, 2965.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2941.335}, "reply_to": "21984__1_121", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_123", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Now, what does that mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2965.733], "stop_times": [2965.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2965.733}, "reply_to": "21984__1_122", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21984__1_124", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "So--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2965.983], "stop_times": [2966.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2965.983}, "reply_to": "21984__1_123", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_125", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "I mean, one thing is existing contracts, things that are already ongoing, and then another thing is, well, we think that there's a new program that could be good for some tribe.\nSo we're going to put that new program in and say that that steps in front of these contract support costs.\nAre we talking just about existing programs that... that the Government has made a commitment to, or are we saying the Government is at liberty to benefit tribes?\nAnd so what if the contract support costs are, as a result, diminished?\nWe're still doing good for tribes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [2966.476, 2981.215, 2988.479, 2999.148, 3004.082], "stop_times": [2981.215, 2988.479, 2999.148, 3004.082, 3005.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2966.476}, "reply_to": "21984__1_124", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21984__1_126", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--We're talking about both existing programs and new programs, and with respect to new programs, there's... it's every bit as likely that those new programs would benefit contracting tribes as noncontracting tribes.\nAnd again, one of the new facilities--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3005.836, 3017.253], "stop_times": [3017.253, 3018.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3005.836}, "reply_to": "21984__1_125", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_127", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "It's strange to talk of reducing... is... is not required to reduce funding for a new program.\nI mean, for a new program, there isn't any funding.\nHow can you reduce the funding for a new program?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3018.905, 3027.822, 3030.151], "stop_times": [3027.822, 3030.151, 3032.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3018.905}, "reply_to": "21984__1_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__1_128", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3032.197], "stop_times": [3032.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3032.197}, "reply_to": "21984__1_127", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_129", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "That provision makes sense with regard to existing programs, but it doesn't make any sense with regard to proposed programs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3032.751], "stop_times": [3039.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3032.751}, "reply_to": "21984__1_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21984__1_130", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Well, I don't think that reduce necessarily takes the existing year's appropriation as the baseline.\nWe think that what it takes as the baseline is the current year's appropriation allocation which takes into account increases.\nAnd one way to see that is 25 U.S.C. 1680a, which is the provision that I cited earlier that requires the Secretary to apportion mandatory across-the-board increases on a proportionate basis as between contracted programs and noncontracted programs.\nAnd what that provision means is that the reduction takes into account those mandatory across-the-board increases from year to year.\nSo in some sense, I think reduce does mean this year's allocation of appropriations as opposed to last year's spending amount.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3039.423, 3044.745, 3051.516, 3063.693, 3071.206], "stop_times": [3044.745, 3051.516, 3063.693, 3071.206, 3078.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3039.423}, "reply_to": "21984__1_129", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_131", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Mr. Srinivasan, you... you alluded a moment ago in... in answering Justice Ginsburg, I guess, to declarations on file on the Tenth Circuit case that... that specifically said we would have to reduce funds available for other programs.\nDid those declarations get specific in the way that her original question was... was asking about?\nDid it say... did the declarations say we will have to reduce the X program for the Navajo Tribe and the Y program for the Apache Tribe and so on, or was it... did the declarations simply say, as a general matter, we would have to reduce allocations for other tribes?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3078.144, 3092.671, 3100.556], "stop_times": [3092.671, 3100.556, 3117.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3078.144}, "reply_to": "21984__1_130", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21984__1_132", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, they... they make the point as a general matter, and they also give an example.\nI think the one example that they give... and maybe there are more... is... is a diabetes program.\nBut I think it's more the general principle--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3117.729, 3121.528, 3125.077], "stop_times": [3121.528, 3125.077, 3127.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3117.729}, "reply_to": "21984__1_131", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_133", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Was that a new program or an existing program?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3127.185], "stop_times": [3129.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3127.185}, "reply_to": "21984__1_132", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21984__1_134", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--That's an... the... the particular example is an existing program.\nBut I think it's more--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3129.004, 3131.372], "stop_times": [3131.372, 3132.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3129.004}, "reply_to": "21984__1_133", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_135", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "It seems to me you can interpret those comments as saying we don't... they did not leave enough room in the budget for the programs we now want to support and our prior contractual obligations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3132.653], "stop_times": [3141.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3132.653}, "reply_to": "21984__1_134", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__1_136", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--You're... you're speaking with particular respect to the new programs, Justice Stevens?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3141.403], "stop_times": [3145.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3141.403}, "reply_to": "21984__1_135", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_137", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Yes.\nIt seems to me that you can interpret what you're saying as the... as the... the Government adopting a budget in which there's not enough room for all the programs it wants to support in the current year and continuing to honor the obligations under the existing contracts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3145.823, 3146.316], "stop_times": [3146.316, 3162.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3145.823}, "reply_to": "21984__1_136", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__1_138", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Well, I don't think that even with respect to the current year there wouldn't be enough money to pay for the complete shortfall in contract support costs.\nIf you look at the figures, the shortfall in contract support costs, for example, in 1997 cumulatively was $82 million, and that's... that is more than the amount of the appropriation increase from FY 1996 to FY 1997.\nIt's more than the amount that was reserved by the Government for inherent Federal functions.\nAnd so even if you accepted that interpretation, it wouldn't be sufficient to fully fund the contract support costs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3162.663, 3170.382, 3183.279, 3187.061], "stop_times": [3170.382, 3183.279, 3187.061, 3192.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3162.663}, "reply_to": "21984__1_137", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_139", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Is there some way to avoid these problems now?\nHas anything changed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3192.551, 3195.811], "stop_times": [3195.811, 3197.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3192.551}, "reply_to": "21984__1_138", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21984__1_140", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Justice O'Connor, Congress changed things by imposing a statutory cap, explicit statutory cap, on contract support cost funding beginning with 1998.\nIt had done so since 1994 for the BIA and it did so beginning in 1998 with respect to IHS.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3197.297, 3207.411], "stop_times": [3207.411, 3212.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3197.297}, "reply_to": "21984__1_139", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_141", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Why was there that difference between the BIA that got the statutory caps earlier and not till, was it, 4 years later for the IHS?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3212.695], "stop_times": [3221.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3212.695}, "reply_to": "21984__1_140", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21984__1_142", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "I think the difference lies in the extent to which there was perceived to be a shortfall.\nMy understanding is that there was a shortfall already in BIA programs whereas the shortfall didn't really become evident with respect to the IHS until 1994 and beyond.\nAnd that's why you might see the discrepancy between the two.\nBut Congress also acted, by the way, in 1998 in the 1999 Appropriations Act in enacting section 314 of the 1999 Appropriations Act.\nAnd I think, if nothing else, section 314 at list... at least expresses the view of a subsequent Congress that the Secretary's allocation scheme from 1994 to 1997 was legitimate and was fully within his discretion under the ISDA.\nAnd under this Court's decisions in Red Lion and its progeny, that determination by a subsequent Congress is at least entitled to great weight in determining what the Secretary appropriately exercised discretion in 1994 through 1997.\nSo even if you thought that there was some doubt on whether the Secretary had carried out his functions consistently with the ISDA, I think Congress' saying later in the 1999 Appropriation Act that its view was that Secretary had done so legitimately should push the Court towards ruling in our favor on the initial interpretation of the ISDA.\nI want to address really quickly, if I could, the notion that the funds for administrative support for programs that are administered directly by the Federal Government are available.\nAnd that would have significant consequences because one of the policies underlying the act is not only to protect the interests of tribes that are currently entered into self-determination contracts, but it's to protect the amounts that are available to tribes that might some day choose to enter into self-determination contracts.\nAnd if, under the tribes' view, the Secretary was required to divert the entire amount of the increase in any particular year to contracting tribes or to... to divert the entire amount of administrative support for... for noncontracted programs to contracting tribes, the effect of that would be to freeze in place the amounts that were available for potentially contracting tribes in future years.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3221.795, 3226.237, 3235.069, 3238.413, 3247.414, 3261.653, 3274.906, 3291.912, 3301.284, 3317.631, 3336.783], "stop_times": [3226.237, 3235.069, 3238.413, 3247.414, 3261.653, 3274.906, 3291.912, 3301.284, 3317.631, 3336.783, 3337.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3221.795}, "reply_to": "21984__1_141", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "21984__1_143", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Mr. Miller, you have about 4 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3337.543], "stop_times": [3343.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3337.543}, "reply_to": "21984__1_142", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__2_000", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Justice Stevens, thank you.\nFirst, I'd like to address the availability of appropriations clause briefly.\nThat is a term of art with a well-established meaning.\nThis Court in Morissette said that if... unless there's a contrary direction from Congress that the term of art should not be given its well-established meaning, it controls.\nAnd that is the meaning, purpose, time, and amount, that the appropriation is available for the purpose during the time and in the amounts necessary to fully--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3343.72, 3345.039, 3349.953, 3352.57, 3360.727], "stop_times": [3345.039, 3349.953, 3352.57, 3360.727, 3368.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3343.72}, "reply_to": "21984__1_143", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__2_001", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "I think they disagree with you about the purpose in respect to the core Government function.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3368.779], "stop_times": [3373.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3368.779}, "reply_to": "21984__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21984__2_002", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "--Secondly, with regard to the core governmental functions, in Blackhawk, the contractor had a settlement with the Veterans Administration.\nThe Veterans Administration had to reprogram.\nFrom where?\nWe don't know, but the Veterans Administration had to reprogram and wanted to get approval from the Congress for that reprogramming action.\nCongress then stepped in but after the payment was due and forbade any reprogramming, and the Court then held when the payment was due, money was legally available and it doesn't matter where it comes from.\nThere is no protection for inherent Federal functions.\nIt may have come from some other hospital budget.\nIt may have come from some other activity of the Veterans Administration.\nNo doubt everything the VA does is important, but it doesn't mean it didn't have a legal obligation to pay the contract.\nThere is no rule that has an IFF exception to the governmental duty to pay, and if there was, it would upset Government contract law deeply as the amicus brief from the National Chamber explains.\nSecondly, when funds are not available, we know what happens.\nThis Court's decision, Justice Brandeis' decision for the Court, in Sutton explains what happens when funds are not available.\nThere was a line item appropriation of $20,000 for a construction project.\nWe understand that the contractor was on notice.\nEverything is square.\nHere, the entire lump sum appropriation was available, and I'd like to give the Court a sense of where the money could have come from, not that the Government had to do it.\nJust as in Blackhawk, if they chose not to reprogram, that's their right.\nBut then there's a remedy.\nWhere could the money have come from?\nIn 1994, there was slightly under $2 million in a shortfall, just to the Cherokee contractor.\nNo other contractor was apparently shorted.\nThere was up to $98 million in leftover appropriations that year.\nThere was 55... $88 million in an increase, up to $88 million in increase every year from $36 million to $88 million.\nThere was $25 million in inherent Federal functions.\nThey couldn't have shaved that by 10 percent to pay this contractor?\nNot that they had to.\nThey could have taken some of it from there, some of it from the leftover, some of it from the increase, some of it from the offices at headquarters and area offices.\nThat was their decision.\nBut the contractor didn't take the risk that the Secretary would say, at the end of the day, I've decided to allocate 100 percent of my money this way, and by golly, there's nothing left for you.\nNo contractor takes that risk in dealing with the Government, and surely, a tribal contractor with a mandatory contract set forth in the statute doesn't take that risk either.\nThere is no limitation to the Secretary's theory in this case.\nThe Secretary's theory means that we come, the contractors come, after the allocation of the Secretary.\nWell, the Secretary could, in a reduction year, decide to allocate the entire reduction to the contracts and enhance even his own Federal bureaucracy and programs serving other tribes and say, now I've made my decision and I've made my judgment.\nI don't have enough money to pay you.\nThere's no limit here on contract support costs.\nIt could be the secretarial amount.\nThey could zero out these contracts and say it's practical availability.\nAnd we've decided there isn't enough money to deal with all of the health care needs in the country, so we're going to deal with the ones we operate and you come last.\nNow, that's not what the... that's not what the statute permits.\nThat sort of interpretation would lead to an absurdity.\nWith regard to the Tenth Circuit decision, Justice, you asked a question about the declarations in the Tenth Circuit.\nThere was a declaration in the Tenth Circuit, but all it had was a conclusory statement, to have reprogrammed anything would have caused reductions in programs serving other tribes.\nNow, that is not sufficient proof to withstand summary judgment, and it's certainly not sufficient proof to establish summary judgment.\nSo for all these reasons, we believe the Tenth Circuit decision should be reversed and the Federal Circuit decision affirmed.\nUnless the Court has more questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3373.73, 3381.615, 3384.587, 3385.413, 3392.306, 3405.204, 3407.333, 3409.768, 3413.277, 3419.51, 3429.187, 3434.016, 3439.589, 3442.933, 3445.145, 3446.26, 3455.07, 3458.686, 3459.513, 3461.015, 3467.231, 3469.172, 3473.175, 3481.182, 3483.494, 3485.807, 3487.005, 3494.929, 3496.043, 3505.331, 3514.142, 3520.192, 3525.848, 3539.511, 3540.958, 3543.105, 3544.424, 3549.17, 3556.312, 3559.573, 3563.742, 3570.347, 3578.149, 3585.373, 3590.203], "stop_times": [3381.615, 3384.587, 3385.413, 3392.306, 3405.204, 3407.333, 3409.768, 3413.277, 3419.51, 3429.187, 3434.016, 3439.589, 3442.933, 3445.145, 3446.26, 3455.07, 3458.686, 3459.513, 3461.015, 3467.231, 3469.172, 3473.175, 3481.182, 3483.494, 3485.807, 3487.005, 3494.929, 3496.043, 3505.331, 3514.142, 3520.192, 3525.848, 3539.511, 3540.958, 3543.105, 3544.424, 3549.17, 3556.312, 3559.573, 3563.742, 3570.347, 3578.149, 3585.373, 3590.203, 3591.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3373.73}, "reply_to": "21984__2_001", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "21984__2_003", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Miller.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3591.773], "stop_times": [3593.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3591.773}, "reply_to": "21984__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21984__2_004", "conversation_id": "21984", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1472", "start_times": [3593.797], "stop_times": [3595.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3593.797}, "reply_to": "21984__2_003", "speaker": "lloyd_b_miller"}
{"id": "22881__0_000", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "We'll now hear argument in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes against Abrams.\nMr. Lamken.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [0.0, 8.795], "stop_times": [8.795, 9.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22881__0_001", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens.\nMay it please the Court:\nThis case concerns whether Congress, in enacting section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act, intended to expose local governments and State and local officials to expansive section 1983 liability with the tens of thousands of wireless antenna zoning decisions they must make each year.\nEntitled preservation of local zoning authority, section 332 provides for State and local agencies in the first instance to implement specific Federal substantive and procedural requirements, together with preserved State zoning laws, in passing on applications to build or modify wireless towers.\nIt then provides a highly distinctive, independent cause of action for accelerated judicial review of the decisions, including a short limitations period and mandatory expedition.\nThat tailored process is sufficiently comprehensive to evidence Congress' intent for enforcement to occur--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [9.371, 13.086, 14.301, 30.193, 47.82, 57.935], "stop_times": [13.086, 14.301, 30.193, 47.82, 57.935, 63.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.371}, "reply_to": "22881__0_000", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_002", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Well, Mr. Lamken, it's not as comprehensive as other schemes where the Court said, on that basis, we would not find a section 1983 cause of action, is it?\nI mean, it's... it's more spare.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [63.713, 76.716], "stop_times": [76.716, 79.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 63.713}, "reply_to": "22881__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22881__0_003", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--It... it is unusual in its unique focus on private enforcement, but there was a reason for the focus on private enforcement.\nIn other provisions of the Communications Act, the Congress chose... for example, section 253, Congress chose to eliminate enforcement at... at the FCC level because it was concerned that State and local governments often wouldn't have enough... excuse me... local governments in particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [79.317, 85.277], "stop_times": [85.277, 98.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 79.317}, "reply_to": "22881__0_002", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_004", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Well, what... what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [98.597], "stop_times": [99.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 98.597}, "reply_to": "22881__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22881__0_005", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--wouldn't be able to... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [99.257], "stop_times": [99.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 99.257}, "reply_to": "22881__0_004", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_006", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--What would you think of a case where the plaintiff alleges that the antenna zoning was the... was caused by racial discrimination against the applicant?\nWould there be a 1983 cause of action, do you suppose?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [99.895, 113.829], "stop_times": [113.829, 116.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 99.895}, "reply_to": "22881__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22881__0_007", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Yes.\nThat would still be available because the... the section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) only provides for a cause of action for violations of the Communications Act.\nViolations of the Constitution continue to be enforceable directly under section 1983.\nSection... section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) is comprehensive in the relevant sense in that for every violation of section 332(c)(7), for every person adversely aggrieved, it provides a mechanism for private judicial enforcement.\nIn addition--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [116.718, 117.173, 125.718, 130.092, 143.839], "stop_times": [117.173, 125.718, 130.092, 143.839, 144.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 116.718}, "reply_to": "22881__0_006", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_008", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Well, what about... it... it... section 332 speaks of an award of all appropriate relief.\nWhat does that include?\nCould it include punitive damages?\nCould it include attorney's fees, do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [144.377, 151.807, 153.643, 156.144], "stop_times": [151.807, 153.643, 156.144, 158.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 144.377}, "reply_to": "22881__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22881__0_009", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--In that respect, it is indistinguishable... for example, the statute that was at issue in Smith v. Robinson, and it doesn't specify the precise forms of relief available.\nIn our view in this case, appropriate relief would mean specific relief, the type of relief that is traditionally given on review of zoning decisions and on review of judicial review of agency action.\nThat's supported by a number of considerations.\nI should point out, in the first instance, that in this case respondent never did seek damages, or punitive damages for that matter, under section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) itself.\nBut that's supported by a number of considerations.\nFirst is the structure of the act, which presents it as a form of judicial review of agency action.\nThe act is structured much as you have... much as you would when a Federal agency enforces or implements Federal requirements and is subject to judicial review.\nThe only difference is that Congress swapped in, effectively, State and local agencies with the initial implementers in place of the Federal Government.\nIn that respect, it shares some of the characteristics of sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act which are also implemented by local... by... excuse me... by State governments as opposed to the FCC.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [158.66, 166.462, 176.66, 178.768, 187.767, 190.118, 195.402, 203.454, 210.8], "stop_times": [166.462, 176.66, 178.768, 187.767, 190.118, 195.402, 203.454, 210.8, 220.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 158.66}, "reply_to": "22881__0_008", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_010", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Mr.... Mr. Lamken, the argument has been made that 4 years before the telecommunications act we're talking about was adopted, Congress adopted the Cable TV Consumer Protection Act.\nAnd in that act, it specifically limited the remedies to declaratory and injunctive relief.\nHere we face silence.\nIsn't that an indication that when Congress wants to limit relief to declaratory and injunctive, it will say so in the... in the measure?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [220.665, 234.412, 243.411, 246.3], "stop_times": [234.412, 243.411, 246.3, 257.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 220.665}, "reply_to": "22881__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22881__0_011", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, that... that's an example where Congress, for a broad range of statutes that could be potentially used to enforce the Cable Act, chose to restrict the forms of relief available.\nAnd it is an example, in the words of Sea Clammers, where Congress has made its intent explicit in the text of the statute.\nCongress can also by implication limit the forms of... excuse me... limit the mechanism for relief that's available, and that's our position here, that Congress by providing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [257.446, 268.591, 273.504], "stop_times": [268.591, 273.504, 281.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 257.446}, "reply_to": "22881__0_010", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_012", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "What's the... what's the source of the implication?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [281.389], "stop_times": [283.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 281.389}, "reply_to": "22881__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22881__0_013", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [283.246], "stop_times": [283.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 283.246}, "reply_to": "22881__0_012", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_014", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "You say by implication.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [283.906], "stop_times": [285.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 283.906}, "reply_to": "22881__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22881__0_015", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "The implication... Congress has provided a specific mechanism for judicial relief here, section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) itself, and that is a highly adapted mechanism which includes unique characteristics such as a very short limitations period.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [285.847], "stop_times": [298.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 285.847}, "reply_to": "22881__0_014", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_016", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "So... so the... the implication, I... I guess, is that unless it specifically provides for damages, it implicitly does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [298.85], "stop_times": [305.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 298.85}, "reply_to": "22881__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22881__0_017", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "I'm sorry.\nIn terms of Congress making damages available under 332(c)(7)(B)(v), our view of the damage... then it might... damages are only one of the differences we think that exists here.\nBut our view is supported by a number of considerations, in addition to the structure of the statute.\nFor example, appropriate relief is often... is the traditional form of relief available.\nIn this context traditional relief was always specific relief.\nCongress also included a specific savings clause that extends not merely to Federal statutes, but prohibits the impairment--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [305.166, 305.538, 315.53, 319.655, 323.742, 326.609], "stop_times": [305.538, 315.53, 319.655, 323.742, 326.609, 332.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 305.166}, "reply_to": "22881__0_016", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_018", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Excuse me.\nWhere... where are you getting the term, appropriate relief, from?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [332.741, 333.28], "stop_times": [333.28, 335.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 332.741}, "reply_to": "22881__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__0_019", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--This... that comes from this Court's decision in Franklin, that where Congress doesn't specifically identify the specific forms of relief available--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [335.797], "stop_times": [342.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.797}, "reply_to": "22881__0_018", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_020", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "All right.\nBut that's... that's not in the... that's not in the text of this statute, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [342.939, 343.294], "stop_times": [343.294, 346.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 342.939}, "reply_to": "22881__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__0_021", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--No, it isn't.\nIt is an inference the Court draws from silence.\nWhen the Court... when Congress provides an express cause of action and does not identify the specific forms of relief available, the Court will infer that Congress intended to provide all appropriate relief.\nBut the term, appropriate relief, is that relief which Congress would have intended, and when the Court is determining that, it takes a look at what the traditional forms of relief are and it will look at things such as the savings clause in 601(c), which expressly says that the statute should not be read, unless it expressly provides, to supersede, impair, or otherwise modify State and local law, as well as Federal law.\nAnd in order to put damages into the statute, if it doesn't provide damages expressly, one would have to impair myriad municipal immunity laws that otherwise protect municipalities and State and local officers implementing zoning requirements from liability.\nFinally, the FCC has--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [346.405, 346.86, 348.968, 357.884, 380.175, 393.671], "stop_times": [346.86, 348.968, 357.884, 380.175, 393.671, 395.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 346.405}, "reply_to": "22881__0_020", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_022", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "And... and 1983 is not subject to that limitation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [395.984], "stop_times": [399.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 395.984}, "reply_to": "22881__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__0_023", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Well, 1983 is expressly preemptive under this Court's decisions, and it is... it would preempt the State laws by its own force.\nBut we believe that that also supports Congress' decision not to provide... or supports the conclusion that Congress did not intend to provide section 1983 relief here because the effect of making the Communications Act enforceable under section 1983 would be to expand the categories of claims for which... that... those immunities are unavailable, and it would thereby impair those immunities.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [399.616, 407.129], "stop_times": [407.129, 426.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 399.616}, "reply_to": "22881__0_022", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_024", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "But are they only immune from damages action or are they immune from suit?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [426.987], "stop_times": [431.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 426.987}, "reply_to": "22881__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__0_025", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "No.\nThey're generally immunities... immune from damages actions, not from suits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [431.361, 432.104], "stop_times": [432.104, 435.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 431.361}, "reply_to": "22881__0_024", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_026", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "So, I mean, that proves too much because they... the statute obviously intends to eliminate that immunity.\nThe immunity from suit is... is clearly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [435.698, 443.333], "stop_times": [443.333, 448.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 435.698}, "reply_to": "22881__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__0_027", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Oh, I think... I think you may have misunderstood.\nThe immunity is not from suit.\nIt's an immunity from damages and the impairment would be the immunity from damages.\nSection 332 is not designed to impair the municipal immunity statutes, and they are not immunities from suit.\nThey are generally from damage liability.\nThe officers are subject to suit because these are subject--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [448.262, 450.12, 451.4, 454.949, 460.151, 461.515], "stop_times": [450.12, 451.4, 454.949, 460.151, 461.515, 463.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 448.262}, "reply_to": "22881__0_026", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_028", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Well, it allows suit against either municipalities or States, State or local governments.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [463.677, 468.49], "stop_times": [468.49, 468.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 463.677}, "reply_to": "22881__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__0_029", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [468.779], "stop_times": [469.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 468.779}, "reply_to": "22881__0_028", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_030", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "And the States have immunity not just from damages but from suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [469.522], "stop_times": [472.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.522}, "reply_to": "22881__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__0_031", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "As a constitutional matter, they have an immunity from suit, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [472.948], "stop_times": [475.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 472.948}, "reply_to": "22881__0_030", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_032", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Unless they have chosen to waive it, which--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [475.92], "stop_times": [477.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 475.92}, "reply_to": "22881__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__0_033", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [477.035], "stop_times": [477.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 477.035}, "reply_to": "22881__0_032", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_034", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--one must assume in this area they haven't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [477.49], "stop_times": [479.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 477.49}, "reply_to": "22881__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__0_035", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [479.47], "stop_times": [479.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 479.47}, "reply_to": "22881__0_034", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_036", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "So you have to regard this provision as intentionally overriding some provisions of State law in... inasmuch as they apply to... to immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [479.842], "stop_times": [492.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 479.842}, "reply_to": "22881__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__0_037", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Well, first of all, I don't think it would be read to... to override the State's constitutional immunity to suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [492.473], "stop_times": [497.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 492.473}, "reply_to": "22881__0_036", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_038", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "No.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [497.924, 499.161], "stop_times": [499.161, 499.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 497.924}, "reply_to": "22881__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__0_039", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "But it would be read to... it would be read to override immunities to suit that exist under State law because otherwise it couldn't be affected.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [499.904], "stop_times": [507.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 499.904}, "reply_to": "22881__0_038", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_040", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--In for a penny, in for a pound.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [507.128], "stop_times": [508.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 507.128}, "reply_to": "22881__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__0_041", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [508.82], "stop_times": [509.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 508.82}, "reply_to": "22881__0_040", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_042", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "If they've... if they've waived--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [509.192], "stop_times": [510.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 509.192}, "reply_to": "22881__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__0_043", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "But I'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [510.472], "stop_times": [511.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 510.472}, "reply_to": "22881__0_042", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_044", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--If... if you acknowledge that it was intended to affect their immunity from suit, why... why would we suspect that it was not intended to affect their immunity from damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [511.958], "stop_times": [520.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 511.958}, "reply_to": "22881__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__0_045", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Well, because it would be... it would be a provision with no effect whatsoever if it didn't override immunities to suit.\nBut I'm not sure there are provisions that are providing for... I mean, that there are myriad damages immunity laws that provide municipalities absolute immunity from suit.\nIt's fairly common, at least under California and other State law, for municipalities to be subject to suit for review of their... of the actions that they make.\nAnd that is the typical fashion that this... this statute simply incorporated that typical fashion of providing judicial review of agency action.\nAnother consideration that supports the view that section 1983 has been displaced is that the act provides an entire process for the implementation of the Federal statutes.\nIt establishes Federal substantive requirements that identifies the agencies to implement them.\nIt provides Federal procedural guarantees, APA-like guarantees, like the requirement of substantial evidence, like the requirement of a written decision, like the requirement of a decision with a reasonable period of time.\nIt then follows up with a mechanism, an adapted mechanism for judicial review.\nIn that sense, it is very much like the statute at issue in Smith v. Robinson.\nThat elaborate process is particularly significant given the pattern of the Communications Act as a whole.\nThe Communications Act repeatedly matches specific regulatory requirements such as, for example, the common carrier requirements in 202 and 203, with corresponding mechanisms for private enforcement, such as an action for suit... I mean, an action for damages in court or an enforcement action in the commission in sections 206 and 207.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [520.503, 525.704, 534.128, 542.423, 549.853, 559.141, 564.221, 574.911, 578.832, 582.63, 587.831], "stop_times": [525.704, 534.128, 542.423, 549.853, 559.141, 564.221, 574.911, 578.832, 582.63, 587.831, 608.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 520.503}, "reply_to": "22881__0_044", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_046", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Does this action have to be brought in Federal court?\nIt says any court of competent jurisdiction.\nCould--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [608.348, 610.289, 612.723], "stop_times": [610.289, 612.723, 612.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 608.348}, "reply_to": "22881__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__0_047", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Yes.\nThe action can be brought in State court and often is.\nThere are about 50 reported decisions that we have found where the suit has been brought in State court.\nI haven't seen a particular pattern between the choice, but Congress gave the option.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [612.889, 613.178, 615.657, 620.032], "stop_times": [613.178, 615.657, 620.032, 624.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 612.889}, "reply_to": "22881__0_046", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_048", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Would a State court be free to award damages or would that be preempted under the view you take of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [624.49], "stop_times": [634.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 624.49}, "reply_to": "22881__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22881__0_049", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "The State... because there's an express preservation of State law in this context, I think that State... States would be free to award damages under their own laws.\nThey wouldn't... whatever relief is available under the Federal statute would be available under the Federal statute, and State courts wouldn't be free to second-guess Congress' judgment as to what relief should be provided under Federal statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [634.15, 642.489], "stop_times": [642.489, 653.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 634.15}, "reply_to": "22881__0_048", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_050", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "If the State court allowed damages... if... if the State system allowed... State law allowed damages, would the Federal court, in an action under this section, be allowed to award damages under that... under the State statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [653.429], "stop_times": [671.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.429}, "reply_to": "22881__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22881__0_051", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Your Honor, I think since the... the provision, the savings clause, says that the statute should not be construed to impair State law... and there are so many municipal immunity statutes and you would only have one construction of the statute... I believe that the construction would be an across-the-boards construction, that this act does not provide damages and you would not vary from State to State.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [671.096], "stop_times": [691.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 671.096}, "reply_to": "22881__0_050", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_052", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "What if the State law authorized the recovery of attorney's fees?\nWould they be recoverable?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [691.863, 694.668], "stop_times": [694.668, 695.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 691.863}, "reply_to": "22881__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22881__0_053", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [695.699], "stop_times": [696.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 695.699}, "reply_to": "22881__0_052", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_054", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "What if the State law authorized the recovery of attorney's fees?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [696.459], "stop_times": [699.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 696.459}, "reply_to": "22881__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22881__0_055", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [699.786], "stop_times": [700.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.786}, "reply_to": "22881__0_054", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_056", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "What would you do then?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [700.34], "stop_times": [701.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 700.34}, "reply_to": "22881__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22881__0_057", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--If the State law provides for recovery of attorney's fees for State violations, then that would control for State violations.\nFor violations of Federal law, the... the remedies that Congress chose to provide would control and the States would not be permitted to second-guess the... the remedies--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [701.068, 707.505], "stop_times": [707.505, 716.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 701.068}, "reply_to": "22881__0_056", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_058", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "I'm not sure why that would be if you, in fact, see the statute as trying to impose an APA-like structure, saying to the States, you decide the substance, we'll give you minimum elements of form, which helps your position.\nThen if the minimum elements of form are not specifically stated in the statute, there's no reason to interfere with the States.\nLet them do what they want.\nOnly those minimum elements are what you can't do.\nThat works perfectly for you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [716.133, 734.049, 742.511, 743.959, 747.553], "stop_times": [734.049, 742.511, 743.959, 747.553, 749.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 716.133}, "reply_to": "22881__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22881__0_059", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Justice Breyer--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [749.782], "stop_times": [751.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 749.782}, "reply_to": "22881__0_058", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_060", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "It's strongly supported in the history.\nIt may lose your client the money.\nI don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [751.268, 752.587, 754.323], "stop_times": [752.587, 754.323, 754.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 751.268}, "reply_to": "22881__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22881__0_061", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Well, in fact, California provides a municipal immunity for permitting decisions, and so my client--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [754.645], "stop_times": [760.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 754.645}, "reply_to": "22881__0_060", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_062", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "So then you're only--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [760.389], "stop_times": [761.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 760.389}, "reply_to": "22881__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22881__0_063", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--would be fine with your position.\nBut that is a potential inference.\nMy... the normal view would be that where Congress provides a... a statute, one would normally presume that Congress intended a particular set of remedies to accompany it.\nYou could say that the silence is meant to... meant to reflect the fact that Congress knew that these would be enforced in State courts, as well as Federal, and it would allow State courts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [761.382, 762.125, 763.816, 771.989], "stop_times": [762.125, 763.816, 771.989, 780.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 761.382}, "reply_to": "22881__0_062", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_064", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Congress didn't care.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [780.246], "stop_times": [780.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 780.246}, "reply_to": "22881__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22881__0_065", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--to use whatever--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [780.784], "stop_times": [781.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 780.784}, "reply_to": "22881__0_064", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_066", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Congress wanted to substitute a Federal judgment for the judgment of the States where it said so.\nAnd the reason you know that is because that is what is consistent with the purpose of the act and other things are either neutral or negative.\nDon't interfere with the State unless you have to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [781.444, 788.231, 798.45], "stop_times": [788.231, 798.45, 801.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 781.444}, "reply_to": "22881__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22881__0_067", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--That is one of our principal contentions, Justice Breyer, which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [801.794], "stop_times": [804.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 801.794}, "reply_to": "22881__0_066", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_068", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "And what, Mr. Lamken, would be the normal procedure in the State?\nYou make an application for a permit to a zoning board.\nWhat is the standard operating procedure under State law?\nSuppose we don't have any telecommunications act in the picture.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [804.932, 810.134, 813.683, 818.512], "stop_times": [810.134, 813.683, 818.512, 822.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 804.932}, "reply_to": "22881__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22881__0_069", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--The normal procedure is either under a uniform State law or California law.\nIf you have a... an entity which is... excuse me.\nIf you have either a planning commission or sometimes there's another entity that does the initial review and makes a determination whether to grant the permit.\nIt is then appealable either to a zoning board of adjustment... that's the... the model act... or in California, States... localities have the option of having the appeal go to the local legislature.\nThat appeal is then reviewed... is then determined.\nAnd finally, once you've gone through that process, under California law it's generally reviewable by a writ of mandate, although other... other States provide review by writ of certiorari, by mandamus, or by various other procedures, almost always subject to a short limitations period, almost always short... requiring finality, a final decision, exhaustion through the State process.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [822.189, 827.346, 831.062, 838.203, 848.067, 851.245], "stop_times": [827.346, 831.062, 838.203, 848.067, 851.245, 871.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 822.189}, "reply_to": "22881__0_068", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_070", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "And the remedies being injunctive and declaratory.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [871.64], "stop_times": [874.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 871.64}, "reply_to": "22881__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22881__0_071", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "A... a form of specific relief.\nGenerally they have the authority to effectively go in and revise the decision below, but the remedies ordinarily do not include monetary or compensatory relief I should say.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [874.817, 877.23], "stop_times": [877.23, 886.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 874.817}, "reply_to": "22881__0_070", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_072", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Are you saying that it's parallel to what APA review of an agency decision would be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [886.129], "stop_times": [893.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 886.129}, "reply_to": "22881__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22881__0_073", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "It's very much like that.\nThe remand rule that this Court normally requires in the APA context is not so strictly observed in the context of... of review of... judicial review of zoning decisions, but it is very much like APA review.\nThat is what prevails.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [893.681, 895.333, 908.253], "stop_times": [895.333, 908.253, 909.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 893.681}, "reply_to": "22881__0_072", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_074", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "It... it seems to me that the 30-day provision is inconsistent with the award of damages, but after I say that, I can't tell you why.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [909.079, 916.898], "stop_times": [916.898, 917.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 909.079}, "reply_to": "22881__0_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22881__0_075", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Well, actually this Court's decision in Burnett v. Grattan actually tells you why, and that is that 30-day provisions, which are typical for on-the-record review of decisions below, are often insufficient to allow somebody to develop a whole new record such as their proof of damages, to make important decisions if they're going to have, for example, a jury trial, or to prepare for discovery.\nAnd that's why 30-day provisions are not entirely uncommon in the area of judicial review of agency action, but they're wholly unprecedented, for the most part that I know of, in the area of tort-like remedies like section 1983.\nIf I... if there are no further questions, I would like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [917.708, 936.86, 950.773], "stop_times": [936.86, 950.773, 954.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.708}, "reply_to": "22881__0_074", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__0_076", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Yes, you may.\nMr. Feldman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [954.982, 955.891], "stop_times": [955.891, 963.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 954.982}, "reply_to": "22881__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22881__1_000", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nWhere Congress creates a special cause of action for... for a violation of a Federal law that necessarily carries with it its own features and incidents, Congress' decisions about the appropriate mechanisms for dealing with that violation of Federal law should not be frustrated or overridden by allowing a 1983 action in addition.\nIn this case, section 332(c)(7)(B)(v), which creates a cause of action for violation of the specific standards in (i) through (iv) is an independent, standalone cause of action.\nIf 1983 didn't exist, 332(c)(7)(B)(v) would, undoubtedly, still provide plaintiffs with a mechanism to get into court and attain redress for the legal wrongs that they claim.\nWhere Congress has taken that step and has thought about what the appropriate remedy should be for a violation of a particular Federal statute and has created a judicial remedy, then it would only frustrate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [963.777, 968.728, 988.008, 1002.165, 1014.053], "stop_times": [968.728, 988.008, 1002.165, 1014.053, 1026.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 963.777}, "reply_to": "22881__0_076", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22881__1_001", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "But it... the statute, though, is silent on the question of damages or attorney's fees, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1026.125], "stop_times": [1031.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1026.125}, "reply_to": "22881__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22881__1_002", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--It is.\nIt doesn't say anything expressly about either of those things, but I think it has long been--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1031.886, 1032.795], "stop_times": [1032.795, 1037.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1031.886}, "reply_to": "22881__1_001", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22881__1_003", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Can we infer all appropriate relief?\nDo we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1037.17, 1040.513], "stop_times": [1040.513, 1040.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.17}, "reply_to": "22881__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22881__1_004", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--As a matter of damages, I think all appropriate relief would be the standard.\nBut as a matter of attorney's fees, I think is a good example of why there shouldn't be a 1983 action here because the law is 100 percent clear, from this Court's decision in Alyeska and other cases, that where Congress hasn't provided for fee-shifting, there simply is no fee-shifting authorized.\nThat's what they intended.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1040.885, 1044.851, 1060.621], "stop_times": [1044.851, 1060.621, 1061.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1040.885}, "reply_to": "22881__1_003", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22881__1_005", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Attorney's fees are never appropriate, in other words.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1061.902], "stop_times": [1064.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1061.902}, "reply_to": "22881__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__1_006", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Are never appropriate unless Congress specifically provides for them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1064.253], "stop_times": [1067.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1064.253}, "reply_to": "22881__1_005", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22881__1_007", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "But it has provided for them for a 1983 action, and if it's a 1983 action, it takes care of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1067.104], "stop_times": [1073.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1067.104}, "reply_to": "22881__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22881__1_008", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1073.641], "stop_times": [1073.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1073.641}, "reply_to": "22881__1_007", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22881__1_009", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "And this is kind of circular.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1073.913], "stop_times": [1074.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1073.913}, "reply_to": "22881__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22881__1_010", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "I don't think it's circular because I think when Congress created the specific cause of action here in (B)(v), it didn't provide for attorney's fees and therefore intended that attorney's fees not be provided.\nIf respondent's view in this case were accepted, the... the presumption would be exactly flipped, and Congress would have had--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1074.989, 1085.059], "stop_times": [1085.059, 1091.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1074.989}, "reply_to": "22881__1_009", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22881__1_011", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Mr. Feldman--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1091.54], "stop_times": [1091.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1091.54}, "reply_to": "22881__1_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22881__1_012", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Suppose Congress said specifically 1983 applies.\nThat's all it says.\nWould that carry with it attorney's fees in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1091.996, 1094.447, 1094.801], "stop_times": [1094.447, 1094.801, 1097.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1091.996}, "reply_to": "22881__1_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22881__1_013", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Yes, I... yes, I think it... I think it would.\nThe question here, though, is where Congress has thought about what kind of remedy it wants for violation of a Federal statute and created a judicial cause of action for every wrong that's... that... that can exist under that statute, then the incidents and features of that cause of action should govern, not the incidents and features of 1983 which almost inevitably and in this case are different.\nAnd attorney's fees is just the best example of that.\nIf... under respondent's view... when Congress was fashioning this statute, it certainly was aware of this Court's decisions that have repeatedly said that attorney's fees are not available unless they're expressly provided for.\nAnd indeed, elsewhere in the Communications Act--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1097.94, 1099.509, 1120.397, 1122.793, 1134.599], "stop_times": [1099.509, 1120.397, 1122.793, 1134.599, 1136.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1097.94}, "reply_to": "22881__1_012", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22881__1_014", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Well, I take... you... you take the position that 1983 doesn't apply at all.\nIt's not just attorney's fees.\nIt's damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1136.95, 1140.543, 1141.452], "stop_times": [1140.543, 1141.452, 1142.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1136.95}, "reply_to": "22881__1_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22881__1_015", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--That's right.\nBut it's just an illustration.\nThere's other differences between the provision here and 1983, but I think the basic point is that where Congress has given thought to the remedy for a particular violation... type of violation of Federal law and has provided for a judicial cause of action, with whatever features and incidents it... it wants, 1983 shouldn't be allowed in.\nIt should be assumed that Congress didn't want to have its decisions frustrated by also allowing a 1983 action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1142.09, 1142.833, 1144.319, 1163.517], "stop_times": [1142.833, 1144.319, 1163.517, 1169.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1142.09}, "reply_to": "22881__1_014", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22881__1_016", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "What about damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1169.582], "stop_times": [1170.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1169.582}, "reply_to": "22881__1_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__1_017", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Do you... do you think that any other provisions of the Communications Act are enforceable under 1983?\nI mean, we're talking about 332, but it's a big, complicated act.\nAre any of the other provisions enforceable?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1170.325, 1175.405, 1179.742], "stop_times": [1175.405, 1179.742, 1182.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1170.325}, "reply_to": "22881__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22881__1_018", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "I think... I think the same rule would apply to any of the provisions where Congress has specifically provided for a cause of action for the same reason, otherwise Congress when... here, for example, just to return to attorney's fees for a second.\nWhen Congress was framing this legislation, they knew that they weren't giving attorney's fees and this 332(c)(7)(B)(v) would be construed not to give attorney's fees, but not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1182.836, 1195.717], "stop_times": [1195.717, 1205.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1182.836}, "reply_to": "22881__1_017", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22881__1_019", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Well, this is really a more general proposition you're urging upon us then, that whenever Congress creates a cause of action that is... what... in any respect more limited than section 1983, the background action of section 1983 is not available.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1205.626], "stop_times": [1223.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1205.626}, "reply_to": "22881__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__1_020", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--That... I... I think that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1223.581], "stop_times": [1225.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1223.581}, "reply_to": "22881__1_019", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22881__1_021", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "No.\nHow could that be?\nWouldn't it depend on whether... when you look at the particular statute, the particular set of remedies that Congress has included in that statute could be absolutely independent of 1983 or dependent upon 1983 or leaning in favor or leaning against.\nIt would depend on the particular statute.\nWhy in general?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1225.4, 1225.672, 1226.819, 1249.094, 1251.339], "stop_times": [1225.672, 1226.819, 1249.094, 1251.339, 1252.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1225.4}, "reply_to": "22881__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22881__1_022", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "I think in... I think the rule would be in general because, first of all, it's not just remedies.\nThere's other incidents of a cause of action such as statute of limitations, the provision here for expedition, and other things.\nAnd really when Congress has given thought to what remedy it wants for a violation here of (i) through (iv), for a violation elsewhere in the Communications Act of other Federal standards, it shouldn't be assumed that they all... that... to allow a 1983 action would just frustrate Congress' intent in fashioning that particular remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1252.188, 1256.069, 1262.013], "stop_times": [1256.069, 1262.013, 1278.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1252.188}, "reply_to": "22881__1_021", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22881__1_023", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Then how would you ever have a statute that... 1983 provides for relief when there's a violation of Federal law, statutory or constitutional.\nOne of briefs in this very case says that your broad reading means that you were doing away with statute as a basis for 1983.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1278.194, 1289.218], "stop_times": [1289.218, 1298.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1278.194}, "reply_to": "22881__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22881__1_024", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "I... I think that that's completely wrong.\nWhen Congress has created... has recognized a right, as this Court has found is essential for a 1983 action, and it hasn't done anything about providing a remedy for that right, hasn't created a cause of action in court in particular, then that's the function of 1983, is to serve... it provides a cause of action for people who suffer a violation of that wrong, a statutory violation.\nBut where Congress has given thought to what kind of relief it wanted and it said we want a cause of action with these such-and-such incidents, no attorney's fees, 30-day statute of limitations, expedition, whatever the other ones are here, then it would just frustrate Congress' intent to say, oh, and also you get a 1983 action to undo all of the things that Congress provided for.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1298.878, 1300.985, 1322.367], "stop_times": [1300.985, 1322.367, 1344.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1298.878}, "reply_to": "22881__1_023", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22881__1_025", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Well, there... there are two situations.\nI mean, one can supplement without frustrating.\nI mean, you... you could say that in, you know... in some respects the 1983 will contradict the action that was provided, but one can conceive of a provided action that... that grants relief which 1983 would not grant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1344.575, 1344.658, 1348.002], "stop_times": [1344.658, 1348.002, 1371.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1344.575}, "reply_to": "22881__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__1_026", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "That's right.\nAnd... and I... whatever... I guess the general point would be whatever remedial decisions Congress made, those should be respected, but I would add in this case it's not just... it's a question of attorney's fees, which they would have had to... Congress would have had to do something very unusual here, which is particularly put in this statute no... there shall be no fee-shifting because otherwise you can always go to 1983 and get it.\nIn fact, even if they had done that in 332(c)(7)(B)(v), respondents would still argue, well, we still have our 1983 action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1371.49, 1372.417, 1394.237], "stop_times": [1372.417, 1394.237, 1400.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1371.49}, "reply_to": "22881__1_025", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22881__1_027", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "What... what about damages?\nDo... do you take any position on whether the Communications Act provision enables damages to be collected?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1400.031, 1403.07], "stop_times": [1403.07, 1409.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1400.031}, "reply_to": "22881__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__1_028", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "We don't have a position on whether it does.\nI think there's arguments both ways.\nI would point out--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1409.674, 1411.903, 1413.306], "stop_times": [1411.903, 1413.306, 1413.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1409.674}, "reply_to": "22881__1_027", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22881__1_029", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "You think it's unnecessary to decide this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1413.844], "stop_times": [1416.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1413.844}, "reply_to": "22881__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__1_030", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--I think it is unnecessary, and in fact, I think it shows a problem with... a reason why our view, which is if Congress creates a cause of action, that should be respected... why that should be respected.\nUnder other views, you have to look at the 1983 action and figure out all of its incidents.\nYou have to look at the 332 action and figure out all of its incidents in the abstract as here, not where... in connection with a particular claim for damages, and then see whether they're consistent with each other.\nI think the much better rule would be to say where Congress has created a specific cause of action, that's what it wanted, and whatever you get under that, you get.\nWhatever you don't get under that, you don't get.\nBut 1983 shouldn't be used to... to frustrate Congress' intent and give you things that that cause of action wouldn't to give you a longer statute of limitations, which would be, I think, the case here, to give you... eliminate the provision for mandatory expedition, to have any differences in damages.\nAnother way to put it would be under the Court's decision in Franklin, this statute gives you any appropriate relief.\nAll that 1983 could do here... it maybe gives you the same thing which, as far as that goes, it doesn't matter.\nBut all it could do otherwise would be give you inappropriate relief, i.e., relief that Congress didn't want.\nAnd instead of construing the two statutes in that way, they should be construed harmoniously and in accord with this Court's decisions which have set forth the line of cases where you have a right to get into court in Wilder... I'm sorry... in... in Sea Clammers and Smith against Robinson and said there we want to take Congress' remedy, however simple or complex it is.\nIt gives you a complete right to get into court and gives you whatever it gives you.\nAnd that should govern.\nAnd then the other line of cases, which is Wilder where... and... where it says... and the Wright against Roanoke where Congress didn't give you a right to get to court... get into court.\nIn those cases, that's the function of 1983.\nThe same thing would be true in... in a number of other this Court's cases that have recognized you have a 1983 action when Congress gave you a right and didn't think at all about the remedy because that's the function that 1983 was supposed to serve.\nIf there's no further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1416.007, 1425.528, 1430.479, 1440.017, 1448.107, 1450.086, 1468.291, 1475.144, 1480.634, 1486.207, 1506.436, 1510.151, 1511.282, 1519.727, 1522.411, 1534.754], "stop_times": [1425.528, 1430.479, 1440.017, 1448.107, 1450.086, 1468.291, 1475.144, 1480.634, 1486.207, 1506.436, 1510.151, 1511.282, 1519.727, 1522.411, 1534.754, 1538.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1416.007}, "reply_to": "22881__1_029", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22881__1_031", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Feldman.\nMr. Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1538.098, 1539.462], "stop_times": [1539.462, 1544.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1538.098}, "reply_to": "22881__1_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22881__2_000", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Mr. Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nIn... by its clear text, section 1983 promises redress for the depravation of any Federal right in any, quote, proper proceeding.\nAnd that expansive language, this Court has recognized, dictates a heavy presumption that its remedies apply to all violations of Federal rights, a presumption which this Court has said is rebutted only in the, quote, exceptional case in which the statute that creates the right is accompanied by an enforcement scheme that is, quote, incompatible with or inconsistent with 1983's remedies.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1544.581, 1552.67, 1565.302, 1596.426], "stop_times": [1552.67, 1565.302, 1596.426, 1596.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1544.581}, "reply_to": "22881__1_031", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_001", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Mr. Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1596.965], "stop_times": [1597.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1596.965}, "reply_to": "22881__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22881__2_002", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--the background principle.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1597.541], "stop_times": [1598.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1597.541}, "reply_to": "22881__2_001", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_003", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Mr. Waxman, it seems to me that the... the best argument we've heard about incompatibility is the one... or at least I think the best... is the one that Mr. Lamken touched on at the tail end of his argument, and that is, he said there's... there's a 30-day provision in there, which in effect says Congress wants this litigation conducted fast and over with fast.\nAnd that is incompatible with a damage action because if you get into a damage action, you are going to get into the panoply of... of damages litigation, including depositions, and... and the one thing you can guarantee is that it is not going to be over expeditiously.\nWhat is your argument?\nWhat is your response to that incompatibility argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1598.655, 1619.628, 1640.144, 1641.835], "stop_times": [1619.628, 1640.144, 1641.835, 1644.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.655}, "reply_to": "22881__2_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22881__2_004", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Well, I think that the way this Court has interpreted incompatibility before... in the two instances in 25 years since Maine v. Thiboutot was decided, the only instances in which this Court has found incompatibility has been where use of 1983 would create an end run around limitations in the statute.\nThat is, in the... in Sea Clammers and in Smith v. Robinson, you had statutes that forestalled an individual's access to court via an administrative regime and then expressly limited the judicial remedies that would be available once they got there by requiring, for example, only injunctive relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1644.352, 1668.79], "stop_times": [1668.79, 1690.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1644.352}, "reply_to": "22881__2_003", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_005", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Well, the other word is inconsistent, and is it... sorry.\nWere you... is it inconsistent if Congress didn't want it?\nAnd if that's insufficient to be inconsistent, then here, as I look at the statute, to get out my thinking, I think that it sounds like an administrative law statute.\nIf I saw the maintenance and cure words, I'd think it was an admiralty statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1690.604, 1694.879, 1700.08, 1713.993], "stop_times": [1694.879, 1700.08, 1713.993, 1717.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1690.604}, "reply_to": "22881__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22881__2_006", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Okay.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1717.83, 1718.202], "stop_times": [1718.202, 1718.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1717.83}, "reply_to": "22881__2_005", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_007", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "But I see an administrative law statute.\nIt sounds like that's the system they're imposing and therefore a system that is not consistent with the administrative law system fails and 1983 seems to fail.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1718.673, 1720.409], "stop_times": [1720.409, 1732.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1718.673}, "reply_to": "22881__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22881__2_008", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Okay.\nNow I have two points.\nI... I don't want to forget these.\nI have to deal with the... the question of whether a 30-day requirement is inconsistent and whether damages would be inconsistent with what... with what my colleagues posit as an APA-like administrative review model.\nA 30-day requirement is simply a reflection of Congress'... Congress confirming expressly that somebody who... who is aggrieved under the rights provided to him under 332(c)(7) and wants any judicial remedy, whether it's from 1983 or otherwise, has to go to court promptly.\nIt's precisely what 1983, this Court said in Patsy and Felder, guarantees and requires.\nIt does not require--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1732.669, 1732.874, 1733.905, 1735.12, 1748.56, 1770.397, 1777.827], "stop_times": [1732.874, 1733.905, 1735.12, 1748.56, 1770.397, 1777.827, 1779.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1732.669}, "reply_to": "22881__2_007", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_009", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "But it also requires expeditiousness on the part of the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1779.109], "stop_times": [1782.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1779.109}, "reply_to": "22881__2_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22881__2_010", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--It requires that the court proceed expeditiously and courts can proceed expeditiously where damages are sought or are not sought.\nOne of the interesting things about damages--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1782.535, 1788.973], "stop_times": [1788.973, 1791.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1782.535}, "reply_to": "22881__2_009", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_011", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "But do you... do you agree with this much, that if... if damages, in fact, are going to be allowed, what is going to count as expeditious is going to be a lot slower than what is going to count as expeditious if damages are not allowed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1791.202], "stop_times": [1803.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1791.202}, "reply_to": "22881__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22881__2_012", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--I don't think that's true.\nIn fact, I think this case is a pretty good example.\nThe court separated it... I mean, acting under a requirement of expedition at the request of the city.\nThis... the court didn't even begin to address this case until 18 months after it had been filed.\nBut what it said was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1803.462, 1804.371, 1806.684, 1812.545, 1818.285], "stop_times": [1804.371, 1806.684, 1812.545, 1818.285, 1819.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1803.462}, "reply_to": "22881__2_011", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_013", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Okay.\nAnd... and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1819.194, 1819.5], "stop_times": [1819.5, 1820.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.194}, "reply_to": "22881__2_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22881__2_014", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--the first issue--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1820.476], "stop_times": [1820.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1820.476}, "reply_to": "22881__2_013", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_015", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--that was a violation of the statute, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1820.886], "stop_times": [1822.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1820.886}, "reply_to": "22881__2_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22881__2_016", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Well, it first issued an order saying, okay, I've construed the statute and I've determined that the statute is violated.\nNow we will have a separate proceeding.\nThen the city will conduct itself accordingly.\nNow we'll have a separate proceeding in order to determine whether damages or attorney's fees are available.\nAnd that is available in any of these cases.\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1822.91, 1829.764, 1832.403, 1834.427, 1840.288, 1842.434], "stop_times": [1829.764, 1832.403, 1834.427, 1840.288, 1842.434, 1842.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1822.91}, "reply_to": "22881__2_015", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_017", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "So they turned the damage issue basically just into a separate remedial hearing at the end of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1842.889], "stop_times": [1847.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1842.889}, "reply_to": "22881__2_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22881__2_018", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--It could or could not be, and there may... may be many cases when damages aren't appropriate but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1847.801], "stop_times": [1851.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1847.801}, "reply_to": "22881__2_017", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_019", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "I thought that was just to decide in... in the... in the court of first instance... that tail end was not to decide whether in this specific case damages or attorney's fees were due.\nBut the district court was deciding a question of law, that is, whether in this kind of review proceeding anyone could have damages, anyone could have attorney's fees.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1851.888, 1861.442], "stop_times": [1861.442, 1874.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.888}, "reply_to": "22881__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22881__2_020", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--What he said, Justice Ginsburg, was we'll deal with what other remedies, if any, are available and to what extent in a separate proceeding.\nAs it turns out, he concluded in an--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1874.733, 1883.095], "stop_times": [1883.095, 1885.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.733}, "reply_to": "22881__2_019", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_021", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "But was not making a rule for this case only.\nHe was making a ruling of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1885.324, 1886.605], "stop_times": [1886.605, 1888.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1885.324}, "reply_to": "22881__2_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22881__2_022", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--For sure.\nHe said that I don't think you're entitled to this because I think that the statute doesn't allow it.\nAnd therefore, he didn't get to this question.\nBut the point about damages... I think there are two points that are very important they not be obscured.\nFirst of all, the Government... the fact that the Government and the petitioner can't agree on whether the statute itself provides damages relief under the principle of Bell v. Hood and Franklin v. Gwinnett County certainly shows that Congress did not speak expressly on this subject.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1888.563, 1889.185, 1894.962, 1896.836, 1902.188], "stop_times": [1889.185, 1894.962, 1896.836, 1902.188, 1922.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1888.563}, "reply_to": "22881__2_021", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_023", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "They... they don't necessarily disagree.\nThe Government just says the... the issue doesn't have to be reached in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1922.621, 1923.94], "stop_times": [1923.94, 1927.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.621}, "reply_to": "22881__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__2_024", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Well, I think... I think that... what the Government says in its papers is they may well be available and what Mr. Feldman... I don't want to misquote him, but he said that under Franklin... he agreed, I think, with what Judge Posner wrote for the Seventh Circuit, which is where no remedies... where no specific remedies are specified... and that's the case here... you apply a rule of judicial implication, announced in Bell v. Hood and applied to an implied right of action in Franklin, to apply that all appropriate relief is available.\nAnd damages are the paradigm.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1927.739, 1960.061], "stop_times": [1960.061, 1961.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1927.739}, "reply_to": "22881__2_023", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_025", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Mr. Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1961.714], "stop_times": [1962.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1961.714}, "reply_to": "22881__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__2_026", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "And the irony here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1962.374], "stop_times": [1962.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1962.374}, "reply_to": "22881__2_025", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_027", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Mr. Waxman, how do you... how do you get a reading of the 30-day limitation, which is applicable to the cause of action under the Communications Act, sucked into the cause of action under section 1983?\nI mean, if the suit is under 1983, it's under 1983.\nThere's no 30-day limit there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1962.996, 1981.116, 1984.31], "stop_times": [1981.116, 1984.31, 1985.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1962.996}, "reply_to": "22881__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__2_028", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--I have... I have two different ways to get to that.\nFirst of all, section 1983, by its terms, provides redress in any appropriate cause of action.\nIt also supplies a cause of action where no other cause of action is available, but by its express terms, it doesn't exclusively limit its remedies to causes of action that are brought under 1983.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [1985.946, 1989.745, 1997.563], "stop_times": [1989.745, 1997.563, 2011.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1985.946}, "reply_to": "22881__2_027", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_029", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "No, it doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2011.126], "stop_times": [2011.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2011.126}, "reply_to": "22881__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__2_030", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "But more broadly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2011.309], "stop_times": [2012.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2011.309}, "reply_to": "22881__2_029", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_031", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "But it doesn't require you to... to establish a cause of action under some other statute either.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2012.241], "stop_times": [2017.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2012.241}, "reply_to": "22881__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__2_032", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--That's right.\nIt provides a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2017.153, 2017.525], "stop_times": [2017.525, 2018.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2017.153}, "reply_to": "22881__2_031", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_033", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "It does not at all.\nIt's... it's self-contained.\nAnd do you know any case where we have read into, or indeed, it's even been urged upon us to read into, section 1983 limitations that somehow come from the statute that was violated and which forms the basis for the 1983 action?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2018.556, 2018.928, 2020.497], "stop_times": [2018.928, 2020.497, 2037.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2018.556}, "reply_to": "22881__2_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__2_034", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Well, I don't, but I do know that this Court... first of all, Congress has now enacted section 1658 which provides a... a 4-year Federal default statute of limitations, where... where a statute like 1983 doesn't provide it, but includes an... an introduction that says, except where otherwise provided by Federal law.\nAnd there's certainly nothing in that language that says when you're looking at whether a statute of limitations is otherwise provided by Federal law, you look to the very statute that creates the substantive right that 1983 is enforcing.\nAnd even before that, when your... your decision in Wilson v. Garcia made the point that when you try to figure out what statute of limitations applies to a freestanding 1983 action, there are... there is a tripartite rule of construction that section 1988 requires you to engage in.\nAnd the first part is to see whether there is any, quote, suitable Federal statute of limitations.\nNow, in constitutional cases, like the one that was at issue in Wilson v. Garcia or under the Social Security Act, which is what was addressed in Maine v. Thiboutot, there were no express causes of action, much less any express statute of limitations.\nAnd so this Court said you then go to the second rule, which is what's the most appropriate State limitations, as 1988 requires.\nBut the anomaly of the argument here is we have a background principle that 1983 is available and there is a heavy presumption that it will be available unless it is explicitly incompatible or inconsistent with--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2037.011, 2057.444, 2071.107, 2089.683, 2096.742, 2111.231, 2119.61], "stop_times": [2057.444, 2071.107, 2089.683, 2096.742, 2111.231, 2119.61, 2135.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2037.011}, "reply_to": "22881__2_033", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_035", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Well, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2135.751], "stop_times": [2136.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2135.751}, "reply_to": "22881__2_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22881__2_036", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2136.057], "stop_times": [2136.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2136.057}, "reply_to": "22881__2_035", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_037", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--that's why I'm approaching it differently, and I... I want to get your view on it.\nI'm taking the word inconsistent and I'm using that as a guide back into the purpose of the statute.\nAnd once I do that, I find Congress here anxious, I think, to engage in what I'd call cooperative federalism.\nThey could have run the whole show, but they said we don't want the FCC.\nWe want each city and town to do what they want, subject to a few minimal procedural requirements.\nIf that's right, that means all these damages questions are open.\nAll kinds of things are open, but... and we'll decide them in a variety of ways, maybe deferring to the State, but one thing is true: 1983 doesn't apply because that is a different set of remedies.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2136.661, 2139.512, 2146.404, 2154.372, 2159.695, 2166.177, 2171.584], "stop_times": [2139.512, 2146.404, 2154.372, 2159.695, 2166.177, 2171.584, 2186.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2136.661}, "reply_to": "22881__2_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22881__2_038", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Justice Breyer, this is not the APA model.\nThis is not a model of administrative review for a number of reasons.\nNumber one, it is a background... there... there... it is established, for purposes of this case, that this statute creates individual Federal rights and those rights were violated.\nAnd the background rule is uniformly... and this Court has... has... in Owens v. City of Indianapolis and many other cases has reinforced the principle that damages are available and 1983 is available where Federal rights are violated by municipalities, whether it's under the Takings Clause or the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause or in statutory cases.\nWhat is more--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2186.445, 2190.531, 2194.618, 2206.097, 2230.534], "stop_times": [2190.531, 2194.618, 2206.097, 2230.534, 2231.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2186.445}, "reply_to": "22881__2_037", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_039", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Mr. Waxman... Mr. Waxman, one of these provisions gives you an option to go to the FCC, the one having to do with emissions.\nNow, if you sought review from the local decision to the FCC, you petition for FCC relief, would the FCC have authority to give you attorney's fees?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2231.899, 2240.731], "stop_times": [2240.731, 2255.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2231.899}, "reply_to": "22881__2_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22881__2_040", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--The FCC has said that it does not if you do that.\nIn... in 2000, when the FCC last reported, one person had chosen to go that route rather than go to Federal court.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2255.426, 2258.276, 2265.994], "stop_times": [2258.276, 2265.994, 2266.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2255.426}, "reply_to": "22881__2_039", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_041", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Well, isn't that an incongruity that Congress would say you have your choice?\nComplainant, you can go to the Federal agency, the FCC, or you can go to court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2266.283, 2270.62], "stop_times": [2270.62, 2276.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.283}, "reply_to": "22881__2_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22881__2_042", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--You can't go to the... excuse me.\nI didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2276.785, 2278.893], "stop_times": [2278.893, 2279.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.785}, "reply_to": "22881__2_041", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_043", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "So if... if you have that choice, when you're dealing with the radio emissions, to go the... why would any litigant ever do that?\nWhy would any attorney ever do that if you don't get fees at the FCC and you do get fees in court?\nWouldn't the presumption be that it would work the same way whether you go to the agency, Federal agency, or Federal or State court, that you're in the same situation as respect to fees?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2279.386, 2288.014, 2294.618], "stop_times": [2288.014, 2294.618, 2306.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.386}, "reply_to": "22881__2_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22881__2_044", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--The... the FCC alternative for a declaration by the FCC applies to only one of the five rights that are provided here, and even if it applied to all of them, I don't think you could possibly infer that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2306.673], "stop_times": [2320.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2306.673}, "reply_to": "22881__2_043", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_045", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Well, let's take the one, that... that one.\nAre you saying no attorney's fees there because you couldn't get them at the FCC, therefore you shouldn't get them in court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2320.503, 2322.732], "stop_times": [2322.732, 2328.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2320.503}, "reply_to": "22881__2_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22881__2_046", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Absolutely not.\nIf... if there were an instance in which a local zoning official said, you know, I know I'm not supposed to take radio frequencies emissions into account, but I'm going to, it's denied, I would have the right either to go to the FCC and say, tell them no, or to file an action under 332 and/or 1983 and say that violates my rights.\nAnd actually your example--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2328.099, 2328.637, 2350.185], "stop_times": [2328.637, 2350.185, 2351.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2328.099}, "reply_to": "22881__2_045", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_047", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "But isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2351.383], "stop_times": [2351.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.383}, "reply_to": "22881__2_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22881__2_048", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--If I just may finish.\nYour example, I think... the example of this particular provision points out that what... the balance of what I was going to explain to Justice Breyer, which is that another reason why this isn't the APA model is that this statute includes in little (i) and little (ii) substantive provisions, not just procedural provisions.\nYou can't discriminate, to give Justice O'Connor's first example, among providers.\nThe... that was a complaint in this case.\nThere is de novo review, it is clear, on those claims.\nIt's not administrative APA review in any respect.\nAnd in fact, the district judge in this very case, Judge Wilson, says it looks like, in fact, you were discriminated against, but I don't need to reach that because it's clear that there was no substantial evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2351.605, 2353.257, 2376.951, 2382.691, 2385.496, 2389.5, 2392.472], "stop_times": [2353.257, 2376.951, 2382.691, 2385.496, 2389.5, 2392.472, 2403.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2351.605}, "reply_to": "22881__2_047", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_049", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "They... they didn't provide for the normal administrative review because they were quite aware that under the State zoning systems, there would always be State administrative review before the issue even comes up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2403.884], "stop_times": [2417.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2403.884}, "reply_to": "22881__2_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__2_050", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "And this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2417.242], "stop_times": [2418.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2417.242}, "reply_to": "22881__2_049", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_051", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "And so what this provides is what kind of judicial review there will be after the anticipated administrative review before the zoning board and whatever appeal from the zoning board exists.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2418.811], "stop_times": [2429.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2418.811}, "reply_to": "22881__2_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__2_052", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--I... I have to respectfully disagree.\nThis Court, in... in Williamson County and Darby and many other cases, has distinguished carefully between final... final action and exhaustion of administrative review or judicial review.\nAnd all this statute requires is that if you are aggrieved by an action or inaction of a State or local government or an instrumentality thereof--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2429.585, 2431.321, 2444.612], "stop_times": [2431.321, 2444.612, 2455.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2429.585}, "reply_to": "22881__2_051", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_053", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Final.\nFinal action or failure to act is what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2455.857, 2456.107], "stop_times": [2456.107, 2459.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.857}, "reply_to": "22881__2_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__2_054", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2459.284], "stop_times": [2459.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2459.284}, "reply_to": "22881__2_053", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_055", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Final action or failure to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2459.738], "stop_times": [2461.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.738}, "reply_to": "22881__2_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__2_056", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "And final action, this Court has explained, does not import into it exhaustion of either State administrative or judicial remedies.\nWhat it means is that once you have been injured, it's a... it's a ripeness requirement that's familiar under--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2461.43, 2471.339], "stop_times": [2471.339, 2477.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2461.43}, "reply_to": "22881__2_055", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_057", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "You haven't been injured until you've exhausted your--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2477.943], "stop_times": [2480.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2477.943}, "reply_to": "22881__2_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__2_058", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2480.377], "stop_times": [2481.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2480.377}, "reply_to": "22881__2_057", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_059", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--You... you really think that when there is a State provision available for review of the zoning board, you can commence an action under 1983 without even going through the administrative appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2481.492], "stop_times": [2491.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2481.492}, "reply_to": "22881__2_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__2_060", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--I am entirely certain of that, and in fact, the... the local ordinance... I mean, the question of what is final agency action is surely a Federal question, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2491.623], "stop_times": [2501.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.623}, "reply_to": "22881__2_059", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_061", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "This is really respecting the States, which is what the... the purpose of this... of this whole provision was.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2501.554], "stop_times": [2507.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2501.554}, "reply_to": "22881__2_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__2_062", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Justice Scalia, when Congress addressed this problem in 1996, as the Government points out in the very first page of its brief and as the legislative history reflects, it was confronting a situation in which intransigent, entrenched zoning authorities were acting arbitrarily to frustrate the creation of a national wireless network.\nAnd it was so concerned about this that the House actually passed a provision that removed this paradigmatic local authority to the FCC.\nThe FCC was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2507.127, 2530.244, 2541.018], "stop_times": [2530.244, 2541.018, 2542.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2507.127}, "reply_to": "22881__2_061", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_063", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Which would be more burdensome?\nThat enactment or subjecting municipalities nationwide to damages?\nWhich would be more intrusive and burdensome on federalism--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2542.049, 2542.587, 2548.736], "stop_times": [2542.587, 2548.736, 2553.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2542.049}, "reply_to": "22881__2_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22881__2_064", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2553.073], "stop_times": [2554.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2553.073}, "reply_to": "22881__2_063", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_065", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--and the abilities of local governments to function?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2554.104], "stop_times": [2556.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2554.104}, "reply_to": "22881__2_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22881__2_066", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Oh, I think the former, for sure.\nI mean, the notion that zoning decisions, siting decisions would be removed entirely from localities is unbelievably intrusive.\nAnd what happened in the conference committee was a compromise was reached whereby Congress' objective was going to be achieved by creating... by leaving it, in the first instance, Justice Kennedy, to local--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2556.333, 2558.069, 2567.562], "stop_times": [2558.069, 2567.562, 2580.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.333}, "reply_to": "22881__2_065", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_067", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Well, I'm... I'm not so sure because you're arguing that even the smallest municipality can be liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorney's fees.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2580.11], "stop_times": [2587.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2580.11}, "reply_to": "22881__2_066", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22881__2_068", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2587.335], "stop_times": [2587.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2587.335}, "reply_to": "22881__2_067", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_069", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "And I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2587.791], "stop_times": [2588.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2587.791}, "reply_to": "22881__2_068", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22881__2_070", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--let me just say this, with respect to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2588.738], "stop_times": [2591.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2588.738}, "reply_to": "22881__2_069", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_071", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Plus other... plus other damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2591.134], "stop_times": [2593.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2591.134}, "reply_to": "22881__2_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22881__2_072", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--I think this case, Justice Kennedy... I have three things to say about this.\nThis case is every bit as... as paradigmatic as the parade of horribles that they suggest.\nAnd here's my proof.\nIt has been since 1997 that courts have been ruling that 1983 and damages are available under this statute.\nThere is no evidence in any of the briefs on the other side or any of their amici that there has either been a flood of litigation or inappropriately large awards.\nAnd if that happened, Congress would do... would be attentive to it in the way that Justice Ginsburg pointed out when the local cable authorities came to... came to the very same committees 4 years before and said, we're being hit... there's an express right of action in 555 of the... the Communications Act.\nWe're being hit with very large 1983 awards.\nPlease do something about it.\nAnd the very same committees 4 years before enacted a provision that said you may get only injunctive and declaratory relief, thereby creating an incompatibility with 1983, as the legislative history expressly provides.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2593.075, 2597.533, 2605.706, 2606.904, 2616.647, 2626.307, 2646.285, 2649.546, 2651.032], "stop_times": [2597.533, 2605.706, 2606.904, 2616.647, 2626.307, 2646.285, 2649.546, 2651.032, 2666.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2593.075}, "reply_to": "22881__2_071", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_073", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Well, cable... cable media companies may... may have Congress' ear more readily than... than... you know, than the municipality of whatever this is or any--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2666.347], "stop_times": [2676.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.347}, "reply_to": "22881__2_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__2_074", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "State and... than State and local governments?\nI hope not.\nBut here's... here's the additional--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2676.562, 2678.691, 2679.434], "stop_times": [2678.691, 2679.434, 2681.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2676.562}, "reply_to": "22881__2_073", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_075", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--But I... I wouldn't put a lot of money on it.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2681.003, 2683.111], "stop_times": [2683.111, 2683.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.003}, "reply_to": "22881__2_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__2_076", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--The point is that Congress... Justice Kennedy, the point is not that Congress was being inattentive to State and local budgets.\nWhat it wanted to do what was this... the point this Court the addressed in... in Stakura and... and Owens v. City of Indianapolis, which is to enforce a Federal statute through privately enforceable Federal rights, which would include a damages remedy that both provides a deterrent against conduct that had provided entrenched resistance to a Federal program and provide compensation where reasonable and appropriate.\nNow, this Court has made clear, with respect to damages, in... in Carey v. Piphus and other cases, that there may be very many cases in which there's a violation of a procedural right but only nominal damages are available.\nAnd in Buckhannon--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2683.515, 2691.2, 2721.665, 2735.782], "stop_times": [2691.2, 2721.665, 2735.782, 2736.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2683.515}, "reply_to": "22881__2_075", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_077", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "But with respect to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2736.98], "stop_times": [2737.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2736.98}, "reply_to": "22881__2_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22881__2_078", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--If I may just finish this sentence.\nAnd in Buckhannon and Farrar v. Hobby, this Court has... has recognized that in order to get attorney's fees, you have to have substantially prevailed and a court, under 1988(b), may award attorney's fees in its... may award... in its discretion insofar as they are reasonable.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2737.163, 2738.837, 2760.181], "stop_times": [2738.837, 2760.181, 2760.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2737.163}, "reply_to": "22881__2_077", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_079", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Mr.... Mr. Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2760.468], "stop_times": [2762.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2760.468}, "reply_to": "22881__2_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22881__2_080", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Yes, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2762.326], "stop_times": [2762.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2762.326}, "reply_to": "22881__2_079", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_081", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "There is in this legislative record a concern expressed by a Senator from California when there was a proposal on the table to make the FCC the Federal review forum.\nAnd that was rejected, if I understand correctly, because there was a concern that municipalities would have to travel all the way to Washington, D.C. to defend in the FCC's forum.\nAnd Congress did not want to saddle municipalities with the cost of transporting their representative to D.C. Well, that cost would pale compared to attorney's fees that would be awarded.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2762.986, 2776.732, 2794.482], "stop_times": [2776.732, 2794.482, 2809.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2762.986}, "reply_to": "22881__2_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22881__2_082", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "First of all, Justice Ginsburg, I... the reference to those two Senators... what those two Senators were talking about is not, as my colleague's brief suggests, this provision.\nThey were talking about another provision of the Telecom Act.\nI think it was section 253, but I may be wrong.\nBut even if that's the case, the fact of the matter is that whether it was going to cost them... I agree.\nIt would cost... look, a regime in... which left all of these siting decisions to the FCC is breathtaking, and it certainly would impose lots of costs not only on local municipalities to have to come to Washington to justify these decisions, but certainly on the FCC, which would have to send an army out to example... I mean, it would sort of like be the... the television commercial, you know, where the guy is walking around saying, you know, can you hear me now, can you hear me now?\nThe fact is it made great sense to continue to leave the initial decisions with local authorities.\nBut Congress had... was frustrated, expressly frustrated with the fact that the prior regime, in which they had let local authorities do it under their normal routines and applying the normal remedies, was not getting the job done.\nThat was the imperative of this statute.\nAnd in the... in the absence of any evidence, even now 11 years later... or I guess it's 10 years... 9 years later.\nIn the absence of any evidence of a flood of litigation or inappropriate awards, I think given the very heavy presumption that this Court has recognized over and over and over again, that 1983 is there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2809.054, 2820.2, 2822.968, 2825.584, 2831.224, 2858.483, 2865.154, 2879.271, 2881.296, 2890.045], "stop_times": [2820.2, 2822.968, 2825.584, 2831.224, 2858.483, 2865.154, 2879.271, 2881.296, 2890.045, 2905.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2809.054}, "reply_to": "22881__2_081", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_083", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "That isn't the only--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2905.195], "stop_times": [2906.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2905.195}, "reply_to": "22881__2_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22881__2_084", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "1983 is the background principle against which Congress legislates.\nAnd this statute either... neither provides nor excludes any remedies, and all it does is confirm that when you go... when you are injured, you can go to court.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2906.392, 2909.736, 2920.76], "stop_times": [2909.736, 2920.76, 2920.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2906.392}, "reply_to": "22881__2_083", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_085", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--The other... the other harm is there any evidence of because it's... it would also be harmful if local zoning boards, when faced with quite difficult decisions, because the... the antenna... they bristle up and you put them in the wrong place.\nThey're environmentally harmful.\nThey... there are a lot of bad things, as well as good things about them.\nAnd of course, it would be a bad impact if we discovered that the zoning boards were erring too much on the side of granting everybody's application, as well as too much on the side of not granting them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2920.982, 2935.165, 2936.568, 2939.458], "stop_times": [2935.165, 2936.568, 2939.458, 2953.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2920.982}, "reply_to": "22881__2_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22881__2_086", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--To be sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2953.082], "stop_times": [2953.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2953.082}, "reply_to": "22881__2_085", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_087", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "And so I... I don't know how... what the... there won't be evidence.\nHow can we get evidence on such a thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2953.825, 2957.002], "stop_times": [2957.002, 2958.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2953.825}, "reply_to": "22881__2_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22881__2_088", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "The... the... you... the evidence will be either in the decided cases or by local municipal governments coming to Congress and saying, this is too heavy a thumb on the scale.\nBut what we know is that if you afford only prospective relief, which is the... the ancien regime that Congress was... that Congress felt wasn't doing the job, it provides no deterrent, no incentive to accomplish what Congress said was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2958.738, 2970.914], "stop_times": [2970.914, 2988.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2958.738}, "reply_to": "22881__2_087", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_089", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "But I... I don't think we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2988.293], "stop_times": [2989.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2988.293}, "reply_to": "22881__2_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22881__2_090", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--a compelling national objective.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2989.136], "stop_times": [2990.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2989.136}, "reply_to": "22881__2_089", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_091", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--I don't think we usually think of... of judicial review of agency decisions in the ordinary course as being a deterrent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2990.067], "stop_times": [2997.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2990.067}, "reply_to": "22881__2_090", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22881__2_092", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2997.126], "stop_times": [2999.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2997.126}, "reply_to": "22881__2_091", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_093", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "It's an opportunity to elaborate reasons.\nIt's a safeguard.\nIt's not a deterrent.\nAnd you're saying it has to be a deterrent.\nAnd as Justice Breyer indicates, it... it means that there's... there's another voice in that... in that administrative hearing room.\nThey're terrified of damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [2999.317, 3001.667, 3002.577, 3004.229, 3006.542, 3017.688], "stop_times": [3001.667, 3002.577, 3004.229, 3006.542, 3017.688, 3019.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2999.317}, "reply_to": "22881__2_092", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22881__2_094", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Justice Kennedy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [3019.378], "stop_times": [3020.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3019.378}, "reply_to": "22881__2_093", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_095", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "And it's going to skew the decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [3020.576], "stop_times": [3021.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3020.576}, "reply_to": "22881__2_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22881__2_096", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, it... under their... under the regulations of this municipality, which is... is perfectly representative, it is final agency action when the city planning commissioner says no, unless you choose to appeal it to the city council.\nAnd there is... not only is there nothing peculiar about applying 1983 damages awards to the violation by a State and local government of an express Federal right, assuming you can prove not only that the right was violated but also that you were really damaged.\nIt's... I'm not suggesting that... that Congress had damages in mind specifically and only to deter conduct.\nYou have said in a variety of instances... I mentioned Stacura in particular... that 1983 damages do serve as a deterrent to violation of Federal rights by municipal local officials.\nBut what Congress had... Congress had to come up with some way to confront this problem in which there were sort of local parochial--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [3021.774, 3036.551, 3057.235, 3064.869, 3079.609], "stop_times": [3036.551, 3057.235, 3064.869, 3079.609, 3088.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3021.774}, "reply_to": "22881__2_095", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_097", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "May I ask this question, Mr. Waxman?\nI don't know if it's really a legal question exactly, but I have the impression that most of the plaintiffs in this type of litigation are well-financed, large companies rather than the typical 1983 plaintiff.\nAnd therefore, you don't need the attorney's fee incentive to be sure these rights are protected.\nIs that a correct impression or is it incorrect?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [3088.071, 3089.185, 3101.9, 3106.041], "stop_times": [3089.185, 3101.9, 3106.041, 3108.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3088.071}, "reply_to": "22881__2_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22881__2_098", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--I... I don't know whether it's a correct impression or not.\nOur brief points the Court to an authority that at least 9,500 of the entities that have... have created antennas or tower facilities have 10 or fewer facilities.\nAnd one thing we know for sure is that when Congress enacted the Telecom Act of 1996, it specifically wanted to encourage small operations, start-up companies.\nIt had specific provisions in the law to give special treatment to small entrepreneurs in order to foster diversity and competition.\nBut in the event that you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [3108.149, 3111.242, 3123.874, 3137.249, 3146.537], "stop_times": [3111.242, 3123.874, 3137.249, 3146.537, 3147.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3108.149}, "reply_to": "22881__2_097", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_099", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "I can't imagine... I can't imagine, Mr. Waxman, that Congress wanted to impose damages plus attorney's fees upon municipalities without even giving the municipalities the chance to correct their mistakes, which is what you're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [3147.901], "stop_times": [3164.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3147.901}, "reply_to": "22881__2_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__2_100", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [3164.991], "stop_times": [3165.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3164.991}, "reply_to": "22881__2_099", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_101", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "You're saying the municipalities' appeal system, which is there for people to take advantage of, is just washed out.\nOne mistake at the lowest level and you get damages and you get attorney's fees.\nThat... that is extraordinary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [3165.484, 3170.564, 3174.938], "stop_times": [3170.564, 3174.938, 3176.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3165.484}, "reply_to": "22881__2_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22881__2_102", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Justice Scalia, the... the... 1983... and your jurisprudence shouts this as clearly as it does any other principle... stands for the proposition that it's there unless, in the explicit language of the statute that creates the right, there is a demonstrated incompatibility.\nAnd that's the background rule.\nThere are many instances in the Telecom Act and elsewhere in which Congress has said you can only get injunctive relief.\nYou may not get 1983 damages.\nI mean, go back to Adickes v. Kress where this Court said in title II of the Public Accommodations act, Congress expressly... expressly precluded damages in order to avoid invocation of 1983.\nAnd I'm not saying that Congress had in mind my client, who is an individual, a sole entrepreneur, who was subject to, I think what the record shows is, prolonged and entrenched intransigence by this particular municipality, any more than it had Judge Posner's example in the Seventh Circuit where it was, you know, Verizon v. the Village of Mequon.\nBut this Court has recognized, as have the lower courts, that you only get damages if you prove that you really have been damaged.\nAnd in an instance where there's some procedural violation and a remand to correct it, this may very well be the instance of Carey v. Piphus, where the damages are purely nominal.\nThe agency is given the opportunity.\nIn this case, the city never said, give us the opportunity to go back and correct it.\nAnd Judge Wilson, a very level-headed district judge, said there's nothing to go back and correct because the only thing... the only reason that the city gave was it didn't like this antenna and tower in the first place.\nIt... we concede that it makes no difference to anybody which frequencies are being broadcast from this tower that we approved 10 years ago and have no right to modify.\nAnd therefore, there was a substantive violation, not just, you know, you... you may have had substantial evidence but you didn't lay it all out or you gave your reasons at length and orally but not in writing, I'll give you the opportunity to go back.\nThere's a line of cases this Court has decided under the Social Security Act where there have been remands to correct procedural errors or small errors, and in those instances, Carey v. Piphus says you don't get damages.\nAnd under Buckhannon and Farrar v. Hobby, you probably don't get attorney's fees either.\nIf there ever is the sort of parade of horribles that they protest about, even a small parade of horribles, Congress will be as attentive as it was in 1992 when the cable--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [3176.713, 3197.229, 3198.799, 3206.601, 3208.83, 3225.01, 3251.305, 3259.933, 3271.078, 3272.936, 3277.19, 3290.193, 3302.575, 3315.372, 3328.952, 3333.289], "stop_times": [3197.229, 3198.799, 3206.601, 3208.83, 3225.01, 3251.305, 3259.933, 3271.078, 3272.936, 3277.19, 3290.193, 3302.575, 3315.372, 3328.952, 3333.289, 3345.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3176.713}, "reply_to": "22881__2_101", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_103", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [3345.382], "stop_times": [3345.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3345.382}, "reply_to": "22881__2_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22881__2_104", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [3345.837], "stop_times": [3346.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3345.837}, "reply_to": "22881__2_103", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22881__2_105", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Mr. Lamken, you have about 4 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [3346.292], "stop_times": [3352.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3346.292}, "reply_to": "22881__2_104", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22881__3_000", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "I'd like to make only two brief points.\nFirst, that the imposition of the... of damages and fees under section 1983 from a decision in this Court for even good faith mistakes in the implementation of the antenna siting rules, which are often complex and uncertain, would be a welcome mat for extensive and aggressive litigation and the imposition of extensive fees on municipalities which simply cannot afford to enforce their zoning rules, the rules that Congress expressly attempted to preserve in the statute itself.\nIt is... in this case alone, for example, respondent's most recent estimate of his damages and fees... and this was before he retained Mr. Waxman, I might add... is... is $15 million, essentially the city's entire budget for a year.\nAnd respondent claims to be a relatively small operator.\nThat sort of... with that sort of liability in an uncertain area of law, very few municipalities could ever afford to stand on their rights to enforce local zoning even when they're relatively certain that they are right.\nSection 332(c)(7) is entitled and has one of its purposes as the preservation of local authority.\nIt should not be construed to provide for that authority's evisceration.\nThe second point I wanted to hit is that when Congress established the mechanism for review in 332, it provided a very adapted mechanism with an unusual pair of characteristics: a very short limitations period and mandatory expedition.\nThis Court's decisions in Novotny makes it clear that neither of those requirements can be simply transferred over to section 1983.\nNovotny had very similar language, a 90-day limitations period.\nThe Court did not transfer that over to section 1985(3).\nInstead it understood that the general rule, the general Federal principle of law, that in the absence of an express limitations period, that State law would control.\nWilson then confirms that rule, as an interpretation of section 1988, that the governing Federal principle is that State law controls unless there's an express Federal cause of... statute that addresses that particular cause of action.\nIf there are no further questions, we ask only that the judgment of the Ninth Circuit be reversed.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [3352.115, 3354.465, 3382.579, 3396.53, 3399.791, 3412.422, 3419.11, 3422.991, 3436.178, 3444.252, 3448.171, 3451.598, 3461.341, 3475.292, 3479.667], "stop_times": [3354.465, 3382.579, 3396.53, 3399.791, 3412.422, 3419.11, 3422.991, 3436.178, 3444.252, 3448.171, 3451.598, 3461.341, 3475.292, 3479.667, 3480.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3352.115}, "reply_to": "22881__2_105", "speaker": "jeffrey_a_lamken"}
{"id": "22881__3_001", "conversation_id": "22881", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Lamken.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1601", "start_times": [3480.222, 3482.247], "stop_times": [3482.247, 3484.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3480.222}, "reply_to": "22881__3_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21827__0_000", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "We will now hear argument in case of City of Sherrill, New York against the Oneida Indian Nation of New York.\nMr. Sacks, whenever you're ready.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [0.0, 9.12], "stop_times": [9.12, 11.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21827__0_001", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nWith the Court's permission, the state of New York, as amicus, will address issues related to the Treaty of Buffalo Creek and I will address the other reasons why aboriginal title and other Indian possessory rights to the properties at issue were extinguished long before the Oneida Indian Nation purchased the properties in 1997 and 1998.\nThe asserted basis for tax immunity in this case appears at page 1 of respondent's brief which is that the Oneidas have at all times held a tribal possessory right in the properties.\nBut even if there was a tribal possessory right, aboriginal title or under the Treaty of Canandaigua, in 1805 and 1807 when these properties passed out of tribal hands, the passage of 190 years has extinguished that right.\nFor 190 years, these properties have been in private non Indian hands, have been freely alienable, have been transferred to numerable purchasers and have been subject to a full panoply of state and local laws including taxation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [11.974, 14.358, 34.859, 48.006, 63.708], "stop_times": [14.358, 34.859, 48.006, 63.708, 79.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.974}, "reply_to": "21827__0_000", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_002", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Well, is it your position that whenever an Indian transfers land in violation of the Nonintercourse Act, that that's a valid transfer?\nAnd if not, why is this different?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [79.618, 89.074], "stop_times": [89.074, 91.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 79.618}, "reply_to": "21827__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21827__0_003", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "No.\nIt is not our position that that would be a valid transfer if there was a violation of the Nonintercourse Act.\nThe principal issue here is whether, after of the passage of 190 years, there remains a possessory right.\nIf there was a violation of a Nonintercourse Act in 1805 and 1807, Justice Kennedy, we believe the Oneida Indian nation has a... under this Court's decision has a federal common law damage suit against New York state or against the United States of America for failing to exercise its fiduciary duty.\nBut after 190 years, in 1997, they did not have a possessory right to these properties.\nThe possessory right we're talking about, aboriginal title or some other tribal possessory right, isn't just the concept.\nAs this Court has defined aboriginal title of those possessory rights, it's a right to current possession.\nAnd under this Court's decisions in cases such as Felix versus Patrick and Yankton Sioux and Williams and Mitchell and Santa Fe, all of which were cited in the dissent written by Justice Stevens, though there was a dissent in Oneida II, tribal possessory rights are barred by that passage of time, the change in the character of the land and the innumerable innocent purchasers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [91.33, 91.581, 98.146, 106.21, 125.01, 132.829, 140.125, 145.704], "stop_times": [91.581, 98.146, 106.21, 125.01, 132.829, 140.125, 145.704, 175.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 91.33}, "reply_to": "21827__0_002", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_004", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Why does not having a possessory right mean that the city could tax them or the state?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [175.682], "stop_times": [182.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.682}, "reply_to": "21827__0_003", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21827__0_005", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "The basis for the tax immunity here is that this land does not have Indian country status.\nFor this land to have Indian country status, it has to be, in our view, under this Court, the Venetie decision.\nFederal set asides and federal superintendents.\nIf you look at how the Oneida Indian nation got this land in 1997, it wasn't because of any set aside by the Federal Government in 1794 even if there was and I will get you that later.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [182.861, 193.053, 200.872, 203.928], "stop_times": [193.053, 200.872, 203.928, 218.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 182.861}, "reply_to": "21827__0_004", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_006", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "No, I'm just thinking, suppose you have a reservation but the tribel doesn't have a possessory right because in the middle of the reservation, there is some kind of long term lease or sale to a house that's owned by somebody else who is not a member of the tribe.\nI would think... am I right that the city or the county in which that reservation sits can't tax it anyway?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [218.451, 232.584], "stop_times": [232.584, 239.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 218.451}, "reply_to": "21827__0_005", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21827__0_007", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "I absolutely agree with you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [239.598], "stop_times": [240.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.598}, "reply_to": "21827__0_006", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_008", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "All right.\nSo if you were to say the tribe does not have a possessory right, they can't go and eject all the people who are living there and built houses over the last 192 years.\nThat doesn't mean still that you could tax them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [240.74, 241.022, 250.212], "stop_times": [241.022, 250.212, 254.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 240.74}, "reply_to": "21827__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21827__0_009", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "But your hypothetical, Your Honor, presupposed the existence of the reservation and presupposed a possessory right subject to lease.\nThe possessory right here did not exist because the Oneida Indian nation had no rights with respect to the land at all in 1997.\nThose rights could not be enforced.\nThe right not to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [254.574, 263.177, 270.766, 273.198], "stop_times": [263.177, 270.766, 273.198, 275.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 254.574}, "reply_to": "21827__0_008", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_010", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "It couldn't be enforced against certain innocent purchases but when the land is reacquired, then it seems to me we have to ask whether there was an extinction of aboriginal title and whether the reservation was at some point subsequently disestablished by federal act.\nIf we hold against you on the ground that there was no extinction of aboriginal title and there was no disestablishment of the reservation, then it seems to me that when they reacquire, we get to exactly the point that Justice Breyer raised and that is, once they reacquire the land, why does it become taxable?\nWhy does its nontaxable status not simply reassert itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [275.23, 294.836, 317.524], "stop_times": [294.836, 317.524, 323.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 275.23}, "reply_to": "21827__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21827__0_011", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--I think that you have to look at the definition of Indian country.\nIf you look at the definition of Indian country, it requires, with respect to the properties we're talking about, federal set asides and federal superintendents.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [323.62, 328.335], "stop_times": [328.335, 335.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 323.62}, "reply_to": "21827__0_010", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_012", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "So you're saying if the original establishment of the reservation was simply a continuation, was literally a reservation from a transfer of land to the state of New York and that the Indian title was a purely aboriginal title, not a title conferred by a federal act creating reservations but it cannot be Indian country, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [335.978], "stop_times": [361.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 335.978}, "reply_to": "21827__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21827__0_013", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "If I understand the question that you asked, Your Honor, if the title came from the state of New York, for example--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [361.754], "stop_times": [368.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.754}, "reply_to": "21827__0_012", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_014", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Let's assume the title is aboriginal.\nNothing in an act of the United States says we're giving you this land to the Indians, e.g., in the Kansas situation.\nIt's simply aboriginal title and it was never extinguished.\nAre you saying that if that is the source of the title as opposed to a federal act saying we give this to you, that it cannot be Indian country?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [368.96, 371.147, 380.261, 384.629], "stop_times": [371.147, 380.261, 384.629, 394.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 368.96}, "reply_to": "21827__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21827__0_015", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nIn a situation where there was continuing aboriginal title, similar to the Senecas in the state of New York where New York did not terminate the aboriginal rights of the Senecas, there need not be congressional act, there need not be congressional or treaty action to establish the reservation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [394.715, 395.355], "stop_times": [395.355, 412.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 394.715}, "reply_to": "21827__0_014", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_016", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "So this part of your argument depends on our accepting your position of the treaty of Fort Schuyler as being a conveyance of all property and a later retrocession, is that correct?\nBecause otherwise, I don't see what extinguished the aboriginal title.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [412.918, 425.937], "stop_times": [425.937, 429.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 412.918}, "reply_to": "21827__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21827__0_017", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "What extinguished the aboriginal title with respect to this aspect of the argument, and then I will move on to the treaty of Fort Schuyler and the treaty of Canandaigua.\nWhat extinguished the aboriginal title is the passage of time, the fact that this land has been under state and local jurisdiction for 190 years and this Court observed, in Hagen and Rosebud Sioux, I acknowledge it was in a different context but this is important, that state and local jurisdiction sovereignty are important in situations like this where what we're dealing with is very few... 1 percent of the land in the City of Sherrill is owned by the tribe.\nThe land is predominantly non Indian.\nAnd as this Court observed in Hagen and Rosebud Sioux, a finding of the land now comes back into tribal jurisdiction, to paraphrase, seriously disrupts the justifiable expectations of the community and that's not just a hypothetical in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [429.857, 439.724, 472.689, 476.263], "stop_times": [439.724, 472.689, 476.263, 491.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 429.857}, "reply_to": "21827__0_016", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_018", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "I know that but I mean it seems to me one thing that Oneida establishes is that the whole title doesn't just disappear if nothing else happens simply because of the passage of time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [491.889], "stop_times": [506.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 491.889}, "reply_to": "21827__0_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21827__0_019", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "I think what this appears, Your Honor, is the right to possess.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [506.476], "stop_times": [511.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 506.476}, "reply_to": "21827__0_018", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_020", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "And we agree with that or I hypothetically agree with that.\nThey can't come in and eject people.\nBut then I'm back to my first question because I take it that the refusal in Oneida to the suggestion that they can't go, say, to Buffalo, New York or wherever or some town and throw everybody out of the house, that that, of course, does reflect the passage of time.\nBut for a city or state to tax the land, that doesn't involve the same kind of interference with people's expectations of living in the houses that they bought, that throwing someone out of his house would involve.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [511.943, 515.346, 517.863, 537.223], "stop_times": [515.346, 517.863, 537.223, 555.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 511.943}, "reply_to": "21827__0_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21827__0_021", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "What impacts the expectations is the following.\nI'll give you an example that appears from the joint appendix on the Court of Appeals on pages 1263 to 1277.\nIn the year 2000, the city of Oneida decided two Oneida nation businesses, a convenience store and a gas station, for 16 fire code violations.\nThe tribe citing this Court's decision in Brendale said, we're not governed by the local fire code.\nWe're governed by tribal jurisdiction.\nIt's more than just the interference, the issue of taxation, the issue of sovereignty is whether a gas station is going to blow up or burn down.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [555.634, 561.298, 568.082, 576.93, 583.608, 585.133], "stop_times": [561.298, 568.082, 576.93, 583.608, 585.133, 595.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 555.634}, "reply_to": "21827__0_020", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_022", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "It is a matter, is it not, of whether the tribe now has sovereignty over this parcel of land, is that's what's at the bottom of the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [595.096], "stop_times": [606.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.096}, "reply_to": "21827__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__0_023", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "I think in terms of the problems for the citizens of the City of Sherrill, taxation is part of it, and sovereignty is part of it, they go hand in hand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [606.75], "stop_times": [614.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 606.75}, "reply_to": "21827__0_022", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_024", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "If the tribe has sovereignty status with regard to this property, then presumably this city can't tax it.\nSo we have to decide that, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [614.484, 624.921], "stop_times": [624.921, 627.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 614.484}, "reply_to": "21827__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__0_025", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Yes, you do, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [627.886], "stop_times": [629.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 627.886}, "reply_to": "21827__0_024", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_026", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "What do we do with the Oneida II case decided in 1985?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [629.038], "stop_times": [634.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 629.038}, "reply_to": "21827__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__0_027", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "The position we're taking here is fully consistent with Oneida II.\nIn Oneida II, this Court held that there was a violation of federal common law principally because of a violation of the Nonintercourse Indian Trade Intercourse Act in 1795.\nThis Court wasn't asked to deal with, at that time, with the Treaty of Fort Schuyler.\nIt wasn't asked to deal with the treaty of Buffalo Creek.\nIt wasn't presented with evidence of the numerous authorized New York state treatise from 1840 through 1846 that the ministries reservation of the state of New York will deal with--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [634.606, 639.033, 648.91, 656.532, 659.46], "stop_times": [639.033, 648.91, 656.532, 659.46, 671.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 634.606}, "reply_to": "21827__0_026", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_028", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Why not?\nI mean, is every decision we make up for review when the interested parties fail to cite what they now assert are the dispositive acts?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [671.818, 673.285], "stop_times": [673.285, 691.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.818}, "reply_to": "21827__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__0_029", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nI think that principle of stare decisis still govern and I think why this is consistent with the position that we have taken with respect to the passage of time extinguishing the possessory right is what this Court for stare decisis purposes found in Oneida II was that there was a violation of federal common law with respect to a transfer that was very different than this transfer.\nWithout any examination of the Treaty of Buffalo Creek or without any examination of the Treaty of Fort Schuyler.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [691.285, 692.016, 715.706], "stop_times": [692.016, 715.706, 721.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 691.285}, "reply_to": "21827__0_028", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_030", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "But that wouldn't have been a violation of federal law if this were not Indian country, if this were not an Oneida reservation when the transfer occurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [721.365], "stop_times": [731.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 721.365}, "reply_to": "21827__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__0_031", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Your Honor, that might or might not be correct, depending on how one used the scope of the Nonintercourse Act.\nBut if one views the scope of the Nonintercourse Act to apply to Indian reservations, even state reservations, as the Second Circuit in Mohican Tribe has held, then the treaty of Fort Schuyler could have terminated all aboriginal title.\nThe treaty of Fort Schuyler could have established a state reservation for the Oneidas, and the Nonintercourse Act of 1790, two years later, could have prohibited the sale of those lands even though it was a state reservation and under state jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [731.434, 736.101, 750.896], "stop_times": [736.101, 750.896, 763.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 731.434}, "reply_to": "21827__0_030", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_032", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Is that the application of the Nonintercourse Act?\nBecause I assume it was only the federal act reservation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [763.461, 766.341], "stop_times": [766.341, 770.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 763.461}, "reply_to": "21827__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__0_033", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Well, this Court has not dealt with that issue and for our purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [770.229], "stop_times": [774.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 770.229}, "reply_to": "21827__0_032", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_034", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "How does it read?\nWhat does it say?\nI didn't mean to interrupt you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [774.187, 774.629, 775.456], "stop_times": [774.629, 775.456, 789.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 774.187}, "reply_to": "21827__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__0_035", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "The Nonintercourse Act in effect at the time prohibited the purchase of lands from Indians or Indian tribes, to paraphrase.\nAnd what hasn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [789.766, 800.55], "stop_times": [800.55, 803.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 789.766}, "reply_to": "21827__0_034", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_036", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Unless made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [803.387], "stop_times": [809.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 803.387}, "reply_to": "21827__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__0_037", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--Yes, unless subject to federal approval.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [809.014], "stop_times": [811.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 809.014}, "reply_to": "21827__0_036", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_038", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "And the idea of precisely what's at stake within the Oneida litigation, as I understand it, the counties and the municipalities in the City of Sherrill would not be left in the end having to pay, New York would.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [811.569], "stop_times": [828.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 811.569}, "reply_to": "21827__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21827__0_039", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "The City of Sherrill is not a party in the land claim litigation.\nThe land claim litigation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [828.129, 832.001], "stop_times": [832.001, 832.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 828.129}, "reply_to": "21827__0_038", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_040", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "From the county's point of view, I'm asking who pays at the end of the month and it seems, in the Oneida case, it's the state.\nIs it different here?\nAnd what taxes are we talking about precisely?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [832.983, 840.785, 842.316], "stop_times": [840.785, 842.316, 846.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 832.983}, "reply_to": "21827__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21827__0_041", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--What we are talking about... to answer the first portion of your question, Justice Ginsburg, I think ultimately the citizens of the state of New York would pay but the judgement would be against either the state of New York or the against the counties in the land plat.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [846.737], "stop_times": [858.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 846.737}, "reply_to": "21827__0_040", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_042", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "What goes with the taxes?\nYou said that the other effect would be that whenever the Oneidas buy a piece of property that is within this former reservation and of which only 1 percent is now owned by Indians, whenever they buy a piece of property, that property is taken off the tax rolls.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [858.535, 861.229], "stop_times": [861.229, 880.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 858.535}, "reply_to": "21827__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__0_043", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [880.877], "stop_times": [881.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 880.877}, "reply_to": "21827__0_042", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_044", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Which, of course, makes it a lot easier for them to buy it because it's much less expensive for them to hold that land.\nWhat else happens?\nThe town can't regulate it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [881.463, 890.557, 891.944], "stop_times": [890.557, 891.944, 895.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 881.463}, "reply_to": "21827__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__0_045", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "The town can't regulate it and if they are running a business on it, we believe this is contrary to state law, they are running a business out there, they are not collecting sales taxes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [895.006], "stop_times": [903.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.006}, "reply_to": "21827__0_044", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_046", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "And I assume that also means that that land cannot be repurchased by non Indians?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [903.592], "stop_times": [909.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 903.592}, "reply_to": "21827__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__0_047", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "The tribe has changed its position on that, I believe, in the course of the last 30 years but that is their current position.\nThat it becomes subject to the Nonintercourse Act consistent with their position.\nWith the Court's permission, I want to turn to the 1788 Treaty of Fort Schuyler and the complementing the 1794 Treaty of Canandiagua.\nOur position on the treaty of Fort Schuyler I think is very plain in our papers and I just want to highlight what's in the rest of the treaty after Article 1, which is a cessionable land.\nBut in the rest of the treaty is that New York reserved numerous rights even with respect to the reservation's land.\nNew York had, among other things, the right to make and apply laws to the reservation, to enforce the treaty... and I'm quoting from Article 4... in such manner as the state shall deem proper.\nNew York had the right to enforce its criminal laws with respect to intruders on the reservation that New York granted to the Oneidas obtaining the assistance of the Oneidas to do so.\nNew York, in the treaty, prohibited the Oneidas from selling lands.\nNew York, in the treaty, prohibited the Oneidas from certain length of leases and New York had the right to enact laws with respect to the leases that were permitted to enforce the leases.\nThe other thing that one needs to look at in the context of the times, we're looking at how would the Oneidas have understood this.\nThe tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy, knew how to preserve their aboriginal title when they wanted to do so and the Oneidas didn't do that.\nIn the 1797 Big Tree agreement with the Senecas which is published at 7 Statutes at large, 601, the Senecas sold much of their lands throughout the marsh under the approval of the United States.\nIn the agreement, the agreement provided that the reserved lands were, and I quote, clearly and fully understood to remain the property of the Senecas in as full and ample matter as if these presence had not been executed.\nThat is the way an Indian tribe understood preserving aboriginal title.\nThat didn't happen in the Treaty of Fort Schuyler.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [909.688, 915.688, 919.422, 928.088, 940.2, 949.187, 961.032, 972.254, 976.814, 988.606, 997.176, 1006.142, 1018.424, 1032.563, 1037.102], "stop_times": [915.688, 919.422, 928.088, 940.2, 949.187, 961.032, 972.254, 976.814, 988.606, 997.176, 1006.142, 1018.424, 1032.563, 1037.102, 1039.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 909.688}, "reply_to": "21827__0_046", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_048", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "You're a good lawyer that they hired and the Oneidas may not have hired as good a lawyer.\nI don't think this was done around the campfire, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1039.939, 1045.086], "stop_times": [1045.086, 1048.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1039.939}, "reply_to": "21827__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__0_049", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "I'm sure it was not, Your Honor.\nThe other thing that one has to look at at times is what New York state was doing.\nNew York state entered into three similar treatise at the time.\nOne with the Oneidas, one with the Cayuga and one with the Onondaga.\nThose three treaties all terminated aboriginal title in the first provision.\nThe other three tribes of the were not of concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1048.499, 1050.281, 1056.739, 1060.462, 1065.161, 1071.177], "stop_times": [1050.281, 1056.739, 1060.462, 1065.161, 1071.177, 1075.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1048.499}, "reply_to": "21827__0_048", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_050", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "When you say terminated the title, you mean by the conveyance of all lands?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1075.732], "stop_times": [1079.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1075.732}, "reply_to": "21827__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21827__0_051", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Yes, they had the exact same language in Article 1.\nThe structure of the treaties were identical.\nThe other three tribes of the Iroquois were not of concern to New York state in 1788 because the Mohawks had mostly moved to Canada, the Tuscaroras had no land of their own and the Senecas were in the portion of New York state where Massachusetts had the preemption right.\nSo if you look at what is happening back in 1788 and early 1789, New York state is setting up a state treaty with the Oneidas and keeping jurisdiction over those lands.\nNow, to go back to what you asked earlier, there is no question that if in that context, the Federal Government then passed a statute that says, as it may, the Oneidas can't sell this land without federal approval.\nThat's a violation of the Nonintercourse Act but it doesn't change the fundamental nature of the land as being under state jurisdiction and has been under state jurisdiction since 1788.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1079.081, 1081.961, 1084.873, 1100.303, 1112.676, 1129.529], "stop_times": [1081.961, 1084.873, 1100.303, 1112.676, 1129.529, 1139.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1079.081}, "reply_to": "21827__0_050", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_052", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Was there ever any federal superintendent of the land?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1139.684], "stop_times": [1144.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1139.684}, "reply_to": "21827__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21827__0_053", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "If you count an agent going on the land, there was an agent going on the land, but what happened with this land in terms of federal superintendents is that this land has been superintended, and supervised whether in tribal hands or otherwise by the state of New York and local governments since 1788.\nThere is a reference in our papers to a report, what was issued in connection with the New York state setting up their troopers to cover the reservations and that reported knowledge that the United States Government appreciated the fact that the state of New York had been keeping peace on the reservations with their police and so no reason to interfere with 100 years... and this was in the 20th century... of over 100 years of state police supervision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1144.42, 1163.487], "stop_times": [1163.487, 1192.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1144.42}, "reply_to": "21827__0_052", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_054", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Isn't the FBI that keeps peace on other reservations.\nIsn't it quite standard for state law enforcement to function?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1192.964, 1197.252], "stop_times": [1197.252, 1201.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1192.964}, "reply_to": "21827__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__0_055", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIf the FBI doesn't do it, states often do it.\nThey do it sometimes with the permission but this happened for 200 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1201.668, 1212.148, 1215.588], "stop_times": [1212.148, 1215.588, 1219.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1201.668}, "reply_to": "21827__0_054", "speaker": "ira_s_sacks"}
{"id": "21827__0_056", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Sacks.\nMs. Halligan?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1219.087, 1221.156], "stop_times": [1221.156, 1223.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1219.087}, "reply_to": "21827__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21827__1_000", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Justice Stevens, may it please the Court:\nThe state of New York was granted time to address the third question regarding the 1838 treaty which we believe requires reversal of the decision below because it disestablish the Oneida reservation.\nRespondents claim that there is not exercised sovereignty over any part of land they buy within a vast 300,000 tract in Central new York.\nThis has long been inhabited--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1223.428, 1233.919, 1244.623, 1253.871], "stop_times": [1233.919, 1244.623, 1253.871, 1255.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1223.428}, "reply_to": "21827__0_056", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "21827__1_001", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Is sovereignty something that the tribes can lose by inaction over a period of time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1255.748], "stop_times": [1263.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1255.748}, "reply_to": "21827__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__1_002", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--I believe that it is, Your Honor, for the reasons that are laid out in petitioner's brief but regardless of what the Court decides about that question, the Treaty of 1838 clearly disestablishes the reservation which terminates all sovereignty prospectively.\nThe language in the historical context... yes, Your Honor.\nYes, the Treaty of Buffalo Creek.\nIt makes clear both the language of the treaty itself as well as its historical context that it was intended to terminate into the sovereignty of New York state.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1263.188, 1278.372, 1283.049, 1286.948], "stop_times": [1278.372, 1283.049, 1286.948, 1296.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1263.188}, "reply_to": "21827__1_001", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "21827__1_003", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "What you seem to be asking is to infer from that treaty that the prior unlawful land sales of the Oneida's New York reservations were somehow ratified.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1296.319], "stop_times": [1310.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1296.319}, "reply_to": "21827__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__1_004", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "No, Your Honor, ratification is not presented squarely in this case.\nThe only question that's at issue in this case is whether or not, regardless of whether the transactions that took place between 1795 and 1838 were legal or illegal, and we've argued they're legal in other cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1310.505, 1314.543], "stop_times": [1314.543, 1327.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1310.505}, "reply_to": "21827__1_003", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "21827__1_005", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "But if you're right about Buffalo Creek, it would mean that the effect of the government's decision to repossess something in Kansas was to leave the Oneidas without any land.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1327.231], "stop_times": [1338.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1327.231}, "reply_to": "21827__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__1_006", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--Well, at that point--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1338.229], "stop_times": [1339.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1338.229}, "reply_to": "21827__1_005", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "21827__1_007", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "It certainly wasn't that clear from it.\nIt appeared to be the assumption that the Oneidas did not have to go to Kansas, if they chose not to do it.\nIt was dependent on making suitable arrangements.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1339.632, 1342.955, 1350.422], "stop_times": [1342.955, 1350.422, 1354.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1339.632}, "reply_to": "21827__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__1_008", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--With regard to the 5,000 acres that they occupied as of 1838, one could read Ransom Gillet's assurances to the Oneidas as allowing them to continue to retain occupancy over that narrow place of land but what that cannot do is change the language of the treaty which makes clear that the reservation is otherwise entirely disestablished.\nAnd if I can refer to some of the language of the treaty itself, first of all, the treaty explicitly states that its purpose was to carry out the governor's policy in removing the Indians from the east to the west of the Mississippi.\nThat simply cannot be squared with ongoing sovereignty over the remaining 290,000 acres which they now claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1354.075, 1374.929, 1387.238], "stop_times": [1374.929, 1387.238, 1394.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1354.075}, "reply_to": "21827__1_007", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "21827__1_009", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Sure it can.\nOne way to pursue that policy is to offer them lands in the west if they want to go there.\nThat would certainly pursue the government's policy of removing them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1394.049, 1394.604, 1400.161], "stop_times": [1394.604, 1400.161, 1403.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1394.049}, "reply_to": "21827__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__1_010", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "This Court held that Article 13 of the treaty which provides that the Oneidas agreed to remove was sufficient to effect the present grant of the Kansas land and to avoid any forfeiture.\nSo it was much more than an agreement to agree or an offer, if you will.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1403.702, 1415.702], "stop_times": [1415.702, 1419.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1403.702}, "reply_to": "21827__1_009", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "21827__1_011", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "So you're saying there is no consideration if they simply agree to remove if they want to remove.\nIf they chose to ignore it, they want to ignore it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1419.526, 1424.588], "stop_times": [1424.588, 1424.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1419.526}, "reply_to": "21827__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__1_012", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "No, they did receive consideration and the Court made sure--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1424.758], "stop_times": [1428.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1424.758}, "reply_to": "21827__1_011", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "21827__1_013", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "They gave none, I'm talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1428.166], "stop_times": [1429.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.166}, "reply_to": "21827__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__1_014", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--Who gave none, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1429.585], "stop_times": [1431.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1429.585}, "reply_to": "21827__1_013", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "21827__1_015", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "The Indians.\nYou're saying they gave no promise in exchange, if they simply promised to remove if they felt like it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1431.457, 1431.996], "stop_times": [1431.996, 1437.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1431.457}, "reply_to": "21827__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__1_016", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1437.734], "stop_times": [1438.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1437.734}, "reply_to": "21827__1_015", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "21827__1_017", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "I'm trying to help you here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1438.593], "stop_times": [1440.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1438.593}, "reply_to": "21827__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__1_018", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Then in that case, I suppose I should agree.\nMy apologies.\nBut what they did was to agree to remove and in fact, that's what happened.\nIf you look at what transpired immediately following the treaty, by 1846, all but 350 acres, down from 5,000, have been sold by the Oneidas and very few remain.\nBy 1920, there are only 32 acres.\nAnd the U.S. 's activities in the area also confirm that that was the understanding of the treaty, that it terminated sovereignty.\nThere have been very sparse references in the records to some exercise of jurisdiction by the U.S. starting around the turn of the century, around the early 1900s, but those only relate to the 32 acres that remain occupied by the Oneidas.\nThere is no indication of any exercise of U.S. jurisdiction over the remaining 295,000 acres.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1440.017, 1443.164, 1444.14, 1449.169, 1460.689, 1462.918, 1469.761, 1484.935], "stop_times": [1443.164, 1444.14, 1449.169, 1460.689, 1462.918, 1469.761, 1484.935, 1491.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1440.017}, "reply_to": "21827__1_017", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "21827__1_019", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "I thought that perhaps the Treaty of Buffalo Creek is thinking of 50,000 acres where these particular Indian tribe members have their homes or at least arguably.\nJust no one was thinking about the remaining 300,000 because they had long left those.\nIt had nothing to do with them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1491.879, 1503.393, 1508.988], "stop_times": [1503.393, 1508.988, 1510.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1491.879}, "reply_to": "21827__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21827__1_020", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "I believe the text and the historical background suggests otherwise, Your Honor.\nArticle 4 of the treaty says that the Kansas lands will be the new homes of the Oneidas and it also explains where the Oneidas can exercise sovereignty.\nIt says that it will secure to the Oneidas in the Kansas land in said country, which refers to the Kansas land, the right to establish their own form of government, to appoint their own offices and to administer their own laws.\nThat means that sovereignty is to be in Kansas, not to be in New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1510.812, 1514.972, 1523.868, 1535.548], "stop_times": [1514.972, 1523.868, 1535.548, 1539.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1510.812}, "reply_to": "21827__1_019", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "21827__1_021", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Well, It means that that's what was intended but what do you make of all of the testimony about the representations made by... I forget the man's name, the government's representative, to the effect you don't have to leave.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1539.244], "stop_times": [1553.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1539.244}, "reply_to": "21827__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21827__1_022", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "That related only to the 5,000 acres that they occupied at that time.\nBut let's make very clear about he made that assurance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1553.276, 1556.86], "stop_times": [1556.86, 1559.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1553.276}, "reply_to": "21827__1_021", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "21827__1_023", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "I guess I just want to get to the point.\nDoesn't that negate your argument that the treaty as such disestablished the reservation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1559.847, 1562.45], "stop_times": [1562.45, 1572.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1559.847}, "reply_to": "21827__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21827__1_024", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "No, Your Honor, it doesn't.\nThe treaty on its terms appears to disestablish the reservation entirely.\nDirect statements could perhaps be read as subsequent blocks on that treaty to assure the Indians that they won't be forced off their land, the 5,000 acres that they continue to occupy, perhaps because New York was not a party to the treaty, it couldn't be any explicit session language in the treaty.\nNew York was the only entity that had the right to buy that remaining 5,000 acres because it held the right of preemption.\nSo it may be that the Oneidas wanted to be sure that they could reach reasonable terms.\nAnd they did.\nThey sold all that land within the following six years after consummation of the treaty.\nSo the contemporaneous history squares with that.\nIt's very similar to what happened in Santa Fe in which this Court said there was a reservation that was treated for the Santa Fes.\nThere was some indication of acceptance of that reservation and that acceptance was decision to terminate the tribe's sovereignty over any land outside of the reservation that was provided to them, even though many of them did not in fact remove to that land.\nHere the Oneidas received much more.\nNot only did many of them sell the lands and leave immediately but they received the benefit of their bargain by recovering compensation for the Kansas land from this Court and the New York Indians.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1572.647, 1574.354, 1578.669, 1594.823, 1600.909, 1604.685, 1605.634, 1610.354, 1613.442, 1621.799, 1636.21, 1638.658], "stop_times": [1574.354, 1578.669, 1594.823, 1600.909, 1604.685, 1605.634, 1610.354, 1613.442, 1621.799, 1636.21, 1638.658, 1648.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1572.647}, "reply_to": "21827__1_023", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "21827__1_025", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "What is the precise language that you think relinquished changed the sovereignty?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1648.343], "stop_times": [1655.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.343}, "reply_to": "21827__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21827__1_026", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "I think there are several provisions, Your Honor.\nFirst of all, in the recital, it states that the purpose of the treaty is to carry out the government's policy in removing the Indians from the east to the west of the Mississippi.\nArticle 2 also notes that the Kansas lands will be a permanent home for all Indians now residing in the state of New York as well as elsewhere and Article 4 states that there will be an exercise of sovereignty.\nIt says specifically that will they will be able to establish their own form of government, appoint their officers and administer their laws in the Kansas land specifically.\nSo I think those are the strongest provisions.\nI would also like to touch for a moment if I can on the question that several members of the Court have raised which is what is the impact of this decision here.\nFrom the perspective of the state of New York and the localities, it's very serious because it does concern whether or not the tribe can unilaterally regain sovereignty over a very large tract of land in central New York.\nThis is an area that has been--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1655.138, 1656.215, 1666.53, 1678.855, 1687.261, 1688.957, 1696.658, 1710.818], "stop_times": [1656.215, 1666.53, 1678.855, 1687.261, 1688.957, 1696.658, 1710.818, 1713.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1655.138}, "reply_to": "21827__1_025", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "21827__1_027", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "There are implications from Oneida to case that the Indians can reacquire land and assert some kind of possessory right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1713.191], "stop_times": [1724.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1713.191}, "reply_to": "21827__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__1_028", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--With regard to a narrower parcel of land than what's at issue here.\nAnd in any event, the Court expressly did not pronounce on the effect of the Buffalo Creek treaty here.\nIf that's the case, what could well result is a patchwork quilt of jurisdiction which this Court has said poses tremendous governance problems.\nIt's governance by tract book.\nThis is not just hypothetical.\nThere are already difficulties that have started to arise as a result of the Second Circuit's decision.\nFor example, another tribe relying on the decision here purchased land within its original land claim area that's just 300 yards from a local high school and have begun operation of a gaming hall there.\nThe locality attempted to enjoin operation of the gaming hall, but wasn't able to do so in light of the Second Circuit's decision below.\nWe anticipate there are will be many other problems of that sort that will arise.\nThe residents of the area here have long settled justifiable expectations.\nThe settlement patterns are clear here.\nThe absence of any exercise of U.S. jurisdiction outside a very small plot of land is not controverted.\nThese are factors that this Court has repeatedly held in cases like Hagen and Yankton Sioux are relevant to the question of both what the contemporaneous understanding of the treaty was and what the result should be today and we submit that they should lead to the same result here as well.\nIf there are no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1724.146, 1727.336, 1734.979, 1743.48, 1745.32, 1747.475, 1752.381, 1763.581, 1770.291, 1774.691, 1779.171, 1781.315, 1787.955, 1804.563], "stop_times": [1727.336, 1734.979, 1743.48, 1745.32, 1747.475, 1752.381, 1763.581, 1770.291, 1774.691, 1779.171, 1781.315, 1787.955, 1804.563, 1806.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1724.146}, "reply_to": "21827__1_027", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "21827__1_029", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Halligan.\nMr. Smith, we'll hear from you, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1806.819, 1811.107], "stop_times": [1811.107, 1814.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1806.819}, "reply_to": "21827__1_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21827__2_000", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Justice Stevens, may it please the Court:\nThere was a suggestion in answer to an earlier question that the Oneidas have changed their position about whether the land is alienable when in their hands.\nThat's not correct.\nThere is nothing in the record to suggest that.\nWhat the record does suggest at page 213 of the joint appendix is that Sherrill has changed its position.\nIt wand an easement on Oneida land in 1997 and at that page of the appendix, you will see that Sherrill went to the Department of the Interior for federal approval of the easement under federal law, understanding at the time the Oneida's position and the federal law principle that the land wasn't subject even to an easement absent the secretary's approval.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1814.681, 1817.305, 1826.323, 1827.923, 1830.366, 1837.092], "stop_times": [1817.305, 1826.323, 1827.923, 1830.366, 1837.092, 1857.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1814.681}, "reply_to": "21827__1_029", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_001", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "So you're saying your position was and is that it's not inalienable without the approval of Defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1857.913], "stop_times": [1866.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1857.913}, "reply_to": "21827__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__2_002", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Yes.\nAnd Oneida's actual possession of the land, actual possession is unified with their underlying federal and property and treaty rights, the land is inalienable and cannot be sold today out of the Oneida's position any more than it could 200 years ago.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1866.201, 1866.612], "stop_times": [1866.612, 1880.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1866.201}, "reply_to": "21827__2_001", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_003", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "But the portion within the reservation you claim is alienable so long as it's not owned by an Oneida.\nCurrent owners can sell it to somebody else, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1880.457, 1887.46], "stop_times": [1887.46, 1891.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1880.457}, "reply_to": "21827__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__2_004", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Your Honor, the point of Oneida II... the answer is yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1891.012], "stop_times": [1896.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1891.012}, "reply_to": "21827__2_003", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_005", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Like it was strange?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1896.154], "stop_times": [1897.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1896.154}, "reply_to": "21827__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21827__2_006", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThere is an unusual twist to it.\nIt arises from the fact that there were illegal transfers 200 years ago.\nThere was a suggestion in the Oneida II decision and it has been followed by the lower federal courts that there may be equitable principles that constrain remedies and a course of order to be entered in a land claim action brought by a tribe that is out of possession but the equitable principles that are at stake here are very different and they don't involve the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1897.503, 1899.29, 1902.111, 1905.812], "stop_times": [1899.29, 1902.111, 1905.812, 1930.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1897.503}, "reply_to": "21827__2_005", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_007", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Well, if you prevail in this case, then could suits be brought by the tribe to evict current owners of land on this historical Oneida 300,000-acre reservation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1930.064], "stop_times": [1945.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1930.064}, "reply_to": "21827__2_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__2_008", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--No, Justice O'Connor.\nThe Courts have ruled that we may not do that and it is the position and I will state it clearly here today that the Oneidas do not assert a right to evict landowners in the land claim area.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1945.594, 1946.853], "stop_times": [1946.853, 1956.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1945.594}, "reply_to": "21827__2_007", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_009", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "But if it's owned by the state of New York, if it's been acquired somehow by the state, then what?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1956.533], "stop_times": [1964.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1956.533}, "reply_to": "21827__2_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__2_010", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "We are not asserting a right to evict.\nWe are not waiving any of the underlying rights that involve right to possession under federal law and aboriginal rights and the point I'm making should not be construed that way.\nWhat I'm saying is that we are not asking the Court and do not expect the Court to evict anyone from land that is not in our actual possession.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1964.768, 1967.13, 1977.088], "stop_times": [1967.13, 1977.088, 1986.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1964.768}, "reply_to": "21827__2_009", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_011", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "What happens about... suppose... I just want to follow this.\nSuppose you don't evict the people who are there but it's 22 square miles in the center of New York state.\nThat's a lot of land.\nAnd maybe that's worth a trillion dollars, I don't know.\nSo does that mean that the Indian tribe would have... would it mean that it would have the right to, let's say, hundreds of billions of dollars, the value of that property and it could sue someone for it, the state of New York or the Federal Government?\nI guess the state of New York?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [1986.202, 1989.936, 1994.656, 1996.08, 1999.253, 2014.139], "stop_times": [1989.936, 1994.656, 1996.08, 1999.253, 2014.139, 2015.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1986.202}, "reply_to": "21827__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21827__2_012", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Let me give you a concrete answer.\nThe key to the land claim is approximately one quarter of the Oneida land claim and it has gone to judgement and is on appeal in the Second Circuit.\nThe judgement in that case after justice and interest and so on was $250 million and it was rendered against the state of New York only as the initial and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2015.835, 2017.926, 2025.409], "stop_times": [2017.926, 2025.409, 2034.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.835}, "reply_to": "21827__2_011", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_013", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "What was the acreage there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2034.875], "stop_times": [2036.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2034.875}, "reply_to": "21827__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21827__2_014", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--Approximately one fourth... the answer is 64,000 acres.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2036.87], "stop_times": [2040.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2036.87}, "reply_to": "21827__2_013", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_015", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "That may not be worth as much.\nMaybe this includes several cities and towns?\nWhat do you think it is?\nIn other words, the answer to my question is in principle, yes.\nIn principle, if the Indian tribes own 22 square miles, even if they can't get possession, they're entitled to the value of it, in your opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2040.353, 2043.015, 2045.281, 2047.185, 2050.199], "stop_times": [2043.015, 2045.281, 2047.185, 2050.199, 2058.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2040.353}, "reply_to": "21827__2_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21827__2_016", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Correct.\nThe point of Oneida II is that it damages remedy as appropriate to a tribe out of possession but there is no suggestion that that is a judicial sale of the underlying Federal Governmently protected--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2058.513, 2059.521], "stop_times": [2059.521, 2070.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2058.513}, "reply_to": "21827__2_015", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_017", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "No, no, of course the people who are there have it, maybe it's not Buffalo.\nI don't know, maybe it's all of Buffalo, New York, or maybe it's a town.\nI'm not saying that that's the law but I just wanted your view of that.\nAnd then I wanted to know this.\nOn the legal part, I would like your response to the... I take it your answer is yes, they're entitled to the value of it, which I'm right about that, that is your answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2070.647, 2074.226, 2078.438, 2082.471, 2084.706], "stop_times": [2074.226, 2078.438, 2082.471, 2084.706, 2095.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2070.647}, "reply_to": "21827__2_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21827__2_018", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nWell, they're entitled to two items of value.\nThey're entitled to retrospective damages for trespass and in that the Court has not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2095.975, 2096.978, 2098.829], "stop_times": [2096.978, 2098.829, 2105.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2095.975}, "reply_to": "21827__2_017", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_019", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "On the whole 300,000?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2105.229], "stop_times": [2107.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2105.229}, "reply_to": "21827__2_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__2_020", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--Well, there is one plus part of it that we have not sued upon because there was a 1798 federal treaty that validated the transfer.\nThe state, which feels that it was not bound by the Nonintercourse Act, twice went to the Federal Government for formal federal treaty approval of these transactions.\nOne of them went through.\nThat was 1798.\nThe other one was 1802.\nThe President did not proclaim it and the state never went back to the Federal Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2107.058, 2115.154, 2123.778, 2125.037, 2126.647, 2128.279], "stop_times": [2115.154, 2123.778, 2125.037, 2126.647, 2128.279, 2132.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2107.058}, "reply_to": "21827__2_019", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_021", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Do the Oneidas have a claim to tax the current property owners?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2132.685], "stop_times": [2138.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2132.685}, "reply_to": "21827__2_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21827__2_022", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "No, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2138.567], "stop_times": [2139.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2138.567}, "reply_to": "21827__2_021", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_023", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2139.565], "stop_times": [2140.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.565}, "reply_to": "21827__2_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21827__2_024", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "The decisions of the Court in cases like Atkinson and Montana address the lack of power of a tribe with respect to non Indian freelance within a reservation.\nI recognize that there is an added wrinkle here in that the Oneida's rights persist in that land, even though it is out of their possession and that wouldn't have been true in Atkinson, Montana but in that the Courts have held that the possession of the non Indians as lawful in the sense that it will not be interrupted and the land title can be passed in subsequent transfers, we accept the proposition that Montana and Atkinson would prevent the Oneidas from regulating in any respect, let alone tax any of the land in the possession of non Indians.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2140.359, 2152.402], "stop_times": [2152.402, 2186.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2140.359}, "reply_to": "21827__2_023", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_025", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Mr. Smith, isn't there any principal of laches that comes into effect here.\nI mean, what you're asking the Court to do is to sanction a very odd checkerboard system of jurisdiction in the middle of New York state.\nSome parcels are the ones the Indians choose to buy and are able to buy are called Indian territory and everything else is governed by New York state, isn't it?\nIt's just a terrible situation as far as governance is concerned and part of the blame for the situation we're in is that the Oneidas did not claim about this for 170 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2186.194, 2192.85, 2205.01, 2215.352], "stop_times": [2192.85, 2205.01, 2215.352, 2227.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2186.194}, "reply_to": "21827__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__2_026", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "The issues of laches in time is not within the questions presented in this case, notwithstanding that it has been identified in earlier decisions and was actually raised by the counties in this Court in the last go around.\nLaches does not bar this claim.\nThese were illegal transactions declared by federal statute to be of no validity in law or equity.\nThe Oneida II decision which holds the background principles of federal law which would ordinarily incorporate state statutes of limitation don't apply because their intention was the underlying rule that only Congress can impair or extinguish this right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2227.224, 2238.44, 2240.738, 2247.202], "stop_times": [2238.44, 2240.738, 2247.202, 2262.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2227.224}, "reply_to": "21827__2_025", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_027", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "The case also held that because of the passage of time and the reliance interest that has developed, we are not going to give you possession.\nNow, why doesn't the same principle apply to giving you jurisdiction?\nBecause of the passage of time, you can get damages for trespass.\nMaybe even you can even get the value of the land.\nIt would just create a chaotic situation if we say that you have jurisdiction in the middle of New York state over any pieces of land that you can buy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2262.424, 2273.186, 2279.352, 2284.285, 2287.106], "stop_times": [2273.186, 2279.352, 2284.285, 2287.106, 2297.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.424}, "reply_to": "21827__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__2_028", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "The equitable principles that would inform remedy in an action brought by a tribe out of possession don't apply when a tribe is in possession or else there has been a judicial extinguishment of an underlying right that's only within the power of Congress to extinguish.\nThe Court has been clear that the treaty right here... we have a federal treaty and it says you have the free use and enjoyment of the land in the New York Indians won the Court said that means the same promise made to the Senecas means that the land cannot be taxed.\nThe argument has been made that the Oneida's only rights are to be paid off now, to be in effect have the un extinguished federal aboriginal right and the un extinguished treaty right purchased.\nThose rights... literally 200 years of decisions... are within the sole control of Congress.\nOneida II made pains to say that this was an unusual situation of thoughtless intention and problems but those problems were for Congress.\nThere are a dozen cases from this Court that deal--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2297.784, 2312.402, 2327.389, 2342.392, 2348.968, 2358.077], "stop_times": [2312.402, 2327.389, 2342.392, 2348.968, 2358.077, 2362.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2297.784}, "reply_to": "21827__2_027", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_029", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Mr. Smith, at first, would you clarify how much land is now claimed as Indian... within the tribe's aboriginal right?\nIt's not... one thing clarify while you are not claiming the entire 6 million.\nDidn't they have 6 million acres to start with?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2362.248, 2378.04, 2384.312], "stop_times": [2378.04, 2384.312, 2386.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2362.248}, "reply_to": "21827__2_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21827__2_030", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--They did.\nThe matter was litigated in the Second Circuit and resolved adversely to the Oneidas, but I would take the position that the treaty of Canandaigua actually confirms the transfer of land outside of the retained reservation so that the land that we are talking about today as retaining the Oneida's rights I think is approximately 270,000 acres.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2386.6, 2387.822], "stop_times": [2387.822, 2411.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2386.6}, "reply_to": "21827__2_029", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_031", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Some of that you said was taken up by an approved transfer in 1798?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2411.363], "stop_times": [2419.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2411.363}, "reply_to": "21827__2_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21827__2_032", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Yes, and that's why I'm not saying 300,000 acres.\nI can't do the arithmetic and I don't have the final survey--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2419.432, 2422.072], "stop_times": [2422.072, 2424.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2419.432}, "reply_to": "21827__2_031", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_033", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "But something around 275?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2424.579], "stop_times": [2426.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2424.579}, "reply_to": "21827__2_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21827__2_034", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--Around 270.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2426.526], "stop_times": [2428.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2426.526}, "reply_to": "21827__2_033", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_035", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "And the figure, the 250 million is for the rental... what is that... what is that for?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2428.995], "stop_times": [2438.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.995}, "reply_to": "21827__2_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21827__2_036", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "In the Cayuga case, there were two elements of damages.\nOne was retrospective, and that was rental damages for past trespass.\nThe other was a current value, because Judge McKern said that he would not evict anyone, and that he thought a suitable alternative to eviction was the award of value, because it would put the tribe in a position to a free market and voluntary relationship with the purchasers to, quote, \"restore its homeland\".\nJudge McKern got really to the heart of this process by recognizing that there are inequities all around, if you will, and that the Court is without the power to extinguish the underlying rights.\nIt's Congress' role, but that there needs to be a sensible way of recognizing those rights today.\nAnd what Judge McKern decided is that damages would put the tribe in a position to do what the Oneidas have done with respect to the land that's at issue here before the Court, and that's to make, you know, a fair and square deal and pay full value.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2438.878, 2441.299, 2447.16, 2465.054, 2475.326, 2481.384], "stop_times": [2441.299, 2447.16, 2465.054, 2475.326, 2481.384, 2493.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2438.878}, "reply_to": "21827__2_035", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_037", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Which New York State paid, and that's the end of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2493.752], "stop_times": [2498.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2493.752}, "reply_to": "21827__2_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21827__2_038", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIf I understand your question, the answer is yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2498.595, 2500.921], "stop_times": [2500.921, 2502.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2498.595}, "reply_to": "21827__2_037", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_039", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Wall, that's not the end of it.\nFrom what you're saying, I gather that you believe, in that case, once they purchase the land, it becomes tribal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2502.719, 2503.156], "stop_times": [2503.156, 2508.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2502.719}, "reply_to": "21827__2_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__2_040", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Correct.\nI mean that's the end of that litigation.\nThere is a judgement, it's gone to the Court of Appeals, and it's there now.\nThe issue of damages remedies when the tribe is out of possession is simply conceptually and fundamentally different than the question of what happens when the tribe has joined possession--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2508.729, 2509.108, 2510.836, 2513.753], "stop_times": [2509.108, 2510.836, 2513.753, 2526.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2508.729}, "reply_to": "21827__2_039", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_041", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "What do you say are the merits, then, to the claim that there were 300,000 of these acres in 1838 or with the Treaty of Buffalo Creek... there were 300,000 acres that nobody was paying any attention to because there were no tribe members that lived there, so that when you have language in the treaty, under those circumstances, that says their home is now... where was it?\nIllinois or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2526.479, 2549.727], "stop_times": [2549.727, 2550.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2526.479}, "reply_to": "21827__2_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21827__2_042", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Kansas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2550.543], "stop_times": [2552.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2550.543}, "reply_to": "21827__2_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__2_043", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--Kansas.\nTheir home is now Kansas.\nThat's the nation.\nThat's the place.\nAnd that... you've heard the language cited.\nAnd even though a person says,\n\"You can live here as long as you want. \"\nthat just means they can live there as long as they want; that doesn't mean it's the reservation.\nThe reservation's sovereignty may have gone to Kansas, though, of course, nobody had to move, unless he struck a fair bargain that he agreed to with the State of New York.\nI take it that's their argument.\nI just want to hear your response.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2552.021, 2552.351, 2553.423, 2554.458, 2556.079, 2559.77, 2562.389, 2564.437, 2569.503, 2579.418, 2580.89], "stop_times": [2552.351, 2553.423, 2554.458, 2556.079, 2559.77, 2562.389, 2564.437, 2569.503, 2579.418, 2580.89, 2581.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2552.021}, "reply_to": "21827__2_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21827__2_044", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--There are a lot of parts to that.\nLet me respond to what I think is the most fundamental.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2581.994, 2583.087], "stop_times": [2583.087, 2585.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2581.994}, "reply_to": "21827__2_043", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_045", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2585.002], "stop_times": [2585.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2585.002}, "reply_to": "21827__2_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21827__2_046", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "That argument rests on the idea that there was an assumption, at the time of the Treaty of Buffalo Creek, that the prior transfers were valid.\nIt's an argument of ratification by assumption.\nOneida II says, in a much more forceful circumstance, that even a later federal treaty that explicitly refers to the prior session does not ratify it, because the ratifying language has to be clear and express, and you have to believe that both the Indians and the Congress, the United States, meant to do that.\nHere, the... if you think about it, in what I just heard concerning Buffalo Creek, there's an interesting asymmetry.\nWe're supposed to assume that the treaty covered all the land, but we're not supposed to conclude that Ransom Gillet's promise is covered it all.\nWe're supposed to believe that one, by assumption, extends to the entire reservation and that the other, forceful promises of a federal treaty commissioner that you need not go anywhere, are actually very limited and carried with them a thought that they were extinguishing rights in other land.\nThat interaction with Ransom Gillet is crucial.\nThe treaty--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2585.439, 2593.775, 2596.65, 2615.983, 2627.093, 2634.634, 2652.527, 2655.733], "stop_times": [2593.775, 2596.65, 2615.983, 2627.093, 2634.634, 2652.527, 2655.733, 2657.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2585.439}, "reply_to": "21827__2_045", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_047", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Would not it be odd to have a... to give assurance that you could buy back what you've lost?\nDoes it... would that... that's a very strange construction of the representations intendant upon Buffalo Creek.\nI understand what you're talking about with the 5,000 acres--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2657.631, 2662.671, 2668.314], "stop_times": [2662.671, 2668.314, 2670.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2657.631}, "reply_to": "21827__2_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21827__2_048", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--The representations from the federal treaty commissioner were not that they could buy it back.\nThe federal treaty commissioner went to the Oneidas because they would not agree to the treaty.\nThey didn't want to give up their rights.\nHe gave them a piece of paper that was meant to assure them they were not giving up their rights.\nThere was no suggestion in this important interaction that they were bargaining over the loss of other rights.\nMille Lacs is directly in point here.\nMille Lacs, I think... well, from Mille Lacs, you can derive the proposition that where the record shows no bargaining over a right, and where the treaty does not refer to the right, the Indians will not be held to have silently yielded their important rights.\nIn the nature of this interaction, you have the suggestion that... you have a far more important right, in a much larger part of the reservation, that persisted as a matter of federal law.\nThere is nothing about what happened at Buffalo Creek that would suggest that anyone would think they were affecting the Oneida's rights in lands that were not involved in the treaty.\nNow, the treaty--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2670.719, 2674.794, 2678.517, 2680.378, 2685.119, 2690.901, 2693.173, 2708.853, 2721.37, 2730.479], "stop_times": [2674.794, 2678.517, 2680.378, 2685.119, 2690.901, 2693.173, 2708.853, 2721.37, 2730.479, 2731.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2670.719}, "reply_to": "21827__2_047", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_049", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Mr. Steward, your time is beginning to come up, and there is one thing we haven't talked about that I'd really like to get your view on, and that is the 1788 Treaty... what was that, Fort Schuyler... Treaty of Fort Schuyler?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2731.439], "stop_times": [2743.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2731.439}, "reply_to": "21827__2_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__2_050", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2743.162], "stop_times": [2743.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2743.162}, "reply_to": "21827__2_049", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_051", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--between New York State and the Oneidas.\nNow, that contained language which said the Oneidas cede and grant all their lands to the people of the state of New York.\nThat was the operative provision.\nLater on, it... Article 2 says, \"Of the ceded lands\"... the ceded lands, lands that have been ceded...\n\"a tract described by metes and bounds is reserved to the Oneidas to hold to themselves in their posterity forever. \"\nNow, I would normally interpret that too mean that the Oneidas gave up all of their sovereignty over the lands and were given back, by the State of New York, the right over this tract designated by metes and bounds.\nNow, I'm saying I would normally interpret that, except in a treaty with the Indians.\nIn a treaty with the Indians, you say, \"Well\"... and we have cases which have language somewhat like this, and they say,\n\"Well, they really didn't cede the part that they reserved. \"\nThat may be the case in... ordinarily.\nBut it seems to me, a basic principle of contract law... of treaty law, of any law... that where there is an ambiguous phrase or provision, you interpret it the way the parties themselves have interpreted it.\nAnd it seems to me that the subsequent history, after 1788, indicates that the Oneidas believed that New York State had jurisdiction over that land.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2743.855, 2745.466, 2753.05, 2756.437, 2763.839, 2771.605, 2786.704, 2791.371, 2798.619, 2802.261, 2806.304, 2821.093], "stop_times": [2745.466, 2753.05, 2756.437, 2763.839, 2771.605, 2786.704, 2791.371, 2798.619, 2802.261, 2806.304, 2821.093, 2832.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2743.855}, "reply_to": "21827__2_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__2_052", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Actually--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2832.24], "stop_times": [2833.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2832.24}, "reply_to": "21827__2_051", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_053", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "The New York State Police were in there.\nNew York State managed the lands.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2833.072, 2834.123], "stop_times": [2834.123, 2836.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2833.072}, "reply_to": "21827__2_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__2_054", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--Justice Scalia, actually, it's interesting, in the Joint Appendix in the Court of Appeals, at page 413, is the actual document that governed the transfer of this land, the state statute; and in that statute, the state granted its right of preemption to an individual to acquire the land, because it understood that it had not yet exercised its right of preemption.\nThat's, in the conduct of the parties, a direct refutation of the idea that the right of preemption was exercised in the Treaty of Buffalo... in the Treaty of Fort Schuyler, the 1788 treaty.\nThe most fundamental point, though, about the 1788 treaty is that next came the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua, which embodied a federal promise to protect the free use and enjoyment of this land, and the Oneidas possession of it.\nAnd that exact promise... not sort of like, but exact... was held in New York to prevent taxation of the Senecas land.\nI guess I'd like to make two quick points before I'm out of time.\nOne is that, with respect to the idea that it's just too late, apart from the fact that the question is not presented, I want to emphasize that, in section 2415 of Title 28, Congress explicitly focused on the question of these old claims.\nAnd if you read the legislative history, all they talked about was how to deal with the Oneida claim and these old claims.\nAnd they not only provided that title claims are not barred by statute of limitations, and established the limitations period that would not have run against the Oneidas because they were on a federal list, but they did the following, which I think is notable.\nThe statute provides that these claims approved, in 1966, on the day of the statute, there is no room for background equitable principles in federal law.\nWhere Congress has specifically focused on a problem addressed it, the idea is, I suppose, that there is no room to fill gaps here by the Court when Congress has decided just what the gaps are and how to fill them.\nThe other point that I would make concerns the Treaty of Buffalo Creek.\nThe treaty's language leaves it to both sides to decide whether or not Indians are going to Kansas.\nThe legislate... the history of the treaty shows that the United States backed away from any language which would oblige it to remove Indians, and the language with respect to the Indians left them a choice.\nBut, ultimately, all of that is controlled by what happened.\nThe Federal Government made a decision that no Indians would go to Kansas.\nThe idea that Buffalo Creek extinguished reservations in New York would seem bizarre to anyone in New York today, because the Onondagas have reservations, the Senecas have reservations, the St. Regis have reservations, the Tonawandas have reservations, the Tuscaroras have reservations, and the Oneidas have reservations.\nIt didn't extinguish just the... there's the idea that you can look at this in a vacuum... it didn't just extinguish the Oneida reservations.\nUnder the Santa Fe rationale, the point is not that Congress ultimately intended two reservations, although it has done that often... the Choctaw, the Mississippi Choctaw, the Seminoles.\nIt frequently happened with removal if there were more than one reservation.\nBut here, you would have to believe that Congress intended no reservations.\nYou would have to believe that Congress quickly came to the decision that none of these Indian tribes in New York actually had a reservation anywhere, and that's not acceptable.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [2836.395, 2854.294, 2863.856, 2876.918, 2883.984, 2887.707, 2902.817, 2907.606, 2919.595, 2930.374, 2942.305, 2946.427, 2952.113, 2962.39, 2965.478, 2970.022, 2986.113, 2992.897, 3002.369, 3005.692, 3008.908, 3018.007], "stop_times": [2854.294, 2863.856, 2876.918, 2883.984, 2887.707, 2902.817, 2907.606, 2919.595, 2930.374, 2942.305, 2946.427, 2952.113, 2962.39, 2965.478, 2970.022, 2986.113, 2992.897, 3002.369, 3005.692, 3008.908, 3018.007, 3018.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2836.395}, "reply_to": "21827__2_053", "speaker": "michael_r_smith"}
{"id": "21827__2_055", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Smith.\nMr. Stewart?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3018.684, 3019.617], "stop_times": [3019.617, 3029.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3018.684}, "reply_to": "21827__2_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21827__3_000", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nI would like to address, first, the City's argument that the long passage of time renders it improper to give the tribe a tax exemption on lands that have... recently were purchased.\nThat argument is wrong for three reasons.\nFirst, if we are correct that the tribe had federally protected title as of the 1790s and that that federal protection was never validly extinguished, then the fact that the tribe was out of possession of the relevant lands for nearly two centuries is, itself, a distinct and substantial legal wrong, and it would be adding insult to injury to say that precisely because the tribe had suffered that initial injury, it should be disentitled to take advantage of a tax exemption that would otherwise flow from its possession of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3029.356, 3031.276, 3039.282, 3041.479], "stop_times": [3031.276, 3039.282, 3041.479, 3072.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3029.356}, "reply_to": "21827__2_055", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_001", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "I don't... I don't understand that argument at all.\nI mean, it's just a general rule that, where you've been wrong, you have to come forward, in a timely fashion, to get the wrong righted.\nAnd what difference does it make what the nature of the wrong is, whether it's dispossession or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3072.311, 3073.81, 3082.151], "stop_times": [3073.81, 3082.151, 3087.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.311}, "reply_to": "21827__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__3_002", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--Well, I think it... I think it's important to distinguish between two different types of delay.\nWhat was at issue in Oneida I and II was delay in bringing the underlying lawsuit.\nAnd, even in that context, the Court said that the suit was not barred entirely, but equitable factors might be taken into account in formulating an appropriate remedy.\nHere, we don't have delay in filing a lawsuit.\nThat is, nobody doubts that the tribes asserted their right to a tax exemption promptly after repurchasing the relevant land.\nThe argument on the other side is that their delay in purchasing the land should be analogized to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3087.474, 3091.02, 3095.74, 3105.964, 3108.914, 3116.092], "stop_times": [3091.02, 3095.74, 3105.964, 3108.914, 3116.092, 3122.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3087.474}, "reply_to": "21827__3_001", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_003", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Well, do you say that a tribe can never lose its sovereign rights to land?\nCan it acquiesce in the loss of those rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3122.061, 3129.805], "stop_times": [3129.805, 3134.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.061}, "reply_to": "21827__3_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__3_004", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--This Court has held that the tribe... that a tribe may abandon aboriginal title to land.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3134.173], "stop_times": [3138.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3134.173}, "reply_to": "21827__3_003", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_005", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3138.962], "stop_times": [3139.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3138.962}, "reply_to": "21827__3_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__3_006", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "It's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3139.346], "stop_times": [3139.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3139.346}, "reply_to": "21827__3_005", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_007", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Yes, and we have held that a state can abandon sovereignty, as in Massachusetts versus New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3139.48], "stop_times": [3146.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3139.48}, "reply_to": "21827__3_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__3_008", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--But the Court has also held that once Congress creates a reservation, once it confers explicit federal protection on particular lands, the reservation can be diminished or disestablished only by act of Congress; it can't be terminated through adverse possession.\nAnd with respect to the question of whether delay in buying the land should be analogized to delay in bringing a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3146.254, 3162.494], "stop_times": [3162.494, 3170.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3146.254}, "reply_to": "21827__3_007", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_009", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Well, that might give them a right to some kind of damages for a violation, but what does that do to the sovereign claims of the tribe?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3170.03], "stop_times": [3181.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3170.03}, "reply_to": "21827__3_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__3_010", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--I think the... the reservation would remain a reservation.\nAs Mr. Smith pointed out, with respect to parcels within the reservation that are not owned by Indians, the tribe's regulatory authority is extremely limited and, therefore, the tribe would not be able to exercise anything like plenary regulatory jurisdiction over the whole 270,000 acres.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3181.252, 3183.918], "stop_times": [3183.918, 3201.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3181.252}, "reply_to": "21827__3_009", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_011", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "What is it?\nYou said \"extremely limited\".\nThis is the first I heard that the tribe might have some authority over part of that, what, the 275... 275,000 acres, even though it hadn't repurchased the costs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3201.657, 3202.286, 3204.196], "stop_times": [3202.286, 3204.196, 3220.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3201.657}, "reply_to": "21827__3_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21827__3_012", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "The Court, in Atkinson Trading, and in Montana versus United States, before that, that said that the tribe may be able to regulate conduct on non Indian lands to the extent that the conduct involves voluntary transactions with the tribe or its members or to the extent that the regulation is necessary in order to protect the tribe's sovereignty over the land that it possesses is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3220.084], "stop_times": [3243.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3220.084}, "reply_to": "21827__3_011", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_013", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "But now we're talking about land that... where there are no tribe members... as I understand it, this area is predominantly non tribal members.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3243.551], "stop_times": [3253.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3243.551}, "reply_to": "21827__3_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21827__3_014", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--I agree.\nIn... and Atkinson Trading makes clear that, even when the great bulk of the land is only by the tribe or its members, the tribe's ability to regulate conduct on the non Indian parcels is sharply limited.\nThat would be doubly true in a tract of this nature.\nBut to return to the point about the state's reliance interest, I think it's... or the city's reliance interest... I think it's important to stress that this case is only about taxation, and a municipality can't claim to have the same sort of reliance interest in being able to tax that a potential defendant--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3253.706, 3254.116, 3266.052, 3269.428], "stop_times": [3254.116, 3266.052, 3269.428, 3286.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3253.706}, "reply_to": "21827__3_013", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_015", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Well, that may be true, but that's why I wondered about the damage part of it.\nI'm still thinking that a trespass action for trespasses that occurred in 1850 or 1700 is worth millions today, even if it's tiny, because of the interest, passage of time, et cetera.\nWhen you add that to the value of the land, I'm thinking of numbers that are astronomical.\nAnd yet that hasn't happened.\nAnd so, what actually, as a... and that's why I'm thinking, isn't a damage action far more serious than simply taking property off the tax rolls?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3286.314, 3290.244, 3304.244, 3308.767, 3311.658], "stop_times": [3290.244, 3304.244, 3308.767, 3311.658, 3322.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3286.314}, "reply_to": "21827__3_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21827__3_016", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--That's true, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3322.399], "stop_times": [3323.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3322.399}, "reply_to": "21827__3_015", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_017", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "And that's why I want to know how, in practice, this works out.\nDoes Congress have the power, for example, to deal with it?\nIs what we're considering in this case simply a negotiating position and strengthening people's hands, vis a vis legislation?\nWhat's going on?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3323.791, 3327.135, 3330.095, 3337.349], "stop_times": [3327.135, 3330.095, 3337.349, 3338.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3323.791}, "reply_to": "21827__3_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21827__3_018", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--Congress does have the power to deal with it.\nAnd at the end of the Court's opinion in Oneida II, the Court expressed confidence that, up to this point, has not been borne out, that Congress would fix the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3338.49, 3340.522], "stop_times": [3340.522, 3349.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3338.49}, "reply_to": "21827__3_017", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_019", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Yes, Congress has done nothing about this, has it?\nCan... has the tribe asked, administratively, for the Bureau of Indians Affairs to recognize it now as a tribe?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3349.061, 3353.061], "stop_times": [3353.061, 3362.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3349.061}, "reply_to": "21827__3_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21827__3_020", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Well, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has recognized the tripe all along.\nThat is, under the Treaty of Canandaigua, the Federal Government was required to pay annuities and treaty cloth to the six nations, and the Federal Government has done that continuously since the beginning.\nSo we've always recognized this to be a tribe.\nAnd I think you're... you've put your finger on an important point, Justice Breyer, in that the Court, in Oneida II, said that it hoped that Congress would fix the problem, and thought that it would, but said that even if Congress doesn't legislate a solution, the suit can go forward.\nThe Court contemplated that equitable considerations could be taken into account in formulating a remedy, but it certainly didn't contemplate that the tribe, at the end of the day, would be left without any remedy at all.\nAnd, as you point out, if the tribe can sue for damages, it seems farfetched to think that it wouldn't be able to reassert the tax immunity that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3362.687, 3365.167, 3375.685, 3378.49, 3392.895, 3404.49], "stop_times": [3365.167, 3375.685, 3378.49, 3392.895, 3404.49, 3412.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3362.687}, "reply_to": "21827__3_019", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_021", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "What tax... what taxes are we talking about?\nIs this property tax?\nAre we also talking about sales tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3412.885, 3414.981, 3416.33], "stop_times": [3414.981, 3416.33, 3418.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3412.885}, "reply_to": "21827__3_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21827__3_022", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--No, the Court has said... the Court has said, as a general matter, as a matter of federal law, a tribal merchant on tribal land can be required to collect sales taxes from non Indians, at least for the purchase of goods that were purchased off the reservations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3418.448], "stop_times": [3434.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3418.448}, "reply_to": "21827__3_021", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_023", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Well, it isn't just taxes we're talking about.\nIt's jurisdiction over these parcels of land.\nIt... I mean, taxes... that's just one aspect of saying that this land no longer belongs to New York State.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3434.405, 3436.522, 3440.042], "stop_times": [3436.522, 3440.042, 3445.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3434.405}, "reply_to": "21827__3_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__3_024", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "I mean, taxes are the only thing at issue... are the only thing that's at issue in this case.\nBut I agree that holding this parcel to be a reservation would have implications for regulatory jurisdiction, as well.\nNow, there isn't a categorical rule of federal law that says that states and localities absolutely cannot regulate conduct on tribal lands within the reservation.\nRather, there is a preemption test... there's certainly a thumb on the scale in favor of an exemption from state and local regulation where tribal reservation lands are involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3445.749, 3450.085, 3457.456, 3467.696], "stop_times": [3450.085, 3457.456, 3467.696, 3478.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3445.749}, "reply_to": "21827__3_023", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_025", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Mr. Stuart, I have one question about, Buffalo Creek.\nIf we hold that Buffalo Creek didn't disestablish the reservation, then doesn't the New York Indian case rest on a false premise because that case gave $2 million for failure to give the Kansas lands?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3478.667, 3481.878], "stop_times": [3481.878, 3496.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3478.667}, "reply_to": "21827__3_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21827__3_026", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Well, the Court, in the New York Indians II, recognized, to start with, that the treaty affected an immediate session of the Oneida's Wisconsin lands to the Federal Government, and the Court specifically noted that that session, in and of itself, would be sufficient consideration to support a contract between private parties.\nSo it simply isn't correct to say that the New York Oneidas gave up something other than a promise to remove.\nThe second--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3496.427, 3514.592, 3521.723], "stop_times": [3514.592, 3521.723, 3523.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3496.427}, "reply_to": "21827__3_025", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_027", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Was there any positive indication... I just don't remember this... in the New York case, that they would... that they, in fact, had ceded anything of New... of their interest in New York?\nAs distinct from the Wisconsin land.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3523.03, 3533.115], "stop_times": [3533.115, 3537.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3523.03}, "reply_to": "21827__3_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21827__3_028", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--I mean, there were references to the primary inducement to the Federal Government's entering into the treaty being the desire for--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3537.078], "stop_times": [3543.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3537.078}, "reply_to": "21827__3_027", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_029", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "That's entering into the treaty.\nBut when it came to compensation, was there an indication that they were being compensated for anything other than Kansas land, which they had obtained as a result of ceding their Wisconsin land?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3543.628, 3544.833], "stop_times": [3544.833, 3556.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3543.628}, "reply_to": "21827__3_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21827__3_030", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--No.\nNo.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3556.972, 3557.314], "stop_times": [3557.314, 3557.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3556.972}, "reply_to": "21827__3_029", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_031", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3557.692], "stop_times": [3558.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3557.692}, "reply_to": "21827__3_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21827__3_032", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "The compensation was strictly for the Kansas lands that were denied to them.\nAnd it's important to note that the Senecas--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3558.071, 3560.487], "stop_times": [3560.487, 3561.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3558.071}, "reply_to": "21827__3_031", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_033", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "But there was no indication that they got Kansas for anything other than Wisconsin, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3561.964], "stop_times": [3568.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3561.964}, "reply_to": "21827__3_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21827__3_034", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--They got... I mean, they didn't... they weren't held to have promised... made a commitment to remove from New York.\nNo, clearly, in analyzing the reasons--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3568.22, 3575.298], "stop_times": [3575.298, 3577.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3568.22}, "reply_to": "21827__3_033", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_035", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "But there was no indication that they had ceded anything with respect to title in New York, was there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3577.933], "stop_times": [3583.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3577.933}, "reply_to": "21827__3_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21827__3_036", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3583.309], "stop_times": [3583.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3583.309}, "reply_to": "21827__3_035", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_037", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Okay,--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3583.901], "stop_times": [3584.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3583.901}, "reply_to": "21827__3_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21827__3_038", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Well, it rested upon the session in Wisconsin?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3584.125], "stop_times": [3587.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3584.125}, "reply_to": "21827__3_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21827__3_039", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "It rested, in part, upon the session in Wisconsin.\nIt rested, in part, on a fairly technical argument, to the effect that the grant of Kansas lands was on en presente.\nThat is, it was a present grant of Kansas lands, and, therefore, the New York Indians could be disentitled to those lands only if they had... a forfeiture had been established.\nAnd the Court looked to Article 3 of the treaty to determine the conditions for forfeiture.\nIt said that the Federal Government would have been required to allege a forfeiture by legislative or judicial act, et cetera.\nThe other thing I really wanted to... the point I wanted to make about the reliance interest of the taxing jurisdiction are that no matter how long a particular tract has been taxable, it is... may I finish this +/?\nit is always within the realm of a city's contemplation that it may be bought up tomorrow by the Federal Government, a church, any other tax exempt entity, and, consequently, the municipality can have no sense of repose that it will remain taxable.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3587.437, 3589.48, 3595.864, 3606.419, 3610.029, 3616.424, 3628.211, 3641.555], "stop_times": [3589.48, 3595.864, 3606.419, 3610.029, 3616.424, 3628.211, 3641.555, 3642.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3587.437}, "reply_to": "21827__3_038", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "21827__3_040", "conversation_id": "21827", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stewart.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-855", "start_times": [3642.147, 3642.909], "stop_times": [3642.909, 3644.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3642.147}, "reply_to": "21827__3_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22034__0_000", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "We'll hear argument next in No. 03-878, Clark v. Martinez, and No. 03-7434, Benitez v. Rozos.\nMr. Kneedler.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [0.0, 18.287], "stop_times": [18.287, 69.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22034__0_001", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThese cases implicate the fundamental power of the United States to protect its borders by excluding aliens who arrive at its borders, but are found under the law not to qualify for admission.\nThis Court held more than 100 years ago in Nishimura Ekiu that the power of a nation to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions is inherent in sovereignty and is central to self-preservation.\nIf it were otherwise, the integrity of the Nation's borders and its security would be at the mercy of a foreign power who might choose to foist aliens onto our country or to the self-help efforts of aliens who might leave another country coming to our shores.\nThe migration crises involving Haitians and Cubans over the last 35 years vividly illustrate the adverse consequences of such a regime, and events of recent years confirm that the threats to the Nation's borders and security are not limited to nearby nations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [69.557, 72.612, 82.931, 96.018, 110.69], "stop_times": [72.612, 82.931, 96.018, 110.69, 126.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 69.557}, "reply_to": "22034__0_000", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_002", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "But this Court held only 3 years ago that the statute before us here does not permit the Attorney General to hold the alien indefinitely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [126.732], "stop_times": [139.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 126.732}, "reply_to": "22034__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__0_003", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "The... the Court addressed one of the statutes before the Court here.\nIt's... it's important I... I think to recognize another statute and... that is... reflects the background principle of this Court's decision in Mezei.\nAnd if I may explain, to do that.\nThis Court made clear in Mezei that an alien has no substantive due process right to enter the United States when the executive branch has determined, under the law, that he has no right to enter the United States.\nThe relevant--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [139.485, 144.21, 155.478, 158.228, 171.436], "stop_times": [144.21, 155.478, 158.228, 171.436, 172.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 139.485}, "reply_to": "22034__0_002", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_004", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "But, Mr. Kneedler, recognizing that distinction, is that a distinction drawn by the statute that's before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [172.345], "stop_times": [177.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 172.345}, "reply_to": "22034__0_003", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22034__0_005", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Yes, I believe it is, but it... but... but first of all, there is another statute which is highly relevant to this, and that is 1182(d)(5)(A), the parole statute.\nIt is the parole statute that... that has long governed whether an alien who arrives at our shores and has not been shown to be admissible may enter the United... may enter the United States.\nThe parole statute is set forth at petition appendix 3a... excuse me... page 3a of our brief.\nThat is the only statute that affirmatively authorizes aliens to enter the United States.\nThat statute is... obviously confers no rights.\nIt is written entirely in terms of the discretion of the Attorney General, now the Secretary of Homeland Security.\nIt says the Attorney... the Secretary may, in his discretion, temporarily under conditions that he prescribes and for urgent and humanitarian reasons, parole an alien into the United States.\nBut it says that parole does not constitute an admission, and it may be revoked at any time when the Secretary in his opinion concludes that the purposes of the parole have been satisfied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [177.259, 186.38, 198.351, 206.359, 211.56, 215.73, 221.386, 234.594], "stop_times": [186.38, 198.351, 206.359, 211.56, 215.73, 221.386, 234.594, 247.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 177.259}, "reply_to": "22034__0_004", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_006", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "So are you... are you arguing now that... that (5)(A)... (d)(5)(A), is the statute under which you are detaining him and that 1231(a)(6) has nothing to do with the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [247.392], "stop_times": [259.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 247.392}, "reply_to": "22034__0_005", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_007", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "No.\nThey... they are independent authorities for the detention--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [259.735, 259.885], "stop_times": [259.885, 262.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 259.735}, "reply_to": "22034__0_006", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_008", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "So... so you're arguing... then you are.\nYou're saying... this is coming to me a little bit anew.\nI perhaps didn't read it carefully enough.\nBut I thought... let's assume you lose on 1231(a)(6), that I can't think of a way.\nLet's assume that I can't think of a way of applying the same words to your alien to mean something different than were applied to the alien who was in Zadvydas.\nSuppose you lose on that point.\nNow you're saying, well, independently of that, we have a different statute under which we can detain him, namely 1182(d)(5)(A).\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [262.736, 264.881, 268.103, 269.977, 277.474, 289.28, 290.682, 301.184], "stop_times": [264.881, 268.103, 269.977, 277.474, 289.28, 290.682, 301.184, 301.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 262.736}, "reply_to": "22034__0_007", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_009", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Yes, absolutely, and the... and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [301.434], "stop_times": [302.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 301.434}, "reply_to": "22034__0_008", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_010", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Now... now is that argument... I mean, I'm sorry that I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [302.815], "stop_times": [305.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 302.815}, "reply_to": "22034__0_009", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_011", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Yes, and we... we make... we do make that argument in our brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [305.111], "stop_times": [307.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 305.111}, "reply_to": "22034__0_010", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_012", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--and that... and so is that made in the courts below and everything that they're doing in the cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [307.673], "stop_times": [310.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 307.673}, "reply_to": "22034__0_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_013", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Yes.\nWe made it at... we made it in both courts below, and we... and we think it's clear from the background of... of this statute that it does... that it does confer independent authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [310.524, 310.861], "stop_times": [310.861, 317.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 310.524}, "reply_to": "22034__0_012", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_014", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "But this statute just... just goes in a circle because it ends.\nThe way end... (A) ends is that after revoking the parole, the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States, which refers you back to... to 1231(a)(6).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [317.787, 322.328], "stop_times": [322.328, 346.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 317.787}, "reply_to": "22034__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__0_015", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "No.\nWith respect, it doesn't.\n1231(a)(6) is an additional... on its face is an additional grant of detention authority.\nIt is not... but whereas, the... the parole authority which... which for years until--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [346.683, 347.426, 348.912, 354.65], "stop_times": [347.426, 348.912, 354.65, 360.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 346.683}, "reply_to": "22034__0_014", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_016", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, this shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [360.512], "stop_times": [365.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 360.512}, "reply_to": "22034__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__0_017", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--And an--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [365.22], "stop_times": [365.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 365.22}, "reply_to": "22034__0_016", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_018", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Dealt with includes, it seems to me, 1231(a)(6).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [365.73], "stop_times": [369.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 365.73}, "reply_to": "22034__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__0_019", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--An applicant for admission includes anyone who has been found not to be admissible to the United States.\n8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(1) provides that any... any alien in the United States who has not affirmatively been found to be admissible is an applicant for admission.\nAnd the... the statutes dealing with applicants for admission or aliens who arrive at our shore establish that detention, even indefinite detention, is... is not only permitted, but required unless the Secretary releases someone.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [369.8, 375.744, 385.321], "stop_times": [375.744, 385.321, 401.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 369.8}, "reply_to": "22034__0_018", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_020", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "How would that... how would that apply to someone who hasn't gotten parole, hasn't gotten any permission, who snuck across the border?\nThat's one of the pieces of this that's incomprehensible, that you are suggesting someone can be detained indefinitely who we allowed in temporarily, but such treatment could not occur with respect to somebody that had no permission at any time to be here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [401.296, 407.778], "stop_times": [407.778, 431.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 401.296}, "reply_to": "22034__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22034__0_021", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Yes.\nWell, the... the parole statute... if someone was taken into custody, the parole... who had sneaked across the border, that person, under the 1996 revisions, is an applicant for... for admission, and the parole statute would govern that.\nAs a constitutional matter, and particularly with respect to procedural due process, the Court has suggested in a number of its cases that there may be a difference between somebody who arrives at our borders and... and is stopped and somebody who... who sneaks through.\nAt least as a procedural matter, the Government would have to establish that he has no right to be here.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [431.268, 432.011, 446.129, 462.354, 467.434], "stop_times": [432.011, 446.129, 462.354, 467.434, 467.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 431.268}, "reply_to": "22034__0_020", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_022", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "But may I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [467.738], "stop_times": [468.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 467.738}, "reply_to": "22034__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__0_023", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, are... are you saying that if an alien on... who seeks admission and is denied admission and is at Ellis Island or the JKF Airport, that the Attorney General is... does not have to consult 1231(a)(6)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [468.276], "stop_times": [484.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 468.276}, "reply_to": "22034__0_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22034__0_024", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--No.\nWe believe the parole statute furnishes independent authority--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [484.828, 485.078], "stop_times": [485.078, 489.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 484.828}, "reply_to": "22034__0_023", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_025", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Where does it say... I mean, the reason I guess I missed it is because when I looked at your table of contents and elsewhere in the brief, it seems phrased totally in terms of 1231(a)(6).\nThat's the heading.\nEach argument seems to support that.\nAnd then on page... you know, when you refer to this, I guess on page 26, you're talking in a section about what 1231 must be because of the structure of it.\nAnd then you refer to other provisions such as the one you're now mentioning.\nI just didn't pick up that it was a totally independent basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [489.165, 499.939, 500.969, 503.282, 513.807, 518.159], "stop_times": [499.939, 500.969, 503.282, 513.807, 518.159, 521.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 489.165}, "reply_to": "22034__0_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_026", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Right.\nAnd... and if I may, the... the special statutes that govern the parole of Mariel Cubans that we reproduce in the appendix to our brief at 212.12 were promulgated in 1987 before 1231(a)(6) was enacted in 1996.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [521.115, 521.28], "stop_times": [521.28, 537.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 521.115}, "reply_to": "22034__0_025", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_027", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "All right, but where does it say that?\nI'd like to just glance at it even now.\nWhere does it say that in your brief, that it's a totally independent basis?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [537.423, 538.842, 540.617], "stop_times": [538.842, 540.617, 544.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 537.423}, "reply_to": "22034__0_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_028", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "On page 12... 26 to 27.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [544.315], "stop_times": [548.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 544.315}, "reply_to": "22034__0_027", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_029", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "That's what I read and it was in a structure called the statutory and... text and structure support the Secretary's detention authority, which is under a bigger heading saying the text, structure, and history of section 1231(a)(6) confirm the executive branch's authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [548.773], "stop_times": [564.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 548.773}, "reply_to": "22034__0_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_030", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "I should... I should also--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [564.998], "stop_times": [565.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 564.998}, "reply_to": "22034__0_029", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_031", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "So perhaps I could be forgiven for not understanding--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [565.403], "stop_times": [567.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 565.403}, "reply_to": "22034__0_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_032", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--And... and I should also point out that... that in... in our response to the petition in the Benitez petition, we expressly... we expressly argued that 1182(d)(5)(A) is an independent source of authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [567.261], "stop_times": [579.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 567.261}, "reply_to": "22034__0_031", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_033", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "But if... if there's a statute that directs you with reference to a class, that statute is applicable, and this person is within that class.\nSo how can you tell us we can't go or that we needn't go to 1231?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [579.771, 591.881], "stop_times": [591.881, 598.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 579.771}, "reply_to": "22034__0_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22034__0_034", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "My... my point is that's not the exclusive basis.\nI'm not saying that it's inapplicable to this category.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [598.18, 600.409, 602.927], "stop_times": [600.409, 602.927, 603.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 598.18}, "reply_to": "22034__0_033", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_035", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, it might be exclusive constitutionally, but the Congress has acted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [603.67], "stop_times": [606.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 603.67}, "reply_to": "22034__0_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22034__0_036", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Or... or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [606.975], "stop_times": [607.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 606.975}, "reply_to": "22034__0_035", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_037", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "And once it's acted, you're controlled.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [607.513], "stop_times": [609.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 607.513}, "reply_to": "22034__0_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22034__0_038", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Well, or... or... but... but what Congress... if I may go back to the parole statute, before 1231(a)(6) was enacted, the only statute that governed the detention and the release of aliens arriving at our shores, what used to be called excludable aliens, was the parole statute.\nThat provision... until the aliens before this Court were ordered--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [609.083, 625.179], "stop_times": [625.179, 630.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.083}, "reply_to": "22034__0_037", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_039", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "By which you mean... parole statute, by which you mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [630.835], "stop_times": [633.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 630.835}, "reply_to": "22034__0_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__0_040", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--1182(d)(5)(A).\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [633.314, 634.922], "stop_times": [634.922, 635.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 633.314}, "reply_to": "22034__0_039", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_041", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [635.544], "stop_times": [635.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 635.544}, "reply_to": "22034__0_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__0_042", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "And until there is an order of exclusion, even now the parole statute is the only statute that governs the detention and release of the alien.\nAnd I think it would be impossible to read into 1182(d)(5)(A) any 6-month limitation or any limitation at all on how long someone can be detained because that statute sets up a presumption of custody with release only in the discretion of the Attorney General, or now the Secretary of... of Homeland Security.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [635.998, 644.953], "stop_times": [644.953, 665.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 635.998}, "reply_to": "22034__0_041", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_043", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--May I interrupt you there, Mr. Kneedler?\nBecause I mean, the question is whether constitutionally we should respect that presumption.\nAnd... and my... my question basically is this.\nI can perfectly well understand and I can understand the... the argument for respecting that presumption.\nWhen you're dealing with excluded aliens who are in a literal territorial sense within the border but are never allowed, in effect, beyond a point of initial custody, the ones who are kept at Ellis Island or wherever one may... may keep them.\nIt is difficult, however, I... I think to accept what has been called the... the fiction of custody.\nWhen we are dealing with individuals who, although absolutely excludable, were nonetheless welcomed into the United States by a public announcement of the President of the United States, have been allowed into the American population, just as clearly and as readily as they would have been under any other protocol of admission... and I guess in this case for something like 20 years... isn't there a point at which the... the fiction of exclusion simply cannot be accepted for constitutional purposes?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [665.098, 666.13, 670.671, 675.129, 680.497, 697.709, 705.101], "stop_times": [666.13, 670.671, 675.129, 680.497, 697.709, 705.101, 739.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 665.098}, "reply_to": "22034__0_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__0_044", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "There are a number of responses to that.\nFirst, as a factual matter, with respect to welcoming into the United States, what gets cited for that proposition is a statement by President Carter in May 5 of 1980.\n10 days later, before the aliens in this case came to this country, he made clear that people should not do this.\nHe encouraged people not to go to Cuba.\nThe INS brought enforcement actions against people who went there.\nThere were criminal prosecutions that were brought.\nSo people were not encouraged to come to the United States in this way.\nWith respect to the regime that you say... I believe you said they're... they're admitted just like under any other regime.\nThat is not correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [739.03, 741.155, 751.745, 760.184, 763.057, 766.689, 768.918, 773.293, 780.435], "stop_times": [741.155, 751.745, 760.184, 763.057, 766.689, 768.918, 773.293, 780.435, 781.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 739.03}, "reply_to": "22034__0_043", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_045", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, factually.\nThey're allowed into the country.\nYou know, they can get jobs, own property, et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [781.8, 782.543, 783.908], "stop_times": [782.543, 783.908, 788.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 781.8}, "reply_to": "22034__0_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__0_046", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "They were allowed into the country under the parole statute that I just read, which makes... which makes it clear that they are admitted not... not in a way that confers any rights on them, but they are admitted in the interest of the United States for public benefits under circumstances which make clear that it is not an admission and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [788.282], "stop_times": [805.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 788.282}, "reply_to": "22034__0_045", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_047", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "No.\nI realize but they are admitted in the sense that they say, okay, you can come in and you can do these things, but you get no... in effect, you get no vested right.\nWe can take it away like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [805.1, 805.183, 812.946], "stop_times": [805.183, 812.946, 814.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.1}, "reply_to": "22034__0_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__0_048", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--No... no vested right to come into the United States.\nIt is, in effect, a revocable--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [814.099, 817.815], "stop_times": [817.815, 819.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 814.099}, "reply_to": "22034__0_047", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_049", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "All right.\nBut otherwise... otherwise they are treated like any other class of aliens who are admitted into the United States.\nThey are subject to this condition.\nThe United States makes that clear, but they nonetheless can be in the country and do in the country what other aliens can do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [819.673, 819.889, 826.004, 827.64], "stop_times": [819.889, 826.004, 827.64, 835.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 819.673}, "reply_to": "22034__0_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__0_050", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--At the sufferance of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [835.731], "stop_times": [837.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 835.731}, "reply_to": "22034__0_049", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_051", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "I... I know.\nSubject to that condition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [837.217, 837.589], "stop_times": [837.589, 838.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 837.217}, "reply_to": "22034__0_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__0_052", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "And... and the question we have here is when the... when and if the United States, pursuant to this statute, decides no longer to suffer the aliens being at large, but instead return them to the border, in effect, or return them to detention, this statute makes clear that that... that whatever practical experience they have had at large in the country is always subject to revocation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [838.598], "stop_times": [860.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 838.598}, "reply_to": "22034__0_051", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_053", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "No.\nI... I realize that, but the problem is you've got a Due Process Clause that talks about persons not citizens.\nMaybe I can understand the... the fiction that says it doesn't apply to these persons if, for practical purposes, we stop them at the border and we don't let them into society.\nOnce we do let them into society, whether we say it's subject to this condition it can be revoked or not, I find it difficult to see a constitutional warrant for drawing the line that you want us to draw.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [860.396, 860.784, 865.597, 876.509], "stop_times": [860.784, 865.597, 876.509, 888.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.396}, "reply_to": "22034__0_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__0_054", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--This Court has always treated as the same the custody of an alien who arrives at the border and has not been admitted, whether that person stays on the boat, goes to Ellis Island, which the Court said was not an entry that gave somebody constitutional rights to come here.\nIn the Kaplan v. Tod case, you had the example of a person who was paroled for 9 years and regarded as not being in the United States.\nAnd what the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [888.753, 904.828, 914.471], "stop_times": [904.828, 914.471, 915.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 888.753}, "reply_to": "22034__0_053", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_055", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "You're giving me prior examples, but the issue here is should we continue to respect that... what has been called that fiction as to people who are allowed into the country and are allowed to move around like other aliens and, indeed, and by and large like citizens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [915.669], "stop_times": [933.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 915.669}, "reply_to": "22034__0_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__0_056", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--With respect, I think it is not... it is not a fiction with respect to the constitutional issue because there's a critical difference between, for example, a lawful permanent resident... a person does not acquire lawful permanent resident status by something like adverse possession, by living in the United States for a long period of time.\nIt is an affirmative grant of status for permission to reside permanently in the United States.\nIt is a grant of a status--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [933.768, 952.616, 958.476], "stop_times": [952.616, 958.476, 959.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 933.768}, "reply_to": "22034__0_055", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_057", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Which can be revoked.\nWhich can be revoked, and that's the... the distinction that seems to me strange.\nWhen somebody commits a deportable offense, they are stripped of whatever right they had to be here.\nThey are, it seems to me, in the same boat as someone who is excludable.\nThey... they do... do not have any right to remain no more than a parolee has.\nWe have taken away their right to remain.\nSo it seems to me that they have no status anymore based on a prior admission that we have removed from them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [959.591, 959.807, 964.132, 972.184, 979.364, 985.392, 989.274], "stop_times": [959.807, 964.132, 972.184, 979.364, 985.392, 989.274, 997.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 959.591}, "reply_to": "22034__0_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22034__0_058", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--This Court... this Court thought otherwise in... in Zadvydas 3 years ago where it drew a distinction.\nIt said the distinction between someone who has never entered the country and someone who has effected an entry--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [997.569, 1003.142], "stop_times": [1003.142, 1008.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 997.569}, "reply_to": "22034__0_057", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_059", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--That's true.\nThat's true.\nAbsolutely we did.\nAnd also, I'll assume for argument's sake that you're completely right on the constitutional point.\nThat's just for argument's sake.\nBut assume you are.\nSo there's all kinds of constitutional difference.\nStill, I don't see how to read the statute one way for one group of people and another way for another.\nThe statutory words in Zadvydas, the words that the Attorney General may detain this individual beyond the removal period, are read in Zadvydas to mean beyond the removal period... may detain beyond the removal period means for a reasonable time, presumably 6 months, presumptively, related... reasonable time related to the purpose of the statute which is to find a country willing to accept them.\nOkay?\nNow, I haven't found a single case of this Court where you interpret these complicated words one way for one and another way for another.\nMy law clerk found a couple of cases, Communications Work v. Bett and Machinists v. Street, where in Bett particularly the Court strongly implies the contrary.\nIt says you can't read words differently just because we interpreted in one... you know, one statute, they were interpreted in light of constitutional considerations, and now we have... those constitutional considerations aren't here, but it's the same words.\nYou have to apply it the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1008.426, 1008.715, 1009.336, 1010.284, 1015.485, 1016.971, 1018.624, 1020.975, 1027.54, 1056.285, 1056.807, 1065.064, 1075.3, 1087.56], "stop_times": [1008.715, 1009.336, 1010.284, 1015.485, 1016.971, 1018.624, 1020.975, 1027.54, 1056.285, 1056.807, 1065.064, 1075.3, 1087.56, 1088.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.426}, "reply_to": "22034__0_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_060", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--But... but, with respect, the Court did not construe any word in this statute to impose the limitation that you're describing.\nThe... the way the Court posed the question was does it... does it affirmatively grant a power for detention of these aliens in these circumstances.\nAt the very beginning of the Court's opinion, the Court put to one side--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1088.674, 1096.022, 1105.931], "stop_times": [1096.022, 1105.931, 1109.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1088.674}, "reply_to": "22034__0_059", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_061", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "That's an interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1109.608], "stop_times": [1110.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.608}, "reply_to": "22034__0_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__0_062", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1110.184], "stop_times": [1110.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1110.184}, "reply_to": "22034__0_061", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_063", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "It says... that's an interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1110.806], "stop_times": [1112.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1110.806}, "reply_to": "22034__0_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__0_064", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "But... but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1112.125], "stop_times": [1112.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1112.125}, "reply_to": "22034__0_063", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_065", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "It says the statute does not confer power to hold beyond a reasonable period.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1112.763], "stop_times": [1116.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1112.763}, "reply_to": "22034__0_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__0_066", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--But... but the... the mode of analysis of the Court... it starts with the introduction to the Court's opinion, and this is at page 682.\nIt says... of... of Zadvydas.\nWe deal here with aliens who are admitted, aliens who have not yet--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1116.462, 1123.437, 1126.78], "stop_times": [1123.437, 1126.78, 1129.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1116.462}, "reply_to": "22034__0_065", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_067", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Yes, yes.\nThat's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1129.464, 1129.714], "stop_times": [1129.714, 1130.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1129.464}, "reply_to": "22034__0_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_068", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--No.\nBut... but that... that's setting the Court... the case up.\nBut then what the Court says, in terms of how it interprets the statute, we construe the statute to contain an implicit reasonable time limitation, the application of which is subject to Federal court review.\nWell, what is a reasonable time depends upon the circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1130.457, 1130.862, 1134.294, 1145.605], "stop_times": [1130.862, 1134.294, 1145.605, 1149.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1130.457}, "reply_to": "22034__0_067", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_069", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well... well, yes, but what... what... we put in the presumptively 6 months, but we said in our view the statute, read in light of the Constitution's demands, limits an alien's post-removal period detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United States.\nIt does not permit indefinite detention interpreting it to avoid constitutional threat.\nWe include that once removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized by statute.\nNow, I don't know what those sentences are doing unless they're interpreting the words I mentioned.\nAnd then later in the opinion, we say it's presumptively--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1149.57, 1165.09, 1170.125, 1176.624, 1181.975], "stop_times": [1165.09, 1170.125, 1176.624, 1181.975, 1185.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1149.57}, "reply_to": "22034__0_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_070", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "No.\nWhat... what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1185.069, 1185.235], "stop_times": [1185.235, 1185.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1185.069}, "reply_to": "22034__0_069", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_071", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--not always, but presumptively 6 months.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1185.401], "stop_times": [1187.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1185.401}, "reply_to": "22034__0_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_072", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--What... what the... what the Court was doing was... the... the standard that the Court announced at the beginning of its opinion was a reasonable... a reasonable time limitation, the application of which is subject to court review.\nAs applied to permanent resident aliens, the Court saw a... a constitutional problem and, in that situation, came up with a presumptive 6-month rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1187.425, 1199.313], "stop_times": [1199.313, 1208.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1187.425}, "reply_to": "22034__0_071", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_073", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, it interpreted the statute as doing it.\nNow, that brings me back to the original question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1208.973, 1211.386], "stop_times": [1211.386, 1213.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1208.973}, "reply_to": "22034__0_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_074", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "No.\nNo, I don't believe... with... with respect, what... what I believe the Court said was that there is a reasonable time limitation.\nAnd given the... given the distinction that runs throughout immigration laws, this Court said at page 2,500 of the Supreme Court Reports in this decision, the distinction between aliens who arrive at our borders and are governed by Mezei, as opposed to people who enter, runs throughout our immigration law, I would think that it would run throughout 1231(a)(6).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1213.327, 1213.781, 1218.944], "stop_times": [1213.781, 1218.944, 1238.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1213.327}, "reply_to": "22034__0_073", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_075", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "All right. I can... I can agree with you that the different classes are going to implicate different considerations on what is reasonable.\nBut you, as I understand it, go the further step and say there is a presumption, and perhaps an irrebuttable presumption, that in the case of the... the legally excluded, even though they are, in fact, in the country, the... the presumptive reasonable period is forever.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1238.673, 1246.353], "stop_times": [1246.353, 1263.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1238.673}, "reply_to": "22034__0_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__0_076", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1263.193], "stop_times": [1263.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1263.193}, "reply_to": "22034__0_075", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_077", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "And that's where... it's that stretch that's giving us the trouble.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1263.731], "stop_times": [1266.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1263.731}, "reply_to": "22034__0_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__0_078", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--And... first of all, the Court doesn't have to decide that in this case because we have a regime where each of the aliens before this Court, came here, was paroled--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1266.62], "stop_times": [1274.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1266.62}, "reply_to": "22034__0_077", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_079", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "That's true, but we've got to say something.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1274.71], "stop_times": [1276.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1274.71}, "reply_to": "22034__0_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__0_080", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--But if... if I may go to the Mezei case, what the Court said there is that the detention of the alien on Ellis Island was effectuating his exclusion.\nThe two cannot be distinguished from one another.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1276.546, 1287.692], "stop_times": [1287.692, 1289.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1276.546}, "reply_to": "22034__0_079", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_081", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, Mr. Kneedler, do you mind telling us whether the record shows where Martinez and Benitez are now?\nWhere are they?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1289.921, 1295.205], "stop_times": [1295.205, 1296.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1289.921}, "reply_to": "22034__0_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22034__0_082", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Benitez has been released to a half-way house.\nWe sent the Court a letter--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1296.608, 1300.407], "stop_times": [1300.407, 1301.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1296.608}, "reply_to": "22034__0_081", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_083", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "That's what I thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1301.15], "stop_times": [1301.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1301.15}, "reply_to": "22034__0_082", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22034__0_084", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--last week showing that the review process under these regulations actually works.\nIt's been working for 15 years.\nAnd as we explain in our brief, more than 9,000 people have been granted parole here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1301.522, 1306.973, 1308.663], "stop_times": [1306.973, 1308.663, 1314.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1301.522}, "reply_to": "22034__0_083", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_085", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "So is that case basically moot?\nBenitez's?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1314.979, 1316.715], "stop_times": [1316.715, 1317.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.979}, "reply_to": "22034__0_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22034__0_086", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "He hasn't been... he hasn't been... I think he's still in... in custody.\nWhether... if... if he... if he completes that and is released, a question of mootness may arise at that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1317.458, 1321.173], "stop_times": [1321.173, 1328.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1317.458}, "reply_to": "22034__0_085", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_087", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Where's Martinez?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1328.437], "stop_times": [1329.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1328.437}, "reply_to": "22034__0_086", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22034__0_088", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Martinez was released pursuant to the court... district court order almost 2 years ago, and he's... he's now at large under an order of supervision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1329.18], "stop_times": [1337.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1329.18}, "reply_to": "22034__0_087", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_089", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Mr. Kneedler--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1337.725], "stop_times": [1338.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.725}, "reply_to": "22034__0_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__0_090", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Now, if I can continue for just a moment and then I'll stop.\nThere is a new statute, 1226(a) of title 8, part of the Patriot Act, which allows detention of aliens who threaten our safety or security.\nPresumably that is an option if either of these people is seen to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1338.634, 1342.516, 1356.672], "stop_times": [1342.516, 1356.672, 1362.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1338.634}, "reply_to": "22034__0_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22034__0_091", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "If... if there's an... if there is an individualized reason to believe that an alien would be a terrorist or... or a threat to the security in that respect, but the threat to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1362.782], "stop_times": [1371.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1362.782}, "reply_to": "22034__0_090", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_092", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "And that's available, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1371.327], "stop_times": [1372.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1371.327}, "reply_to": "22034__0_091", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22034__0_093", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--That... that's available, but the threat to the national security here is much larger than that.\nIf... again, if we go back to the immigration crises involving Haiti and Cuba, there... there is a threat to the national security when another nation can foist aliens onto our shores, and... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1372.525, 1376.9], "stop_times": [1376.9, 1388.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1372.525}, "reply_to": "22034__0_092", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_094", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "May I ask you about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1388.667], "stop_times": [1390.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.667}, "reply_to": "22034__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22034__0_095", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--if the United States had no ability to... to deflect--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1390.525], "stop_times": [1392.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1390.525}, "reply_to": "22034__0_094", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_096", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Mr. Kneedler, can I ask you a question, forgetting the statutes for a moment... I... which we've already covered at some length?\nJust going to your constitutional position, it's clear that a person who's not been admitted and has been paroled could be excluded forthwith, summarily, and so forth because he's never been admitted.\nBut does that person have any protection under the Constitution?\nCould we shoot him?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1392.549, 1398.41, 1408.236, 1411.496], "stop_times": [1398.41, 1408.236, 1411.496, 1412.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1392.549}, "reply_to": "22034__0_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22034__0_097", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--No, no, surely.\nWhat... the... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1412.695, 1413.825], "stop_times": [1413.825, 1414.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1412.695}, "reply_to": "22034__0_096", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_098", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Then what is the protection under the Constitution that deals... is it the Due Process Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1414.901], "stop_times": [1418.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1414.901}, "reply_to": "22034__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22034__0_099", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Whatever right... in... in a criminal prosecution the Bill of Rights would apply to that person.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1418.533], "stop_times": [1423.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1418.533}, "reply_to": "22034__0_098", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_100", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Is he... is he a person within the meaning--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1423.696], "stop_times": [1425.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1423.696}, "reply_to": "22034__0_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22034__0_101", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Yes.\nWe... our position is not that he's... not that he's not a person.\nThe question is what... is what process is due.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1425.637, 1425.804, 1428.526], "stop_times": [1425.804, 1428.526, 1431.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1425.637}, "reply_to": "22034__0_100", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_102", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--And is he a person who has a right to liberty, entitled to some protection, very, very, very minimal, but there is some protection to that... that individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1431.209], "stop_times": [1438.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1431.209}, "reply_to": "22034__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22034__0_103", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "It... depending upon the context.\nThe one protection for liberty he does--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1438.147, 1440.293], "stop_times": [1440.293, 1442.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1438.147}, "reply_to": "22034__0_102", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_104", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, the context is he got off a boat.\nWe couldn't... but Cuba won't take him back or... or whatever... wherever he came from.\nThey can't.\nAnd the only thing we can do to keep him out of the country is to keep him in jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1442.029, 1443.637, 1449.004, 1449.254], "stop_times": [1443.637, 1449.004, 1449.254, 1452.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1442.029}, "reply_to": "22034__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22034__0_105", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--He has no substantive due process right to be released into the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1452.226], "stop_times": [1456.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1452.226}, "reply_to": "22034__0_104", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_106", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "He... he doesn't have a right to be released.\nBut... but you do not contend that we could kill him.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1456.313, 1459.079], "stop_times": [1459.079, 1462.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1456.313}, "reply_to": "22034__0_105", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22034__0_107", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "No, absolutely not.\nAbsolutely not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1462.068, 1463.183], "stop_times": [1463.183, 1464.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1462.068}, "reply_to": "22034__0_106", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_108", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "He does have some... some minimal protection under the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1464.298], "stop_times": [1466.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1464.298}, "reply_to": "22034__0_107", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22034__0_109", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Absolutely not. The formulation... and this was used in... in the Court's decision in Landon v. Plasencia.\nThe... the question is there are no constitutional rights in connection with his admission to the United States.\nAnd admission means, I think, both formal granted admission and practical admission or entry.\nA person cannot--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1466.322, 1470.659, 1476.047, 1480.894], "stop_times": [1470.659, 1476.047, 1480.894, 1481.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1466.322}, "reply_to": "22034__0_108", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_110", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "A person who runs in illegally, a person who crosses the border illegally, say, from Mexico is entitled to these rights when you catch him.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1481.887], "stop_times": [1490.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1481.887}, "reply_to": "22034__0_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_111", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--He's entitled to procedural due process rights.\nWe don't believe he... that person has any more substantive due process right to remain at large in the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1490.182, 1492.677], "stop_times": [1492.677, 1498.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1490.182}, "reply_to": "22034__0_110", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_112", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "But you... you... I thought there was a reg of the INS.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1498.355], "stop_times": [1500.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1498.355}, "reply_to": "22034__0_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_113", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "No.\nWith... with--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1500.835, 1501.207], "stop_times": [1501.207, 1501.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1500.835}, "reply_to": "22034__0_112", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_114", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Am I not right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1501.829], "stop_times": [1502.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1501.829}, "reply_to": "22034__0_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_115", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--With... with respect to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1502.488], "stop_times": [1503.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1502.488}, "reply_to": "22034__0_114", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_116", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Tell me if I'm right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1503.564], "stop_times": [1503.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1503.564}, "reply_to": "22034__0_115", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_117", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--With respect to the regulations, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1503.769], "stop_times": [1505.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1503.769}, "reply_to": "22034__0_116", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_118", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Can I say what it is?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1505.543], "stop_times": [1506.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1505.543}, "reply_to": "22034__0_117", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_119", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Yes, I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1506.536], "stop_times": [1507.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1506.536}, "reply_to": "22034__0_118", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_120", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "I thought there was a reg... to be sure we're talking about the same thing... where the INS has said that Zadvydas applies to individuals who run into the United States illegally from Mexico.\nAm I right about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1507.195, 1522.883], "stop_times": [1522.883, 1524.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1507.195}, "reply_to": "22034__0_119", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__0_121", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "The... the INS has... or now DHS has applied it.\nI... I don't know that there's an analysis in there that says Zadvydas requires it.\nI don't think the... either the statute or particularly the Constitution would give somebody who sneaks across our border a right to remain here, a substantive due process right to be here.\nMaybe procedural rights would be different, but a substantive--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1524.573, 1528.167, 1531.965, 1542.079], "stop_times": [1528.167, 1531.965, 1542.079, 1544.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1524.573}, "reply_to": "22034__0_120", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_122", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "But is that the current INS--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1544.574], "stop_times": [1545.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1544.574}, "reply_to": "22034__0_121", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22034__0_123", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Mr. Kneedler, may I... may I try to get in the question I did earlier?\nIs... is 8 U.S.C., section 1182(d)(5)... was... was that applicable in Zadvydas, as it's applicable here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1545.689, 1547.812], "stop_times": [1547.812, 1558.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.689}, "reply_to": "22034__0_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__0_124", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--No, because those were lawful permanent residents whose... whose lawful permanent residency had... had... they came in under a grant of lawful permanent residency.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1558.57], "stop_times": [1568.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1558.57}, "reply_to": "22034__0_123", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_125", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "So this is a new string to your bow in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1568.851], "stop_times": [1570.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.851}, "reply_to": "22034__0_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__0_126", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Yes, because these aliens entered the United States only--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1570.17], "stop_times": [1573.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1570.17}, "reply_to": "22034__0_125", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_127", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--But it wouldn't... it wouldn't apply to the illegal alien because it's a statute that governs parole and they're not paroled into the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1573.764], "stop_times": [1580.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.764}, "reply_to": "22034__0_126", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22034__0_128", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--But someone... someone who would be picked up would be an applicant for admission and could be released under this... under this statute.\nBut... but focusing here on the people excluded at the border--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1580.451, 1587.222], "stop_times": [1587.222, 1590.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1580.451}, "reply_to": "22034__0_127", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_129", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "How does that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1590.648], "stop_times": [1591.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1590.648}, "reply_to": "22034__0_128", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22034__0_130", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--this is the only way someone could--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1591.27], "stop_times": [1592.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1591.27}, "reply_to": "22034__0_129", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_131", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--How does that make that person, the illegal entrant, a parolee?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1592.134], "stop_times": [1597.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1592.134}, "reply_to": "22034__0_130", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22034__0_132", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--He would be an applicant for admission, and the... I... I believe... I believe I'm correct on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1597.147], "stop_times": [1602.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1597.147}, "reply_to": "22034__0_131", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_133", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Suppose he says, I don't want to apply for admission.\nI just don't want to be locked up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1602.72, 1604.577], "stop_times": [1604.577, 1606.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1602.72}, "reply_to": "22034__0_132", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22034__0_134", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "The act treats him as an applicant for admission under 1225(a)(1).\nMr. Chief Justice, if I may--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1606.246, 1609.945], "stop_times": [1609.945, 1611.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1606.246}, "reply_to": "22034__0_133", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__0_135", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Very well, Mr. Kneedler.\nMs. Dahl, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1611.431, 1613.372], "stop_times": [1613.372, 1617.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1611.431}, "reply_to": "22034__0_134", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22034__1_000", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nBecause the same words mean the same thing in the same statute, this Court need not reach the constitutional questions presented by the indefinite detention of inadmissible as opposed to deportable aliens.\nWithout going to questions of constitutional doubt, there are three reasons why this Court should hold that section 1231(a)(6) treats inadmissible aliens the same as it treats deportable aliens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1617.664, 1623.691, 1639.5], "stop_times": [1623.691, 1639.5, 1652.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1617.664}, "reply_to": "22034__0_135", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_001", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Before you get to that, do you think that that's the only statute applicable here?\nWhat about 1182(d)(5)?\nWhat's your response to the Government's assertion that that's an independent basis?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1652.215, 1657.045, 1658.448], "stop_times": [1657.045, 1658.448, 1665.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1652.215}, "reply_to": "22034__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__1_002", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Justice Scalia, I don't believe it provides an independent basis for detention.\nThe immigration law works together in it's various elements, and section 1182, when parole is revoked, treats the alien then as an applicant for admission, and section 1229 places the applicant for admission into removal proceedings.\nThe Government did not obtain a ruling on that argument from the Ninth Circuit, although it made reference to 1182 in its motions to stay the briefing schedule.\nIt ultimately conceded that this case was controlled by Lin Guo Xi, which was a statutory construction of 1231(a)(6), and cert was granted on the 1231(a)(6) issue only.\nThe reading of the statute that we proffer, that the same words mean the same meaning, is consistent with the overall changes Congress made in 1996 in IIRIRA when it eliminated the category of excludable aliens and replaced it with a single, broader category, now called removable aliens, that embraces both inadmissible and deportable aliens.\nThird, Congress knows how to provide for indefinite detention when it wants to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1665.385, 1670.131, 1687.426, 1697.829, 1710.915, 1738.324], "stop_times": [1670.131, 1687.426, 1697.829, 1710.915, 1738.324, 1744.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1665.385}, "reply_to": "22034__1_001", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_003", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, how do you explain then, Ms. Dahl, the language in the Court's Zadvydas opinion that had, were we dealing with, in effect, off-shore aliens, this would be a much different case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1744.806], "stop_times": [1756.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.806}, "reply_to": "22034__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22034__1_004", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "I believe it would present a different question, but the constitutional issues presented by indefinite detention remain.\nThe Court doesn't need to reach those--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1756.695, 1762.845], "stop_times": [1762.845, 1764.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1756.695}, "reply_to": "22034__1_003", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_005", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "So you say that a person, even though they're not lawfully admitted into the United States, still couldn't be indefinitely detained.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1764.785], "stop_times": [1773.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1764.785}, "reply_to": "22034__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22034__1_006", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, that is our... our point precisely.\nThe Government was not correct when it said that it... that this Court has always treated excludable aliens the same.\nIn a case that was a contemporary of the Mezei decision, Kwong Hai Chew, cited at page 45 of our brief, the Court found that an excludable entrant on Ellis Island was entitled to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1773.042, 1775.848, 1784.393], "stop_times": [1775.848, 1784.393, 1797.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1773.042}, "reply_to": "22034__1_005", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_007", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, the Government distinguishes that case.\nWhat do you make of their distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1797.562, 1799.586], "stop_times": [1799.586, 1801.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1797.562}, "reply_to": "22034__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22034__1_008", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--We disagree.\nI think that it shows that the Court will consider length of time in the country in determining what amount of due process is required.\nNow, the plain language of the statute of 1231(a)(6) requires the same treatment between inadmissible and deportable aliens.\nWhere there's no difference in the language that Congress has used, this Court can draw no distinctions.\nThere is a presumption that Congress expects its statutes to be read in the same manner as the Supreme Court's interpretation, and because of the interrelationship between the parole statute and the revocation proceedings and removability proceedings, there's no reason for this Court to resort to the 1182 statute to provide the authority that the Government seeks.\nThe relevant authority is section 1231(a)(6).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1801.211, 1801.937, 1811.392, 1822.166, 1827.86, 1856.346], "stop_times": [1801.937, 1811.392, 1822.166, 1827.86, 1856.346, 1860.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1801.211}, "reply_to": "22034__1_007", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_009", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, what do you think we should do with the 1182?\nBecause suppose you prevail on your argument that it's the same statute, the same word, it can't be construed differently under 12-whatever, and the Government says fine.\nWe now go to the other string in our bow and we continue to detain this person on the basis of 1182(d)(5)(A).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1860.183, 1862.949, 1875.786], "stop_times": [1862.949, 1875.786, 1884.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.183}, "reply_to": "22034__1_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22034__1_010", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, the 1182(d)(5)(A) doesn't provide for indefinite detention.\nWhat it provides is that upon revocation of parole, the alien is placed into removal proceedings.\nOnce the removal proceedings have been determined and a final order of removal is entered, 1231(a) requires removal within 90 days, and failing that, the appropriate... the relevant statutory provision is 1231(a)(6).\nThat says that the alien may be detained beyond the removal period and then, if released, subjected to conditions of supervision.\n1231 is the only statutory authority for post-removal period detention.\nParole deals with entry and 1231(a)(6)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1884.703, 1890.897, 1900.307, 1917.108, 1926.192, 1933.826], "stop_times": [1890.897, 1900.307, 1917.108, 1926.192, 1933.826, 1937.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1884.703}, "reply_to": "22034__1_009", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_011", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, but you haven't answered, I think, the question of whether the Government is entitled in this case, if we dispose of the 1231 question, to resort to the other statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1937.913], "stop_times": [1951.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1937.913}, "reply_to": "22034__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22034__1_012", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--I don't think that the Court could carve out a statute and use it in a way contrary to the way it functions in the immigration scheme and make superfluous or irrelevant a more express, more detailed statutory provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1951.925], "stop_times": [1973.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1951.925}, "reply_to": "22034__1_011", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_013", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, what you're saying is that even if 1182 comes first, 1231 comes second.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1973.745], "stop_times": [1978.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1973.745}, "reply_to": "22034__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22034__1_014", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Precisely, Your Honor.\nAnd I don't think that the Government could revoke parole and then suspend proceedings to determine the admissibility of a parolee indefinitely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1978.287, 1979.894], "stop_times": [1979.894, 1990.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1978.287}, "reply_to": "22034__1_013", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_015", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "But still, is this another... could... could we do this?\nI noticed that... that your... the petition for cert in Benitez has two questions, both of which are about interpreting 1231(a)(6).\nThe Government's petition, though not its brief... the Government's petition in Crawford says the question presented is whether 1231(a)(6) in Zadvydas compelled a release.\nSo this other... this other matter is a totally... seen as a totally separate ground.\nPerhaps the thing to do is we send it back, and if they want to raise it, they can raise it, and it would be up to the circuit to decide whether they had preserved it or not preserved it.\nIs that... is that a sensible thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [1990.191, 1992.526, 2001.321, 2012.217, 2018.039, 2027.82], "stop_times": [1992.526, 2001.321, 2012.217, 2018.039, 2027.82, 2031.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1990.191}, "reply_to": "22034__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__1_016", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "I don't think so because I don't think that 1182 allows the interpretation that the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2031.043], "stop_times": [2036.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2031.043}, "reply_to": "22034__1_015", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_017", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "And that's your view of... of what 1182 means, and they're going to have a different view.\nIf they want to argue their different view, they could do it in the Ninth Circuit.\nIf they've waived it, they've waived it, and that's up to them, not up to us.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2036.41, 2040.702, 2044.396], "stop_times": [2040.702, 2044.396, 2047.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.41}, "reply_to": "22034__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__1_018", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--What the Ninth Circuit found, though, in questions of an inadmissible alien, that this Court's construction of 1231(a)(6) in Zadvydas applied and there would be no need for resort to any other statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2047.64], "stop_times": [2063.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2047.64}, "reply_to": "22034__1_017", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_019", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "May I ask if you believe the supervision after the 90-day period covered in subparagraph 3... is there... can that continue indefinitely in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2063.364], "stop_times": [2079.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2063.364}, "reply_to": "22034__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22034__1_020", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Yes.\nWhile the alien is awaiting removal, he is subject to supervision conditions that will safeguard the Government's interests, and for as long as he is waiting, he is under supervision.\nIt's those supervision conditions that distinguish this case from the situation where the Government is finding national security risks.\nThat... Congress has expressly provided for the indefinite detention of people whom the Attorney General certifies as presenting risks to national security.\nIt's also the presence of a national security risk that distinguishes this case from the Mezei decision.\nI think that the Government makes more of that decision than needs to be made in order to find that Mr. Benitez and Mr. Martinez are in different situations.\nThey were allowed into this country.\nThey have lived here for 24 years, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2079.052, 2080.993, 2092.138, 2108.941, 2120.208, 2126.773, 2139.981, 2142.46], "stop_times": [2080.993, 2092.138, 2108.941, 2120.208, 2126.773, 2139.981, 2142.46, 2146.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2079.052}, "reply_to": "22034__1_019", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_021", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "How long had the... the detainee in, however you pronounce it, Mezei lived in the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2146.258], "stop_times": [2154.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2146.258}, "reply_to": "22034__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22034__1_022", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Mr. Mezei had been in the United States for 25 years before he left, and he was gone for an extended period of time.\nWhen he sought to return, he was treated as if he were an initial entrant, and the Government, citing national security, excluded him without a hearing and refused to disclose the evidence that was the basis for the exclusion.\nHe challenged that and wanted a hearing and wanted the Attorney General to be required to disclose the evidence.\nThe Court found that his release into the community itself would present a security risk and therefore sustained the denial of the hearing and the detention of Mr. Mezei.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2154.227, 2162.994, 2180.166, 2187.042], "stop_times": [2162.994, 2180.166, 2187.042, 2199.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2154.227}, "reply_to": "22034__1_021", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_023", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, I don't think it really said they... they found there was a security risk.\nThey... they held the Government did not have to explain because the man had no right to come in.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2199.385, 2203.268], "stop_times": [2203.268, 2208.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.385}, "reply_to": "22034__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22034__1_024", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2208.013], "stop_times": [2209.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2208.013}, "reply_to": "22034__1_023", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_025", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "What's... what's your best answer to the Government's argument that unless you treat this case differently from Zadvydas, at least for purposes of reasonable time or reasonable interest, which affects time, the United States is basically defenseless against countries that... that want to dump undesirable aliens and force them into the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2209.212], "stop_times": [2229.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.212}, "reply_to": "22034__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__1_026", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "I don't think that applying the statute, as it's written, leaves the Government defenseless.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2229.396], "stop_times": [2236.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2229.396}, "reply_to": "22034__1_025", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_027", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Because.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2236.166], "stop_times": [2237.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.166}, "reply_to": "22034__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__1_028", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Congress can pass another statute, if it needs to, and the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2237.28], "stop_times": [2240.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2237.28}, "reply_to": "22034__1_027", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_029", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "But it's defenseless under the present law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2240.624], "stop_times": [2242.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.624}, "reply_to": "22034__1_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__1_030", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--I disagree.\nWe have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2242.481, 2243.474], "stop_times": [2243.474, 2244.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2242.481}, "reply_to": "22034__1_029", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_031", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Then what is the defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2244.339], "stop_times": [2245.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2244.339}, "reply_to": "22034__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__1_032", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--We have very effective means of interdicting--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2245.519], "stop_times": [2248.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2245.519}, "reply_to": "22034__1_031", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_033", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "What are they?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2248.386], "stop_times": [2248.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2248.386}, "reply_to": "22034__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__1_034", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Well, after the Mariel boatlift, the Government changed its policy and now intercepts people who are coming from Cuba by boat and detains them at Guantanamo Bay, does a screening, and has a more effective repatriation process for people that they do not want to come in.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2248.863], "stop_times": [2266.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2248.863}, "reply_to": "22034__1_033", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_035", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "You want us to take--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2266.036], "stop_times": [2266.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.036}, "reply_to": "22034__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22034__1_036", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "So you're saying they can actually exclude, in practical terms.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2266.574], "stop_times": [2268.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.574}, "reply_to": "22034__1_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__1_037", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Yes.\nThat's exactly what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2268.887, 2269.546], "stop_times": [2269.546, 2270.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2268.887}, "reply_to": "22034__1_036", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_038", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--You want us to take judicial notice that the Mexican border and American border is impervious?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2270.372, 2274.004], "stop_times": [2274.004, 2274.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2270.372}, "reply_to": "22034__1_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22034__1_039", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--I think that would present a different question.\nAs the Government acknowledged, people who come into the country without inspection are entitled, under the Government regulations, to the protections under Zadvydas.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2274.626, 2278.462, 2288.576], "stop_times": [2278.462, 2288.576, 2289.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2274.626}, "reply_to": "22034__1_038", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_040", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "And there's no... and... and there's no answer to Justice Souter's question with regard to people who... who... once they enter that way.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2289.32, 2297.593], "stop_times": [2297.593, 2298.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2289.32}, "reply_to": "22034__1_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__1_041", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Well, the Government has--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2298.047], "stop_times": [2299.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2298.047}, "reply_to": "22034__1_040", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_042", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Except a new statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2299.146], "stop_times": [2300.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2299.146}, "reply_to": "22034__1_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__1_043", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Well, Congress has... has, by definition, treated those people as inadmissible aliens who are subject to removal proceedings.\nAnd the interdiction methods are... they're purely political decisions that the Government needs to make.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2300.648, 2307.691], "stop_times": [2307.691, 2315.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2300.648}, "reply_to": "22034__1_042", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_044", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "But they... in any case, those individuals are not the subject of sort of dumping action by their own governments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2315.426], "stop_times": [2321.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2315.426}, "reply_to": "22034__1_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__1_045", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2321.066], "stop_times": [2322.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2321.066}, "reply_to": "22034__1_044", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_046", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Does the... Congress has passed a special statute with respect to terrorism, hasn't it, where it does authorize detention of any of these people who are engaged in terrorism.\nNow, I don't know how that's defined.\nIs that defined to relieve in a way that's broad enough to relieve some of the problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2322.302, 2333.614, 2335.471], "stop_times": [2333.614, 2335.471, 2340.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2322.302}, "reply_to": "22034__1_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__1_047", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, if... well, first of all, the Government has the ability to detain, pending the removal proceedings, of people who are trying to come into the country.\nThe question becomes if they can't be repatriated.\nNow, the Patriot Act in 1226(a) does allow, in instances of national security, for the Attorney General to indefinitely detain.\nNow, importantly, that statute provides for procedural protections and judicial review, that is absent from--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2340.756, 2349.794, 2352.561, 2360.818], "stop_times": [2349.794, 2352.561, 2360.818, 2367.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2340.756}, "reply_to": "22034__1_046", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_048", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "But are... are the people here charged with any sort of terrorist activities?\nThey were committed... convicted of crimes, but I... I didn't think they were connected with terrorist activities.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2367.627, 2371.054], "stop_times": [2371.054, 2376.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2367.627}, "reply_to": "22034__1_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22034__1_049", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--That's correct.\nThe Government has not made any allegation that there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2376.505, 2377.081], "stop_times": [2377.081, 2379.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2376.505}, "reply_to": "22034__1_048", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_050", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Just normal, harmless criminals.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2379.022], "stop_times": [2380.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2379.022}, "reply_to": "22034__1_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__1_051", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2380.425], "stop_times": [2380.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2380.425}, "reply_to": "22034__1_050", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22034__1_052", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Right?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2380.962, 2381.418], "stop_times": [2381.418, 2382.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2380.962}, "reply_to": "22034__1_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__1_053", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Their release from prison presents the same issues that the release of any person who has served the sentences that were imposed after the commission of a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2382.094], "stop_times": [2393.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2382.094}, "reply_to": "22034__1_052", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_054", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, except that with aliens, they can be deported, whereas a citizen can't be, upon release from prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2393.428], "stop_times": [2399.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2393.428}, "reply_to": "22034__1_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22034__1_055", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "That's correct.\nAnd the conditions of supervision that the Government can impose are much lengthier and could be even more onerous than the kinds of supervision conditions after prison that the Government could impose on its citizens.\nIn this case, Mr. Martinez and Mr. Zadvydas both received permission to live here.\nBoth committed crimes.\nBoth served their sentences and both were ordered removed.\nNothing in section 1231(a)(6) warrants making Mr. Martinez wait for removal in a Federal prison perhaps for the rest of his life, while Mr. Zadvydas awaits removal after having been released--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2399.001, 2400.115, 2413.118, 2425.257, 2427.031, 2430.58], "stop_times": [2400.115, 2413.118, 2425.257, 2427.031, 2430.58, 2444.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2399.001}, "reply_to": "22034__1_054", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_056", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "I thought the other person was named Benitez.\nI thought we had Zadvydas in the other case.\nDo we have two, a Martinez and a Benitez, here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2444.221, 2446.805, 2450.642], "stop_times": [2446.805, 2450.642, 2453.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2444.221}, "reply_to": "22034__1_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22034__1_057", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nI was drawing a comparison between the situation with Mr. Zadvydas and Mr. Martinez.\nDetention, of course, needs to be reasonably related to its purpose.\nHere removal cannot be achieved.\nSo detention for that purpose becomes arbitrary and punitive, and we'd ask the Court to affirm the grant of habeas corpus and Mr. Martinez's release on supervision conditions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2453.83, 2454.357, 2459.559, 2463.645, 2465.586], "stop_times": [2454.357, 2459.559, 2463.645, 2465.586, 2475.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2453.83}, "reply_to": "22034__1_056", "speaker": "christine_s_dahl"}
{"id": "22034__1_058", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Dahl.\nMr. Mills, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2475.495, 2476.814], "stop_times": [2476.814, 2479.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.495}, "reply_to": "22034__1_057", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22034__2_000", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI think that we have lost sight of the statutory scheme that applies here.\nSection 1182(d)(5)(A) is not a detention statute.\nIt's clearly not preserved as an initial matter.\nIt was not in the answer to either habeas petition.\nThe justification given in the district court in both cases was 1231(a)(6).\nBut, Justice Breyer, there is no need to remand this case because a clear, simple reading of the immigration statutes demonstrates that 1182 is not a detention statute.\nYou have to go through the process, and I attempted to do this in my reply brief, but I think I can do it a little bit more clearly for the Court this morning.\nWhen an alien first arrives, he's an applicant for admission.\nSection 1225(b)(2)(A) of title 8, United States Code says an applicant for admission... any applicant for admission shall be detained until the removal proceeding unless it is clear, beyond any doubt, that they are entitled to come in.\nSo all aliens, when they apply... that's the detention statute that initially applies, 1225(b)(2)(A).\nThey are to be detained until there is a removal proceeding.\nThe removal proceeding, which is governed by 1229(a)(1)... I'm sorry... 1226(a)... it is 1229(a)... is to determine whether the alien is admissible or not, whether they should come in or whether they must be removed.\nSo 1225(b)(2)(A) says detain until that point.\n1182(d)(5)(A) then comes in to authorize the Government to stop that process for humanitarian reasons and parole an alien in.\nWe won't have the removal process.\nWe're going to... we... we're going to get out of the detention in 1225(b)(2)(A), and we're going to let you out on parole, which is discretionary.\nThat's 1182(d)(5)(A).\nIf at any time, we in our discretion think it is no longer appropriate to keep you on parole, we can revoke that parole, and the statute 1182(d)(5)(A) says once parole is revoked, the alien is treated as, quote, any other applicant for admission.\nSo you go back to 1225(b)(2)(A), which says detain them until the removal proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2479.621, 2489.092, 2493.754, 2497.415, 2499.766, 2502.616, 2507.196, 2517.31, 2524.286, 2527.88, 2543.855, 2550.747, 2553.719, 2567.194, 2571.719, 2581.128, 2583.524, 2591.242, 2592.934, 2607.218], "stop_times": [2489.092, 2493.754, 2497.415, 2499.766, 2502.616, 2507.196, 2517.31, 2524.286, 2527.88, 2543.855, 2550.747, 2553.719, 2567.194, 2571.719, 2581.128, 2583.524, 2591.242, 2592.934, 2607.218, 2611.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2479.621}, "reply_to": "22034__1_058", "speaker": "john_s_mills"}
{"id": "22034__2_001", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, you... you skipped a... a phrase.\nIt says when the Attorney General is of the opinion that the purposes of the parole justify nothing more, the individual shall return or be returned to the custody from which he began.\nAnd their argument is that custody is different in these cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2611.676, 2613.8, 2625.217], "stop_times": [2613.8, 2625.217, 2627.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.676}, "reply_to": "22034__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__2_002", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "That custody is the custody under 1225(b)(2)(A).\nThat is the statute that authorizes the custody.\nThat's what they're being returned to.\n1225(b)(2)(A) is detention until the removal proceedings.\nAnd in the Demore v. Kim case, this case... this Court said that even if it's a long time and there aren't other procedures in place, you can be detained until your removal order is entered because... and... and the emphasis was there's an end date to that.\nSo there's an end date to detention under (b)(2)(A), 1225(b)(2)(A), and it's the removal proceedings.\nSection 1231 is the statute that governs removal and says, okay, now what happens?\nIt says you have to remove within 90 days, but for certain aliens who've committed crimes or are inadmissible or are otherwise determined to be dangerous, we can detain them beyond.\nIt says may be detained beyond the period.\nThat is the only statute that authorizes any detention of an alien after a removal order other than the specific terrorist statute, 1226(a), which was enacted, which does not authorize indefinite detention.\nIt says... it has a paragraph labeled indefinite detention, and it says the Government shall not indefinitely detain a terrorist alien that it cannot remove except that if the Government determines... and... and it appears to put the burden on the Government... that the person is a danger to national security or the community, it can detain them for another 6 months.\nAnd then you... you could have indefinite detention, but each time, each 6 months, the statute provides for review.\nSo not only do the sneakers, the aliens who cross across the border in the... in the dark of night from Mexico or wherever... not only do they under the Government's own admission have the Zadvydas rights, so too do terrorist aliens by statute.\nAnd to suggest that by some implication Congress has intended to authorize the indefinite detention of people that we thought we should welcome into our country, even though we didn't have the ability under our quota system and under our current regulations in 1980 to let them in, somehow they have no rights against indefinite detention.\nFor the Government to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2627.818, 2630.874, 2633.596, 2634.876, 2639.419, 2653.658, 2659.481, 2664.432, 2675.001, 2676.654, 2689.778, 2708.826, 2715.952, 2729.614, 2747.902], "stop_times": [2630.874, 2633.596, 2634.876, 2639.419, 2653.658, 2659.481, 2664.432, 2675.001, 2676.654, 2689.778, 2708.826, 2715.952, 2729.614, 2747.902, 2749.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2627.818}, "reply_to": "22034__2_001", "speaker": "john_s_mills"}
{"id": "22034__2_003", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "How do you... how do you answer the Government's argument that this is necessary, that the United States shouldn't effectively be punished for being humanitarian, and if we can't hold these people, if we're forced to let them in, then any rogue nation can dump anyone it wants on the United States and we can't stop it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2749.638], "stop_times": [2774.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2749.638}, "reply_to": "22034__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22034__2_004", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nJustice Ginsburg, that's their sole policy argument, and frankly, it doesn't hold water.\nJust yesterday in the Jama case, the Government took the position that if Mexico flooded... flooded our borders with illegal aliens who we could not detain, we know under their own regulations, if they snuck in, we couldn't detain them, but if a new Mexican... there was a Mexican dictator and he flooded our borders, could we forcibly repatriate them?\nAnd the Government said absolutely we can.\nWe can go down and put them back in Mexico.\nWe could do that with the Cubans.\nWe could let them out the gate at Guantanamo Bay.\nIf a... a rogue nation truly invades our country with its bad aliens, that is an infringement on our sovereignty, and I think that's an act of war.\nAnd I think the President has all kinds of options: trade sanctions, go to the United Nations, diplomacy.\nIf it's really something bad that's going to be a... a threat to our national security, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2774.613, 2776.016, 2780.103, 2797.769, 2799.505, 2801.484, 2803.137, 2805.449, 2814.533, 2820.227], "stop_times": [2776.016, 2780.103, 2797.769, 2799.505, 2801.484, 2803.137, 2805.449, 2814.533, 2820.227, 2824.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2774.613}, "reply_to": "22034__2_003", "speaker": "john_s_mills"}
{"id": "22034__2_005", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, you... you might wait a while if you went to the United Nations or--\n[Laughter]\n--or to... I take it the Government feels you need some sort of a rather immediate recourse.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2824.851, 2827.657, 2828.566], "stop_times": [2827.657, 2828.566, 2834.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2824.851}, "reply_to": "22034__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22034__2_006", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Sure, and our Government has demonstrated that it believes in preemptive... preemptive action and we can go in and have regime change in Cuba if it... if it is such a threat.\nIf it's a political decision, the purely executive decision, that our national security is so threatened, they have all kinds of tools.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2834.139, 2843.261], "stop_times": [2843.261, 2850.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2834.139}, "reply_to": "22034__2_005", "speaker": "john_s_mills"}
{"id": "22034__2_007", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "But this... this regime is not sending, you know, an armed flotilla to Florida.\nThey just--\n[Laughter]\n--they just open their jails and say, hey, you know, go wherever you want.\nAnd these people say I want to get out of here, and they go to Florida.\nYou... you want us--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2850.486, 2854.778, 2855.15, 2855.771, 2859.774, 2862.952], "stop_times": [2854.778, 2855.15, 2855.771, 2859.774, 2862.952, 2864.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.486}, "reply_to": "22034__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__2_008", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "That was less than 1 percent--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2864.438], "stop_times": [2864.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2864.438}, "reply_to": "22034__2_007", "speaker": "john_s_mills"}
{"id": "22034__2_009", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--to bomb Cuba because of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2864.993], "stop_times": [2865.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2864.993}, "reply_to": "22034__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__2_010", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--That was less than 1 percent of the Cubans who came in the Mariel boatlift.\nThat did occur, and we do have options for dealing with them.\nWe can return them forcibly.\nIf they don't allow us, that's like them sending a missile.\nIt's... we... we can destroy the missile.\nWe can't destroy a human being.\nBy punishing a human being that Castro sends over, we're not sending a message to Castro.\nWe're not saying, ah, you sent your prisoners over here and were going to indefinitely detain them.\nMental torture.\nThat will teach you.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2865.719, 2869.351, 2872.611, 2874.469, 2877.607, 2880.413, 2882.065, 2888.587, 2892.839, 2893.5, 2894.797], "stop_times": [2869.351, 2872.611, 2874.469, 2877.607, 2880.413, 2882.065, 2888.587, 2892.839, 2893.5, 2894.797, 2895.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2865.719}, "reply_to": "22034__2_009", "speaker": "john_s_mills"}
{"id": "22034__2_011", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "What you... what you mean when you say we can forcibly return them is literally we can take them to Guantanamo, take them to the gate, and push them out?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2895.419], "stop_times": [2902.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2895.419}, "reply_to": "22034__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__2_012", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--That's one option.\nIf there... if the Cuban army is there to prevent us, you know, maybe it would require some military action that the administration might decide is not advisable.\nBut those are the options depending on the size of the threat.\nSo a judicial interpretation that the statute means the same thing in all contexts does not deprive the Government of anything.\nAnd I'd like to go back to that if I could.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2902.599, 2903.879, 2912.88, 2915.768, 2923.115], "stop_times": [2903.879, 2912.88, 2915.768, 2923.115, 2925.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2902.599}, "reply_to": "22034__2_011", "speaker": "john_s_mills"}
{"id": "22034__2_013", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "I thought... maybe I... I misunderstood you, but I thought that one of your points were even assuming that we couldn't send these people back into Cuba without having a major conflagration, the rogue dictator is not going to be deterred by our tossing even into the sea the people that he doesn't want.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2925.345], "stop_times": [2951.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.345}, "reply_to": "22034__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22034__2_014", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "That... that is my point.\nThat's the point that I... I intend to make, that indefinitely detaining these people... that does nothing to a dictator.\nThat does nothing to deter a dictator.\nAll it means is we're going to be incurring the huge cost of incarcerating a large number of people, and if anything, that may encourage the dictator to do exactly that, or it may encourage the dictator, instead of sending them to Key West on boats... on American boats, to sneak them up on speed boats or take them through Mexico and sneak them across the border that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2951.822, 2954.119, 2960.806, 2962.496], "stop_times": [2954.119, 2960.806, 2962.496, 2981.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2951.822}, "reply_to": "22034__2_013", "speaker": "john_s_mills"}
{"id": "22034__2_015", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Anyway, it's a little drastic.\nI... I guess that before this happens, Congress might enact a statute like the terrorist statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2981.526, 2981.914], "stop_times": [2981.914, 2987.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2981.526}, "reply_to": "22034__2_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__2_016", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Exactly.\nThat... that is exactly correct, Justice Breyer.\nAnd if they think... whether a... a Cuban, a Mariel Cuban, can be put in jail... and these are in prison for the rest of their life... is a huge policy decision.\nAnd this Court should abstain from putting its voice as... on to the answer.\nThat is a decision for Congress in the first place.\nIn Zadvydas, this Court said the statute doesn't clearly do that, so we're not going to... we're not going to answer that question as to whether it would be constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [2987.47, 2988.668, 2990.814, 3001.55, 3006.296, 3008.997], "stop_times": [2988.668, 2990.814, 3001.55, 3006.296, 3008.997, 3016.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2987.47}, "reply_to": "22034__2_015", "speaker": "john_s_mills"}
{"id": "22034__2_017", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, it's a policy decision either way.\nI... I suppose if Zadvydas had come out the other way, the Congress could have responded as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3016.306, 3017.17], "stop_times": [3017.17, 3022.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3016.306}, "reply_to": "22034__2_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22034__2_018", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "That's correct.\nBut in... in this case, because especially the Zadvydas aliens had clear constitutional rights, we avoid the question.\nThe doctrine of constitutional avoidance says the Court doesn't engage in that.\nThe default is to stay away from it.\nIf Congress wants to do something that might be unconstitutional, they can come back and do it and then the Court will determine whether it's unconstitutional.\nBack to the point of whether 1231(a)(6) can mean something different for the two groups of aliens.\nNever before has this Court taken a statute that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3022.372, 3023.365, 3031.743, 3035.086, 3037.027, 3043.798, 3050.707], "stop_times": [3023.365, 3031.743, 3035.086, 3037.027, 3043.798, 3050.707, 3053.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3022.372}, "reply_to": "22034__2_017", "speaker": "john_s_mills"}
{"id": "22034__2_019", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "How do you explain, Mr. Mills, the language that the Court used, pointing out how different this kind of a case would have been from the... from the Zadvydas case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3053.308], "stop_times": [3062.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3053.308}, "reply_to": "22034__2_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22034__2_020", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--Sure.\nMy reading of that... of that decision, there were two parts of the decision.\nThere was part one, which examined whether there is a... or it determined whether the statute is ambiguous, and part two is whether there's a constitutional error.\nIt was only in the part of the decision deciding whether there's a constitutional problem that the distinction was made.\nThe distinction makes the difference in whether there's a problem or not.\nAnd maybe there's not a problem for inadmissible aliens.\nSo, the Court then concluded in Zadvydas that because there's a problem, we look at the statute.\nThis statute could be interpreted to authorize indefinite detention or not.\nIt's ambiguous.\nBecause we have a problem, at least with one category, we're going to choose the... a safe route.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3062.103, 3062.557, 3066.122, 3073.907, 3080.39, 3083.362, 3085.88, 3090.46, 3094.258, 3095.168], "stop_times": [3062.557, 3066.122, 3073.907, 3080.39, 3083.362, 3085.88, 3090.46, 3094.258, 3095.168, 3100.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3062.103}, "reply_to": "22034__2_019", "speaker": "john_s_mills"}
{"id": "22034__2_021", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "It might have been a... a means of warning Congress off one area, but not the other.\nThat is to say, just because we think there's a constitutional doubt here and therefore Congress might be sailing close to the wind if they tried to overrule our opinion by statute doesn't mean that Congress couldn't in this other area alter the result in Zadvydas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3100.452, 3106.806], "stop_times": [3106.806, 3122.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3100.452}, "reply_to": "22034__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__2_022", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "I think that that is absolutely a... a conclusion that can be drawn that Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3122.305], "stop_times": [3126.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3122.305}, "reply_to": "22034__2_021", "speaker": "john_s_mills"}
{"id": "22034__2_023", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Of course, I dissented in that case.\nSo I'm not saying this was a good idea.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3126.186, 3127.013, 3128.499], "stop_times": [3127.013, 3128.499, 3128.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3126.186}, "reply_to": "22034__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22034__2_024", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "But it... it's interesting.\nIn... in just my... for my... my own information, then Congress did respond.\nAnd there were two areas in Zadvydas that, you know, didn't warn Congress off.\nOne is the one we're talking about now.\nThe other is terrorism.\nAnd Congress responded in the terrorism matter.\nIs that right?\nBut they didn't do anything on the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3128.992, 3130.273, 3135.763, 3139.189, 3140.388, 3141.252, 3143.853, 3144.491], "stop_times": [3130.273, 3135.763, 3139.189, 3140.388, 3141.252, 3143.853, 3144.491, 3145.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3128.992}, "reply_to": "22034__2_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22034__2_025", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--That's absolutely correct.\nAnd they're responding right now.\nIn the 9/11 Commission bill, there is a section that's being negotiated as to whether terrorist aliens who can't be removed because they would be tortured... whether they can be indefinitely detained.\nAnd they're looking at the same limiting language.\nOne point that I'd like to make that I did not get to make directly in the brief, but it was raised.\nJustice Scalia, you had a question yesterday in the Leocal case, and it... it raised an issue that I hadn't looked at before on whether a statute can be interpreted differently in a situation where the reason to interpret it is no longer there.\nAnd that's the rule of lenity cases.\nAnd I cited as a supplemental authority the United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Company, 504 U.S. 505.\nIt's a 1992 decision, and it involved a tax code provision.\nAnd the question is, do we apply the rule of lenity?\nAnd Justice Stevens, in dissent you said no, because this is a civil case.\nThe rule of lenity doesn't apply.\nBut a three-judge plurality, an opinion by Justice Souter, and a two-justice... two-judge concurrence by Justice Scalia both agreed that the rule of lenity applied because the statute applies both in criminal and civil contexts.\nAnd you can't have one meaning in a criminal context and another in civil.\nFor the same reason, the rule of constitutional avoidance should not result in a statute being interpreted one way when there would be a doubt and another way when there would not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3145.505, 3146.62, 3147.901, 3157.765, 3159.251, 3164.637, 3176.713, 3179.109, 3186.289, 3189.716, 3193.144, 3196.98, 3198.261, 3210.521, 3214.032], "stop_times": [3146.62, 3147.901, 3157.765, 3159.251, 3164.637, 3176.713, 3179.109, 3186.289, 3189.716, 3193.144, 3196.98, 3198.261, 3210.521, 3214.032, 3221.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3145.505}, "reply_to": "22034__2_024", "speaker": "john_s_mills"}
{"id": "22034__2_026", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Well, what about the argument that the statute, in effect, limits the... our... our interpretation limits the... the detention to a period reasonably related to the Government's interest in accomplishing that interest?\nThat interest is different in... in the case of... of aliens who are excluded, if we accept that class as distinct from all excludables.\nAnd... and that may allow a much longer period of detention, among other things, to deter dictators from... from dumping.\nYou've given us an answer to what to do if they dump, but we don't want them to dump in the first place.\nThat argument stops short of saying we can detain them for life, but it would support the... the position that on a consistent interpretation of the statute, the Government could detain them longer in the excluded cases than in others.\nWhat's your answer to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3221.955, 3234.504, 3244.246, 3252.587, 3256.961, 3271.367], "stop_times": [3234.504, 3244.246, 3252.587, 3256.961, 3271.367, 3272.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3221.955}, "reply_to": "22034__2_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__2_027", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "My answer to that is that that might be a... a legislative policy decision to make that distinction.\nBut in 1996, IIRIRA abolished the distinction between inadmissible and deportable aliens after they've been ordered removed.\nUp until that time, it makes a difference.\nIt makes a difference under the Constitution.\nBut once they've been ordered removed... and this was the Government's argument in Zadvydas.\nOnce they've been ordered removed, regardless of how they got here in the first place, they no longer have any right to be here at all and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3272.11, 3277.394, 3286.682, 3288.54, 3290.11, 3294.03], "stop_times": [3277.394, 3286.682, 3288.54, 3290.11, 3294.03, 3300.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3272.11}, "reply_to": "22034__2_026", "speaker": "john_s_mills"}
{"id": "22034__2_028", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "There is only one class of excludables by the Government's own choice.\nThat's... that's basically your answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3300.346, 3303.318], "stop_times": [3303.318, 3304.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3300.346}, "reply_to": "22034__2_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__2_029", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--After a removal proceeding, there is only one class.\nThat is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3304.804, 3308.974], "stop_times": [3308.974, 3309.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3304.804}, "reply_to": "22034__2_028", "speaker": "john_s_mills"}
{"id": "22034__2_030", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3309.512], "stop_times": [3309.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3309.512}, "reply_to": "22034__2_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__2_031", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "If there are no more questions, I would just ask that the Court reverse in this case.\nIf there are any mootness concerns about Mr. Benitez, I would refer the Court to Friends of the Environment which said that when a challenged practice has stopped voluntarily, that does not moot a case out in the Supreme Court unless there's some reason to believe they won't go at it again.\nAnd the Government has asserted that it can revoke his release at any time for any reason and detain him indefinitely.\nAnd the suggestion that the fact that he's been released under the Cuban Review Panel shows that his... he's been protected is... is not well taken.\nHe was determined, when he first was detained in... in 2001, that he was eligible under the Cuban Review Panel to be released.\nIt took 3 years and the week before this case was argued in the highest court of the land before the Immigration Service did what its own regulations told it it had to do.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3309.984, 3318.036, 3332.358, 3337.559, 3345.916, 3352.049, 3361.808], "stop_times": [3318.036, 3332.358, 3337.559, 3345.916, 3352.049, 3361.808, 3362.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3309.984}, "reply_to": "22034__2_030", "speaker": "john_s_mills"}
{"id": "22034__2_032", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Mills.\nMr. Kneedler, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3362.823, 3363.816], "stop_times": [3363.816, 3366.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3362.823}, "reply_to": "22034__2_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22034__3_000", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nJustice Souter, you're exactly right in terms of why the statutory construction or statutory application of the terms in Zadvydas does not control here.\nThe Court's starting point... again back to page 682 of its opinion, it says, we deal here with aliens who were admitted.\nThe way the Court dealt in the opinion was a matter of statutory construction, and it did it by reading into the statute a reasonable time limitation.\nWhat is reasonable for aliens who... who have been admitted and are subject to what were called deportation is different from aliens who were stopped at the border.\nAnd in fact, in the... in the Court's statutory analysis, it looked to the point that in the Witkovitz jurisdictional statement referring to Congress' constitutional doubts about detention of more than 6 months, those were constitutional doubts about people who were being deported after having been allowed to be here.\nThere has never--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3366.538, 3367.941, 3375.743, 3381.853, 3390.027, 3399.77, 3418.346], "stop_times": [3367.941, 3375.743, 3381.853, 3390.027, 3399.77, 3418.346, 3419.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3366.538}, "reply_to": "22034__2_032", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__3_001", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "What's your... what's your answer to Mr.... Mr. Mills' position that the Government has, in fact, statutorily waived that distinction by creating one class of excludables?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3419.461], "stop_times": [3428.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3419.461}, "reply_to": "22034__3_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22034__3_002", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "--It... with respect... with respect, it has not.\nAnd... and if I could... if I could explain this.\nThis... going back to Mezei, this Court held and in fact rejected a very similar argument.\nThe rationale of the court of appeals in Mezei was that deportable aliens are subject to an express, not an implied, 6-month limitation.\nAnd the court of appeals said the aliens in that... the alien in that case, once he couldn't be removed to another country, should be released because the purpose of keeping him to return him to another country was no longer being served.\nThis Court rejected that argument, even though there was a statutory express limitation of 6 months for deportable aliens, held that an alien who had been on Ellis Island for 2 years did not have to be released.\nIn reliance on that decision, Congress passed the parole statute to leave the release in... excuse me... Mezei was after it, but the... the executive branch has relied on that rationale.\nThe Cuban review regulations that are at issue here have been in place for 15 years under the parole statute.\nAs Congress well knew, when it acted in 1996, the... this program was the subject of many hearings in Congress.\nThere were cases... the Barrera case out of the Ninth Circuit sustained a 10-year detention of a Mariel Cuban.\nIt is implausible to believe in 1996, when Congress enacted IIRIRA, that it intended to cut back on the longstanding power of the executive branch to prevent hordes of aliens from coming into our country and to impose an arbitrary 6-month limitation.\nI... I think there's no argument that if an alien is detained before removal proceedings are begun, that there is no 6-month limitation.\nHis release is entirely up to the Attorney General under the parole regulations.\nIt's... it's implausible to believe that once Congress actually enters a formal order of exclusion or now removal against an alien, the person is no longer in an ambiguous situation, the executive branch says you're not eligible, that suddenly that person who has been formerly found not eligible, would be subject to a 6-month limitation that did not apply up until '96 and doesn't even apply until these... to these aliens until removal proceedings have been begun.\nSo the right way to look at this statute as what's a reasonable time under 1231(a)(6) has to take into account that historic background of the United States being able to protect its borders.\nAnd there is no indication whatsoever that Congress intended to overrule this longstanding program for Mariel Cubans, which has operated, as I said, for 15 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3428.171, 3431.228, 3434.571, 3441.009, 3448.234, 3459.751, 3471.928, 3484.271, 3490.875, 3499.216, 3505.615, 3521.59, 3530.339, 3535.269, 3563.61, 3575.006], "stop_times": [3431.228, 3434.571, 3441.009, 3448.234, 3459.751, 3471.928, 3484.271, 3490.875, 3499.216, 3505.615, 3521.59, 3530.339, 3535.269, 3563.61, 3575.006, 3584.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3428.171}, "reply_to": "22034__3_001", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22034__3_003", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Kneedler.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3584.005, 3585.12], "stop_times": [3585.12, 3586.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3584.005}, "reply_to": "22034__3_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22034__3_004", "conversation_id": "22034", "text": "The honorable court is adjourned until Monday next at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-878", "start_times": [3586.235], "stop_times": [3591.064], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3586.235}, "reply_to": "22034__3_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21689__0_000", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "We'll now hear argument in Clingman against Beaver.\nMr. Poe, as soon as you're ready, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [0.0, 5.656], "stop_times": [5.656, 8.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21689__0_001", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Mr. Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThis case today involves a conflict between Oklahoma's semi-closed primary law and a rule adopted by the Libertarian Party of Oklahoma which, contrary to that State law, would allow the Libertarian Party to open its primary elections not just to independent voters, but also voters registered as members of other political parties.\nThe Oklahoma primary system simply requires that a person who is registered as a member of that party may only vote in that political party's primaries.\nIf the voter desires to vote in another party's primary, all that voter must do is, within a reasonable time before the elections, primary elections, approximately 7 to 8 weeks, is disaffiliate from that first party and then reaffiliate as a member of that second party, or if the parties so chose to allow independents, he may registered as an independent in order to vote in that primary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [8.795, 31.745, 53.21, 63.241], "stop_times": [31.745, 53.21, 63.241, 86.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8.795}, "reply_to": "21689__0_000", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_002", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Well, of course, I guess from the standpoint of the Libertarian Party, it's kind of a problem because a voter who wants to disaffiliate under Oklahoma law with their... their prior registration have to do it basically 8 weeks ahead, at which time they don't know if the Libertarian Party will even qualify for having a primary.\nI mean, it just gives them a very impossibly short window.\nIf the time were reasonable, that might be a different picture, but isn't that kind of burdensome?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [86.542, 114.035, 119.691], "stop_times": [114.035, 119.691, 127.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 86.542}, "reply_to": "21689__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21689__0_003", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the practicality of that matter is... is that generally the parties are notified 10 days/2 weeks in advance of the registration deadline that they are being... if... being recognized as a political party.\nOf course... and that's if that party has waited until the very last minute by statute in which to turn in their petitions and try to get recognized.\nOf course, those petitions could be turned in earlier, which would allow them more time to do so.\nBut the practicality of the... of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [127.781, 142.27, 152.384, 156.843], "stop_times": [142.27, 152.384, 156.843, 159.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 127.781}, "reply_to": "21689__0_002", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_004", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "If they're turned in earlier, will they... will they be ruled on earlier?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [159.61], "stop_times": [162.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 159.61}, "reply_to": "21689__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__0_005", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nThe Oklahoma statute requires that the election board take a... has 30 days, a maximum of 30 days, in which to review the petitions, verify the number of signatures and the authenticity of those signatures, and then make a decision on whether to recognize or not recognize the political party.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [162.954, 163.204], "stop_times": [163.204, 181.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 162.954}, "reply_to": "21689__0_004", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_006", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "I guess there's a difference here between the interest of a small party and a large one.\nA small party would like, if there is a deadline, to be as close to the election as possible so voters have a chance to get fed up with the two big parties.\n[Laughter]\nThat's their chance.\nA big party would like it to be further away because then they can plan how their election campaign is going to be.\nHas any of this been litigated below?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [181.984, 187.353, 196.762, 196.928, 198.414, 205.473], "stop_times": [187.353, 196.762, 196.928, 198.414, 205.473, 207.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 181.984}, "reply_to": "21689__0_005", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21689__0_007", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe... the only question that has really been litigated below is whether section 1-104, which is the semi-closed primary law, is burdensome on the association rights of the Libertarians.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [207.702, 209.105], "stop_times": [209.105, 221.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 207.702}, "reply_to": "21689__0_006", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_008", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "In line... in line with Justice Breyer's question, does the State of Oklahoma have an interest in insulating major parties from competition for members?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [221.67], "stop_times": [233.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 221.67}, "reply_to": "21689__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21689__0_009", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Not from insulating them from competition, Your Honor, but the State of Oklahoma does have... it has a closed primary system.\nIt has... it has an interest.\nAnd this Court has found that interest, as recently as in Timmons, that it does have an interest in a stable political system, which may be a two-party system.\nAs long as--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [233.421, 241.51, 243.163, 252.49], "stop_times": [241.51, 243.163, 252.49, 253.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 233.421}, "reply_to": "21689__0_008", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_010", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "So you have a... the State has an interest in protecting major parties from losing their members and thereby weakening the two-party system by benefitting a third party.\nI thought that's contrary to the whole thrust of our holding in cases such as Anderson and Celebreeze where third parties are entitled to special protection under the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [253.566, 266.364], "stop_times": [266.364, 277.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 253.566}, "reply_to": "21689__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21689__0_011", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, since that time in Anderson and as Timmons and other cases cite, if the regulation is a neutral, nondiscriminatory regulation, then it is a proper regulation as far as it is applied to all the parties.\nIn regards to the requirement of registration, change of voter registration, all of those are applied equally across any... any party, whether it be the Libertarian Party, the Democratic Party, Republican Party, or any other party which may be recognized at that time in the State of Oklahoma.\nAnd back to Justice Breyer's comments, the period of 7 to 8 weeks prior to a voting... to a primary election is actually a very short time as compared, for example, to Rosario which this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [277.881, 293.939, 314.456], "stop_times": [293.939, 314.456, 329.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 277.881}, "reply_to": "21689__0_010", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_012", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Well, even in presidential elections, most people don't get interested until 4 or 5 weeks before the election.\nEverybody knows that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [329.234, 336.376], "stop_times": [336.376, 338.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 329.234}, "reply_to": "21689__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21689__0_013", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, we... this is not the presidential primaries of which we're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [338.067], "stop_times": [342.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 338.067}, "reply_to": "21689__0_012", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_014", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Well, I'm saying even in a presidential primary.\nIf they're local races, it... it takes longer.\nThe public just tunes out until the last... last couple weeks.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [342.487, 344.771, 347.234], "stop_times": [344.771, 347.234, 350.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 342.487}, "reply_to": "21689__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21689__0_015", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Well, the statutes in this... or the sites or the... the elections themselves are close in time, and... and the statutes involving the petitioning have all been looked at as... as courts and have been found that this is a close enough connection to the time of the elections, that that time frame of petitioning and getting the requirements for... for petitions and the State recognizing the political party all fit comfortably within the confines of... of constitutionality.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [350.661], "stop_times": [387.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 350.661}, "reply_to": "21689__0_014", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_016", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Mr. Poe, the... the district court in this case rejected all grounds except one.\nIt rejected the raiding and swamping.\nIt said that's what the Libertarians want to expose themselves to.\nIt's not for a State to be paternalistic to protect them against their own bad choices.\nBut it said this request is damaging to the majority parties, to the major parties, because it poaches on their members.\nBut there is not in this litigation any major party that's complaining about that.\nSo if that is the rationale that the district court went on, can this Court possibly oppose it when there is nobody, as far as we know... they haven't even come into this case at this level, filing a friend of the Court brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [387.896, 397.201, 399.951, 403.871, 410.558, 427.815, 433.426], "stop_times": [397.201, 399.951, 403.871, 410.558, 427.815, 433.426, 455.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 387.896}, "reply_to": "21689__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21689__0_017", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThis Court can find... first of all, that the local Democratic and Republican Parties were not named in... in the action, and as to why they were not in the action in lower courts I do not know.\nBut the State has its interests and has to protect those interests whether those parties are involved in litigation or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [455.346, 457.554, 468.971], "stop_times": [457.554, 468.971, 476.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 455.346}, "reply_to": "21689__0_016", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_018", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Well, when you... would you say that the rationale on which the district court rejected the Libertarian Party's claim was unsatisfactory?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [476.789], "stop_times": [486.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 476.789}, "reply_to": "21689__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21689__0_019", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nUnder Monroe before this Court, I think the Court was looking to the potential, the possibility, of course.\nAnd as to the fact pattern we had at the trial court, it was a very minor party wanting to... or effectively poach voters from the two major parties.\nBut you have to look at the entire statutory scheme and not just how it would apply.\nIt could be applied by the Democrats or the Republicans.\nBut also more importantly, in Monroe this Court clearly stated that a State does not have to wait until it sees actual damage to its political or electoral system to make reasonable decisions.\nIn fact, this Court says the States should have the foresight to make those reasonable determinations in an effort to prevent those... those potential evils from occurring if the likelihood of... of that is there.\nAnd the district court made very--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [486.72, 488.04, 496.092, 505.956, 510.209, 512.893, 526.678, 539.847], "stop_times": [488.04, 496.092, 505.956, 510.209, 512.893, 526.678, 539.847, 541.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 486.72}, "reply_to": "21689__0_018", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_020", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Mr. Poe, I... I suppose... here I am.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [541.212], "stop_times": [543.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 541.212}, "reply_to": "21689__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__0_021", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Excuse me, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [543.191], "stop_times": [544.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 543.191}, "reply_to": "21689__0_020", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_022", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "I suppose that if... if I were the party chairman of the Republican or Democratic Party, I'm... I might have defended your... your State system if I had been named as a party, but if I were not named as a party, I'm not sure that I wouldn't... I wouldn't decline to come in as an amicus, even though I'm interested in the outcome simply because I don't want to alienate my Republican members by depriving them of the freedom, if they want to do it, to go vote.\nYou know, it makes you look sort of parsimonious, doesn't it, when you tell your Republican members, I don't want you to vote in the Libertarian primaries?\nI... I don't think we can say that it doesn't hurt the Republican Party or the... or the Democratic Party simply because they hadn't filed an amicus brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [544.388, 576.793, 585.793], "stop_times": [576.793, 585.793, 594.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 544.388}, "reply_to": "21689__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__0_023", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "I would agree, Your Honor.\nI... I think the... the fact that they're not there... here the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [594.172, 595.658], "stop_times": [595.658, 599.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 594.172}, "reply_to": "21689__0_022", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_024", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "They are, after all, politicians, aren't they?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [599.001, 601.109], "stop_times": [601.109, 601.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 599.001}, "reply_to": "21689__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__0_025", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--And they do like to keep their party members as happy as they can.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [601.275], "stop_times": [604.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 601.275}, "reply_to": "21689__0_024", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_026", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Mr. Poe, may I just focus in on exactly what the injury is?\nIs the injury that they vote with the Libertarians or that they don't vote with their own party?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [604.703, 608.418], "stop_times": [608.418, 613.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 604.703}, "reply_to": "21689__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21689__0_027", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "The... the injury is twofold, Your Honor.\nAnd... and first, it is the fact that by them not voting in the primary to which they have associated... and that is registering as a Republican or a Democrat... if they go to the polling place and at the last minute decide to go and vote in the Libertarian Party primary, their decision not to vote in the Republican primaries, when candidates have been trying to... to use voter lists trying to get to their party members to vote--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [613.702, 618.139], "stop_times": [618.139, 643.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 613.702}, "reply_to": "21689__0_026", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_028", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "But wouldn't it be precisely the same injury if they just didn't like the Republican candidate in that particular election, decided to stay home?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [643.485], "stop_times": [650.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 643.485}, "reply_to": "21689__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21689__0_029", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Well, if they had already made the decision to stay home, then they would not be voting for the candidate, but they would also not be voting in another party's primary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [650.423], "stop_times": [658.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 650.423}, "reply_to": "21689__0_028", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_030", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "But how... how are they hurt by the fact that rather than staying home, they decide to cast a vote for a minority party candidate?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [658.225], "stop_times": [663.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 658.225}, "reply_to": "21689__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21689__0_031", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Well, the party is here because it has the... the possibility, for those who are not voting, of changing the elections of the candidates.\nAnd I think also by--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [663.881, 670.735], "stop_times": [670.735, 671.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 663.881}, "reply_to": "21689__0_030", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_032", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Well, it's very unlikely if it's a party that is... gets the small vote that this party gets.\nBut you... no matter how small the vote is, you still find the injury to the major parties because they voted for the Libertarians or because they didn't vote at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [671.971, 677.051], "stop_times": [677.051, 685.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.971}, "reply_to": "21689__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21689__0_033", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Well, because they voted either way of voting... or for voting in the Libertarians and... and not voting, they have changed and possibly have changed, especially when they went to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [685.596], "stop_times": [697.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 685.596}, "reply_to": "21689__0_032", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_034", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Is there any evidence on the question whether the... the support for the major party candidate is any smaller than it would have been if there had been no Libertarian Party at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [697.484], "stop_times": [706.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 697.484}, "reply_to": "21689__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21689__0_035", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--There... there's nothing in the record that supports any of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [706.484], "stop_times": [708.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 706.484}, "reply_to": "21689__0_034", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_036", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "And... and a very similar question.\nIs there anything in the record that indicates that those who would vote in the Libertarian primary are the stay-at-home Republicans or the Republicans who would otherwise have voted in the Republican primary?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [708.752, 710.571], "stop_times": [710.571, 721.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 708.752}, "reply_to": "21689__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21689__0_037", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "There... there is nothing in the record.\nThere was no type of polling.\nThere was some... some expert testimony as to the potential reasons for people voting in a Libertarian primary such as purposeful intent to do harm to Libertarians or walking in intending to vote--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [721.883, 723.164, 724.872], "stop_times": [723.164, 724.872, 741.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.883}, "reply_to": "21689__0_036", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_038", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "But that... I mean, the Libertarians are happy to have... take that risk.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [741.119], "stop_times": [744.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 741.119}, "reply_to": "21689__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21689__0_039", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [744.091], "stop_times": [744.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 744.091}, "reply_to": "21689__0_038", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_040", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "It seems to me if we don't know whether the... the Republicans who are going to migrate to the primary are stay-at-homes or Republican voters, the State has no basis even to say whether in fact the harm it's trying to prevent is going to be affected one way or the other by its rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [744.729], "stop_times": [762.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 744.729}, "reply_to": "21689__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21689__0_041", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Well, I... I think, Your Honor, there... there is a context or... there is belief that it will harm.\nAnd there's been no polling in this action, and there's no... there was only one other State that has a open... what we have termed in this litigation as a... a semi-open primary.\nAnd there's no data that has effectively come out of their one primary that says why people are not voting, why they're voting in one primary or not or the effects of that.\nI can give you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [762.523, 773.708, 783.617, 794.596], "stop_times": [773.708, 783.617, 794.596, 795.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 762.523}, "reply_to": "21689__0_040", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_042", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Mr. Poe, I... I... why do you rely only upon the damage to the Republican and Democratic Parties?\nI frankly don't care much about that, but I might care a whole lot about damage to... to Oklahoma's system of election.\nWhy do you allow party designations?\nI suppose it is because you want people to know that there are candidates who are associated with particular political views.\nAnd to allow a party to, in effect, come in and say, we don't have any particular political views, we... we just want to nominate, you know, whoever the most people want to nominate, that just destroys the whole purpose of... of your system of allowing people to run under a party label.\nWhat's the use of a party label?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [795.422, 801.078, 809.911, 812.966, 824.112, 843.226], "stop_times": [801.078, 809.911, 812.966, 824.112, 843.226, 844.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.422}, "reply_to": "21689__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__0_043", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--And... and, Your Honor, we... we provided that information and those interests to... to the district court.\nAnd those are interests the State has.\nIt is if a party is running as a party and if the State... there... there may be an interest in it.\nI'm not sure--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [844.917, 850.201, 852.059, 857.631], "stop_times": [850.201, 852.059, 857.631, 858.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 844.917}, "reply_to": "21689__0_042", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_044", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "It... if it's running as a party, it should run somebody who... who shares the views of the people in that party, which is somebody who is nominated by... by the people in that party, or at least those people, joined by others who are not affiliated with another party.\nThat seems to me to make a lot of sense.\nAnd it seems to me to destroy that system if... if you say, hey, we're... you know, we... we're going to allow the Libertarian Party to say, you know, we don't have any real views.\nWe're just going to... we want to nominate somebody that most people like.\nSo let the Republicans come in, the Democrats come in.\nThe only thing we want is to win.\nWe don't really care.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [858.003, 873.607, 875.464, 883.638, 887.331, 889.915, 892.349], "stop_times": [873.607, 875.464, 883.638, 887.331, 889.915, 892.349, 894.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 858.003}, "reply_to": "21689__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__0_045", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--That... that is the premise, of course, of the voter registration.\nAnd... and that goes back to another... an adverse effect on the State and the State's political system is this Court has recognized... it recognized it as recently as Jones and it has recognized in other cases... that there is a... a party labeling or a party identification that voters use in a general election.\nAnd if the poaching of members have changed the... any of those party... those messages from that party, then the reliance is going to be misplaced by those party members when they go.\nThey go to vote for a Democrat.\nThey see the D or the R or the L.\nAnd more importantly, in this case we're not talking just about the Libertarian Party, the effect of the Libertarian Party.\nIt could very well the effects on all of the political parties.\nIn fact, that effect could happen if the Democrats wanted to open theirs up and run that effect on the Libertarian Party.\nAnother reason, especially that is specific to Oklahoma, to help prevent party factionalism and party splintering.\nIn Oklahoma, when a new party is recognized, a... a potential candidate has the opportunity within 15 days of the party being recognized of changing his voter registration.\nThat can even be outside the parameters of section 4-119.\nIn that instance, there is the potential and I think the probability of this occurring is that... let's say there are four or five candidates who have announced for the Republican nomination if they want to get their nomination, and one of them decides I don't want to compete against those others.\nA new party comes in.\nHe is excused from the 6-month disaffiliation requirement.\nWithin those 15 days, he can change to the Libertarian Party in hopes of getting that nomination, get the party support and the party structure.\nBy that happening, you then incur... by allowing this party-option primary, then that would promote party splintering, party factionalism.\nAnd the manner of that individual going to the Libertarian Party the day of the election without any prior registration... those Republicans who may have supported him leave the Republican Party and start to choose that.\nThat's splintering that this Court has specifically said is not only a legitimate, important State interest but is also a compelling State interest to effect.\nPoaching has the same effect as raiding.\nIt is a little different how it gets there, but it has the same effect.\nAnd raiding has been determined to be even a compelling State interest in this Court.\nI would like to reserve the rest of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [894.04, 897.634, 916.414, 930.176, 931.375, 933.587, 941.017, 944.528, 949.191, 960.148, 971.853, 977.881, 996.085, 998.043, 1002.501, 1011.03, 1021.804, 1036.126, 1047.56, 1049.584, 1053.383, 1057.674], "stop_times": [897.634, 916.414, 930.176, 931.375, 933.587, 941.017, 944.528, 949.191, 960.148, 971.853, 977.881, 996.085, 998.043, 1002.501, 1011.03, 1021.804, 1036.126, 1047.56, 1049.584, 1053.383, 1057.674, 1060.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 894.04}, "reply_to": "21689__0_044", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__0_046", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "That's fine.\nMr. Schaerr.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1060.275, 1060.935], "stop_times": [1060.935, 1063.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1060.275}, "reply_to": "21689__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21689__1_000", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nIn the decision below, the Tenth Circuit stuck... struck down an election rule that has been adopted by nearly half the States pursuant to their authority under Article I, section 4 to prescribe the manner of holding elections.\nIn so doing, the Tenth Circuit in our view made three fundamental errors that I'd like to address briefly.\nThe first was the Tenth Circuit's per se approach to determining whether the alleged burdens here are severe.\nThat's an extremely important issue, of course, because to our knowledge, this Court has never invalidated a State election regulation under the First Amendment without first finding that the burden at issue was severe.\nBut instead of looking at that issue closely, the Tenth Circuit, at page 15 of its decision, simply assumed that a severe burden necessarily arises from any regulation that, quote, restricts the options of parties seeking to define the scope of their associational rights.\nNow, one would have thought that it's for courts to determine the scope of a... of a party's associational rights rather than... than the party itself.\nBut in all events, that was the sum total of the Tenth Circuit's analysis on the... on the question of severe burden.\nNow, the respondents cite that finding, but they... they make no attempt to defend that approach.\nThey argue instead that the burden here is severe because, at bottom, Oklahoma requires a Republican or Democrat, wishing to vote in the LPO primary, to... to disaffiliate from the party 2 months in advance.\nBut that burden is no more severe than others that this Court has found constitutionally acceptable.\nThe burden on voters, for example, is less severe than the burden this found... this Court found acceptable in Rosario, which was a... a requirement, as Mr. Poe mentioned, that voters, wishing to vote in a... in a party's primary, register as a member of that party some 8 to 11 months in advance.\nThe burden on the party is also less severe than a burden that this Court found acceptable in Burdick which is that a party wishing to qualify for a primary ballot gather the necessary signatures, in that case 1 percent of the voting population, 5 months before the primary.\nIt's 2 months here.\nAnd it's also similar to a burden that all the members of this Court found acceptable in Burdick, which was... which was a requirement that a candidate wishing to run on a nonpartisan primary ballot collect the necessary signatures about 2 months before the primary.\nAnd the message of these decisions... and I think it's fair to say the holding in Burdick... is that requiring participants in elections to take action a few months sooner or a few weeks sooner than they might prefer does not amount to a severe burden.\nAnd that's the only real burden here.\nThe LPO has to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1063.164, 1071.132, 1085.25, 1091.21, 1098.79, 1112.015, 1132.97, 1140.501, 1147.459, 1153.116, 1167.438, 1173.837, 1190.761, 1208.223, 1209.709, 1224.198, 1238.399, 1240.173], "stop_times": [1071.132, 1085.25, 1091.21, 1098.79, 1112.015, 1132.97, 1140.501, 1147.459, 1153.116, 1167.438, 1173.837, 1190.761, 1208.223, 1209.709, 1224.198, 1238.399, 1240.173, 1241.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1063.164}, "reply_to": "21689__0_046", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "21689__1_001", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Well, I guess the one other concern would be the timing in Oklahoma is such that the... the Republican or Democrat who wants to disaffiliate in order to vote with the Libertarians has to do so at a time before the State has decided whether to allow the Libertarian Party on the ballot.\nSo, you know, it probably isn't burdensome to... in principle, to have some disaffiliation requirement, but does the State have to allow enough time so that the decision can be made with knowledge of whether the Libertarians are going to be on the ballot?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1241.538, 1262.547], "stop_times": [1262.547, 1282.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1241.538}, "reply_to": "21689__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21689__1_002", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, I... I think that's really up to the party.\nAnd I... and I think that gets back to my point about Burdick.\nYes, there is a deadline and if the LPO--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1282.155, 1285.46, 1287.81], "stop_times": [1285.46, 1287.81, 1290.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1282.155}, "reply_to": "21689__1_001", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "21689__1_003", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "It just seemed to me that it might be more burdensome on the voter in that situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1290.95], "stop_times": [1296.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.95}, "reply_to": "21689__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21689__1_004", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Yes, I... I think that's true, but again, the burden on the voter depends on what the LPO does.\nIf the LPO marshals its resources, gets... gets its message out, determines who its candidates are going to be or who its potential candidates are going to be in advance of the filing deadline and in advance of the deadline for filing a petition to become a recognized party, then the voter will have ample time to make a decision.\nIt's really only if the LPO procrastinates that the voter is put in that position.\nIt's not really a function of the... of the State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1296.522, 1303.293, 1322.9, 1327.813], "stop_times": [1303.293, 1322.9, 1327.813, 1330.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1296.522}, "reply_to": "21689__1_003", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "21689__1_005", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Let me just ask you to look at the other side of the equation.\nHowever we assess the burden, we're assessing it in relation to the State's interest.\nWhat is your best statement of the State's interest here that you think is defensible?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1330.497, 1334.129, 1338.837], "stop_times": [1334.129, 1338.837, 1344.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1330.497}, "reply_to": "21689__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21689__1_006", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Well, I think... I think the State's interest is what the district court found it to be, and I think the... the district court actually found two interests, not just one.\nIt found an interest in avoiding poaching and an interest in promoting party loyalty along the lines that Justice Scalia mentioned earlier.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1344.121, 1353.78], "stop_times": [1353.78, 1360.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1344.121}, "reply_to": "21689__1_005", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "21689__1_007", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Do... do you think the... the poaching argument stands up on any... any empirical basis?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1360.429], "stop_times": [1366.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1360.429}, "reply_to": "21689__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21689__1_008", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "I do.\nAnd in fact, the... the district court at... at page 49--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1366.412, 1366.867], "stop_times": [1366.867, 1370.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1366.412}, "reply_to": "21689__1_007", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "21689__1_009", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "May... let me just add quickly.\nI... I realize, of course, there's going to be some movement of voters, but do we have any idea whether the voters who are moving are the ones who would otherwise have stayed at home anyway and done nothing, merely nominal Republicans as opposed to active Republicans?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1370.21, 1372.151], "stop_times": [1372.151, 1384.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1370.21}, "reply_to": "21689__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21689__1_010", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Yes.\nWe... we do have an answer to that.\nThat is implicit, first of all, in the district court's finding that poaching would, in fact, made... make a difference in the... in the outcomes of the elections.\nHe... he made that finding very clearly on... on page 49--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1384.988, 1385.442, 1386.929, 1396.755], "stop_times": [1385.442, 1386.929, 1396.755, 1400.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1384.988}, "reply_to": "21689__1_009", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "21689__1_011", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Well, he found that the numbers are such that they could, but did he find... and I'm not sure of this.\nDid he find that the actual people who migrated would otherwise have voted differently so that in fact it made a difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1400.675, 1405.299], "stop_times": [1405.299, 1413.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1400.675}, "reply_to": "21689__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21689__1_012", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--That is implicit in his finding.\nHe said the institution... this is again on page 49.\nThe institution of a party-option open primary format in Oklahoma, as sought by the plaintiffs, would likely affect the outcome of some primary elections.\nThat... implicit in that is the view that there... there would be some voting Republicans and voting Democrats that would be moving to the LPO, not just the nonvoting Democrats and Republicans.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1413.101, 1416.445, 1420.614, 1429.076, 1439.357], "stop_times": [1416.445, 1420.614, 1429.076, 1439.357, 1440.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1413.101}, "reply_to": "21689__1_011", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "21689__1_013", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Was there a basis in the record for making that finding?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1440.843], "stop_times": [1443.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.843}, "reply_to": "21689__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21689__1_014", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Yes.\nMr. Darcy's testimony, which I believe appears at... at page 63 of the joint appendix, in that... in that general area, anyway.\nNow, poaching... poaching is a concern and... and a legitimate and important concern to the States for three important reasons.\nI... I might mention that in Tashjian this Court mentioned in footnote 13 that a... that an open primary could have disorganization effects on the other parties, and poaching is one of those, as the district court found.\nAnd... and it's a concern for three independent reasons.\nFirst of all, the State has an interest in preventing poaching because that helps protect parties from spurned candidate candidacies which was one of the... the Court in Tashjian identified Storer and Rosario as examples of that.\nAnd... and the... the semi-closed primary protects parties against that.\nFor example, if a candidate for the Democratic nomination felt that she wasn't getting enough support from the party leadership before the primary, she might form or join another party and then try to take... take her supporters with her into that other party.\nAnd although Oklahoma allows the candidate to switch parties in that circumstance, the... the semi-closed primary and the 7-week period or 7 or 8-week period, standoff period, if you will... that period protects the party from having its voters poached as a result of a... of a spurned candidate joining another party.\nThe second reason that poaching is a significant concern is that... is that it can lead to efforts, strategic efforts by... by other parties to influence the outcome of another party's primary.\nFor example, suppose we're in California in 2002 a few days before the gubernatorial primaries there.\nThe Democrats have already decided that their incumbent, Governor Davis, will be nominated, so they're looking ahead to the general election.\nAnd they see two possible Republican candidates, Reardon and Simon, to pull two names out of a hat.\nAnd they conclude that... that they have a better chance of beating Simon than they have of beating Reardon.\nWell, what can they do to affect the... the outcome of the Republican race?\nOne possibility, if the Republican primary is open, is to raid it by having some Democrat switch registration and go vote for Simon.\nAnd of course, the Court has said repeatedly that States have an important interest in... in preventing that kind of behavior.\nThe other possibility is for the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1443.444, 1443.937, 1452.111, 1458.964, 1473.287, 1475.849, 1491.286, 1497.397, 1512.834, 1531.782, 1545.983, 1552.671, 1560.323, 1566.167, 1572.649, 1576.448, 1585.114, 1591.43], "stop_times": [1443.937, 1452.111, 1458.964, 1473.287, 1475.849, 1491.286, 1497.397, 1512.834, 1531.782, 1545.983, 1552.671, 1560.323, 1566.167, 1572.649, 1576.448, 1585.114, 1591.43, 1593.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1443.444}, "reply_to": "21689__1_013", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "21689__1_015", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "And that's not permitted in Oklahoma, is it?\nThat kind of behavior is not permitted in Oklahoma.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1593.538, 1595.245], "stop_times": [1595.245, 1597.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1593.538}, "reply_to": "21689__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21689__1_016", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1597.929], "stop_times": [1598.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1597.929}, "reply_to": "21689__1_015", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "21689__1_017", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1598.062], "stop_times": [1598.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.062}, "reply_to": "21689__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21689__1_018", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "That's correct.\nAnd the other possibility, though, is for the Democrats to open their primary and to lure some of the... some of the Reardon voters out of the Republican primary through targeted advertising or direct appeals from the candidate or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1598.517, 1599.055], "stop_times": [1599.055, 1613.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1598.517}, "reply_to": "21689__1_017", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "21689__1_019", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Well, neither of the major parties has done that in Oklahoma, has it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1613.089], "stop_times": [1615.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.089}, "reply_to": "21689__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21689__1_020", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Not that I'm aware of, but... but it is... but it is a plausible concern that a legislature would have.\nAnd as Justice Scalia said, these--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1615.401, 1621.678], "stop_times": [1621.678, 1623.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1615.401}, "reply_to": "21689__1_019", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "21689__1_021", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "But the question is whether when a minor party like the Libertarians do it, is... is it going to have that effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1623.081], "stop_times": [1627.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1623.081}, "reply_to": "21689__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21689__1_022", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Well, there... there's another scenario for... in the California example, for example.\nTake... assume that the Democrats, instead of opening up their own primary to Republicans, they strike a deal with the Green Party such that the Green Party makes an effort to peel off the Reardon voters out of the Republican primary voting pool in California.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1627.994, 1633.605, 1648.632], "stop_times": [1633.605, 1648.632, 1649.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1627.994}, "reply_to": "21689__1_021", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "21689__1_023", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "But the cost of that deal would... they'd also run the risk the Democrats would... would migrate also if they made that deal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1649.375], "stop_times": [1655.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.375}, "reply_to": "21689__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21689__1_024", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--It depends on how they ran... ran the campaign.\nIn all events, it's a... it's a plausible scenario and... and one that the State is entitled to respond to before it... before it actually happens.\nNow, the... the third reason that poaching is a problem is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1655.979, 1658.208, 1667.746], "stop_times": [1658.208, 1667.746, 1671.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1655.979}, "reply_to": "21689__1_023", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "21689__1_025", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "I apologize for taking your time with a question, but I'm afraid your time is up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1671.294], "stop_times": [1675.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1671.294}, "reply_to": "21689__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21689__1_026", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1675.77], "stop_times": [1676.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1675.77}, "reply_to": "21689__1_025", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "21689__1_027", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Yes.\nMr. Linger.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1676.291, 1676.784], "stop_times": [1676.784, 1679.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1676.291}, "reply_to": "21689__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21689__2_000", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Justice Stevens, may it please the Court:\nThe integrity of a political party should be defined by the political party and not by the State.\nThe State interest that they have asserted here and alleged is to prevent against draining, and draining the State has defined as the inverse of raiding.\nNow, raiding, of course, is the State preventing and keeping out of a political party disloyal voters of another party coming in for a purpose to hurt that party.\nNow, if draining is inverse raiding, then the State is saying that it has an interest in keeping in to a political party disloyal voters.\nSo the State is asserting and is at cross purposes that it has an interest to both keep out disloyal voters from a political party's primary and at the same time keep in disloyal voters.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1679.635, 1685.579, 1694.783, 1707.786, 1720.046, 1733.133], "stop_times": [1685.579, 1694.783, 1707.786, 1720.046, 1733.133, 1744.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1679.635}, "reply_to": "21689__1_027", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_001", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Why is that inconsistent?\nBecause I mean, you're... you're basically advocating that the Constitution requires Alaska's rule, and I thought that... we got briefs on that, I think, in... in the previous case and a lot of other parties thought Alaska's rule was not a wise rule, though that's up to Alaska.\nBut to think that the Constitution requires that is surprising.\nThe interest they assert is just the one you said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1744.279, 1744.901, 1762.378, 1765.806], "stop_times": [1744.901, 1762.378, 1765.806, 1768.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.279}, "reply_to": "21689__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21689__2_002", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "And--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1768.222], "stop_times": [1768.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1768.222}, "reply_to": "21689__2_001", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_003", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--that the Republicans, in order to have their party work, have to be able to plan a campaign for a stable group of voters.\nThey have to know, roughly, who is in their party, let's say, a week before or 2 weeks before, some period of time before.\nAnd that's the interest that Oklahoma is asserting.\nIt has nothing to do with you.\nIt has do with... and it has zero to do with you if you had a rule for minor parties, frankly.\nBut if you can't get a rule for minor parties, special, then you have to take it seriously I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1768.965, 1779.285, 1785.889, 1788.944, 1790.347, 1795.427], "stop_times": [1779.285, 1785.889, 1788.944, 1790.347, 1795.427, 1802.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1768.965}, "reply_to": "21689__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21689__2_004", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Most States--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1802.13], "stop_times": [1802.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1802.13}, "reply_to": "21689__2_003", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_005", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "What's your answer?\nWhat do you respond--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1802.858, 1803.517], "stop_times": [1803.517, 1804.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1802.858}, "reply_to": "21689__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21689__2_006", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Justice Breyer, most States have a rule for minor parties.\nThey don't treat, like Oklahoma does, you're either a party or you're a nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1804.344, 1806.777], "stop_times": [1806.777, 1811.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1804.344}, "reply_to": "21689__2_005", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_007", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--The States do but to say that the Constitution... and I'm asking.\nYou see, I'm not... but I... if I could figure out how in the Constitution you had a special rule for minor parties, the interest that they're asserting has very little to do with it.\nBut I don't see how you can have a constitutional rule that would forbid... allow you to open and drain, but wouldn't allow the Dems to do the same as they've done in Alaska.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1811.896, 1815.573, 1825.149], "stop_times": [1815.573, 1825.149, 1836.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1811.896}, "reply_to": "21689__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21689__2_008", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "I think in... in Alaska, of course, right now there is a party option where all the parties but the Republicans have opened the primary.\nThey have a blanket primary.\nThe Republicans haven't and the Republicans, of course, in Alaska happen to be the dominant party.\nThere seems to be a pattern in these cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1836.211, 1845.044, 1845.97, 1850.495], "stop_times": [1845.044, 1845.97, 1850.495, 1852.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1836.211}, "reply_to": "21689__2_007", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_009", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Well, because they say... what they're thinking, I take it... I don't know what they're really thinking, but I imagine they could be thinking, no, we don't want to open our primary.\nWe'll run the risk that our voters go over and vote for the Dems and like it there and stay.\nWe'll run that risk, but we don't want them coming and raiding us.\nWe think that's the bigger risk.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1852.558, 1861.186, 1868.866, 1872.543], "stop_times": [1861.186, 1868.866, 1872.543, 1874.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.558}, "reply_to": "21689__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21689__2_010", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--And... and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1874.15], "stop_times": [1875.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.15}, "reply_to": "21689__2_009", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_011", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "And how can the Constitution tell them that they can't make that judgment?\nThat's what's bothering me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1875.348, 1878.404], "stop_times": [1878.404, 1879.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1875.348}, "reply_to": "21689__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21689__2_012", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--I don't think the... I think the Constitution... and the Court has recognized that it is legitimate to protect against raiding because we can all suppose how disloyal voters coming into a party could hurt it.\nBut how about disloyal voters leaving a party?\nBecause these voters that would come in and vote in the Libertarian--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1879.435, 1891.323, 1894.129], "stop_times": [1891.323, 1894.129, 1896.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1879.435}, "reply_to": "21689__2_011", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_013", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Go back to my interest, the one I asserted--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1896.98], "stop_times": [1898.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1896.98}, "reply_to": "21689__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21689__2_014", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1898.838], "stop_times": [1899.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1898.838}, "reply_to": "21689__2_013", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_015", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--which isn't that.\nIt is the interest in the Republican Party in Alaska saying to itself we do not want our voters to go leave and vote for the Democrats because we want a stable body of people 3 or 4 weeks before the election for whom we can plan.\nWe don't want to open ours because we don't want the raiding.\nWe want to keep them--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1899.414, 1900.407, 1920.841, 1924.306], "stop_times": [1900.407, 1920.841, 1924.306, 1925.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1899.414}, "reply_to": "21689__2_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21689__2_016", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "And, Justice Breyer, that sort of First Amendment view of your voters shows that the party thinks that they own the voters.\nWe hear this language where the party is contributing voters or they're being poached or it's a donor party.\nThat shows a certain view of the party and what they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1925.504, 1933.76, 1939.621], "stop_times": [1933.76, 1939.621, 1943.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1925.504}, "reply_to": "21689__2_015", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_017", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--No, no.\nIt's not an ownership, but you have a period of time.\nSo you focus on the period of time.\nThey're saying, of course, up to X period of time, they take their choice.\nIs this a fake thing, a fake reason, the need to have a stable group of people for whom you plan your campaigns?\nNow, is that a hoax or is it flimsy or is it serious?\nWhat do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1943.336, 1943.502, 1944.617, 1946.269, 1949.984, 1959.849, 1965.234], "stop_times": [1943.502, 1944.617, 1946.269, 1949.984, 1959.849, 1965.234, 1965.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.336}, "reply_to": "21689__2_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21689__2_018", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--I... I think it is flimsy and I'll tell you why because I think paternalistically the State of Oklahoma is way off or the Republican Party, if they thought that way in Alaska, would be off.\nIf you really think about it, a party, particularly at the general election, wants its loyal voters to get to the poll.\nActually this would be a benefit to the Republican and Democratic Parties in Oklahoma or the Republican Party in Alaska because it allow them to find out which of their voters had voted in their primary and which had defected to another party.\nWhen they're sending out mailers or doing phone banks or driving people to the polls, they're going to want to take their loyal voters.\nSo this will actually serve to help them to identify some of their voters who aren't loyal, and they won't want to bring them in.\nSo I'm saying that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [1965.877, 1976.196, 1983.133, 1995.394, 2001.254, 2008.48], "stop_times": [1976.196, 1983.133, 1995.394, 2001.254, 2008.48, 2009.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1965.877}, "reply_to": "21689__2_017", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_019", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "The... the State... the State of Oklahoma doesn't want your party raided.\nAnd... and you say we don't care if we're raided.\nCome raid us.\nAll we want to do is win.\nIt seems to me it... it... you cannot apply the... the maxim, volenti non fit injuria.\nOklahoma is saying to your party, you can't welcome raiding.\nWe don't want your party to be raided whether you like it or not because that's what a party system is.\nWe've set up these elections that... that have party primaries and party systems on the assumption that each party is going to have a certain... a certain belief, a certain philosophy, and to allow your candidate to be elected by everybody simply destroys that system.\nWhy is that... why is that so unreasonable that it's unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2009.678, 2013.847, 2017.934, 2018.883, 2020.163, 2028.542, 2033.455, 2040.681, 2056.079], "stop_times": [2013.847, 2017.934, 2018.883, 2020.163, 2028.542, 2033.455, 2040.681, 2056.079, 2059.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2009.678}, "reply_to": "21689__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__2_020", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Because it's... it's not practical on what happens.\nAs Justice O'Connor pointed out in her questions, there is such a limited time.\nThe Libertarians, as shown in the record in this case, have never and continually do not have the time to build up a voter pool.\nThey have their supporters spread out among a number of political affiliations because there's such a little amount of time that you can register as a Libertarian, unlike the vast majority of States.\nI don't think anyone has ever accused the Libertarian Party of not having a set philosophy on what they stand for.\nBut the fact of the matter, this Court itself has expressed skepticism about whether even party raiding ever exists.\nPeople don't go out generally to vote because they want to pick someone who's a bad candidate.\nThey want to vote for someone they feel proud of who expresses their views.\nThe people that the Libertarians would appeal to would be Republicans and Democrats who either weren't going to vote in their primary or those who were very Libertarian oriented or people who would be Libertarians if they had more opportunity under the law to register as Libertarians.\nThey're, in effect, marooned--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2059.878, 2062.766, 2066.687, 2074.489, 2085.884, 2091.949, 2100.207, 2104.748, 2108.63, 2124.234], "stop_times": [2062.766, 2066.687, 2074.489, 2085.884, 2091.949, 2100.207, 2104.748, 2108.63, 2124.234, 2125.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2059.878}, "reply_to": "21689__2_019", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_021", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Weren't those--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2125.72], "stop_times": [2126.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.72}, "reply_to": "21689__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__2_022", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--over these other affiliations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2126.296], "stop_times": [2127.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2126.296}, "reply_to": "21689__2_021", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_023", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--weren't those who would like to nominate the Libertarian candidate who would attract the most people from the other large party?\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2127.328, 2135.667], "stop_times": [2135.667, 2136.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2127.328}, "reply_to": "21689__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__2_024", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Who would they attract?\nThey would attract Libertarian-oriented people who would be drawn by their philosophy because the Libertarian Party, as with most minor parties, is an ideological party.\nThey take positions oftentimes ignored by the major parties, and that is one of the reasons that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2136.616, 2137.442, 2146.275], "stop_times": [2137.442, 2146.275, 2151.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2136.616}, "reply_to": "21689__2_023", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_025", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "No, but... but the candidate mostly to attract people from one of the major parties is the candidate that is... is more likely to water down the pure Libertarian message and be closer to the message of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party.\nAnd... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2151.371, 2165.966], "stop_times": [2165.966, 2167.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2151.371}, "reply_to": "21689__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__2_026", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--If you can tell--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2167.247], "stop_times": [2167.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2167.247}, "reply_to": "21689__2_025", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_027", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--people who come into your primary may want to elect such a candidate so that the Libertarian Party will be strengthened and draw votes away from the other majority--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2167.99], "stop_times": [2179.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2167.99}, "reply_to": "21689__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__2_028", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Of course, this Court, I think, has recognized that raiding is not a legitimate concern for the State that overcomes a party that would open up.\nAnd that's what the district court so held.\nWe go into the inverse of draining and talk about the effect it would have on the Republicans and Democratic Parties.\nI think the... the district court said several times in its opinion that the results would be highly speculative.\nBut I say that the results would probably be to the benefit because it would ensure major parties that they got a nominee who was picked by loyal supporters of the party, and what would be drained off would be disloyal supporters who would rather be doing something else.\nAnd that, of course, is the essence of competition.\nWe should not be worrying about protecting the major parties from competition for ideals.\nThis is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2179.014, 2188.135, 2189.993, 2196.475, 2204.77, 2222.853, 2225.387, 2231.027], "stop_times": [2188.135, 2189.993, 2196.475, 2204.77, 2222.853, 2225.387, 2231.027, 2231.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2179.014}, "reply_to": "21689__2_027", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_029", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Do I understand your brief to say that this constitutional rule that you are seeking would be just for the minority party?\nI think you said in your brief it doesn't follow like the night the day that because the Libertarians must be allowed to do this by the Constitution, therefore the Democrats and Republicans must also have the option to invite anyone into their primaries.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2231.603, 2242.627], "stop_times": [2242.627, 2261.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2231.603}, "reply_to": "21689__2_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21689__2_030", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--The finding of the Tenth Circuit was, of course, that it applied to these plaintiffs under these particular facts.\nAnd I think that's one thing to remember, how cautious and conservative this Court and the First Circuit in Cool Moose were.\nThey didn't make a broad-based rule, and I don't interpret this decision and I don't interpret the teaching of this Court in footnote 13 in Tashjian is that we should come down and make some bright line rule that's always going to say we have to have a party-option open primary or not.\nWe need to look at the factors.\nI think there are very few States that this would even apply to because, as we know, 21 States don't even have political party registration.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2261.796, 2269.376, 2274.865, 2292.161, 2293.647], "stop_times": [2269.376, 2274.865, 2292.161, 2293.647, 2300.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2261.796}, "reply_to": "21689__2_029", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_031", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--What facts?\nWe... we have to evaluate it on the basis of each election?\nWhat is a State legislator supposed to do when he votes for a... an election system?\nHe's going to flip a coin trying to figure out what the fact situation will be when this... when this system finally gets before a court?\nSurely that... that can't be the test.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2300.129, 2300.212, 2303.184, 2309.128, 2316.354], "stop_times": [2300.212, 2303.184, 2309.128, 2316.354, 2318.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2300.129}, "reply_to": "21689__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__2_032", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "I do... I do ask that the State legislatures think about what they're doing.\nAnd as I demonstrated--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2318.128, 2321.843], "stop_times": [2321.843, 2322.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2318.128}, "reply_to": "21689__2_031", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_033", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Okay.\nBut you... you want them to think and you want to leave the door open to their making a distinction for these purposes between the major parties and the minor parties, and I can't think of anything more intrusive into the political process than that.\nComing from a Libertarian, I... I get a sense that I must misunderstand you, but I don't know where it is.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2322.958, 2323.33, 2335.468, 2342.899], "stop_times": [2323.33, 2335.468, 2342.899, 2343.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2322.958}, "reply_to": "21689__2_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21689__2_034", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--I'm saying that I... I don't... I don't think courts should ever go out and look for cases in advance.\nWe look at the case that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2343.475, 2349.13], "stop_times": [2349.13, 2350.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2343.475}, "reply_to": "21689__2_033", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_035", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "No, but we are... we have got to look around the corner.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2350.245], "stop_times": [2352.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2350.245}, "reply_to": "21689__2_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21689__2_036", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--about the effects.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2352.763], "stop_times": [2353.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2352.763}, "reply_to": "21689__2_035", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_037", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "And... and if you're issuing the invitation to come up with a different rule for Republicans and Democrats and Libertarians, I think you're asking for trouble and we would be asking for trouble if we accepted that invitation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2353.673], "stop_times": [2365.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2353.673}, "reply_to": "21689__2_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21689__2_038", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "No.\nI'm... and as I said before, I think the political party should be the one that defines its integrity--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2365.373, 2366.099], "stop_times": [2366.099, 2372.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2365.373}, "reply_to": "21689__2_037", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_039", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Then... then if you say that... I want you to just respond in detail to the questions that I think Justice Scalia and Justice Souter were asking, as I understand it, putting it dramatically, that if you win this case, Alaska's system becomes the Constitution of the United States.\nNow, that I know you think is not so, and I want to know why.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2372.21, 2389.793], "stop_times": [2389.793, 2394.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2372.21}, "reply_to": "21689__2_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21689__2_040", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Because, number one, first, let's eliminate the 21 States that do not have political party registration.\nThey would not... in fact, the... the problem that we're worried about here, draining, and... and the problem is going to happen simply because people in those States, like President Bush's Texas, are free from election to election to go to any primary they want--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2394.213, 2401.393], "stop_times": [2401.393, 2417.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2394.213}, "reply_to": "21689__2_039", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_041", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "That's the same as election system... that's the same as Alaska's system.\nRight?\nI mean, it boils down to the same thing.\nIt boils down to an open primary, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2417.08, 2419.848, 2420.102, 2421.538], "stop_times": [2419.848, 2420.102, 2421.538, 2423.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2417.08}, "reply_to": "21689__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__2_042", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I respectfully disagree because Alaska, unlike Texas, has political party registration.\nAlso, they have a party option.\nAnd most States that have political party registration, in fact, have a sort of two-tier system where they recognize it would be discriminatory to treat major parties and small political parties the same.\nMost of them like, for example, the amici States here of New Mexico, Maryland, they have political conventions for their... they recognize that that is something that shouldn't be applied to the smaller parties.\nBut Oklahoma, of course, mandates primaries.\nThe Libertarians of Oklahoma are forced to have primaries.\nThey're forced to live under what is the most restrictive ballot access and ballot retention laws, which limits the amount of time they could be on the ballot.\nThe voter registration laws, as was cited in the record of this case, as the trial judge found, of the 29 States that have political party registration, essentially 26 of them have... they have free and open registration.\nThere are very few that limit things across the board like Oklahoma does, and that's what makes this case unique.\nAnd I think the footnote 13 in Tashjian talked about looking at the particular facts and circumstances.\nI think this case gives the Court an opportunity to fully expand on that footnote, the full footnote, of course, as I cited in the brief for the respondents, and that is to say that all these are factors when you're analyzing any State.\nIs... does it have political party registration?\nDoes it mandate primaries for even the little parties?\nHow much time is available to change your registration as new parties come up?\nThe New... State of New Hampshire, of course, has found a way to deal with this problem, which Oklahoma hasn't, which is that they allow new parties that are just recognized.\nWhere many voters didn't have the opportunity to register in that party, they have an open primary.\nThat's one way to deal with it.\nBut the point is Oklahoma didn't even think about that.\nAs we pointed out in our brief, the sore loser provision where you have to be affiliated with a party for 6 months... the legislature... when the first time the Libertarians got on the ballot 25 years ago, they didn't even realize that there was no way you could be affiliated with a party for 6 months because you couldn't register with it.\nAnd the law and the workings of all these registration laws in Oklahoma, because they are so restrictive, prevent the Libertarian Party to get in the position that the major parties have because they simply can't get their people registered and stay registered with the Libertarian Party because they're constantly being purged and they're... the people are frustrated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2423.108, 2430.0, 2433.344, 2447.544, 2462.694, 2465.833, 2469.01, 2478.109, 2493.158, 2498.814, 2505.585, 2521.682, 2523.501, 2526.224, 2531.508, 2542.942, 2547.65, 2549.629, 2552.868, 2570.889], "stop_times": [2430.0, 2433.344, 2447.544, 2462.694, 2465.833, 2469.01, 2478.109, 2493.158, 2498.814, 2505.585, 2521.682, 2523.501, 2526.224, 2531.508, 2542.942, 2547.65, 2549.629, 2552.868, 2570.889, 2593.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2423.108}, "reply_to": "21689__2_041", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_043", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Would there be a way... suppose, for hypothetical purposes, the Court were to say... you got a ruling that said there is no rule in the Constitution that forbids a State, as a general matter, to forbid this cross registration, this jumping, for a reasonable time.\nBut a reasonable time has to take into account the interests of minor as well as major parties.\nNow are you foreclosed because of the circumstances of this case from litigating whether 8 weeks is a reasonable time and whether the disjunct between the period where you become a party and that 8 weeks is unreasonable in the circumstances or other specific things that you say work to the disadvantage of the Libertarians?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2593.18, 2618.649, 2624.388], "stop_times": [2618.649, 2624.388, 2647.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.18}, "reply_to": "21689__2_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21689__2_044", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "I think that's something reasonable, but in this case it is unreasonable because you simply don't have the opportunity to register.\nRemember this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2647.256, 2655.884], "stop_times": [2655.884, 2656.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2647.256}, "reply_to": "21689__2_043", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_045", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "I thought your case was you want to appeal to people who don't want to register as Libertarians and don't even want to be independent.\nYou want to appeal to people who are and want to be members of the Republican or Democratic Party but have Libertarian leanings, but they don't want to give up their party affiliation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2656.544, 2667.401], "stop_times": [2667.401, 2680.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.544}, "reply_to": "21689__2_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21689__2_046", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--That... that is part of the appeal.\nThere are obviously some people simply because of family tradition or it may help them with their job or because the Libertarians are controversial, some people may want to keep it quiet and don't formally affiliate other than they might wish to vote.\nBut our appeal and request was not simply those people but to many people, the vast majority of Oklahomans who never vote--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2680.776, 2682.262, 2694.893], "stop_times": [2682.262, 2694.893, 2702.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2680.776}, "reply_to": "21689__2_045", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_047", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "The last category could... could register as independents.\nI mean, if they're ashamed of... of the L word, they... they could just register as independents.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2702.778, 2705.956, 2710.497], "stop_times": [2705.956, 2710.497, 2710.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2702.778}, "reply_to": "21689__2_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__2_048", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--A person can do that, yes.\nAnd, of course, independents are growing.\nI think, as you know--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2710.714, 2713.276, 2715.794], "stop_times": [2713.276, 2715.794, 2717.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2710.714}, "reply_to": "21689__2_047", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_049", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Yes, but that you could do right now, and you say that's not enough.\nWe want people who are members of other parties and don't want to change their party affiliation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2717.28, 2720.168], "stop_times": [2720.168, 2725.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2717.28}, "reply_to": "21689__2_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21689__2_050", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--We would like... first, when you have competition in ideals and in politics, it's always a continuing process, and they're hoping to win all these people over.\nThey don't want these people to stay in other political parties, but they are opening it up because they have such a limited period of time in Oklahoma when people can formally affiliate with the Libertarian Party or, for that matter, any newly recognized party.\nThink of it this way.\nWhen counsel was talking about the Rosario case where you... the... the State was allowed to have 8 to 11 months and the Court found that was acceptable to change your registration or the older case of Kusper v. Pontikes where the Court found that 23 months in... in advance to change your affiliation was too much, in Oklahoma, whether it's 23 months before the newly affiliate party gets recognized or 8 to 11 months, you can't register with that party.\nSo if it was unreasonable in Kusper v. Pontikes but was reasonable in Rosario, the point is under either of those time periods, in Oklahoma you can't register with a newly recognized political party.\nSo how can that be reasonable?\nThe Libertarians do not have the opportunity.\nNewly recognized parties under Oklahoma law do not have the opportunity to get their people in in time, to the extent they could, as demonstrated in the record by States of similar population like Kansas and Arizona and, as I noted in the brief, Oregon where there are substantially more--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2725.575, 2735.856, 2751.581, 2752.574, 2780.931, 2793.191, 2795.753, 2799.523], "stop_times": [2735.856, 2751.581, 2752.574, 2780.931, 2793.191, 2795.753, 2799.523, 2818.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2725.575}, "reply_to": "21689__2_049", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_051", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "What did... what did you seek in this action?\nWhat did you seek in this action?\nDid... did you seek just more time to... to register?\nI... I thought you... you sought to overturn the... the system entirely and... I mean, maybe you asked for too much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2818.06, 2819.214, 2820.783, 2825.324], "stop_times": [2819.214, 2820.783, 2825.324, 2834.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2818.06}, "reply_to": "21689__2_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__2_052", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--As... as to the Libertarians, we asked that we have a party-option open primary, which I think is acceptable, and it's what New Hampshire does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2834.24], "stop_times": [2842.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2834.24}, "reply_to": "21689__2_051", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_053", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "So more... more time might be... might be a good idea, but that wouldn't satisfy your... your complaint here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2842.248], "stop_times": [2848.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2842.248}, "reply_to": "21689__2_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__2_054", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "If you go... if you go--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2848.07], "stop_times": [2849.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2848.07}, "reply_to": "21689__2_053", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_055", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Your... your complaint is no matter how much time you're given--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2849.101], "stop_times": [2850.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2849.101}, "reply_to": "21689__2_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__2_056", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--The... the legislature... if... if the law is overturned and the Tenth Circuit is affirmed, the legislature might go back in then and address the problem and they might come up with some solution as they did back in 1980 when it became apparent to them that they had set up a system where Libertarian candidates couldn't be candidates for State office because they couldn't be affiliated with a party with 6... for 6 months.\nThey made the change that is set forth in the statute that allows 15 days after the party is recognized.\nIt might very well be that a possibility the legislature could pursue that could solve this problem, a problem created by the State of Oklahoma, would be to allow a period of time after a party is recognized for voters, not just candidates, but for people who just want to vote in the primary to change.\nThat might be one solution.\nOr it might be, as in the State of New Hampshire, where they allow that if it's a newly recognized party and we recognize that all these people in the State never had the opportunity to register in this party, then they will have an open primary there.\nSo I don't think there's one solution for this problem, and I think when the law, hopefully, is held to be unconstitutional as it applies to Libertarians, then the Oklahoma legislature can come in and perhaps remedy the situation then.\nNow, this... this case is one in which there are some other factors that have to be considered, and that is the importance that is put on First Amendment rights to political association.\nThe State of Oklahoma, contrary to the brief of the petitioners, has not been overburdened with minor political parties.\nIt is a State in which only in presidential elections, by petitioning, have parties even been able to gain ballot status.\nThe State has also a very severe... the trial judge in this case found that the retention requirement of 10 percent for every general election for the top of the ticket was very difficult.\nThe finding was that the registration here was among... very limited and among the most difficult.\nAnd finally, the State has imposed, I think unwisely, primaries on these small political parties.\nBut other than the Libertarians and the Reform Party, there have been no other minor parties on the Oklahoma ballot.\nIn this situation, we have to say to ourselves, as the trial judge in fact commented on, is whether or not the law is simply the result of the concerns of the major parties.\nI do not think that the State legislature in Oklahoma went out of its way to try to interfere with the rights of Libertarians.\nI just think that they never really considered them, and that is why this Court has said on a number of occasions that when the rights of independent voters and small parties are impacted by legislation, that this Court should exercise more strict and careful scrutiny there because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [2850.67, 2873.704, 2879.444, 2895.252, 2896.634, 2910.402, 2922.745, 2940.661, 2951.723, 2960.64, 2973.643, 2980.99, 2990.733, 2999.732, 3014.76, 3022.684], "stop_times": [2873.704, 2879.444, 2895.252, 2896.634, 2910.402, 2922.745, 2940.661, 2951.723, 2960.64, 2973.643, 2980.99, 2990.733, 2999.732, 3014.76, 3022.684, 3043.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2850.67}, "reply_to": "21689__2_055", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_057", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "But how does that square with Timmons where this Court turned away a party that says, we've got this candidate and she's running on a major party ticket and she's happy to be on ours too?\nAnd the Court there said the State can legitimately eliminate... limit the candidate to one party affiliation.\nSo if it can limit the candidate to one party affiliation, why not the voter?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [3043.943, 3058.516, 3066.523], "stop_times": [3058.516, 3066.523, 3072.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3043.943}, "reply_to": "21689__2_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21689__2_058", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Because that was a candidacy right, what the candidate was going to do, and in that particular case, this Court noted that the candidate of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party had a choice.\nThat candidate could have choosen to be the candidate of the new party or that he could stay, as he did, with the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.\nWe don't have the choice here.\nThey wanted to have him be the candidate of both parties at the same time.\nWe recognize that the State may properly limit each voter to a single nominating act, to a single vote, and we're not asking that.\nWe're not asking that the State not be allowed to set reasonable times to let them know about what we're going to do.\nBut in Timmons... and I think Timmons is what led the district court astray here was what was not recognized was that there was a choice allowed in Timmons, and there's not a choice here.\nIf... if this had been in Oklahoma, in... in that regard, there would have been no way for... there's no way for a voter who's in the Republican or Democratic Parties who wants to vote in the Libertarian Party because of the unreasonable deadlines to change and because of the lack of opportunity, there's no way that they can register.\nSo they don't have the choice to register as a Libertarian, as the candidate of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party did in Timmons, to change if he wanted to.\nHe chose to stay in the major party.\nBut that is one significant difference with Timmons.\nAnd also, of course, I couldn't... I would also want to mention that Minnesota is a State that has no political party registration.\nSo once again, the problem and issues we're confronted with here could not occur in Minnesota.\nBut I think that's significant.\nAnd there was... there was nothing on any voter that would have kept them from being able to vote for that particular candidate in the general election.\nThey were going to be... he was going to be on the ballot in the general election.\nIn this case, the voters that don't have the choice that that candidate did in Timmons, they are not going to be able to express their opinion on a party that they would like to express an opinion in in their primary.\nAnd I think that is a very important distinction.\nI think that oftentimes in the standard that the court uses, that there is a difference, sometimes depending on which particular judge writes the decision on how a standard is explained.\nBut in this case, it is, as the Tenth Circuit said and as the district court recognized, something that lies between this Court's decision in Tashjian and this Court's decision in California Democratic Party v. Jones.\nBut in both those cases, the Court recognized and called for exacting scrutiny when a law was impacting a party's choice as to how it wishes to choose its nominees.\nI do not think that the rationale come up by mistake.\nThis thing about draining, taking... keeping the disloyal voters in the Republican and Democratic Party and not letting them come over, whether they wouldn't have voted at all, or whether they didn't have the chance to register as Libertarians, or whether they simply are inspired by the particular candidates, I don't think in that situation that that is either a compelling interest by the State and I certainly don't think it is rational.\nAnd in fact, as far as being paternalistic, I think the State is totally wrong there because I think this would actually benefit the major parties.\nBut I am saying to you that this is limited, under the Tenth Circuit's decision, to the facts in Oklahoma.\nAnd in other States, what the States can say there, if it comes up, is what is a difference between us and Oklahoma on ballot access and ballot retention, on voter registration laws, on requirements.\nDo we allow, like a number of the amici States, to have our minor parties select by political party convention?\nBut all of this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [3072.096, 3087.411, 3097.154, 3099.588, 3103.758, 3116.018, 3121.879, 3135.421, 3157.173, 3167.593, 3170.26, 3174.43, 3182.808, 3187.434, 3189.124, 3197.093, 3200.437, 3214.387, 3217.088, 3235.747, 3249.599, 3264.914, 3268.546, 3292.945, 3300.868, 3307.434, 3322.5, 3329.93], "stop_times": [3087.411, 3097.154, 3099.588, 3103.758, 3116.018, 3121.879, 3135.421, 3157.173, 3167.593, 3170.26, 3174.43, 3182.808, 3187.434, 3189.124, 3197.093, 3200.437, 3214.387, 3217.088, 3235.747, 3249.599, 3264.914, 3268.546, 3292.945, 3300.868, 3307.434, 3322.5, 3329.93, 3331.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3072.096}, "reply_to": "21689__2_057", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_059", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--What are the mici States?\nYou said this a couple... what are mici States?\nMici States did you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [3331.145, 3332.426, 3334.367], "stop_times": [3332.426, 3334.367, 3335.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3331.145}, "reply_to": "21689__2_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__2_060", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--The amici, amicus--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [3335.769], "stop_times": [3337.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3335.769}, "reply_to": "21689__2_059", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_061", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Oh, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [3337.711], "stop_times": [3337.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3337.711}, "reply_to": "21689__2_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__2_062", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--amici.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [3337.961], "stop_times": [3338.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3337.961}, "reply_to": "21689__2_061", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_063", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "--Okay.\nI thought you were saying mici.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [3338.366, 3339.363], "stop_times": [3339.363, 3340.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3338.366}, "reply_to": "21689__2_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21689__2_064", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Amici.\nOkay.\nIn any event, we ask that the Court, when it fully considers this, under the particular facts and circumstances in this case and the record, that the Court will affirm the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [3340.562, 3342.231, 3343.346], "stop_times": [3342.231, 3343.346, 3361.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3340.562}, "reply_to": "21689__2_063", "speaker": "james_c_linger"}
{"id": "21689__2_065", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Linger.\nMr. Poe, you have about 3 minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [3361.361, 3363.286], "stop_times": [3363.286, 3366.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3361.361}, "reply_to": "21689__2_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21689__3_000", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "I will try and be brief, Your Honor.\nThe important thing to remember, in regards to most of respondents' argument today and in their brief, is that the events and the hurdles they are challenging now were... have never been raised at any time prior to this briefing and this hearing.\nThe district court did not make findings as to the difficulty of the ballot access or the ballot qualifications.\nHe merely set forth what those were.\nThe Tenth Circuit never even addressed anything in regards to ballot access or ballot qualifications and in relation to the need to open up a primary.\nAnd in the complaint, at the joint appendix page 22, the specific relief sought by the respondents is to have section 1-104, which is the semi-closed primary section... have it declared unconstitutional.\nThere's no mention of any other relief sought.\nNo other section, the election primary scheme, or anything else mentioned in their complaint.\nIt's never been raised before and it's never been addressed by any court and... and should not be addressed by this Court at this point in time.\nThere are no findings for this Court to rely on to review the allegations that have been made today.\nWhere the district court... or where the Tenth Circuit did err specifically is they found, as a matter of fact or as a matter of law, based on Jones and Tashjian, that any infringement upon a party's ability to associate is a compelling... must... is subject to strict scrutiny and requires a compelling State interest.\nJones specifically says that is not the case.\nTashjian implies that that is not the case.\nAnd the cases since Tashjian's time say a compelling State interest is not always the appropriate test.\nYou look to the injury and then you look to the burdens.\nIn this case, the appropriate burden... or the appropriate injury is not severe.\nThey are reasonable restrictions placed on Oklahoma to maintain the integrity of its political system and its election system.\nWith that, the restrictions on... in the Oklahoma statutes are reasonable restrictions that govern and control and support important State interests.\nFor that reason, the Tenth Circuit was incorrect.\nThe district court was correct in its analysis, and we would ask that this Court reverse that decision and find that those statutes are constitutional.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [3366.463, 3368.775, 3387.722, 3394.344, 3396.556, 3407.125, 3420.955, 3423.222, 3428.423, 3434.905, 3439.652, 3462.397, 3465.536, 3468.154, 3475.234, 3478.95, 3483.491, 3490.467, 3502.827, 3505.206, 3513.584], "stop_times": [3368.775, 3387.722, 3394.344, 3396.556, 3407.125, 3420.955, 3423.222, 3428.423, 3434.905, 3439.652, 3462.397, 3465.536, 3468.154, 3475.234, 3478.95, 3483.491, 3490.467, 3502.827, 3505.206, 3513.584, 3513.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3366.463}, "reply_to": "21689__2_065", "speaker": "wellon_b_poe_jr"}
{"id": "21689__3_001", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Poe.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [3513.956, 3515.049], "stop_times": [3515.049, 3515.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3513.956}, "reply_to": "21689__3_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21689__3_002", "conversation_id": "21689", "text": "The honorable court is adjourned until Monday next at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-37", "start_times": [3515.98], "stop_times": [3520.438], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3515.98}, "reply_to": "21689__3_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21589__0_000", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "We'll hear argument in two cases, the Commissioner of Revenue... Internal Revenue against Banks and the Commissioner against Banaitis.\nMr. Salmons.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [0.0, 8.811], "stop_times": [8.811, 10.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21589__0_001", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nSection 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code defines gross income to include all income from whatever source derived.\nAs this Court has held, that definition is sweeping and represents an intent by Congress to exert the full measure of its taxing power.\nThe court of appeals decisions below, by excluding from respondent's gross income the portion of litigation proceeds paid to their attorneys under contingent fee agreements, is inconsistent with two longstanding Federal tax law principles for defining gross income.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [10.857, 13.829, 21.26, 29.145], "stop_times": [13.829, 21.26, 29.145, 44.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.857}, "reply_to": "21589__0_000", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_002", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Now, if... if this didn't involve the alternative minimum tax, would the amount be deductible?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [44.46], "stop_times": [50.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 44.46}, "reply_to": "21589__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_003", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Your Honor, but for the alternative minimum tax, there would be an... a miscellaneous itemized deduction--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [50.35], "stop_times": [56.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 50.35}, "reply_to": "21589__0_002", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_004", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [56.266], "stop_times": [56.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 56.266}, "reply_to": "21589__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_005", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--under section 212 of the code--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [56.532], "stop_times": [58.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 56.532}, "reply_to": "21589__0_004", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_006", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [58.124], "stop_times": [58.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 58.124}, "reply_to": "21589__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_007", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--that would be subject to the limit of the 2 percent of adjusted gross income that applies to itemized deductions.\nBut section 56(b)(1)(A)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [58.95, 65.926], "stop_times": [65.926, 68.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 58.95}, "reply_to": "21589__0_006", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_008", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "That's of annual income.\nRight?\n2 percent of... of the person's annual income?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [68.981, 69.89, 70.262], "stop_times": [69.89, 70.262, 72.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 68.981}, "reply_to": "21589__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_009", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Of the adjusted gross income.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [72.862], "stop_times": [74.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 72.862}, "reply_to": "21589__0_008", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_010", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "For the year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [74.265], "stop_times": [74.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 74.265}, "reply_to": "21589__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_011", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "For the year.\nThat's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [74.72, 75.358], "stop_times": [75.358, 76.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 74.72}, "reply_to": "21589__0_010", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_012", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "But, gee, in the case of a... of a major award, that 2 percent is very likely to be exceeded, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [76.084], "stop_times": [84.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 76.084}, "reply_to": "21589__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_013", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "It... it certainly may, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [84.257], "stop_times": [86.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 84.257}, "reply_to": "21589__0_012", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_014", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "So this is a problem that's going to exist even... even after the alternate minimum tax is abolished.\nRight?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [86.076, 92.885, 93.339], "stop_times": [92.885, 93.339, 94.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 86.076}, "reply_to": "21589__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_015", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I'm not sure entirely what you're referring to as the problem, but it is the case that... that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [94.099], "stop_times": [102.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 94.099}, "reply_to": "21589__0_014", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_016", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, you don't think... the Government doesn't think it's a problem.\nI'm talking about taking a huge percentage of the... of the person's recovery.\nThat... that will happen even... even in the case where there's no minimum tax... alternative.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [102.067, 104.296, 110.157], "stop_times": [104.296, 110.157, 116.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 102.067}, "reply_to": "21589__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_017", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--That is correct.\nThat... that is correct, Your Honor.\nNow, I mean... and let me make two points about that.\nThe first is that as a... as a general matter, the tax code defines gross income expansively, and there's a number of this Court's cases that make that clear.\nThen... then the question becomes are there deductions provided that allow for certain expenses to be deducted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [116.723, 117.06, 117.753, 119.778, 127.99], "stop_times": [117.06, 117.753, 119.778, 127.99, 134.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 116.723}, "reply_to": "21589__0_016", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_018", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Don't some States such as Oregon require a plaintiff to remit a portion of punitive damages recovered to the State so they don't even go to the taxpayer?\nBut is the taxpayer saddled with that too?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [134.472, 146.649], "stop_times": [146.649, 148.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 134.472}, "reply_to": "21589__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_019", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Your Honor, I would think the answer to that question is no.\nIt's not a question that I have examined in depth in... in this case because it's not presented, but as a general matter--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [148.795, 151.767], "stop_times": [151.767, 157.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 148.795}, "reply_to": "21589__0_018", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_020", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, what about attorney's fees in class actions?\nAs I understand it, those are not regarded by the Government as attributable all to the taxpayer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [157.711, 159.28], "stop_times": [159.28, 170.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 157.711}, "reply_to": "21589__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_021", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [170.054], "stop_times": [171.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 170.054}, "reply_to": "21589__0_020", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_022", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "A plaintiff who's part of a class in a class action suit where attorney's fees are paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [171.086], "stop_times": [176.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 171.086}, "reply_to": "21589__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_023", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Your Honor, we believe that the same principles would apply to class action lawsuits as to other lawsuits in terms of the taxation of litigation proceeds.\nIt may very well be the case in a number of class action contexts that when applying those principles, the proper... the proper analysis leads to the conclusion that the taxpayer doesn't exert sufficient control and that the payment of attorney's fees is not in response to a debt owed by the taxpayer.\nAnd so there might be a different result.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [176.742, 185.387, 201.634], "stop_times": [185.387, 201.634, 202.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 176.742}, "reply_to": "21589__0_022", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_024", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, I... I thought we were... our attention was pointed to a number of instances where the Internal Revenue Service did not require the taxpayer to show all the attorney's fees as income in those class action situations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [202.915], "stop_times": [219.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 202.915}, "reply_to": "21589__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_025", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Your Honor, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [219.261], "stop_times": [220.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 219.261}, "reply_to": "21589__0_024", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_026", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [220.337], "stop_times": [221.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 220.337}, "reply_to": "21589__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_027", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I want to be clear.\nWe think the same principles apply across the board to defining gross income.\nIn applying that in a number of class action contexts, the proper answer may be that it's not included in gross income because there wasn't sufficient control and because it wasn't paid in... in lieu of a debt owed by the taxpayer.\nBut here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [221.246, 221.452, 225.25, 239.618], "stop_times": [221.452, 225.25, 239.618, 240.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 221.246}, "reply_to": "21589__0_026", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_028", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Why... why isn't there as much control in each case?\nI mean, the... somebody goes to a lawyer with a claim and says, press the claim for me, recover if you can.\nWhat's the difference in... in terms of control?\nSo that if you win this case, why doesn't it apply to class action?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [240.156, 242.302, 247.874, 250.475], "stop_times": [242.302, 247.874, 250.475, 253.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 240.156}, "reply_to": "21589__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21589__0_029", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Again, the principles would apply and there may very well be class actions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [253.364], "stop_times": [257.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 253.364}, "reply_to": "21589__0_028", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_030", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Yes, and I... I want to know why the result would be different.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [257.701], "stop_times": [259.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 257.701}, "reply_to": "21589__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21589__0_031", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Again, I'm... I'm trying to be as specific as I can.\nThere may be situations in which, even in the class action context, there's a fee agreement between the... the class member and the lawyer so that the payment of attorney's fees is in satisfaction of a debt owed by the class member, and in that situation we think that it would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [259.187, 263.395], "stop_times": [263.395, 277.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 259.187}, "reply_to": "21589__0_030", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_032", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Why... why would... why would that analysis appear?\nCertainly there's... there's not going to be any fee paid in the... in the paradigm example of the class action without a recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [277.513, 279.536], "stop_times": [279.536, 286.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 277.513}, "reply_to": "21589__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21589__0_033", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nThere... there are situations--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [286.595, 289.113], "stop_times": [289.113, 290.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 286.595}, "reply_to": "21589__0_032", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_034", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "So we're in the... so we're in the situation we're in right now, aren't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [290.311], "stop_times": [292.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 290.311}, "reply_to": "21589__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21589__0_035", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--We are in the situation in which there's a need to apply the general principles for defining gross income.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [292.828], "stop_times": [298.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 292.828}, "reply_to": "21589__0_034", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_036", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "All right. But let me just... I'll just press the point one more time.\nI don't understand, based on what you've said, why the class action result would be different from the result that you're arguing for here if you win this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [298.955, 301.35], "stop_times": [301.35, 309.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 298.955}, "reply_to": "21589__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21589__0_037", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "And... and what I'm trying to point out, Your Honor, is that there may very well be class actions where it's not different.\nThere may be some when... where it is if it's the case that there's no contractual obligations to pay the fee... pay the fee between the class member and the attorney, and if it's the case that the class member really exerts no meaningful control over the... over the attorney's fees portion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [309.236, 313.323], "stop_times": [313.323, 329.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 309.236}, "reply_to": "21589__0_036", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_038", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I thought the class action distinction that the commissioner had was between opt in and opt out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [329.177], "stop_times": [334.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 329.177}, "reply_to": "21589__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__0_039", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--That is certainly one of the factors that... that the commissioner has looked to in those class--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [334.007], "stop_times": [339.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 334.007}, "reply_to": "21589__0_038", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_040", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "So if you opt in, then you did exercise control.\nSo all the money is yours.\nBut if you opt out, you didn't have control over the suit because you didn't opt out.\nI mean, you just were lethargic.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [339.391, 342.142, 344.204, 347.632], "stop_times": [342.142, 344.204, 347.632, 349.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 339.391}, "reply_to": "21589__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__0_041", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Again, those are all facts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [349.118], "stop_times": [350.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 349.118}, "reply_to": "21589__0_040", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_042", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "That's the basic thing.\nI mean, I'm trying to understand what the principle is for the reason that it's pretty hard for me to reconcile the commissioner's view in the class action case with the punitive damage case because there the person has control over the lawsuit.\nSo why doesn't all the punitive damage, attorney's fees that come out of that, and so forth belong to... in other words, it sounds to me, as I read this, something of a mess, and I'd like to know what the clear principle is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [350.854, 351.597, 362.121], "stop_times": [351.597, 362.121, 373.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 350.854}, "reply_to": "21589__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__0_043", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nAnd... and just to be clear, I... I don't think the commissioner has ever taken the position that all class actions don't present the... the possibility of the attorney's fees portion of the award being included in... in the class member's gross income.\nNow, there are real enforcement issues, as a practical matter, to trying to... to trying to implement that.\nYou can imagine a number of class actions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [373.888, 375.003, 386.536, 392.957], "stop_times": [375.003, 386.536, 392.957, 394.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 373.888}, "reply_to": "21589__0_042", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_044", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "When you say the class member, do you... you mean the named representative.\nThe class may include thousands of people, but it would be income to the named representative?\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [394.526, 396.755, 402.782], "stop_times": [396.755, 402.782, 403.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 394.526}, "reply_to": "21589__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__0_045", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Well, presumably, Your Honor, that... only the portion of the attorney's fees that would be attributable to the... the named representative's recovery would be included in the named representative's gross income.\nI don't think that the named representative would be on the hook, if you will, for all of the attorney's fees that would relate to other class members' recoveries.\nBut I think what all this points out is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [403.404, 411.904, 420.244], "stop_times": [411.904, 420.244, 422.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 403.404}, "reply_to": "21589__0_044", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_046", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Well, then... then would it be... would the income then go to each class... would each class member have a share of the income?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [422.639], "stop_times": [430.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 422.639}, "reply_to": "21589__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__0_047", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--In a number of instances, yes, Your Honor.\nAgain, the... the way that we think that class action cases should be resolved is the same way that... that these issues are approached in all cases, which is to look at the type of relationship that exists between the... the client and the attorney to see whether the payment is made in... in response to a debt owed by the client and also to look to the degree of control that the client has over the... the underlying source of income.\nAnd in this context, it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [430.441, 432.959, 458.76], "stop_times": [432.959, 458.76, 459.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 430.441}, "reply_to": "21589__0_046", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_048", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Suppose... suppose the same amount were paid, as was paid here, to the attorney, but it was not by way of a contingent fee, that the... the client had committed to pay this dollar amount in a dollar amount.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [459.975], "stop_times": [476.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 459.975}, "reply_to": "21589__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_049", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--As a flat fee?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [476.843], "stop_times": [477.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 476.843}, "reply_to": "21589__0_048", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_050", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "As a flat fee.\nWhat... what would the tax treatment of that be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [477.502, 478.412], "stop_times": [478.412, 480.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 477.502}, "reply_to": "21589__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_051", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Your Honor, I think in fact it is undisputed in... in the... in these cases that if the payment of attorney's fees had either been under an hourly rate arrangement or a flat fee arrangement, that the entire amount of the litigation proceeds would be included in the... in the respondent's gross income and nothing about the contingent fee arrangements here should... should alter that result.\nThe respondents--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [480.558, 499.793], "stop_times": [499.793, 500.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 480.558}, "reply_to": "21589__0_050", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_052", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, let... let me ask you about Professor Davenport's theory.\nHe filed a... an amicus brief here saying that the contingency fee or the attorney's fees should be capitalized as a transaction cost increasing the basis of the property which was the claim in the lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [500.742, 504.54], "stop_times": [504.54, 521.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 500.742}, "reply_to": "21589__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_053", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Your Honor, I'm trying to recall that amicus brief.\nI believe that... was that an argument, I believe, about the application of section 83 of the tax code when you have a transaction--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [521.174, 523.736], "stop_times": [523.736, 530.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 521.174}, "reply_to": "21589__0_052", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_054", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [530.918], "stop_times": [531.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.918}, "reply_to": "21589__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_055", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--in exchange for services and you provide property?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [531.29], "stop_times": [533.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 531.29}, "reply_to": "21589__0_054", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_056", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [533.769], "stop_times": [534.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 533.769}, "reply_to": "21589__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_057", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "We think that the better way to analyze this is that in fact there was no transfer of the underlying cause of action, and so we think that... that we... that gets into a very complicated area as to how you value the attorney's fees at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [534.173], "stop_times": [548.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.173}, "reply_to": "21589__0_056", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_058", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, you... you don't need a transfer of the... I don't understand what you mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [548.474], "stop_times": [550.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 548.474}, "reply_to": "21589__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_059", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "No, I don't either.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [550.582], "stop_times": [551.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 550.582}, "reply_to": "21589__0_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_060", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--a transfer of the... the cause of action.\nCertainly if you buy a piece of real estate and... and there's lawyer's business connected with it, you... you don't... you don't take an ordinary deduction which is subject to the alternative minimum tax for those lawyer's fees.\nYou just say that's part of the transaction, and it goes onto the basis of your property.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [551.037, 552.523, 567.262, 572.13], "stop_times": [552.523, 567.262, 572.13, 572.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 551.037}, "reply_to": "21589__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_061", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I believe that's correct, Your Honor.\nBut the point I was making--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [572.585, 573.988], "stop_times": [573.988, 575.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 572.585}, "reply_to": "21589__0_060", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_062", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Why isn't... why isn't that very similar to this?\nI mean, what difference does it make whether there's a... there's a transaction here, isn't there?\nIsn't there a transaction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [575.081, 576.567, 582.761], "stop_times": [576.567, 582.761, 584.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 575.081}, "reply_to": "21589__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_063", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Well, there is an agreement to pay a fee for a service, and in that sense there is a transaction, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [584.33], "stop_times": [588.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 584.33}, "reply_to": "21589__0_062", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_064", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Yes, but a... the service is connected to a transaction, namely the conversion of the chosen action into a money payment.\nYou have this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [588.128, 596.302], "stop_times": [596.302, 597.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 588.128}, "reply_to": "21589__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_065", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "That... that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [597.128], "stop_times": [598.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 597.128}, "reply_to": "21589__0_064", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_066", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--this unformed chosen action.\nYou're entitled to it, but there's a transaction converting it into a money payment.\nNow, why shouldn't you attribute to that transaction all... which is profitable to you, all of the costs that go along with the transaction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [598.121, 598.986, 603.694], "stop_times": [598.986, 603.694, 612.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 598.121}, "reply_to": "21589__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_067", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, again, Your Honor, we think that transaction is essentially identical to numerous transactions that take place every day out in the real world where... where taxpayers retain professional services in exchange for a commission or a percentage of the income that's generated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [612.36], "stop_times": [629.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 612.36}, "reply_to": "21589__0_066", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_068", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "That is a problem that occurs to me.\nI don't know where you draw the line.\nAnd you say you can't draw a line.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [629.329, 630.898, 631.93], "stop_times": [630.898, 631.93, 633.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 629.329}, "reply_to": "21589__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_069", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "That is absolutely correct.\nI don't see any basis for distinguishing between--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [633.582, 634.613], "stop_times": [634.613, 636.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 633.582}, "reply_to": "21589__0_068", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_070", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "How does it work?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [636.721], "stop_times": [637.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 636.721}, "reply_to": "21589__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__0_071", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--the attorneys here and... and a... and an agent negotiating a book contract for an author or a financial analyst.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [637.192], "stop_times": [642.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 637.192}, "reply_to": "21589__0_070", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_072", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "You... on that, that example, you gave the book contract with the author and you gave, I think, the investor.\nWould this problem arise in those cases or would the author get an above-the-line deduction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [642.948, 649.164], "stop_times": [649.164, 658.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 642.948}, "reply_to": "21589__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__0_073", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI believe that the author in those... in that situation would receive the same deduction that prior to the enactment of section 703 of the American Jobs Creation Act where Congress just addressed in part the... the issue raised in these cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [658.452, 659.566], "stop_times": [659.566, 672.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 658.452}, "reply_to": "21589__0_072", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_074", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "So you say the author... that these people are all in the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [672.486], "stop_times": [675.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.486}, "reply_to": "21589__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__0_075", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--They would have an itemized... excuse me... a miscellaneous itemized deduction for the cost incurred in... in producing income that under the alternative minimum tax would not be allowed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [675.93], "stop_times": [684.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 675.93}, "reply_to": "21589__0_074", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_076", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Is there any argument... you... you said at the outset that it has to be an itemized deduction subject to the 2 percent rule even if we set aside the alternative minimum tax.\nIs that conceded by everyone, or does somebody... do some people say this is an ordinary and necessary expense?\nI know it's not your business, but it seems to me an ordinary and necessary expense to recover the... the... for employment discrimination, which is really part of your work.\nI don't know why... is it... does everybody agree that this is subject to the 2 percent rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [684.375, 695.603, 702.541, 712.693], "stop_times": [695.603, 702.541, 712.693, 717.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 684.375}, "reply_to": "21589__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__0_077", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I will... I will have to allow respondents to speak for themselves to that question, but as far as I'm aware, that is not in dispute in these cases or in any of the cases that have been litigated that... that but... that but for the alternative minimum tax, the way this would have been handled is that there would have been a miscellaneous itemized deduction under section 212 of the code for the cost incurred in producing income, and that the alternative minimum tax, along with, by the way, a large number of other perfectly valid deductions, get disallowed under the alternative minimum tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [717.606], "stop_times": [746.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 717.606}, "reply_to": "21589__0_076", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_078", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I... I can't get out of my mind in this case that the mechanics of the particular case may control.\nI know we need a national rule and so forth.\nMy recollection is that in some States when there is a settlement or a judgment paid under a case where there's a contingency fee contract, the check is made out both to the attorney and to the client and is put in the attorney's client's trust account.\nSo the client never has control over it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [746.501, 753.849, 755.789, 774.82], "stop_times": [753.849, 755.789, 774.82, 777.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 746.501}, "reply_to": "21589__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__0_079", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [777.997], "stop_times": [778.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 777.997}, "reply_to": "21589__0_078", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_080", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Let's assume that that's true in most of the States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [778.824], "stop_times": [782.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 778.824}, "reply_to": "21589__0_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__0_081", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--That... that... I know that were... that was the facts, Your Honor, in the... in the Banks case, that there was a check made out to both.\nIn fact... in fact, there was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [782.994, 786.792], "stop_times": [786.792, 788.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 782.994}, "reply_to": "21589__0_080", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_082", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "So in a very real... in... in a very real sense, in a... in the legal sense, the client just doesn't have control.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [788.65], "stop_times": [794.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 788.65}, "reply_to": "21589__0_081", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__0_083", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, we disagree with that for, it seems to me, at least three reasons.\nThe first is that at the time the client entered into the fee agreement, he certainly had control then.\nHe had complete control over his cause of action.\nHe was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [794.322, 798.021, 803.51, 805.551], "stop_times": [798.021, 803.51, 805.551, 806.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 794.322}, "reply_to": "21589__0_082", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_084", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, he... he did or he didn't, but there was no money there.\nThere was nothing there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [806.854, 809.909], "stop_times": [809.909, 810.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.854}, "reply_to": "21589__0_083", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__0_085", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Well, there was an entitlement to recover.\nNow, there might have been a dispute as to the proper amount or whether that claim was valid, but he was entitled to recover based on the injury he suffered that was cognizable at law and that gave raise to a cause of action.\nNow, in exchange for legal services, he promised to pay a portion of the recovery to the lawyer.\nThat is a promise to pay a fee.\nThat is not an assignment or any other transfer of the underlying cause of action.\nAnd it is undisputed, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [810.652, 812.798, 822.829, 828.774, 830.426, 834.058], "stop_times": [812.798, 822.829, 828.774, 830.426, 834.058, 835.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 810.652}, "reply_to": "21589__0_084", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_086", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Mr. Salmons, doesn't the plausibility of your argument here rest on the assumption that what the... that the cause of action at the time the... that the plaintiff made the agreement with the lawyer is a cause of action which has the same value as the ultimate recovery that the lawyer gets?\nWhereas, in fact, the cause of action at the time of the agreement with the lawyer has an inchoate value.\nThe... the value that is actually realized is going to depend in part on the... on the skill and... and the... the gumption of the lawyer.\nSo that the... what I'm getting at... and... and going to Justice Kennedy's question, it seems to me that the value realized as opposed to the right to sue are two different figures.\nAnd I don't see realistically how the client has complete control over the value realized, which we don't even know until the lawyer has done his work and gotten the check.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [835.423, 855.772, 863.863, 874.72, 888.671], "stop_times": [855.772, 863.863, 874.72, 888.671, 901.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 835.423}, "reply_to": "21589__0_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21589__0_087", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Your Honor, two responses to that question, if I may.\nThe first is that, as a matter of law, it is the client that controls the cause of action and throughout the time period, even after they... they enter into an... a contingent fee agreement, it is the client that owns and controls the cause of action and he decides whether to settle.\nHe decides whether to press forward or withdraw the case.\nHe decides whether to fire the lawyer or not.\nHe is a... he controls the source of the income.\nTherefore--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [901.303, 903.987, 919.59, 922.108, 924.587, 927.475], "stop_times": [903.987, 919.59, 922.108, 924.587, 927.475, 928.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 901.303}, "reply_to": "21589__0_086", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_088", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Even... even the potential lawyer's fee.\nI mean, suppose this client has a major dental repair and he's got a risk-taking dentist, and he says, dentist, I'm going to give you a deal.\nI know you like to take risks.\nI may win big in my lawsuit, in which case you get everything; and I may lose, in which case you get nothing.\nThe dentist says, fine, I'll take it.\nCan the client in that agreement with his dentist give what will be the lawyer's fee, the part that will go to the lawyer under the contingency fee agreement?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [928.468, 930.326, 941.964, 943.988, 953.564, 955.05], "stop_times": [930.326, 941.964, 943.988, 953.564, 955.05, 966.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.468}, "reply_to": "21589__0_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__0_089", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Well, presumably, Your Honor, if he's already... he's already promised that to the attorney, he would be in violation of his agreement with the attorney if he did so, and his attorney could sue him to recover or the dentist could sue him to recover.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [966.379], "stop_times": [975.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 966.379}, "reply_to": "21589__0_088", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_090", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Then he doesn't have... then he doesn't have dominion over that portion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [975.917], "stop_times": [977.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 975.917}, "reply_to": "21589__0_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__0_091", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, because he's... he's given it away.\nIn that sense I think... and... and in answering this, if I may just go back to one point that Justice Souter made and that is that I don't think it's the case that our analysis turns at all on how you value the claim, either at the time of the fee agreement or afterwards.\nOur analysis says at all relevant times, regardless of whether the value changed or not, the client was at all times in control of the underlying source of income, and it's just as if in Helvering v. Horst the father assigns the... the bond coupon to his son, but he controls the underlying source of income.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [977.419, 980.208, 995.691], "stop_times": [980.208, 995.691, 1013.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 977.419}, "reply_to": "21589__0_090", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_092", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "No, but the bond coupon has a certain value at the time the father assigns it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1013.485], "stop_times": [1017.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1013.485}, "reply_to": "21589__0_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21589__0_093", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1017.982], "stop_times": [1018.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1017.982}, "reply_to": "21589__0_092", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_094", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "The only thing that has to be realized after the assignment of the coupon is the passage of time at which it will be payable.\nHere we do not have a definite value.\nWe don't know... there's no way to know for sure what the value will be until the lawsuit is over with.\nThe... the two are not comparable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1018.604, 1025.496, 1028.385, 1034.701], "stop_times": [1025.496, 1028.385, 1034.701, 1036.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1018.604}, "reply_to": "21589__0_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21589__0_095", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Your Honor, that would be equally true of an assignment of a stock dividend while I retain the stock.\nI may not know what the dividend payment is going to be, but if I control the underlying source of income, i.e., the stock, then the transfer to someone else of the dividend doesn't alter the incident of tax, even if it's unknown.\nAnd I would point out that in Lucas v. Earl, the husband and wife in that case entered into agreement to assign to each other 50 percent of their income in 1901, long before the income tax was even instituted, and the tax years at issue in that case were 1920 and 1921.\nIf anything, it was much more speculative and uncertain what income would have been earned 20 years later in that case, and that did not stop the Court from--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1036.27, 1042.297, 1054.391, 1068.303], "stop_times": [1042.297, 1054.391, 1068.303, 1076.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1036.27}, "reply_to": "21589__0_094", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_096", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "So you're... you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1076.642], "stop_times": [1077.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1076.642}, "reply_to": "21589__0_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_097", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--applying this principle that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1077.18], "stop_times": [1078.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1077.18}, "reply_to": "21589__0_096", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_098", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Can I... can I ask you a question relating to the Davenport... what's been referred to as the Davenport theory?\nI had thought that... that the service has used the... the transaction theory with regard to legal fees payable for a lawsuit seeking increased compensation for the condemnation of real estate where the taxpayer had objected to the amount that the condemning entity was offering and brought suit in court and with a contingent fee to the lawyer and that the service treated that as... as part of the transaction cost.\nAm I wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1078.089, 1084.982, 1131.793], "stop_times": [1084.982, 1131.793, 1132.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1078.089}, "reply_to": "21589__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_099", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Your Honor, to my knowledge, the... the IRS has had a consistent position that the entire amount of litigation proceeds, including the amount that may be paid to a lawyer under a contingent fee agreement, even in the condemnation context, is... is included in the gross income of... of the taxpayer.\nAnd I would point Your Honor to the case out of the Federal Circuit, Baylin v. United States.\nThat case involved a condemnation action, and the court of appeals in that case addressed the issue that's presented in these cases and concluded that it was includable in gross income.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1132.536, 1148.595, 1153.796], "stop_times": [1148.595, 1153.796, 1164.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1132.536}, "reply_to": "21589__0_098", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_100", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Maybe my recollection is wrong.\nI'll look again.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1164.366, 1165.48], "stop_times": [1165.48, 1166.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1164.366}, "reply_to": "21589__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_101", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "And... and I would point out, Your Honor... and this has to do, I think, with the impact of the new legislation that's been pointed to in the supplemental briefs... that at least six of the court of appeals cases addressing the issue presented in these cases involved claims that would not be covered under the new section 703 because they... they don't involve claims for unlawful discrimination or... or FCA claims or certain Medicare claims--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1166.139], "stop_times": [1191.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1166.139}, "reply_to": "21589__0_100", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_102", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--But can... can I ask you to go back for a minute?\nI guess the IRS... you're seeing the lawsuit as the income-generating asset.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1191.031, 1192.601], "stop_times": [1192.601, 1199.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1191.031}, "reply_to": "21589__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__0_103", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1199.288], "stop_times": [1199.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1199.288}, "reply_to": "21589__0_102", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_104", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "And you're looking at the control of the plaintiff, for example, over the lawsuit as something that determines whether it's his income.\nAnd he, of course, can't give away his income.\nBut on that theory, to go back to Justice O'Connor's original question, then the punitive damages also must be his income because he has equal control over them and they grow out of the income-producing asset.\nAnd that, of course, is what's bothering me because it seems to me that your theory, which is a well-established theory, coupled with a Congress that seems to be willing to take away deductions for expenses that lead to the income, could produce an income tax that in many cases, not just a few, exceeds the income that an individual has.\nAnd I would like to know what in the law is there to guard against that result.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1199.781, 1208.781, 1211.836, 1227.661, 1255.016], "stop_times": [1208.781, 1211.836, 1227.661, 1255.016, 1261.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1199.781}, "reply_to": "21589__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__0_105", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I guess my response to that is that, first--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1261.454], "stop_times": [1267.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1261.454}, "reply_to": "21589__0_104", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_106", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Other... other than the mercy of the Internal Revenue Service.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1267.109, 1269.793], "stop_times": [1269.793, 1270.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1267.109}, "reply_to": "21589__0_105", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__0_107", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Your Honor, the fact of the matter is, is that Congress has looked at... at this issue, and in the new section that I just referred to, section 703--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1270.332], "stop_times": [1279.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1270.332}, "reply_to": "21589__0_106", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_108", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, but does that happen?\nYou haven't the question.\nAre there instances where plaintiffs in lawsuits end up receiving tax bills, as a result of this scheme, for more money than they received in the lawsuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1279.498, 1280.157, 1281.828], "stop_times": [1280.157, 1281.828, 1293.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1279.498}, "reply_to": "21589__0_107", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_109", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--That has occurred, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1293.904], "stop_times": [1295.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1293.904}, "reply_to": "21589__0_108", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_110", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1295.473], "stop_times": [1295.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1295.473}, "reply_to": "21589__0_109", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_111", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "And... and Congress responded to concerns about that very result--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1295.928], "stop_times": [1300.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1295.928}, "reply_to": "21589__0_110", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_112", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, but doesn't... doesn't that indicate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1300.469], "stop_times": [1301.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1300.469}, "reply_to": "21589__0_111", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__0_113", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--in the new section.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1301.212], "stop_times": [1301.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1301.212}, "reply_to": "21589__0_112", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_114", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--something basically flawed about your whole theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1301.528], "stop_times": [1304.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1301.528}, "reply_to": "21589__0_113", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__0_115", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nIt is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1304.927, 1305.299], "stop_times": [1305.299, 1305.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1304.927}, "reply_to": "21589__0_114", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_116", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "This is not income in any... in any real sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1305.92], "stop_times": [1309.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1305.92}, "reply_to": "21589__0_115", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__0_117", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Is there any constitutional protection?\nThe Sixteenth Amendment refers to an income tax, and perhaps that doesn't include a tax that grossly exceeds in many cases a person's income.\nThat would be quite a far-out theory at the moment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1309.84, 1313.266, 1324.951], "stop_times": [1313.266, 1324.951, 1328.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1309.84}, "reply_to": "21589__0_116", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__0_118", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I think it would be, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1328.177], "stop_times": [1329.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1328.177}, "reply_to": "21589__0_117", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_119", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "But I... that's why I ask you.\nIs there any protection in the law whatsoever?\nOr if Congress decides to tax a set of people who, let's see... say, earn $10,000 a year and because they're small business people, they happen to have $20,000 expenses.\nSo it taxes them on $20,000, and the tax exceeds the income.\nThere's no protection in your view against that result.\nAnd you just said, well, Congress decided to do it, it decided to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1329.458, 1330.035, 1333.378, 1346.753, 1352.697, 1356.124], "stop_times": [1330.035, 1333.378, 1346.753, 1352.697, 1356.124, 1359.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1329.458}, "reply_to": "21589__0_118", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__0_120", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "But we do think, Your Honor, that the only limit on Congress' taxing authority would be the Constitution, and I don't see a constitutional violation in disallowing a deduction, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1359.756], "stop_times": [1369.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1359.756}, "reply_to": "21589__0_119", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_121", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "What about an assumption, for example, that when we read the code, we read it with a view towards thinking Congress did not want to produce such unfair results?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1369.581], "stop_times": [1380.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.581}, "reply_to": "21589__0_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__0_122", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Your Honor, if I may.\nThe way I would respond to that concern is that the proper way to address it is not as the courts below did and as respondents urge, to alter or distort the general definition for gross income under the... under the tax code which may have broad ramifications in a number of areas outside of this one, but to go to Congress, as in fact people have done, and to get them to make... make additional deductions or otherwise alter the alternative minimum tax, which generates the primary concern I think at issue in these cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1380.356, 1381.304], "stop_times": [1381.304, 1409.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1380.356}, "reply_to": "21589__0_121", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_123", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "What happened in the cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1409.539], "stop_times": [1410.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1409.539}, "reply_to": "21589__0_122", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__0_124", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "That's the proper way to handle that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1410.382], "stop_times": [1411.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1410.382}, "reply_to": "21589__0_123", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_125", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--There were cases... we don't have to deal in hypotheticals.\nThere were cases where this happened, where people ended up liable for a tax greater than what they took in.\nWhat happened in those cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1411.291, 1413.604, 1424.5], "stop_times": [1413.604, 1424.5, 1425.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1411.291}, "reply_to": "21589__0_124", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__0_126", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "They were... they were liable for a tax greater than what they took in.\nThose were pointed to Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1425.986, 1429.124], "stop_times": [1429.124, 1430.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1425.986}, "reply_to": "21589__0_125", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_127", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I mean, there was one that was $99,000, if I remember right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1430.156], "stop_times": [1433.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1430.156}, "reply_to": "21589__0_126", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__0_128", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I believe that's correct.\nThose were pointed out to Congress and that was part of what motivated Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1433.788, 1435.068], "stop_times": [1435.068, 1438.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1433.788}, "reply_to": "21589__0_127", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_129", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Was there a private bill?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1438.246], "stop_times": [1439.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1438.246}, "reply_to": "21589__0_128", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__0_130", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--to enact section 703 to protect--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1439.815], "stop_times": [1440.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1439.815}, "reply_to": "21589__0_129", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_131", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Or what happened?\nWhat actually happened in that case, do you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1440.891, 1441.23], "stop_times": [1441.23, 1442.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.891}, "reply_to": "21589__0_130", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__0_132", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I do not know, Your Honor.\nMy... my understanding is that the tax was assessed and I don't know whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1442.582, 1443.613], "stop_times": [1443.613, 1446.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1442.582}, "reply_to": "21589__0_131", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_133", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Mr. Salmons, I... I... you've cited the... the Baylin case to me and I... I've looked at the description of it in the brief, which I had recalled, and what it says is that it did, indeed, involve a taking by the State, and when the State didn't offer what Baylin thought was... was enough, he went to court, he prevailed, and recovered a much larger sum than the State had offered him.\nHis legal fees were, by the IRS, subtracted from the award, and he was taxed only upon the proceeds reduced by the legal fees.\nNow, how do you explain that situation there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1446.874, 1470.074, 1481.137], "stop_times": [1470.074, 1481.137, 1483.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1446.874}, "reply_to": "21589__0_132", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_134", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Your Honor, if I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1483.654], "stop_times": [1484.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1483.654}, "reply_to": "21589__0_133", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_135", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "And how does that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1484.852], "stop_times": [1485.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1484.852}, "reply_to": "21589__0_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_136", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--misremembered that case, I apologize.\nMy... my recollection was that... was that the court in that case had included the attorney's fees in gross income.\nBut... but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1485.224, 1486.217, 1494.102], "stop_times": [1486.217, 1494.102, 1495.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1485.224}, "reply_to": "21589__0_135", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_137", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I doubt... I doubt whether Professor Davenport has misdescribed the case in... in his brief, but I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1495.921], "stop_times": [1501.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1495.921}, "reply_to": "21589__0_136", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_138", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--But... but again, Your Honor, if I may.\nI think the... the basic point to recall here is that the definition of gross income cuts across the tax code.\nIf there are concerns about application, then the proper result is to go to Congress, as has been done.\nCongress has addressed the very concerns cited by respondents and the amici in this case, and that specifically is the... the application on civil rights plaintiffs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1501.327, 1503.845, 1510.532, 1514.99], "stop_times": [1503.845, 1510.532, 1514.99, 1522.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1501.327}, "reply_to": "21589__0_137", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_139", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Does the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause apply to a Government tax scheme that taxes something beyond the income received?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1522.586], "stop_times": [1531.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1522.586}, "reply_to": "21589__0_138", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_140", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Your Honor, it... there may be... there may be a takings issue at some point.\nAgain, there may be constitutional limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1531.337, 1534.764], "stop_times": [1534.764, 1536.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1531.337}, "reply_to": "21589__0_139", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_141", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, at the point where the Government charges more than the taxpayer received--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1536.788], "stop_times": [1541.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1536.788}, "reply_to": "21589__0_140", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_142", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "But I think, Your--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1541.412], "stop_times": [1541.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1541.412}, "reply_to": "21589__0_141", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_143", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--in income?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1541.578], "stop_times": [1542.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1541.578}, "reply_to": "21589__0_142", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_144", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Your Honor, I think when... when what you're talking about is how to define--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1542.155], "stop_times": [1544.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1542.155}, "reply_to": "21589__0_143", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_145", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I mean, this is an appalling situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1544.922], "stop_times": [1546.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1544.922}, "reply_to": "21589__0_144", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__0_146", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Again, Your Honor, I... I think as a general matter, the... the proper definition of gross income would include the attorney's fees portion of litigation awards.\nIt's important to note that the when Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1546.746, 1556.067], "stop_times": [1556.067, 1557.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1546.746}, "reply_to": "21589__0_145", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_147", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "What... what do you we make of the fact that two Senators apparently don't agree with that position?\nI mean, I... I'm referring to the colloquy that was quoted in... in one of the... the briefs about the recent legislation, and the... the substance of the colloquy was we're not making any change in the law, we're just clarifying it.\nWell, in fact, if there is no textual difference for tax purposes between the law, so far as it concerns these... these so-called discrimination recoveries and non-discrimination recoveries that have the same problem that Justice O'Connor is talking about, shouldn't we infer that at least the Senate of the United States assumes that this does not get into gross?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1557.265, 1560.98, 1572.547], "stop_times": [1560.98, 1572.547, 1590.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1557.265}, "reply_to": "21589__0_146", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21589__0_148", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nIn fact, what I would say is that the thing to focus on is what Congress actually enacted and it makes clear that all the litigation proceeds--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1590.785, 1591.528], "stop_times": [1591.528, 1597.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1590.785}, "reply_to": "21589__0_147", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_149", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I'm... I'm talking about the colloquy.\nI'm talking about the colloquy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1597.844, 1598.298], "stop_times": [1598.298, 1599.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1597.844}, "reply_to": "21589__0_148", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21589__0_150", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I... I understand that, Your Honor, and what I'm trying to answer is that the... the legislation itself makes clear that it's included in gross income and an above-the-line deduction is provided, and that the colloquy was referring to a prior version of the bill that would have been retroactive in part.\nThe new bill is not retroactive, and we think it's clear that it does work a change because from, among other reasons, it's undisputed that if these fees had been paid on an hourly fee basis, they would have been included in gross income and... and the alternative minimum tax would apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1599.496, 1611.756], "stop_times": [1611.756, 1624.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1599.496}, "reply_to": "21589__0_149", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_151", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--We don't really know who prepared that colloquy anyway, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1624.926], "stop_times": [1627.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1624.926}, "reply_to": "21589__0_150", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_152", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "We do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1627.36], "stop_times": [1627.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1627.36}, "reply_to": "21589__0_151", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_153", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "It might have been prepared by the respondents here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1627.982], "stop_times": [1629.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1627.982}, "reply_to": "21589__0_152", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__0_154", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "We do not.\n[Laughter]\nIf I may reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1629.218, 1630.127, 1630.704], "stop_times": [1630.127, 1630.704, 1631.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1629.218}, "reply_to": "21589__0_153", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__0_155", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Mr. Jones.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1631.447], "stop_times": [1637.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1631.447}, "reply_to": "21589__0_154", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21589__1_000", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nMy client and I are asking the Court to rule that the assignment of income doctrine does not apply when unrelated persons combine their resources to jointly generate income.\nAnd we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1637.929, 1641.356, 1652.252], "stop_times": [1641.356, 1652.252, 1653.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1637.929}, "reply_to": "21589__0_155", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_001", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "What... so what... what about the talent scout who tells the celebrity that he'll take 10 percent of the celebrity's movie proceeds or the management search person that's going to take a... a third of the executive's pay for the first 6 months?\nWhere... are all... all these cases ones in which there... there's no income to the... to the principal, we'll call them?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1653.45, 1671.654], "stop_times": [1671.654, 1681.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1653.45}, "reply_to": "21589__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__1_002", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--You mentioned the... the management agent and the... I think you mentioned the talent agent, and there was also mentioned the literary agent.\nThe... the author is in the trade or business and gets to deduct all this off the top.\nThere's no problem there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1681.48, 1690.48, 1694.028], "stop_times": [1690.48, 1694.028, 1694.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1681.48}, "reply_to": "21589__1_001", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_003", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "That's the... that's the question I asked Mr. Salmons--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1694.977], "stop_times": [1697.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1694.977}, "reply_to": "21589__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__1_004", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Yes.\nThe literary agent--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1697.206, 1697.439], "stop_times": [1697.439, 1697.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1697.206}, "reply_to": "21589__1_003", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_005", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--and he gave me the opposite answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1697.689], "stop_times": [1698.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1697.689}, "reply_to": "21589__1_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__1_006", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Yes.\nThe literary agent is in a trade or business.\nThat's off the top.\nThat's an ordinary and necessary business deduction on Schedule C.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1698.554, 1699.091, 1701.237, 1702.452], "stop_times": [1699.091, 1701.237, 1702.452, 1705.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1698.554}, "reply_to": "21589__1_005", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_007", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "And that isn't the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1705.491], "stop_times": [1706.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1705.491}, "reply_to": "21589__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__1_008", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1706.606], "stop_times": [1706.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1706.606}, "reply_to": "21589__1_007", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_009", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "The... the problem is you're... you're trying to get a theory in response to him that I think Justice Kennedy is asking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1706.978], "stop_times": [1711.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1706.978}, "reply_to": "21589__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__1_010", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1711.974], "stop_times": [1712.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1711.974}, "reply_to": "21589__1_009", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_011", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "And that theory, which is the problem for your side of the case... that theory has all kinds of implications.\nI go out and I help the painter paint my office.\nWe have a joint venture.\nI... so there's no problem.\nI don't take it in... you know, I get a... this is great.\nAnd so that I think, if I'm right, was the thrust of Justice Kennedy's question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1712.362, 1718.495, 1721.467, 1723.779, 1725.144, 1727.949], "stop_times": [1718.495, 1721.467, 1723.779, 1725.144, 1727.949, 1732.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1712.362}, "reply_to": "21589__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__1_012", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Our first choice, our preference for this Court to rule is... is not the partnership or joint venture theory.\nOur first choice is for this Court to simply look at the application of the assignment of income doctrine and ask it... if it is being misapplied.\nThe... the petitioner has not cited to the Court a single, solitary case in which unrelated persons combine their resources to jointly produce income, and that is the rule of law I'm suggesting to the Court today.\nThat is apart and separate from the partnership theory, that two unrelated persons who join together to produce income--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1732.491, 1737.98, 1746.154, 1759.984], "stop_times": [1737.98, 1746.154, 1759.984, 1767.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1732.491}, "reply_to": "21589__1_011", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_013", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "It's a partnership theory when you talk about two persons joining together.\nI don't like this... this gold mine view of litigation, that it's, you know, like two prospectors.\nYou know, there's money to be obtained.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1767.786, 1771.788, 1778.681, 1780.91], "stop_times": [1771.788, 1778.681, 1780.91, 1781.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1767.786}, "reply_to": "21589__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__1_014", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1781.365], "stop_times": [1781.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1781.365}, "reply_to": "21589__1_013", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_015", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "That's... that's not what I view of a chosen action as.\nI view it as a legal right--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1781.737, 1785.535], "stop_times": [1785.535, 1787.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1781.737}, "reply_to": "21589__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__1_016", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1787.392], "stop_times": [1787.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1787.392}, "reply_to": "21589__1_015", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_017", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--that the person is entitled to money, and ultimately the amount he's entitled to is determined by the litigation.\nAnd I'm not about to adopt a... a legal theory that... that views this as a... as a search for buried treasure--\n[Laughter]\n--in... in which the... the lawyer and the person who has been wronged are... are simply co-prospectors.\nI... I just think that that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1787.931, 1794.534, 1800.684, 1801.222, 1807.25], "stop_times": [1794.534, 1800.684, 1801.222, 1807.25, 1809.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1787.931}, "reply_to": "21589__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__1_018", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1809.479], "stop_times": [1810.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1809.479}, "reply_to": "21589__1_017", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_019", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Maybe that's how you view the... the enterprise--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1810.305], "stop_times": [1812.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1810.305}, "reply_to": "21589__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__1_020", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I would like to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1812.989], "stop_times": [1813.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1812.989}, "reply_to": "21589__1_019", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_021", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--but I don't think the law does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1813.982], "stop_times": [1814.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1813.982}, "reply_to": "21589__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__1_022", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I would like to suggest to the Court three avenues to reach this result that I have just suggested and the partnership/joint venture theory is only one of those.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1814.604], "stop_times": [1822.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1814.604}, "reply_to": "21589__1_021", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_023", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, let's move on to something else because I have a couple--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1822.117, 1825.211], "stop_times": [1825.211, 1825.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1822.117}, "reply_to": "21589__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__1_024", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Okay.\nI will move on to that, and I will not mention that again.\n[Laughter]\nThis Court created the assignment of income doctrine.\nCongress did not create it.\nThis Court has every right and power to limit its... its definition, to limit its scope to keep it from being misapplied.\nIn every case cited by the petitioner, we have a... a family situation, related people making gifts to each other with no commercial purpose.\nApart from the partnership and joint venture theory, if we simply say that this case is dramatically outside of the scope of that doctrine, of good doctrine that has been applied properly in an inter-family situation, but when you have two unrelated persons joining forces to produce income--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1825.665, 1826.78, 1830.373, 1830.578, 1834.831, 1836.689, 1844.828, 1854.893], "stop_times": [1826.78, 1830.373, 1830.578, 1834.831, 1836.689, 1844.828, 1854.893, 1874.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1825.665}, "reply_to": "21589__1_023", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_025", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Would you have a different result if they were related?\nSupposing the lawyer is a cousin of the client.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1874.584, 1875.205], "stop_times": [1875.205, 1877.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1874.584}, "reply_to": "21589__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21589__1_026", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--This Court has a long history of recognizing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1877.267], "stop_times": [1880.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1877.267}, "reply_to": "21589__1_025", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_027", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Or a good friend.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1880.118], "stop_times": [1880.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1880.118}, "reply_to": "21589__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21589__1_028", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--of recognizing sham transactions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1880.555], "stop_times": [1883.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1880.555}, "reply_to": "21589__1_027", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_029", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, it's not a sham transaction.\nYou just happen to be related.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1883.09, 1884.509], "stop_times": [1884.509, 1885.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1883.09}, "reply_to": "21589__1_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21589__1_030", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1885.69], "stop_times": [1886.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1885.69}, "reply_to": "21589__1_029", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_031", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "And I'm just wondering if that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1886.266], "stop_times": [1887.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1886.266}, "reply_to": "21589__1_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21589__1_032", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I would like to focus on the gratuitous nature of the cases relied upon by the petitioner and the non-gratuitous aspects of our case.\nLet's talk about a person injury case where this problem does not arise because there's no tax involved.\nThis relationship of a contingent fee is entered into thousands of times every week by people injured in automobile accidents.\nThey are not entering into this contingent fee agreement for tax purposes.\nThey're not trying to avoid tax... taxes.\nThe commissioner is confusing intent with--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1887.381, 1895.183, 1899.641, 1906.883, 1909.961, 1912.373], "stop_times": [1895.183, 1899.641, 1906.883, 1909.961, 1912.373, 1914.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1887.381}, "reply_to": "21589__1_031", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_033", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "All right.\nOn... on that theory, that there is a non-tax economic purpose, do you still maintain that your theory should have as an element unrelated people?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1914.602, 1914.902], "stop_times": [1914.902, 1923.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1914.602}, "reply_to": "21589__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21589__1_034", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1923.973], "stop_times": [1925.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1923.973}, "reply_to": "21589__1_033", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_035", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Why do we need the question of the relationship, which Justice Stevens's questions raised, even to arise if... if the principal criterion is going to be economic non-tax purpose?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1925.748], "stop_times": [1934.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1925.748}, "reply_to": "21589__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21589__1_036", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I agree completely.\nI was trying to emphasize the... the intrafamily gratuitous nature of those cases, but I agree--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1934.914, 1935.862], "stop_times": [1935.862, 1940.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1934.914}, "reply_to": "21589__1_035", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_037", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "There was no avoidance motive in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1940.403], "stop_times": [1942.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.403}, "reply_to": "21589__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__1_038", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1942.632], "stop_times": [1942.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1942.632}, "reply_to": "21589__1_037", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_039", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--granddaddy of all cases.\nThe assignment there, although it was between family members, had been made before there was an income tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1942.848, 1944.301], "stop_times": [1944.301, 1951.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1942.848}, "reply_to": "21589__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__1_040", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "But we must--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1951.51], "stop_times": [1951.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1951.51}, "reply_to": "21589__1_039", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_041", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "The income tax didn't exist.\nThere... there couldn't conceivably have been an avoidance motive.\nSo... so our holding could hardly be based upon... upon the existence of an avoidance motive.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1951.882, 1953.079, 1955.763], "stop_times": [1953.079, 1955.763, 1961.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1951.882}, "reply_to": "21589__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__1_042", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I'm asking the Court to skip over motive and look at result.\nThe Court in that case was attacking a result because that arrangement stayed in place after the income tax was... was enacted.\nThe Solicitor General is confusing intent with result.\nIn every case, in every single case, without exception, this doctrine has been applied to the result.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1961.13, 1964.186, 1971.161, 1974.876], "stop_times": [1964.186, 1971.161, 1974.876, 1981.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1961.13}, "reply_to": "21589__1_041", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_043", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Yes, but what if you had the same result but... in terms of the sharing of the expense and the recovery, but it was computed on an hourly basis rather than a percentage basis?\nWould that produce a different result?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1981.398, 1990.564], "stop_times": [1990.564, 1993.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.398}, "reply_to": "21589__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21589__1_044", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "It would produce a different result.\nThe commissioner's case is based on could have.\nThey say they could have tried the case himself.\nHe couldn't.\nBut... but the main thing he--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [1993.098, 1994.484, 1997.456, 1999.397, 2000.224], "stop_times": [1994.484, 1997.456, 1999.397, 2000.224, 2001.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1993.098}, "reply_to": "21589__1_043", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_045", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "No, but he could have made... I'm saying he could have said to the lawyer, I'll pay you 30... a... a third of the recovery or I'll pay you $100 an hour.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2001.422], "stop_times": [2008.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2001.422}, "reply_to": "21589__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21589__1_046", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Well, he--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2008.935], "stop_times": [2009.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2008.935}, "reply_to": "21589__1_045", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_047", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "And they come out exactly the same result, but you... but do you treat them differently or the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2009.39], "stop_times": [2013.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2009.39}, "reply_to": "21589__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21589__1_048", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--We treat them differently simply because he didn't.\nI practice law in a partnership.\nI'm taxed accordingly.\nI could... I could be... set up my arrangement different ways and the tax results would be different.\nWe must honor these relationships--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2013.765, 2017.441, 2019.049, 2020.164, 2024.705], "stop_times": [2017.441, 2019.049, 2020.164, 2024.705, 2026.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2013.765}, "reply_to": "21589__1_047", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_049", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "What is different?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2026.191], "stop_times": [2026.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2026.191}, "reply_to": "21589__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__1_050", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, may I ask one--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2026.729], "stop_times": [2027.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2026.729}, "reply_to": "21589__1_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21589__1_051", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "What is different?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2027.638], "stop_times": [2027.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.638}, "reply_to": "21589__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__1_052", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--May I ask one other hypothetical?\nSupposing that the agreement on the contingency is postponed until the middle of the preparation, not made at the outset, but along the line, they say we'll figure out what a fair percentage will be, and when the recovery comes in, they then decide, okay, you take a third.\nWhat... what result do you do in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2027.838, 2029.33, 2042.499], "stop_times": [2029.33, 2042.499, 2045.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.838}, "reply_to": "21589__1_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21589__1_053", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I... I have difficulty with that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2045.099], "stop_times": [2047.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2045.099}, "reply_to": "21589__1_052", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_054", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "But I'm sure it arises fairly often.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2047.413], "stop_times": [2050.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2047.413}, "reply_to": "21589__1_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21589__1_055", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "My... I believe that attorneys don't allow themselves to be placed in that position.\nThey get the contingent fee agreement signed when the... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2050.672, 2056.079], "stop_times": [2056.079, 2058.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2050.672}, "reply_to": "21589__1_054", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_056", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, I did very often.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2058.203], "stop_times": [2058.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.203}, "reply_to": "21589__1_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21589__1_057", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--But I don't know the answer to your question.\nI... I don't know that.\nBut an... we... the Internal Revenue Code respects people who enter into corporations, who enter into joint ventures, who enter into sole proprietorships, who hire employees or allow themselves to be hired by others.\nThose relationships are all respected and honored by the Internal Revenue Code, and the commissioner is asking you to dishonor this relationship because Mr. Banaitis could have handled the case himself or could--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2058.679, 2060.786, 2062.023, 2073.335], "stop_times": [2060.786, 2062.023, 2073.335, 2083.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2058.679}, "reply_to": "21589__1_056", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_058", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I think probably what's... what's one of the problems here is that the reason this is income is it relates to employment.\nAnd I don't see why hiring the attorney to get that income is not an ordinary and necessary business expense under what used to be section 162.\nThat may be part of the problem.\nDo you agree that it's not an ordinary and necessary business expense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2083.943, 2090.525, 2098.97, 2101.199], "stop_times": [2090.525, 2098.97, 2101.199, 2104.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2083.943}, "reply_to": "21589__1_057", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__1_059", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I believe the problem is that a plaintiff has... I wish I could say this plaintiff is in... engaged in a trade or business and can deduct it or trade or... as a trade or business expense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2104.088], "stop_times": [2112.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2104.088}, "reply_to": "21589__1_058", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_060", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I mean, I suppose that's the reason... that's the reason why it's taxable to begin with, is it relates to employment.\nIf I hire an attorney because I'm wrongfully discharged and I get... I get my job back, it seems to me that's an ordinary and necessary business expense.\nThat... that's why... one of the reasons I have problems with this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2112.966, 2117.546, 2127.455], "stop_times": [2117.546, 2127.455, 2130.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2112.966}, "reply_to": "21589__1_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__1_061", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I understand.\nBut one of the... the odd result here of a person having to pay more in taxes than they recover... this actually comes up under a fee shifting statute that applies to the Internal Revenue Service where a person could be in litigation with the Internal Revenue Service, the Internal Revenue Service becomes obligated to pay fees because they acted unreasonably.\nThey pay those fees, and then they simultaneously hand the taxpayer a bill for taxes on those fees.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2130.017, 2130.222, 2149.375], "stop_times": [2130.222, 2149.375, 2155.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2130.017}, "reply_to": "21589__1_060", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_062", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, let me get... get to a different point.\nIt... it does seem to me that we... we have to be very careful in this case not to distort the revenue law for other transactions that are not before the Court.\nAnd the... the natural extension of... of your position is that anytime when the taxpayer enters into an agreement with an agent to pay the agents an amount contingent on the success of the venture, that it's not income, that... that the... that the payment is not income to the principal.\nAnd I just can't accept it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2155.28, 2157.26, 2166.715, 2191.085], "stop_times": [2157.26, 2166.715, 2191.085, 2192.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2155.28}, "reply_to": "21589__1_061", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__1_063", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "No.\nThat is not my position.\nMy position is that the assignment of income doctrine does not apply.\nThose relationships are all governed by existing law and there is a large body of law dealing with those cases and they can be found in a cite that is offered by the petitioner at page 3 of his reply brief.\nIt talks about the literary agents.\nIt talks about the... the management agents.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2192.099, 2192.554, 2193.585, 2197.634, 2209.355, 2211.418], "stop_times": [2192.554, 2193.585, 2197.634, 2209.355, 2211.418, 2213.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2192.099}, "reply_to": "21589__1_062", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_064", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "But what's the difference in principle.\nI don't understand the difference in principle when we're talking about who has the income.\nIt's the first thing you ask in... in a first-year... in... in your... in your first class in tax.\nWhere is the income?\nWho gets the income?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2213.154, 2214.473, 2218.848, 2224.671, 2225.33], "stop_times": [2214.473, 2218.848, 2224.671, 2225.33, 2226.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.154}, "reply_to": "21589__1_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__1_065", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I... I am not trying to avoid your question, but I'm trying to clarify that I am not asking this Court to determine who has the income in those cases because there is a large body of law and a large body of statutory law that answers the questions for each of those examples.\nAll I'm suggesting is that we do not get to those answers.\nWe should not get to those answers through the assignment of income doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2226.279, 2239.615, 2242.466], "stop_times": [2239.615, 2242.466, 2245.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2226.279}, "reply_to": "21589__1_064", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_066", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "What's your third?\nI just don't want you to miss your third.\nYou have the joint venture theory, an exception to an assignment in income, and you said you had a third.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2245.809, 2246.552, 2248.531], "stop_times": [2246.552, 2248.531, 2252.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.809}, "reply_to": "21589__1_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__1_067", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "The Oregon question, Your Honor, which I don't think the Court is likely interested in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2252.784], "stop_times": [2257.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2252.784}, "reply_to": "21589__1_066", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_068", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "The who?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2257.242], "stop_times": [2258.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.242}, "reply_to": "21589__1_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__1_069", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--The... the Oregon question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2258.523], "stop_times": [2259.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2258.523}, "reply_to": "21589__1_068", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_070", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "The Oregon question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2259.266], "stop_times": [2260.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2259.266}, "reply_to": "21589__1_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__1_071", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "The Oregon question.\nThat is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2260.547, 2261.04], "stop_times": [2261.04, 2261.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2260.547}, "reply_to": "21589__1_070", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_072", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "What is the Oregon question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2261.29], "stop_times": [2262.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2261.29}, "reply_to": "21589__1_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__1_073", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--The Oregon question is part IV of our brief beginning on page 31 which would not be a national uniform rule.\nBut what we're asking this Court to do is simply, as narrowly as possible, to limit the assignment of income doctrine and do nothing more than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2262.155, 2268.636], "stop_times": [2268.636, 2277.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2262.155}, "reply_to": "21589__1_072", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_074", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, what do you make of Professor Davenport's proposal to capitalize the contingency fee as a transaction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2277.181], "stop_times": [2283.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2277.181}, "reply_to": "21589__1_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21589__1_075", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I believe Professor Davenport is completely correct.\nI support his theory wholeheartedly.\nWe didn't make that argument because we believe the limitation on the assignment of income doctrine is the real issue and we believe that is the narrower issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2283.953, 2287.872, 2289.813], "stop_times": [2287.872, 2289.813, 2297.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2283.953}, "reply_to": "21589__1_074", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_076", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, if you took a settlement... his theory, I take it, was seeing the lawsuit as a capital asset.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2297.699, 2301.702], "stop_times": [2301.702, 2303.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2297.699}, "reply_to": "21589__1_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__1_077", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Yes.\nWell, I... I think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2303.393, 2303.848], "stop_times": [2303.848, 2304.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2303.393}, "reply_to": "21589__1_076", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_078", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, then whenever you settled a lawsuit, it would be... you'd have to pay capital gains instead of ordinary income.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2304.941], "stop_times": [2308.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2304.941}, "reply_to": "21589__1_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__1_079", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I... I'm sorry.\nI think I misspoke.\nI'm not sure that's his theory.\nI'm not certain, and I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2308.928, 2309.504, 2310.414, 2312.643], "stop_times": [2309.504, 2310.414, 2312.643, 2313.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2308.928}, "reply_to": "21589__1_078", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_080", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I'm sure it's not his theory.\nHe... he thinks it's... it's attached to transactions, and... and much of his argument is devoted to showing that capital transactions are no different from other transactions as far as the Internal Revenue Code's desire to match the... the gain with the expenses concerned.\nAnd that's the part of his theory that I'm not so sure about because aside from the... aside from the condemnation case that I mentioned, I... I don't know of any other cases in which the Internal Revenue Service has treated transaction costs the way he would have it done.\nMaybe it makes sense, but I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2313.469, 2315.122, 2334.729, 2356.482], "stop_times": [2315.122, 2334.729, 2356.482, 2357.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2313.469}, "reply_to": "21589__1_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__1_081", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I would like to make one additional point in the few seconds I have left.\nThe... the Solicitor General is arguing that the language, the statutory language, of the new statute implies a particular result.\nThis Court decided as early as 1940 in the Higgins v. Smith case when the commissioner made the exact same argument, and this Court said... and I quote... that does not follow.\nThe statutory language says that to the extent this income is... this... this money is included in income, to the extent it is included in income... it doesn't say whether it is or not... then a deduction will be allowed.\nAnd that as neutral a statement as I can think of.\nThere is nothing in the statutory language that implies one answer or the other.\nBut I emphasize to the Court that the... the commissioner is confusing intent with result when he discusses the cases upon which he is relying.\nThose cases reached a result and they corrected that result.\nWe don't have an abuse in this situation.\nAnd the assignment of income doctrine should not be stretched beyond its bounds by this Court.\nIt should be limited to its historical use.\nThis is a misuse.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2357.847, 2360.94, 2369.28, 2379.644, 2390.168, 2392.936, 2398.137, 2407.425, 2410.973, 2412.748, 2418.032, 2420.428, 2421.747], "stop_times": [2360.94, 2369.28, 2379.644, 2390.168, 2392.936, 2398.137, 2407.425, 2410.973, 2412.748, 2418.032, 2420.428, 2421.747, 2423.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2357.847}, "reply_to": "21589__1_080", "speaker": "philip_n_jones"}
{"id": "21589__1_082", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Jones.\nMr. Carty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2423.129, 2424.636], "stop_times": [2424.636, 2428.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2423.129}, "reply_to": "21589__1_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21589__2_000", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens.\nNeither section 61(a) nor any other provision of the Internal Revenue Code expressly requires that a Federal civil rights litigant, such as Mr. Banks, include in his gross income the portion of a litigation recovery that was earned by, retained by, and already taxed to his attorney as a contingent fee.\nThe commissioner's position in this case relies exclusively on the misapplication of a judicial doctrine known as the assignment of income doctrine.\nThat doctrine originated and developed as a judicial anti-abuse rule, designed to prevent high-bracket taxpayers--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2428.806, 2430.831, 2449.9, 2459.559], "stop_times": [2430.831, 2449.9, 2459.559, 2467.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2428.806}, "reply_to": "21589__1_082", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_001", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "No, it didn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2467.899], "stop_times": [2468.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2467.899}, "reply_to": "21589__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__2_002", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I respectfully--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2468.476], "stop_times": [2470.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2468.476}, "reply_to": "21589__2_001", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_003", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "It... it originated in a case where there could not possibly have been an... an intent to abuse because the... the transfer had occurred before there was any income tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2470.871], "stop_times": [2480.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.871}, "reply_to": "21589__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__2_004", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2480.736], "stop_times": [2481.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2480.736}, "reply_to": "21589__2_003", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_005", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I mean, just... just don't... maybe you think that that's what it ought to be, but... but please don't tell us that that is how it originated.\nIt plainly did not originate that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2481.562, 2488.788], "stop_times": [2488.788, 2490.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2481.562}, "reply_to": "21589__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__2_006", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I respectfully disagree.\nIt is true, as the commissioner and you point out, that at the time of the agreement between the husband and wife, the income tax was not in existence.\nHowever, the agreement certainly was in existence after the income tax was passed.\nSo that could have been a reason why the agreement was never rescinded.\nIn addition, in another landmark case from 1937, Blair, this Court expressly looked to whether there was a tax avoidance motive.\nAnd this is how this principle is taught in first-year tax class.\nThat's the whole purpose behind this.\nAs a matter of fact, the commissioner in a... in a different context actually looked to the fact, with respect to a particular transaction, whether there was as tax avoidance purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2490.85, 2493.905, 2504.225, 2509.222, 2513.596, 2522.346, 2528.828, 2530.398], "stop_times": [2493.905, 2504.225, 2509.222, 2513.596, 2522.346, 2528.828, 2530.398, 2543.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2490.85}, "reply_to": "21589__2_005", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_007", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "That's a different argument.\nI'm... I'm just quarreling over whether it originated that way.\nIf you want to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2543.773, 2544.449, 2548.064], "stop_times": [2544.449, 2548.064, 2548.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2543.773}, "reply_to": "21589__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__2_008", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Under... under your view--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2548.89], "stop_times": [2549.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2548.89}, "reply_to": "21589__2_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__2_009", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--that's fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2549.55], "stop_times": [2550.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2549.55}, "reply_to": "21589__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__2_010", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--suppose that the attorney is... is waiting for payment of... of his, say, one-third contingency, and the client just absconds with the money.\nHow is... what... what happens from a tax standpoint under your theory?\nI take it the attorney has to declare the income on his return and then declare a loss?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2550.459, 2561.522, 2566.268], "stop_times": [2561.522, 2566.268, 2571.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2550.459}, "reply_to": "21589__2_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__2_011", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, certainly the attorney has a legal right to those funds.\nHe has a contractual right and under most--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2571.803, 2578.529], "stop_times": [2578.529, 2580.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2571.803}, "reply_to": "21589__2_010", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_012", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I'm asking you about the tax consequences.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2580.552], "stop_times": [2582.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2580.552}, "reply_to": "21589__2_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__2_013", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Well, at... at that point the income wouldn't have inured to the benefit of the attorney.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2582.965], "stop_times": [2589.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2582.965}, "reply_to": "21589__2_012", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_014", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, but I... I thought under your view the moment the client gets the check for the full amount, one-third of it is taxable to the attorney.\nAnd I have some problems, incidentally, with respect to tax years if it... if you... if the client receives the check December 30 and is on vacation and doesn't get around to remitting to the attorney until January 5th, I'm... I'm not quite sure how your theory works, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2589.94, 2599.062], "stop_times": [2599.062, 2615.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.94}, "reply_to": "21589__2_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__2_015", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Justice Kennedy, I... I think the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2615.846], "stop_times": [2618.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2615.846}, "reply_to": "21589__2_014", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_016", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--But on the absconding theory, how... how is it handled from a tax standpoint?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2618.653], "stop_times": [2622.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2618.653}, "reply_to": "21589__2_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__2_017", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I believe that for tax purposes the attorney's right to the funds... that's at the moment he receives it.\nSo if he doesn't have the funds in hand, he wouldn't be liable for Federal tax.\nIt would be at the point he either receives the funds--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2622.451, 2631.45, 2639.086], "stop_times": [2631.45, 2639.086, 2641.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2622.451}, "reply_to": "21589__2_016", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_018", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Aren't... aren't you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2641.398], "stop_times": [2641.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2641.398}, "reply_to": "21589__2_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21589__2_019", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "This is an academic question because he would have an offsetting theft loss.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2641.648], "stop_times": [2644.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2641.648}, "reply_to": "21589__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__2_020", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I... I think that is an alternative way to... to view it.\nThere would be a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2644.908, 2650.314], "stop_times": [2650.314, 2650.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2644.908}, "reply_to": "21589__2_019", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_021", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--If... if you view it as the theft loss, you... you maintain your theory.\nIf you argue, as you were arguing a second ago, I think what, in fact, you're doing is adopting the mere lien theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2650.769, 2654.029], "stop_times": [2654.029, 2660.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2650.769}, "reply_to": "21589__2_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21589__2_022", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Justice Souter, I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2660.223], "stop_times": [2665.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2660.223}, "reply_to": "21589__2_021", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_023", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I think you better go with Justice Ginsburg.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2665.258, 2666.927], "stop_times": [2666.927, 2667.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2665.258}, "reply_to": "21589__2_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21589__2_024", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Like somebody stealing a check out of my mailbox from my employer.\nRight?\nOkay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2667.365, 2672.688, 2673.06], "stop_times": [2672.688, 2673.06, 2673.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2667.365}, "reply_to": "21589__2_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__2_025", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2673.31], "stop_times": [2673.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2673.31}, "reply_to": "21589__2_024", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_026", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "So what is your theory, I mean, precisely?\nA, an assignment of income, what would otherwise count of A giving an assignment of income to B, and therefore still be A's income because the asset remains with A, the work, or whatever.\nNow, your theory is but not in the case that.\nNow fill in the blank for me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2673.582, 2676.57, 2691.53, 2695.534], "stop_times": [2676.57, 2691.53, 2695.534, 2697.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.582}, "reply_to": "21589__2_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__2_027", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2697.087], "stop_times": [2698.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2697.087}, "reply_to": "21589__2_026", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_028", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Precisely, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2698.406], "stop_times": [2699.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2698.406}, "reply_to": "21589__2_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__2_029", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--It would not be in the case that the funds are not under the control of the attorney.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2699.521], "stop_times": [2707.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2699.521}, "reply_to": "21589__2_028", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_030", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Not in the case... it is an assignment of income to B, but not in the case where the funds are not in... when B... when B get... when B, the attorney, gets the funds, he controls them.\nWhat's... what do you mean?\nI don't get it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2707.201, 2720.63, 2722.638], "stop_times": [2720.63, 2722.638, 2723.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2707.201}, "reply_to": "21589__2_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__2_031", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I thought your hypothetical--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2723.215], "stop_times": [2725.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2723.215}, "reply_to": "21589__2_030", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_032", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I want to know.\nYou have three... your problem on your side for me is that maybe all the equities are there, but I'd like to know the proposition of law that you want us to write in this opinion.\nAnd now we had three theories, and one, the one that you seem to be adopting, is this exception to the assignment of income doctrine.\nIf that is what you're adopting, I'd like to know the precise form of words that create the exception.\nIf that's not the theory you're adopting, I would like to know what the theory you're adopting is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2725.239, 2726.559, 2738.076, 2746.887, 2754.673], "stop_times": [2726.559, 2738.076, 2746.887, 2754.673, 2760.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2725.239}, "reply_to": "21589__2_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__2_033", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--I would state, Your Honor, that the assignment of income doctrine simply does not apply when the... the client has no control or power of disposition over the income that was subject to the assignment.\nThere are at least five reasons why this type of contract--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2760.162, 2773.992], "stop_times": [2773.992, 2778.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2760.162}, "reply_to": "21589__2_032", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_034", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "He did have control.\nHe could have settled the lawsuit or not settled the lawsuit.\nHe controlled when the income was generated, and moreover, he could have stopped it from being generated by settling the suit or dismissing it.\nMoreover, if he had not entered into this assignment of income, it would have been paid right into his bank account at the end.\nIt sounds an awful lot like the Lucases or like the Horsts or whoever, Old Colony Trust.\nIt sounds an awful lot like those cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2778.737, 2780.308, 2784.144, 2793.311, 2800.37, 2808.831], "stop_times": [2780.308, 2784.144, 2793.311, 2800.37, 2808.831, 2811.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2778.737}, "reply_to": "21589__2_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__2_035", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Justice Breyer, I... I think it's helpful to make a conceptual distinction between the claim, the underlying litigation claim, and the right to receive the funds.\nNow, certainly Mr. Banks in this case had a right to enter into settlement or not.\nHe had a right to fire his attorney.\nBut once he assigned the contingent fee portion of the recovery, he, as a practical matter, had no ability, he had no control over that portion of the recovery.\nAnother fundamental difference between--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2811.348, 2820.925, 2827.49, 2829.553, 2840.122], "stop_times": [2820.925, 2827.49, 2829.553, 2840.122, 2842.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2811.348}, "reply_to": "21589__2_034", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_036", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "That... that would be the same with the theater agent or the commission agent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2842.23], "stop_times": [2846.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2842.23}, "reply_to": "21589__2_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__2_037", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--We submit, Justice Kennedy, that the nature of the attorney-client relationship is fundamentally different from the types of relationships you cited, and that's because an attorney here is the one who's earning the income.\nIt's the attorney who is making the critical decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2846.809, 2863.035], "stop_times": [2863.035, 2865.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2846.809}, "reply_to": "21589__2_036", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_038", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, you could say the same thing for the talent scout.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2865.551], "stop_times": [2867.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2865.551}, "reply_to": "21589__2_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__2_039", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I would respectfully disagree.\nI... I think there's a... there's a fundamental difference.\nPresumably a... a actor or an entertainer... their... their market value is... already has some type of tangible value.\nThe... the agent might--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2867.326, 2869.434, 2871.951, 2882.658], "stop_times": [2869.434, 2871.951, 2882.658, 2883.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2867.326}, "reply_to": "21589__2_038", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_040", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Your client, in effect, earned the money by having this... undergo this... this discrimination.\nThat... that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2883.468, 2889.496], "stop_times": [2889.496, 2890.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2883.468}, "reply_to": "21589__2_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__2_041", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2890.134], "stop_times": [2891.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2890.134}, "reply_to": "21589__2_040", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_042", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--This is not the plumber hypothetical, which is I think quite misleading.\nNo.\nNo, I don't think that even the Government will defend that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2891.725, 2895.812, 2896.266], "stop_times": [2895.812, 2896.266, 2898.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2891.725}, "reply_to": "21589__2_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21589__2_043", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Again, Your Honor, I think with respect to an entertainer, an entertainer necessarily doesn't need an agent.\nNeither does an athlete.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2898.291, 2906.109], "stop_times": [2906.109, 2906.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2898.291}, "reply_to": "21589__2_042", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_044", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Take an investment advisor and the client is not at all... doesn't know anything about the market, and he's got this whiz-bang advisor who makes millions for him that he never could have made on his own.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2906.919], "stop_times": [2925.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2906.919}, "reply_to": "21589__2_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__2_045", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I... I think that might be more similar to the attorney-client relationship.\nBut Mr. Banks, unlike the athlete or unlike the entertainer, had no... no ability to... to recover these funds himself.\nHe essentially had two options.\nHe could have either done nothing and collected nothing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2925.699, 2933.873, 2943.078, 2944.647], "stop_times": [2933.873, 2943.078, 2944.647, 2946.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2925.699}, "reply_to": "21589__2_044", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_046", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Your... your... you want to fill in the blank, in other words, and say where the assignment of income is such, such that B was in effect the person who really earned the income, unlike Mrs. Lucas'... Mr. Lucas' or maybe Mr. Earl... I don't know--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2946.604], "stop_times": [2963.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2946.604}, "reply_to": "21589__2_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__2_047", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2963.594], "stop_times": [2964.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2963.594}, "reply_to": "21589__2_046", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_048", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--husband... the wife didn't earn the income.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2964.543], "stop_times": [2967.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.543}, "reply_to": "21589__2_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__2_049", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2967.615], "stop_times": [2967.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2967.615}, "reply_to": "21589__2_048", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_050", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "The husband did.\nSo you want to say where the... and then your answer, I guess... don't say I'm right if I'm not right, please, because I'll just find out later.\n[Laughter]\nThe... the answer to the hypothetical about the agent and so forth is, well, so be it.\nIf a person wants to go to the trouble of carving out some of his income and assigning that over to the agent, let him.\nExcept for perhaps provisions of the code which we cannot now envisage... I can't because I'm not an expert... it doesn't matter since, after all, it would be deductible anyway.\nIs that... is that what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [2967.781, 2968.441, 2974.674, 2975.045, 2981.899, 2991.847, 3003.364], "stop_times": [2968.441, 2974.674, 2975.045, 2981.899, 2991.847, 3003.364, 3006.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2967.781}, "reply_to": "21589__2_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__2_051", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3006.253], "stop_times": [3008.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3006.253}, "reply_to": "21589__2_050", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_052", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Tell me if I'm wrong, please, on this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3008.361], "stop_times": [3011.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3008.361}, "reply_to": "21589__2_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__2_053", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--Again, I... what we're saying is the unique situation of an attorney and a client, it is the attorney who's taking the laboring, or unlike the entertainer example where the... where... or the athlete example--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3011.083], "stop_times": [3024.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3011.083}, "reply_to": "21589__2_052", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_054", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Okay, I see. You say double.\nBoth the income is earned by the attorney, and at that stage the client does virtually nothing.\nSo it's the reverse of the Earls or the Lucases where the husband was doing the work and the wife is getting the income.\nIt would be as if the wife was doing all the work and the husband just sat there and clipped coupons or whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3024.086, 3024.912, 3031.478, 3037.998], "stop_times": [3024.912, 3031.478, 3037.998, 3044.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3024.086}, "reply_to": "21589__2_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__2_055", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, and in Lucas v. Earl, it was the assignor who earned the income that was subject to disposition.\nHere--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3044.314, 3050.342], "stop_times": [3050.342, 3050.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3044.314}, "reply_to": "21589__2_054", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_056", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "I'm not so sure about that because why doesn't the theory that... that applies to the lawyer equally apply to the wife?\nI mean, she took care of everything going on at home, and that enabled him to go out there and make all that money.\nSo without her services, just like without the lawyer's services--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3050.851, 3060.002, 3067.144], "stop_times": [3060.002, 3067.144, 3071.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3050.851}, "reply_to": "21589__2_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__2_057", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--That is an excellent point, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3071.535], "stop_times": [3073.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3071.535}, "reply_to": "21589__2_056", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_058", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "You should agree with that.\nYou should--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3073.393, 3074.491, 3074.863], "stop_times": [3074.491, 3074.863, 3075.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3073.393}, "reply_to": "21589__2_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21589__2_059", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Those were less enlightened times.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3075.356], "stop_times": [3078.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3075.356}, "reply_to": "21589__2_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21589__2_060", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Nevertheless... nevertheless, I... I think there may be some... some difference in degree that you might even recognize between the two cases.\nAnother issue I'd like to address is the impact of the fee shifting statutes, if I could get to that quickly.\nIt is a bedrock principle of taxation that settlements of a claim are taxed the same as a judgment would have been taxed.\nMr. Banks' settlement was achieved in lieu of his claims under title VII and 42 U.S.C., sections 1981 and 1983.\nNow, each of these statutes contains a fee shifting provision which enables a court to award attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff.\nThe defendant in Mr. Banks' case, the California Department of Education... they therefore settled Mr. Banks' claim in lieu of their exposure under these fee shifting statutes.\nAn award pursuant to these fee shifting statutes is separate and distinct from a damages recovery and therefore should not be taxable to a plaintiff.\nAnd the Federal tax consequences to Mr. Banks, the litigant who settles, shouldn't be any different as well.\nOtherwise, this Court would be discouraging settlement.\nTherefore, a judicial anti-abuse rule should not be misused to undermine the statutory scheme devised by Congress to encourage civil rights litigants to bring meritorious claims and vindicate national policy.\nUnless the Court has any further questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3078.95, 3087.245, 3093.932, 3100.885, 3108.671, 3114.449, 3123.819, 3132.077, 3137.771, 3140.0, 3152.882], "stop_times": [3087.245, 3093.932, 3100.885, 3108.671, 3114.449, 3123.819, 3132.077, 3137.771, 3140.0, 3152.882, 3156.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3078.95}, "reply_to": "21589__2_059", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_061", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "--The Government says on that branch of it, well, the fees... the lodestar fee, that's one thing.\nA court awards it, but that's quite different from the one-third/one-half even contingent fee.\nThe court has control over the fee shifting, but we're not dealing with any court award here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3156.969, 3164.332, 3172.489], "stop_times": [3164.332, 3172.489, 3178.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3156.969}, "reply_to": "21589__2_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21589__2_062", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "That's correct, Justice Ginsburg.\nMr. Banks settled his claims.\nYet, we are pressing the point that Mr. Banks shouldn't be treated any differently for tax purposes than a litigant who recovers pursuant to a fee shifting statute.\nOtherwise, the Court would be discouraging settlement.\nIf there's any other questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3178.061, 3180.124, 3181.61, 3190.693, 3193.749], "stop_times": [3180.124, 3181.61, 3190.693, 3193.749, 3197.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3178.061}, "reply_to": "21589__2_061", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_063", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Carty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3197.48], "stop_times": [3199.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3197.48}, "reply_to": "21589__2_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21589__2_064", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3199.875], "stop_times": [3200.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3199.875}, "reply_to": "21589__2_063", "speaker": "james_r_carty"}
{"id": "21589__2_065", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Mr. Salmons, you have a little over 2 minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3200.081], "stop_times": [3203.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3200.081}, "reply_to": "21589__2_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21589__3_000", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nIt is clear that the only thing that respondents' attorneys earned under the fee agreements was the right to be paid a fee for their services.\nIn petitioner's view, those agreements don't even give rise to an assignment of income in the ordinary sense.\nIf you look at the text of the fee agreement in the Banaitis case... the Banks' fee agreement is not in the record... among other things, it makes clear that if there is a termination... and it provides lots of grounds on which the attorney-client relationship can be terminated... that the attorney will be paid a reasonable fee, calculated at the sum of $175 per hour.\nThat doesn't sound like an assignment of any income or even an assignment of the underlying cause of action.\nEven if it did, it is clear that in every assignment of income case, the assignor loses control over that income that he assigned.\nThat doesn't stop the application of the proper tax principles, however.\nThe... the respondents in these cases suffered a legally cognizable injury.\nThey had a claim.\nThat claim entitled them to a recovery.\nThey retained services to pursued that claim.\nIf they had paid their lawyers on an hourly basis, those lawyers may have been just as necessary to the actual outcome of the case as their contingent fee attorneys.\nBoth the... an hourly fee attorney and a contingent fee attorney in both of the States at issue here... and in fact, in all States of which I'm aware... received precisely the same attorney's lien.\nThat lien makes clear that the relationship between attorney and client starts out as that between a master and an agent and then is converted through the fee agreement to that between a creditor and a debtor, and the lien secures the debt and ensures its payment.\nWhen the proceeds from the litigation are paid to the attorney, it satisfies the respondent's debt and is therefore income to the attorney.\nUnder the separate and alternative ground of this Court's Old Colony decision, it goes far and beyond even the holding with regard to an assignment of income.\nTo address just a couple of questions that came up, I would point out that in the class action context, again, as I indicated, there are a number of differences.\nAnd just to be a little more specific about some of them, generally speaking there's no unilateral right to settle a... a case by class members.\nThere's no unilateral right to dismiss the case, and there's no right to a determined fee.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3203.962, 3204.889, 3214.364, 3220.597, 3243.548, 3250.236, 3258.492, 3262.457, 3268.523, 3269.638, 3272.2, 3274.8, 3283.634, 3293.498, 3309.102, 3317.935, 3327.595, 3336.14, 3342.993], "stop_times": [3204.889, 3214.364, 3220.597, 3243.548, 3250.236, 3258.492, 3262.457, 3268.523, 3269.638, 3272.2, 3274.8, 3283.634, 3293.498, 3309.102, 3317.935, 3327.595, 3336.14, 3342.993, 3348.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3203.962}, "reply_to": "21589__2_065", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__3_001", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Salmons.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3348.111], "stop_times": [3349.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3348.111}, "reply_to": "21589__3_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21589__3_002", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3349.204], "stop_times": [3349.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3349.204}, "reply_to": "21589__3_001", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21589__3_003", "conversation_id": "21589", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-892", "start_times": [3349.426], "stop_times": [3350.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3349.426}, "reply_to": "21589__3_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22168__0_000", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "We'll hear argument next in No. 02-1192, Cooper Industries v. Aviall Services.\nMr. Reynolds.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [0.0, 7.885], "stop_times": [7.885, 65.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22168__0_001", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nMay it please the Court:\nThis is a case involving the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, which was enacted in 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, which was amended in 1986 and is known as SARA.\nBoth the petitioner, Cooper Industries, and the respondent, Aviall Services, are potential responsible parties as that term is used in the statute.\nThey are prior owners of property sites in Texas, and there was hazardous waste that was deposited on those sites prior to and during their ownership of the property based on the aircraft maintenance operations that went on at the site.\nAviall Services proceeded to engage in cleanup activities on its own and undertook to do cleanup work on the property.\nIt then sued the petitioner, Cooper Industries, for a recovery of those... of costs of cleanup, a contribution action both under 113(f)(1) of the Federal statute and also under State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [65.099, 70.672, 71.681, 92.47, 104.935, 124.337, 134.823], "stop_times": [70.672, 71.681, 92.47, 104.935, 124.337, 134.823, 154.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 65.099}, "reply_to": "22168__0_000", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_002", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "It's... it's Aviall's complaint, not yours, so I can ask them.\nBut what... what's your understanding or... or best conclusion as to why they didn't sue under 107?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [154.43, 158.229], "stop_times": [158.229, 169.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 154.43}, "reply_to": "22168__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22168__0_003", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the original complaint that they filed had a 107 action and a 113 action.\nThey amended the complaint and went forward only under 113.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [169.867, 178.678], "stop_times": [178.678, 182.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 169.867}, "reply_to": "22168__0_002", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_004", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "But why?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [182.461], "stop_times": [183.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 182.461}, "reply_to": "22168__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22168__0_005", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "I believe they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [183.676], "stop_times": [184.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 183.676}, "reply_to": "22168__0_004", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_006", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "I mean, what's going on?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [184.213], "stop_times": [184.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 184.213}, "reply_to": "22168__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22168__0_007", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Can you tell me why they did that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [184.773], "stop_times": [185.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 184.773}, "reply_to": "22168__0_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22168__0_008", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Yes.\nI believe they did that because the Fifth Circuit and other courts of appeals have said that the 107 action is... for cost recovery is not available to one who has contributed to the contamination of the property, that that is a cause of action that can be maintained by a innocent landowner... let's say a homeowner who didn't have any participation and is... finds out the that property is contaminated... but not by a party that has actually contributed to the... to the contaminated condition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [185.616, 185.971], "stop_times": [185.971, 218.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 185.616}, "reply_to": "22168__0_007", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_009", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "But I had thought that the district court all but invited them to... to state a 107 cause of action, and they didn't accept the district judge's invitation, as... as I read the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [218.831], "stop_times": [234.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 218.831}, "reply_to": "22168__0_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22168__0_010", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "I... I think what the district court did is invited them to clarify whether they were proceeding under 107 or 113, and in the course of the colloquy at the district court, they made it clear that they were proceeding under 113 and that they believed that 107 was unavailable to them as a contributor to the contaminated property.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [234.89], "stop_times": [252.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 234.89}, "reply_to": "22168__0_009", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_011", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "They... they said that as a matter of Fifth Circuit law.\nI think, is it not true, that the Fifth Circuit says these two, 107... and what's the other?\n113.\nThey're supposed to be merged in one claim.\nI thought that was Fifth Circuit law that the parties were obliged to follow.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [252.639, 255.528, 261.721, 262.837, 265.271], "stop_times": [255.528, 261.721, 262.837, 265.271, 270.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 252.639}, "reply_to": "22168__0_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22168__0_012", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, I... I think what the Fifth Circuit has said is that if you have a... an action for contribution as one who has contaminated the property, then you must proceed under 113.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [270.017], "stop_times": [278.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 270.017}, "reply_to": "22168__0_011", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_013", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "So they were doing what the Fifth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [278.728], "stop_times": [280.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 278.728}, "reply_to": "22168__0_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22168__0_014", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "You can't proceed under 107.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [280.669], "stop_times": [281.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 280.669}, "reply_to": "22168__0_013", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_015", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--They were doing what the Fifth Circuit told them to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [281.207], "stop_times": [283.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 281.207}, "reply_to": "22168__0_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22168__0_016", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [283.353], "stop_times": [283.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 283.353}, "reply_to": "22168__0_015", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_017", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "And you can't fault a litigant for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [283.807], "stop_times": [285.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 283.807}, "reply_to": "22168__0_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22168__0_018", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, I... I don't believe would I fault a litigant for that, Your Honor.\nThe point is that in order to proceed under 113, the statute is very clear that a right of contribution by a responsible party under 113 is some... is an action that can be maintained during or following what is an enforcement action under 106 or 107 of CERCLA brought by the United States or by the... of by a State.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [285.499, 289.668], "stop_times": [289.668, 311.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 285.499}, "reply_to": "22168__0_017", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_019", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "As I understand it, this cleanup was initiated because the State agency said you've got a contamination problem and if you don't do something about it, we're going to enforce our law against you.\nIt's not that it just was... we're dealing... not just dealing with a volunteer.\nIsn't that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [311.838, 327.192, 331.939], "stop_times": [327.192, 331.939, 332.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.838}, "reply_to": "22168__0_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22168__0_020", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "I think that actually the cleanup of the property was initiated before the State got involved in... in conversations.\nI think that while they were cleaning up the property, the record shows that there were... there were communications with the State in connection with the activities in the cleanup, but it was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [332.865, 339.741], "stop_times": [339.741, 348.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 332.865}, "reply_to": "22168__0_019", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_021", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Was one... was one of those communications you're going to do it, otherwise we're going to enforce our law against you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [348.857], "stop_times": [354.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 348.857}, "reply_to": "22168__0_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22168__0_022", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--I don't... I don't think that the State compelled the cleanup.\nI certainly think that the communications with the State suggested that... that it was a good that they were cleaning it up, and the State wanted the property cleaned up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [354.313, 359.06], "stop_times": [359.06, 367.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 354.313}, "reply_to": "22168__0_021", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_023", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "If--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [367.771], "stop_times": [368.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 367.771}, "reply_to": "22168__0_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22168__0_024", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "But it was not... there was no compulsory action by the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [368.309], "stop_times": [371.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 368.309}, "reply_to": "22168__0_023", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_025", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--If it's true that the State said you've got a contamination problem, cure it, why would we want to construe Federal law as saying don't clean up sooner, wait until, say, EPA goes after you?\nWhy would it make any sense to construe the law that way?\nI... I would think that there would be every reason why you would want to read it to say clean up sooner, not later.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [371.919, 395.967, 399.888], "stop_times": [395.967, 399.888, 408.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.919}, "reply_to": "22168__0_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22168__0_026", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "I... I think you can construe this... the law to say clean up sooner.\nThe law says... actually provides explicitly in 113(f)(3)(B) that if you settle with the State... if, indeed, the State says to you, clean this up and clean up it sooner, you can enter into a settlement with the State to... to engage in the kind of cleanup that satisfies what are the requirements for cleaning up these sites, and that if you do that, then you can come in and sue for contribution because 113(f)(1) gives you a right of contribution in those circumstances.\nSo this is not a statute that discourages you from working with the State.\nIf you are approached by the State and it says clean up property, it simply says that if you are approached by the State and you want to work with them, you have to do it pursuant to a settlement in order to get contribution.\nIf you don't do that, the other avenue for contribution that the Federal statute allows is to proceed in a contribution action during or following an enforcement action by the Federal Government under 106 or 107.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [408.971, 413.634, 441.87, 446.123, 457.64], "stop_times": [413.634, 441.87, 446.123, 457.64, 471.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 408.971}, "reply_to": "22168__0_025", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_027", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "But you might be sitting... EPA has got a lot of things on its agenda.\nYou might sitting... be sitting around waiting forever till EPA comes after you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [471.924, 475.473], "stop_times": [475.473, 479.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 471.924}, "reply_to": "22168__0_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22168__0_028", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, there is a process that's available to everybody to enter into negotiations with EPA to clean up these sites and to... and to engage in settlements that would allow for contribution.\nThe way that the provision was written... the 113 provision was added to the statute... it actually provides incentives for parties to come in, to enter into negotiations to get settlements with the Federal and State governments.\nAnd indeed, the... the statute provides for a right of contribution if you do that and also protects the party that's cleaning up from contribution suits that might be brought by someone else if they engage in those kinds of discussions and settlements.\nSo the statute is one that has incentives built into it to work within the structure that... and the scheme that Congress devised so as to permit parties that are intent on cleaning up their... these sites to go ahead and clean them up and clean them up under the auspices and with the... with the supervision of the Government.\nAnd there's a reason for that because when CERCLA was first passed... and there was no contribution provision at that time... it was enacted because there wasn't a whole lot of voluntary action.\nAnd what Congress says is we need to get the Government involved.\nWe need to get them to enter... give them the tools to get involved with these sites, to make sure they're cleaned up.\nWe set out a scheme for it to be cleaned up in a way that means it's a meaningful, comprehensive cleanup, and if you follow that scheme that has been devised, you get the benefit of being able to pursue contribution actions once you do things in the way that that has been set up by Congress to ensure it's a... it's a comprehensive cleanup.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [479.726, 492.441, 506.558, 520.759, 539.541, 549.366, 552.877, 560.346], "stop_times": [492.441, 506.558, 520.759, 539.541, 549.366, 552.877, 560.346, 580.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 479.726}, "reply_to": "22168__0_027", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_029", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Do you... do you think there's a 107 action by one PRP against another?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [580.408], "stop_times": [586.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.408}, "reply_to": "22168__0_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22168__0_030", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "I... I believe that there's... there is a 107 action by a PRP who is what they have... the courts have termed an innocent PRP, one who was not involved in contributing to the... to the contaminated condition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [586.435], "stop_times": [601.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 586.435}, "reply_to": "22168__0_029", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_031", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "What about in... what about in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [601.174], "stop_times": [602.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 601.174}, "reply_to": "22168__0_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22168__0_032", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "I do not think that there... well, I think that in this case the Fifth Circuit and most of the other circuits that have addressed it have said that if you are a contributor to the pollution, your remedy to go after other PRP's is to avail yourself of the contribution provision and that you don't have a right of action for cost recovery under 107 separate and apart from that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [602.493], "stop_times": [626.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 602.493}, "reply_to": "22168__0_031", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_033", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, that question is open, is it not?\nI mean, even if we were to agree with you on the section 113, why wouldn't we leave it open as to whether Aviall can go under 107(a)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [626.438, 629.903], "stop_times": [629.903, 642.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 626.438}, "reply_to": "22168__0_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22168__0_034", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Justice O'Connor, I... I think you're... you are correct that that has not been decided by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [642.989], "stop_times": [648.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.989}, "reply_to": "22168__0_033", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_035", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [648.745], "stop_times": [649.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 648.745}, "reply_to": "22168__0_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22168__0_036", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "And there are... there are different courts, lower courts, that have spoken to it.\nGenerally the lower courts that have spoken to it have said that with enactment of 113, the right of contribution provision is the one that should be the applicable way in which to proceed, and the Fifth Circuit has held that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [649.488, 654.401], "stop_times": [654.401, 667.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 649.488}, "reply_to": "22168__0_035", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_037", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [667.487], "stop_times": [667.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 667.487}, "reply_to": "22168__0_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22168__0_038", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [667.653], "stop_times": [667.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 667.653}, "reply_to": "22168__0_037", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_039", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--if you're... if you're going to take the position below that a PRP can't sue, then maybe that would have some bearing on how we'd interpret 113.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [667.903], "stop_times": [677.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 667.903}, "reply_to": "22168__0_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22168__0_040", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Well, I... I think that it is clear, if you read 113, that there's nothing in 113 that would suggest that this particular PRP would have an ability to sue under 107.\nAnd 113 says you have your right of contribution during or following a 107, and there has been no during or following.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [677.107, 692.795], "stop_times": [692.795, 700.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 677.107}, "reply_to": "22168__0_039", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_041", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Yes, but Mr. Reynolds, there's a savings clause, and... and conceivably one could read the savings clause as saying whatever Federal remedy was available between 1980 and 1986 is still available.\nAnd if one read it that way, then the question would be, could this very action have been brought in 1983 or 4?\nAnd I don't know.\nWhat... what's your answer to that question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [700.968, 711.454, 719.173, 719.71], "stop_times": [711.454, 719.173, 719.71, 721.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 700.968}, "reply_to": "22168__0_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22168__0_042", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "My answer... I have two answers to that question.\nThe first answer, Your Honor, is that prior to enactment of this amendment, there was recognized by the courts an implied right of contribution under 107 because the Congress had not addressed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [721.773, 723.593], "stop_times": [723.593, 736.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.773}, "reply_to": "22168__0_041", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_043", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [736.596], "stop_times": [737.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 736.596}, "reply_to": "22168__0_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22168__0_044", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "That implied right of contribution was recognized in every case in circumstances where there had been an enforcement action under 107 and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [737.172], "stop_times": [746.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 737.172}, "reply_to": "22168__0_043", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_045", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Right.\nI... I agree with that.\nBut the question, though, is whether this particular action would have been recognized when... when these... when the... the plaintiff is a potentially responsible party too.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [746.088, 746.304, 746.831], "stop_times": [746.304, 746.831, 755.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 746.088}, "reply_to": "22168__0_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22168__0_046", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--There... there are no cases that we've been able to find that would have allowed for this particular action under 107.\nI think that that question raises a fundamental problem, as I see it, because a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [755.105, 762.807], "stop_times": [762.807, 768.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 755.105}, "reply_to": "22168__0_045", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_047", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "No.\nI agree not under 107.\nWas there any implied remedy that was not specifically covered by a statute prior to 1986?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [768.917, 769.123, 770.32], "stop_times": [769.123, 770.32, 775.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 768.917}, "reply_to": "22168__0_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22168__0_048", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [775.976], "stop_times": [777.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 775.976}, "reply_to": "22168__0_047", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_049", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "There was... a contribution was implied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [777.069], "stop_times": [778.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.069}, "reply_to": "22168__0_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22168__0_050", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Contribution... the contribution is available in common law, but common law of contribution does not recognize contribution among joint tortfeasors.\nAnd that would be the kind of 107 action you're implying here.\nAt common law, somebody who is a joint tortfeasor couldn't use contribution to go after another joint tortfeasor.\nWhat you had at common law was shared liability against a third party, the discharge of the debt to the third party, and then you go after the other liable tortfeasor.\nAnd I think that to assume or... or read into what 107 provided would have been... would have required the court to say that 107 is allowing for a right of contribution that the common law has never recognized.\nSo... and the courts did not do that.\nThe courts implied a right of contribution only with respect to the 106-107 action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [778.577, 786.833, 790.094, 797.524, 807.35, 822.294, 825.017], "stop_times": [786.833, 790.094, 797.524, 807.35, 822.294, 825.017, 832.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 778.577}, "reply_to": "22168__0_049", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_051", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, it's certainly true that cases that they labeled contribution cases was exactly as you define it, but I'm just wondering if there were not in fact some cases with facts just like this one which, without specific statutory authorization, the judge found an implied basis for allowing recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [832.241], "stop_times": [850.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 832.241}, "reply_to": "22168__0_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22168__0_052", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "The only one where there was a suggestion that we could find, Your Honor, was in a district court in Florida that got dismissed because there hadn't been enough government action in the cleanup.\nEvery other case that we've been able to find were cases where they implied a right of action for contribution in circumstances where you... you had a 106 or 107 action, and if they allowed for a cost recovery action under 107, it was because you were dealing with an innocent party that was seeking full costs.\nAnd what Congress did in SARA, in the amendment, is it's... it looked at that body of law that was out there, and it said it was going to make explicit what was implicit by reason of those cases.\nAnd... and it's quite clear that that's what Congress set about doing.\nThe... the language of the savings clause says that the... nothing in the enabling sentence shall diminish a right of contribution in the absence of 106 or 107.\nI would submit to Your Honor that the question you've asked about whether there was a 107 cost recovery action would necessarily have been an action in the presence of 107.\nSo that was not contemplated by this statute.\nIf indeed a... there had been a... a line of cases of that sort, Congress was not looking at that to say that they were codifying that as part of their right of Federal contribution.\nThat was not what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [850.917, 859.901, 880.456, 894.119, 897.463, 911.952, 922.438, 925.205, 938.291], "stop_times": [859.901, 880.456, 894.119, 897.463, 911.952, 922.438, 925.205, 938.291, 939.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 850.917}, "reply_to": "22168__0_051", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_053", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "My understanding is... is right... is that 113 says that if there is a civil action under 107, then you get the contribution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [939.367], "stop_times": [948.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 939.367}, "reply_to": "22168__0_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22168__0_054", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--If there is a civil action--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [948.694], "stop_times": [950.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 948.694}, "reply_to": "22168__0_053", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_055", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, and so then... and... and there might be because I was interested in... you said that it's true that the common law rule was no contribution among tortfeasors, but almost everywhere that's been changed, is my impression, either by statute or... or perhaps by judicial decision, so that now you can read the Restatement of Torts, and it seems to say that in most instances, for example, this one... nuisances, say.\nNuisances.\nThere... there would be a right of contribution in... almost everywhere under not old common law principles, but as the law has... has changed in the 20th century.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [950.718, 973.297, 973.752], "stop_times": [973.297, 973.752, 983.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 950.718}, "reply_to": "22168__0_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22168__0_056", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Well, I think if--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [983.7], "stop_times": [984.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 983.7}, "reply_to": "22168__0_055", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_057", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Is that right?\nI want to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [984.793, 985.415], "stop_times": [985.415, 985.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 984.793}, "reply_to": "22168__0_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22168__0_058", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--I'm not aware of that, Your Honor.\nI think that the right of contribution, as it's understood today, still contemplates shared liability by... by the two parties, the... the tortfeasors, as against a third party.\nAnd... and to the extent that there may have been relaxation in... in that concept--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [985.991, 987.931, 1000.275], "stop_times": [987.931, 1000.275, 1005.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 985.991}, "reply_to": "22168__0_057", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_059", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Oh, I see. I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1005.642], "stop_times": [1006.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1005.642}, "reply_to": "22168__0_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22168__0_060", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--it would only be in terms of whether you could bring it during the 107 action or following.\nAnd they have said that you don't need to wait until the 107 action in this case is completed.\nYou could do it during.\nBut I believe that is still the case, that for a right of contribution to exist, it's not one tortfeasor who can sue for recovery and contribution against another.\nIt's a situation where you have liability, shared liability, to third... to a third party.\nAnd in those circumstances, the right of contribution is recognized.\nAnd that's what Congress set about to codify in the... in the provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1006.264, 1011.548, 1016.628, 1017.41, 1026.964, 1032.065, 1035.407], "stop_times": [1011.548, 1016.628, 1017.41, 1026.964, 1032.065, 1035.407, 1039.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1006.264}, "reply_to": "22168__0_059", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_061", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "One of your... I think it was yours, rather an amicus argument for... for reading 113 is you say it would have a bearing on reading 107, and that was that Congress didn't want to permit suits prior to some definitive resolution of a claim, whether it be by settlement or whatnot.\nAnd the reason was that if... if the one joint tortfeasor could sue prior to that time, there would be liability against another who would still be open to action by EPA--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1039.701, 1056.752], "stop_times": [1056.752, 1069.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1039.701}, "reply_to": "22168__0_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22168__0_062", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1069.877], "stop_times": [1070.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1069.877}, "reply_to": "22168__0_061", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_063", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--or even yet a third joint tortfeasor.\nTheir response to that was EPA resolves lots of actions without complete cleanup, so that the possibility, even in contribution cases that you would allow, would be later EPA action against another polluter.\nWhat... what is your response to that, if I've got it right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1070.97, 1073.304, 1088.081], "stop_times": [1073.304, 1088.081, 1091.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1070.97}, "reply_to": "22168__0_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22168__0_064", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "I think, Your Honor, that where EPA is involved... and the reason that it's important it's involved is it... EPA assures that the cleanup that we're talking about is comprehensive, and when it gets involved and it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1091.054], "stop_times": [1105.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1091.054}, "reply_to": "22168__0_063", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_065", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "So you're really disputing the... the fact of... of their response?\nIn other words, they say, look, EPA resolve... settles these things without complete cleanup, and you're saying that really isn't the way it works?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1105.914, 1109.88], "stop_times": [1109.88, 1117.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.914}, "reply_to": "22168__0_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22168__0_066", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--My... my understanding is that EPA does, indeed, require that the cleanup be done in accordance with the National Contingency Plan and the other requirements that they have in their... in their regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1117.31], "stop_times": [1128.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1117.31}, "reply_to": "22168__0_065", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_067", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "So that if... so that if it is done, there won't be further EPA action against yet another polluter for that site.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1128.949], "stop_times": [1136.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1128.949}, "reply_to": "22168__0_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22168__0_068", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, unless it's outside of or even in the... in the provision of the statute.\nIf you have a settlement with EPA, there can be action against another polluter for some additional pollution that was not settled and taken care of with respect... if you have multiple sites, for example, with respect to the site--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1136.629, 1143.066], "stop_times": [1143.066, 1155.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1136.629}, "reply_to": "22168__0_067", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_069", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, if that's the... if that's the case then, whether... whether... even... even in a... in a case of contribution brought under 113, the person against whom contribution is obtained might still be liable to EPA if EPA later proceeds against that person.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1155.948], "stop_times": [1172.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1155.948}, "reply_to": "22168__0_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22168__0_070", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--But... but the point here that we were making in our brief and I think is... is a response to... to what you're asking... the... the point here wouldn't be inconsistent liability and it wouldn't be duplicative liability.\nIt would be liability that would be attributable with the EPA's involvement for the specific cleanup that was in question, and you may be liable for some other aspect, but it wouldn't be the kind of duplication and multiplication that you'd get if you read the statute the way respondent--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1172.21, 1182.902], "stop_times": [1182.902, 1197.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1172.21}, "reply_to": "22168__0_069", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_071", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "I see, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1197.929], "stop_times": [1198.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.929}, "reply_to": "22168__0_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22168__0_072", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Do I understand your... your position correctly that a State or a Federal administrative order won't do or a State or Federal threat of enforcement won't do, that the only thing that will count is a settlement... a signed settlement agreement, whether it's between the State administrator or the Federal administrator, but just the... the mere order that you clean up, threat that we will enforce if you don't, that that doesn't count?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1198.506], "stop_times": [1230.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1198.506}, "reply_to": "22168__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22168__0_073", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Your Honor, certainly for purposes of this case, I'm not sure that needs to be resolved.\nI would say this, that in a settlement you can get contribution, if you have a civil action.\nThe courts have looked at whether an administrative order under 106 that is not necessarily reduced to a... a judgment, whether that would qualify as a 106 civil action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1230.335, 1235.498, 1239.789], "stop_times": [1235.498, 1239.789, 1254.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1230.335}, "reply_to": "22168__0_072", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_074", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1254.278], "stop_times": [1255.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1254.278}, "reply_to": "22168__0_073", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22168__0_075", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "And there have been different views that have been addressed on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1255.559], "stop_times": [1257.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1255.559}, "reply_to": "22168__0_074", "speaker": "william_bradford_reynolds"}
{"id": "22168__0_076", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Mr. Minear, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1257.333], "stop_times": [1261.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1257.333}, "reply_to": "22168__0_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22168__1_000", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe United States submits that section 113(f) does not allow contribution in the absence of a settlement or civil action for three reasons.\nFirst, that's exactly what section 113(f) says.\nSecond, that's consistent with the traditional understanding of the concept of contribution.\nAnd third, that will lead to the most efficient mechanism for cleanup and settlement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1261.048, 1272.732, 1281.77, 1284.621, 1289.367], "stop_times": [1272.732, 1281.77, 1284.621, 1289.367, 1294.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1261.048}, "reply_to": "22168__0_076", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22168__1_001", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Mr. Minear, the... I think the respondent accuses the Government of changing its position in this case.\nWould you tell me whether you did change a... your position at all, and if so, what is the difference between your former position and your present position?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1294.031, 1299.853], "stop_times": [1299.853, 1308.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.031}, "reply_to": "22168__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22168__1_002", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThis case presents the first time that the question of whether a person who is a whole... wholly a volunteer is entitled to contribution.\nWe've not addressed that issue before, except in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1308.11, 1308.603, 1316.655], "stop_times": [1308.603, 1316.655, 1319.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1308.11}, "reply_to": "22168__1_001", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22168__1_003", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Wholly a volunteer?\nThere was... there was a State agency in the picture.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1319.877, 1320.082], "stop_times": [1320.082, 1323.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.877}, "reply_to": "22168__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22168__1_004", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Yes, there was, but in this case there was no action that we understand that actually compelled the... Aviall to clean up the site.\nWe do... do not understand that there was a enforcement action that was brought against them.\nIf I can continue--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1323.692, 1331.394, 1335.731], "stop_times": [1331.394, 1335.731, 1336.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1323.692}, "reply_to": "22168__1_003", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22168__1_005", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "There was a threat of enforcement if they didn't clean up, as I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1336.807], "stop_times": [1339.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1336.807}, "reply_to": "22168__1_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22168__1_006", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Yes.\nI understand there was a threat of enforcement.\nBut if I can continue to answer Justice Stevens' question.\nRespondents in the red brief, pages 13 and 18, they cite two quotations from one court of appeals brief that was filed about 8 years ago in a case called Centerior.\nThis was a case that was filed as an appellee, so of course, the Solicitor General did not review the brief.\nI would note that the quote on page 13 is consistent with our current position.\nAs we said then and we say now, that in order for a responsible party to sue another responsible party, they must proceed in contribution.\nThat's what the quote on page 13 of the red brief says.\nOn page--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1339.286, 1339.491, 1340.417, 1343.001, 1354.89, 1359.077, 1363.185, 1371.237, 1374.209], "stop_times": [1339.491, 1340.417, 1343.001, 1354.89, 1359.077, 1363.185, 1371.237, 1374.209, 1375.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1339.286}, "reply_to": "22168__1_005", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22168__1_007", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "There has been no change in position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1375.035], "stop_times": [1376.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1375.035}, "reply_to": "22168__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22168__1_008", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--On that point, there's been no change, and in fact we repeated it to this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1376.521], "stop_times": [1380.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1376.521}, "reply_to": "22168__1_007", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22168__1_009", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--whether there was any change of position and what was it and would you explain--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1380.153], "stop_times": [1383.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1380.153}, "reply_to": "22168__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22168__1_010", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1383.391], "stop_times": [1383.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1383.391}, "reply_to": "22168__1_009", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22168__1_011", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--what it was and why?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1383.474], "stop_times": [1384.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1383.474}, "reply_to": "22168__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22168__1_012", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Yes, exactly.\nI'm getting there.\nBut I think it's important to... what they're characterizing as a change in position is a consistent position.\nI want to point out that we took that very position in the Pinal Creek invitation brief that we filed in this case that's cited in page... at page... footnote 10 of our invitation brief here and footnote 9 of the... the brief on the merits.\nThe second place where they claim an inconsistency is on page 18 where they cite that... the statement in the Centerior brief that says that we are not saying that 113(f)(1) is the only mechanism for allowing contribution.\nAnd that is in fact true, but we also would say that a settlement would allow as well... would allow contribution as well.\nUltimately, the Centerior brief did not address the issue that we have here: what happens in the absence of any type of enforcement action whatsoever or a settlement?\nSo in fact, this is the first time we've addressed the issue.\nNow, in terms of our internal deliberations in the... in the Government, there might well be people who take a different view with regard to the position we've taken here from the perspective that the more suits that are brought, the more cleanup there might be.\nBut ultimately, our obligation is to... excuse me... is to construe the statute according to its terms.\nAnd then as Mr. Reynolds pointed out, section 113(f)(1) makes quite clear that a contribution action can only be brought in... in the presence of a pending or ongoing 106 or 107 enforcement action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1384.672, 1385.265, 1386.008, 1390.095, 1402.976, 1417.299, 1423.326, 1433.607, 1436.041, 1448.218, 1454.162], "stop_times": [1385.265, 1386.008, 1390.095, 1402.976, 1417.299, 1423.326, 1433.607, 1436.041, 1448.218, 1454.162, 1466.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1384.672}, "reply_to": "22168__1_011", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22168__1_013", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Mr. Minear, I was just reading from this Government brief, which you said is consistent with your current position on that point.\nThe plain language of CERCLA 113(f)(1) is not restrictive, i.e., it does not say that a contribution action may only... you read the word only.\nThat's not in the statute... be brought during or following a civil action under CERCLA.\nI'm reading from 32A of the red brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1466.151, 1472.161, 1484.134, 1489.085], "stop_times": [1472.161, 1484.134, 1489.085, 1493.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1466.151}, "reply_to": "22168__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22168__1_014", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Yes.\nAnd Your Honor, we'd still say that it does not say that it may only be brought in the... in the case of a... in the absence of a civil action or a... a civil action under 106 or 107.\nIt can also be brought in the case of a settlement as well.\nSo that's what I mean.\nThis brief is not inconsistent with what we're saying here.\nIt actually addresses a point that's different where we have made a... a modest change in position with regard to an issue that's not before the Court.\nThis brief suggests that contribution would be available in the face of a 106 order.\nIt implies that.\nIt doesn't come right out and say it, but that's certainly the implication of the brief.\nNow, there's no 106 order in this case.\nAnd the problem with allowing contribution in the case of a 106 order is that section 113(f)(1) speaks of civil actions.\nIt doesn't speak in terms of administrative orders.\nIt does allow contribution in the case of an administrative settlement.\nSo if, for instance, the Government issues an administrative order and the party agrees to comply with that administrative order through an administrative order on consent, that would entitle the party to contribution.\nNow, the reason why this is important is because it's our view that contribution should only be available consistent with the common law principle of contribution in the case in which there's an extinguishment of the underlying liability.\nThat is the very essence of contribution, that there is some third party liability that is being resolved.\nAnd what 113(f) requires is that... that the liability for the State or Federal Government to be resolved, in whole or in part, through either an enforcement action or a settlement.\nNow, this position is entirely consistent with the principles of the... the common law, and in particular, I'd point to the Restatement Third of Torts, which in comment 23 makes clear that in order to have contribution, you have to extinguish the underlying liability.\nWhat's more, this position also is... does not discourage voluntary settlement.\nAll it requires is that if a party wishes to voluntary clean up a site and also seek contribution, then it needs to reach a settlement with the Federal or State government to ensure that the cleanup is going to be done in accordance with the National Contingency Plan.\nThe National Contingency Plan is a volume of Federal regulations that specifies how cleanups need to be done.\nBy reaching a settlement with the Federal Government on... on the... the details of the cleanup, it relieves a Federal court of having to make that determination in a contribution action.\nAs it stands right now in a case such as this, the Federal court is going to be forced to make the determination of whether or not there is compliance with the NCP.\nAnd that's a highly technical issue and it's an issue that ought to be addressed in the first instance by the Federal or State officials who are experts in these matters.\nAs it stands right now, if there is no extinguishment of the underlying liability, the court is going to have to... the Federal courts are going to have to resolve these issues without the guidance of those people who are most knowledgeable on that very issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1493.172, 1493.559, 1502.625, 1505.326, 1506.175, 1509.23, 1516.167, 1522.233, 1522.688, 1525.288, 1527.889, 1536.024, 1538.292, 1542.357, 1555.753, 1568.263, 1574.495, 1586.589, 1601.328, 1606.38, 1620.192, 1626.713, 1637.116, 1645.455, 1652.885], "stop_times": [1493.559, 1502.625, 1505.326, 1506.175, 1509.23, 1516.167, 1522.233, 1522.688, 1525.288, 1527.889, 1536.024, 1538.292, 1542.357, 1555.753, 1568.263, 1574.495, 1586.589, 1601.328, 1606.38, 1620.192, 1626.713, 1637.116, 1645.455, 1652.885, 1665.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1493.172}, "reply_to": "22168__1_013", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22168__1_015", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Mr. Minear... Minear, I have a practical question.\nIt... it seems like EPA has higher priorities, properly has higher priorities than... than to be making deals with each person who wants to clean up a contaminated site.\nAnd you said you have to get the settlement.\nHow mechanically... how easy it is... how easy is it for someone in the position of Aviall Services to say, EPA, we've been told that we've got a contaminated site?\nCooper contributed to it.\nWe'd like to get this cleaned up quickly.\nWould you give us a settlement?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1665.351, 1669.688, 1685.292, 1687.604, 1702.586, 1704.732, 1708.326], "stop_times": [1669.688, 1685.292, 1687.604, 1702.586, 1704.732, 1708.326, 1710.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1665.351}, "reply_to": "22168__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22168__1_016", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, we assume... this is the... the warnings about this site were originally brought by the State officials, and we assume that the State officials would have happily entered into a settlement agreement that would have obligated Aviall to clean up the site.\nThere's nothing in the record that indicates the State that took notice of this site would not have been willing to do so.\nAnd under 113(f)(3)(B), an administrative settlement or a judicial settlement with the State would entitle them to contribution.\nWhat's more, they can obtain contribution under State law.\nAnd in fact, Aviall indicated... and it's cited at the petition appendix, page 99a, that this was primarily a contract action.\nThe CERCLA action was brought primarily--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1710.488, 1721.988, 1726.902, 1733.589, 1736.106, 1743.453], "stop_times": [1721.988, 1726.902, 1733.589, 1736.106, 1743.453, 1745.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1710.488}, "reply_to": "22168__1_015", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22168__1_017", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "But as far as... I just want to know if it's a realistic choice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1745.494], "stop_times": [1749.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1745.494}, "reply_to": "22168__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22168__1_018", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Well, we think that in the case... that obviously, EPA has many things on its plate.\nAnd if the... there might be cases where, in fact, the transaction costs are such that EPA will believe it was better addressed by the State rather than the Federal Government.\nBut in those cases too, it's likely that a suit in contribution is going to entail very high transaction costs as well, and so in those cases in which contribution is most likely to be sought, those cases that are large, major settlements, EPA is going to have the highest incentive to pay attention to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1749.769, 1753.362, 1761.673], "stop_times": [1753.362, 1761.673, 1780.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1749.769}, "reply_to": "22168__1_017", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22168__1_019", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "But you say the whole... this whole thing could have been cured if Aviall had followed up with the State enforcer and said, give me a settlement agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1780.483], "stop_times": [1789.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1780.483}, "reply_to": "22168__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22168__1_020", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Yes, that's absolutely right.\nUnder 113(f)(3)(B), if they had entered into a judicial... administrative settlement with the State, that would entitle them to contribution.\nWhat's more, under the State law, which is Texas Health and Safety Code 361.344(a), all they need for State contribution is to engage in a cleanup that's been approved by the State.\nSo there are plenty of avenues for cleanup in these cases and for contribution through various mechanisms.\nCERCLA is not the only mechanism that's available here.\nAnd as I pointed out before, the parties made the... have stated this was primarily a contract action.\nThis began as a contract action in which CERCLA was only pled in order to engage... to obtain Federal court jurisdiction.\nI'd like to address one other issue here that's been raised by the parties, and I assume that respondents will raise that.\nAnd that is the question of Federal cleanup.\nAnd I would point out that CERCLA is only one of many programs that are provided to clean up Federal sites.\nThe reply brief of petitioner cites, for instance, the defense environmental reparation program, 10 U.S.C. 2701, in which Congress directly appropriates funds for cleaning up formerly used defense facilities.\nThere are many mechanisms in which the United States provides for that cleanup apart from CERCLA and it does it in CERCLA as well.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1789.028, 1790.264, 1797.573, 1809.023, 1815.589, 1818.022, 1823.307, 1830.904, 1836.848, 1838.584, 1844.9, 1858.784, 1864.962], "stop_times": [1790.264, 1797.573, 1809.023, 1815.589, 1818.022, 1823.307, 1830.904, 1836.848, 1838.584, 1844.9, 1858.784, 1864.962, 1865.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1789.028}, "reply_to": "22168__1_019", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22168__1_021", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Minear.\nMr. Faulk, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1865.788, 1868.017], "stop_times": [1868.017, 1869.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1865.788}, "reply_to": "22168__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22168__2_000", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nMay it please the Court:\nThe very first thing I want to do is clear up what I consider to be the two most persistent myths in this case.\nThe first one is that we didn't bring a 107 action.\nJustice Kennedy asked about it.\nJustice O'Connor asked about it.\nWe pleaded this case.\nI pleaded this case.\nI drafted the complaint in this case.\nI drafted the fifth cause of action in that case.\nAnd in this case, we pleaded specifically on the very first page of the complaint a claim under 107 and section 113.\nWhen I pleaded the fifth cause of action, which was liability under CERCLA... that's how it was nominated... I pleaded that this was a cause of action brought pursuant to section 107 and section 113(f).\nNow, why did I do that?\nI did that because the controlling law of the Fifth Circuit at the time, as Justice Ginsburg recognized, specified that the cause of action for contribution under CERCLA is derived from section 107 in the first place, and that the mechanism for that, for bringing that cause of action in certain circumstances is governed by section 113.\nAnd so, yes, we pleaded a 107 action.\nWe do not have... there is no right of cost recovery under CERCLA by contribution or otherwise.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1869.542, 1874.638, 1875.448, 1881.681, 1884.364, 1885.972, 1887.708, 1889.499, 1890.43, 1892.371, 1894.971, 1903.805, 1916.686, 1917.801, 1940.502, 1943.557], "stop_times": [1874.638, 1875.448, 1881.681, 1884.364, 1885.972, 1887.708, 1889.499, 1890.43, 1892.371, 1894.971, 1903.805, 1916.686, 1917.801, 1940.502, 1943.557, 1948.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1869.542}, "reply_to": "22168__1_021", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_001", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "It doesn't... what it says... in the complaint here that I have, it says pursuant to CERCLA... then you cite 113... Aviall is entitled to seek contribution from Cooper as a person liable or potentially liable under CERCLA 107.\nBut you don't say liable to you.\nYou don't say you're bringing it under 107.\nI mean, obviously, they are a person who's potentially liable under 107, but is that what you mean by asserting a 107 claim?\nI mean, I could go sue them and claim they're a person liable under 107.\nAnybody could in the world, and is that what you're doing there, saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1948.676, 1963.331, 1965.394, 1966.759, 1974.31, 1977.904], "stop_times": [1963.331, 1965.394, 1966.759, 1974.31, 1977.904, 1981.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1948.676}, "reply_to": "22168__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22168__2_002", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "I'm asserting a consolidated claim under section 107 and 113, exactly as the Fifth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1981.081], "stop_times": [1986.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1981.081}, "reply_to": "22168__2_001", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_003", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--You say they are a person who's liable under 107.\nYou say you're bringing the action under 107?\nNo.\nYou say you're bringing it under 113.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1986.365, 1988.306, 1990.535, 1991.112], "stop_times": [1988.306, 1990.535, 1991.112, 1992.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1986.365}, "reply_to": "22168__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22168__2_004", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Well, Your... Your Honor, I... I would just respectfully disagree with the way--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1992.681], "stop_times": [1996.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1992.681}, "reply_to": "22168__2_003", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_005", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "All right, I see.\nBut I have the right language anyway, and I better read it again is your point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1996.358, 1996.768], "stop_times": [1996.768, 1999.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.358}, "reply_to": "22168__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22168__2_006", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--I... I would suggest that's important, and it's also important to review the colloquy that we had with the district court when the district court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [1999.701], "stop_times": [2005.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1999.701}, "reply_to": "22168__2_005", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_007", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "I just... I just reviewed that colloquy, and there you said you did not draft the complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2005.479], "stop_times": [2009.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2005.479}, "reply_to": "22168__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22168__2_008", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Well, I... I drafted the amended complaint, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2009.278], "stop_times": [2012.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2009.278}, "reply_to": "22168__2_007", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_009", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Oh, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2012.129], "stop_times": [2013.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2012.129}, "reply_to": "22168__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22168__2_010", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "The original complaint was not the one I originally drafted.\nBut the actual cause of action that was asserted in the fifth cause of action I did, in fact, draft.\nThe colloquy that went on in the district court, Judge Fitzwater tried to pin me down on the question of whether or not we had a 107 cause of action, and I very, very specifically cleaved to the idea that we were asserting the blended cause of action that was not only recognized by the court in Geraghty v. Miller in the Fifth Circuit, it's also recognized by this Court in the Key Tronic decision, which is... wasn't even mentioned by my opponent during the discussion.\nBut in Key Tronic, which was a case that involved the situation where someone had brought a cause of action trying to recover.\nA PRP, a clear PRP had brought a cause of action pursuant to State enforcement to recover the costs associated with it.\nThis Court recognized that section 113 had a cause of action, recognized the cause of action, but that there was a similar and somewhat overlapping cause of action within section 107 for the same relief.\nWhat we tried very carefully to do, Your Honor, was to plead ourself into the overlap.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2013.205, 2014.98, 2020.097, 2050.357, 2057.416, 2065.96, 2079.889], "stop_times": [2014.98, 2020.097, 2050.357, 2057.416, 2065.96, 2079.889, 2085.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2013.205}, "reply_to": "22168__2_009", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_011", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, in this case, has the court below directly ruled on whether there's a 107 cause of action here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2085.362], "stop_times": [2094.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.362}, "reply_to": "22168__2_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22168__2_012", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "No, Your Honor, I do not believe there has been a specific ruling.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2094.938], "stop_times": [2098.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2094.938}, "reply_to": "22168__2_011", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_013", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "So that's still open.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2098.654], "stop_times": [2099.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2098.654}, "reply_to": "22168__2_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22168__2_014", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Your Honor, and we have... we have asserted that if this Court finds that, in fact, we're not entitled to recovery under 113, we should be entitled to a remand to have the issue of the 107 issue resolved.\nAnd so we do have that issue remaining to be resolved.\nLet me bring up the other persistent myth in this case and that is that we engaged in a voluntary cleanup.\nI realize the... the Court's issue that it phrased as it accepted the certiorari was, in fact, that there was a voluntary issue involved.\nAviall did not do this voluntarily.\nAviall acted under a directive of the... of the State government very specifically in a proceeding that we received letters for.\nWe've cited that in the brief.\nI believe it's on page 6.\nAll of the record citations that show how the State of Texas said clean this up or else.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2099.648, 2111.991, 2115.167, 2120.453, 2131.598, 2133.372, 2143.691, 2145.549, 2146.459], "stop_times": [2111.991, 2115.167, 2120.453, 2131.598, 2133.372, 2143.691, 2145.549, 2146.459, 2151.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2099.648}, "reply_to": "22168__2_013", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_015", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Did... did you object to the question presented in the petition on that ground, that the word voluntarily in it was... was inaccurate?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2151.865], "stop_times": [2159.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2151.865}, "reply_to": "22168__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22168__2_016", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "No, Your Honor, we did not object to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2159.212], "stop_times": [2161.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2159.212}, "reply_to": "22168__2_015", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_017", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, I mean, we take the questions that are presented when the parties don't... don't object to it.\nAnd... and the question presented is whether a party who's not been the subject of an underlying civil action, blah, blah, may bring an action to recover costs spent voluntarily to clean up properties.\nThat's what I thought this case involved, and... and it's the way I'm going to decide it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2161.32, 2165.778, 2176.18], "stop_times": [2165.778, 2176.18, 2179.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2161.32}, "reply_to": "22168__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22168__2_018", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "I understand, Your Honor.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2179.153, 2180.367], "stop_times": [2180.367, 2180.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2179.153}, "reply_to": "22168__2_017", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_019", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "I guess you do admit, though, that no civil action had been brought against Aviall.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2180.672], "stop_times": [2186.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.672}, "reply_to": "22168__2_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22168__2_020", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Absolutely, Your Honor.\nThat is... that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2186.599, 2187.614], "stop_times": [2187.614, 2188.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2186.599}, "reply_to": "22168__2_019", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_021", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "So that much is clear.\nAnd... and section 113(f) says, any person may seek contribution from any other person during or following any civil action under 106 or 107(a).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2188.274, 2189.305], "stop_times": [2189.305, 2202.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2188.274}, "reply_to": "22168__2_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22168__2_022", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--That is what the first sentence says, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2202.558], "stop_times": [2202.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2202.558}, "reply_to": "22168__2_021", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_023", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "So how do you fit yourself within that provision?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2202.724], "stop_times": [2206.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2202.724}, "reply_to": "22168__2_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22168__2_024", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "We fit ourself not within the first sentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2206.728], "stop_times": [2209.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2206.728}, "reply_to": "22168__2_023", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_025", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2209.245], "stop_times": [2209.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.245}, "reply_to": "22168__2_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22168__2_026", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--of that provision at all, Your Honor, but we fall within the last sentence of that provision because the... the last sentence of that provision specifically provides that we can pursue the right... not any right, not multiple rights, but the singular right of contribution, which is specified in that... in... in section 107.\nIt's... it's referring back very clearly to 107.\nIt is not, as the petitioner says, referring to State law.\nThis is not a savings clause for State law.\nCERCLA already contains two saving clauses for State law.\nCongress surely knew, when they were enacting the statute, exactly how to write a savings clause--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2209.717, 2229.679, 2232.734, 2235.995, 2238.39, 2242.394], "stop_times": [2229.679, 2232.734, 2235.995, 2238.39, 2242.394, 2247.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2209.717}, "reply_to": "22168__2_025", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_027", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Where does the right come from?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2247.39], "stop_times": [2248.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2247.39}, "reply_to": "22168__2_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22168__2_028", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--The right is derived from section 107 in the first place, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2248.505], "stop_times": [2252.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2248.505}, "reply_to": "22168__2_027", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_029", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "It says, nothing in this subsection shall diminish the right of any person to bring an action for contribution in the absence of a section... in the absence.\nNow, does that create the right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2252.592, 2264.192], "stop_times": [2264.192, 2266.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2252.592}, "reply_to": "22168__2_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22168__2_030", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "No, Your Honor, it does not.\nI'm... I'm saying it... it expressly recognized and maintains and confirms the preexisting right under 107, a right that had existed under--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2266.504, 2268.074], "stop_times": [2268.074, 2276.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2266.504}, "reply_to": "22168__2_029", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_031", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Your argument is that the first sentence says that you or anybody can get contribution following or during a civil action under 107.\nAnd then the last sentence means anybody can get a right for contribution any other time as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2276.369, 2286.855], "stop_times": [2286.855, 2294.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2276.369}, "reply_to": "22168__2_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22168__2_032", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Well, the last--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2294.081], "stop_times": [2294.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2294.081}, "reply_to": "22168__2_031", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_033", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "This isn't much of a section.\nI mean, it's sort of interesting what it's trying to do there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2294.907, 2295.733], "stop_times": [2295.733, 2298.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2294.907}, "reply_to": "22168__2_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22168__2_034", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Your... Your Honor, I... I cannot... I cannot explain the oddity of the section, as... as I have heard in some quarters.\nHowever, just because it's odd doesn't mean it's not plain.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2298.622, 2303.989], "stop_times": [2303.989, 2306.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2298.622}, "reply_to": "22168__2_033", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_035", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "No, no.\nBut in your view that's how we should read it.\nWe should read it as if it said if you want $1,000, go at a certain... go any... sorry.\nYou understand what I'm driving at.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2306.879, 2307.25, 2308.448, 2318.645], "stop_times": [2307.25, 2308.448, 2318.645, 2319.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2306.879}, "reply_to": "22168__2_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22168__2_036", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "I know what you're driving at, and if I may, I'd like to reply to it.\nIt... it really is... it really is... we have to look at these sections together, but we also have to take a look at the context in which section 113 was enacted.\nAt the time section 113 was enacted, the Government was proposing that contribution only be allowed to occur when they brought an action at the time the judgment was rendered.\nThey didn't want contribution actions within the context of their own actions frustrating or slowing down the process of enforcement.\nAnd so what happened was that Congress inserted the during action only to govern the issue dealing with the right of contribution when an action was pending.\nCongress did not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2319.965, 2322.444, 2331.815, 2343.582, 2352.582, 2362.158], "stop_times": [2322.444, 2331.815, 2343.582, 2352.582, 2362.158, 2363.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2319.965}, "reply_to": "22168__2_035", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_037", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Why... why isn't a perfectly adequate explanation of the last sentence that it was referring to the State causes of action?\nAnd indeed, you... you assert a State cause of action here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2363.273, 2369.793], "stop_times": [2369.793, 2373.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.273}, "reply_to": "22168__2_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22168__2_038", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Well, one... one reason, Your Honor, is that there are already two savings clauses specifically inserted in CERCLA dealing with State causes of action and the rights of parties to pursue State causes of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2373.425], "stop_times": [2386.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.425}, "reply_to": "22168__2_037", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_039", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "But this would be a very logical place to... to repeat it, even if it is somewhere else.\nYou're... you're creating a Federal cause of action under certain narrow conditions, and the last sentence says, nothing shall diminish the right of any person to... in the absence of a civil action.\nIt doesn't say we're creating a right.\nIt... shall diminish the right.\nSo if there is any other right, we do... this does not preempt any... any State causes of action.\nI think it's admirably drafted.\nI don't think you have to be ashamed of how to explain it.\nIt... it explains itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2386.428, 2389.279, 2400.053, 2401.622, 2403.147, 2409.174, 2411.198, 2414.375], "stop_times": [2389.279, 2400.053, 2401.622, 2403.147, 2409.174, 2411.198, 2414.375, 2416.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2386.428}, "reply_to": "22168__2_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22168__2_040", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "However admirably drafted... and I... I respect Your Honor's opinion... the limitation of that to State causes of action is entirely inappropriate given the language of the statute.\nIt may, if the Court chooses, be declared to deal with State causes of action, but there's no reason that it excludes preexisting Federal causes of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2416.316, 2427.174], "stop_times": [2427.174, 2436.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2416.316}, "reply_to": "22168__2_039", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_041", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, there's... there's one argument, isn't there?\nAnd that is, in the first sentence, it speaks of... of a civil action under 107.\nThen in the savings clause, it says, nothing, et cetera, shall diminish the right to bring an action for contribution in the absence of a civil action.\nIt seems to be talking, you know, under... of 107... it seems to be talking about something other than 107.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2436.545, 2437.91, 2445.378, 2458.093], "stop_times": [2437.91, 2445.378, 2458.093, 2467.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2436.545}, "reply_to": "22168__2_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22168__2_042", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "I... I don't agree, Your Honor.\nI don't think... I don't think that's a... that's a proper reading, respectfully, of the statute.\nIt's talking about the absence of a 107 action pending at the time to say the action is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2467.464, 2469.489, 2474.151], "stop_times": [2469.489, 2474.151, 2480.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2467.464}, "reply_to": "22168__2_041", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_043", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "That may be what it means, and... and maybe that's the way it ought to be construed.\nBut it's not clear, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2480.467, 2483.81], "stop_times": [2483.81, 2484.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2480.467}, "reply_to": "22168__2_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22168__2_044", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--I... I think... to... to me, Your Honor, it's very clear.\nI think it's very clear that it's definitely saving causes of action preexisting under 107 because it uses the term, the right of action, not whatever right of actions exist, not any right of action.\nIt's specifically referring to a specific cause of action, and the only other cause of action--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2484.925, 2487.98, 2499.952], "stop_times": [2487.98, 2499.952, 2505.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2484.925}, "reply_to": "22168__2_043", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_045", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, it... it says... it says, the right of any person to bring an action.\nThat's a little different than saying what you just said.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2505.858, 2512.295], "stop_times": [2512.295, 2515.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.858}, "reply_to": "22168__2_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22168__2_046", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Well, it depends, Your Honor, how we... how we... if we have to go back to Key Tronic, which I... I suspect we do, the question of whether any person is the person entitled to bring a cause of action under 107, and I think this Court has held that that is implied under section 107.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2515.35], "stop_times": [2532.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2515.35}, "reply_to": "22168__2_045", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_047", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Have you got any other statute like this?\nI... the... it's sort of like... I have found my example.\nYou see in the newspapers sometime, if you present this coupon to Brooks Brothers, they'll give you a 20 percent discount.\nAnd then it says, and if you don't present the coupon, we'll give you a 20 percent discount.\n[Laughter]\nSo it's sort of like that, as you're reading it.\nAnd... and I... I find it hard to think of any other example in the statute books that's like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2532.153, 2533.722, 2537.354, 2544.329, 2548.128, 2548.515, 2551.593], "stop_times": [2533.722, 2537.354, 2544.329, 2548.128, 2548.515, 2551.593, 2556.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2532.153}, "reply_to": "22168__2_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22168__2_048", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, first of all, Your Honor, I will... I will say that there is absolutely no statute anywhere like CERCLA.\n[Laughter]\nAnd I think all of us would... would agree with that.\nThe... the issue that you're trying to... that you're recognizing here is that the statute is permissive.\nThe statute is in fact permissive.\nThere is nothing in the language of the statute that suggests it's restrictive.\nIf, as this Court held, there is a preexisting right of action under 107, then this statute impliedly repeals it.\nNow, implied repeals are distinctly disfavored by this Court.\nIt's certainly not consistent with the plain language that some cause of action that existed under Federal law prior to the time CERCLA was enacted has been impliedly repealed by the statute.\nThe purpose of this statute was to grant the broadest possible rights of contribution under CERCLA to serve CERCLA's goals and objects, and those are twofold.\nThe first is that it's designed to facilitate the cleanup of contaminated sites.\nThe second is that it's intended to hold persons responsible for the contamination responsible.\nTo take... our interpretation is not at war with the language of the statute.\nPetitioner's is.\nUnder petitioner's situation, there is a clear loophole.\nThere is a clear vacancy in the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2556.877, 2561.503, 2561.669, 2563.898, 2570.874, 2573.558, 2577.644, 2586.189, 2590.565, 2601.71, 2611.37, 2616.488, 2622.765, 2626.974, 2627.967, 2632.092], "stop_times": [2561.503, 2561.669, 2563.898, 2570.874, 2573.558, 2577.644, 2586.189, 2590.565, 2601.71, 2611.37, 2616.488, 2622.765, 2626.974, 2627.967, 2632.092, 2633.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.877}, "reply_to": "22168__2_047", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_049", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "What... what is your answer to their response to the loophole argument that, in point of fact, you can... if you want to undertake this cleanup, all you've got to do basically is go to EPA and say, look, we want to get into circumstances in which we can have a settlement with you so that during or after it, we can... we can go for contribution?\nWhat's your answer to that, that you have an avenue to get where you want to go?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2633.949, 2653.518], "stop_times": [2653.518, 2656.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2633.949}, "reply_to": "22168__2_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22168__2_050", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--My answer, Your Honor, is that the very purpose of CERCLA, from its inception, was to arm the Federal Government and private parties with powers sufficient that would motivate voluntary cleanup action without Federal involvement.\nAnd that would be an antithesis of the goals of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2656.778, 2670.153], "stop_times": [2670.153, 2672.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2656.778}, "reply_to": "22168__2_049", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_051", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, that may... how about the answer to the practical question that Justice Ginsburg raised with your friend on the other side?\nIs it easy to do what they suggest, or is it difficult to do what they suggest?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2672.837, 2678.492], "stop_times": [2678.492, 2682.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2672.837}, "reply_to": "22168__2_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22168__2_052", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "In my experience, Your Honor, it is not easy to do.\nYou stand in line.\nAnd the question of standing in line while contamination exists when you're within the distance of a lake, at the end of runways, near the place where this contamination took place, when you're in a situation where there is movement and concern with groundwater--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2682.745, 2685.141, 2686.172], "stop_times": [2685.141, 2686.172, 2700.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2682.745}, "reply_to": "22168__2_051", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_053", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "What about the State agency?\nI mean, the State agency was telling you you got a problem, clean it up.\nWhy wouldn't such an agency be an easier place to get a settlement from than EPA?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2700.412, 2701.981, 2706.067], "stop_times": [2701.981, 2706.067, 2713.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2700.412}, "reply_to": "22168__2_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22168__2_054", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Your... Your Honor, the question of both Federal and State agency assumes the resources and ability and timing and staffing of the agencies to get to the point, and... and get it done in an expedited way.\nI am not saying that it is not an avenue that could be pursued.\nWhat I am saying is that the entire purpose of CERCLA was to avoid that.\nThe purpose of CERCLA was to get parties involved in voluntary cleanup so that this country could have uncontaminated sites, so this country could have environmental protection and cleanups that serve the interests of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2713.293, 2724.522, 2728.98, 2732.695], "stop_times": [2724.522, 2728.98, 2732.695, 2745.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2713.293}, "reply_to": "22168__2_053", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_055", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, perhaps Congress should have used different language.\nThat's our problem.\nWe can't make it up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2745.121, 2747.45, 2748.382], "stop_times": [2747.45, 2748.382, 2749.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2745.121}, "reply_to": "22168__2_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22168__2_056", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Your Honor, I think the language that Congress used clearly serves the same purposes and goals within its plain language.\nWe're... we're here under... if anyone is here under the plain banner language here, we are.\nWe are not suggesting that you have to add the word only to the statute in order to get to the plain meaning.\nWe're not suggesting that you have to add the words, under State law, to the statute to get to the plain meaning.\nWe're giving effect to every single term in the statute, all the way down to the term the in the statute, as I previously expressed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2749.579, 2756.184, 2761.18, 2766.215, 2771.583], "stop_times": [2756.184, 2761.18, 2766.215, 2771.583, 2779.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2749.579}, "reply_to": "22168__2_055", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_057", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "No, but you're... you're effectively reading out of it the... the limitation, during or following any civil action under section 9606--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2779.385], "stop_times": [2791.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2779.385}, "reply_to": "22168__2_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22168__2_058", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2791.024], "stop_times": [2792.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2791.024}, "reply_to": "22168__2_057", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_059", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--because you're saying any person may seek contribution during or after and they may also seek contribution any other time.\nI mean, why... why have the limitation?\nYou're just reading it out.\nIt makes no sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2792.154, 2800.206, 2803.367, 2804.277], "stop_times": [2800.206, 2803.367, 2804.277, 2804.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2792.154}, "reply_to": "22168__2_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22168__2_060", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Your Honor, I'm not reading anything out.\nI'm reading everything in.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2804.77, 2806.627], "stop_times": [2806.627, 2807.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2804.77}, "reply_to": "22168__2_059", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_061", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2807.62], "stop_times": [2808.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2807.62}, "reply_to": "22168__2_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22168__2_062", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "And I think there's a very big difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2808.363], "stop_times": [2810.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2808.363}, "reply_to": "22168__2_061", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_063", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "What... what function does during or following any civil action under section 9606 of this statute serve--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2810.387], "stop_times": [2817.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2810.387}, "reply_to": "22168__2_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22168__2_064", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "As... as the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2817.279], "stop_times": [2818.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2817.279}, "reply_to": "22168__2_063", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_065", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--given... given that you believe the last sentence means there's a cause of action even when it's not during or following any civil action?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2818.105], "stop_times": [2824.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2818.105}, "reply_to": "22168__2_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22168__2_066", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--As the amicus briefs explained, Your Honor, in the Arco brief at page 20 and in the DuPont brief at page 15, the... at the time this statute was being enacted, the purpose of adding during into the statute was to preclude the Government from forcing people to wait until after judgment was rendered to get contribution in enforcement actions because it was the Government's position... and this... and the... and the actual document from the Government is... is available in the brief.\nIt's House document No. 9932 at page 23.\nThat is the position the Government was taking, and that's why that specific term was added.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2824.05, 2851.459, 2855.629], "stop_times": [2851.459, 2855.629, 2860.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2824.05}, "reply_to": "22168__2_065", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_067", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "During.\nWhat about or following?\nWhy was that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2860.087, 2860.642, 2861.49], "stop_times": [2860.642, 2861.49, 2862.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2860.087}, "reply_to": "22168__2_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22168__2_068", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Or follow... or following, Your Honor, was... was something that was in the bill to begin with.\nIt was added--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2862.233, 2866.653], "stop_times": [2866.653, 2867.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2862.233}, "reply_to": "22168__2_067", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_069", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--But why?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2867.972], "stop_times": [2868.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2867.972}, "reply_to": "22168__2_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22168__2_070", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Or following was in the bill.\nThey... they were providing for the right of contribution after judgment, but during was added solely for the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2868.444, 2870.118], "stop_times": [2870.118, 2875.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2868.444}, "reply_to": "22168__2_069", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_071", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Why... why do you need it?\nWhy do you the or following, at least, if you have that last sentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2875.857, 2876.805], "stop_times": [2876.805, 2880.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.857}, "reply_to": "22168__2_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22168__2_072", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2880.232], "stop_times": [2880.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2880.232}, "reply_to": "22168__2_071", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_073", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--that says there's a right of contribution?\nOther... other--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2880.687, 2881.718], "stop_times": [2881.718, 2883.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2880.687}, "reply_to": "22168__2_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22168__2_074", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Your Honor, I have to take the words of Congress as they are, as... as we all do.\nI can only say that there's nothing in the statute that says it's restrictive.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2883.554, 2886.836], "stop_times": [2886.836, 2890.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2883.554}, "reply_to": "22168__2_073", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_075", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "So your point is it's emphasis.\nIs that what it is?\nIt's emphasis because in fact during or after, the word during adds nothing.\nThe word, or after, adds nothing.\nIf you give the last sentence the reading you're giving it, that you say in the historic circumstance where everybody was fighting about this, Congress put it in really to emphasize that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2890.513, 2892.409, 2893.318, 2898.353, 2900.09], "stop_times": [2892.409, 2893.318, 2898.353, 2900.09, 2910.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2890.513}, "reply_to": "22168__2_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22168__2_076", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2910.697], "stop_times": [2911.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2910.697}, "reply_to": "22168__2_075", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_077", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Is... is that basically the point?\nBecause they were fighting the Department of... whoever, the DOJ or somebody who had a different view of it and they wanted to emphasize it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2911.728, 2912.843], "stop_times": [2912.843, 2919.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2911.728}, "reply_to": "22168__2_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22168__2_078", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--If I... if I can elaborate.\nThe first part of the statute deals with the rights of parties at the time an action is pending.\nThe second part of the statute, the last sentence deals with the rights of parties at the time the action... before the action has been filed.\nIt permits parties without Federal involvement to do things together in... without EPA involvement--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2919.53, 2921.266, 2926.012, 2933.238], "stop_times": [2921.266, 2926.012, 2933.238, 2940.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2919.53}, "reply_to": "22168__2_077", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_079", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Well, but it... the part about during or following, certainly following any civil action means after that action is concluded.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2940.047], "stop_times": [2948.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.047}, "reply_to": "22168__2_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22168__2_080", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nI... I would agree with that.\nI think I've addressed the... the persistent issues that we have, but I want to talk a bit about the issue of the may being permissive as opposed to be mandatory.\nI'm not going to stand up here and tell the Court that there aren't statutes under certain circumstances where this Court hasn't or might not construe a statute to be mandatory, which uses the word may.\nOn the other hand, may is... it's... that's not the natural and normal and plain meaning of the word in... in this context.\nIn this context, we have a permissive statute.\nWe have a remedial statute.\nWe have a statute that's intended to achieve a purpose that is intended in a broad, remedial sense.\nAnd that purpose is consistent with the goals and objectives of the statute.\nThis Court should not consider the statute standing alone in a vacuum.\nOne of the problems I have with the argument of petitioner here is that they construe the common law like a statute and they construe the statute like the common law.\nThey construe the common law as though it's rigid, and even though CERCLA says you deal with the... not only the law as it existed at common law in 1980 or 1986, but you deal with it in an evolving basis.\nAnd it's very important--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [2948.387, 2949.789, 2952.307, 2965.681, 2977.837, 2985.372, 2988.14, 2989.459, 2995.503, 2999.861, 3005.434, 3013.69, 3024.836], "stop_times": [2949.789, 2952.307, 2965.681, 2977.837, 2985.372, 2988.14, 2989.459, 2995.503, 2999.861, 3005.434, 3013.69, 3024.836, 3026.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2948.387}, "reply_to": "22168__2_079", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_081", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Where does it say that, that you deal with in... in an evolving basis?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [3026.118], "stop_times": [3030.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3026.118}, "reply_to": "22168__2_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22168__2_082", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "--There... there is a section of the statute, and if it comes to me in a moment... it's in my brief and it's cited, Your Honor, that you deal not only with the common law at the time, but at the time as it evolves.\nAnd it specifically instructs the courts, in construing the statute, to deal with the evolving common law.\nCommon law is evolving.\nCommon law is based on experience going back to the old Justice Holmes quote.\nAnd we have over 20 years' worth of experience with this statute in a system that has worked, in a system that is working to achieve the purposes that CERCLA provided.\nSurely one of the important points in considering this statute is whether or not the interpretation that has been applied for 20 years, that has governed the settled expectations of the parties for all this time, that interpretation should inform this Court as to whether or not the interpretation we are asserting is consistent with the law.\nAnd it is.\nIt's not at war with the statute.\nPetitioner's interpretation is clearly at war with the statute.\nIt clearly frustrates the parties' purposes and delays the expeditious progress of... of cleanups.\nSo if you're dealing with a mandatory or a permissive construction here, Your Honors, I think the... the permissive construction, which achieves the purpose of the statute, which is entirely permissible under the plain language of the statute, however inartfully it may be drafted, is the one that should be chosen.\nThere were a couple of other points, if I may bring them up.\nPetitioners and the... the United States Government concede in their... in their brief essentially that section 113, the last savings clause, preserves any right of contribution that is separate and apart from 113.\nThat refers to the 107 cause of action.\nThat is, in fact, a matter of declaration in their briefs.\nSo if we're entirely correct on that point, then we certainly have a right to proceed here, and I think under those circumstances, our interpretation should be followed.\nThe purpose of what we're doing here is to get the Federal Government out of the picture as soon as possible.\nHere we will have a multiplicity of litigation.\nPeople will be going to the Federal Government to get orders from the Federal Government because... and to get the Government to sue them, only to disobey those orders, after they're entered, to get the Government to sue them.\nThere's... this artificiality of the system that petitioner is advocating here really belies the entire purpose of Congress, and I would suggest to the Court that under the circumstances, the judgment of the Fifth Circuit should be affirmed because the achievements that it... it wrought are in fact consistent with the statute's purpose.\nIf the Court has no further questions, those are the... my concluding remarks.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [3030.538, 3042.343, 3048.659, 3050.267, 3055.18, 3065.582, 3085.661, 3086.554, 3088.162, 3092.21, 3099.019, 3118.355, 3124.571, 3140.546, 3145.17, 3150.0, 3160.031, 3165.232, 3168.287, 3179.35, 3198.63], "stop_times": [3042.343, 3048.659, 3050.267, 3055.18, 3065.582, 3085.661, 3086.554, 3088.162, 3092.21, 3099.019, 3118.355, 3124.571, 3140.546, 3145.17, 3150.0, 3160.031, 3165.232, 3168.287, 3179.35, 3198.63, 3202.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3030.538}, "reply_to": "22168__2_081", "speaker": "richard_o_faulk"}
{"id": "22168__2_083", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Faulk.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [3202.428, 3203.46], "stop_times": [3203.46, 3204.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3202.428}, "reply_to": "22168__2_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22168__2_084", "conversation_id": "22168", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until Tuesday the twelfth of October at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1192", "start_times": [3204.575], "stop_times": [3210.148], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3204.575}, "reply_to": "22168__2_083", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22150__0_000", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "We'll hear argument next in No. 03-9877, Jon Cutter v. Reginald Wilkinson.\nMr. Clement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [0.0, 10.309], "stop_times": [10.309, 54.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22150__0_001", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWhen the government acts to remove government-imposed burdens on religious exercise, it does not violate the Establishment Clause.\nRather, as this Court put the point in Zorach against Clauson, when the government eases those kind of burdens, it follows the best of our traditions.\nThe Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA, eases government burdens on restrictions by having institutions and prison officials examine burdens on religious exercise and remove unjustified, substantial burdens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [54.142, 57.812, 65.129, 74.068], "stop_times": [57.812, 65.129, 74.068, 90.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 54.142}, "reply_to": "22150__0_000", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_002", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "But, you know, when you say it eases burdens, it doesn't just ease burdens imposed by the Federal Government.\nIt eases burdens imposed by State governments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [90.041, 97.604], "stop_times": [97.604, 101.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 90.041}, "reply_to": "22150__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22150__0_003", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "That's exactly right, Mr. Chief Justice, but I think that... that that doesn't make any substantial difference, in part, I think because if you think about certainly this application of RLUIPA, it's Spending Clause legislation.\nAnd spending legislation often takes the form of giving the States an incentive to take action on their own.\nAnd in this sense, I think you can understand this legislation as giving the States an opportunity to remove their own burdens on religious exercise.\nAnd that's precisely how it works in practice.\nThe relevant action that a State takes is State action removing its own burdens, not Federal action imposed on the States.\nAnd I think that's consistent with the analysis of this Court in the Dole case where the Federal Government, on the assumption of this Court, didn't have the direct power under the 21st Amendment to raise the drinking age, but it could give the option to the States to exercise their power to do it.\nSo I do think in the end, the burdens that are removed here are attributable to the State of Ohio, not to the Federal Government.\nIt is also true that the standard that's imposed by RLUIPA is a more exacting standard than that imposed by the Federal Constitution itself.\nBut I don't think providing for greater accommodation of religious exercise than the Federal Constitution creates an Establishment Clause problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [101.721, 113.87, 119.668, 127.62, 129.865, 136.782, 151.074, 157.356, 165.718], "stop_times": [113.87, 119.668, 127.62, 129.865, 136.782, 151.074, 157.356, 165.718, 174.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 101.721}, "reply_to": "22150__0_002", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_004", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "But in... in the City of Boerne, didn't we say that Congress couldn't come in and simply rewrite some part of the Constitution to make it read differently than we had?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [174.229], "stop_times": [184.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 174.229}, "reply_to": "22150__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22150__0_005", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Absolutely, Mr. Chief Justice, but I don't think this case poses the same problems as City of Boerne.\nFirst of all, this really isn't an effort to rewrite a rule of decision for all cases the way that RFRA was.\nCongress in this legislation targeted two areas where there were particular problems with respect to religious exercise, and in those contexts, it addressed a different standard.\nNow, as I say, that standard is higher, but so are the standards of over half of the States which also apply a heightened scrutiny test either as a matter of State constitutional law or State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [184.65, 190.793, 196.831, 206.739], "stop_times": [190.793, 196.831, 206.739, 217.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 184.65}, "reply_to": "22150__0_004", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_006", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, RFRA didn't involve a... a limitation to situations in which Federal funds were involved, and as I understand this statute does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [217.396], "stop_times": [227.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.396}, "reply_to": "22150__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__0_007", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "That is also true.\nI mean, there... there is... to be sure there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [227.182, 228.338], "stop_times": [228.338, 230.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 227.182}, "reply_to": "22150__0_006", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_008", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "More than also.\nI... that seems to me the principal difference between this and RFRA.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [230.273, 230.603], "stop_times": [230.603, 233.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 230.273}, "reply_to": "22150__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__0_009", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, I take your point, Justice Scalia.\nI would... I would clarify that there is the potential for applications to the statute under the Commerce Clause.\nWe don't think that's really appropriately presented here.\nWe also think that with respect to State prisons in all their applications, they will be Spending Clause applications.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [233.706, 236.275, 241.048, 243.661], "stop_times": [236.275, 241.048, 243.661, 249.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 233.706}, "reply_to": "22150__0_008", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_010", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Is that... what you're saying is academic because the statute doesn't require a Federal spending hook.\nIt says it has the other commerce peg.\nI take it you... you gave a pragmatic answer to that, that every State in fact gets Federal funds for their prison systems.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [249.73, 256.956, 259.772], "stop_times": [256.956, 259.772, 267.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 249.73}, "reply_to": "22150__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22150__0_011", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "That's right, Justice Ginsburg, and I think the fact that there may be more than one hook for this legislation in certain applications shouldn't make any constitutional difference.\nAnd I think here it is Spending Clause legislation as it applies to the State of Ohio.\nI think that's conceded.\nThey... they take issue with whether it's valid.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [267.313, 277.712, 282.192, 283.377], "stop_times": [277.712, 282.192, 283.377, 284.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 267.313}, "reply_to": "22150__0_010", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_012", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "But, Mr. Clement, it seems to me the Spending Clause aspect cuts in the other direction, if we're just focusing on the Establishment Clause.\nThe fact that Federal money is involved, why does that make your burden any less in defending the... the statute under the Establishment Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [284.87, 292.778], "stop_times": [292.778, 301.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 284.87}, "reply_to": "22150__0_011", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22150__0_013", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, Justice Stevens, I don't think the fact that there's money involved makes it harder or easier from a Spending Clause perspective.\nI think from the perspective of why this case is different from Boerne, the fact that it's Spending Clause and Commerce Clause and not section 5 legislation makes a big difference.\nBut I certainly don't want to leave you with the impression that there's anything constitutionally problematic because there's Federal money involved because, of course, this Court has upheld Federal Spending Clause legislation in religion areas in cases like Zobrest, Mergens, Agostini, Mitchell against Helms.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [301.066, 307.476, 316.084], "stop_times": [307.476, 316.084, 331.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 301.066}, "reply_to": "22150__0_012", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_014", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Do you... do you think the Establishment Clause issue in this case would be the same as the Establishment Clause issue in City of Boerne if we... if the Court had reached the Establishment Clause issue in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [331.071], "stop_times": [341.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 331.071}, "reply_to": "22150__0_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22150__0_015", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "No, I don't, Justice Stevens.\nOr another way of answering that is I would say that even though you thought there was an Establishment Clause problem in the City of Boerne case, I don't think you need to find one here.\nAnd part of that is because this is more targeted legislation, and it particularly deals, as... as it comes to this Court in this application, with the exercise of religion in prisons.\nAnd I think that's an area like the military where the Government is necessarily going to be involved with religion in a way that it otherwise wouldn't be.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [341.513, 343.572, 351.006, 361.085], "stop_times": [343.572, 351.006, 361.085, 368.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 341.513}, "reply_to": "22150__0_014", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_016", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "And yet, it... it provides an unusual framework or incentive, if you will, in the prison context to get religion.\nIf you can find some religious group that espouses drinking beer every day or other alcoholic beverages or taking certain amounts of marijuana or no telling what or having certain clothing or other things that would alter the conditions of the prison environment, there's a real incentive here to get religion.\n[Laughter]\nAnd the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [368.796, 380.465, 405.451, 406.052], "stop_times": [380.465, 405.451, 406.052, 407.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 368.796}, "reply_to": "22150__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22150__0_017", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [407.775], "stop_times": [409.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 407.775}, "reply_to": "22150__0_016", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_018", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Federal Government seems to be trying to provide those incentives.\nIs that a problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [409.366, 412.165], "stop_times": [412.165, 413.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 409.366}, "reply_to": "22150__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22150__0_019", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, Justice O'Connor, I don't think upon analysis it is, and I think there's a couple of reasons why that's so.\nFirst of all, this is not an absolute entitlement to get your religious beer at 5:00 p.m. every day.\nIt is a balancing test, and I think things like getting beer every day, getting marijuana inside prison walls would not satisfy the test.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [413.157, 418.415, 424.062], "stop_times": [418.415, 424.062, 431.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 413.157}, "reply_to": "22150__0_018", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_020", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, the... the language of the statute is pretty strong: unless the government demonstrates that the imposition is the least restrictive means and in furtherance of a compelling legislative interest.\nIt puts quite a burden on the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [431.64, 446.69], "stop_times": [446.69, 450.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 431.64}, "reply_to": "22150__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22150__0_021", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, it does, Justice O'Connor, but just to take a step back, I mean, applying that same standard in the Smith case, you yourself thought that a general law banning marijuana use outside or... or peyote use outside--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [450.503], "stop_times": [461.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 450.503}, "reply_to": "22150__0_020", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_022", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Yes, I think it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [461.97], "stop_times": [462.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 461.97}, "reply_to": "22150__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22150__0_023", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--peyote outside of prison would be justified even under that standard.\nI would think, a fortiori, it would be justified within prison walls.\nI want to make another point about the incentives, though, which I think is important.\nEvery State in the Union provides some degree of accommodation for religion, and in many States it's majoritarian religions that are accommodated.\nNow, if there's going be some incentive to engage in religiosity in prison in order to take advantage of things offered for religion that aren't available for something else, at least RLUIPA has the virtue of making sure that all religions are accommodated neutrally.\nSo if there's any incentive, it's an incentive for religion over irreligion as opposed to between sects... sects of religions, and I think that's the way you would have without RLUIPA involved.\nThe other point I want to make is although there may be some extravagant claims of certain religions that would seem quite enticing, much religious exercise in many of the reported cases involve things that I don't think people are necessarily lining up to do.\nI mean, there are a number of lower court cases dealing with the availability of kosher food, and in prison what that means as a practical matter, is generally you are going to get cold food rather than hot food.\nAnd I don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [462.876, 465.901, 469.372, 472.459, 480.038, 494.23, 504.811, 517.366, 526.778], "stop_times": [465.901, 469.372, 472.459, 480.038, 494.23, 504.811, 517.366, 526.778, 527.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.876}, "reply_to": "22150__0_022", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_024", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "What about garb that is said to be associated with the religion but also is used as a cue for gang membership?\nLet's say a beard.\nThis religion requires me to wear a beard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [527.786, 537.786, 539.428], "stop_times": [537.786, 539.428, 545.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 527.786}, "reply_to": "22150__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22150__0_025", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think... and we cite a few cases in footnote 2 of our reply brief that suggest that in dealing with legitimate concerns about using prison... religious symbols or other religious items as a gang signifier or a gang identifier, that the... that there have been cases where the courts, even applying the heightened standard or RLUIPA or RFRA, have deferred to the government officials.\nI also think, though, it's worth noting how the Federal Government and the Bureau of Prisons has dealt with the concern that religious medallions, as opposed to beards, would be used for gang identification or gang signification.\nOhio, I take it, takes the position that if you have a medallion that could be used for those purposes, you can't have it within prison walls at all.\nThe Bureau of Prisons, by contrast, takes the position that you can have the medallion, but you have to wear it inside your shirt.\nSo it can't be used for prison signification purposes or gang identification purposes.\nAnd I think that shows the kind of reasonable accommodation that RLUIPA or RFRA, as it applies to the Federal Bureau of Prisons--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [545.241, 568.536, 579.95, 586.798, 593.593, 599.112], "stop_times": [568.536, 579.95, 586.798, 593.593, 599.112, 605.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.241}, "reply_to": "22150__0_024", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_026", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "What... what about a religion that it's a genuine tenet of the religion that the races are to be separated and the person says, the accommodation I want is never to be celled with someone who is not of my race?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [605.463], "stop_times": [616.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 605.463}, "reply_to": "22150__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22150__0_027", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--I think in a case like that... I mean, obviously, this Court's recent decision in Johnson would suggest that... that the prison officials are in a difficult position there and I think they could not accede to that request.\nAnd I think complying with the Equal Protection Clause in that context would itself be a compelling interest under the statute.\nAnd I think this Court in Widmar against Vincent, for example, suggested that avoiding Establishment Clause problems is a sufficient compelling interest.\nI would think equally avoiding the Equal Protection Clause violation in that context would also be a compelling interest, and I don't think there would be a least restrictive alternative.\nAnd so I think that the statute... there would be no statutory violation in refusing that particular accommodation.\nI think there... these show that there are ways to administer this statute in a way that's respectful of the decisions of local prison officials but also does make sure that they have a degree of sensitivity to these claims for religious exercise.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [616.658, 628.684, 635.234, 642.189, 650.781, 656.343], "stop_times": [628.684, 635.234, 642.189, 650.781, 656.343, 670.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 616.658}, "reply_to": "22150__0_026", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_028", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Does it... does the statute require the prison officials to evaluate the bona fides of the particular religion that's espoused?\nIsn't one of the groups here a Satanist group?\nSo the religion... the bona fides of the group have to be reviewed by the prison authorities.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [670.252, 679.004, 684.23], "stop_times": [679.004, 684.23, 690.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 670.252}, "reply_to": "22150__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22150__0_029", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, Justice O'Connor, no more so than under the Free... the Free Exercise Clause itself.\nI mean... and as this case, of course, comes to this Court, the substantiality of the religious beliefs and that they are actually held by these individuals has been stipulated to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [690.891, 695.818], "stop_times": [695.818, 704.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 690.891}, "reply_to": "22150__0_028", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_030", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "We don't have to decide it here, but it's looming.\nAnd when it goes back, if it does, that will have to be resolved in this and in every case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [704.25, 707.374], "stop_times": [707.374, 713.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 704.25}, "reply_to": "22150__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22150__0_031", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "That's right, Justice O'Connor, but that's true under the Free Exercise Clause as well.\nSo even the Sixth Circuit, that obviously had some problems with the statute, understood that on that score there's no more entanglement with religion under RLUIPA than there is under the Free Exercise Clause itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [713.357, 717.101], "stop_times": [717.101, 727.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 713.357}, "reply_to": "22150__0_030", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_032", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Haven't we said in at least one of our cases that the government can't favor religion over irreligion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [727.566], "stop_times": [735.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 727.566}, "reply_to": "22150__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22150__0_033", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "That's right, Mr. Chief Justice, but this Court has been clear in the context of legislative accommodations of religion in particular to make clear that that preference of religion over irreligion doesn't mean that the government cannot provide legislative accommodations of religion without providing benefits for secular organizations as well.\nThat was the clear holding of this Court in Amos.\nAnd I think that although this Court has expressed concerns about religious accommodations when there's no guarantee that the religious accommodation will be provided to other sects... take, for example, the Kiryas Joel case.\nThis Court has been quite clear that there is not a constitutional problem in favoring religion over irreligion in providing legislative accommodations for religion.\nAnd as I said, in... in Zorach against Clauson, this Court noted that that's not just the absence of a constitutional problem, but there's really a constitutional virtue in the legislature acting to accommodate religion.\nThe Court made basically the same point in Smith in saying that even though the Free Exercise Clause did not require the special accommodation or exemption for peyote, the legislatures could do so and in doing so, they would be furthering constitutional values.\nIf I could say a few words about the Spending Clause claim that is brought by Ohio in this case.\nThey suggest that there's a difficulty with this legislation under the Spending Clause.\nNow, the court below--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [735.72, 754.637, 756.802, 768.525, 776.951, 788.285, 801.218, 805.549, 809.741], "stop_times": [754.637, 756.802, 768.525, 776.951, 788.285, 801.218, 805.549, 809.741, 810.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 735.72}, "reply_to": "22150__0_032", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_034", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Is that before us on the questions presented?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [810.759], "stop_times": [812.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 810.759}, "reply_to": "22150__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22150__0_035", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, I think it is not in the questions presented themselves, I don't think, but I think it would be fairly open to this Court to reach it because it would be an alternative ground to support the judgment below.\nThat said, this Court doesn't have to reach it and its practice in recent cases has been when there's one constitutional claim that is... that the Court has ruled on below, it doesn't necessarily reach the other... the other constitutional claims.\nThe Court did that in cases like Oakland Cannabis and the Pierce County case.\nAnd we would urge the same course here because, although the courts have divided on this Establishment Clause issue, the courts have not divided on the Spending Clause issue.\nAll the courts that have reached it have upheld it as valid Spending Clause legislation.\nAnd I think that reflects the fact that there is a clear nexus here between the Federal funds and the Federal conditions that are being imposed.\nIf the Federal Government is going to provide money, over $1 million to Ohio, to have prisoner meals, then certainly the Federal Government can insist that kosher meals are among the available options.\nAnd so too if the... if the Federal Government is going to provide monies for Ohio to build prisons, they can ensure that those prisons are safe and are operated consistent with Federal policy such that there's not discrimination on the basis of race or religion.\nThe last issue in the case, of course, is the Commerce Clause issue, and on that issue, no court below reached the issue.\nAnd we think this Court's recent admonition in the Sabri case that facial challenges are best when infrequent, applies with particular force here because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [812.743, 823.659, 835.948, 839.51, 847.866, 852.219, 859.392, 870.251, 883.424, 889.168], "stop_times": [823.659, 835.948, 839.51, 847.866, 852.219, 859.392, 870.251, 883.424, 889.168, 898.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 812.743}, "reply_to": "22150__0_034", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_036", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "I don't... I don't understand, Mr. Clement, how your second point strengthens your first point.\nThat is to say, if we disagree with your first point, namely that the institutionalized persons provisions are consistent with the Establishment Clause, we think that they contradict the Establishment Clause, they couldn't possibly be saved by your second point.\nCan you require as a... as a condition of... under the Spending Clause that a State violate the Establishment Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [898.383, 904.319, 920.964], "stop_times": [904.319, 920.964, 930.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 898.383}, "reply_to": "22150__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__0_037", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--No, of course not, Justice Scalia, and I must have misspoke.\nMy point is they raise three arguments that are all alternative arguments to support the judgment below.\nMy burden is to defeat all three of them to show... if the Court reaches them.\nSo I have to show that there's no Establishment Clause violation, which we... we've certainly made that argument in the brief and here today, and that there's no Spending Clause violation, and that there's no Commerce Clause violation.\nThe... in this case the Commerce Clause claim has a completely abstract quality, and indeed, the only temptation to reach the issue at all would be that the... since RLUIPA has a jurisdictional element, the resolution of the Commerce Clause is so clear that it might be tempting to reach it.\nBut I think the better course would be for this Court to allow that issue to be sorted out in the... in the lower courts.\nIf there are no further questions, I would reserve time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [930.191, 932.505, 937.923, 941.715, 952.185, 966.701, 972.19], "stop_times": [932.505, 937.923, 941.715, 952.185, 966.701, 972.19, 974.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 930.191}, "reply_to": "22150__0_036", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__0_038", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Clement.\nMr. Goldberger, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [974.643, 976.083], "stop_times": [976.083, 978.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 974.643}, "reply_to": "22150__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22150__1_000", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist, and may it please the Court:\nThis case comes before the Court on a motion to dismiss, and the facts, the underlying facts, involving the motion to dismiss are in dispute, and it's a serious dispute.\nAnd those should be reserved for... for the court below, in particular the claims that our clients' religions are affiliated with gang activities, but there are serious disputes about that.\nThere is a Wicca chaplain that's been hired by the Department of Corrections in Wisconsin.\nTwo of my former students, who are upstanding members of the bar in every respect, are Asatrus, so that these are matters that should be preserved for the court below.\nThis Court has made... asked many questions about the accommodation of religion, and the suggestion is, well, isn't there favoritism?\nDoesn't it encourage favoritism one way or the other?\nBut the answer to each of those questions is the same with respect to the current accommodations already provided by the Ohio Department of Corrections with respect to mainstream religions, and in fact, we believe on remand, we will be able to show that there is a preference for accommodating mainstream religions as opposed to non-mainstream religions.\nSimilarly, there has... there are... there have been questions by this Court that... that the standard imposed on the State of Ohio by RLUIPA is this particularly difficult or tortuous standard.\nIn fact, under State law in Humphrey v. Lane, which is cited in our brief, the State of Ohio Supreme Court has already imposed a similar standard with regard to the religious accommodation claims of prison guards.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [978.301, 991.33, 1004.145, 1017.376, 1021.782, 1033.311, 1041.621, 1044.063, 1067.363, 1083.101], "stop_times": [991.33, 1004.145, 1017.376, 1021.782, 1033.311, 1041.621, 1044.063, 1067.363, 1083.101, 1103.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 978.301}, "reply_to": "22150__0_038", "speaker": "david_a_goldberger"}
{"id": "22150__1_001", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Is Satanism a non-mainstream religion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1103.01], "stop_times": [1107.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1103.01}, "reply_to": "22150__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__1_002", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "With all due respect, Your Honor, I understand that there is some uncomfortable feeling about the nature of my clients' religion.\nAs the Court will note in a... a footnote in our brief, it has been reported in the press that there is an adherent in the Royal Navy of Satanism, and the Royal Navy has agreed that if he's killed in the line of duty that there will be religious rights at the end consistent with his religion and, in fact, it amounts to a recognition of his religion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1107.569, 1116.609], "stop_times": [1116.609, 1140.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1107.569}, "reply_to": "22150__1_001", "speaker": "david_a_goldberger"}
{"id": "22150__1_003", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "What does this have to do with it?\nThe Royal Navy you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1140.626, 1141.596], "stop_times": [1141.596, 1142.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1140.626}, "reply_to": "22150__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__1_004", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, I--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1142.967, 1144.929], "stop_times": [1144.929, 1145.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1142.967}, "reply_to": "22150__1_003", "speaker": "david_a_goldberger"}
{"id": "22150__1_005", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Our Royal Navy?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1145.072, 1146.449], "stop_times": [1146.449, 1149.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1145.072}, "reply_to": "22150__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__1_006", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "The answer is yes then.\nIt is a non-mainstream religion.\nAnd I think that it's important for us to assure that religious groups of all stripes are... are accommodated in the... in the context--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1149.324, 1152.486, 1154.081], "stop_times": [1152.486, 1154.081, 1168.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1149.324}, "reply_to": "22150__1_005", "speaker": "david_a_goldberger"}
{"id": "22150__1_007", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "To what extent?\nI asked the... the racist... the religion that says God wanted the races to be separated and the accommodation is do not cell me with someone of another race.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1168.629, 1170.112], "stop_times": [1170.112, 1190.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.629}, "reply_to": "22150__1_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22150__1_008", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--I believe that there is... it... the statute is pretty clear that if there is a... if it's compelling or requiring the State of Ohio to engage in an unconstitutional activity... and that would be a segregation of the races... that there's a compelling justification... or a compelling governmental interest in not complying with the statute or saying that the statute does not apply under these circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1190.244], "stop_times": [1216.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1190.244}, "reply_to": "22150__1_007", "speaker": "david_a_goldberger"}
{"id": "22150__1_009", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "How about racist literature but it's under the aegis of a religious organization?\nAnd that... suppose the prison does not permit, say, a member of the Aryan Nation to get that racist literature... to get racist literature but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1216.126, 1223.175], "stop_times": [1223.175, 1234.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1216.126}, "reply_to": "22150__1_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22150__1_010", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "To the extent that there is bona fide religious literature that is racist, there are... we believe that the Constitution permits Congress or any legislative body to accommodate religion in isolation from other religious right--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1234.718], "stop_times": [1258.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1234.718}, "reply_to": "22150__1_009", "speaker": "david_a_goldberger"}
{"id": "22150__1_011", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, when you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1258.722], "stop_times": [1259.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1258.722}, "reply_to": "22150__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22150__1_012", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--fundamental rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1259.821], "stop_times": [1261.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1259.821}, "reply_to": "22150__1_011", "speaker": "david_a_goldberger"}
{"id": "22150__1_013", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--When you use the term bona fide, you're introducing a new kind of factor.\nDo courts evaluate the bona fides of someone claiming a religion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1261.047, 1267.072], "stop_times": [1267.072, 1273.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1261.047}, "reply_to": "22150__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22150__1_014", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "I believe they... as a matter of course, prison officials have to determine whether there's a good faith request for religious accommodation or whether the person is trying to seek something under... as a ruse.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1273.617], "stop_times": [1289.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1273.617}, "reply_to": "22150__1_013", "speaker": "david_a_goldberger"}
{"id": "22150__1_015", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "I take it we've done that in the conscientious objector cases, United States v. Seeger and Gillette.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1289.382], "stop_times": [1293.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1289.382}, "reply_to": "22150__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22150__1_016", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "That's correct.\nBut to let me finish my... my answer to Justice Ginsburg, if... if this Court is of the view... or members of this Court are of the view that it would be content discrimination, for example, although we believe that you can accommodate one fundamental right separately from the other fundamental rights, then of course, if there were a First Amendment violation, that too would be a compelling governmental interest in justifying refusal to apply RLUIPA.\nSo that there is no serious problem here.\nAnd in fact, there is no reported case that any racist literature has ever been permitted in... into the prisons that we've been able to find.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1293.728, 1294.458, 1326.633, 1330.516], "stop_times": [1294.458, 1326.633, 1330.516, 1340.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1293.728}, "reply_to": "22150__1_015", "speaker": "david_a_goldberger"}
{"id": "22150__1_017", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, the content discrimination, I take it, would be raised by someone who wants to get this for political or psychological reasons--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1340.031], "stop_times": [1347.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1340.031}, "reply_to": "22150__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22150__1_018", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1347.843], "stop_times": [1349.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1347.843}, "reply_to": "22150__1_017", "speaker": "david_a_goldberger"}
{"id": "22150__1_019", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--you would say, I'm not challenging the right of the... as a member of this religious sect.\nI just say, me too.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1349.369, 1355.203], "stop_times": [1355.203, 1356.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.369}, "reply_to": "22150__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22150__1_020", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, as I say, to the extent that that's right, if there were content discrimination along those lines and... and the Court said that there could not be... it was the Court's view that it could not be accommodated for religion only, then of course the... then there would be a compelling governmental interest in avoiding content discrimination.\nIn terms of whether or not there's a compelling justification of dealing with inflammatory literature, I don't think that's in dispute in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1356.584, 1377.052], "stop_times": [1377.052, 1385.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1356.584}, "reply_to": "22150__1_019", "speaker": "david_a_goldberger"}
{"id": "22150__1_021", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, I... I take it underlying Justice Ginsburg's question is... is the concern that this accommodation is unequal because there are other First Amendment rights that are not given the... that are not given the same precedence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1385.004], "stop_times": [1401.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1385.004}, "reply_to": "22150__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22150__1_022", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, first of all--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1401.995], "stop_times": [1405.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1401.995}, "reply_to": "22150__1_021", "speaker": "david_a_goldberger"}
{"id": "22150__1_023", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "That... that was at least an underlying concern of her question, and I think it's a legitimate concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1405.862], "stop_times": [1409.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1405.862}, "reply_to": "22150__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22150__1_024", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, as... as I read Amos, Amos says that the accommodation of religion need not come--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1409.461], "stop_times": [1417.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1409.461}, "reply_to": "22150__1_023", "speaker": "david_a_goldberger"}
{"id": "22150__1_025", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, but in Amos, the Court was just... the... the government was just saying that one of its own statutes could be accommodated.\nThis is something different.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1417.006, 1425.678], "stop_times": [1425.678, 1426.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1417.006}, "reply_to": "22150__1_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22150__1_026", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, it's not... I'm not sure that it's different for constitutional purposes, that if there is a differential accommodation which the Court concludes violates the First Amendment rights of someone else because there's content discrimination, I'm not... there is no reason to treat the source of the accommodation as dispositive.\nIt's whether... it is the presence of the accommodation and whether it's broad enough or narrow enough.\nOn the other hand, the... we... we do want to make clear that there are numerous accommodations that involve First Amendment rights that do not overlap with... with religious exercise or accommodation of religious exercise.\nTo the extent that there is political gatherings, they're not entitled under the First Amendment to the... they're not accommodated in the same way that religious congregations in prison are accommodated.\nAnd this Court so far has found there to be no constitutional violation for that distinction.\nAnd to the extent that there's a compelling governmental interest, there is little doubt that the... that the prison officials can simply say no.\nThis... we will not accommodate it.\nWe're not required to accommodate it under the statute.\nThe... it is important to note, that the... these same accommodations are routinely granted to mainstream religions and that they do not shift burdens to third parties.\nThere's been substantial argument that there is a substantial shifting of burdens to third parties.\nIn fact, where third party claims have been made by the State of Ohio was that basically that the cost of security is increased because now it takes more... or the cost of prison administration is increased because it takes more time to take care of these claims and requests for accommodation than there would be if they didn't have to attend to these--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1426.621, 1448.353, 1453.014, 1475.173, 1491.524, 1496.254, 1505.715, 1507.198, 1509.588, 1525.513, 1530.798], "stop_times": [1448.353, 1453.014, 1475.173, 1491.524, 1496.254, 1505.715, 1507.198, 1509.588, 1525.513, 1530.798, 1557.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1426.621}, "reply_to": "22150__1_025", "speaker": "david_a_goldberger"}
{"id": "22150__1_027", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "I'm... I'm sorry.\nYou've lost me.\nI don't know what you mean about shifting burdens to third parties.\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1557.645, 1559.229, 1559.644, 1562.459], "stop_times": [1559.229, 1559.644, 1562.459, 1562.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1557.645}, "reply_to": "22150__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__1_028", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, the argument is that when, for example, a religious accommodation forces... and... and... the third parties to chip in, as they had to do in Caldor, for example, private third parties, that that renders the accommodation unconstitutional.\nAnd the State has been arguing that the lifting of burdens on the religious exercise of our clients makes it harder for their prison guards--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1562.864, 1581.348], "stop_times": [1581.348, 1590.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1562.864}, "reply_to": "22150__1_027", "speaker": "david_a_goldberger"}
{"id": "22150__1_029", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Goldberger.\nMr. Cole, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1590.499, 1592.761], "stop_times": [1592.761, 1595.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1590.499}, "reply_to": "22150__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22150__2_000", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn prison's unique environment, RLUIPA violates the Constitution.\nIt directly and impermissibly advances religion and it would have to be... have to be... perceived by objective observers as endorsement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1595.646, 1602.909, 1607.993], "stop_times": [1602.909, 1607.993, 1617.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1595.646}, "reply_to": "22150__1_029", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_001", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Let me ask you this... this question because it... it... I think it goes to the... the heart of what I think is the problem in this case.\nIf we are going to recognize a sphere of accommodation, which we have done previously, I think we have to recognize that the... that the object of accommodating and the effect of accommodating is, in one sense, to benefit... I mean, in an obvious sense, is to benefit religion.\nBy recognizing a sphere of accommodation, in effect, I think the Court has said there is a sphere in which religion can be benefitted that does not rise necessarily to the level of government proselytization or... or government endorsement.\nAnd it seems to me that the argument that you're making is that if the government endorses at all, it's immediately in... in the... the realm of establishment.\nAm I... am I missing something in your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1617.219, 1624.99, 1648.617, 1670.03, 1683.48], "stop_times": [1624.99, 1648.617, 1670.03, 1683.48, 1686.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.219}, "reply_to": "22150__2_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_002", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, I think you are, Your Honor, and if our brief came across that way, I... I think it overstates the line that we're asking this Court to draw.\nThe Court has recognized, in talking about accommodations, that of course accommodations by their nature benefit religion.\nThat's part of an accommodation and could be said to have the effect.\nBut the Court has said then we must draw lines.\nThat is, the Court has recognized that you can't just say, oh, it's an accommodation which means that's fine, it's always going to be fine if it's an accommodation.\nIn fact, Justice O'Connor said we need to draw lines because otherwise everything will just become, oh, that's an accommodation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1686.631, 1693.361, 1700.459, 1703.398, 1706.48, 1714.62], "stop_times": [1693.361, 1700.459, 1703.398, 1706.48, 1714.62, 1721.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1686.631}, "reply_to": "22150__2_001", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_003", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "All right.\nAnd... and why is the line violated here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1722.043, 1721.531], "stop_times": [1721.531, 1724.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.043}, "reply_to": "22150__2_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_004", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "The line is violated here, Your Honor, because of the unique incentives and burdens that arise in the prison context.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1724.545], "stop_times": [1731.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1724.545}, "reply_to": "22150__2_003", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_005", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, what the statute appears to be doing is to try to go back to the pre-Employment Division v. Smith case standard under the Free Exercise Clause, which did allow for accommodation of religion.\nAnd that appears to be what this statute is designed to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1731.499, 1750.363], "stop_times": [1750.363, 1755.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.499}, "reply_to": "22150__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22150__2_006", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "But in... in prison's unique environment, Your Honor, where there are so many deprivations of liberty and then to say the one... one way you can get out from under the thumb of all these prison regulations is to claim religion, and that's going to give you a powerful weapon not again to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1755.216], "stop_times": [1769.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1755.216}, "reply_to": "22150__2_005", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_007", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "But... but before Employment Division v. Smith, wouldn't we have had the same question arise in the prison context, and we would have dealt with it under the then-standards.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1769.983], "stop_times": [1780.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1769.983}, "reply_to": "22150__2_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22150__2_008", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--But... but the Court has... has always articulated that the rules... well, in Turner and O'Lone, the Court articulated that the rules are different in prison, citing to the intractable problems of prison administration and the... and the problems of subjecting--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1780.601], "stop_times": [1794.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1780.601}, "reply_to": "22150__2_007", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_009", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "But had the Court ever said that the Free Exercise Clause couldn't be applied in the prison context?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1794.712], "stop_times": [1801.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1794.712}, "reply_to": "22150__2_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22150__2_010", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nGoing... going back to the Beto case, the Court said free exercise applies in prison, but in O'Lone, the Court said it applies in prison but the standard what we're going to use is one that's very similar to... to rational basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1801.539, 1803.437], "stop_times": [1803.437, 1817.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1801.539}, "reply_to": "22150__2_009", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_011", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Okay.\nThen I think you're saying that in order to exceed what free exercise requires in a prison necessarily forces you into establishment.\nAnd I think you're saying the reason it does so is that there are so many incentives on the part of prisoners to claim religion, that that's the only way you can sort of keep the genie in the bottle.\nIsn't that the... the essence of your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1817.9, 1818.267, 1831.082, 1841.514], "stop_times": [1818.267, 1831.082, 1841.514, 1844.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.9}, "reply_to": "22150__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_012", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "We're not asking for that bright line rule, Your Honor.\nIt could well be the case that providing kosher meals, for instance, whether that's required by the Free Exercise Clause or not, it might go marginally beyond what free exercise requires.\nThat's an accommodation that would be perfectly legitimate.\nBut to have a rule that says anytime you bring any request of any kind for an accommodation from any rule, it's going to be treated differently and better because it's religion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1844.218, 1846.404, 1855.422, 1858.392], "stop_times": [1846.404, 1855.422, 1858.392, 1869.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1844.218}, "reply_to": "22150__2_011", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_013", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, it... but... but that is not what the rule says.\nNumber one, as... as your brother on the other side pointed out, there's got to be some determination made as a threshold matter as to whether this is even a religious claim or... or whether it's just gaming the system.\nSo there's nothing automatic.\nNumber two, if there are, as... as there frequently will be, in the prison context important governmental interests which can only be served by denying the... the request, the request can be denied.\nAnd it seems to me that if these are not sufficient recognitions of the... of the prison context, then I don't know what kind of a rule we can have that would satisfy you except to say if it isn't absolutely required by free exercise, it is establishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1869.858, 1872.022, 1884.197, 1885.551, 1900.553], "stop_times": [1872.022, 1884.197, 1885.551, 1900.553, 1918.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1869.858}, "reply_to": "22150__2_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_014", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I don't think we need to go that far.\nI... I think we could look at given types of accommodations and say if a legislative determination is made that this type of accommodation with respect to this type of request is appropriate, based on a balancing of all the factors to consider in that particular case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1918.975, 1921.678], "stop_times": [1921.678, 1937.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1918.975}, "reply_to": "22150__2_013", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_015", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "You... you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1937.165], "stop_times": [1937.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1937.165}, "reply_to": "22150__2_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_016", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--that might not slide--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1937.777], "stop_times": [1938.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1937.777}, "reply_to": "22150__2_015", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_017", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--You mean specific accommodations like you can have kosher foods, you can wear a religious medal, you can have a tatoo?\nI mean, you're... you're asking the legislature to be that specific.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1938.352, 1946.106], "stop_times": [1946.106, 1949.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1938.352}, "reply_to": "22150__2_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_018", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, a narrow, targeted... I guess the point is, Your Honor, a narrow, targeted accommodation would be different in our view than this broad, wonder bus approach to accommodation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1949.801], "stop_times": [1960.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1949.801}, "reply_to": "22150__2_017", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_019", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "It... it would also be rather a discriminatory one, wouldn't it?\nI mean, one... one point that we have got to be concerned about, whether we're dealing with accommodation or whether we're dealing with... with flat-out establishment, is distinction among religions.\nAnd I think you're saying if they do distinguish among religions, we don't have this problem, but I think that lands you from the frying pan into the fire.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1960.755, 1963.411, 1974.589], "stop_times": [1963.411, 1974.589, 1983.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1960.755}, "reply_to": "22150__2_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_020", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "No, Your Honor, I... I don't believe so because I think if, for instance, the legislature said, you... you shall, absent some compelling need, provide prisoners with a diet that meets their religious requirements, that would not discriminate among religions.\nIt would be narrowly tailored to some perceived problem that might exist.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [1983.085, 1998.135], "stop_times": [1998.135, 2001.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1983.085}, "reply_to": "22150__2_019", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_021", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "A guy comes along in a different religion and says, we're omnivorous, but we got to... we got to wear medals.\nNo statute that says medals are okay.\nIt... it... you know, I realize the level of generality in your example is higher.\nThe... the discrimination is not quite so blatant, but it's a pretty tough job to come up with... would be a tough job to come up with statutes without picking and choosing among religious demands.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2001.761, 2009.051, 2011.503, 2015.84], "stop_times": [2009.051, 2011.503, 2015.84, 2027.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2001.761}, "reply_to": "22150__2_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_022", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "And, Your Honor, we believe that in prison's unique environment, to the extent you go beyond the Free Exercise Clause, it raises special problems and special concerns that need to be dealt with--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2027.354], "stop_times": [2037.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2027.354}, "reply_to": "22150__2_021", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_023", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Why can't they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2037.264], "stop_times": [2037.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2037.264}, "reply_to": "22150__2_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_024", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--on a case by case basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2037.999], "stop_times": [2038.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2037.999}, "reply_to": "22150__2_023", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_025", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--But why can't they be dealt with under the statute as it is written, saying that if you... if it is a bona fide request, and you, the prison, determine that in fact you... you have a compelling State interest that cannot be served in any other way, you can say no?\nWhy is that insufficient and... and why does that... why is that, therefore, the reason that... that jumps us into an Establishment Clause violation every time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2038.654, 2054.706], "stop_times": [2054.706, 2064.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2038.654}, "reply_to": "22150__2_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_026", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "It's insufficient, Your Honor, because it doesn't change the underlying fact that the request itself, whatever the ultimate outcome on the request is, the request itself gets treated differently and better merely because it's religion.\nThis is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2064.466, 2078.487], "stop_times": [2078.487, 2079.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2064.466}, "reply_to": "22150__2_025", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_027", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, are you saying that... that a statute is unconstitutional to recognize a prisoner's right to free exercise unless it also has a... a kind of a litany of sections recognizing speech rights, recognizing privacy rights, et cetera?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2079.206], "stop_times": [2094.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2079.206}, "reply_to": "22150__2_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_028", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nI'm... I'm not suggesting that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2094.31, 2095.078], "stop_times": [2095.078, 2096.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2094.31}, "reply_to": "22150__2_027", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_029", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Then it's got to single out religion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2096.458], "stop_times": [2098.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2096.458}, "reply_to": "22150__2_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_030", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "And... and as the Court noted in Amos, these type of statutes are necessarily going to single out religion, but that doesn't shield them from Establishment Clause scrutiny just because they take the form of being directed at religion and providing a benefit that's... that's labeled as an accommodation.\nI mean, for instance, Congress could say, look, we think it's difficult for State prisoners to practice their religious beliefs when they can't go to church.\nSo absent some compelling State interest and least restrictive alternatives, the prisons need to arrange to release prisoners once a week to go to the church or synagogue of their choice.\nWell, that would provide an awfully powerful incentive inside prison walls for prisoners to... to claim religion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2098.154, 2116.379, 2123.306, 2133.024], "stop_times": [2116.379, 2123.306, 2133.024, 2139.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2098.154}, "reply_to": "22150__2_029", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_031", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Sure it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2139.925], "stop_times": [2140.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.925}, "reply_to": "22150__2_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_032", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "So maybe that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2140.196], "stop_times": [2140.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2140.196}, "reply_to": "22150__2_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22150__2_033", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "And if you did it under the statute, you would clearly have a reason for saying no.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2140.303], "stop_times": [2144.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2140.303}, "reply_to": "22150__2_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_034", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Mr. Cole, are you sure that this statute doesn't go beyond pre-Smith... our pre-Smith law?\nI'm not aware that our pre-Smith law would have defined religious exercise as broadly as this statute defines it.\nI guess this is something Mr. Clement ought to speak to as well.\nIt says, the term religious exercise includes any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2144.281, 2150.446, 2159.613, 2162.855], "stop_times": [2150.446, 2159.613, 2162.855, 2173.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.281}, "reply_to": "22150__2_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__2_035", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nThat is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2173.595, 2174.454], "stop_times": [2174.454, 2174.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2173.595}, "reply_to": "22150__2_034", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_036", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Did our prior Smith cases go that far?\nI'm not aware that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2174.902, 2177.461], "stop_times": [2177.461, 2178.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.902}, "reply_to": "22150__2_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__2_037", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--No, they did not, Your Honor, and I think that's an important as well, that once someone has an... a bona fide religion and... and prison officials can challenge whether this is in fact a religious set of beliefs.\nBut if they have a religious set of beliefs and if they are sincere, then you can't challenge this particular request as not being mandated by the religion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2178.697, 2189.538], "stop_times": [2189.538, 2198.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2178.697}, "reply_to": "22150__2_036", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_038", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--They don't even have to say my... my religion requires me not to eat this food.\nThey just say, you know, I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2198.632, 2202.424], "stop_times": [2202.424, 2203.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2198.632}, "reply_to": "22150__2_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__2_039", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "For religious reasons, I would prefer to do this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2203.582], "stop_times": [2205.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2203.582}, "reply_to": "22150__2_038", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_040", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2205.602], "stop_times": [2206.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2205.602}, "reply_to": "22150__2_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__2_041", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--What is your argument in response to Justice Souter?\nYou said it is not the following.\nIt is not that the State has to list, along with these religious matters, the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, et cetera.\nIt's not that.\nYou then seem to say that the argument is that a person who files a piece of paper and claims to be religious, that they have to consider it, and it's impelled only by religion.\nI suppose the same thing is true of a church that applies for a tax exemption.\nSo I don't think that you could say that automatically that fact that they're going to give the church a tax exemption or that they're going to give the religious person some special consideration, that that in and of itself violates the Establishment Clause.\nVery well.\nWhat does?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2206.774, 2209.52, 2211.162, 2219.721, 2220.542, 2232.254, 2237.188, 2254.601, 2256.014], "stop_times": [2209.52, 2211.162, 2219.721, 2220.542, 2232.254, 2237.188, 2254.601, 2256.014, 2256.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2206.774}, "reply_to": "22150__2_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22150__2_042", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I wish I could draw a brighter line rule than--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2256.921], "stop_times": [2261.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2256.921}, "reply_to": "22150__2_041", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_043", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "No.\nBut I just need to know where you're going--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2261.176, 2261.299], "stop_times": [2261.299, 2262.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2261.176}, "reply_to": "22150__2_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22150__2_044", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2262.925], "stop_times": [2263.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2262.925}, "reply_to": "22150__2_043", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_045", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--generally.\nI don't need a bright line rule.\nI'm just trying to find out what it is about this that violates the clause if it isn't the first thing or the second thing that I mentioned.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2263.921, 2264.081, 2265.691], "stop_times": [2264.081, 2265.691, 2275.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.921}, "reply_to": "22150__2_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22150__2_046", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--It's the magnitude by which Congress has enhanced the religious right.\nThat is, we compare what the Constitution requires State prison officials to do and we say, how far has Congress moved the ball.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2275.754, 2281.134], "stop_times": [2281.134, 2288.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2275.754}, "reply_to": "22150__2_045", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_047", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Fine.\nNow, in respect to that, we have two points.\nOne was Justice O'Connor's I think, which is that Congress is not enlarging it, but for my second qualification, beyond what it would have been if Smith had never been decided.\nAnd the second is Justice Scalia's point, which is but there is one respect in which Congress did enlarge it, namely, that the right doesn't have... the belief doesn't have to be central.\nIt could be... well, he just read that.\nSo is your whole argument then pinned on that latter point?\nAnd if it is not, again, what is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2288.079, 2288.34, 2291.555, 2304.051, 2316.259, 2318.915, 2325.149], "stop_times": [2288.34, 2291.555, 2304.051, 2316.259, 2318.915, 2325.149, 2328.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2288.079}, "reply_to": "22150__2_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22150__2_048", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, our argument is pinned on this Court's decisions in Turner and O'Lone, which we see as establishing the baseline for what type... for what the Constitution requires in terms of free exercise in prison, and then we'll use that baseline and compare the standard imposed there to the standard Congress is seeking to impose through RLUIPA and compare the magnitude of the two, understanding, as this Court has said in Lemon, that lines of demarcation are difficult to perceive.\nIt's difficult to say exactly where that line should be.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2328.089, 2354.318], "stop_times": [2354.318, 2356.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2328.089}, "reply_to": "22150__2_047", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_049", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "You're saying if Turner had come up prior to Smith, the Court would have said that Turner trumps pre-Smith law, and you don't have to follow pre-Smith law in the prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2356.936], "stop_times": [2370.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2356.936}, "reply_to": "22150__2_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22150__2_050", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "I... I believe so, Your Honor, given prison's unique environment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2370.396], "stop_times": [2373.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2370.396}, "reply_to": "22150__2_049", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_051", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "I understand--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2373.853], "stop_times": [2374.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2373.853}, "reply_to": "22150__2_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22150__2_052", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "I believe Turner and O'Lone are prison cases that talk about what the Constitution means in prison, understanding that in prison there need to be changes to what we would otherwise see as the inmates' constitutional rights if they were not in prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2374.082], "stop_times": [2389.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2374.082}, "reply_to": "22150__2_051", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_053", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Now, I... I understand the argument now, which has been helpful.\nVery well.\nFrom the prison's point of view, why is it so burdensome since you would have thought security is a compelling interest, prison administration is a compelling interest, so that really all we have to do is think about this and look to see whether there isn't some reasonable way of accommodating the request?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2389.206, 2392.268, 2393.531], "stop_times": [2392.268, 2393.531, 2415.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2389.206}, "reply_to": "22150__2_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22150__2_054", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I think that the burdens in the prison environment are twofold.\nFirst, RLUIPA forces prison officials to change the balance they would otherwise strike between safety and accommodation, and by changing that balance, changing the margin of safety, if you will, they're now imposing risks on the other inmates that are in prison.\nAnd these aren't merely--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2415.327, 2420.544, 2435.483], "stop_times": [2420.544, 2435.483, 2436.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2415.327}, "reply_to": "22150__2_053", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_055", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "I think... I think you may exaggerate what it takes to establish a compelling State interest.\nI mean, we... this... this Court held in the... in the pre-Smith days that it was a compelling State interest to... to prevent members of the Air Force from wearing yarmulkes.\nI mean, if that's a compelling State interest, I think it's pretty easy to get most anything declared a... a compelling State interest under this statute, don't you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2436.837, 2441.018, 2454.153], "stop_times": [2441.018, 2454.153, 2463.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2436.837}, "reply_to": "22150__2_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__2_056", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nAnd compelling State interest doesn't present a problem to the State of Ohio or to the other States that are operating under this statute.\nWhat it... what presents the problem is the least restrictive alternative part of that which subjects State prison officials in their day-to-day judgments regarding prison operations to a strict scrutiny analysis on the back end.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2463.961, 2464.574, 2470.52], "stop_times": [2464.574, 2470.52, 2483.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2463.961}, "reply_to": "22150__2_055", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_057", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "And that goes beyond pre-Smith too, doesn't it?\nLeast restrictive alternative.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2483.255, 2484.828], "stop_times": [2484.828, 2486.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2483.255}, "reply_to": "22150__2_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__2_058", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "The... the least restrictive alternative, which is what puts the teeth in RLUIPA and what's... what creates the problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2486.32], "stop_times": [2491.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2486.32}, "reply_to": "22150__2_057", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_059", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "We now have some experience in the Federal system where the same standards apply under RFRA.\nAnd you are positing terrible disturbance of prison administration in the... what is it... 6 years that... that RFRA has been in force for Federal prisons.\nHave there been... has there been this terrible disruption?\nHave there been... have the accommodations required so much of the prison administrators?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2491.685, 2497.71, 2512.031, 2515.289], "stop_times": [2497.71, 2512.031, 2515.289, 2521.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2491.685}, "reply_to": "22150__2_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22150__2_060", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, the United States claims no, Your Honor, of course.\nBut when we look back at the experience of the States with RFRA, before it was declared unconstitutional, we presented substantial evidence in the... in the joint appendix with regard to the way in which there was an explosion of demands for accommodations by prisoners from previously unheard of religions.\nThere was an expansion... an explosion of claims of conversion within--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2521.514, 2525.396, 2542.36], "stop_times": [2525.396, 2542.36, 2546.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2521.514}, "reply_to": "22150__2_059", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_061", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Yes, but now that some of that has gotten sorted out through the experience of the Bureau of Prisons on the Federal side, one would expect there would be less of those far-out claims.\nThe... you would expect when a statute is new, that there might be some claims that we would recognize as frivolous after there's been experience under it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2546.508, 2559.483], "stop_times": [2559.483, 2571.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2546.508}, "reply_to": "22150__2_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22150__2_062", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, but the difficulty that doesn't seem to go away with the least restrictive alternative test is... is the possibility, as this Court noted in Turner, that every judgment every day is subject to some court somewhere finding that there was a less restrictive way of achieving the goal.\nAnd... and we see that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2571.035, 2588.598], "stop_times": [2588.598, 2589.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2571.035}, "reply_to": "22150__2_061", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_063", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "This is true.\nNow there you're in the dilemma.\nI mean, you're putting yourself there in the same position that virtually every official is in in the United States but for judges who have... who have to worry about the court of appeals.\nBut anyway, the... the--\n[Laughter]\nYou see... now, the answer to that argument in your case, you're in a vice.\nThey put you in a... in a kind of pincers because where you have a good argument, they say, well, that doesn't violate the statute, and where your claim is weak, they say, well, it shouldn't be a... it should violate the statute.\nAnd the difficulty with being in pincers like that is you can't win.\nAnd the virtue of it is you shouldn't win.\nAll right.\nSo... so how do you get out of this... of the... of that kind of an argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2589.397, 2590.0, 2591.152, 2599.844, 2600.991, 2601.182, 2605.635, 2618.856, 2623.416, 2625.437, 2625.81], "stop_times": [2590.0, 2591.152, 2599.844, 2600.991, 2601.182, 2605.635, 2618.856, 2623.416, 2625.437, 2625.81, 2629.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.397}, "reply_to": "22150__2_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22150__2_064", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, that's not particularly encouraging, Your Honor, but--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2629.767, 2632.086], "stop_times": [2632.086, 2634.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2629.767}, "reply_to": "22150__2_063", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_065", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "No, but... your point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2634.736], "stop_times": [2636.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2634.736}, "reply_to": "22150__2_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22150__2_066", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nAnd... and I guess all I can do is go back and compare the accommodation if that's what this is that's at issue here with that that was at issue in Amos to say these employers don't need to comply with this one Federal statute and this one set of obligations.\nAnd I asked, well, okay, so an employer.\nIs that going to make IBM switch from being a computer manufacturer to being a religious services provider because, boy, if we do that, we can get out from underneath title VII's nondiscrimination mandate?\nI don't think so.\nBut if I look in prison and I say, what is going to be the effect on the ground with respect to people claiming religion or converting to religion if I tell them there's going to be a different regulatory regime that applies to you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2636.405, 2637.647, 2654.2, 2656.791, 2666.759, 2667.857], "stop_times": [2637.647, 2654.2, 2656.791, 2666.759, 2667.857, 2681.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2636.405}, "reply_to": "22150__2_065", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_067", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Then why hasn't that been the effect on the Federal ground.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2681.505], "stop_times": [2683.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.505}, "reply_to": "22150__2_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_068", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Your Honor, I... I don't know that it hasn't.\nI mean, I'm... I'm surprised in a sense to hear that claim because in brief period in which RFRA did apply to State prisons, there was an explosion of these demands.\nAnd... and I would direct the Court to, I believe it's, 204, 210, 211, and 212 in the joint appendix to see some of the ways in which there's been this impact.\nI'd also--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2683.942, 2686.353, 2695.803, 2710.16], "stop_times": [2686.353, 2695.803, 2710.16, 2710.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2683.942}, "reply_to": "22150__2_067", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_069", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "I'll... I'll grant you that, but it seems to... I mean, Justice Ginsburg responded to that by saying that these things get sorted out.\nAt the beginning you get all sorts of loony claims.\nAs time goes by, you get fewer of them.\nAnd... and if... if they weren't getting few of them, I would have expected the United States to make a different representation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2710.687, 2716.366, 2718.648, 2721.826], "stop_times": [2716.366, 2718.648, 2721.826, 2728.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2710.687}, "reply_to": "22150__2_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_070", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Your Honor, I don't know that the fact that... that strict scrutiny might become... what that means, what that's going to require.\nAnd arguably, this is a slightly different strict scrutiny than other strict scrutinies because of some of the legislative history, to the extent one... one wants to look at that.\nAnd... and that's, I guess, the problem.\nAs we flesh that out, during that entire time, we're saying it's all right to burden other inmates in prisons.\nIt's all right to burden prison officials.\nIt's all right for Congress not to burden Federal prison officials, but for Congress to burden State prison officials with this new set of obligations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2728.652, 2736.652, 2745.137, 2746.944, 2753.296, 2755.418], "stop_times": [2736.652, 2745.137, 2746.944, 2753.296, 2755.418, 2763.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2728.652}, "reply_to": "22150__2_069", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_071", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, I don't know what that's got to... you know, you may or may not have an argument there, but I don't know what it's got to do with the meaning of the Establishment Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2763.156], "stop_times": [2770.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2763.156}, "reply_to": "22150__2_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_072", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2770.371], "stop_times": [2771.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2770.371}, "reply_to": "22150__2_071", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_073", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "And they're not burdening you anyway... anyway.\nJust don't take the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2771.513, 2773.187], "stop_times": [2773.187, 2774.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2771.513}, "reply_to": "22150__2_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__2_074", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2774.04], "stop_times": [2775.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2774.04}, "reply_to": "22150__2_073", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_075", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "It comes with the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2775.07], "stop_times": [2775.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2775.07}, "reply_to": "22150__2_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__2_076", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2775.954], "stop_times": [2776.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2775.954}, "reply_to": "22150__2_075", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_077", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "You don't want the burden?\nDon't take the money.\nI mean, they... they do that all the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2776.456, 2777.411, 2777.986], "stop_times": [2777.411, 2777.986, 2780.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2776.456}, "reply_to": "22150__2_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__2_078", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--I'm not sure I agree with that, Your Honor, for... for a couple of reasons.\nFirst, this also purports to be Commerce Clause legislation, in which case it would be a mandate upon the States whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2780.237, 2783.164], "stop_times": [2783.164, 2789.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2780.237}, "reply_to": "22150__2_077", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_079", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "What we have before us in this case is... is a case covered by the... the Spending Clause.\nSo we don't have to grapple with the Commerce Clause for now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2789.089, 2793.622], "stop_times": [2793.622, 2796.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2789.089}, "reply_to": "22150__2_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__2_080", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--But... but secondly, Your Honor, with respect to the Spending Clause issue, this Court has said in Dole that there needs to be relatedness between the spending, that if there's going to be strings attached, they actually have to be attached to the Federal money in some meaningful way.\nAnd here, Congress is relying on spending, most of which has absolutely nothing to do--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2796.539, 2809.455], "stop_times": [2809.455, 2815.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2796.539}, "reply_to": "22150__2_079", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_081", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "But the Sixth Circuit didn't pass on the Spending... Spending Clause issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2815.376], "stop_times": [2820.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2815.376}, "reply_to": "22150__2_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22150__2_082", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--No, they did not, Your Honor, but we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2820.554], "stop_times": [2822.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2820.554}, "reply_to": "22150__2_081", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_083", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "And it isn't raised by your opponent's petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2822.281], "stop_times": [2825.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2822.281}, "reply_to": "22150__2_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22150__2_084", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--That's... that's true, Your Honor, but it is available to the Court as an alternate ground of affirmance of... of the decision below.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2825.773], "stop_times": [2832.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2825.773}, "reply_to": "22150__2_083", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_085", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Yes, if we're looking for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2832.851], "stop_times": [2833.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2832.851}, "reply_to": "22150__2_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22150__2_086", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2833.944], "stop_times": [2836.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2833.944}, "reply_to": "22150__2_085", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_087", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "There was one question brought up about Ohio's own practice.\nBut you... you say we have no obligation to relieve burdens.\nIf we did, we would violate the Establishment Clause.\nThe point was made that Ohio pays for chaplains, but it doesn't pay for, say, psychologists to come in for agnostics.\nSo aren't you right there violating the Establishment Clause on your own theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2836.962, 2840.859, 2847.03, 2850.156, 2862.128], "stop_times": [2840.859, 2847.03, 2850.156, 2862.128, 2867.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.962}, "reply_to": "22150__2_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22150__2_088", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--I don't believe so, Your Honor, because our theory isn't that anytime you go beyond what free exercise requires, you're immediately into an Establishment Clause violation.\nWe recognize that there is a play in the joints.\nAnd providing chaplains, given the... the rich history and tradition of doing so in prisons, seems to fall very comfortably within that play in the joints.\nThe question is when have we gone too far.\nWhen has our accommodation slid over, as the dissent put it in Texas Monthly, into a... or an impermissible incentive to practice religion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2867.638, 2877.386, 2879.451, 2887.264, 2889.706], "stop_times": [2877.386, 2879.451, 2887.264, 2889.706, 2901.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2867.638}, "reply_to": "22150__2_087", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_089", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "May I ask this question, Mr. Cole?\nI am troubled also, as you point out, about the least restrictive language in the statute.\nBut as I try and apply it to this particular case, weren't most of the allegations that the petitioners made is that they were treated differently from other mainstream religions and that the accommodation would have been, well, treat them the same, which would have been the least restrictive alternative?\nIt wouldn't have created all the problems you describe.\nAnd they say they don't... can't have group meetings.\nThey... if they were treated exactly the same, would that... that would satisfy the least restrictive alternative part of the statute, wouldn't it?\nAnd why would that be such a burden?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2901.173, 2902.82, 2907.897, 2923.229, 2925.267, 2927.202, 2936.839], "stop_times": [2902.82, 2907.897, 2923.229, 2925.267, 2927.202, 2936.839, 2938.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2901.173}, "reply_to": "22150__2_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22150__2_090", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Your Honor, first, I'm not sure that their claim is that, oh, we're being treated differently and worse.\nTheir claim was we want to get together for congregate religious services or, in Mr. Hampton's case... he was a Wicca... he wanted certain objects, including a quartz crystal that he would be able to keep in his cell.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2938.493, 2944.311], "stop_times": [2944.311, 2956.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2938.493}, "reply_to": "22150__2_089", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_091", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Don't mainstream religion adherents have certain objects they'd like to keep in their cell?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2956.204], "stop_times": [2962.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2956.204}, "reply_to": "22150__2_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22150__2_092", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "They... they may well, Your Honor, and... and the point is in each of those cases, prison officials look at the object and say what's the potential for harm here.\nShould we let them have it in their cell?\nThere's a... there's a practice in Ohio prisons of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2962.439, 2971.26, 2973.767], "stop_times": [2971.26, 2973.767, 2976.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2962.439}, "reply_to": "22150__2_091", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_093", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "The mainstream person, if there's a potential for harm, they wouldn't let them keep it in the... in the cell, would they?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2976.049], "stop_times": [2981.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.049}, "reply_to": "22150__2_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22150__2_094", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--That's right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2981.392], "stop_times": [2982.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2981.392}, "reply_to": "22150__2_093", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_095", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "And in other words, is it really... although the language in the statute seems to go farther, is there anything really at stake here beyond saying treat us the same as you treat mainstream... members of mainstream religions?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2982.992], "stop_times": [2995.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2982.992}, "reply_to": "22150__2_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22150__2_096", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.\nAbsolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2995.408, 2997.376], "stop_times": [2997.376, 2998.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2995.408}, "reply_to": "22150__2_095", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_097", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "And what is the best example of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2998.105], "stop_times": [2999.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2998.105}, "reply_to": "22150__2_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22150__2_098", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "There's a... a request for a prisoner who wants the grooming regulations changed with respect to him.\nHe's a prisoner who's got a history of contraband violations.\nHe's involved in a... in a prison betting pool and carries... tries to carry betting slips and secret them on his person.\nAnd so if he could violate the grooming regulations, the concern is he might use that to hide contraband.\nThere are prisoners that want to wear their hair in a certain way to signify gang affiliation, and instead, they claim, well, I need this for religious purposes, but what's really going on is they want to signify gang affiliation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [2999.203, 3006.626, 3010.782, 3016.936, 3023.202], "stop_times": [3006.626, 3010.782, 3016.936, 3023.202, 3034.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2999.203}, "reply_to": "22150__2_097", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_099", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "If you want us to say that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3034.476], "stop_times": [3035.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3034.476}, "reply_to": "22150__2_098", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22150__2_100", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "It would seem to me that would be a compelling interest to say you can't do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3035.857], "stop_times": [3038.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3035.857}, "reply_to": "22150__2_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22150__2_101", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Your Honor, again, I'm... I'm sure there's a compelling interest.\nThe question is the least restrictive alternative.\nAre we going to be able to meet every Federal judges' view of is this the least restrictive way we could go about achieving this compelling interest?\nThere's no doubt that prison security is going to be recognized as a compelling State interest, but the difficulty is the least restrictive alternative test.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3038.524, 3042.267, 3044.394, 3053.188], "stop_times": [3042.267, 3044.394, 3053.188, 3061.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3038.524}, "reply_to": "22150__2_100", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_102", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, I... I suppose you're saying you want us to make the holding that... one of the holdings you'd be satisfied with is that while some accommodation is... is appropriate, this is extreme accommodation.\nWhat's your best case for that?\nI... I just can't remember a case in which we've tried to ask whether every form a request for accommodation has to be acknowledged.\nIs... is this the only case that you've come across?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3061.405, 3074.263, 3076.524, 3089.061], "stop_times": [3074.263, 3076.524, 3089.061, 3092.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3061.405}, "reply_to": "22150__2_101", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22150__2_103", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Frankly, Your Honor, other than RFRA, it's the only time Congress has gone this far.\nAnd so to say that there's a lack of case law on this is more to suggest that there's been settled understandings that we can't go this far rather than--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3092.054, 3096.56], "stop_times": [3096.56, 3103.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3092.054}, "reply_to": "22150__2_102", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_104", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, I guess what I'm asking is what's the closest analogy you can--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3103.732], "stop_times": [3107.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3103.732}, "reply_to": "22150__2_103", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22150__2_105", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--In our brief we... we looked at Lee v. Weisman in what the Court called subtle and indirect coercion to religion when it was merely standing for a... a invocation during graduation once a year.\nAnd we contrast that with what's going on here and the constant pressure day after day, if you want this set of benefits, get religion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3107.027, 3119.747], "stop_times": [3119.747, 3128.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3107.027}, "reply_to": "22150__2_104", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_106", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "What about the American Indian who didn't... or was it... I think it was an American Indian.\nBut... who didn't want to be known... it was a woman and she didn't want to known as a number.\nShe wanted a name.\nThat was a religious basis.\nAnd Social Security... I think the Court hold... didn't have to give her that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3128.557, 3132.038, 3136.112, 3137.296, 3138.949], "stop_times": [3132.038, 3136.112, 3137.296, 3138.949, 3142.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3128.557}, "reply_to": "22150__2_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22150__2_107", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3142.763], "stop_times": [3144.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3142.763}, "reply_to": "22150__2_106", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_108", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "So that to me stood for the proposition that administrative considerations play an important role in deciding whether you've hit upon the least restrictive alternative.\nAnd as long as that was the law, then you're okay.\nAnd that was a Supreme Court case I think.\nI may be misremembering.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3144.047, 3153.146, 3156.267, 3159.114], "stop_times": [3153.146, 3156.267, 3159.114, 3160.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3144.047}, "reply_to": "22150__2_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22150__2_109", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Again, Your Honor, it's not that we couldn't potentially win these cases under least restrictive alternative.\nThe question is by changing the standard to that, changing the standard to one in which these prison officials... I mean, Congress is, in a sense, asking Federal judges to sit as overseers of religious life in the prisons across the 50 States.\nAnd given what this Court said in Turner, given what this Court said in O'Lone about the intractable problems that prison officials face, it just seems an inappropriate task and one that, if motivated with the desire of increasing religiosity in prison, seems to cross the Establishment--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3160.987, 3166.618, 3181.097], "stop_times": [3166.618, 3181.097, 3198.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3160.987}, "reply_to": "22150__2_108", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_110", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--You're asking us--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3198.073], "stop_times": [3199.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3198.073}, "reply_to": "22150__2_109", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22150__2_111", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Why is it... why is it worse for... for judges to be overseers of religious life in prison than it is for wardens to be overseers of religious life in prison?\nI mean, somebody has to say what the lines are, what will... what will be accommodated and what won't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3199.23, 3206.045], "stop_times": [3206.045, 3211.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3199.23}, "reply_to": "22150__2_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__2_112", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Right, and it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3211.325], "stop_times": [3212.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3211.325}, "reply_to": "22150__2_111", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_113", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "And that someone is going to be a government official.\nI have no reason to believe that wardens are... are better at it than judges except with respect to, you know, security and administrative convenience, which we will honor under this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3212.172, 3214.246], "stop_times": [3214.246, 3225.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3212.172}, "reply_to": "22150__2_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__2_114", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Except, Your Honor, this Court noted in Turner, I believe it was, that the need for judicial deference is particularly strong when you're dealing with situations that create ripple effects in prison.\nAnd it's difficult for Federal judges to know.\nThey don't have prison management experience.\nThey don't have 20 years on the ground like most prison wardens do to say this... this accommodation will work and this one won't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3225.642, 3237.636, 3240.318, 3242.409], "stop_times": [3237.636, 3240.318, 3242.409, 3248.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3225.642}, "reply_to": "22150__2_113", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_115", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "And I think that means that they will give great deference to what the... what the wardens of the prisons say is a compelling interest of... of the penal system.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3248.835], "stop_times": [3258.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3248.835}, "reply_to": "22150__2_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__2_116", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "If they will, it's not in the face of the statute, Your Honor.\nI mean, it's not in the face of the statute.\nIt says compelling State interest and least restrictive alternative.\nI would just like to note--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3258.359, 3260.231, 3262.338, 3264.845], "stop_times": [3260.231, 3262.338, 3264.845, 3266.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3258.359}, "reply_to": "22150__2_115", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_117", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Can you... can you give me an example?\nBecause most of the things I think of is either you can have kosher food or you cannot.\nEither you can wear a yarmulke or you're not.\nThere's not other... another alternative.\nMost of these things are yes and no.\nWhat is the case where, well, you can't have this but we'll give you something lesser?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3266.374, 3267.916, 3273.696, 3275.787, 3277.499, 3279.883], "stop_times": [3267.916, 3273.696, 3275.787, 3277.499, 3279.883, 3284.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3266.374}, "reply_to": "22150__2_116", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22150__2_118", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, I believe Mr. Clement noted that... that there was a case that held that, okay, you can't wear the medallion on the outside of your shirt, you can wear it on the inside of your shirt.\nSo that would be a less restrictive alternative for not allowing you to use the medallion, I guess, as a gang identifier.\nNow, it doesn't really deal with the problem that as soon as the guard is not looking, again it can be pulled outside the shirt and can be used as a gang identifier.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3284.827, 3296.863, 3303.365], "stop_times": [3296.863, 3303.365, 3309.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3284.827}, "reply_to": "22150__2_117", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_119", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Well, maybe if the warden says that, the court would say, fine, you don't have to accommodate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3309.956], "stop_times": [3314.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3309.956}, "reply_to": "22150__2_118", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22150__2_120", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Maybe, Your Honor, but... but the question is, is it permissible for Congress to create incentives for prisoners to say, yes, I'm religious because I want these other benefits?\nCan Congress really say, boy, we'd like you to be religious, and the way we're going to provide that incentive is by giving you a better shot at getting out from the rules in prison?\nIt's not a guaranteed shot from getting out, but it's a better shot at getting out from the rules that apply to everybody else in prison and to get that, you have to become religious.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3314.963, 3325.63, 3336.59], "stop_times": [3325.63, 3336.59, 3345.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3314.963}, "reply_to": "22150__2_119", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_121", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Better shot than... better shot than what?\nBetter shot than the... than the Free Exercise Clause alone would allow?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3345.256, 3346.135], "stop_times": [3346.135, 3350.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3345.256}, "reply_to": "22150__2_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_122", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Better shot than--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3350.268], "stop_times": [3350.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3350.268}, "reply_to": "22150__2_121", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_123", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "And aren't you arguing that in the prison context, once you get beyond the free exercise line, you are into establishment?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3350.971], "stop_times": [3357.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3350.971}, "reply_to": "22150__2_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_124", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, and Your Honor, I was not careful there.\nI should say much better shot.\nI mean, again, it's this point that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3357.732, 3360.213, 3361.199], "stop_times": [3360.213, 3361.199, 3362.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3357.732}, "reply_to": "22150__2_123", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_125", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Okay.\nBut how do we administer?\nHow does anyone administer that... that kind of a test?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3362.686, 3362.888, 3364.199], "stop_times": [3362.888, 3364.199, 3367.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3362.686}, "reply_to": "22150__2_124", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_126", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3367.928], "stop_times": [3370.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3367.928}, "reply_to": "22150__2_125", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_127", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "It can... it can be better but not much better?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3370.156], "stop_times": [3372.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3370.156}, "reply_to": "22150__2_126", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22150__2_128", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--I think by comparing to what's gone before.\nIn fact, the Court has adopted a version of that approach already.\nIn Caldor, the Court said if it's unqualified and imposes a burden on others, that's going to violate the Establishment Clause.\nI see my time is up, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3372.672, 3374.591, 3377.422, 3385.464], "stop_times": [3374.591, 3377.422, 3385.464, 3386.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3372.672}, "reply_to": "22150__2_127", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_129", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "It is.\nThank you, Mr. Cole.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3386.616, 3387.282], "stop_times": [3387.282, 3388.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3386.616}, "reply_to": "22150__2_128", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22150__2_130", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3388.291], "stop_times": [3388.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3388.291}, "reply_to": "22150__2_129", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "22150__2_131", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Mr. Clement, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3388.68], "stop_times": [3390.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3388.68}, "reply_to": "22150__2_130", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22150__3_000", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nJust a few points in rebuttal.\nFirst of all, I'd like to note the anomaly that much of the argument of General Cole would be an argument for why the State constitutional provision that gives higher protection for freedom of conscience in Ohio is itself unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3390.893, 3393.191, 3394.706], "stop_times": [3393.191, 3394.706, 3408.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3390.893}, "reply_to": "22150__2_131", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__3_001", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Why don't you address the ways in which this act goes beyond our former free exercise--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3408.465], "stop_times": [3416.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3408.465}, "reply_to": "22150__3_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22150__3_002", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "I'd be happy to do that, Justice O'Connor.\nI think that there's been an exaggeration of how far it goes beyond.\nNow, I want to be clear about one thing, which is this Court, even before Smith and O'Lone, said that there was going to be deference to prison officials and a Turner standard would apply.\nSo to the extent that there's a little less deference here than under the O'Lone standard, that is a modification.\nThe centrality requirement, though, is not something that can be charged to RLUIPA or to RFRA because even before the Smith case, this Court in Ling and Hernandez was moving away from centrality and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3416.86, 3418.641, 3422.086, 3431.59, 3437.26], "stop_times": [3418.641, 3422.086, 3431.59, 3437.26, 3449.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3416.86}, "reply_to": "22150__3_001", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__3_003", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Also not compelled... not compelled... by religion.\nYou just say, you know, I... I want to give up everything except candy for Lent, and the... the prison has to accommodate you.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3449.308, 3451.963, 3459.226], "stop_times": [3451.963, 3459.226, 3459.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3449.308}, "reply_to": "22150__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__3_004", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3459.731], "stop_times": [3460.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3459.731}, "reply_to": "22150__3_003", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__3_005", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "It's not compelled.\nI... you know, I could do something else.\nBut I had thought that our prior religion cases did... did, indeed, require some religious compulsion than just I... you know, I'd like to do this as a religious matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3460.376, 3461.196, 3462.853], "stop_times": [3461.196, 3462.853, 3471.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3460.376}, "reply_to": "22150__3_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__3_006", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I don't think this Court has ever in its accommodations cases held that the government can only accommodate those things that are central.\nI don't know for sure, but I rather doubt that employing co-religionists in a gymnasium is central to the practice of any faith.\nYet, in Amos, this Court upheld that as a valid accommodation.\nAnd I do think the centrality requirement--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3471.69, 3479.871, 3488.11, 3491.487], "stop_times": [3479.871, 3488.11, 3491.487, 3493.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3471.69}, "reply_to": "22150__3_005", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__3_007", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--the LDS.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3493.587], "stop_times": [3495.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3493.587}, "reply_to": "22150__3_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22150__3_008", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--What's that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3495.715], "stop_times": [3496.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3495.715}, "reply_to": "22150__3_007", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__3_009", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "I said you may underestimate the LDS.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3496.259, 3499.447], "stop_times": [3499.447, 3500.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3496.259}, "reply_to": "22150__3_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22150__3_010", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "I may, Mr. Chief Justice.\nBut again... but... but to the extent I do, I think those are questions that are best to be kept out of the courts, which is why even before Smith this Court moved away from centrality.\nIt's why even Justice O'Connor, who otherwise was in disagreement in Smith, also agreed that we should get rid of the centrality requirement.\nAnd if you look at some of the cases that are actually decided under RLUIPA, the cases involve things like Muslim prayer oil and they... the cases... the Seventh Circuit, for example, allows it.\nNow, we don't want the courts getting into--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3500.312, 3501.528, 3511.116, 3518.018, 3526.993], "stop_times": [3501.528, 3511.116, 3518.018, 3526.993, 3528.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3500.312}, "reply_to": "22150__3_009", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__3_011", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "I guess you're right.\nI think I was thinking of free exercise cases rather than establishment cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3528.486, 3528.597], "stop_times": [3528.597, 3533.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3528.486}, "reply_to": "22150__3_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22150__3_012", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "--Well, I... I think that's right, and I think there is not that centrality requirement for accommodations.\nI do want to make the point, though, that... that Ohio already, under its State constitution, has this heightened review with a lot of these, you know, least restrictive alternative tests and the like.\nNobody thinks Ohio's constitution violates the Federal Constitution.\nThat's true even though Ohio applies it in the prison context, at least when it's a claim by a guard rather than an inmate.\nThat... those are the facts of Humphrey against Lane.\nIt's also true that many of Ohio's arguments would suggest their own accommodations of some religions give too much of an incentive for religious exercise and the like.\nAnd I think that's a defect as well.\nI don't think... and I agree with Justice Souter in this regard... that narrower accommodations actually raise more constitutional problems than broader accommodations.\nI think that this Court, for example, in Caldor dealt with an accommodation that was at a fairly high level of generality, but yet this Court said and Justice O'Connor emphasized in her concurrence, well, that's a preference for Sabbatarian religions.\nAnd I think you avoid that with this kind of across-the-board test.\nJustice Kennedy, you made a point about whether this is extreme in the degree that it accommodates religion, but it's certainly no more extreme than the... than the laws and constitutions of 26 States, which across the board apply this heightened scrutiny to all manner of State actions.\nSo in that sense, the fact that it accommodates religion kind of wholesale with a broader standard, as opposed to retail, I don't think is a constitutional defect.\nThe last point I wanted to make is on the racist literature hypothetical, and I think it is in large measure just a hypothetical.\nAs footnote 2 in our brief points out, prisons have been generally successful in keeping racist literature out even when it's supported as a claim for religious-based racist literature.\nThe only cases that I've come across where that hasn't prevailed is when the... the prison's own policy had exceptions in it that made very little sense.\nAnd in this case, for example, if you look at joint appendix page 118, there's an allegation that with... with one piece of literature that was described as racist, that some prisoners were allowed to have it while others were not allowed to have that same kind of literature.\nNow, I don't know whether those claims are in fact true, but that's the kind of claim that should be able to go forward in a case like this.\nWith all respect, I think the Sixth Circuit here made a mistake, ignored this Court's precedents, and should be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3533.082, 3538.638, 3547.764, 3551.945, 3557.588, 3559.513, 3569.406, 3571.278, 3580.12, 3591.635, 3594.963, 3609.598, 3617.464, 3623.34, 3633.504, 3642.022, 3655.526, 3661.2], "stop_times": [3538.638, 3547.764, 3551.945, 3557.588, 3559.513, 3569.406, 3571.278, 3580.12, 3591.635, 3594.963, 3609.598, 3617.464, 3623.34, 3633.504, 3642.022, 3655.526, 3661.2, 3666.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3533.082}, "reply_to": "22150__3_011", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22150__3_013", "conversation_id": "22150", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Clement.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9877", "start_times": [3666.641, 3668.213], "stop_times": [3668.213, 3669.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3666.641}, "reply_to": "22150__3_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22062__0_000", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "We'll hear argument in Deck against the State of Missouri.\nMs. Percival.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [0.0, 5.201], "stop_times": [5.201, 6.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__0_001", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThe question before the Court today is whether the trial court violated Carman Deck's rights to due process and a fair and reliable sentencing proceeding, as guaranteed by the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, when the trial court forced him to appear handcuffed to a belly chain and shackled in legirons before the jury which would determine whether he was to live or to die.\nCounsel objected to the restraints and filed a motion asking for the procedures set forth by this Court in Holbrook v. Flynn.\nHolbrook described shackling as an inherently prejudicial practice and set forth a procedure by which courts would exercise their discretion in maintaining courtroom security while protecting the rights of the defendant.\nIf the court is to impose an inherently prejudicial practice like shackling, it first must determine that the shackles are necessary to further an essential State interest specific to the trial and must find that no lesser means is available to meet those State interests.\nThe court abused its discretion in failing to apply the Holbrook standard in penalty phase.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [6.853, 10.753, 37.402, 46.213, 61.817, 84.546], "stop_times": [10.753, 37.402, 46.213, 61.817, 84.546, 91.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6.853}, "reply_to": "22062__0_000", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_002", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Did the... did counsel suggest less intrusive restraints?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [91.151], "stop_times": [95.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 91.151}, "reply_to": "22062__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22062__0_003", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Counsel had filed an extensive motion in which it set forth a number of different ways in which courts in Missouri and in other jurisdictions had dealt with the problem where the... where the courts minimized the effect of the shackles on the jury by hiding them from view such as by placing boxes around counsel table, ensuring that the defendant was already in place in the courtroom before the jurors entered, that sort of thing.\nAnd the court summarily overruled that motion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [95.897, 128.219], "stop_times": [128.219, 131.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 95.897}, "reply_to": "22062__0_002", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_004", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "What was the basic justification in the first place for shackling?\nI mean, were there insufficient bailiffs or... or why did they do it in... even in... during the trial itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [131.441, 135.444], "stop_times": [135.444, 142.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 131.441}, "reply_to": "22062__0_003", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22062__0_005", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "The court did not establish a record for why the shackles were... were warranted.\nThe only justification that the court gave was... at this penalty phase retrial was that Deck had been convicted, but there's nothing else in the record as to what justification the court had.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [142.891, 150.139], "stop_times": [150.139, 161.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 142.891}, "reply_to": "22062__0_004", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_006", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Is there any indication that there were or were not present court security officers?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [161.656], "stop_times": [166.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 161.656}, "reply_to": "22062__0_005", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22062__0_007", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "There's nothing in the record as to security officers in the courtroom.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [166.569], "stop_times": [171.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 166.569}, "reply_to": "22062__0_006", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_008", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Who... who should... whose responsibility should it be to get something like that into the record?\nI mean, I read it.\nI don't... I have no idea whether there was a good reason for the shackling or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [171.315, 177.054, 177.609], "stop_times": [177.054, 177.609, 182.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 171.315}, "reply_to": "22062__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__0_009", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Once defense conviction objects to the use of shackling, it is incumbent upon the State to show that the restraints were harmless, and by doing so, they would need to make a record that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [182.793], "stop_times": [197.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 182.793}, "reply_to": "22062__0_008", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_010", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "What's the authority for the burden of proof question?\nWhat... what... which of our cases do you rely on for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [197.077, 200.792], "stop_times": [200.792, 206.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 197.077}, "reply_to": "22062__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__0_011", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Well, it's basically Chapman because shackling is an inherently prejudicial procedure, and when the court imposes that without justification, the burden falls on the State to show that it was, in fact, justified or that the shackling was... was harmless and that the jurors could not see it or that sort of thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [206.077], "stop_times": [230.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 206.077}, "reply_to": "22062__0_010", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_012", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "So the principle is there's a right not to be shackled, and when the State says that that right has to be compromised, then the State has to have the burden of proof?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [230.104], "stop_times": [236.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 230.104}, "reply_to": "22062__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__0_013", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [236.708], "stop_times": [237.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 236.708}, "reply_to": "22062__0_012", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_014", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "And I looked... and I find that rule in Chapman?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [237.618], "stop_times": [239.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 237.618}, "reply_to": "22062__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__0_015", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "No, it would not be in Chapman.\nIt would... it's... it flows from Holbrook and Illinois v. Allen and Estelle v. Williams.\nThose cases set up the standard that is really enunciated in Holbrook.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [239.476, 242.327, 248.93], "stop_times": [242.327, 248.93, 257.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.476}, "reply_to": "22062__0_014", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_016", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Those... those are all, are they not, cases involving the... the guilt phase of... of a trial?\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [257.93, 265.626], "stop_times": [265.626, 265.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 257.93}, "reply_to": "22062__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__0_017", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [265.815], "stop_times": [266.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 265.815}, "reply_to": "22062__0_016", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_018", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, this is a little different.\nHe... I mean, when you shackle somebody who hasn't yet been convicted, you... you send a message to the jury that, you know, this... this person belongs in irons.\nBut the jury had already found this person guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [266.725, 268.333, 278.53], "stop_times": [268.333, 278.53, 284.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 266.725}, "reply_to": "22062__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__0_019", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [284.02], "stop_times": [285.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 284.02}, "reply_to": "22062__0_018", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_020", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "He was... he was convicted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [285.134], "stop_times": [285.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 285.134}, "reply_to": "22062__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__0_021", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Yes, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [285.756], "stop_times": [287.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 285.756}, "reply_to": "22062__0_020", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_022", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Should that make no difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [287.363], "stop_times": [288.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 287.363}, "reply_to": "22062__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__0_023", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--The reason that this presumption applies in penalty phase as well, the presumption of... that shackles are inherently prejudice, it stems from... we could start the analysis in guilt phase.\nIn guilt phase, courts have held that shackles are inherently prejudicial because they make the defendant appear--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [288.932, 303.671], "stop_times": [303.671, 311.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 288.932}, "reply_to": "22062__0_022", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_024", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [311.806], "stop_times": [312.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.806}, "reply_to": "22062__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__0_025", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--dangerous, violent, untrustworthy, and then hence, they are more likely to be guilty.\nNotably in... in guilt phase, there's no question as to character.\nIn penalty phase, however, where the State still has a burden of establishing that the defendant is worthy of a death sentence by evidence presented in court, the question of character is a key factor that the jury considers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [312.566, 318.615, 325.098], "stop_times": [318.615, 325.098, 342.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 312.566}, "reply_to": "22062__0_024", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_026", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Can... can I ask you?\nYou say counsel proposed some alternatives to... to the visible shackling.\nDid counsel object that there shouldn't have been any shackling at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [342.931, 344.267, 353.333], "stop_times": [344.267, 353.333, 357.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 342.931}, "reply_to": "22062__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__0_027", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Counsel filed a motion saying that there should not be restraints at all, but within that motion, he explained how courts in Missouri had accommodated--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [357.048], "stop_times": [369.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 357.048}, "reply_to": "22062__0_026", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_028", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [369.68], "stop_times": [370.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 369.68}, "reply_to": "22062__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__0_029", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--both interests successfully.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [370.627], "stop_times": [372.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 370.627}, "reply_to": "22062__0_028", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_030", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "But he did take the position that there was no need for shackles at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [372.113], "stop_times": [374.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 372.113}, "reply_to": "22062__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__0_031", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Yes, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [374.425], "stop_times": [376.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 374.425}, "reply_to": "22062__0_030", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_032", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Back on your earlier part of your answer to Justice Scalia, that it's inherently prejudicial in the sentencing stage, if one of us were to agree or the whole Court, the majority, were to agree with your position and write the opinion out, what would we cite for that, other... other than our... our own assumptions as to how the system worked, judicial notice?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [376.078], "stop_times": [402.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 376.078}, "reply_to": "22062__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__0_033", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, I think that you could follow Holbrook pretty closely and that I think what you'd need to... to deal with is there's a whole bunch of precedent regarding how prejudicial shackling is.\nWe know that character is essential in penalty phase, and the other characteristic of penalty phase is the heightened for reliability which is not present in the guilt phase.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [402.911, 423.633], "stop_times": [423.633, 437.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 402.911}, "reply_to": "22062__0_032", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_034", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "With... with character, we know... we know he's a murderer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [437.108], "stop_times": [440.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 437.108}, "reply_to": "22062__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__0_035", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "We know that on that day 7 years prior that Carman Deck was dangerous to those people in that situation.\nBut what the jury is being asked to consider is whether his acts on that day were really in conformity with what his character is and what it... how he would behave if he were sentenced to life without parole.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [440.806, 451.663], "stop_times": [451.663, 463.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 440.806}, "reply_to": "22062__0_034", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_036", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Are you sure that it's as... as prejudicial in the... in the penalty phase as it is in the guilt phase?\nI mean, in the guilt phase, it does make the person look like a criminal.\nIn the penalty phase, I... I'm really not sure if I... if I were a prosecutor whether I would prefer to have the defendant shackled or not.\nThe issue before the jury is whether to leave this person in his... in his current incarcerated state for life or to execute him.\nAnd I... I might think that showing, you know, what... what kind of an existence it is to be... to be a life prisoner walking around with the legirons and chains... I'm not sure that that is going to cut in favor of the jury's giving the death penalty or... or to the contrary, make the juror think, boy, what a wretched life this is and... and that ought to be enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [463.718, 470.284, 473.749, 483.675, 494.144], "stop_times": [470.284, 473.749, 483.675, 494.144, 521.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 463.718}, "reply_to": "22062__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__0_037", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, Your Honor, in Beck v. Alabama, a similar situation arose.\nIn Beck, the question was whether Alabama's statute which prohibited the jury from getting lesser included offense instructions in a first degree murder case was constitutional.\nAnd Justice Stevens in his opinion writing for the Court stated that there may be factors that cut in favor of the defendant and factors that cut against the defendant, but the uncertainty and unreliability that is forced into the fact-finding process is what the problem is.\nSo as in this situation, perhaps some jurors would... would think, you know, he's wearing these shackles just because he was convicted.\nOthers might... may, as well, say he's wearing them because he's particularly dangerous.\nWe don't know, and there's that unreliability of the... the fact-finding process since the defense has not been able to confront this evidence and it hasn't come in from the stand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [521.758, 528.445, 542.73, 568.198, 579.055, 584.545], "stop_times": [528.445, 542.73, 568.198, 579.055, 584.545, 597.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 521.758}, "reply_to": "22062__0_036", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_038", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "What are the factors in Missouri that the State would be trying to prove to urge the imposition of death versus life imprisonment?\nWhat are the things in Missouri that are deemed relevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [597.26, 609.52], "stop_times": [609.52, 615.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 597.26}, "reply_to": "22062__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__0_039", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, there are statutory aggravating circumstances, and the jurors are also allowed to consider non-statutory evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [615.01], "stop_times": [625.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.01}, "reply_to": "22062__0_038", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_040", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Is future dangerousness an issue in Missouri?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [625.041], "stop_times": [629.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 625.041}, "reply_to": "22062__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__0_041", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "It is not a specific aggravating circumstance, but it's something that is... is certainly relevant and that the jurors can consider.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [629.294], "stop_times": [637.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.294}, "reply_to": "22062__0_040", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_042", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Does your whole case turn on how shackling affects the argument that you're... that the accused is making that he's not dangerous, et cetera, or is there some other different standard that we could use to the effect, say, that it's just not consistent with the dignity in an American courtroom, something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [637.567], "stop_times": [661.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.567}, "reply_to": "22062__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__0_043", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [661.511], "stop_times": [662.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 661.511}, "reply_to": "22062__0_042", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_044", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Does your whole case turn on whether or not this is prejudicial to the fact-finding process on the specific issues or is there some more general standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [662.238], "stop_times": [674.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 662.238}, "reply_to": "22062__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__0_045", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Well, there are certainly other considerations that shackling affects.\nShackling impedes participation in the trial by affecting how the client can communicate with counsel and that sort of thing, how the jurors will gauge his demeanor, whether his mental faculties will be diminished through the shackling.\nOur argument here... because counsel did not specifically object on grounds of right to be present, our argument here focuses on how the jury viewed the defendant, given the fact that he was in these... this extreme form of restraints, and these extreme restraints were unjustified.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [674.414, 679.904, 699.511], "stop_times": [679.904, 699.511, 723.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.414}, "reply_to": "22062__0_044", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_046", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "In the prison setting, does he wear such restraints?\nJustice Scalia suggested the jury might say, wow, that's the way he has to go around the rest of his life with the... all chained up.\nBut in... do we know whether in the prison he would be routinely wearing these restraints?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [723.167, 730.059, 739.264], "stop_times": [730.059, 739.264, 746.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 723.167}, "reply_to": "22062__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22062__0_047", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "No, he would not be unless he was a very disorderly inmate or something like that, but I think most of the jurors would... would know from seeing jail shows and jail movies that inmates are typically not restrained in that fashion so that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [746.489], "stop_times": [766.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 746.489}, "reply_to": "22062__0_046", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_048", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "It's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [766.263], "stop_times": [767.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 766.263}, "reply_to": "22062__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__0_049", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, I mean, I think the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [767.128], "stop_times": [767.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 767.128}, "reply_to": "22062__0_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__0_050", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--it's still an oppressive reminder of... of how this individual, if sentenced to life, is... is subject to... to the orders of prison authorities which on some occasions will subject him to this kind of restraint.\nI... once again, if I were a prosecutor, I'd rather have him dressed up in a nice, new suit and his hair combed and smiling.\nI would much prefer that to having him in shackles.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [767.75, 784.589, 792.846], "stop_times": [784.589, 792.846, 796.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 767.75}, "reply_to": "22062__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__0_051", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Are you aware of any cases in which prosecutors have objected to shackling?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [796.357], "stop_times": [800.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 796.357}, "reply_to": "22062__0_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__0_052", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--No, I am not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [800.565], "stop_times": [804.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 800.565}, "reply_to": "22062__0_051", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_053", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "So Justice Scalia would have, I suppose, but he's unusual as a prosecutor I think.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [804.158, 807.502], "stop_times": [807.502, 807.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 804.158}, "reply_to": "22062__0_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__0_054", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [807.668], "stop_times": [808.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 807.668}, "reply_to": "22062__0_053", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_055", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Well, I... I think there is... is something to the point that if I'm a juror and the defendant is sitting about as close to me as you are at the counsel table and I see that he can't suddenly jump out at me, I have a certain... certain security in making a deliberated judgment.\nI... I do think it may cut both ways.\nAnd that's why I'm asking you is if there are some other considerations here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [808.29, 831.324, 834.296], "stop_times": [831.324, 834.296, 837.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 808.29}, "reply_to": "22062__0_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__0_056", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, I think... I don't think there's other considerations other than, you know, this is penalty phase of a capital trial where we have to have the reliability of the fact-finding process.\nAnd the jurors are gauging the character of this defendant.\nAnd as you mentioned in your concurring opinion in Riggins, the jury is searching to discover the heart and mind of this defendant, and considerations such as character or future dangerousness are very important and may, in fact, be determinative of what sentence the defendant receives.\nShackling a defendant basically places a thumb on death's side of the scale and dehumanizes the defendant, making it easier for the jury to find that he is worthy of a death sentence.\nThe Holbrook standard that this Court established is a great standard.\nIt has been in effect for... for decades and it works.\nIt is efficient and it is just as easily applied in penalty phase.\nHolbrook promotes the reliability of a death determination by limiting the risk that impermissible considerations will come into play.\nIt also allows consideration of the individual circumstances of the case that is so crucial in the penalty phase.\nHolbrook--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [837.64, 856.792, 862.653, 887.545, 901.828, 909.176, 912.991, 919.002, 928.412, 938.526], "stop_times": [856.792, 862.653, 887.545, 901.828, 909.176, 912.991, 919.002, 928.412, 938.526, 941.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 837.64}, "reply_to": "22062__0_055", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_057", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Let me ask you this.\nYou, of course, would object to having to show prejudice in any individual case.\nThen it seems to me, to follow, that that's prejudice... that that means because prejudice is difficult to show.\nAnd if prejudice is judicial... difficult to show, why should we rule for you anyway?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [941.005, 943.273, 950.21, 955.866], "stop_times": [943.273, 950.21, 955.866, 960.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 941.005}, "reply_to": "22062__0_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__0_058", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Because we are concerned with the reliability of the death sentence.\nIf... if shackles are inherently prejudicial in guilt phase where character isn't even at issue and that has a lesser standard of reliability, then they certainly are inherently prejudicial in the guilt... in the penalty phase where the defendant's life is at stake.\nAnd as Justice O'Connor has recognized in her concurrence in the Eddings v. Oklahoma case, this Court goes to extraordinary measures to ensure that the defendant sentenced to be executed is afforded process that will guarantee, as much as humanly possible, that the sentence was not imposed out of whim, passion, prejudice, or mistake.\nShackling opens the door to prejudice and mistake by giving the jury the impression that the defendant is particularly dangerous and therefore worthy of a death sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [960.9, 967.959, 988.725, 1012.913], "stop_times": [967.959, 988.725, 1012.913, 1026.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 960.9}, "reply_to": "22062__0_057", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_059", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1026.659], "stop_times": [1027.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1026.659}, "reply_to": "22062__0_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22062__0_060", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "What do you make of the judge... well, the jury, already having been polled, and every one of them said this would not affect our judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1027.568], "stop_times": [1040.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1027.568}, "reply_to": "22062__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22062__0_061", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "This Court in Holbrook dealt with the same situation, and the Court in that case held that when a procedure presents such a probability of prejudice that it is inherently lacking in due process, little stock need be placed in jurors' claims to the contrary because jurors may not even be conscious of the effects that shackling will have.\nAnd at that point in the proceedings, the jurors had not been instructed as to what specific factors they would be looking at.\nThey did not know that Missouri has four steps in their sentencing procedure.\nThey did not know how this would play into it.\nSo their response that they would not be affected really should have little bearing here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1040.82, 1065.713, 1075.205, 1082.447, 1084.743], "stop_times": [1065.713, 1075.205, 1082.447, 1084.743, 1093.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1040.82}, "reply_to": "22062__0_060", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_062", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Suppose the judge had said this defendant has just been convicted of killing two people.\nHe convicted them... as the jury knows, he was convicted of having killed them because he wanted to avoid being sent back to prison.\nThe jury may sit there and think, well, if he killed two people to avoid being sent back to prison and we've just voted him guilty, maybe he's going to try to lunge out in the courtroom and get us.\nAnd therefore, I want him shackled.\nNow, suppose the judge had said that.\nWould that be an adequate reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1093.948, 1100.386, 1107.528, 1118.84, 1121.319, 1122.888], "stop_times": [1100.386, 1107.528, 1118.84, 1121.319, 1122.888, 1124.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1093.948}, "reply_to": "22062__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22062__0_063", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "No, I don't think it would.\nI guess what you're saying is if the jurors believe that the shackling is done for their protection.\nThen that gives the jurors the idea that... that this man is going to... has done something to indicate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1124.624, 1130.38, 1139.606], "stop_times": [1130.38, 1139.606, 1148.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1124.624}, "reply_to": "22062__0_062", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_064", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "I... I think you have to give that answer to Justice... to Justice Breyer, and that's why I'm asking.\nI... I think you just have to say that this is inherently inconsistent with the atmosphere we want to have in a courtroom.\nIt seems to me... I... I'm not quite sure I can find a lot of authority for that, but it seems to me that has to be your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1148.606, 1154.467, 1161.859], "stop_times": [1154.467, 1161.859, 1168.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1148.606}, "reply_to": "22062__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__0_065", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1168.379], "stop_times": [1169.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1168.379}, "reply_to": "22062__0_064", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_066", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, Ms. Percival, would you still be here today with this argument if the defendant had simply had shackles around his ankles that would have prevented him, in... in effect, from running or lunging at anyone, but that that had been concealed by appropriate covers around the table where he was sitting so that the jury was unaware of that situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1169.578], "stop_times": [1199.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1169.578}, "reply_to": "22062__0_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__0_067", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1199.094], "stop_times": [1199.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1199.094}, "reply_to": "22062__0_066", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_068", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Would you still be here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1199.65], "stop_times": [1200.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1199.65}, "reply_to": "22062__0_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__0_069", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "No.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1200.802, 1201.795], "stop_times": [1201.795, 1201.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1200.802}, "reply_to": "22062__0_068", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_070", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--making this argument that it's inherently prejudicial even though the jury couldn't see it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1201.961], "stop_times": [1207.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.961}, "reply_to": "22062__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__0_071", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--I would not be here arguing that if the court had gone to... had... had balanced both interests and had limited the risk that this impermissible factor would come into play.\nAnd in fact, at the first trial and penalty phase, Deck wore leg braces underneath his clothing and he behaved perfectly fine.\nIt was only when he came back on--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1207.368, 1224.086, 1235.315], "stop_times": [1224.086, 1235.315, 1237.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1207.368}, "reply_to": "22062__0_070", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_072", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "That wasn't obvious or visible particularly to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1237.832], "stop_times": [1242.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1237.832}, "reply_to": "22062__0_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__0_073", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--No, it was not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1242.995], "stop_times": [1244.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1242.995}, "reply_to": "22062__0_072", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_074", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, but then you're giving away the Riggins argument, which is that this somehow affects the psyche of the defendant and he can't fully participate, et cetera, which I thought was your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1244.027], "stop_times": [1255.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1244.027}, "reply_to": "22062__0_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__0_075", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, that... that is one of the problems with excessive shackling.\nI think with... with leg braces... there's... there's a balance with... with Holbrook.\nAnd the court is balancing the State's interests and courtroom security with the defendant's interest in a fair trial.\nThe leg braces was an effective balance because it protected the courtroom security, but it also enabled Deck to be judged on... just on the evidence presented in court and to have the freedom necessary to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1255.172, 1260.29, 1267.925, 1274.407], "stop_times": [1260.29, 1267.925, 1274.407, 1291.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1255.172}, "reply_to": "22062__0_074", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_076", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "So can every defendant have leg braces in every case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1291.291], "stop_times": [1293.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1291.291}, "reply_to": "22062__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__0_077", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nNo.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1293.354, 1295.007], "stop_times": [1295.007, 1295.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1293.354}, "reply_to": "22062__0_076", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_078", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, is... you... you have... Justice Kennedy alluded to one of your earlier arguments, and that is the... somehow the... the shackling affects the capacity to participate.\nI thought you meant by that if the... the hands are shackled, he can't write notes to counsel.\nDo you mean something else?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1295.955, 1309.58, 1318.701], "stop_times": [1309.58, 1318.701, 1320.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1295.955}, "reply_to": "22062__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22062__0_079", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, there are two different angles on that.\nFirst, there's the ability to communicate with counsel, such as by taking notes.\nThe other aspect is if the shackles are so distracting to the defendant or causing him pain that he will not be able to concentrate on what is going on at the trial to enable him to help his attorney and participate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1320.27, 1325.267, 1330.856], "stop_times": [1325.267, 1330.856, 1347.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1320.27}, "reply_to": "22062__0_078", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_080", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, I... I would grant you if... if they... they are so tight that it's causing pain, you've got a separate problem, but short of that, does the so-called capacity to participate suffer simply because he's... he's in irons?\nI mean, the only participation that he's going to do, I presume, is... is sit there and... and communicate with his lawyer.\nIt's going to affect his capacity to write a note to his lawyer.\nWhat else is it going to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1347.203, 1365.573, 1375.027, 1379.402], "stop_times": [1365.573, 1375.027, 1379.402, 1381.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1347.203}, "reply_to": "22062__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22062__0_081", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "If the shackles are... are very obvious, it might deter the defendant from coming to court in the first place, lest he be characterized as this dangerous person.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1381.343], "stop_times": [1393.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1381.343}, "reply_to": "22062__0_080", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_082", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Do you know of any instance of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1393.315], "stop_times": [1394.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1393.315}, "reply_to": "22062__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22062__0_083", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "I cannot cite to any right now, Your Honor.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1394.923, 1397.978], "stop_times": [1397.978, 1398.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1394.923}, "reply_to": "22062__0_082", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_084", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "But he does have to stand up when the judge comes in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1398.888], "stop_times": [1402.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1398.888}, "reply_to": "22062__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22062__0_085", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Yes, when the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1402.232], "stop_times": [1403.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1402.232}, "reply_to": "22062__0_084", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_086", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--and presumably when the jury files in.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1403.468], "stop_times": [1405.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1403.468}, "reply_to": "22062__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22062__0_087", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Yes.\nWhen the judge comes in, when the jury comes in, the defendant would stand up.\nAnd so--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1405.037, 1405.492, 1410.776], "stop_times": [1405.492, 1410.776, 1411.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1405.037}, "reply_to": "22062__0_086", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_088", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "But your... your problem with that, as I understand it, is simply that at that point with all these chains and so on, he's giving an impression or the State is requiring him, in effect, to give an impression to the jury that may be a... a false impression.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1411.89], "stop_times": [1425.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1411.89}, "reply_to": "22062__0_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22062__0_089", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1425.737], "stop_times": [1425.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1425.737}, "reply_to": "22062__0_088", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_090", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1425.987], "stop_times": [1426.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1425.987}, "reply_to": "22062__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22062__0_091", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1426.563], "stop_times": [1427.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1426.563}, "reply_to": "22062__0_090", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_092", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "But back to participation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1427.306], "stop_times": [1429.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1427.306}, "reply_to": "22062__0_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22062__0_093", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "It could also prevent him from testifying if he knows that he would need to walk from defense table up to the witness box.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1429.247], "stop_times": [1439.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1429.247}, "reply_to": "22062__0_092", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_094", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "But that would be true if he were in the legirons.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1439.582], "stop_times": [1441.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1439.582}, "reply_to": "22062__0_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22062__0_095", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "That... you're right, Your Honor.\nBut there's other measures that the court could take to ensure that the defendant was in place at the witness box before the jury would come in.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1441.961, 1444.274], "stop_times": [1444.274, 1455.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1441.961}, "reply_to": "22062__0_094", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_096", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "True, true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1455.17], "stop_times": [1455.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1455.17}, "reply_to": "22062__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22062__0_097", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "But in this case the judge took no remedial measures.\nThe judge was perfectly satisfied by the fact that the jury could see these restraints.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1455.624, 1461.736], "stop_times": [1461.736, 1469.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1455.624}, "reply_to": "22062__0_096", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_098", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "I gather there was some evidence or perhaps it's conceded that he was put on a suicide watch before his first trial.\nThis was the second trial.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1469.909, 1482.624, 1483.739], "stop_times": [1482.624, 1483.739, 1484.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.909}, "reply_to": "22062__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__0_099", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Right.\nWhen--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1484.443, 1485.186], "stop_times": [1485.186, 1486.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1484.443}, "reply_to": "22062__0_098", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_100", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "That he had been put on a suicide watch and that he had tried to injure himself by knocking his head against the cell wall?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1486.422], "stop_times": [1492.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1486.422}, "reply_to": "22062__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__0_101", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1492.905], "stop_times": [1493.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1492.905}, "reply_to": "22062__0_100", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_102", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "What if... what if the judge had specifically stated I'm putting him in irons because the man is... is violent enough towards himself or others that I'm worried about the safety of the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1493.398], "stop_times": [1511.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.398}, "reply_to": "22062__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__0_103", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1511.314], "stop_times": [1512.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1511.314}, "reply_to": "22062__0_102", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_104", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "What if the judge had said that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1512.057], "stop_times": [1513.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1512.057}, "reply_to": "22062__0_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__0_105", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Okay.\nThat incident--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1513.643, 1514.286], "stop_times": [1514.286, 1515.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1513.643}, "reply_to": "22062__0_104", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_106", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Would that have been enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1515.112], "stop_times": [1515.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.112}, "reply_to": "22062__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__0_107", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--I... I don't think it would have been in this case because that incident had happened well prior to the first trial, and at the first trial, he was wearing the leg braces underneath his clothing and they sufficed.\nDeck was a perfectly calm, orderly defendant in the courtroom.\nThere were no problems.\nAnd so there's two issues.\nThere's the issue of whether the shackles were warranted and then whether the... they were excessive.\nAnd these... handcuffing him to a belly chain and forcing him to wear legirons were excessive.\nMay I reserve the rest of my time, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1515.938, 1529.684, 1533.855, 1534.72, 1537.858, 1544.934, 1552.06], "stop_times": [1529.684, 1533.855, 1534.72, 1537.858, 1544.934, 1552.06, 1554.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1515.938}, "reply_to": "22062__0_106", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__0_108", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Yes, you may, Ms. Percival.\nMs. Nield.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1554.122, 1555.32], "stop_times": [1555.32, 1560.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1554.122}, "reply_to": "22062__0_107", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__1_000", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThe State of Missouri and Mr. Deck agree that the trial court needs discretion to fashion security measures such as restraints.\nThat's particularly so in a case like this where we're talking about a penalty phase.\nMr. Deck, at the time of his penalty phase retrial, had already been convicted, among other things, of two counts of murder.\nSo by definition, he was a dangerous individual.\nIn those circumstances--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1560.149, 1565.063, 1574.063, 1579.014, 1587.642, 1591.274], "stop_times": [1565.063, 1574.063, 1579.014, 1587.642, 1591.274, 1592.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1560.149}, "reply_to": "22062__0_108", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_001", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, isn't... isn't the question whether he... he was dangerous in the courtroom?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1592.943], "stop_times": [1595.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1592.943}, "reply_to": "22062__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22062__1_002", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--That is part of the question.\nThat is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1595.915, 1597.734], "stop_times": [1597.734, 1598.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1595.915}, "reply_to": "22062__1_001", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_003", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "There's no question he was dangerous when he committed the murders, but... but I don't know that that means he's dangerous in a courtroom.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1598.66], "stop_times": [1604.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.66}, "reply_to": "22062__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22062__1_004", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, I think that certainly suggests that he's dangerous right off.\nIn terms of whether or not he's dangerous in the courtroom, there's other facts that are conspicuous upon this record.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1604.3, 1610.366], "stop_times": [1610.366, 1616.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1604.3}, "reply_to": "22062__1_003", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_005", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, is there some burden on the part of the prosecutor and the court to consider at least alternative restraints or measures to make sure that there's no misbehavior?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1616.188], "stop_times": [1636.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.188}, "reply_to": "22062__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_006", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "There may be but prior to that, there... there should be a burden on the defendant to, first of all, articulate that the restraints are visible and make a record on that.\nAnd second of all, to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1636.91, 1648.427], "stop_times": [1648.427, 1649.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1636.91}, "reply_to": "22062__1_005", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_007", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, apparently that was done.\nDo you say that there was no motion made by defense counsel and that alternatives were not proposed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1649.541, 1651.399], "stop_times": [1651.399, 1657.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.541}, "reply_to": "22062__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_008", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--I think I disagree with the characterization.\nThere was a motion filed pretrial that contained a lengthy discussion of the law, which included discussion of various cases and alternatives to restraint that had been used.\nBut that said, the motion itself is styled motion to have accused appear at trial free of restraints.\nThe relief requested was that Mr. Deck should appear free of restraints both--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1657.965, 1660.481, 1673.113, 1681.991], "stop_times": [1660.481, 1673.113, 1681.991, 1687.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1657.965}, "reply_to": "22062__1_007", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_009", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Do you... do you take the position that every defendant can be restrained if the restraints are not visible to the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1687.768], "stop_times": [1693.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.768}, "reply_to": "22062__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__1_010", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--It... it would depend on the nature of the restraints, but if the restraints are not visible--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1693.341], "stop_times": [1698.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1693.341}, "reply_to": "22062__1_009", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_011", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Legirons strapped to the leg of the... of the table but not visible.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1698.83], "stop_times": [1705.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1698.83}, "reply_to": "22062__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__1_012", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Right.\nIf not visible, then that would be fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1705.806, 1706.549], "stop_times": [1706.549, 1708.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1705.806}, "reply_to": "22062__1_011", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_013", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Why don't you limit it to double murderers anyway?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1708.49], "stop_times": [1711.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1708.49}, "reply_to": "22062__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__1_014", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Certainly that would be fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1711.834], "stop_times": [1713.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1711.834}, "reply_to": "22062__1_013", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_015", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1713.403], "stop_times": [1714.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1713.403}, "reply_to": "22062__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__1_016", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, but I want to know what your position is.\nTraffic offenders?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1714.33, 1715.837], "stop_times": [1715.837, 1717.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1714.33}, "reply_to": "22062__1_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__1_017", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Again, it... it depends upon the circumstances, but if they're not visible to the jury, the defendant has a difficult time--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1717.285], "stop_times": [1724.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1717.285}, "reply_to": "22062__1_016", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_018", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, the circumstances that you were given was a traffic offender.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1724.51], "stop_times": [1729.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1724.51}, "reply_to": "22062__1_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_019", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--A traffic offender who is restrained where it's not visible--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1729.34], "stop_times": [1732.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1729.34}, "reply_to": "22062__1_018", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_020", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "With... with non-visible restraints.\nIs that perfectly okay?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1732.972, 1735.201], "stop_times": [1735.201, 1736.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1732.972}, "reply_to": "22062__1_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_021", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Yes, it is.\nYes, it is because if the jury doesn't see them, then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1736.604, 1737.142], "stop_times": [1737.142, 1741.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1736.604}, "reply_to": "22062__1_020", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_022", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "It's kind of an extreme position, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1741.312], "stop_times": [1744.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.312}, "reply_to": "22062__1_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_023", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--That's true, but it points up the importance of making a record on the visibility.\nIf they are not visible--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1744.117, 1748.576], "stop_times": [1748.576, 1749.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1744.117}, "reply_to": "22062__1_022", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_024", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1749.485], "stop_times": [1750.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1749.485}, "reply_to": "22062__1_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22062__1_025", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "But this... this is given... I mean, this is legirons.\nIt's not leg braces.\nBelly chain.\nYou don't need to make a record to... to know that those things are visible.\nIs there any serious doubt that they were visible?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1750.024, 1752.829, 1754.027, 1755.635, 1760.343], "stop_times": [1752.829, 1754.027, 1755.635, 1760.343, 1764.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1750.024}, "reply_to": "22062__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22062__1_026", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Well, I... I think there was serious doubt and that's borne out by defense counsel's question to the voir dire.\nHe said to the... during the voir dire to the panel, you either do or will know that Mr. Deck is restrained, and I guess that's what happens when you're convicted.\nThat's a rough paraphrase.\nBut the either... the part that he said, you either do or will know, that's a direct quote.\nSo defense counsel himself was not even necessarily--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1764.346, 1769.714, 1779.745, 1780.488, 1785.978], "stop_times": [1769.714, 1779.745, 1780.488, 1785.978, 1789.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1764.346}, "reply_to": "22062__1_025", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_027", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "What about his motion?\nIs Mr. Leftwich... is that defense counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1789.898, 1790.808], "stop_times": [1790.808, 1793.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.898}, "reply_to": "22062__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22062__1_028", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--One of them.\nThat's true.\nAnd there was a gentleman--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1793.796, 1794.356, 1794.894], "stop_times": [1794.356, 1794.894, 1795.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1793.796}, "reply_to": "22062__1_027", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_029", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "All right, fine.\nHe says I would ask that or like to move to strike the entire jury panel for cause because of the fact that Mr. Deck is shackled in front of the jury and makes them think that he is going to... that he is violent today and going to do something in the courtroom.\nAnd I read that, he's saying, of course, they can see it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1795.637, 1795.97, 1808.602], "stop_times": [1795.97, 1808.602, 1812.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1795.637}, "reply_to": "22062__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22062__1_030", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Again, we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1812.15], "stop_times": [1813.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1812.15}, "reply_to": "22062__1_029", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_031", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "That doesn't say he can see it... they can see it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1813.098], "stop_times": [1815.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1813.098}, "reply_to": "22062__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22062__1_032", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--I think that's an allegation by counsel that that may be the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1815.206], "stop_times": [1819.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1815.206}, "reply_to": "22062__1_031", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_033", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "All right.\nSo has anybody said... he said, Judge, I would like you to get rid of this jury which happens to be looking at the shackles.\nOkay.\nNow, at that point, you have to do... then isn't it up to the prosecution to say, what do you mean looking at them?\nThey can't see them.\nThey're hidden.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1819.952, 1820.324, 1825.236, 1825.896, 1832.007, 1832.833], "stop_times": [1820.324, 1825.236, 1825.896, 1832.007, 1832.833, 1833.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.952}, "reply_to": "22062__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22062__1_034", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, recall at... at this point the sequence is critical.\nBy this time, defense counsel in his voir dire questioning had already let the cat out of the bag.\nEither you do or will know that he's restrained.\nBut by--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1833.288, 1836.715, 1841.916, 1845.919], "stop_times": [1836.715, 1841.916, 1845.919, 1846.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1833.288}, "reply_to": "22062__1_033", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_035", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, are you taking the position here that this record does not disclose that the belly chains and the handcuffs and the other restraints were not visible?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1846.291], "stop_times": [1857.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1846.291}, "reply_to": "22062__1_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_036", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Yes.\nI'm taking the position that we don't know from this record that they were visible.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1857.232, 1857.808], "stop_times": [1857.808, 1861.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1857.232}, "reply_to": "22062__1_035", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_037", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "That there's nothing in the record to show that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1861.318], "stop_times": [1862.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1861.318}, "reply_to": "22062__1_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_038", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1862.887], "stop_times": [1863.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.887}, "reply_to": "22062__1_037", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_039", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "And you don't concede it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1863.259], "stop_times": [1864.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1863.259}, "reply_to": "22062__1_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_040", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "I do not.\nI do not concede it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1864.456, 1865.116], "stop_times": [1865.116, 1866.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.456}, "reply_to": "22062__1_039", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_041", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Yes, but your position would be precisely the same if the record made it perfectly clear that the jury could see everything, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1866.602], "stop_times": [1873.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1866.602}, "reply_to": "22062__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__1_042", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "I think the test would be the same.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1873.001, 1874.366], "stop_times": [1874.366, 1874.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1873.001}, "reply_to": "22062__1_041", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_043", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1874.62], "stop_times": [1875.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1874.62}, "reply_to": "22062__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__1_044", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1875.025], "stop_times": [1875.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1875.025}, "reply_to": "22062__1_043", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_045", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "So this is an alternative argument that you're making.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1875.852], "stop_times": [1877.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1875.852}, "reply_to": "22062__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__1_046", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1877.421], "stop_times": [1877.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1877.421}, "reply_to": "22062__1_045", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_047", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "But the State of Missouri is submitting to us the proposition that every defendant in every case can be shackled so long as it's not visible.\nAnd I... I find that an extreme position because it's an indignity on the defendant and the defendant is entitled to dignity in a courtroom.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1877.588, 1885.223], "stop_times": [1885.223, 1892.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.588}, "reply_to": "22062__1_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__1_048", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, this points up the distinction in this case between guilt phase and penalty phase.\nAnd what we're talking about here and the rule that I am urging this Court to adopt relates to the penalty phase.\nAnd in the penalty phase, like Mr. Deck's, we have a person who's been convicted of murder.\nNow, in a guilt phase, certainly there are issues of presumption--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1892.82, 1899.341, 1905.535, 1910.858], "stop_times": [1899.341, 1905.535, 1910.858, 1913.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1892.82}, "reply_to": "22062__1_047", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_049", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Could he be forced to wear prison clothes once he's convicted and it's the sentencing phase?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1913.913], "stop_times": [1917.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1913.913}, "reply_to": "22062__1_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__1_050", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--I think he possibly would be able to, yes.\nYes, I do because prison clothes identify the defendant, and if a defendant is an escape risk, for example, that would identify the defendant in case he were to bolt from the courtroom, for example.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1917.834, 1920.6], "stop_times": [1920.6, 1934.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1917.834}, "reply_to": "22062__1_049", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_051", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "But there's no for example here because the court said, in answer to the lawyer's objection... the... the lawyer says, it prejudiced him... prejudices him toward the jury and it makes him look dangerous.\nThe court's answer: the objection you're making will be overruled.\nHe has been convicted and will remain in legirons and belly chain.\nThe only thing that was relevant, according to the trial judge was he has been convicted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1934.347, 1951.353, 1957.465, 1963.121], "stop_times": [1951.353, 1957.465, 1963.121, 1970.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1934.347}, "reply_to": "22062__1_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22062__1_052", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "That is the only stated reason, that he has been convicted.\nI think what that means is he's a twice convicted murderer.\nOf course, he's dangerous.\nFurther, there are reasons spread upon this record.\nAnd keep in mind the same judge from the penalty phase retrial has been with this case from the beginning.\nThere are reasons spread upon this record that justify additionally the use of restraints against Mr. Deck.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1970.012, 1974.016, 1977.46, 1978.929, 1982.933, 1988.217], "stop_times": [1974.016, 1977.46, 1978.929, 1982.933, 1988.217, 1996.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1970.012}, "reply_to": "22062__1_051", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_053", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Why?\nHe went through the entire guilt phase with the more moderate restraints, just the leg brace, and there was no incident.\nThere was no disturbance in that trial.\nHe didn't try to lash out at anyone.\nWhy wasn't that the best example of what one could anticipate in the penalty phase?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [1996.102, 1996.368, 2007.248, 2009.105, 2012.343], "stop_times": [1996.368, 2007.248, 2009.105, 2012.343, 2019.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.102}, "reply_to": "22062__1_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22062__1_054", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "What you state is true, but by the time of the penalty phase retrial, Mr. Deck's position, to paraphrase from Martinez v. Court of Appeal, had changed dramatically.\nHe had already been convicted.\nAdd to that he had already pursued his direct appeal through the Missouri Supreme Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2019.879, 2032.139, 2033.604], "stop_times": [2032.139, 2033.604, 2038.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2019.879}, "reply_to": "22062__1_053", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_055", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Is the fact of conviction critical for your point of view because it doesn't really matter if there's prejudice or that because there's no... no danger of prejudice?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2038.971], "stop_times": [2048.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2038.971}, "reply_to": "22062__1_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__1_056", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "I'm not sure I understand your question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2048.547], "stop_times": [2052.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2048.547}, "reply_to": "22062__1_055", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_057", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, do you concede that even though he had been convicted, it would, nevertheless, be prejudicial in the eyes of the jury to see a man shackled when one of the issues they'll have to decide is whether his future dangerousness might... might justify his execution?\nDo you think there is prejudice there, or do you share Justice Scalia's view that it would be a good thing for the defendant?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2052.179, 2067.867], "stop_times": [2067.867, 2073.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.179}, "reply_to": "22062__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__1_058", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "I think it would depend.\nSome jurors might take away that the person--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2073.728, 2076.495], "stop_times": [2076.495, 2079.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2073.728}, "reply_to": "22062__1_057", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_059", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "And if it depends, why would it not be appropriate to have a rule that the trial judge should be required to explain the basis for his decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2079.094], "stop_times": [2087.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2079.094}, "reply_to": "22062__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__1_060", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Certainly here it would have been simpler had the trial court been a little wordier, and that's not the case.\nThat said, I think the test should be, looking back, has the trial court done something that's reasonable.\nAnd then to get into the prejudice issue, I think you have to look at the facts of this case.\nIn terms of whether or not the restraint could prejudice Mr. Deck, one thing to look at is the defense that he offered in mitigation.\nHis defense in mitigation was not that he was not a dangerous individual.\nIt was not that these murders were an aberration--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2087.639, 2094.121, 2100.15, 2104.441, 2113.153, 2118.355], "stop_times": [2094.121, 2100.15, 2104.441, 2113.153, 2118.355, 2121.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2087.639}, "reply_to": "22062__1_059", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_061", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Yes, but would you not agree that it's always of relevance to a jury in deciding whether the... the man should be executed, is how dangerous is this guy?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2121.903], "stop_times": [2129.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2121.903}, "reply_to": "22062__1_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__1_062", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Yes, certainly juries can consider that, and jury case law is in accord.\nBut on the facts of this case, Mr. Deck's defense in mitigation was not that he was a safe individual or, again, that the murder of these two people was an aberration in an otherwise saintly life.\nThat's not the case.\nThe mitigation defense was that he did these horrible things.\nHe is some... a nefarious individual, but that he should not be sentenced to death because that wasn't his fault.\nIt was his parents' fault.\nThey had done a poor job in raising him.\nHe had suffered difficult circumstances growing up.\nSo there's simply no intersection between the mitigation defense offered here and whatever the jury might take away that might be negative from the fact that he was restrained.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2129.788, 2133.026, 2146.135, 2147.061, 2150.488, 2158.106, 2159.304, 2161.717, 2165.044], "stop_times": [2133.026, 2146.135, 2147.061, 2150.488, 2158.106, 2159.304, 2161.717, 2165.044, 2176.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2129.788}, "reply_to": "22062__1_061", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_063", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--But the fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2176.478], "stop_times": [2177.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2176.478}, "reply_to": "22062__1_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22062__1_064", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Could they put him in a cage?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2177.843], "stop_times": [2178.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2177.843}, "reply_to": "22062__1_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__1_065", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Could they put Mr. Deck in a cage?\nI don't think so.\nCould they put--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2178.419, 2180.981, 2181.763], "stop_times": [2180.981, 2181.763, 2182.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2178.419}, "reply_to": "22062__1_064", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_066", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "He's... he's been convicted.\nWe know he's dangerous.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2182.217, 2183.332], "stop_times": [2183.332, 2184.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2182.217}, "reply_to": "22062__1_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__1_067", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2184.258], "stop_times": [2184.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.258}, "reply_to": "22062__1_066", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_068", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "It seems to me your argument is much like arguing on the merits of the... at the original trial that his defense was alibi or something like that, therefore you don't have to worry about the prejudice that arises from the restraints.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2184.985], "stop_times": [2197.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2184.985}, "reply_to": "22062__1_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__1_069", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, I think in the penalty phase, we're looking at reliability.\nAnd... and the bottom line is restraining somebody who's twice been convicted of murder is not in any way unreliable or misleading.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2197.738, 2202.939], "stop_times": [2202.939, 2209.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2197.738}, "reply_to": "22062__1_068", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_070", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Yes, but the bottom line from the other point of view is that shackles are always prejudicial, and you try to have the scales evenly balanced when you're deciding whether the man should die or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2209.893], "stop_times": [2220.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.893}, "reply_to": "22062__1_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__1_071", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "In terms of making that decision, it's important to remember that Missouri has procedures in place to channel, at the front end, the jury's decision whether or not to impose death.\nAmong those are aggravating circumstances.\nAnd in this case the aggravating circumstances did not relate at all to dangerousness or future dangerousness.\nIn fact, in Missouri--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2220.484, 2230.986, 2234.025, 2241.206], "stop_times": [2230.986, 2234.025, 2241.206, 2242.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2220.484}, "reply_to": "22062__1_070", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_072", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Well, the... the stated aggravating circumstances didn't, but the point of... one point of the argument is that by shackling the man in... in this complete and visible way, you are creating the impression that no one could fail to... to perceive that this guy is so dangerous that they can't even depend upon courtroom security either to protect him from the... protect the jurors or courtroom personnel or to prevent escape.\nThat... excuse me.\nThat may not be a verbal argument about dangerousness, but it seems to me that it is an unmistakably visible one.\nWhat is your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2242.199, 2272.679, 2274.437, 2281.496], "stop_times": [2272.679, 2274.437, 2281.496, 2282.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2242.199}, "reply_to": "22062__1_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22062__1_073", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Two responses to that.\nIn terms of the dangerousness, again, this jury in particular knew that Mr. Deck had been convicted of murder.\nThey knew that the choice they faced was both stark and very serious: life without probation or parole or death.\nAnd so to present Mr. Deck in restraints could hardly come as a shock.\nTo the contrary, it might be confusing and cause consternation to have a twice-convicted murderer sitting at counsel table no more restrained than counsel or the people in the courtroom.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2282.794, 2284.302, 2290.346, 2299.784, 2304.736], "stop_times": [2284.302, 2290.346, 2299.784, 2304.736, 2316.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2282.794}, "reply_to": "22062__1_072", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_074", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Do we know why the judge apparently changed his mind?\nBecause if I remember correctly, at the pretrial hearing, the court said that the defendant would be allowed to, A, wear his own clothes and, B, to have leg braces underneath for security.\nAnd then sometime after that pretrial hearing, the judge apparently changed his mind.\nDo we know what triggered that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2316.336, 2321.165, 2337.967, 2344.488], "stop_times": [2321.165, 2337.967, 2344.488, 2346.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2316.336}, "reply_to": "22062__1_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22062__1_075", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "We... we do not.\nThere is no record of any such pretrial hearing.\nThe only way we know about that is from allegations in the motion for new trial.\nSo there is... there is no record on that at all.\nIf possible, I'd like to get back to the cage question, Justice Kennedy, that you posed.\nThat's a... that's an extreme form of restraint.\nCould that ever be used in a case?\nIt's possible.\nBut then I think we get into questions of whether or not the trial court's action was reasonable.\nAnd in looking at reasonableness, we can consider are there other perhaps less visible, less dramatic forms of restraint that might do the job equally well.\nThat's not to say, however, that a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2346.057, 2347.46, 2350.244, 2354.314, 2356.627, 2362.571, 2366.862, 2368.72, 2369.834, 2375.119, 2384.424], "stop_times": [2347.46, 2350.244, 2354.314, 2356.627, 2362.571, 2366.862, 2368.72, 2369.834, 2375.119, 2384.424, 2386.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2346.057}, "reply_to": "22062__1_074", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_076", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, how about the ones that were used on Mr. Deck during the trial?\nWas that an alternative that was reasonable?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2386.553, 2391.011], "stop_times": [2391.011, 2393.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2386.553}, "reply_to": "22062__1_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_077", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--I think it was an alternative in this case, and the defense didn't proffer, at the time of the objection, anything that they thought that might be less.\nAnd I think the trouble comes in here... again, I don't believe a least restrictive alternatives approach is appropriate, but when you talk about least restrictive, I think it's sometimes difficult to tell what is less restrictive than something else because not all restraints--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2393.529, 2403.726], "stop_times": [2403.726, 2418.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.529}, "reply_to": "22062__1_076", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_078", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Well, in part it depends on whose burden it is.\nIs it the burden of the State, if they're going to use shackles, to somehow establish that it's needed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2418.049, 2421.643], "stop_times": [2421.643, 2431.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2418.049}, "reply_to": "22062__1_077", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_079", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2431.424], "stop_times": [2432.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2431.424}, "reply_to": "22062__1_078", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_080", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Or do you take the position that they're free to impose shackles in every case, even a traffic offense, if the prosecutor wishes to do it, without any justification?\nThat's your position apparently.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2432.788, 2445.541], "stop_times": [2445.541, 2447.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2432.788}, "reply_to": "22062__1_079", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_081", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Well, I think if it's non-visible restraints--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2447.665], "stop_times": [2450.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2447.665}, "reply_to": "22062__1_080", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_082", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2450.165], "stop_times": [2451.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2450.165}, "reply_to": "22062__1_081", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_083", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--I... I don't think that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2451.114], "stop_times": [2452.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2451.114}, "reply_to": "22062__1_082", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_084", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Is that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2452.494], "stop_times": [2453.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2452.494}, "reply_to": "22062__1_083", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_085", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--No.\nI don't think that's precisely right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2453.032, 2453.237], "stop_times": [2453.237, 2454.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2453.032}, "reply_to": "22062__1_084", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_086", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "No?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2454.806], "stop_times": [2454.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2454.806}, "reply_to": "22062__1_085", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_087", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "I think if it's non-visible restraints, we have a non-issue.\nIf the jury doesn't see it, it doesn't really matter.\nThat's... that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2454.973, 2458.688, 2461.948], "stop_times": [2458.688, 2461.948, 2463.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2454.973}, "reply_to": "22062__1_086", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_088", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "That's not my question, and... and it relates to what is the burden of the State in these situations to use the visible restraints?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2463.162], "stop_times": [2473.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2463.162}, "reply_to": "22062__1_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_089", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--The burden is for the State to show that the restraints were reasonable, were not completely out of proportion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2473.382], "stop_times": [2479.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2473.382}, "reply_to": "22062__1_088", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_090", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "And where in this record do I find that the State carried that burden--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2479.698], "stop_times": [2484.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.698}, "reply_to": "22062__1_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_091", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--The record--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2484.239], "stop_times": [2485.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2484.239}, "reply_to": "22062__1_090", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_092", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--and that there was a finding by the trial judge on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2485.165], "stop_times": [2488.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2485.165}, "reply_to": "22062__1_091", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_093", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--There was not a finding per se, but the facts of this case, spread upon the record, support the use of restraints in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2488.493], "stop_times": [2498.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2488.493}, "reply_to": "22062__1_092", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_094", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Could you point me to places in the record where it supports your position on the use of the visible restraint?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2498.44], "stop_times": [2505.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2498.44}, "reply_to": "22062__1_093", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_095", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Yes.\nMr. Deck had an aiding escape conviction that was presented to the jury.\nThere was the attempted escape that Justice Scalia referred to.\nOr excuse me.\nHe referred to the... the suicide--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2505.333, 2506.076, 2511.277, 2515.447, 2516.19], "stop_times": [2506.076, 2511.277, 2515.447, 2516.19, 2518.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2505.333}, "reply_to": "22062__1_094", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_096", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Had that not occurred before he was even tried?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2518.009], "stop_times": [2520.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2518.009}, "reply_to": "22062__1_095", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22062__1_097", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--That had, yes.\nYes, that's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2520.36, 2521.574], "stop_times": [2521.574, 2523.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2520.36}, "reply_to": "22062__1_096", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_098", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "And what were the facts of the aiding escape?\nWas he trying to get away or was he helping somebody?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2523.227, 2525.561], "stop_times": [2525.561, 2527.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2523.227}, "reply_to": "22062__1_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__1_099", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "He was assisting somebody.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2527.873], "stop_times": [2529.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2527.873}, "reply_to": "22062__1_098", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_100", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "I mean, what did he do?\nDraw a map or what?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2529.376, 2530.308, 2531.217], "stop_times": [2530.308, 2531.217, 2532.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2529.376}, "reply_to": "22062__1_099", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__1_101", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "He... he had a saw blade and he assisted these other individuals in sawing their way out.\nSo there's that, both a conviction--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2532.248, 2540.216], "stop_times": [2540.216, 2544.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2532.248}, "reply_to": "22062__1_100", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_102", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Which really has very little probative value on this issue.\nI mean, the fact that he tried to saw his way out of a cell hardly speaks to the risk of fleeing from the courtroom while the proceedings are going on.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2544.757, 2547.358], "stop_times": [2547.358, 2557.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2544.757}, "reply_to": "22062__1_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__1_103", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--I... I must disagree.\nI think if he's aiding other people in escape, he himself tried to remove the glass from the window when he was held in jail prior to trial by removing the caulking.\nIf he is willing to escape in those circumstances, what's to say he's not willing to escape in the Jefferson County courtroom?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2557.184, 2558.686, 2569.277], "stop_times": [2558.686, 2569.277, 2575.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2557.184}, "reply_to": "22062__1_102", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_104", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "So we already know that... that that effort was made before he was tried in the guilt phase.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2575.965], "stop_times": [2581.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2575.965}, "reply_to": "22062__1_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22062__1_105", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2581.538], "stop_times": [2582.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2581.538}, "reply_to": "22062__1_104", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_106", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "And whatever inference you might draw, it didn't prove out.\nSo it seems to me the... the closest in time is the... and... and in fact is the episode he's just been through, the trial episode.\nSo why wouldn't that be... the... the judge would start with that in mind.\nWell, I tried this man and he didn't give me any problems, so I have no reason to anticipate problems now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2582.198, 2585.253, 2595.367, 2601.888], "stop_times": [2585.253, 2595.367, 2601.888, 2612.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2582.198}, "reply_to": "22062__1_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22062__1_107", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "That's true.\nBut again, we also have the fact that he had... between the initial penalty phase and the penalty phase retrial, Mr. Deck had pursued his direct and post-conviction appeals.\nThey had not been successful on the issue of guilt.\nThe issue of guilt is done.\nHe's a twice-convicted murderer.\nAnd he knew that at that time.\nFurthermore, we have the fact that the first jury in the penalty phase found one of the six aggravating circumstances... actually they found all, but one of them was that Mr. Deck killed in order to avoid lawful arrest.\nHe has 12 convictions on his record, and at the time that he killed the Longs, he knew that if I leave witnesses and they can identify me and I go to prison for breaking into their house and stealing money, I will not be leaving prison.\nSo that was a factor as well.\nThat was a factor as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2612.002, 2613.2, 2623.769, 2626.591, 2628.266, 2630.495, 2632.974, 2645.15, 2660.567, 2662.446], "stop_times": [2613.2, 2623.769, 2626.591, 2628.266, 2630.495, 2632.974, 2645.15, 2660.567, 2662.446, 2664.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.002}, "reply_to": "22062__1_106", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_108", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "If... if there are some factors that favor putting him in shackles and I guess others might not, what's the argument that the judge shouldn't at least have to make a finding?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2664.553], "stop_times": [2675.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2664.553}, "reply_to": "22062__1_107", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22062__1_109", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Again, the question is reasonableness.\nWe don't have a finding here, and it would certainly have been helpful.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2675.821, 2679.702, 2682.136], "stop_times": [2679.702, 2682.136, 2683.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2675.821}, "reply_to": "22062__1_108", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_110", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "I mean, you know, I realize you want to save the conviction and the penalty, but if you look at the mine run of cases, it's pretty hard for me to see how the State could show special circumstances and they not get a finding from the judge that they're right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2683.622], "stop_times": [2700.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2683.622}, "reply_to": "22062__1_109", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22062__1_111", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--We don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2700.895], "stop_times": [2702.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2700.895}, "reply_to": "22062__1_110", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_112", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "It's pretty hard to see an argument against it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2702.077], "stop_times": [2704.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2702.077}, "reply_to": "22062__1_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22062__1_113", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--We don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2704.594], "stop_times": [2705.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2704.594}, "reply_to": "22062__1_112", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_114", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "I know that hurts your case, but I... I still need to think of some argument or reason why the judge shouldn't have to at least make a finding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2705.725], "stop_times": [2713.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2705.725}, "reply_to": "22062__1_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22062__1_115", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Right.\nFindings would certainly be helpful, but again, the question is whether or not what the trial court did is reasonable, not if what he did was perfect.\nIf conspicuous on this record, we have factors like an attempted escape, aiding others in escaping, the fact that he killed to avoid lawful arrest, the fact that between his initial penalty phase and the retrial he had pursued his remedies.\nWith all these facts, can we really say that the trial court was on the side of unreasonableness versus reasonableness?\nDo we have to wait for Mr. Deck to actually have an outburst?\nOr it could be something where it's an... an issue of the spectators in the courtroom.\nThere could be many things.\nIt could be an issue of what the particular confines of the Jefferson County courthouse are and whether or not it's set up in such a way as to avoid escape and things of that nature.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2713.055, 2713.51, 2721.517, 2739.805, 2748.267, 2752.603, 2757.349, 2758.464], "stop_times": [2713.51, 2721.517, 2739.805, 2748.267, 2752.603, 2757.349, 2758.464, 2770.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2713.055}, "reply_to": "22062__1_114", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_116", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "With a... with a blank record... the... the State is going to restrain someone and it may be necessary, it may be not, and if the State has the burden, then why shouldn't a reviewing court speculate on what might have been when the only thing that was... appears of record is he's been convicted and will remain in legirons?\nThe only reason the court gave is that now things have changed.\nHe's no longer in the guilt phase where he enjoys the presumption of innocence.\nHe has been convicted and, therefore, we can keep him in chains.\nThere's nothing situation-specific about it.\nThe judge seems to be saying once a person is convicted, at least of murder, it's fair game.\nIt's... it's permissible to keep him in legirons and shackles.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2770.353, 2795.206, 2800.24, 2805.441, 2809.984, 2814.275, 2822.903], "stop_times": [2795.206, 2800.24, 2805.441, 2809.984, 2814.275, 2822.903, 2829.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2770.353}, "reply_to": "22062__1_115", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22062__1_117", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "I think that's what the court said here.\nHowever, it's important to remember that the defendant has a burden to establish a constitutional violation.\nAnd further, the colloquy of the court and counsel was such that counsel said, look, these restraints make him look dangerous.\nAnd the court, by saying he's been convicted, said, well, he is dangerous.\nNow, if there were other objections to the restraints, for example, that he was unable to communicate with counsel because his hand was not free and he couldn't write notes or if the restraints were causing him pain or if the restraints, the way they were set up, were causing him to have difficulty facing the jury perhaps--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2829.403, 2832.108, 2838.507, 2845.954, 2851.715], "stop_times": [2832.108, 2838.507, 2845.954, 2851.715, 2872.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2829.403}, "reply_to": "22062__1_116", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_118", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Ms. Nield, is... is the State making a harmless error argument here?\nI really couldn't tell from your brief whether you're doing it or not.\nAre... are... is the State asserting that assuming it... assuming it was wrong, assuming it was a violation, this jury would have... would have come out the same way anyway?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2872.415, 2875.659, 2878.093], "stop_times": [2875.659, 2878.093, 2888.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2872.415}, "reply_to": "22062__1_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__1_119", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--That's right.\nThat's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2888.207, 2888.745], "stop_times": [2888.745, 2889.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2888.207}, "reply_to": "22062__1_118", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_120", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Why is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2889.693], "stop_times": [2891.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2889.693}, "reply_to": "22062__1_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__1_121", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "First of all, again, the defense in mitigation was essentially that Mr. Deck is dangerous, but we ought to spare him the penalty of death because of his poor upbringing.\nAnd that defense in mitigation does not intersect or have any sort of nexus with any sort of presumptions that jurors might draw.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2891.551, 2903.605], "stop_times": [2903.605, 2913.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2891.551}, "reply_to": "22062__1_120", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_122", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "What... what specific aggravating circumstances did they jury find?\nYou say there are statutory aggravating circumstances in Missouri.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2913.47, 2918.095], "stop_times": [2918.095, 2922.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2913.47}, "reply_to": "22062__1_121", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__1_123", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2922.387], "stop_times": [2923.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2922.387}, "reply_to": "22062__1_122", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_124", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "And the jury found... there are five.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2923.13], "stop_times": [2925.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2923.13}, "reply_to": "22062__1_123", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__1_125", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "There were--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2925.98], "stop_times": [2926.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2925.98}, "reply_to": "22062__1_124", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_126", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "And the jury found all five.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2926.845], "stop_times": [2928.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2926.845}, "reply_to": "22062__1_125", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__1_127", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Actually there were six--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2928.414], "stop_times": [2929.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2928.414}, "reply_to": "22062__1_126", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_128", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Six.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2929.712], "stop_times": [2930.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2929.712}, "reply_to": "22062__1_127", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__1_129", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--that were pled in this case and the jury found all six.\nAnd they are as follows.\nThe murders were each committed while he was engaged in another homicide.\nHe murdered each victim for the purpose of receiving money.\nBoth murders involved depravity of mind.\nEach murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding lawful arrest.\nEach murder was committed while Mr. Deck was engaged in the perpetration of a burglary, and each murder was committed while Mr. Deck was engaged in the perpetration of robbery.\nSo, again, none of these factors... there's no nexus between these factors, which are really implicit in the guilt finding... no nexus between these aggravating circumstances that render Mr. Deck death-eligible and any sort of dangerousness that the jurors might take away from the fact that he was restrained.\nOnce you get past the death-eligibility hurdle with the aggravating circumstances, then comes the Eighth Amendment concerns about reliable and accurate sentencing in the selection decision, the decision that's one of a moral nature of whether this person should be put to death.\nAnd on that front, again, restraining somebody who's twice been convicted of murder is not inaccurate, it is not unreliable, it's not misleading in any way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [2930.272, 2932.872, 2935.101, 2939.477, 2943.192, 2946.247, 2951.26, 2962.139, 2982.944, 3002.513], "stop_times": [2932.872, 2935.101, 2939.477, 2943.192, 2946.247, 2951.26, 2962.139, 2982.944, 3002.513, 3014.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2930.272}, "reply_to": "22062__1_128", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_130", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "So... so it's never ground for reversal?\nI'm... I'm wondering, in line with Justice Scalia's question, is... is... would the calculus be, well, this is not a close case and some other cases are closer?\nI mean, is that what we do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3014.235, 3016.631, 3025.752], "stop_times": [3016.631, 3025.752, 3026.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3014.235}, "reply_to": "22062__1_129", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__1_131", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3026.867], "stop_times": [3027.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3026.867}, "reply_to": "22062__1_130", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_132", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Your... your... I... I think first position at least would be that it's never prejudicial.\nBut assume we don't agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3027.981, 3033.1], "stop_times": [3033.1, 3034.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3027.981}, "reply_to": "22062__1_131", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__1_133", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3034.836], "stop_times": [3036.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3034.836}, "reply_to": "22062__1_132", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_134", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "How does harmless error work to... to pursue Justice Scalia's line of questioning?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3036.072], "stop_times": [3040.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3036.072}, "reply_to": "22062__1_133", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__1_135", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--I think in terms of harmless error, that would be our second position, but the first position here is that a constitutional violation has not been established.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3040.613], "stop_times": [3051.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3040.613}, "reply_to": "22062__1_134", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_136", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3051.282], "stop_times": [3051.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3051.282}, "reply_to": "22062__1_135", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__1_137", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "And where that's the case, you look at the totality.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3051.842], "stop_times": [3054.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3051.842}, "reply_to": "22062__1_136", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_138", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "But answer his question.\nGive him an example of where it... it wouldn't be harmless error.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3054.442, 3056.011], "stop_times": [3056.011, 3061.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3054.442}, "reply_to": "22062__1_137", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__1_139", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Where it wouldn't?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3061.047], "stop_times": [3062.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3061.047}, "reply_to": "22062__1_138", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_140", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Assuming that it is a violation, what's an example of where it wouldn't be harmless error?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3062.616], "stop_times": [3067.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3062.616}, "reply_to": "22062__1_139", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__1_141", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "An example of where it might not be harmless error is where the defendant's defense in mitigation is focused specifically on dangerousness or future dangerousness.\nFor example, if the defense in mitigation is I committed these murders, but I'm very sick now, I'm feeble, I'm not going to pose any sort of threat to anybody inside or outside the prison walls, if the defense in mitigation relates to danger.\nOr, for example, if the defense in mitigation was that while incarcerated, the person had found religion and realized the error of his or her ways and was no longer inclined to do these things and felt remorse, that again might relate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3067.984, 3078.302, 3095.559], "stop_times": [3078.302, 3095.559, 3111.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3067.984}, "reply_to": "22062__1_140", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_142", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Or I suppose if future dangerousness was a specific aggravating factor under State law, as it is in Texas, for example--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3111.368], "stop_times": [3120.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3111.368}, "reply_to": "22062__1_141", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__1_143", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Correct.\nThat would make a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3120.673, 3121.399], "stop_times": [3121.399, 3122.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3120.673}, "reply_to": "22062__1_142", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_144", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--then... then you would concede that if this was unlawful, the error clearly would not be harmless.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3122.68], "stop_times": [3128.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.68}, "reply_to": "22062__1_143", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__1_145", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "That could certainly make a difference there.\nThat's correct.\nOr another example of where the defense in mitigation might intersect more with the dangerousness issue.\nIn the Simmons line of cases, in one of the cases the defense was that the particular defendant had a proclivity for attacking elderly women and that was the nature of his crime.\nBut in prison there were no elderly women, and so he would not pose a danger to anyone outside the prison walls if incarcerated for life, nor would he pose a danger to other prisoners because they were not elderly women.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3128.086, 3129.738, 3130.687, 3139.686, 3150.915], "stop_times": [3129.738, 3130.687, 3139.686, 3150.915, 3163.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3128.086}, "reply_to": "22062__1_144", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_146", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "I thought the question here was, was he dangerous in the courtroom?\nWas he going to lash out at a witness or try to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3163.175, 3166.89], "stop_times": [3166.89, 3171.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3163.175}, "reply_to": "22062__1_145", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22062__1_147", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "I think that's the question when the trial court looks at the restraints issue, but Mr. Deck is saying that this impaired the reliability of his sentencing under the Eighth Amendment.\nAnd there, we do look at these other kinds of issues.\nIt's not whether he would be dangerous in the courtroom.\nThat's the trial court decision at the front end under the Eighth Amendment, and when we look at reliability, is this something that is going to impel the jury to impose a death sentence based upon whim or caprice or arbitrariness.\nAnd we would submit that it is not.\nAgain, to restrain somebody who's convicted of killing not one, but two people, to do that does not send the jury irrevocably down the path of giving death.\nAnd that points up the prosecutor's argument in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3171.183, 3182.578, 3186.022, 3188.644, 3202.64, 3204.702, 3217.705], "stop_times": [3182.578, 3186.022, 3188.644, 3202.64, 3204.702, 3217.705, 3220.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3171.183}, "reply_to": "22062__1_146", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_148", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--If he... if he were kept under these restraints, legirons and the... what do they call it... belly chain, day in and day out in prison, would that constitute cruel or unusual punishment?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3220.677], "stop_times": [3240.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3220.677}, "reply_to": "22062__1_147", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22062__1_149", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "It could.\nAnd it would depend upon the prison security.\nThe difference being, in prison, he's already confined versus outside the prison walls.\nIt... it could present a problem.\nIn one of the Spain cases, the... the neck restraint was deemed to be cruel and unusual, and particularly if it's ongoing, if it's... if it occurs for a lengthy period of time.\nBut, of course, we don't have that here and we have not a prison context but a context of a local, rural courtroom where the trial judge has to make sure that the people in that courtroom, the personnel, the spectators, the jurors, that they are safe.\nAnd we would submit that under the facts of this case, that that trial court's decision was not unreasonable.\nThe Missouri Supreme Court was correct in its analysis and it should be affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3240.246, 3241.361, 3245.902, 3252.589, 3254.63, 3265.759, 3282.311, 3289.081], "stop_times": [3241.361, 3245.902, 3252.589, 3254.63, 3265.759, 3282.311, 3289.081, 3294.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3240.246}, "reply_to": "22062__1_148", "speaker": "cheryl_c_nield"}
{"id": "22062__1_150", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Nield.\nMs. Percival, you have about 4 and a half minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3294.282, 3296.057], "stop_times": [3296.057, 3301.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3294.282}, "reply_to": "22062__1_149", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__2_000", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3301.896], "stop_times": [3302.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3301.896}, "reply_to": "22062__1_150", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__2_001", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Could... could you comment on whether or not there's harmful error here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3302.456], "stop_times": [3308.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3302.456}, "reply_to": "22062__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__2_002", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThis constitutional violation was not harmless for a number of reasons.\nFor one, character was the key consideration in the jury's analysis of whether this person should live or die.\nThe court is saying that even 7 years after this crime occurred, that Carman Deck is so dangerous that he needs to be in both belly chain and legirons to keep the courtroom safe, to keep him there.\nThe court is saying that he's dangerous in the courtroom, that he remains dangerous and therefore he--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3308.4, 3309.393, 3315.748, 3325.118, 3339.979], "stop_times": [3309.393, 3315.748, 3325.118, 3339.979, 3345.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3308.4}, "reply_to": "22062__2_001", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__2_003", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Are you asking us to say that in light of six aggravating factors on which he was convicted, the result likely would have been different?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3345.059], "stop_times": [3351.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3345.059}, "reply_to": "22062__2_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22062__2_004", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Yes, I am, Your Honor.\nAnd that's because there's... that is the... just the first step of the Missouri procedure.\nThe jury then goes to step two, by which they look at both statutory aggravators and nonstatutory aggravators to decide whether death is warranted.\nAt step three, they then weigh the mitigation against the aggravation.\nThe Missouri Supreme Court itself in the first appeal stated that Deck had presented substantial mitigation about his horribly abusive childhood.\nAnd it's not accurate that the defense was only related to his... his childhood.\nIn closing arguments, defense counsel repeatedly argued that Deck deserved to be in prison because of what he had done, but that he would be safe in prison.\nThere would be no risk that he would hurt anybody else.\nSo that was part of the defense strategy.\nThese restraints were--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3351.496, 3352.778, 3358.722, 3371.187, 3376.1, 3387.534, 3395.047, 3404.791, 3408.506, 3412.054], "stop_times": [3352.778, 3358.722, 3371.187, 3376.1, 3387.534, 3395.047, 3404.791, 3408.506, 3412.054, 3414.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3351.496}, "reply_to": "22062__2_003", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__2_005", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "That was at this trial or at the first trial, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3414.838], "stop_times": [3416.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3414.838}, "reply_to": "22062__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22062__2_006", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--This trial.\nHe made that argument at this trial.\nThese restraints were visible throughout the trial.\nThere were 15 recesses, at which time Deck would have had to stand up when both the jurors leave the court and come back in.\nThe shackles dehumanized Deck and it degraded the dignity of the courtroom.\nPrison clothing does not relate to character, and shackles directly relate to character, which is so key in the death analysis.\nIt was not reasonable to impose these excessive restraints after Deck had behaved appropriately at... at numerous proceedings prior to this.\nAnd for these reasons, we would ask the Court to find that there was a constitutional violation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3416.862, 3417.689, 3420.018, 3423.837, 3433.597, 3442.496, 3457.729, 3471.309], "stop_times": [3417.689, 3420.018, 3423.837, 3433.597, 3442.496, 3457.729, 3471.309, 3479.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3416.862}, "reply_to": "22062__2_005", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__2_007", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "May I ask one quick question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3479.277], "stop_times": [3480.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3479.277}, "reply_to": "22062__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__2_008", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "--Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3480.392], "stop_times": [3480.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3480.392}, "reply_to": "22062__2_007", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__2_009", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Does the record tell us how big he was?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3480.625], "stop_times": [3482.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3480.625}, "reply_to": "22062__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__2_010", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "No, it does not, Your Honor.\nSorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3482.228, 3484.561], "stop_times": [3484.561, 3484.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3482.228}, "reply_to": "22062__2_009", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__2_011", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Okay.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3484.827, 3485.199], "stop_times": [3485.199, 3487.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3484.827}, "reply_to": "22062__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22062__2_012", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3487.018], "stop_times": [3487.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3487.018}, "reply_to": "22062__2_011", "speaker": "rosemary_e_percival"}
{"id": "22062__2_013", "conversation_id": "22062", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5293", "start_times": [3487.594], "stop_times": [3492.879], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3487.594}, "reply_to": "22062__2_012", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22333__0_000", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "We'll hear argument in No. 03-710, Devenpeck against Alford.\nMs. Hart.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [0.0, 7.142], "stop_times": [7.142, 8.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__0_001", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThe Ninth Circuit invalidated Mr. Alford's arrest and held the arresting officers in this case personally liable for damages based on the closely related offense doctrine.\nThe doctrine is contrary to fundamental Fourth Amendment principles that probable cause is an objective inquiry based on all of the facts and circumstances known to the officer at arrest.\nIn contrast, the closely related offense doctrine is a subject of inquiry that limits probable cause only to those facts and circumstances closely related to the offense that the arresting officer announces at arrest.\nUnder the doctrine, then if two officers observe precisely the same facts and circumstances and arrest the suspect, the arrest in one case can be valid and in the other invalid based only on the officer's subjective legal evaluation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [8.173, 10.94, 20.684, 31.951, 45.575], "stop_times": [10.94, 20.684, 31.951, 45.575, 61.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8.173}, "reply_to": "22333__0_000", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_002", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Ms. Hart, is there any requirement in Washington or generally that an officer state the grounds for the arrest to the person being arrested at the time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [61.384], "stop_times": [73.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 61.384}, "reply_to": "22333__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__0_003", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, there's no constitutional requirement and there is no requirement in... in Washington that that be done.\nA number of States do require that it be done statutorily and many of those States also--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [73.523, 83.015], "stop_times": [83.015, 89.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 73.523}, "reply_to": "22333__0_002", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_004", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "We're dealing here with a case from the State of Washington, and you assert there is no such requirement in Washington.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [89.126], "stop_times": [95.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 89.126}, "reply_to": "22333__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__0_005", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--There is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [95.275], "stop_times": [95.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 95.275}, "reply_to": "22333__0_004", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_006", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But in this case when the respondent was arrested, he was informed by the officer that the arrest was for making a tape recording of the conversation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [95.814], "stop_times": [107.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 95.814}, "reply_to": "22333__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__0_007", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [107.702], "stop_times": [108.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 107.702}, "reply_to": "22333__0_006", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_008", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "And it turns out... do you concede that that was, in fact, not a lawful grounds for arrest?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [108.9], "stop_times": [117.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 108.9}, "reply_to": "22333__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__0_009", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "That... at this point, the question of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [117.362], "stop_times": [120.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 117.362}, "reply_to": "22333__0_008", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_010", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Do you concede that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [120.539], "stop_times": [121.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 120.539}, "reply_to": "22333__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__0_011", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [121.82], "stop_times": [123.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 121.82}, "reply_to": "22333__0_010", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_012", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--that in the State of Washington, that it is perfectly lawful to record the conversation with the police?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [123.761], "stop_times": [131.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 123.761}, "reply_to": "22333__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__0_013", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--This... the facts of this particular case have not been before a... a court in Washington, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [131.274], "stop_times": [137.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 131.274}, "reply_to": "22333__0_012", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_014", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But I'm asking you.\nWhat is your view?\nIs it lawful or not for an individual to record, tape record, the conversation with a policeman on the occasion of a stop?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [137.757, 139.076, 141.101], "stop_times": [139.076, 141.101, 150.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 137.757}, "reply_to": "22333__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__0_015", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Your Honor, I believe in this case there would be probable cause for an officer to believe it was and therefore effect an arrest.\nI don't believe that the... the question has been answered in Washington, and I believe there are good grounds to argue that it would be permissible and that, indeed, unlike the decision in State v. Flora, there were distinguishing circumstances here, including the absence of passers-by on the scene.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [150.51, 158.395], "stop_times": [158.395, 175.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 150.51}, "reply_to": "22333__0_014", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_016", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, do we decide this case on the understanding that it was lawful to make the recording?\nIs that the basis in which we decide this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [175.735, 183.537], "stop_times": [183.537, 187.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.735}, "reply_to": "22333__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__0_017", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWe have not raised the Privacy Act as an issue before this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [187.131, 187.874], "stop_times": [187.874, 191.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 187.131}, "reply_to": "22333__0_016", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_018", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, for argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [191.339], "stop_times": [194.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 191.339}, "reply_to": "22333__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22333__0_019", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Now, Washington also has an anti-stacking policy, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [194.683], "stop_times": [197.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 194.683}, "reply_to": "22333__0_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__0_020", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "The State Patrol does, Your Honor, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [197.988], "stop_times": [200.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 197.988}, "reply_to": "22333__0_019", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_021", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Is... is that just a rule of the patrolmen in the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [200.134], "stop_times": [204.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 200.134}, "reply_to": "22333__0_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__0_022", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "It--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [204.425], "stop_times": [205.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 204.425}, "reply_to": "22333__0_021", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_023", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "They won't arrest someone for several charges?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [205.168], "stop_times": [210.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 205.168}, "reply_to": "22333__0_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__0_024", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--It's an agency policy and troopers with the Washington State Patrol are trained to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [210.081], "stop_times": [215.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 210.081}, "reply_to": "22333__0_023", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_025", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, is it an agency policy that the State endorses, and if so, why... why do you endorse or adopt the policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [215.365], "stop_times": [222.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 215.365}, "reply_to": "22333__0_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__0_026", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I believe that... that stacking charges really is... there are good reasons to endorse the policy.\nOne is that it's not a particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [222.795, 229.854], "stop_times": [229.854, 232.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 222.795}, "reply_to": "22333__0_025", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_027", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Not... not stacking charges you mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [232.538], "stop_times": [233.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 232.538}, "reply_to": "22333__0_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__0_028", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nNot stacking charges, Your Honor, is... is an... a sound policy for a number of reasons.\nFirst, it's not a particularly effective or efficient use of law enforcement resources, but perhaps more importantly, it can have significant negative consequences for people who are subject to arrest in terms of their ability... the amount of bail, their ability to post bail, and to secure a pre-trial release.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [233.941, 234.313, 239.885], "stop_times": [234.313, 239.885, 258.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 233.941}, "reply_to": "22333__0_027", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_029", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, is that... I mean, is that the... the real basis for the policy, that we... that Washington does not want to make it difficult for... for arrestees to raise bail?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [258.173], "stop_times": [266.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 258.173}, "reply_to": "22333__0_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__0_030", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Your Honor, I can't tell you precisely what the Washington State Patrol's thinking is on it.\nMy impression is that, in part, they believe that... that the appropriate law enforcement response is... is to determine whether there's probable cause and to arrest and leave the sorting out of the charges to be pressed actually by the State to the prosecuting attorney.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [266.635, 272.002], "stop_times": [272.002, 289.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 266.635}, "reply_to": "22333__0_029", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_031", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "What do you make of the argument that unless the cause of the arrest is, number one, stated and, number two, a... a cause that a defendant can rely on, that in any case like this in which the stated grounds of the arrest turn out to be... we will assume, turn out to be inadequate, the police will always, particularly in traffic cases, be able to come up with something later on to justify the arrest?\nWhat... what do you make of that argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [289.752, 319.391], "stop_times": [319.391, 321.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 289.752}, "reply_to": "22333__0_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__0_032", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, I... I think what I would make of it, Justice Souter, is that provided that there's probable cause for arrest, that the fact that there may be a basis to... to stop a number of... of motorists is not... is not relevant.\nAnd in part, I believe that, for example, this Court's decision in Whren indicates that so long as there is probable cause for arrest, the reason for the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [321.87, 337.102], "stop_times": [337.102, 346.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 321.87}, "reply_to": "22333__0_031", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_033", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But that was for an... an arrest in which, so far as we can tell, the... the stated grounds for the arrest were those for which there was probable cause.\nAnd I think one of the concerns underlying the argument that I asked you to comment on is that if the... if the police, in effect, have... have discretion ad lib afterwards to come up with new grounds for the arrest, there's... there's going to be a kind of a basic corrosion in the integrity of the arrest process and in the confidence of people to believe that the police are really acting in good faith when they make an arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [346.512, 354.851], "stop_times": [354.851, 382.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 346.512}, "reply_to": "22333__0_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__0_034", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, the... if there is probable cause for arrest, that is the concern of the Fourth Amendment, and I... I don't believe that the... the concern... I don't know that there's any empirical evidence that the concern that you are expressing has been borne out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [382.528], "stop_times": [400.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 382.528}, "reply_to": "22333__0_033", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_035", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "That... that may be... that may be the... the best response.\nAnd I take it, so far as you know, there... there are no studies that have gone into this on an empirical basis.\nIs that correct, so far as you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [400.011, 403.726, 409.549], "stop_times": [403.726, 409.549, 411.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 400.011}, "reply_to": "22333__0_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__0_036", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Not as... as far as I know, Your Honor.\nBut I would also suggest to you that the notion that an officer would effect an arrest without any basis for the arrest on a hope that a prosecuting attorney can come up with a basis for the arrest--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [411.157, 413.652], "stop_times": [413.652, 427.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 411.157}, "reply_to": "22333__0_035", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_037", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "No.\nThe... the argument is that he thinks he does have a ground.\nIt turns out that he's wrong.\nUnless he is very unimaginative, he'll find another one.\nIt's not that he arrests saying I have no basis to arrest this person, but I'll think of something later.\nIt's... it's the... the problem is, I think... or the argument, I think, is directed to a case like this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [427.027, 427.377, 429.999, 432.228, 435.943, 441.682], "stop_times": [427.377, 429.999, 432.228, 435.943, 441.682, 448.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 427.027}, "reply_to": "22333__0_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__0_038", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Well, and... and Your Honor, I... I do believe that the concern of the Fourth Amendment, which is the only constitutional provision at issue in this case, is that there in fact be a reasonable basis for arrest and that subsequently or promptly subsequently or prior to arrest be tested by a neutral magistrate.\nAnd that's the only concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [448.741, 467.029], "stop_times": [467.029, 468.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 448.741}, "reply_to": "22333__0_037", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_039", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Ms. Hart, I'm... I'm not sure what you mean by... that there has to be probable cause for arrest.\nDo you mean objectively, or do you mean on the basis of the facts known to the arresting officer?\nI mean, let's... let's assume an officer stops a car for a broken taillight, and it turns out the car doesn't have a broken taillight.\nAll right?\nSo that basis is wrong.\nHowever, the car also has an expired inspection sticker, which the officer didn't know about.\nWas there a probable cause for arrest, as you're using the term here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [468.06, 472.601, 480.115, 490.23, 490.723, 494.316, 502.201], "stop_times": [472.601, 480.115, 490.23, 490.723, 494.316, 502.201, 507.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 468.06}, "reply_to": "22333__0_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__0_040", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "If there was probable cause based on the... if there was reason based on the objective facts and circumstances--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [507.236], "stop_times": [513.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.236}, "reply_to": "22333__0_039", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_041", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "And it doesn't matter whether he knew those facts and circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [513.058], "stop_times": [515.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 513.058}, "reply_to": "22333__0_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__0_042", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--that... known to the officer at arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [515.538], "stop_times": [516.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 515.538}, "reply_to": "22333__0_041", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_043", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Oh, so it has to be known.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [516.736], "stop_times": [518.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 516.736}, "reply_to": "22333__0_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__0_044", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [518.676], "stop_times": [519.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 518.676}, "reply_to": "22333__0_043", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_045", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "So in my example, the arrest would be invalid because at the time of the arrest, he didn't know about the sticker.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [519.214], "stop_times": [523.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 519.214}, "reply_to": "22333__0_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__0_046", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Absent the circumstances at arrest giving rise to a reasonable basis to believe that a crime had been committed, there would not be probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [523.856], "stop_times": [531.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 523.856}, "reply_to": "22333__0_045", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_047", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "So you're saying it's the facts known to the officer--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [531.929], "stop_times": [533.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 531.929}, "reply_to": "22333__0_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__0_048", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Precisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [533.87], "stop_times": [534.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 533.87}, "reply_to": "22333__0_047", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_049", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--that have to establish the probable--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [534.696], "stop_times": [535.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 534.696}, "reply_to": "22333__0_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__0_050", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [535.977], "stop_times": [536.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 535.977}, "reply_to": "22333__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__0_051", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Once... once you establish that limitation, are you willing to accept the horrible that... that Justice Souter proposed to you?\nIs it... is it, indeed, so easy to... to gin up some other cause for arrest when you used a mistaken cause?\nI don't know that it's all that easy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [536.465, 543.491, 552.529], "stop_times": [543.491, 552.529, 553.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 536.465}, "reply_to": "22333__0_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__0_052", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "It is not and... and... it is not.\nAnd that was the... the reason why I indicated in response to Justice Souter's question that I do believe that it is not all that easy.\nAnd I... I believe that one of the foremost commentators in this area has termed that notion fanciful for the reason that it is... it is stopping on a hope and a prayer that something will provide justification for that later--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [553.726, 556.987, 563.181], "stop_times": [556.987, 563.181, 581.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 553.726}, "reply_to": "22333__0_051", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_053", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--That was LaFave.\nYou cited LaFave in your brief for that proposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [581.962, 583.365], "stop_times": [583.365, 587.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.962}, "reply_to": "22333__0_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__0_054", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [587.059], "stop_times": [587.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 587.059}, "reply_to": "22333__0_053", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_055", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "You... you made the point, in answer to Justice O'Connor, that a police officer in Washington is not required to divulge on the spot the reason for the arrest.\nWhat is the point at which the arrestee under Washington law is entitled to know the cause of the arrest?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [587.535, 598.763], "stop_times": [598.763, 608.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 587.535}, "reply_to": "22333__0_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__0_056", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "At charging, Your Honor, there... there... the... the individual who has been arrested, as a matter of the Sixth Amendment, would be entitled to know the charges against him or her, and the officer is required, in a warrantless arrest, to appear before a neutral magistrate and have the probable cause for the arrest tested--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [608.961], "stop_times": [628.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 608.961}, "reply_to": "22333__0_055", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_057", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Is it... is it at the arraignment or the... at the earlier booking in the police station?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [628.113], "stop_times": [633.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 628.113}, "reply_to": "22333__0_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__0_058", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nI'm not following your question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [633.027, 636.204], "stop_times": [636.204, 637.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 633.027}, "reply_to": "22333__0_057", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_059", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Is it... is it... is the time when the arrestee must told you are being arrested for X reason, is that when the arrestee appears before the magistrate or is it earlier when he's brought into the police station and he's booked?\nThe arrest is booked.\nAt which point?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [637.502, 654.863, 657.631], "stop_times": [654.863, 657.631, 658.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.502}, "reply_to": "22333__0_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__0_060", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Neither, Justice Ginsburg.\nThe arrestee would be entitled constitutionally to know the charge against him or her when criminal... a criminal prosecution is commenced by charging.\nFor the most part, that is done in Washington by an information or a charge filed by a prosecuting attorney.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [658.745, 661.55, 670.634], "stop_times": [661.55, 670.634, 675.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 658.745}, "reply_to": "22333__0_059", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_061", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "You mean he could be held until a charge is filed without being told why he's being held?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [675.918], "stop_times": [679.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 675.918}, "reply_to": "22333__0_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__0_062", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Justice Stevens--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [679.428], "stop_times": [681.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 679.428}, "reply_to": "22333__0_061", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_063", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "So that could be a week or 2.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [681.574], "stop_times": [682.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 681.574}, "reply_to": "22333__0_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__0_064", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--But it would be... he would be held in that case following a determination by a neutral magistrate that there are grounds to hold him.\nAnd at that point--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [682.5, 691.893], "stop_times": [691.893, 693.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 682.5}, "reply_to": "22333__0_063", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_065", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Would the magistrate keep those grounds secret?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [693.917], "stop_times": [696.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 693.917}, "reply_to": "22333__0_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__0_066", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--They would not be secret, Your Honor, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [696.063], "stop_times": [698.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 696.063}, "reply_to": "22333__0_065", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_067", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, wouldn't the magistrate tell him why he's being held?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [698.004], "stop_times": [700.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 698.004}, "reply_to": "22333__0_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__0_068", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "The magistrate would tell the... the arrestee why he's being held, provided the arrestee is present for that particular procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [700.233], "stop_times": [710.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 700.233}, "reply_to": "22333__0_067", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_069", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "And how soon is he entitled to appear before the magistrate?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [710.059], "stop_times": [711.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 710.059}, "reply_to": "22333__0_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__0_070", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [711.878], "stop_times": [713.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 711.878}, "reply_to": "22333__0_069", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_071", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "How soon after his physical arrest does he have a right to appear before the magistrate?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [713.281], "stop_times": [718.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 713.281}, "reply_to": "22333__0_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__0_072", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "My... my recollection under Washington's law would be... 72 hours is the time for the charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [718.482], "stop_times": [725.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 718.482}, "reply_to": "22333__0_071", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_073", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "So for 72 hours, he could be held incommunicado without knowing why he was arrested.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [725.829], "stop_times": [730.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 725.829}, "reply_to": "22333__0_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__0_074", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But... but for that period, the arresting officer would have had to... during the 48-hour period at the outset, that this Court discussed in Riverside, the probable cause for the arrest would be tested by a neutral magistrate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [730.453], "stop_times": [745.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 730.453}, "reply_to": "22333__0_073", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_075", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "You also said that you thought this case is distinguishable on the legitimacy of taping the conversation with the police officer on the highway.\nWhy... why do you think this is distinguishable from the Washington Intermediate Appellate Court decision that the... that the... that Alford wanted to show to the police officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [745.481, 758.606], "stop_times": [758.606, 773.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 745.481}, "reply_to": "22333__0_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__0_076", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, first of all, again, Justice Ginsburg, the Privacy Act issue is not one that we have raised before this Court.\nBut... but the reason that I would suggest it is distinguishable is that in a subsequent case considered by the Washington State Supreme Court called State v. Clark, the court look at Flora, the Intermediate Appellate Court case, and... and termed it as a case that said you do not have a private conversation when it is open to passers-by.\nAnd in Flora, there was another individual present at the scene and who was, in fact, subsequently arrested for interfering with the arrest in the Flora case.\nSo there is, all I'm suggesting, at least some grounds for distinguishing the Flora case for that reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [773.549, 779.328, 800.216, 809.421], "stop_times": [779.328, 800.216, 809.421, 816.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 773.549}, "reply_to": "22333__0_075", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_077", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Do you know if there's been any instruction in the State of Washington to police following that Flora decision about taping... about arresting people for taping conversations with police officers?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [816.358], "stop_times": [830.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 816.358}, "reply_to": "22333__0_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__0_078", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "I do believe there has, Your Honor.\nIt's not a matter of record, however, in the... against arresting for that reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [830.021, 831.507], "stop_times": [831.507, 836.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 830.021}, "reply_to": "22333__0_077", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_079", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "The flashing headlights which was... there was a citation.\nThere was an arrest for the tape recording and a citation for the flashing headlights.\nCould there have been a... an arrest for the flashing headlights, or is that a lesser category of offense that's not an arrestable offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [836.725, 842.836, 848.597], "stop_times": [842.836, 848.597, 858.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 836.725}, "reply_to": "22333__0_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__0_080", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Under Washington law, the flashing headlights, the wig-wag lights, in and of themselves would not be an arrestable offense.\nIt would be a citable offense.\nThe impersonating offense involved in this case would be arrestable, and the wig-wag headlights would play a part in that, however.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [858.09, 864.284, 865.686], "stop_times": [864.284, 865.686, 877.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 858.09}, "reply_to": "22333__0_079", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_081", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But he was never... never charged with the impersonating an officer, only with the flashing headlights.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [877.204, 882.693], "stop_times": [882.693, 883.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 877.204}, "reply_to": "22333__0_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__0_082", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [883.148], "stop_times": [883.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 883.148}, "reply_to": "22333__0_081", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_083", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "The... the case, as far as I'm thinking of it at the moment, comes down to everybody is agreeing... well, no.\nIt's... you go ahead because you want to reserve that probably.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [883.602, 893.179], "stop_times": [893.179, 895.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 883.602}, "reply_to": "22333__0_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22333__0_084", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [895.286], "stop_times": [896.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.286}, "reply_to": "22333__0_083", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__0_085", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Mr. Comey.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [896.046], "stop_times": [910.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 896.046}, "reply_to": "22333__0_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__1_000", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThe validity of a police action under the Fourth Amendment turns upon an objective assessment of the facts viewed through the prism--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [910.807, 912.952], "stop_times": [912.952, 921.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 910.807}, "reply_to": "22333__0_085", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_001", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Do the facts, on your view, have to be known to the officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [921.497], "stop_times": [924.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 921.497}, "reply_to": "22333__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__1_002", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [924.181], "stop_times": [925.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 924.181}, "reply_to": "22333__1_001", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_003", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Is... is there... and correct me if I'm wrong.\nIn... in cases in which we're inquiring into probable cause for a warrantless search, we give the government credit for any fact known to any officer, don't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [925.295, 929.382], "stop_times": [929.382, 942.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 925.295}, "reply_to": "22333__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__1_004", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [942.674], "stop_times": [944.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 942.674}, "reply_to": "22333__1_003", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_005", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Why wouldn't we have the same rule?\nWhy shouldn't we have the same rule with respect to facts known to any officer when one officer makes an arrest?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [944.16, 945.729], "stop_times": [945.729, 953.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.16}, "reply_to": "22333__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__1_006", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "I suspect, Your Honor, that the Government would urge such a rule if it were at issue in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [953.41], "stop_times": [957.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 953.41}, "reply_to": "22333__1_005", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_007", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But it's not urging it here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [957.246], "stop_times": [958.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 957.246}, "reply_to": "22333__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__1_008", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, I don't see it at... at issue in this case, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [958.322], "stop_times": [961.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 958.322}, "reply_to": "22333__1_007", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_009", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "I don't think it is.\nI just want to know where we're going.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [961.499, 961.787], "stop_times": [961.787, 963.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 961.499}, "reply_to": "22333__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__1_010", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "That's... that's correct, Your Honor.\nThe... the Government's position, as with the State of Washington's position, is that the... the analysis is simply did the facts known to the officer, viewed through the prism of an objectively reasonable officer, establish probable cause.\nAnd that to make an evaluation of the arrest turn upon the officer's subjective assessment of those facts... in other words, the working of his brain, the crunching of those facts that results in the spitting out of a legal conclusion... is contrary to this Court's precedent and guts the objective reasonable test, and would make, instead, the validity of a Fourth Amendment action turn upon whether the officer is particularly smart, whether he's new, whether he's nervous, whether he says nothing at all or whether he decides to say, you're under arrest for everything listed in the Washington code book.\nUnder those circumstances, the results would be different.\nThe... the concern that Your Honor raised about police officers engaging in a post hoc rationalization I respectfully suggest is not a concern that is rooted in reality because the facts continue to drive the analysis.\nWhether or not a police officer is right at the arrest scene in invoking a particular statute, if that turns out to be incorrect, it is still the facts that were known to him that must support probable cause for some other offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [963.19, 964.676, 976.731, 1008.598, 1011.282, 1025.977], "stop_times": [964.676, 976.731, 1008.598, 1011.282, 1025.977, 1037.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 963.19}, "reply_to": "22333__1_009", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_011", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "So far as you know, there... there are no empirical studies looking into this particular horrible?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1037.204], "stop_times": [1042.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.204}, "reply_to": "22333__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__1_012", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "No, I'm not aware of any, Your Honor.\nI also suggest that if this were the concern that the Ninth Circuit were looking to address by the closely related offense doctrine, the remedy sweeps far too broadly in both directions.\nIt punishes officers who at the scene engage in remarkable good faith conduct.\nI mean, these two police officers I think are what the public would hope these police officers were, looking at a code book at the roadside, calling a prosecutor late at night, trying to get it right.\nThey are punished under this doctrine.\nThose that are rewarded are those who are smart enough, perhaps a veteran, perhaps someone who has read the Ninth Circuit's cases, to stay completely silent, to say nothing at all, knowing that he's going to be fine.\nHe needs to engage in no--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1042.202, 1043.976, 1054.834, 1059.375, 1068.913, 1070.771, 1081.173], "stop_times": [1043.976, 1054.834, 1059.375, 1068.913, 1070.771, 1081.173, 1081.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1042.202}, "reply_to": "22333__1_011", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_013", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Mr. Comey, I think you rely, in part at least, on this Court's case in Whren--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1081.832], "stop_times": [1088.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1081.832}, "reply_to": "22333__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__1_014", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1088.685], "stop_times": [1089.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1088.685}, "reply_to": "22333__1_013", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_015", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--for the result for which you argue.\nBut in Whren, the stated reason for the stop, traffic enforcement, was lawful, and we didn't have to look any further.\nIn this case, the stated reason I think we assume, at least according to the trial judge's instruction to the jury, was unlawful.\nDoes that impair the reliance on Whren?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1089.9, 1092.485, 1103.154, 1113.169], "stop_times": [1092.485, 1103.154, 1113.169, 1118.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1089.9}, "reply_to": "22333__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__1_016", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "I don't believe it does, Your Honor.\nI believe that what Whren teaches is that the subjective working of the police officer's mind, his motives, his intentions, his legal assessments, as in other cases, his legal assessment with respect to the extent of a consent to search, or the reason he's boarding a boat, is irrelevant, that that's for courts to do.\nWhat matters is what came into an officer's brain, not what came out as a result of his working on it.\nBecause, as I said, that would make law enforcement far from evenhanded.\nIt would make it depend upon who the officer was at the roadside on any given night.\nAnd those similarly situated would be treated very, very differently, depending upon what an officer chose to say.\nAnd as I said, silence in a... in a jurisdiction that's governed by the closely related offense doctrine is the best course.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1118.453, 1120.31, 1141.237, 1146.521, 1151.435, 1155.855, 1161.344], "stop_times": [1120.31, 1141.237, 1146.521, 1151.435, 1155.855, 1161.344, 1168.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1118.453}, "reply_to": "22333__1_015", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_017", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But if... if we had gone the other way in Whren, we would still have the problem that we have in this case, wouldn't we?\nRegardless of... of how an arrest would be justified, the issue here is are the grounds of justification limited to the reason and in most cases the stated reason for the arrest.\nSo we'd have this problem even if Whren had... had come out otherwise, wouldn't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1168.236, 1174.348, 1186.069], "stop_times": [1174.348, 1186.069, 1189.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.236}, "reply_to": "22333__1_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__1_018", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "I think we would still be discussing whether the subjective functioning of an officer's mind is relevant for Fourth Amendment purposes, which turns upon whether the action was reasonable in the case of an arrest--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1189.701], "stop_times": [1201.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1189.701}, "reply_to": "22333__1_017", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_019", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But the question here is the scope of the Fourth Amendment inquiry.\nCan it take in probable cause for reasons other than the reason for the arrest or the stated reason for the arrest?\nCan it consider other offenses, and we'd have that regardless of... of Whren, wouldn't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1201.385, 1204.152, 1213.234], "stop_times": [1204.152, 1213.234, 1217.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.385}, "reply_to": "22333__1_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__1_020", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--I think we would, Your Honor, to the extent that Whren is about motives and this case is about something very closely related, still the inner working of an officer's mind, what legal conclusion he draws from facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1217.238], "stop_times": [1229.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1217.238}, "reply_to": "22333__1_019", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_021", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Why is it subjective?\nI mean, in... in Whren, the question was finding a hidden motive as distinguished from the motive that was written out.\nHere, there's nothing subjective about what the officer charged this person with on the spot.\nHe told him.\nThere wasn't anything hidden in his mind.\nHe said, I'm arresting you for X reason, for tape recording.\nAnd then they had a whole colloquy.\nSo what the... what the arrest was for is as objective as it can be.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1229.498, 1231.827, 1240.272, 1248.446, 1250.015, 1252.821, 1259.303, 1261.449], "stop_times": [1231.827, 1240.272, 1248.446, 1250.015, 1252.821, 1259.303, 1261.449, 1266.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1229.498}, "reply_to": "22333__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__1_022", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "I would suggest, Your Honor, that his speaking, his invocation of a particular code section is an objective manifestation of an essentially subjective process.\nAnd that's illustrated by imagining three stops on that road that night, three Mr. Alfords, exact same facts.\nIn one, the officer is engaged in the process that he engaged in here.\nIn the other two, the officer chooses in the first to say nothing, and in the third, to say... hold up the code book and say what you did is in here.\nEverything in here applies to you, wise guy.\nNow get in the car.\nIn those two other circumstances, complete silence and the table of contents approach, we wouldn't be here.\nThese officers would not have been in litigation for 4 years.\nThat to me demonstrates that it is essentially subjective because it is driven not by the facts, what the defendant did, but by the nature of the police officer.\nIs he clever?\nHas he gone to law school at night?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1266.074, 1275.362, 1280.851, 1283.74, 1291.542, 1293.483, 1294.143, 1299.798, 1302.688, 1311.4, 1312.143], "stop_times": [1275.362, 1280.851, 1283.74, 1291.542, 1293.483, 1294.143, 1299.798, 1302.688, 1311.4, 1312.143, 1313.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1266.074}, "reply_to": "22333__1_021", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_023", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But, of course, even in those examples, there could be a difference in what the police officer had actually observed.\nHe might not have seen the safety sticker or the taillight or whatever it is.\nSo you do have some inquiry into the mental processes of the officer in every case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1313.462, 1318.17, 1322.09], "stop_times": [1318.17, 1322.09, 1326.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1313.462}, "reply_to": "22333__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__1_024", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nAnd... and if... perhaps my distinction is... is too homely, but I would say that's about what comes into his mind, into the brain, his senses.\nDid he see this taillight?\nDid he see the sticker?\nNot what comes out of his mouth as a result of the functioning of that brain, his legal brain.\nThe legal work is for the courts looking at an arrest that's been challenged through the prism of an objectively reasonable officer.\nIt does not depend, else Fourth Amendment seizures would be not reasonable, but would vary depending upon the skills of an individual officer from roadside to roadside.\nAnd that is utterly inconsistent with this Court's precedent and would, in fact, gut the objective reasonableness test.\nThe Ninth Circuit's rule would lead to dramatically uneven law enforcement.\nIt would, indeed, lead to either stacking or silence, and there's plenty of good reason why an officer or a Federal agent, who are not required to say anything at arrest, might want to inform a defendant of a basis for his arrest and might want to uphold other bases for an arrest, to protect a witness, for example.\nTo drive police officers to the extremes is not in the public interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1326.715, 1327.746, 1335.465, 1336.868, 1338.148, 1342.69, 1348.839, 1357.856, 1363.04, 1369.439, 1386.157], "stop_times": [1327.746, 1335.465, 1336.868, 1338.148, 1342.69, 1348.839, 1357.856, 1363.04, 1369.439, 1386.157, 1389.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1326.715}, "reply_to": "22333__1_023", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_025", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "You... you predicted that this would be in practice very bad.\nThere are some jurisdictions that have the closely related test, are there not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1389.972, 1394.991], "stop_times": [1394.991, 1400.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1389.972}, "reply_to": "22333__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__1_026", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe Ninth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1400.07, 1401.928], "stop_times": [1401.928, 1402.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1400.07}, "reply_to": "22333__1_025", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_027", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But the... outside the Ninth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1402.587], "stop_times": [1405.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.587}, "reply_to": "22333__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__1_028", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI believe the Seventh Circuit as well and the First Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1405.188, 1405.765], "stop_times": [1405.765, 1407.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1405.188}, "reply_to": "22333__1_027", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_029", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Do we know whether these horribles have occurred there, that the police are booking for everything?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1407.622], "stop_times": [1414.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.622}, "reply_to": "22333__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__1_030", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "I do not, Your Honor.\nI... I know with Federal agents, Federal agents say nothing.\nThey're required to say nothing.\nThey simply bring a defendant in on a warrantless arrest, cuff him, leave him in the cellblock, and then the assistant U.S. attorneys take the matter before a magistrate.\nSo there is... and that's one of the things that demonstrates the unworkability of this test because there are plenty of jurisdictions, thousands of Federal agents, who are under no obligation to say anything.\nAnd so it's hard to see how this test, even to the extent there were a concern about the evil or perceived evil of post hoc rationalization, which I suggest there isn't, this... how this test would be applied--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1414.271, 1416.955, 1420.587, 1421.951, 1428.472, 1438.214], "stop_times": [1416.955, 1420.587, 1421.951, 1428.472, 1438.214, 1449.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1414.271}, "reply_to": "22333__1_029", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_031", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "In... in the Federal system, is the arrest based on what the officer knew and... and see... and saw at the time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1449.36], "stop_times": [1455.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1449.36}, "reply_to": "22333__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22333__1_032", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nHis perceptions, the... the facts known to the arresting officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1455.387, 1456.752], "stop_times": [1456.752, 1460.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1455.387}, "reply_to": "22333__1_031", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_033", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Suppose he had asked for a gun permit and he sees the gun permit, and he said, well, it's... that's okay.\nYou've got the permit, but I'm going to arrest you for reckless driving.\nThen he finds out the driving charge is no good.\nIt can't stand.\nBut then they look at his wallet more carefully and they see the permit is expired.\nWhat... what rule then?\nAt the police station, they... they see the permit is expired.\nIn other words, they find out a fact after... after they arrested him.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1460.384, 1466.616, 1469.505, 1472.932, 1473.387, 1477.185, 1478.339, 1482.675], "stop_times": [1466.616, 1469.505, 1472.932, 1473.387, 1477.185, 1478.339, 1482.675, 1485.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1460.384}, "reply_to": "22333__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22333__1_034", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, I... I would suspect that any statements made or seizures made pursuant to the arrest, which was made on facts known to the officers, that did not include what was in his wallet would be in jeopardy.\nThat... you still might be able to prosecute him, but you'd have to work awful hard to save anything you got as a result of that arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1485.48, 1495.511], "stop_times": [1495.511, 1501.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1485.48}, "reply_to": "22333__1_033", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_035", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "So you would confine the rule to what the officer has seen at the time of the arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1501.001], "stop_times": [1505.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1501.001}, "reply_to": "22333__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22333__1_036", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Facts known to the officers, including facts known to officers with whom he or she is working.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1505.997, 1510.372], "stop_times": [1510.372, 1512.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1505.997}, "reply_to": "22333__1_035", "speaker": "james_b_comey"}
{"id": "22333__1_037", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Comey.\nMr. Phillips.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1512.396, 1512.973], "stop_times": [1512.973, 1518.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1512.396}, "reply_to": "22333__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_000", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Justice Stevens, may it please the Court:\nIn essence, the closely related offense doctrine enforces the reasonableness clause by precluding officers from arresting someone for non-criminal conduct.\nAt its core, that's what this is about.\nMr. Alford was arrested for conduct that was not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1518.917, 1526.719, 1543.52, 1546.864], "stop_times": [1526.719, 1543.52, 1546.864, 1550.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1518.917}, "reply_to": "22333__1_037", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_001", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, I thought at its core it was about this rule that the Ninth Circuit adopted about closely related offenses.\nI thought at its core that's what we were concerned with.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1550.291, 1561.891], "stop_times": [1561.891, 1565.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1550.291}, "reply_to": "22333__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__2_002", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, the closely related offense doctrine itself is... it's in five circuits... six depending on how you count the cases.\nBut it's designed to... to look at two things: number one, whether the arrest itself is reasonable; and number two, from a qualified immunity standpoint, whether... essentially it's a no harm/no foul rule.\nIf the conduct for which the person was arrested is criminal, but the officer merely has a mistake in terminology... he calls it driving while license suspended instead of reckless driving... then it actually salvages the arrest for law enforcement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1565.773, 1574.44, 1589.195], "stop_times": [1574.44, 1589.195, 1607.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1565.773}, "reply_to": "22333__2_001", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_003", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, what if the arresting officer just doesn't give a reason for the arrest, just makes the arrest, and it turns out, at the end of the day, that indeed there were objective facts that would have justified an arrest.\nIt wasn't what the officer had in mind but he didn't say anything.\nWhat result then?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1607.216, 1623.935, 1627.195], "stop_times": [1623.935, 1627.195, 1628.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1607.216}, "reply_to": "22333__2_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__2_004", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Your Honor, that... that implicates several other rights.\nNumber one, it is... while an officer could, in some jurisdictions, effectuate a warrantless arrest without stating a basis therefor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1628.272, 1631.244], "stop_times": [1631.244, 1641.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1628.272}, "reply_to": "22333__2_003", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_005", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, could... could an arrest made under the circumstances I described be valid?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1641.563], "stop_times": [1646.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1641.563}, "reply_to": "22333__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__2_006", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--I hate to say this, Your Honor, but it depends because at some point, for example, when the person is brought before the magistrate for the probable cause determination, they're not operating in a vacuum.\nThere will have to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1646.514, 1660.511], "stop_times": [1660.511, 1661.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1646.514}, "reply_to": "22333__2_005", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_007", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "No.\nAt that time, there does.\nBut we're talking about at the time of arrest.\nAnd it... it just... if the closely related offense doctrine has the effect of punishing an officer for explaining to the suspect a reason for the arrest, why is that a good doctrine?\nI mean, if the officer could say nothing and could end up, at the end of the day, having a valid arrest, I just think the closely related doctrine doesn't serve a very good purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1661.254, 1661.587, 1662.413, 1664.438, 1677.934], "stop_times": [1661.587, 1662.413, 1664.438, 1677.934, 1690.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1661.254}, "reply_to": "22333__2_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__2_008", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Your Honor, the... in this case, of course, that's... that's not the... that's not this case because the officer was very clear.\nHe said exactly what it was for, and then he... when he booked him, Officer Haner even booked him for illegal recording.\nSo in this case, we're... we're not presented with a vacuum.\nBut even in an instance where the officer did not state at the instant of the arrest why he was arresting the person, one of the benefits of this doctrine is that it would allow for an objective review of the facts in order to determine--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1690.648, 1698.246, 1706.252, 1709.763], "stop_times": [1698.246, 1706.252, 1709.763, 1724.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1690.648}, "reply_to": "22333__2_007", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_009", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, if the objective review shows that there were, indeed, facts that would have justified an arrest, then what's wrong with allowing that to proceed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1724.745], "stop_times": [1736.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1724.745}, "reply_to": "22333__2_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__2_010", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Your Honor, the... the danger of that is that allowing this, as... as I termed it, a general right of arrest with... with no articulated basis at any point up until charging runs contrary to some of the basic principles--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1736.157], "stop_times": [1752.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1736.157}, "reply_to": "22333__2_009", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_011", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Okay.\nWhat's... what's happening here is in order to avoid the down side of your test... as Justice O'Connor puts it, her point is that if we adopt your rule, there's going to be an incentive not to state the reason.\nNow, in order to avoid that... you haven't really squarely confronted it... I think you're suggesting that there has to be an additional rule that the police officer must say why he's arrested, and... and the authorities just don't establish that.\nNow, if you want us to go on and make up that rule, I suppose we could make up that rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1752.775, 1753.435, 1766.355, 1779.813], "stop_times": [1753.435, 1766.355, 1779.813, 1783.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1752.775}, "reply_to": "22333__2_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22333__2_012", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--I'll be very happy if you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1783.24], "stop_times": [1784.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1783.24}, "reply_to": "22333__2_011", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_013", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "And I'm... I'm sure you'd be delighted.\nBut that's not the case we're confronted with.\nAnd if the choice is between making up a new rule to make your test work or rejecting your test, it seems to me that the... that the latter might be the preferred course.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1784.809, 1786.212, 1788.707], "stop_times": [1786.212, 1788.707, 1796.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.809}, "reply_to": "22333__2_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22333__2_014", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, to sort of piggyback on what Justice Souter and what Justice Ginsburg had commented on, there's no empirical evidence to suggest that there is or would be a movement by police officers towards silence.\nThere is simply nothing out there that says that police officers have in the past in the six jurisdictions, the six circuits that use this.\nThere's no evidence that they have remained silent in an effort to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1796.865, 1812.113, 1821.385], "stop_times": [1812.113, 1821.385, 1824.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1796.865}, "reply_to": "22333__2_013", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_015", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Must... must be very stupid police officers.\nI mean, it's... it's just obvious what... what you have to do to make a valid arrest.\nIf you say nothing, any... any basis that you could have had for the arrest will... will be used.\nWhereas, if you... if you mention something, you better be able to substantiate that particular cause or a closely related crime.\nPolice officers aren't any dumber than the rest of us.\nI can't believe that... that that wouldn't be the... the consequence of... of the rule you're asking us to adopt.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1824.812, 1827.041, 1832.037, 1840.787, 1850.78, 1853.585], "stop_times": [1827.041, 1832.037, 1840.787, 1850.78, 1853.585, 1859.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1824.812}, "reply_to": "22333__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__2_016", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1859.446], "stop_times": [1860.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1859.446}, "reply_to": "22333__2_015", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_017", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "To put it this way, it seems to me the burden should be on you to... to tell us why a police... police officers are so stupid that they... that they go around and... and continue to give reasons when that's... when that's going to make it more difficult for them to sustain the arrest and subject them to... to personal liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1860.189], "stop_times": [1878.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.189}, "reply_to": "22333__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__2_018", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Well, for the most part, Justice Scalia, it does not come back to haunt the officers because the vast majority of arrests are lawful.\nThe vast majority of officers have probable cause for the thing that they arrest the person for, and they arrest him for criminal conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1878.022, 1884.959], "stop_times": [1884.959, 1893.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1878.022}, "reply_to": "22333__2_017", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_019", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But if they're told in this case that they're subject to 1983 liability out of their own pockets if they get it wrong, then it seems to me they would pursue the safe course and say nothing.\nI mean, you did say at one point in your brief that when a warrantless arrest is effected, the officer must inform the arrestee of the officer's authority and cause of arrest.\nBut that's not true on the spot as a matter of Washington law or constitutional law, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1893.049, 1907.333, 1918.396], "stop_times": [1907.333, 1918.396, 1923.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1893.049}, "reply_to": "22333__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__2_020", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "The issue of... of the constitutionality of that has never been ruled on by this Court.\nThere are--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1923.802, 1928.343], "stop_times": [1928.343, 1928.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1923.802}, "reply_to": "22333__2_019", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_021", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, you're not urging that the Constitution requires the officer on the spot to state the cause of the arrest, or are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1928.759], "stop_times": [1937.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1928.759}, "reply_to": "22333__2_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__2_022", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Personally, Your Honor, I think that that would... that would certainly comport more with the common law that was extant at the time the Constitution was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1937.342], "stop_times": [1944.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1937.342}, "reply_to": "22333__2_021", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_023", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, regardless if it... whether it comports with the common law, I don't see why the rule that you are urging, closely related, is going to make a dime's worth of difference unless ultimately we hold that there is an obligation to state the cause at the time of the arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1944.28], "stop_times": [1958.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1944.28}, "reply_to": "22333__2_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__2_024", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Because, Your Honor, even if the... even if the cause of the arrest is not stated at the time of the arrest, the person must be booked for something.\nThere's a... a report that's generated.\nIn this instance--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1958.481, 1968.307, 1969.998], "stop_times": [1968.307, 1969.998, 1970.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1958.481}, "reply_to": "22333__2_023", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_025", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Okay.\nThe booking occurs after arrest, and I thought what we were concerned with in this case was the validity of the arrest, not the booking.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1970.908, 1971.651], "stop_times": [1971.651, 1980.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1970.908}, "reply_to": "22333__2_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__2_026", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1980.818], "stop_times": [1981.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1980.818}, "reply_to": "22333__2_025", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_027", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Okay.\nNow, if... if the... if the... if it is the validity of arrest, which... which is in issue, I don't see why your rule is going to make any difference in the long run unless we go the further step and say, in order to make this work, i.e., enforce Fourth Amendment values, at the time of the arrest the cause has got to be stated.\nAm... am I missing something?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [1981.811, 1982.304, 2002.821], "stop_times": [1982.304, 2002.821, 2004.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.811}, "reply_to": "22333__2_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__2_028", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I would analogize it to the... the arrest rule.\nWhether someone is or is not under arrest from a Fourth Amendment standpoint is based on an objective test, and it is viewed after the fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2004.39, 2008.122], "stop_times": [2008.122, 2017.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2004.39}, "reply_to": "22333__2_027", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_029", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, based on an objective test, we'll get absolutely nowhere.\nThe person who is arrested is not in a position to be making objective or subjective assessments, by and large.\nHe probably knows what he's being arrested for because it's obvious, but then we have cases like this, which are the only ones that are going to be litigated, and he may not know.\nThe... the fact still, it seems to me, is obvious.\nIf we go your way, we're going to have to go the further step of requiring the cause to be stated.\nIsn't that, as a matter of common sense, true?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2017.66, 2021.747, 2029.882, 2039.951, 2044.576, 2050.975], "stop_times": [2021.747, 2029.882, 2039.951, 2044.576, 2050.975, 2053.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2017.66}, "reply_to": "22333__2_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__2_030", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "It would certainly make it easier, but it's not necessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2053.492], "stop_times": [2056.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2053.492}, "reply_to": "22333__2_029", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_031", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "All right.\nI'll be candid with you.\nI think it is necessary.\nBut the... I guess the... what I'm getting at in all of this is you're asking us to take steps to solve a problem, and I don't think you've demonstrated what the problem is.\nWe keep coming back, as we have several times, to the lack of empirical studies.\nHave we got something to worry about in... in enforcing Fourth Amendment values that we can only guard against if we go your way?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2056.464, 2057.041, 2058.693, 2059.808, 2070.416, 2074.503], "stop_times": [2057.041, 2058.693, 2059.808, 2070.416, 2074.503, 2083.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2056.464}, "reply_to": "22333__2_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__2_032", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I would say that the fact that there are six circuits that have adopted this policy shows that this is... that this is a problem that occurs nationwide.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2083.297], "stop_times": [2092.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2083.297}, "reply_to": "22333__2_031", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_033", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Then what is the... yes, but what's the justification for doing it?\nWhat is the practical problem that we are concerned with?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2092.585, 2095.724], "stop_times": [2095.724, 2098.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2092.585}, "reply_to": "22333__2_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__2_034", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "The practical problem is that people are being arrested for conduct that is, at its base, not criminal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2098.78], "stop_times": [2107.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2098.78}, "reply_to": "22333__2_033", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_035", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But they should have been arrested.\nI mean, so long as they should have been arrested, who cares?\nIn this case, I mean, it'll... it'll be ultimately be tried by a jury I... I guess, but your... your client pulls up behind another car with wig-wag lights flashing, like a police car.\nRight?\nHe has a police scanner on the seat next to him.\nHe has handcuffs.\nHe has tinted glass in front of the license plate... of his license plate, so it can't be... can't be read.\nIt seems to me there was obvious probable cause to... to arrest this fellow for impersonating a police officer.\nAnd I would have hoped he would have been arrested so he wouldn't go around and... and pull up behind another car.\nWhat is the problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2107.447, 2108.727, 2112.61, 2123.217, 2123.505, 2125.734, 2126.766, 2133.536, 2140.845, 2145.963], "stop_times": [2108.727, 2112.61, 2123.217, 2123.505, 2125.734, 2126.766, 2133.536, 2140.845, 2145.963, 2149.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2107.447}, "reply_to": "22333__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__2_036", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2149.39], "stop_times": [2150.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2149.39}, "reply_to": "22333__2_035", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_037", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "It seems to me he should have been arrested, and the... and the mere fact that the police officer gave the wrong reason for arresting him doesn't make me feel very bad about the arrest at all.\nI'm glad he was arrested.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2150.254, 2160.618], "stop_times": [2160.618, 2162.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2150.254}, "reply_to": "22333__2_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__2_038", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--I'm going to disagree on two points.\nFirst, at the trial court, the State did not argue that he could have been arrested for other crimes.\nThe jury was never instructed on the elements of these supposed other crimes.\nAnd we pointed that out in the appeal in the reply brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2162.309, 2165.115, 2174.364, 2179.565], "stop_times": [2165.115, 2174.364, 2179.565, 2182.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2162.309}, "reply_to": "22333__2_037", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_039", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Yes, but did you object to the instructions in the trial court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2182.948], "stop_times": [2185.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2182.948}, "reply_to": "22333__2_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_040", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "No, Your Honor, because the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2185.631], "stop_times": [2187.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2185.631}, "reply_to": "22333__2_039", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_041", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "One of the problems I have with the case, very frankly, is that the jury has already ruled against your client on the qualified immunity issue carrying out instructions given by the judge that were not objected to by your client.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2187.406], "stop_times": [2198.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.406}, "reply_to": "22333__2_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_042", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, but the only instructions that were given regarding... regarding what they needed to find to find a violation were the Privacy Act instructions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2198.923], "stop_times": [2208.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2198.923}, "reply_to": "22333__2_041", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_043", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But whose fault is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2208.105], "stop_times": [2209.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2208.105}, "reply_to": "22333__2_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_044", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I think if the State wanted them to... qualified immunity is an affirmative defense.\nIf they wanted the State to find... if they wanted the jury to find there was impersonation, they should have requested an instruction on that because impersonation in Washington requires more than simply taking an action that creates an impression that you're an officer.\nIt also... under first degree, there has to be specific intent to defraud someone, and here the only thing he did, he gave them a flashlight and helped them jack up their car.\nOn the issue of the wig-wag headlights, the transcript shows that the officer spent a minute or 2, by his own estimation, on the scene behind Mr. Alford's car, saw no wig-wag headlights.\nAnd as for the scanner, the... the transcript, page 246... he admitted at trial it was actually a ham radio, not a portable police scanner.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2209.037, 2214.527, 2229.925, 2241.088, 2255.849], "stop_times": [2214.527, 2229.925, 2241.088, 2255.849, 2265.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2209.037}, "reply_to": "22333__2_043", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_045", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But I thought that the reason that the police went after your client after he left the vehicle that was disabled was because the officers at that point suspected that he might be impersonating a police officer.\nThat's what the people in the... the disabled vehicle told the officer.\nThey said he had flashing headlights.\nWe thought he was a police officer.\nAnd... and wasn't the original following of your client triggered by the suspicion that he might be impersonating a police officer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2265.797, 2285.077, 2288.997, 2291.143, 2293.289], "stop_times": [2285.077, 2288.997, 2291.143, 2293.289, 2306.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2265.797}, "reply_to": "22333__2_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__2_046", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, and that... that... we have not argued that there was not suspicion sufficient to... to have a stop to do investigation.\nHowever, under the Washington statute, there was not evidence sufficient to show probable cause that there was an actual crime--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2306.292, 2315.209], "stop_times": [2315.209, 2323.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2306.292}, "reply_to": "22333__2_045", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_047", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Under Washington law, is it lawful for your client to have headlights... wig-wag lights?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2323.177], "stop_times": [2326.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2323.177}, "reply_to": "22333__2_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22333__2_048", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nIt is a traffic violation.\nThat is a non-arrestable offense, and that was admitted at court and also here today.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2326.854, 2327.718, 2330.319], "stop_times": [2327.718, 2330.319, 2336.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2326.854}, "reply_to": "22333__2_047", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_049", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Was your client ever found guilty of any offense at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2336.346], "stop_times": [2339.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2336.346}, "reply_to": "22333__2_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__2_050", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nEven the traffic infraction was dismissed by the judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2339.69, 2340.312], "stop_times": [2340.312, 2344.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.69}, "reply_to": "22333__2_049", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_051", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But it's unlawful to have wig-wag lights, and I take it it's an arrestable offense to impersonate a police officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2344.603], "stop_times": [2351.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2344.603}, "reply_to": "22333__2_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22333__2_052", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, but that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2351.169], "stop_times": [2353.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2351.169}, "reply_to": "22333__2_051", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_053", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "So that would... that would certainly be probable cause to arrest just based on the wig-wag, plus the fact he lied to the police in... in instructing them the button to push or didn't tell them what button to push to make them go.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2353.231], "stop_times": [2364.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2353.231}, "reply_to": "22333__2_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22333__2_054", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nThe obstruction charge also under Washington law... under the case law interpreting the statute, there has to not only be the... the hindrance or obstruction.\nThere has to be specific intent, and there has to be obstruction in fact.\nAnd in this case, both of the officers testified that they... that he pushed every button they asked him to.\nHe opened the hood for them.\nHe let them look at the... the flasher unit.\nHe showed them the manual.\nThey both say that they saw this button that after the arrest they pushed... one of them pushed.\nHowever, there's obviously no obstruction in fact if... one of them actually said at trial that he didn't ask him to push the button because he wanted to see whether he would push it or not.\nSo there's no... again, there's no facts to support a finding of probable cause even on the obstruction because the officers were essentially just letting him hang himself.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2364.171, 2365.286, 2375.688, 2380.163, 2386.462, 2388.115, 2390.383, 2392.612, 2400.497, 2412.181], "stop_times": [2365.286, 2375.688, 2380.163, 2386.462, 2388.115, 2390.383, 2392.612, 2400.497, 2412.181, 2421.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2364.171}, "reply_to": "22333__2_053", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_055", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, that... that isn't the issue before us here.\nI... I assume that for purposes of the question on which we granted certiorari, we have to assume, or else the whole thing doesn't make any sense and it's all... it's all arguing about nothing... we have to assume that there was probable cause on some other ground than the ground which he stated or anything closely related to the ground which... which the officer stated.\nIsn't that... isn't that the... the manner in which this case gets to us?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2421.591, 2423.41, 2445.989], "stop_times": [2423.41, 2445.989, 2450.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2421.591}, "reply_to": "22333__2_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__2_056", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Your Honor, we raised the issue at the Ninth Circuit that there had been no evidence put forward on the other crimes.\nAnd we pointed out that even the deputy prosecuting attorney... and in fact, even in closing argument, when they addressed the... the wig-wag headlights, et cetera, they stated specifically that that information went to what they called his intent to unlawfully record.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2450.076, 2457.878], "stop_times": [2457.878, 2474.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2450.076}, "reply_to": "22333__2_055", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_057", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But... but that's not the ground on which the Ninth Circuit decided it.\nThe Ninth Circuit never had to reach the question of whether there was probable cause on these other grounds--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2474.718, 2476.947], "stop_times": [2476.947, 2481.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2474.718}, "reply_to": "22333__2_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__2_058", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2481.488], "stop_times": [2482.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2481.488}, "reply_to": "22333__2_057", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_059", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--because it found, even if there was these other grounds, they're not closely related to the illegal taping.\nSo I suppose you're telling us that if we find that we do not like the closely related rule, that it's not part of... of United States constitutional law, what we should do is remand to the Ninth Circuit so that they could determine whether there was probable cause on the other grounds.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2482.027, 2487.766], "stop_times": [2487.766, 2503.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.027}, "reply_to": "22333__2_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__2_060", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "That's exactly right, Your Honor.\nAnd in... in looking at this... this probable cause determination and the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment, the qualified immunity, of course, was a doctrine that was advanced by the Court to address specific problems.\nNone of those problems are impacted in any way by the closely related offense, this subset of qualified immunity cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2503.082, 2504.113, 2523.72], "stop_times": [2504.113, 2523.72, 2532.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2503.082}, "reply_to": "22333__2_059", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_061", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "May I ask one other question about the proceedings in the trial court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2532.265], "stop_times": [2535.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2532.265}, "reply_to": "22333__2_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_062", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2535.032], "stop_times": [2535.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2535.032}, "reply_to": "22333__2_061", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_063", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Was there a motion for summary judgment by the defendants claiming, as a matter of law, they should be entitled to qualified--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2535.487], "stop_times": [2541.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2535.487}, "reply_to": "22333__2_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_064", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2541.143], "stop_times": [2541.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2541.143}, "reply_to": "22333__2_063", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_065", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--And that was overruled.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2541.514], "stop_times": [2542.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2541.514}, "reply_to": "22333__2_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_066", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "That was denied, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2542.546], "stop_times": [2543.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2542.546}, "reply_to": "22333__2_065", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_067", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "And then there was a jury trial and the jury disagreed with it and, in effect, said there... there was basis for qualified immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2543.661], "stop_times": [2549.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2543.661}, "reply_to": "22333__2_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_068", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Yes.\nYes, Justice Stevens.\nAnd the... in reviewing the transcript and in reviewing the... the instructions and the ruling on the summary judgment motion, the reason that Senior Judge Bryan did not rule on the qualified immunity was twofold.\nOne, at the time of the summary judgment motion, one of the officers was... well, was lying about having contacted the prosecutor prior to making the arrest, and he noted in his order that there was a factual dispute.\nSo summary judgment wasn't appropriate.\nAnd second, Judge Bryan indicated that essentially there was a problem created by the Saucier opinion because he felt that it was somehow possible that there could have been an arrest effectuated without probable cause, but that there was a reasonable mistake on the part of the officers.\nSo this did not proceed to the jury on the... on this closely related offense doctrine.\nIt didn't proceed on there were these other crimes for which probable cause existed, but on this broad standard of good faith and reasonable mistake.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2549.483, 2550.885, 2551.834, 2566.285, 2580.812, 2583.579, 2606.241, 2611.155], "stop_times": [2550.885, 2551.834, 2566.285, 2580.812, 2583.579, 2606.241, 2611.155, 2620.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2549.483}, "reply_to": "22333__2_067", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_069", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "What is your understanding of the reason for the jury's verdict on this issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2620.359], "stop_times": [2624.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2620.359}, "reply_to": "22333__2_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_070", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "I almost hate to say it, Your Honor, but I believe it was a lack of sympathy.\nThat... that is my... much like with Justice Scalia, I believe they... they looked at the... the circumstances and even though there was not probable cause to have arrested him, they came to the conclusion we don't like Mr. Alford.\nWe're not going to find for him.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2624.363, 2629.564, 2646.904], "stop_times": [2629.564, 2646.904, 2647.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2624.363}, "reply_to": "22333__2_069", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_071", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "May I ask one other question then too?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2647.851], "stop_times": [2652.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2647.851}, "reply_to": "22333__2_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_072", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "That's not my reason.\nI don't even know the man.\nI'm just--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2652.598, 2653.713, 2654.373, 2655.199], "stop_times": [2653.713, 2654.373, 2655.199, 2656.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2652.598}, "reply_to": "22333__2_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__2_073", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "In... in your view is the closely related doctrine a... a matter of closely related as a matter of law between two different offenses or is it a matter of... are the facts relevant?\nFor example, could one argue that these offenses were factually related pretty closely because they grew out of the same central group of facts?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2656.935, 2668.164], "stop_times": [2668.164, 2676.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.935}, "reply_to": "22333__2_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_074", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "In our brief, Your Honor, I often used the phrase same conduct test because in amalgamating the six different circuits, that appeared to be the most consistent test and the one that's most consistent with the objective standard and with the reasonableness standard, that if... and I, again, go to the no harm/no foul.\nIf you're engaging in conduct that would have and should have led to your arrest, if it's the same conduct for which you were arrested and it's simply misnamed, then there essentially is no harm of constitutional magnitude.\nBut otherwise--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2676.459, 2698.007, 2713.982], "stop_times": [2698.007, 2713.982, 2715.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2676.459}, "reply_to": "22333__2_073", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_075", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, then you have a very narrow view of closely related.\nIt comes down to misnomer cases.\nIt's one thing to say... what the officers told the DA, although after they arrested him... didn't they describe the whole episode from when they saw Alford pull up behind the disabled vehicle?\nThey described that and they mentioned the flashing lights.\nThey described the whole episode up till the point where they... the officers apprehended him and saw the equipment and then noticed... they told the DA everything, and he said, yes, you have probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2715.718, 2719.35, 2722.816, 2739.617, 2743.599], "stop_times": [2719.35, 2722.816, 2739.617, 2743.599, 2760.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2715.718}, "reply_to": "22333__2_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__2_076", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--They did describe the entire episode to him, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2760.422], "stop_times": [2767.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2760.422}, "reply_to": "22333__2_075", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_077", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "So why couldn't it be related in time and space rather than legally related?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2767.398], "stop_times": [2774.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2767.398}, "reply_to": "22333__2_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__2_078", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, I'm not urging something as narrow as... as a semi-Blockburger test.\nBut here you have essentially two discrete conducts that were being examined by the officers: number one, the actions surrounding the headlights; and number two, the actions surrounding the taping.\nAnd the trial... I mean, it was very clear that the two were treated as discrete incidents by the police.\nAt the moment Devenpeck saw the tape recorder... and he testified at trial.\nWhen I saw the recorder in the record mode and saw that it was moving, that's what he stated to him constituted probable cause for the arrest.\nThe moment he saw that tape recorder and saw the play and record buttons were pushed, he informed Mr. Alford, you're under arrest for making an illegal tape recording.\nSo when looking at whether something is... is sufficiently related or not, obviously there's going to have to be more than a modicum of logic that's used, but objectively this separates rather nicely into two discrete incidents for the analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2774.251, 2779.165, 2793.654, 2802.282, 2806.945, 2814.847, 2823.292], "stop_times": [2779.165, 2793.654, 2802.282, 2806.945, 2814.847, 2823.292, 2838.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2774.251}, "reply_to": "22333__2_077", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_079", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Why... why is it exactly that a policeman who comes on a difficult scene, gun in one pocket, the guy has a knife in another, and he throws a punch?\nNow, the policeman might make a mistake about that.\nHe... he thought he threw a punch, but he made a mistake.\nNow... now, why is a policeman less likely to make that kind of a mistake than make a mistake about what crime to label it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2838.153, 2849.382, 2852.825, 2855.493], "stop_times": [2849.382, 2852.825, 2855.493, 2864.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2838.153}, "reply_to": "22333__2_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22333__2_080", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, Your Honor, we're not concerned so much... this doctrine is not concerned so much with what to label the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2864.038], "stop_times": [2873.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2864.038}, "reply_to": "22333__2_079", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_081", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "No, no.\nYou said... you... you say everybody agrees in this case that if the policeman had reasonable cause objectively to arrest the person for A, but he arrested him for B instead, there are some circumstances in which that's okay.\nAnd on their view, it's... as long as... it was always okay, really, as long as objectively there was reasonable cause.\nOn your view, you're going to add a little thing.\nYou're going to add, and by the way, it's not okay unless that conduct that he looked at was in fact illegal.\nSo you say... because policemen could make mistakes about labels, but they're not likely to make mistakes about throwing a punch.\nSo I just wondered why not.\nI mean, they got the wrong guy for throwing the punch.\nYou know, so... so what?\nWhy is that so... that... that supposedly in your view is some terrible constitutional harm, but if he just mislabels it, it's not a terrible constitutional harm.\nAnd I'm just puzzled as to where that distinction comes from and why.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2873.326, 2873.985, 2897.679, 2904.533, 2906.679, 2917.658, 2925.339, 2926.591, 2929.258, 2931.216, 2940.115], "stop_times": [2873.985, 2897.679, 2904.533, 2906.679, 2917.658, 2925.339, 2926.591, 2929.258, 2931.216, 2940.115, 2944.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2873.326}, "reply_to": "22333__2_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22333__2_082", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the distinction in... in this particular case and the distinctions in the... in the cases that run the gamut around the circuits generally show one thing that we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2944.036], "stop_times": [2959.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2944.036}, "reply_to": "22333__2_081", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_083", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--that the circuits all agree with you.\nNow, my only problem is it's hard for me to see why they all agree with you.\n[Laughter]\nAnd... and that's where I'm sort of stuck.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2959.368, 2961.292, 2965.75, 2966.493], "stop_times": [2961.292, 2965.75, 2966.493, 2967.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2959.368}, "reply_to": "22333__2_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22333__2_084", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Your Honor, if we start with first principles, and the first principle that underlies this case is there is, from the framing area... era, a general mistrust of warrantless arrests.\nFrom that, we step to the reasonableness clause.\nFrom the reasonableness clause, we then step to this judicially created qualified immunity, which subsumed the good faith analysis.\nSo what we find is we're stepping further and further away from the original principle.\nAnd the... on the original principles, he was arrested without a warrant.\nWrong.\nUnder the Constitution we have reasonableness.\nOkay.\nHe's arrested.\nWas it a reasonable arrest?\nThe court has said we generally say that if an arrest has probable cause, then it's reasonable unless there are these exigent circumstances, excessive force, et cetera.\nThen under qualified immunity, it's even a step more attenuated, that even though there might not have been probable cause, if there was arguable probable cause, then there would be a violation, but no one is going to be liable for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [2967.979, 2984.16, 2987.837, 2996.382, 3004.76, 3009.756, 3011.159, 3014.519, 3014.875, 3015.534, 3017.187, 3027.628], "stop_times": [2984.16, 2987.837, 2996.382, 3004.76, 3009.756, 3011.159, 3014.519, 3014.875, 3015.534, 3017.187, 3027.628, 3043.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2967.979}, "reply_to": "22333__2_083", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_085", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Yes, but Mr. Phillips, let me go back first principles.\nYou are complaining about an arrest which you admit was valid.\nDo you not... do... do you not that the arrest was supported by probable cause and therefore was a valid arrest?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3043.232, 3045.711, 3049.07], "stop_times": [3045.711, 3049.07, 3055.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3043.232}, "reply_to": "22333__2_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_086", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "In this instance, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3055.863], "stop_times": [3056.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3055.863}, "reply_to": "22333__2_085", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_087", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3056.856], "stop_times": [3057.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3056.856}, "reply_to": "22333__2_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_088", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Certainly not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3057.206], "stop_times": [3057.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3057.206}, "reply_to": "22333__2_087", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_089", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Oh, I misunderstood.\nI thought we were just talking about qualified immunity.\nBut you challenge the arrest itself even though you admit there was probable cause for the arrest?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3057.682, 3059.334, 3061.769], "stop_times": [3059.334, 3061.769, 3067.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3057.682}, "reply_to": "22333__2_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_090", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "No, Your Honor, because we don't feel that there was probable cause for the arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3067.507], "stop_times": [3070.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3067.507}, "reply_to": "22333__2_089", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_091", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "We don't that challenge that here, though.\nI asked you that question earlier, and I thought you agreed that for purposes of our deciding this case, we... we will assume, though you do not concede the point, that there was probable cause on one of the other grounds.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3070.935, 3072.254], "stop_times": [3072.254, 3084.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3070.935}, "reply_to": "22333__2_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__2_092", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "That in order to address the Ninth Circuit's holding--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3084.038], "stop_times": [3086.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3084.038}, "reply_to": "22333__2_091", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_093", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Exactly, exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3086.35], "stop_times": [3088.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3086.35}, "reply_to": "22333__2_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22333__2_094", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "And... and there's no need for the Ninth Circuit's rule unless there was probable cause because if there was no probable cause, you win on that ground.\nYou don't have to get into this closely related offense doctrine.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3088.208, 3093.409, 3097.003], "stop_times": [3093.409, 3097.003, 3097.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3088.208}, "reply_to": "22333__2_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_095", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--If there was probable cause--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3097.496], "stop_times": [3099.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3097.496}, "reply_to": "22333__2_094", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_096", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "No.\nIf there was no probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3099.891, 3100.346], "stop_times": [3100.346, 3101.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3099.891}, "reply_to": "22333__2_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_097", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Oh, correct.\nIf there was no probable cause for--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3101.377, 3101.948], "stop_times": [3101.948, 3103.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3101.377}, "reply_to": "22333__2_096", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_098", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Then you win without this fancy doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3103.03], "stop_times": [3104.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3103.03}, "reply_to": "22333__2_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_099", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--That's... that is correct, Your Honor, and that was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3104.888], "stop_times": [3108.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3104.888}, "reply_to": "22333__2_098", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_100", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "This... this doctrine only comes into play and is only required in cases involving a valid arrest and a... a mistake by the officer in identifying the wrong cause for the arrest.\nSo it's an extension of the qualified... it's a... it's a... an application of the qualified immunity doctrine to say you are not protected even though you acted lawfully.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3108.398, 3121.029], "stop_times": [3121.029, 3131.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3108.398}, "reply_to": "22333__2_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_101", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Well, because it actually... to turn it back around, you're not protected because you did not act lawfully.\nYou did not act lawfully because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3131.72, 3139.029], "stop_times": [3139.029, 3140.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3131.72}, "reply_to": "22333__2_100", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_102", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "No, but if you say the arrest was valid, he did act lawfully although we didn't realize the reason why he did.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3140.925], "stop_times": [3145.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3140.925}, "reply_to": "22333__2_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__2_103", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Your Honor, the cases that have examined this doctrine have... have looked at it as sort of straddling the Fourth Amendment and the qualified immunity analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3145.755], "stop_times": [3155.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3145.755}, "reply_to": "22333__2_102", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_104", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But... but don't you reconcile the... the problem of the straddle by saying that unless the probable cause, which we will assume existed, is for a closely related offense, the whole arrest was invalid?\nIsn't that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3155.004, 3169.0], "stop_times": [3169.0, 3170.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3155.004}, "reply_to": "22333__2_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__2_105", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Correct.\nUnreasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3170.198, 3170.552], "stop_times": [3170.552, 3171.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3170.198}, "reply_to": "22333__2_104", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_106", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Okay.\nNow, let me ask you... you one other question.\nYou... you started out in getting down to first principles with disfavor of warrantless arrests.\nWould your position be different if the officer had somehow gotten an arrest warrant on the spot for illegal taping?\nWouldn't you be making the same argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3171.451, 3171.989, 3174.423, 3179.336, 3187.692], "stop_times": [3171.989, 3174.423, 3179.336, 3187.692, 3189.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3171.451}, "reply_to": "22333__2_105", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__2_107", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Certainly, Your Honor, and there we would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3189.655], "stop_times": [3191.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3189.655}, "reply_to": "22333__2_106", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_108", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "So it has nothing to do, essentially, with warrantless or nonwarrantless arrests.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3191.492], "stop_times": [3195.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3191.492}, "reply_to": "22333__2_107", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__2_109", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Well, in this case it does, but had there been a warrant--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3195.457], "stop_times": [3199.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3195.457}, "reply_to": "22333__2_108", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_110", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, in this... yes, but on your theory, that is... that is incidental.\nThat is not essential.\nIf he had had an arrest warrant for illegal taping, you'd be making the same argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3199.172, 3202.97, 3204.789], "stop_times": [3202.97, 3204.789, 3209.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3199.172}, "reply_to": "22333__2_109", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__2_111", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--That there was no probable cause for the arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3209.74], "stop_times": [3212.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3209.74}, "reply_to": "22333__2_110", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_112", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "That's... that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3212.424], "stop_times": [3213.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3212.424}, "reply_to": "22333__2_111", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__2_113", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3213.167], "stop_times": [3213.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3213.167}, "reply_to": "22333__2_112", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_114", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3213.789], "stop_times": [3214.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3213.789}, "reply_to": "22333__2_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22333__2_115", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "And I think that that... of course, that... as we point out in our brief, there's support for that, that historically the warrant must show the reason that someone is being arrested.\nSo as we pointed out, there's this... an odd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3214.039, 3225.306], "stop_times": [3225.306, 3228.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3214.039}, "reply_to": "22333__2_114", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_116", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Well, you don't have any case law to cite to us for that.\nThat gets us into a whole new doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3228.444, 3231.705], "stop_times": [3231.705, 3234.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3228.444}, "reply_to": "22333__2_115", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22333__2_117", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I think one of the most fundamental principles that we can look at on showing the reason why you're being arrested is the great writ of habeas corpus where, in order to hold someone, they must show why he is being held.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3234.184], "stop_times": [3249.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3234.184}, "reply_to": "22333__2_116", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_118", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "But you've already conceded that it... Washington law doesn't require the officer on the spot to say why he's making the arrest and that there's no decision of this Court or any court that I know that said the Constitution requires the officer on the spot to give a reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3249.992], "stop_times": [3267.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3249.992}, "reply_to": "22333__2_117", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22333__2_119", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nSo what we have posited and what the Ninth Circuit... what they did in the Gasho case, for example, is after the fact you can look at the actions that were taken by the officers, the booking sheet, et cetera, to give you some objectively verifiable evidence of the cause for the arrest.\nAnd really what it's looking at is there needs to be a nexus between conduct and arrest, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3267.016, 3268.774, 3290.693], "stop_times": [3268.774, 3290.693, 3298.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3267.016}, "reply_to": "22333__2_118", "speaker": "r_stuart_phillips"}
{"id": "22333__2_120", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Phillips.\nMs. Hart, you have 5... 5 minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3298.002, 3299.571], "stop_times": [3299.571, 3303.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3298.002}, "reply_to": "22333__2_119", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22333__3_000", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "I think I'd only like to make one point, Your Honors, and that is that the Fourth Amendment does not make the validity of arrest a game that the government loses even when there's probable cause for arrest, but the closely related offense doctrine does.\nAnd for that reason, it should be rejected and we respectfully ask the Court to reverse the decision of the Ninth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3303.204, 3317.321], "stop_times": [3317.321, 3322.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3303.204}, "reply_to": "22333__2_120", "speaker": "maureen_a_hart"}
{"id": "22333__3_001", "conversation_id": "22333", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Hart.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-710", "start_times": [3322.977, 3327.064], "stop_times": [3327.064, 3328.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3322.977}, "reply_to": "22333__3_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__0_000", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "We'll hear argument next in No. 04-5286, Michael Dodd v. United States.\nMs. Bergmann.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [0.0, 9.994], "stop_times": [9.994, 51.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22511__0_001", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Good morning.\nMr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Court today is presented with two strikingly different interpretations of when the 1-year period of limitation found in paragraph 6(3) of 28 U.S.C., section 2255 begins to run.\nIf paragraph 6(3) is read in a manner that is consistent with both Congress' use of verb tense and this Court's decision in Tyler v. Cain, then the Government's interpretation of when the 1-year period begins to run is absurd because it reduces paragraph 6(3) to a near nullity.\nThis is so because, as even the Government admits, retroactivity decisions almost always come more than a year after a decision of this Court initially recognizing a right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [51.913, 53.157, 55.829, 67.353, 83.599], "stop_times": [53.157, 55.829, 67.353, 83.599, 93.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 51.913}, "reply_to": "22511__0_000", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_002", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "When you say it's a nullity, what you really mean is it allows for very... very little relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [93.413], "stop_times": [99.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 93.413}, "reply_to": "22511__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22511__0_003", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nVery few cases would... would have a retroactivity decision within a year of initial recognition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [99.977, 101.135], "stop_times": [101.135, 105.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 99.977}, "reply_to": "22511__0_002", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_004", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "And why is that an argument in your favor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [105.711], "stop_times": [107.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 105.711}, "reply_to": "22511__0_003", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22511__0_005", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "The... it would... the argument is in my favor, Your Honor, because this Court should not read acts of Congress in a manner that would render them absurd.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [107.727], "stop_times": [116.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 107.727}, "reply_to": "22511__0_004", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_006", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, to say that it doesn't grant as much relief as it might have doesn't render the statute absurd.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [116.232], "stop_times": [124.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 116.232}, "reply_to": "22511__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22511__0_007", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, in... in this case, Your Honor, it does in two ways.\nIt does because the relief that it would allow has only occurred, in my estimation, once in the post-Teague world since 1989 when Teague v. Lane was decided, and the only other instance would be when this Court would find a right is both... initially recognize a right and find that right retroactive in the same case, which in my opinion had--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [124.819, 129.15], "stop_times": [129.15, 149.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 124.819}, "reply_to": "22511__0_006", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_008", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, we've had very few instances in recent years I think where this Court has found some right to be retroactive.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [149.736], "stop_times": [162.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 149.736}, "reply_to": "22511__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__0_009", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [162.338], "stop_times": [163.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 162.338}, "reply_to": "22511__0_008", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_010", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "So it just doesn't happen very often to begin with.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [163.426], "stop_times": [167.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 163.426}, "reply_to": "22511__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__0_011", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [167.266], "stop_times": [168.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 167.266}, "reply_to": "22511__0_010", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_012", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "And it would be further limited if the Government's position is adopted here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [168.412], "stop_times": [174.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 168.412}, "reply_to": "22511__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__0_013", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nIt would basically be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [174.903, 175.703], "stop_times": [175.703, 176.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 174.903}, "reply_to": "22511__0_012", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_014", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "But it doesn't happen anyway--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [176.818], "stop_times": [178.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 176.818}, "reply_to": "22511__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__0_015", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--It... it does not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [178.349], "stop_times": [179.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 178.349}, "reply_to": "22511__0_014", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_016", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--very often.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [179.825], "stop_times": [180.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 179.825}, "reply_to": "22511__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__0_017", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--It does not happen very often, Your Honor, but there have been several instances.\nThe situation in Bousley where the Court found that the rights in Bailey applied retroactively.\nI think most people would consider the Court's recent decision in Atkins v. Virginia would apply retroactively in light of this Court's earlier decision in Penry v. Lynaugh.\nSo it does, indeed, happen and because it happens and because the rights involved in those types cases are so important--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [180.055, 183.302, 189.628, 198.187], "stop_times": [183.302, 189.628, 198.187, 204.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 180.055}, "reply_to": "22511__0_016", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_018", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "How... how do we read this statute concerning what court may find the retroactivity?\nIt's not limited, I assume, under either your view or the Government's to a finding by this Court, a determination that it's retroactive.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [204.026, 214.692], "stop_times": [214.692, 224.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 204.026}, "reply_to": "22511__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__0_019", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--That's... that's correct, Your Honor.\nThe parties agree that a lower court can make the retroactivity decision as well, and that's because of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [224.384, 225.156], "stop_times": [225.156, 229.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 224.384}, "reply_to": "22511__0_018", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_020", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "And it could be a court in another circuit presumably if you're in the Federal system.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [229.699], "stop_times": [234.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 229.699}, "reply_to": "22511__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__0_021", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I would argue that it would have to be a court in the... in the circuit in which the prisoner would be filing the 2255 motion because that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [234.861], "stop_times": [242.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 234.861}, "reply_to": "22511__0_020", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_022", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [242.332], "stop_times": [242.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.332}, "reply_to": "22511__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22511__0_023", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [242.476], "stop_times": [243.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.476}, "reply_to": "22511__0_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__0_024", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Because that court would have jurisdiction over the proceedings in his case and it would be an adequate way of providing notice to that litigant.\nIt... a decision of another--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [243.004, 250.112], "stop_times": [250.112, 252.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 243.004}, "reply_to": "22511__0_023", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_025", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, I guess a litigant can read decisions from other courts, as a lawyer can.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [252.326], "stop_times": [257.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 252.326}, "reply_to": "22511__0_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__0_026", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, but they would have no precedential effect in his case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [257.211], "stop_times": [260.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 257.211}, "reply_to": "22511__0_025", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_027", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Why... why shouldn't the litigant be put on notice by a district court decision?\nLet's assume it's in his own circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [260.95, 264.619], "stop_times": [264.619, 266.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 260.95}, "reply_to": "22511__0_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22511__0_028", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, Your Honor, a district court decision would have no precedential value with respect to... would not bind other district courts in that district and therefore not bind other litigants.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [266.662], "stop_times": [275.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 266.662}, "reply_to": "22511__0_027", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_029", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [275.547], "stop_times": [276.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 275.547}, "reply_to": "22511__0_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22511__0_030", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "But there's... there's just nothing in the statute that says what level court it has to be.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [276.586], "stop_times": [282.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 276.586}, "reply_to": "22511__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__0_031", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, actually, Your Honor, the statute does say that the ruling would have to be made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.\nIt does not say a case.\nAnd a decision of a district court would make that retroactivity applicable only to one case not to cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [282.975, 291.161, 292.18], "stop_times": [291.161, 292.18, 299.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 282.975}, "reply_to": "22511__0_030", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_032", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, but that may be just a generic use of the term cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [299.027], "stop_times": [302.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 299.027}, "reply_to": "22511__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22511__0_033", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, it could be, Your Honor, but I... Congress included the language.\nI think this Court could give meaning to it by interpreting the statute to mean that you would be looking at a decision of the court of appeals rather than a decision from a district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [302.888, 307.171], "stop_times": [307.171, 315.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 302.888}, "reply_to": "22511__0_032", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_034", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Of course, if... if you said a district court, one district judge could... could trigger the thing for the whole country.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [315.746, 321.709], "stop_times": [321.709, 322.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 315.746}, "reply_to": "22511__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__0_035", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "It would be very complicated, Your Honor, given the fact that district courts often issue rulings in unpublished decisions as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [322.184], "stop_times": [327.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 322.184}, "reply_to": "22511__0_034", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_036", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [327.884], "stop_times": [328.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 327.884}, "reply_to": "22511__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__0_037", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "So look at the trouble we get into when we take your interpretation.\nSuppose we take the Government's interpretation and think only of first habeas.\nLeave second habeas out of it for a moment.\nBut if it were only first habeas and those were all the habeases in the world, wouldn't theirs be better?\nEvery prisoner would know that when you get the right, you file.\nOkay, no problem.\nAnd you're going to win if, and only if, you get a court to say it was retroactive.\nSo that's fine.\nWe all know.\nAll the prisoners know we've got to file within a year.\nIt would cause no problem if there were only first habeases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [328.397, 332.973, 337.138, 339.399, 344.876, 349.149, 350.871, 358.429, 359.532, 360.38, 362.786], "stop_times": [332.973, 337.138, 339.399, 344.876, 349.149, 350.871, 358.429, 359.532, 360.38, 362.786, 365.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 328.397}, "reply_to": "22511__0_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__0_038", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "If there were only first habeas, Your Honor, and if the lower courts always made the correct retroactivity--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [365.99], "stop_times": [371.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 365.99}, "reply_to": "22511__0_037", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_039", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "No.\nThey sometimes don't, but then if they don't, you appeal, just like anything else.\nAnd you might lose and you might not get your case taken in the Supreme Court.\nThat's always true for every litigant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [371.477, 371.732, 376.595, 381.08], "stop_times": [371.732, 376.595, 381.08, 383.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.477}, "reply_to": "22511__0_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__0_040", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [383.303], "stop_times": [384.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 383.303}, "reply_to": "22511__0_039", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_041", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "So... so that's a problem.\nIs there any other problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [384.003, 384.866], "stop_times": [384.866, 385.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 384.003}, "reply_to": "22511__0_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__0_042", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, there is also a problem which the Government actually concedes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [385.911], "stop_times": [390.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 385.911}, "reply_to": "22511__0_041", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_043", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [390.951], "stop_times": [391.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 390.951}, "reply_to": "22511__0_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__0_044", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--which is if you read the statutory language, the second clause as being stated in the past tense, and the initial... and the statute of limitations that begins to run with initial recognition, it... it doesn't respect Congress' intent to provide a 1-year limitation period.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [391.308], "stop_times": [408.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 391.308}, "reply_to": "22511__0_043", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_045", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, but that's... that's linguistic.\nI'm... I'm looking for practical problems for prisoners, which was your initial argument.\nAnd in respect to a practical problem for a prisoner, I couldn't think of one, and that's why I'm asking.\nIn respect to first habeases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [408.545, 409.995, 415.387, 421.825], "stop_times": [409.995, 415.387, 421.825, 423.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 408.545}, "reply_to": "22511__0_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__0_046", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "With respect to first habeases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [423.622], "stop_times": [424.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 423.622}, "reply_to": "22511__0_045", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_047", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "All right.\nThen if your only problem is second habeas, there I'd agree with you.\nThere's a big problem.\nBut it says here the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized.\nNow, I guess a person who's filed a habeas doesn't have a right until the Supreme Court has made the... the rule retroactive.\nAnd therefore, until the Supreme Court makes it retroactive, there was no right recognized for a second habeas person.\nAnd therefore, for that case it does begin to run when the Supreme Court says it's retroactive because prior to that he had no right--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [424.635, 424.768, 429.268, 430.148, 435.929, 446.33, 454.655], "stop_times": [424.768, 429.268, 430.148, 435.929, 446.33, 454.655, 462.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 424.635}, "reply_to": "22511__0_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__0_048", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [462.773], "stop_times": [464.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.773}, "reply_to": "22511__0_047", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_049", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--given... given paragraph 8.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [464.58], "stop_times": [466.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 464.58}, "reply_to": "22511__0_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__0_050", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--The... the same would be true though, Your Honor, then for initial motions that there would be no right available unless a court at some point had held the right applied retroactively to collateral cases because under Teague v. Lane, there is no right to collateral relief simply based on the decision of this Court unless that decision has also been held retroactively applicable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [466.298], "stop_times": [485.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 466.298}, "reply_to": "22511__0_049", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_051", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, it's all... the word right in (3) quite plainly doesn't cover the last six words of the... of the sentence.\nWell, whether the word right... I'm trying to fix it up.\nI'm trying to figure out--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [485.188, 491.219, 495.369], "stop_times": [491.219, 495.369, 496.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 485.188}, "reply_to": "22511__0_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__0_052", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Yes, I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [496.461], "stop_times": [496.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 496.461}, "reply_to": "22511__0_051", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_053", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--how do we get to that conclusion.\nNow, it seems to me what you've done is say either use my ad hoc mechanism, or let there be chaos, or we take your approach which produces the kind of chaos we've just been discussing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [496.579, 498.22], "stop_times": [498.22, 511.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 496.579}, "reply_to": "22511__0_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__0_054", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I agree with... that... that this is not the best drafted statute that Congress has ever come up with, but I think that respecting Congress' use of verb tense and this Court's decision in Tyler v. Cain, to read paragraph 8(2) and paragraph 6(3) together, that... that it's important that all three of the prerequisites in the statute have been met before the limitation period begins to run.\nOtherwise--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [511.485, 534.989], "stop_times": [534.989, 536.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 511.485}, "reply_to": "22511__0_053", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_055", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Why... why is that important, given what this petitioner did himself?\nHe didn't wait for there to be a retroactivity decision to file the 2255 motion.\nHe filed the 2255 motion before the Ross case was decided.\nIsn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [536.476, 542.182, 550.571, 555.349], "stop_times": [542.182, 550.571, 555.349, 556.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 536.476}, "reply_to": "22511__0_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22511__0_056", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [556.09], "stop_times": [557.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 556.09}, "reply_to": "22511__0_055", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_057", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "So perfectly... the... the prisoner is perfectly able to file the 2255 motion after the first cause is satisfied, the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized.\nThis movant was too late, if you measured the year from that right but he wasn't... he wasn't waiting for any retroactivity decision.\nHe filed before the retroactivity case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [557.177, 572.841, 588.575], "stop_times": [572.841, 588.575, 592.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 557.177}, "reply_to": "22511__0_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22511__0_058", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nHe was early under our interpretation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [592.521, 593.667], "stop_times": [593.667, 596.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 592.521}, "reply_to": "22511__0_057", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_059", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "So on your view of it, his complaint, when it was filed, should have been dismissed as not ripe because he didn't have the final element--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [596.585], "stop_times": [605.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 596.585}, "reply_to": "22511__0_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22511__0_060", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [605.522], "stop_times": [605.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 605.522}, "reply_to": "22511__0_059", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_061", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--that is, the retroactivity?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [605.955], "stop_times": [607.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 605.955}, "reply_to": "22511__0_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22511__0_062", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nAt the time he filed, there had not been a retroactivity decision on which he could rely.\nDuring the course of litigation in the district court, the Eleventh Circuit decided the Ross case, and at that point, his right to relief became ripe and the... and he then had a window open under paragraph 6(3), such as he could file timely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [607.357, 608.077, 612.434], "stop_times": [608.077, 612.434, 626.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 607.357}, "reply_to": "22511__0_061", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_063", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Of course, if we're... if... if admittedly, as Justice Breyer said, we're trying to figure out some way to make this work in circumstances in which it's... it's never going to work smoothly, I suppose one answer would be to take the Government's position and say you've... your... your year runs from the moment the right is recognized, but to the... to the extent that there is a retroactivity question, a... a court should simply stay the proceeding, hold it in abeyance to see whether, particularly in... in second habeas where you have the... the second petition where you have the problem, to see whether some court will, in fact, recognize retroactivity or whether the... your circuit will recognize retroactivity.\nThen if it does, then you can go forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [626.583, 670.7], "stop_times": [670.7, 674.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 626.583}, "reply_to": "22511__0_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22511__0_064", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, the problem with that, Your Honor, is that it... it encourages, as the Government's rule in general does... encourages numerous frivolous filings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [674.36], "stop_times": [681.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.36}, "reply_to": "22511__0_063", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_065", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Oh, there's no question there's a Rube Goldberg character of the whole thing, I... I realize.\nBut... but that would be a way of... of solving the second habeas problem and still accepting the Government's position on the... on the date at which the... the 1 year for filing starts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [681.101, 684.902], "stop_times": [684.902, 696.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 681.101}, "reply_to": "22511__0_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22511__0_066", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, a procedure that the Seventh Circuit has adopted... and the Seventh Circuit agrees with... with Mr. Dodd's interpretation of the statute that it begins to run with the retroactivity decision.\nTheir solution for these premature filings is to review the case on the merits, and if they feel that the motion would lose on the merits, they dismiss it with prejudice, and if they feel there's some viable claim being stated, then they dismiss it without prejudice to refiling at a later time.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [696.699, 706.021, 723.754], "stop_times": [706.021, 723.754, 724.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 696.699}, "reply_to": "22511__0_065", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_067", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "It would... it would potentially violate the 1-year limit.\nThat won't necessarily work.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [724.885, 728.943], "stop_times": [728.943, 731.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 724.885}, "reply_to": "22511__0_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__0_068", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Crazy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [731.252], "stop_times": [731.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 731.252}, "reply_to": "22511__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__0_069", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [731.988], "stop_times": [732.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 731.988}, "reply_to": "22511__0_068", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_070", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I mean, it's a very odd statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [732.505], "stop_times": [735.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 732.505}, "reply_to": "22511__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__0_071", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Yes, it is, Your Honor.\nIt's very odd.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [735.428, 736.404], "stop_times": [736.404, 736.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 735.428}, "reply_to": "22511__0_070", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_072", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "You... you don't know who's responsible for writing this, do you?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [736.98, 739.215], "stop_times": [739.215, 741.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 736.98}, "reply_to": "22511__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__0_073", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Actually my understanding is that much of it was written by the Attorney General in California at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [741.503], "stop_times": [746.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 741.503}, "reply_to": "22511__0_072", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_074", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Can... do you understand the... the difference between what is a right initially recognized and then what is a right newly recognized?\nThe statute is supposed three requirements: initially recognized, newly recognized, and made retroactive.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [746.046, 760.382], "stop_times": [760.382, 766.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 746.046}, "reply_to": "22511__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22511__0_075", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nMy understanding of when a right is newly recognized is... is when it is new in the sense that this Court has adopted under Teague v. Lane, that it's not dictated by prior precedent.\nA right can be initially recognized by this Court but not new in the Teague sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [766.457, 767.518, 777.998], "stop_times": [767.518, 777.998, 783.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 766.457}, "reply_to": "22511__0_074", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_076", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Actually Justice Souter's approach might work here because you... you... all the second habeases file immediately.\nNow, the Seventh Circuit, you say, well, gets to those second habeases right away, and it says dismissed.\nVery well.\nWhen they say dismissed, then they ask for cert. And when they ask for cert, we take or we don't.\nIf we don't, then they're out of luck.\nAnd if we take it, people would hold all the other cases waiting to see what we decide.\nSo they wouldn't lose out in any case where we really were going to make it collaterally... applicable on collateral review.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [783.902, 793.027, 800.1, 800.984, 807.826, 809.602, 815.554], "stop_times": [793.027, 800.1, 800.984, 807.826, 809.602, 815.554, 824.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 783.902}, "reply_to": "22511__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__0_077", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "But then, Your Honor, you run up against your decision in Tyler v. Cain, and that was the circumstance of the litigant in Tyler v. Cain.\nNo... this Court had not previously determined that the right at issue in Tyler v. Cain was retroactively applicable, and under the second or successive statute that... and the way the Court read this, the Court said that this Court could not determine the retroactivity of, I believe it was, Cage v. Louisiana in that very case because it was contrary to the language in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [824.205, 830.717], "stop_times": [830.717, 849.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 824.205}, "reply_to": "22511__0_076", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_078", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I mean, I'm sure my dissent was correct in that case, but the--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [849.586, 852.151], "stop_times": [852.151, 852.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.586}, "reply_to": "22511__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__0_079", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [852.561], "stop_times": [853.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 852.561}, "reply_to": "22511__0_078", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_080", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "The... the... still... it still would work because the first case has come down.\nOkay?\nThe first case has come down.\nNow all the prisoners read about these cases, and even if they've already filed a habeas, they go file another.\nAnd the Seventh Circuit, you say, then looks at that first one that they get to, and they say, dismissed.\nOh, you're saying that then he comes he here and we say the reason you lose is not because you're wrong.\nThe reason you lose is because you're not yet ripe.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [853.1, 858.689, 860.017, 862.145, 868.56, 878.203, 886.054], "stop_times": [858.689, 860.017, 862.145, 868.56, 878.203, 886.054, 889.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 853.1}, "reply_to": "22511__0_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__0_081", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Yes, that's correct, Your Honor.\nWhat Congress appears to have intended in this... in this statute, as... as much as anyone can tell, is that retroactivity decisions be... be litigated in the cases that are brought under paragraph 6(1) which is those cases that are within a... a year of when the judgment of conviction became final.\nThat's exactly what happened here.\nAnd the Ross case that litigated the question of the retroactivity of Richardson, that was a case brought under paragraph 6(1).\nMr. Ross was within a year of when his judgment of conviction became final, and... and the issue of retroactivity was... was litigated straight and up in that case.\nAnd what it appears that Congress intended was that very circumstance to happen in all cases, that the retroactivity of decisions of this Court be litigated in cases brought within a year of finality, and then once those decisions were made, then litigants under paragraph 6(3) would have the opportunity to file when a court of appeals issued a retroactivity ruling.\nAnd then litigants under paragraph 8(2) would have a... the ability to file--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [889.425, 891.429, 907.553, 909.152, 916.532, 925.295, 945.61], "stop_times": [891.429, 907.553, 909.152, 916.532, 925.295, 945.61, 949.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 889.425}, "reply_to": "22511__0_080", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_082", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "But we... we still might be able to deal with it.\nThat person files his petition for cert. He puts in the petition there are 4,000 prisoners who are trying to file second habeases, and if you decide retroactivity, collateral, all of them but me will be able to proceed.\nBut you have to have enough sense, Supreme Court, to take my case to decide if you're going to decide retroactivity, that it is and give me the benefit of the decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [949.621, 951.301, 969.849], "stop_times": [951.301, 969.849, 981.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 949.621}, "reply_to": "22511__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__0_083", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Well, then, Your Honor, I guess the Court would have to... to totally reconsider its decision in Tyler v. Cain to reach that conclusion.\nAnd I don't know what to say.\nI mean, since Tyler v. Cain was enacted for... I'm sorry... decided 4 years ago, Congress has made no effort to overturn that decision, and it appears Congress believed that the Court had... had read the statute correctly in that case.\nAnd so if you interpret the made retroactivity... made retroactively applicable language in paragraph 6(3) in the way that this Court read the language in paragraph 8(2), such that the retroactivity decision has to be made before a motion can be filed, it becomes very complicated to do that if the 1-year period begins to run within initial--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [981.738, 988.82, 993.065, 1004.627], "stop_times": [988.82, 993.065, 1004.627, 1023.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 981.738}, "reply_to": "22511__0_082", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_084", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "The problem with your argument, Ms. Bergmann, seems to be addressed to the idea that Congress intended to sweep quite broadly here.\nBut I don't think that's the necessary inference at all.\nWe're dealing with a situation, as Justice O'Connor points out, where we have very rarely held that a decision is retroactive.\nSo it's already a very small class of cases, and the Government's view makes it an even smaller class of cases.\nBut that doesn't mean the statute doesn't work.\nIt just means it doesn't work for a lot of people who are excluded from it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1023.352, 1033.544, 1037.484, 1048.845, 1059.518, 1063.01], "stop_times": [1033.544, 1037.484, 1048.845, 1059.518, 1063.01, 1069.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1023.352}, "reply_to": "22511__0_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22511__0_085", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I... I agree that this involves a very small class of cases.\nThe problem with the Government's reading is that they say that they are narrowly constricting the statute, but the procedural mechanism that they set up allows for a vast number of cases that would never fall within the statute of limitations to be filed and requires the court to deal with each and every one of those cases in the first instance.\nWhereas, my reading of statute has the benefit of allowing a... a test case to proceed.\nGiven the fact that there are very few number of these rights that are made retroactively applicable, it... it makes more sense in terms of judicial resources to allow there to be this situation where is... there is a test case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1069.139, 1074.098, 1093.357, 1099.016], "stop_times": [1074.098, 1093.357, 1099.016, 1110.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1069.139}, "reply_to": "22511__0_084", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_086", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "But on your theory, there wouldn't be much in the way of resources because you say there's no ripe claim until the retroactivity decision comes down.\nWhy wouldn't a district judge, faced with this dilemma, simply say, well, I'll just hold this complaint until the... the court of appeals or the Supreme Court rules on retroactivity?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1110.418, 1121.981], "stop_times": [1121.981, 1140.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1110.418}, "reply_to": "22511__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22511__0_087", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Well, certainly the district courts would do that.\nThe more appropriate course of action would probably be to find the motion at that point untimely because it does not fall within any of the... it... if it is outside the initial year from finality but doesn't fall within any of the other exceptions stated in paragraph 6, then it... it would be untimely and the court could dismiss it as such.\nI mean, by doing so, if the court dismisses it, it could well count as a first motion so that any motion filed thereafter would be a second or successive motion.\nAnd this would be... preclude litigants from filing prematurely and burdening the courts with premature filings until it is clear they have a cause of action.\nI mean, what's strange about the Government's reading of the statute is that they believe Congress intended for a limitations period to begin to run before the litigant had any right to relief.\nNo one has a right to relief in the collateral proceeding until the right at issue has been made retroactively applicable to collateral cases.\nAnd so that this kind of disjoinder of the statute of limitations and the cause of action creates this problem where people will be... feel compelled to file protective motions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1140.413, 1143.068, 1162.641, 1172.06, 1180.763, 1190.918, 1198.603], "stop_times": [1143.068, 1162.641, 1172.06, 1180.763, 1190.918, 1198.603, 1208.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1140.413}, "reply_to": "22511__0_086", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_088", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "May I ask this question?\nThe words, made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review, don't have a modifier such as telling us by whom it's made retroactive.\nHas any court considered what seems to me a fairly normal reading that the... the words, by the Supreme Court, should apply to that phrase as well as the preceding language?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1208.342, 1210.037, 1220.8], "stop_times": [1210.037, 1220.8, 1231.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1208.342}, "reply_to": "22511__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__0_089", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, actually, Your Honor, every lower court to consider the language has found that the retroactivity decision need not be made by this Court, and the reason for that is the difference between the language in paragraph 6(3) and in the second or successive provision in paragraph 8(2).\nIn paragraph 8(2), it explicitly states that it has to be made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1231.638, 1246.378], "stop_times": [1246.378, 1254.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1231.638}, "reply_to": "22511__0_088", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_090", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "It seems to me that cuts in the other direction, that when Congress thought about the entity that makes it retroactive, they thought about us.\nAnd that's why... and that's the only language that seems to fit.\nI mean, the by the Supreme Court seems to fit that concept.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1254.293, 1260.724, 1264.346], "stop_times": [1260.724, 1264.346, 1267.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1254.293}, "reply_to": "22511__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__0_091", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "If... if you apply--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1267.401], "stop_times": [1268.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1267.401}, "reply_to": "22511__0_090", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_092", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "But I guess nobody has come up with this suggestion other than this question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1268.735], "stop_times": [1272.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1268.735}, "reply_to": "22511__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__0_093", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Well, various lower courts have considered that possibility and have latched onto the different... differences in language where paragraph 8(2) explicitly states it has to be made by the Supreme Court, but paragraph 6(3) says it does not.\nAnd... and the court below said the same thing, and the parties agree that the retroactivity decision need not be made--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1272.564, 1285.539], "stop_times": [1285.539, 1291.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1272.564}, "reply_to": "22511__0_092", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_094", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, if we disagree and think it should be, I guess that would open a door down the road for people after this Court made such a determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1291.71], "stop_times": [1302.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1291.71}, "reply_to": "22511__0_093", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__0_095", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nIt would make paragraph 6(3) much more consistent with paragraph 8(2), if... if the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1302.068, 1303.416], "stop_times": [1303.416, 1307.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1302.068}, "reply_to": "22511__0_094", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_096", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1307.374], "stop_times": [1308.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1307.374}, "reply_to": "22511__0_095", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__0_097", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--But again, it would work only if the 1-year period began to run from this Court's retroactivity decision.\nIf it begins to run from initial recognition, then that would turn paragraph 6(3) into an absolute nullity because I know of no case where this Court has made a retroactivity decision within a year of when it initially recognizes a right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1308.12, 1315.106], "stop_times": [1315.106, 1328.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1308.12}, "reply_to": "22511__0_096", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_098", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "But that fits the language, the date on which the right was initially recognized by the Supreme Court if and only if it's been made retroactively by the Supreme Court.\nIt seems to me a very normal reading of the language.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1328.082, 1339.389], "stop_times": [1339.389, 1341.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1328.082}, "reply_to": "22511__0_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__0_099", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that no one lese has... has agreed with thus far.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1341.688], "stop_times": [1346.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1341.688}, "reply_to": "22511__0_098", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_100", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Yes, but there... it's... I'm now taken with this.\nI'm jumping from one thing to another here.\nBut that does get rid of the problems that were initially plaguing your position because it's precise and definite.\nAnd it also gets rid of whatever problems were produced by Tyler because a person could easily get to the Supreme Court in that rare case without his petition, if it's a first petition, being improperly filed because he's not bound by paragraph 8.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1346.301, 1347.73, 1349.799, 1357.671], "stop_times": [1347.73, 1349.799, 1357.671, 1377.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.301}, "reply_to": "22511__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__0_101", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1377.02], "stop_times": [1378.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1377.02}, "reply_to": "22511__0_100", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_102", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "So it's a first position.\nSo all that he does is he files a petition.\nHe can file it before any court... nothing says he can't file it before a court has decided it's retroactive.\nHe files the petition.\nHe seeks cert here.\nHe gets us to say it's retroactive in that rare instance, and everyone else has a year from that moment.\nAnd as far as the... the second people are concerned, they don't... the second petition people don't have to file it until a year from that moment, and they have a good claim under paragraph 8.\nThere's quite a lot... now... now, I'm jumping to that because it sounds like it might be good.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1378.757, 1379.782, 1382.534, 1391.243, 1393.904, 1395.734, 1403.601, 1418.859], "stop_times": [1379.782, 1382.534, 1391.243, 1393.904, 1395.734, 1403.601, 1418.859, 1425.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1378.757}, "reply_to": "22511__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__0_103", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I... I'm sorry, Your Honor.\nI think you may have lost me.\nYou would have the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1425.536, 1426.587, 1427.563], "stop_times": [1426.587, 1427.563, 1428.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1425.536}, "reply_to": "22511__0_102", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_104", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, don't worry about it.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1428.443, 1429.52], "stop_times": [1429.52, 1431.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.443}, "reply_to": "22511__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__0_105", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--If the Court has no other questions, I'll reserve the rest of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1431.674], "stop_times": [1439.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1431.674}, "reply_to": "22511__0_104", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__0_106", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Bergmann.\nMr. Feldman, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1439.545, 1441.183], "stop_times": [1441.183, 1443.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1439.545}, "reply_to": "22511__0_105", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22511__0_107", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Would you address that last suggestion first, Mr. Feldman?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1443.343], "stop_times": [1449.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1443.343}, "reply_to": "22511__0_106", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__1_000", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I'm not sure I completely held it in... in my mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1449.983], "stop_times": [1453.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1449.983}, "reply_to": "22511__0_107", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_001", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "It was very--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1453.134], "stop_times": [1455.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1453.134}, "reply_to": "22511__1_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__1_002", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Our basic position is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1455.139], "stop_times": [1455.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1455.139}, "reply_to": "22511__1_001", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_003", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, to... to interpret as meaning only this Court could make the retroactivity determination and the 1 year wouldn't run until and unless there was a new rule and subsequently in whatever case this Court said it was retroactive.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1455.902], "stop_times": [1474.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1455.902}, "reply_to": "22511__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__1_004", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--I... I have two comments about that.\nThat was a position which actually a footnote in our brief in Tyler against Cain I think suggested, although that wasn't the issue before the Court in that case.\nBut since that time, this has been litigated in a number of courts of appeals and district courts, and as far as I'm aware, no court has accepted that.\nAnd the reason they haven't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1474.429, 1475.634, 1482.504, 1489.997], "stop_times": [1475.634, 1482.504, 1489.997, 1491.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1474.429}, "reply_to": "22511__1_003", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_005", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, that's true, but I assume it is, nonetheless, open for us to do so--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1491.299], "stop_times": [1496.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1491.299}, "reply_to": "22511__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__1_006", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1496.743], "stop_times": [1496.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1496.743}, "reply_to": "22511__1_005", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_007", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--if we thought it was correct.\nWhat is your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1496.861, 1498.461], "stop_times": [1498.461, 1500.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1496.861}, "reply_to": "22511__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22511__1_008", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "It would be, but I think we came to the conclusion that it probably wasn't because the words, by the Supreme Court, are not only present in two different places right in this paragraph 6(3), also in 8(2), also in 2244 and in 22... I think... 64.\nAnd it does seem to be a pattern that where the Congress expected a decision by this Court in the whole series of statutes, they said, by the Supreme Court.\nAnd it's notably missing from the phrase that says, made retroactive to cases on collateral review.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1500.456, 1514.456, 1522.22], "stop_times": [1514.456, 1522.22, 1527.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1500.456}, "reply_to": "22511__1_007", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_009", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "It is noticeably missing because it... it has a blank there and the words, by the Supreme Court, are the only time limitation in that whole provision after the word if.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1527.133], "stop_times": [1536.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1527.133}, "reply_to": "22511__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__1_010", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "It... that... it... what it says... it says newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactive.\nIt doesn't say by the Supreme Court.\nThat's the rationale the courts have used.\nBut if I could move to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1536.252, 1543.756, 1544.892, 1546.412], "stop_times": [1543.756, 1544.892, 1546.412, 1547.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1536.252}, "reply_to": "22511__1_009", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_011", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--But if you don't... aren't... I mean, the language is open, and it's sort of like the virtue of this... suddenly it's like tinkers to Everest chance.\nI mean, it seems to put everything together.\nWhat was worrying you most about their position was it produced uncertainty, a kind of a mess.\nYou don't know which court you're talking about.\nPeople would be filing things all over the place.\nThey'll be waiting.\nThat... it's a mess.\nThis stops that.\nWhat's worrying them is that the second habeas person, given Tyler, could never file, not even in that... you know, not even in that... in that really unusual situation where we're going to make a collateral review.\nAnd now, what this does is it produces the certainty, the definiteness of when your time clock begins to tick, and it eliminates all the uncertainty, et cetera, and confusion, difficulty from their position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1547.26, 1554.363, 1557.147, 1563.414, 1565.158, 1567.057, 1567.899, 1568.769, 1571.659, 1586.619], "stop_times": [1554.363, 1557.147, 1563.414, 1565.158, 1567.057, 1567.899, 1568.769, 1571.659, 1586.619, 1602.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1547.26}, "reply_to": "22511__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__1_012", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--I... I think the other... the other problem that I actually am... that I think the Court should be worried about is that this statute sets one... it doesn't say anything about the date on which something is made retroactive.\nIt says it runs from the later of four dates and it then sets forth what those dates are.\nAnd it says, the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if certain conditions are satisfied.\nNow, that if clause may well raise some... it does raise, I think, some interpretative issues.\nBut however you interpret the if clause, that just tells you whether the petitioner can use that date on which the right was initially recognized or not.\nIf he can't use it, if the if clause is not satisfied, then he's... he only has to show he's timely under one of the other three provisions.\nThe normal one is 1 year from the date that the conviction became final.\nAnd I think our primary submission in the case is however you construe the if clause, it can't possibly be read to... whatever interpretative problems there are there, it can't be possibly be read to alter the totally plain language that Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1602.422, 1612.379, 1617.519, 1624.725, 1629.024, 1637.242, 1644.65, 1648.373], "stop_times": [1612.379, 1617.519, 1624.725, 1629.024, 1637.242, 1644.65, 1648.373, 1661.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1602.422}, "reply_to": "22511__1_011", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_013", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Yes, it could because you could say what the Congress intended to say.\nIf the right had X, Y, and Z, it shall in that event run from that date.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1661.456, 1664.154], "stop_times": [1664.154, 1668.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1661.456}, "reply_to": "22511__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__1_014", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1668.368], "stop_times": [1669.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1668.368}, "reply_to": "22511__1_013", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_015", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "That's implicit in it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1669.221], "stop_times": [1670.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1669.221}, "reply_to": "22511__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__1_016", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "And it's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1670.015], "stop_times": [1670.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1670.015}, "reply_to": "22511__1_015", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_017", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Just like the words, by the Supreme Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1670.821], "stop_times": [1672.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.821}, "reply_to": "22511__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__1_018", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--It's not... it's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1672.159], "stop_times": [1672.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1672.159}, "reply_to": "22511__1_017", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_019", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--would be implicit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1672.297], "stop_times": [1672.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1672.297}, "reply_to": "22511__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__1_020", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--it doesn't.\nBut even then, it's not... it doesn't run from that date, and the... he's... and the... the petitioner has the... the applicant has no date on... if he's past his 1 year from the date the conviction became final, he has no date on which he can rely to make his application timely.\nAnd our primary submission--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1672.883, 1672.989, 1688.082], "stop_times": [1672.989, 1688.082, 1689.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1672.883}, "reply_to": "22511__1_019", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_021", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, on Justice Stevens' analysis, he does not have a date until the retroactivity decision is made, and he has to sit there and wait.\nBut when the retroactivity decision is made, he's got his date.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1689.74, 1698.913], "stop_times": [1698.913, 1702.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.74}, "reply_to": "22511__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22511__1_022", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--But this statute doesn't... it's not worded the way the... the... paragraph 6 as a whole says you have the later of four dates.\nIt names four different things.\nBut subparagraph (3) doesn't say, well, the later of any of these things.\nIt... it tells you if the condition is satisfied then you... the question is... okay, the if condition is satisfied.\nI can use paragraph (3).\nWhat's my time limit?\nAnd it says the date on which... 1 year from the date on which the right was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, and that's the date he has.\nIf the... if... if it turns out that he can't use it because the appropriate thing doesn't happen till later, then he just can't use that date.\nHe has three other possible dates to use under paragraph--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1702.401, 1707.766, 1709.269, 1713.594, 1719.29, 1720.277, 1721.781, 1730.288, 1736.885], "stop_times": [1707.766, 1709.269, 1713.594, 1719.29, 1720.277, 1721.781, 1730.288, 1736.885, 1739.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1702.401}, "reply_to": "22511__1_021", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_023", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I... I follow your linguistic... Justice Stevens follows the linguistic analysis.\nI think the question that he's raising, the question I'm raising is, do we have a good reason here to doubt that the linguistic analysis is getting us to... to what Congress would have intended?\nThe proposed good reason or the best reason I think is that if we read it your way, then as Justice Breyer said in Tyler, as a practical matter, second habeas is... is... a second habeas petitioner is... is almost never going to... or probably, in fact, never will get the benefit of the new rule.\nWell, maybe one answer to that is, so what.\nThe reason that cannot be dismissed, I think, that way is this.\nAs has been pointed out here, we do not under our rules often make a new rule retroactive, but when we do under the conditions which we impose for that, it's... it's one humdinger of a rule.\n[Laughter]\nAnd it is... it is unlikely... or at least there's a good argument that it's unlikely... that Congress would have wanted to exclude all the potential second habeas people from it, particularly because they're second habeas people because they got in in time on first habeas.\nThey played by the rules, and on your theory basically they're out of the game on a very important rule.\nSo that's the argument for saying that your linguistic analysis may not be pointing to what Congress intended.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1739.439, 1743.929, 1756.179, 1781.144, 1784.814, 1789.059, 1805.182, 1805.239, 1823.851, 1832.55], "stop_times": [1743.929, 1756.179, 1781.144, 1784.814, 1789.059, 1805.182, 1805.239, 1823.851, 1832.55, 1839.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1739.439}, "reply_to": "22511__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22511__1_024", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Well, I... I disagree with that.\nFirst, on second habeas, the... this Court, I think all three opinions, in Tyler against Cain recognized that there can be cases where this Court recognizes a new right and it is retroactive at the same time where it's the combination of some earlier decision that said all rules of a certain type are retroactive and then in the second--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1839.601, 1842.886], "stop_times": [1842.886, 1860.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1839.601}, "reply_to": "22511__1_023", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_025", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "But that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1860.762], "stop_times": [1861.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.762}, "reply_to": "22511__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22511__1_026", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--the Court said we are recognizing a rule of that type.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1861.259], "stop_times": [1863.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1861.259}, "reply_to": "22511__1_025", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_027", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--That is a highly exceptional case, and the problem with that is... I mean, if... if we're going to... if you're going to be linguistic about it, you'd have to say, well, that really is not very sound reasoning because that is not a holding because the... you... you've got not merely to have recognized it under the statute, but you've got to have held it.\nAnd that's... that's pretty unlikely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1863.104, 1884.143], "stop_times": [1884.143, 1888.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1863.104}, "reply_to": "22511__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22511__1_028", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "It... it says actually made retroactive, and I... all of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1888.697], "stop_times": [1891.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1888.697}, "reply_to": "22511__1_027", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_029", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, I guess we've said you've got to do it with--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1891.951], "stop_times": [1893.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1891.951}, "reply_to": "22511__1_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22511__1_030", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--all three of the opinions in Tyler recognized that that sort of thing can happen, and I think that that actually is by far the most common kind of case because that's likely to be a case where the Court has said, for example, where Teague doesn't apply at all where the Court has narrowed the scope substantially of a Federal criminal statute such as in the Bailey case where... where the question was whether it has to be active use or mere possession of a firearm.\nAnd those kinds of cases are very possibly, at least if the Court has made it clear that they're narrowing the... the Court is narrowing the conduct that was thought to be criminal in construing a criminal statute, those are the kinds of cases that are likely to arise most often.\nIn those kinds of cases, that is likely to be the kind of the thing the Court was talking about in Tyler against Cain.\nWith respect to the other class of cases, which would... the only other class of retroactive cases would be those that come within the second... what used to be called the second Teague exception for bedrock principles that have the primacy or centrality of Gideon against Wainwright.\nNow, the Court has suggested... it has said that it may be doubted that any such rules remain to... to be discovered.\nBut if there were, I think a court of... a case of that level of centrality and primacy and importance, I think that this Court and other courts could take steps to decide whatever pending section 2255 motions they have or whatever ones could be filed by someone who still has their 1 year to go from date of finality of conviction to decide those quite quickly because that would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1893.016, 1914.397, 1928.781, 1933.586, 1947.794, 1953.462], "stop_times": [1914.397, 1928.781, 1933.586, 1947.794, 1953.462, 1975.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1893.016}, "reply_to": "22511__1_029", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_031", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "In those cases, would the Government ever on its own motion have a defendant retried or released?\nHas that ever happened?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1975.612, 1981.755], "stop_times": [1981.755, 1984.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.612}, "reply_to": "22511__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22511__1_032", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--I... you know, I... for instance, I don't know what the history was.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1984.604], "stop_times": [1989.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1984.604}, "reply_to": "22511__1_031", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_033", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I don't think it has.\nIf... let me ask you this.\nIf... if a decision says that what was a crime, as defined to the jury, is no longer a crime... the conduct was no longer a crime... I take it Teague doesn't necessarily apply to that, but this is still a substantive rule that's retroactive.\nIs that the way it works?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [1989.723, 1989.857, 1991.952, 2007.738], "stop_times": [1989.857, 1991.952, 2007.738, 2008.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1989.723}, "reply_to": "22511__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22511__1_034", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I think the... what the Court has said and clarified most recently in the Summerlin case last year is that those... Teague doesn't apply.\nIt's not an exception to Teague, but Teague doesn't apply because those cases are retroactive without going through a particular analysis under Teague.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2008.431, 2015.466], "stop_times": [2015.466, 2022.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2008.431}, "reply_to": "22511__1_033", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_035", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "But what... what interest does the Government have in holding somebody when the conduct for which he was convicted is no longer a crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2022.751], "stop_times": [2030.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2022.751}, "reply_to": "22511__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22511__1_036", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "The Government doesn't have any interest in doing that.\nAnd I... I think if the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2030.65, 2033.013], "stop_times": [2033.013, 2034.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2030.65}, "reply_to": "22511__1_035", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_037", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Why don't you let the guy go?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2034.288], "stop_times": [2034.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2034.288}, "reply_to": "22511__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22511__1_038", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--I would... I would recommend the Government do that if we found a case.\nWhat actually happens, of course, in real life is there's argument about what were... what... how was the jury actually instructed.\nDid the jury find the necessary fact?\nWas it just harmless error because this case was tried on a theory that made it totally clear that he did commit the crime even as narrowed by this Court and those kinds of questions arising.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2034.986, 2038.111, 2044.036, 2047.049], "stop_times": [2038.111, 2044.036, 2047.049, 2055.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2034.986}, "reply_to": "22511__1_037", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_039", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Let's say he's being--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2055.774], "stop_times": [2057.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.774}, "reply_to": "22511__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22511__1_040", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I can't say how they would work themselves out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2057.183], "stop_times": [2057.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2057.183}, "reply_to": "22511__1_039", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_041", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Let's say he's being held because the Government insists that it's not retroactive and the Government is then proven wrong.\nWould that let him qualify under (2) because then the... the impediment to making the motion was the fact that he thought it was not retroactive, but then... and that was Government action because that's what you insisted on.\nBut then that's removed.\nSo does... so would... does entitlement under (2) apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2057.688, 2064.446, 2076.045, 2077.123], "stop_times": [2064.446, 2076.045, 2077.123, 2082.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2057.688}, "reply_to": "22511__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22511__1_042", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I don't... I don't think... I don't think so because I would only think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2082.003], "stop_times": [2083.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2082.003}, "reply_to": "22511__1_041", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_043", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I... I don't think this is going to work.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2083.837], "stop_times": [2084.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2083.837}, "reply_to": "22511__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22511__1_044", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Yes.\nI don't think the Government holding somebody pursuant to a hitherto valid judgment would be seen as an impediment to making an... a motion.\nI think that would be the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2084.514, 2084.849, 2091.19], "stop_times": [2084.849, 2091.19, 2092.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2084.514}, "reply_to": "22511__1_043", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_045", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well... well, but it is because he... it hasn't been found retroactive yet and he can't file--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2092.145], "stop_times": [2096.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2092.145}, "reply_to": "22511__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22511__1_046", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Well, but the... the defendant--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2096.581], "stop_times": [2097.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.581}, "reply_to": "22511__1_045", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_047", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--under your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2097.317], "stop_times": [2097.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2097.317}, "reply_to": "22511__1_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22511__1_048", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--The fact that the Government is holding him doesn't prevent him from file.\nIf the Government did actually prevent him from filing something, said you... we're not going to take your mail that you're trying to send to the court, I think that's the kind of thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2097.43, 2100.005], "stop_times": [2100.005, 2106.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2097.43}, "reply_to": "22511__1_047", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_049", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, you prevented him from filing effectively.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2106.688, 2108.458], "stop_times": [2108.458, 2109.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2106.688}, "reply_to": "22511__1_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22511__1_050", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--I don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2109.579], "stop_times": [2110.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2109.579}, "reply_to": "22511__1_049", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_051", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--the petition has to be dismissed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2110.362], "stop_times": [2111.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2110.362}, "reply_to": "22511__1_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22511__1_052", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--I don't think the Government has.\nI think the Government has said, go ahead and file whatever you want to file, and if you can obtain relief, then you should get it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2111.237, 2112.437], "stop_times": [2112.437, 2117.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.237}, "reply_to": "22511__1_051", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_053", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2117.503], "stop_times": [2117.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.503}, "reply_to": "22511__1_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22511__1_054", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "And if the Government itself concludes that someone should be released, there are mechanisms to do that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2117.781], "stop_times": [2123.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2117.781}, "reply_to": "22511__1_053", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_055", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "That's probably right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2123.263], "stop_times": [2124.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2123.263}, "reply_to": "22511__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22511__1_056", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--the Government could.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2124.159], "stop_times": [2124.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2124.159}, "reply_to": "22511__1_055", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_057", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "The language... the language is on your side, I think there's no doubt.\nBut it's not unambiguous.\nImagine a prison rule that says that the... after the prison board, the... the prisoner has 2 weeks to appeal to the warden from the time of the decision of the board if the prisoner has been notified.\nThe prisoner isn't notified for 3 weeks.\nI think we'd read that to say he has 2 weeks from the time of notification.\nYou... you can use can if in that way.\nIt's not impossible.\nAnd once I begin to think it could be open, I think, well, let's look for the most practical approach.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2124.655, 2128.761, 2130.835, 2144.883, 2149.518, 2156.244, 2158.974, 2160.051], "stop_times": [2128.761, 2130.835, 2144.883, 2149.518, 2156.244, 2158.974, 2160.051, 2165.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2124.655}, "reply_to": "22511__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__1_058", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I think under that... those circumstances, there may be circumstances under which equitable tolling would be appropriate in a particular case.\nThat's the kind of thing that also--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2165.773, 2172.023], "stop_times": [2172.023, 2174.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2165.773}, "reply_to": "22511__1_057", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_059", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "You... you'd say, well the language is clear... clear, but let's go... let's go on equitable tolling.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2174.0], "stop_times": [2178.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.0}, "reply_to": "22511__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__1_060", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--But I don't... I wouldn't go here on equitable tolling.\nIn other words, I think maybe... I don't... I can't imagine all the possible cases under 6(3).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2178.667, 2180.196], "stop_times": [2180.196, 2184.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2178.667}, "reply_to": "22511__1_059", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_061", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "No, no.\nWhat you're saying is the language.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2184.078, 2184.211], "stop_times": [2184.211, 2184.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2184.078}, "reply_to": "22511__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__1_062", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "But where the event that you're relying on for tolling would be an event that is anticipated in the statute and would be across the board and would really have nothing to do with the particular conduct of the petitioner's case, but whether someone else has gone and gotten a retroactivity ruling, I think it would be unprecedented in those circumstances to just rewrite the statute to come to a different date than what Congress had set.\nCongress set the date on which the right initially was recognized by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2184.498, 2205.213], "stop_times": [2205.213, 2209.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.498}, "reply_to": "22511__1_061", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_063", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, could I bring you back to the... the issue?\nI'm sorry.\nYes.\nCan I bring you back to the issue of whether the Court that recognizes the right has to be the Supreme Court or not?\nYou say there are three other instances in which it is specified that it be the Supreme Court, and it's not specified here.\nBut does any of those other three instances involve language like this which... which has the Supreme Court mentioned immediately previously?\nI mean, when I read that the first time, has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases, I mean, I think what it envisions is the... the very decision of the Supreme Court that newly recognized it made it retroactively applicable.\nIs... is any of the other ones phrased this way so that the word, the Supreme Court, is immediately preceding the and made retroactively applicable?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2209.053, 2212.925, 2214.177, 2214.646, 2224.736, 2232.432, 2242.229, 2260.906], "stop_times": [2212.925, 2214.177, 2214.646, 2224.736, 2232.432, 2242.229, 2260.906, 2272.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2209.053}, "reply_to": "22511__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__1_064", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "You know, I'd... I'd have to look at the... I can tell you where the statutes are.\nOne is 8(2), of course, which is right in 2255.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2272.41, 2276.582], "stop_times": [2276.582, 2279.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.41}, "reply_to": "22511__1_063", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_065", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2279.211], "stop_times": [2279.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.211}, "reply_to": "22511__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__1_066", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "The other is in 2244 which I think is worded exactly the same as this is.\nThe third is I think 2264, which I... I just would have to look at the specific wording of each of those.\nBut I think the... you know, and this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2279.349, 2283.803, 2292.747], "stop_times": [2283.803, 2292.747, 2296.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2279.349}, "reply_to": "22511__1_065", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_067", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "The proximity of the reference to the Supreme Court there really--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2296.213], "stop_times": [2299.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2296.213}, "reply_to": "22511__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__1_068", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2299.284], "stop_times": [2299.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2299.284}, "reply_to": "22511__1_067", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_069", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--when you read it the first time, you think they're talking about the Supreme Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2299.695], "stop_times": [2302.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2299.695}, "reply_to": "22511__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__1_070", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--You could also--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2302.084], "stop_times": [2302.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2302.084}, "reply_to": "22511__1_069", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_071", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2302.751], "stop_times": [2305.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2302.751}, "reply_to": "22511__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__1_072", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--You could also... you... you could, but you... and we did take that position in Tyler.\nYou could also read it, though, the... the presence of the word Supreme Court right before and the absence of the words, the Supreme Court, here and the presence of the Supreme Court in the first one... you could certainly draw the inference that this was not something... this part of it didn't have to be made by the Supreme Court.\nAnd perhaps Congress was recognizing that it... it does take this Court a longer time to reach a retroactivity decision than it would take the lower courts hearing cases.\nOnce--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2305.492, 2308.931, 2323.865, 2333.278], "stop_times": [2308.931, 2323.865, 2333.278, 2333.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2305.492}, "reply_to": "22511__1_071", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_073", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Is there anything in any of these statutes or legislative history or any... anyplace else where Congress ever thought of the possibility that some other court might make a new rule retroactive?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2333.881], "stop_times": [2343.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2333.881}, "reply_to": "22511__1_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__1_074", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--I don't think there's any statement one way or another, but I do think there are holdings.\nThere are holdings as... as the petitioner relies on by the Eleventh--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2343.421, 2348.195], "stop_times": [2348.195, 2351.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2343.421}, "reply_to": "22511__1_073", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_075", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I think the other reading is... the assumption was... and I think it's incorrect... that we would simultaneously identify the new right and decide it is or is not retroactive.\nThat was the assumption I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2351.16, 2358.685], "stop_times": [2358.685, 2359.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.16}, "reply_to": "22511__1_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__1_076", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--I... I just... I think that would be unlikely because this Court's practice has certainly not since Teague and even going decades before Teague--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2359.773], "stop_times": [2367.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2359.773}, "reply_to": "22511__1_075", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_077", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "No. I realize it's wrong, but I think that's probably the assumption Congress made.\nThat's what I'm suggesting.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2367.277, 2370.338], "stop_times": [2370.338, 2371.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2367.277}, "reply_to": "22511__1_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__1_078", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--I... I guess I... I would just think it's unlikely because although this statute has some drafting... it certainly raises some drafting issues, I think they likely... that basic element of this Court's retroactivity jurisprudence, which has been true for decades, I think likely--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2371.35], "stop_times": [2384.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2371.35}, "reply_to": "22511__1_077", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_079", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "See, the only thing about your reading of the statute that troubles me is you're... you're reading the word only.\nIf it's a 1-year statute, but only if Congress... the Supreme Court has already done the next two things.\n1 year is the maximum.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2384.075, 2387.839, 2392.99], "stop_times": [2387.839, 2392.99, 2394.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2384.075}, "reply_to": "22511__1_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__1_080", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Just... I'm reading it has an if.\nIf is a condition.\nIf--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2394.905, 2397.358, 2398.361], "stop_times": [2397.358, 2398.361, 2398.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2394.905}, "reply_to": "22511__1_079", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_081", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "There's an only--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2398.782], "stop_times": [2399.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2398.782}, "reply_to": "22511__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__1_082", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--What if does is states a condition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2399.486], "stop_times": [2401.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2399.486}, "reply_to": "22511__1_081", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_083", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--It's not an if, but if that happens, then it shall be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2401.188], "stop_times": [2403.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2401.188}, "reply_to": "22511__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__1_084", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Right, because Congress didn't say it.\nIf Congress had phrased this the way it phrased the... the 6(3) as a whole and said it shall it run from the later of three dates, the date that the Supreme Court holds it... recognizes the right or the date it holds it retroactive, that would have... that would have been--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2403.63, 2405.203], "stop_times": [2405.203, 2418.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2403.63}, "reply_to": "22511__1_083", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_085", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--See, it really--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2418.669], "stop_times": [2419.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2418.669}, "reply_to": "22511__1_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__1_086", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--that would have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2419.276], "stop_times": [2419.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2419.276}, "reply_to": "22511__1_085", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_087", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--would accomplish your objective if you just struck the whole clause after the word if.\nYou don't really need that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2419.837, 2423.16], "stop_times": [2423.16, 2424.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.837}, "reply_to": "22511__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__1_088", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--I... I don't think so.\nI think what the clause does is it makes it clear that in 6(3), which is a... you know, intended to be a narrow exception from the... the rule of finality... that in 6(3) what Congress was doing was saying this is the only class of cases that we want this to apply to.\nAnd if they had just said the date on which the right was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, I think there might have been some inference that they were not... they were trying to extend that beyond cases that are retroactive under Teague, or perhaps someone might have read that and said, you know, Teague is no longer applicable.\nNow Congress has a new standard that it's enacted here.\nAnd I think Congress wanted make clear... the people who drafted this... that that was not what they were trying to do.\nAnd by saying made retroactive... if it has been newly recognized and made retroactive to cases on collateral review, what they were plainly referring to was this Court's jurisprudence under Teague so that no one would think this deadline is supposed to somehow open the door to cases that would otherwise be barred by Teague.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2424.157, 2425.212, 2441.099, 2458.331, 2460.938, 2466.974], "stop_times": [2425.212, 2441.099, 2458.331, 2460.938, 2466.974, 2483.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2424.157}, "reply_to": "22511__1_087", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_089", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, what courts in... in your view have to make the retroactivity finding?\nThe district court?\nThe circuit where he's... which has jurisdiction over his case?\nAny circuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2483.492, 2486.52, 2487.107, 2490.963], "stop_times": [2486.52, 2487.107, 2490.963, 2491.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2483.492}, "reply_to": "22511__1_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22511__1_090", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I think every court that has addressed that question has come to the conclusion that it can be... it has to be the circuit with territorial jurisdiction over the applicant's case.\nThat's generally the jurisdiction of courts of appeals and the area in which their rulings are effective.\nIt also could be, in our view, the district court that's hearing the particular defendant's case because that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2491.539, 2502.131, 2507.891], "stop_times": [2502.131, 2507.891, 2513.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.539}, "reply_to": "22511__1_089", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_091", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "If it's not that... if it isn't the district court in that case, then you... the district court has to take this complaint and just freeze it until some other... a higher court rules on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2513.806], "stop_times": [2526.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2513.806}, "reply_to": "22511__1_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22511__1_092", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Yes.\nI don't see any... I don't think that that would be the appropriate thing to do.\nI think if... if the view was that this had to... it couldn't be filed until a court with jurisdiction over the case had actually held that the right was retroactive, then I think the correct course for the district court would be to dismiss it because it's... it's not... it's not a timely petition.\nAt the time when it's filed, there's... it's... we're assuming 1 year past the date that the conviction became final, and there's no other provision at that point that can render it timely.\nAnd at that point, the correct course for the district court would be just to dismiss it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2526.451, 2527.997, 2531.682, 2548.215, 2557.09], "stop_times": [2527.997, 2531.682, 2548.215, 2557.09, 2560.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2526.451}, "reply_to": "22511__1_091", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_093", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "So that if 10 other circuits have ruled on this but not his own, there's nothing he can do until somebody within the 1-year window files.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2560.402], "stop_times": [2566.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2560.402}, "reply_to": "22511__1_092", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22511__1_094", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Our view... well, that... that... if... if the... the made retroactive has to occur before he files, that would be the consequence.\nBut our view is it can be made retroactive in his own case, and therefore, anyone can file.\nThey have a 1-year window from the time when a new right is recognized, and if in their own case it's held to be retroactive, then they were timely and they may well get relief depending--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2566.689, 2573.786, 2578.25], "stop_times": [2573.786, 2578.25, 2587.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.689}, "reply_to": "22511__1_093", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_095", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--So far as first habe goes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2587.798], "stop_times": [2589.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2587.798}, "reply_to": "22511__1_094", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22511__1_096", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--So far as first habeas goes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2589.312], "stop_times": [2590.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2589.312}, "reply_to": "22511__1_095", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_097", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Second habe, he's out cold.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2590.879], "stop_times": [2592.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2590.879}, "reply_to": "22511__1_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22511__1_098", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I... I think that it's... I don't... second habeas is definitely a narrower window, and I think Congress intended it to be a narrower window.\nBut for the reasons I said, there are decisions where the Court holds... where this Court recognizes, in effect, the retroactivity of a new rule at the same time as it announces it, as the Court said in Tyler.\nAnd there are... this Court and lower courts can act quickly on these kinds of things.\nIf the kind of bedrock principle with the primacy and centrality of Gideon against Wainwright came up, I think the lower courts would see we have to act very quickly on this.\nI... one point of note is that Richardson itself, which the Government doesn't believe is retroactive, but that's not before the Court here... the first decision holding Richardson retroactive came down 7 months after this Court decided Richardson.\nThe second... and that was where no one was thinking they had to particularly rush on that.\nBut if this Court were to recognize a new right under... a... a new right that satisfied the second Teague exception, I think it can be expected because it would necessarily be... have a certain primacy and centrality and sweep that there would probably be cases pending in the courts of appeals, in the district courts raising that issue, and I think the courts involved, if they... this Court said, look, this is... this is the way the thing has to be understood in accordance with--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2592.81, 2601.417, 2611.614, 2616.094, 2624.856, 2638.557, 2642.541], "stop_times": [2601.417, 2611.614, 2616.094, 2624.856, 2638.557, 2642.541, 2667.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2592.81}, "reply_to": "22511__1_097", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_099", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "What it would do... let's take a case which I guess we... Apprendi.\nI mean, you know, Apprendi, a big sort of an issue in the courts.\nAnd... and this would put tremendous pressure on us to decide it immediately, wouldn't it?\nWe'd have to say immediately whether it was going to be retroactive or not retroactive because it's only likely to come along in some major, major matter like that, other than the kind Justice Kennedy said, which is another kind of problem.\nI mean, I don't see a way, if we take your approach, of getting out of this tremendous pressure.\nMaybe it would be a good thing.\nBut I don't think there's a way of getting out of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2667.896, 2671.869, 2675.596, 2680.4, 2694.646, 2699.366, 2700.944], "stop_times": [2671.869, 2675.596, 2680.4, 2694.646, 2699.366, 2700.944, 2703.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2667.896}, "reply_to": "22511__1_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__1_100", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--I think this Court has... has to take cases and plan its docket in accordance with a wide variety of considerations and that may be something that the Court would want to take into consideration.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2703.382], "stop_times": [2713.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2703.382}, "reply_to": "22511__1_099", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_101", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, what do you think about the... it seems to me we've tried three approaches, each of which try to get us out of this problem of the pressure, call it.\nAnd we have Justice Stevens' and then... but there were certain problems with Justice Souter's, which still I'm not certain might... then I had started with one that I guess the objection to it would be it's laughable.\nBut... but is there... is there any... I mean, you see, it's... it's reading... it's reading the word right in 6 to encompass all of the paragraph in 8.\nIs there anything... I mean, it's a pretty good objection that really that just goes too far.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2713.131, 2719.541, 2732.592, 2742.085], "stop_times": [2719.541, 2732.592, 2742.085, 2747.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2713.131}, "reply_to": "22511__1_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__1_102", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2747.498], "stop_times": [2748.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2747.498}, "reply_to": "22511__1_101", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_103", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "But is there any other objection?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2748.016], "stop_times": [2749.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2748.016}, "reply_to": "22511__1_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__1_104", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--I think essentially the same one, that... that they use the term right in 6 and they didn't intend that term to mean something different, whether it was a first habeas or a second habeas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2749.408], "stop_times": [2758.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2749.408}, "reply_to": "22511__1_103", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_105", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "May I ask you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2758.991], "stop_times": [2760.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2758.991}, "reply_to": "22511__1_104", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__1_106", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "They were talking about the right that was asserted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2760.287], "stop_times": [2761.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2760.287}, "reply_to": "22511__1_105", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_107", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--May I ask you this question?\nIsn't it true that under some of the other references they refer to a constitutional right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2761.044, 2762.179], "stop_times": [2762.179, 2765.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2761.044}, "reply_to": "22511__1_106", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__1_108", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "That's right.\nThat's another--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2765.767, 2766.439], "stop_times": [2766.439, 2767.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2765.767}, "reply_to": "22511__1_107", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_109", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Whereas this just refers to a right and it includes statutory rights.\nAnd, of course, the odd thing about that is that normally when we construe a statute, we say it always meant that.\nIt's not... it's not a new right in the sense as a right as of the date of enactment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2767.058, 2769.927, 2775.186], "stop_times": [2769.927, 2775.186, 2779.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2767.058}, "reply_to": "22511__1_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__1_110", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2779.922], "stop_times": [2780.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2779.922}, "reply_to": "22511__1_109", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_111", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "So the difference between the Constitution and statutes sometimes is rather significant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2780.215], "stop_times": [2784.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2780.215}, "reply_to": "22511__1_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22511__1_112", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Yes.\nIn paragraph 8(2) only... only... it does require a constitutional right.\nBut in... in 6(3) it refers just to right.\nBut, as I said, that would, I think, encompass the class of cases such as Bailey where this Court interprets a Federal statute and narrows it and makes conduct that was thought to violate the statute earlier... it means that conduct no longer violates it.\nThose kinds of decisions may well under... if the Court has made those points clear, if that clearly is what this Court decided, those cases may well be retroactive at the time they're announced under the rationale that all the opinions in Tyler against Cain accepted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2784.344, 2785.325, 2788.886, 2791.488, 2804.576], "stop_times": [2785.325, 2788.886, 2791.488, 2804.576, 2819.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2784.344}, "reply_to": "22511__1_111", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_113", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Mr. Feldman, is there any case in which the Supreme Court newly recognizes a right in which it does not initially recognize the right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2819.2], "stop_times": [2829.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2819.2}, "reply_to": "22511__1_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__1_114", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I think there's sound... those seem to me to be synonymous and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2829.205], "stop_times": [2833.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2829.205}, "reply_to": "22511__1_113", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_115", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, they're... they're... I thought your position was newly recognized means that it... it has to be the kind of a right that would... would overcome our usual bar to... to, you know, rights that existed before.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2833.961], "stop_times": [2848.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2833.961}, "reply_to": "22511__1_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__1_116", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--That's correct.\nI think initially recognizing may well be another way of saying the same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2848.723, 2849.427], "stop_times": [2849.427, 2853.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2848.723}, "reply_to": "22511__1_115", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_117", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Every... every newly recognized is an... is an initially recognized, although every initially recognized is not necessarily a newly recognized.\nIs that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2853.614, 2860.344], "stop_times": [2860.344, 2860.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.614}, "reply_to": "22511__1_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__1_118", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I was actually thinking of it the other way around.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2860.791], "stop_times": [2862.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2860.791}, "reply_to": "22511__1_117", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_119", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "The other way around?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2862.882, 2863.447], "stop_times": [2863.447, 2863.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2862.882}, "reply_to": "22511__1_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__1_120", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Which... but that... that... where this Court has--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2863.969], "stop_times": [2866.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2863.969}, "reply_to": "22511__1_119", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_121", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "You don't know who wrote this either, do you?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2866.06, 2867.618], "stop_times": [2867.618, 2867.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2866.06}, "reply_to": "22511__1_120", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__1_122", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--No, I don't.\nNo, I don't.\nBut I think the point of the newly... in fact, if you look at... if you kind of flip it, the point of this provision can... maybe becomes a little bit clearer.\nIt's if... if you start with the if, if the petition is based on a right that is newly recognized and made retroactive to cases on collateral review, that's the class.\nIf that happened--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2867.739, 2868.79, 2869.707, 2876.773, 2886.351], "stop_times": [2868.79, 2869.707, 2876.773, 2886.351, 2887.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2867.739}, "reply_to": "22511__1_121", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_123", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2887.007], "stop_times": [2887.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.007}, "reply_to": "22511__1_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__1_124", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--then the time runs from the date on which it was initially recognized.\nIn other words--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2887.3, 2891.128], "stop_times": [2891.128, 2891.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2887.3}, "reply_to": "22511__1_123", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_125", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Which would have been the date on which it was newly recognized.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2891.63], "stop_times": [2893.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2891.63}, "reply_to": "22511__1_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__1_126", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2893.149], "stop_times": [2893.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2893.149}, "reply_to": "22511__1_125", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_127", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "So why couldn't they say, the date on which the right asserted was newly recognized by the Supreme Court if it has been made retroactively applicable?\nWouldn't that have been a more--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2893.433, 2902.222], "stop_times": [2902.222, 2902.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2893.433}, "reply_to": "22511__1_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__1_128", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "That... that would have been better.\nI would definitely agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2902.985, 2903.993], "stop_times": [2903.993, 2905.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2902.985}, "reply_to": "22511__1_127", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_129", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "But what about... I think the principal argument that Ms. Bergmann made was your reading means people... you're encouraging filings that inevitably will be thrown out because the right will be made retroactive?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2905.929], "stop_times": [2922.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2905.929}, "reply_to": "22511__1_128", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22511__1_130", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I think I just have a couple of answers to that.\nOne is that when Congress enacts a statute of limitations, any statute of limitations has the effect of pushing people into court who might otherwise like to wait.\nAnd that was a predictable result that Congress would have surely known when it enacted this.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2922.984, 2925.758, 2932.893, 2937.32], "stop_times": [2925.758, 2932.893, 2937.32, 2938.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2922.984}, "reply_to": "22511__1_129", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_131", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "But the other... the other way avoids loading the district court with filings that are futile.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2938.397], "stop_times": [2944.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2938.397}, "reply_to": "22511__1_130", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22511__1_132", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--But... and which... many of which may be quite easy to... to dismiss.\nBut I would say Ms. Bergmann's reading has a kind of... the opposite problem with it, which is under her reading the... no one... when a court holds something retroactive can... is an unpredictable matter.\nAnd under her reading, nobody... even where there's a right that's rather important and that should be retroactive, no one could get relief until an appropriate court has held it retroactive, which could take years.\nIt could be never.\nAnd if the Court... and I think that that reading of that... therefore, I think that that... that reading has just the opposite problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2944.737, 2949.564, 2962.454, 2973.799, 2975.25], "stop_times": [2949.564, 2962.454, 2973.799, 2975.25, 2983.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2944.737}, "reply_to": "22511__1_131", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_133", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "You see, you're... you're saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2983.383], "stop_times": [2984.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2983.383}, "reply_to": "22511__1_132", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22511__1_134", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "What Congress wanted--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2984.519], "stop_times": [2984.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2984.519}, "reply_to": "22511__1_133", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_135", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--that the district court should take these filings, should not hold them.\nIt should itself make the retroactivity determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2984.945, 2990.139], "stop_times": [2990.139, 2994.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2984.945}, "reply_to": "22511__1_134", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22511__1_136", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--It can do that subject to appeal and ultimately certiorari in this Court.\nI think, though, that ultimately what Congress wanted was a 1-year period after this Court initially recognizes a new right.\nWhen the... for that... that period of time the finality that is so important to the criminal law is... does... is suspended to a certain degree.\nPeople can litigate the issue.\nAfter that, the criminal law can go back to its retributive, deterrent purposes which can only be achieved if finality is recognized.\nI think, in particular, when you're talking about section 2255 motions, frequently the relief, if there is any, is going to be a new trial.\nAnd there's a particular cost, as the Court has recognized, of trying to retry somebody many, many years after an initial conviction.\nSometimes it means, in effect, it's just an acquittal because you can't find the witnesses or you can no longer prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.\nAnd I think, therefore, Congress said, if there's a new right, that's a sufficiently exceptional circumstance, that we can suspend that finality for a brief period, but 1 year and that's all.\nThese things shouldn't come out 10 years later or 15 years later or 20 years later.\nAnd that was the purpose, I think a perfectly reasonable purpose the Congress intended to serve here.\nAnd I think that actually the language of it, which says 1 year from the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by this Court, accomplishes that purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [2994.086, 2997.749, 3005.034, 3013.669, 3015.307, 3023.951, 3032.037, 3039.205, 3045.46, 3056.88, 3060.784, 3067.135], "stop_times": [2997.749, 3005.034, 3013.669, 3015.307, 3023.951, 3032.037, 3039.205, 3045.46, 3056.88, 3060.784, 3067.135, 3075.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2994.086}, "reply_to": "22511__1_135", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_137", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Your... your position is strengthened by the other three provisions of the statute that mentioned this, but it's not controlled by that, I take it.\nYou think it's unambiguous just as it read... as it's read on its own.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3075.289, 3083.924], "stop_times": [3083.924, 3087.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3075.289}, "reply_to": "22511__1_136", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22511__1_138", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I think that the date... there's only one possible date that can be found in this language.\nUnless the Court felt that it had to completely rewrite it, there's only one date, the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by this Court.\nAnd even if... whatever problems the if clause have... has, that may mean that this... not very many people... the worst it would mean is that not many people can take advantage of that date.\nBut unless it's... that date is... there's something unconstitutional, which no one has suggested, about Congress picking that date and that limitations period for people who have had the chance to litigate things on direct review... in any event, it had 1 year from the date their conviction became final.\nUnless there's something wrong with that, I think that the Court should follow the terms of the statute, and the time should run 1 year from the date on which the right was initially recognized.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3087.715, 3092.375, 3099.827, 3109.65, 3124.306], "stop_times": [3092.375, 3099.827, 3109.65, 3124.306, 3134.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3087.715}, "reply_to": "22511__1_137", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "22511__1_139", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Feldman.\nMs. Bergmann, you have 6 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3134.226, 3136.349], "stop_times": [3136.349, 3139.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3134.226}, "reply_to": "22511__1_138", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22511__2_000", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Just several quick points.\nI'd like to start with the last point that Mr. Feldman made saying that there is only possible date under which the limitation period can run and... and cautioning the Court about rewriting that date.\nWhat the Government neglects to mention is that it's asking this Court to rewrite the if clause by changing Congress' use of verb tense from a past tense to... to something that could happen in the future.\nThey want this Court to read that language contrary to Tyler, contrary to the use of verb tense and allow a district court to make a retroactivity decision at some time in the future in every case in which a motion is filed under paragraph 6(3).\nThe second point I'd like to make is that the... in situations such as this that involve these kinds of important rights, interests in finality are at an ebb.\nThese are the types of rights where someone may well be innocent of the crime for which they are incarcerated, that involve important rights that go to the accuracy of the underlying adjudication.\nIt seems to me in these circumstances, there is... it is a situation where Congress' need or... or the need of the courts to enforce finality to keep people in jail are at their lowest point.\nThese are very special rights and Congress went to the trouble of drafting and enacting paragraph 6(3) and paragraph 8(2) to protect these rights.\nAnd... and I think the Court should read them as broadly as possible in order to protect those rights.\nJustice Scalia asked a question about the difference between newly recognized and initially recognized.\nI wanted to go back to that for a minute.\nThere are circumstances where a... let me see if I can get this right... where a... a right may be newly recognized but not yet initially recognized.\nAnd I would... I would point the Court's attention... the decision in Penry.\nIn Penry v. Lynaugh, this Court stated that if there was an Eighth Amendment bar to the execution of mentally retarded individuals, that would be a new right that would be retroactively applicable to collateral cases.\nBut then the Court declined to initially recognize the Eighth Amendment right.\nIt wasn't until Atkins was decided that the Eighth Amendment right was initially recognized.\nAnd so--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3139.351, 3141.548, 3152.887, 3164.162, 3176.818, 3187.831, 3198.829, 3210.013, 3217.533, 3222.461, 3233.661, 3234.983, 3246.684, 3250.129, 3260.656, 3264.059, 3268.987], "stop_times": [3141.548, 3152.887, 3164.162, 3176.818, 3187.831, 3198.829, 3210.013, 3217.533, 3222.461, 3233.661, 3234.983, 3246.684, 3250.129, 3260.656, 3264.059, 3268.987, 3269.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3139.351}, "reply_to": "22511__1_139", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__2_001", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, it didn't newly... it didn't newly recognize it either, did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3269.323], "stop_times": [3272.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3269.323}, "reply_to": "22511__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__2_002", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Well, it... it... I would say that it... it recognized that it was new and that seems to be the way the courts have interpreted--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3272.511], "stop_times": [3278.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3272.511}, "reply_to": "22511__2_001", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__2_003", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "It was... it recognized that when it would be initially recognized, it would be newly initially recognized.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3278.33, 3284.202], "stop_times": [3284.202, 3286.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3278.33}, "reply_to": "22511__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__2_004", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, but I would say that there would be no additional decision of this Court that would be necessary for... for someone to conclude that all three provisions of paragraph 6(3) had been met.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3286.073], "stop_times": [3296.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3286.073}, "reply_to": "22511__2_003", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__2_005", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I see your point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3296.297], "stop_times": [3296.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3296.297}, "reply_to": "22511__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__2_006", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I thought it could be, if you want to play games, there is an imaginary right to which Blackstone has referred 48 times.\nYet, for some odd reason, that right has never come to the Supreme Court of the United States.\nBut one day it does.\nIt is a right of constitutional dimensions embedded in the law of stoppage in transitu.\nAnd although it's well recognized, we've never had a case.\nFinally, we get one, and it is initially recognized here, but it is not newly recognized for every treatise on stoppage in transitu has long assumed that it was part of the law of the United States.\nI don't know.\nThat's what I thought it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3296.793, 3312.478, 3318.702, 3320.509, 3326.867, 3331.523, 3345.117, 3345.938], "stop_times": [3312.478, 3318.702, 3320.509, 3326.867, 3331.523, 3345.117, 3345.938, 3346.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3296.793}, "reply_to": "22511__2_005", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__2_007", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, yes, Your Honor.\nThere... there are... every time this Court issues a decision, someone could argue that it initially recognizes a right, and whether that right is new in the Teague sense or old--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3346.935, 3347.356], "stop_times": [3347.356, 3356.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3346.935}, "reply_to": "22511__2_006", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__2_008", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I take it that what I've just said is of total irrelevance to everything.\nIs... is that right?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3356.209, 3360.833, 3361.793], "stop_times": [3360.833, 3361.793, 3362.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3356.209}, "reply_to": "22511__2_007", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__2_009", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--No.\nI disagree, Your Honor.\nI mean, there are circumstances where this Court initially recognizes rights, but then later on determines that they are not new, that they are indeed old.\nThat happened in Simmons v. South Carolina.\nThe Court recognizes... recognized a right to present certain types of mitigation evidence in the penalty phase of a capital case, but then the Court later determined that that was not a new right.\nIt was an old right in the Teague sense, and so it, therefore, applied retroactively because it was an old right but it did not newly recognize it at the time that it initially recognized it.\nAnd I'm sorry for the linguistic... but it... it is complicated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3362.209, 3363.569, 3364.385, 3372.699, 3374.79, 3385.755, 3394.741], "stop_times": [3363.569, 3364.385, 3372.699, 3374.79, 3385.755, 3394.741, 3399.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3362.209}, "reply_to": "22511__2_008", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__2_010", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Not your fault.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3399.131], "stop_times": [3400.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3399.131}, "reply_to": "22511__2_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22511__2_011", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "I'm laughing at the statute, not at you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3400.822], "stop_times": [3402.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3400.822}, "reply_to": "22511__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22511__2_012", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nI just wanted to say in closing that... that it is a difficult statute, but I think that Mr. Dodd's interpretation of the statute both respects Congress' use of tense and is consistent with the reading of paragraph 8(2) that this Court gave in Tyler.\nIt also respects Congress' intention to create a specific exception for new rights that apply retroactively by allowing for the realistic possibility of... of success in either an initial or a second or successive motion premised on such rights.\nIt also, as we've discussed, promotes judicial efficiency by eliminating from it frivolous motions because litigants would not file until it was clear that they actually had a right to collateral relief.\nIn sum, this Court should conclude that the triggering date is when all three of the prerequisites have been met.\nIn this case, that would be when the Eleventh Circuit decided Ross v. Richardson.\nI guess my... my final concern is for my client.\nIf the Court constructs a rule where the Supreme Court would have to be the court that makes the retroactivity decision, I hope the Court will consider the effect of such a rule on someone like my client who filed prematurely on... in... in hopes that at some point his arguably meritorious Richardson claim would be heard.\nWhether the Court decides that those premature filings should be dismissed without prejudice or if there's some kind of analysis the lower courts should take in resolving those claims--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3402.864, 3403.953, 3420.368, 3436.704, 3448.251, 3454.107, 3458.379, 3461.291, 3480.41], "stop_times": [3403.953, 3420.368, 3436.704, 3448.251, 3454.107, 3458.379, 3461.291, 3480.41, 3488.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3402.864}, "reply_to": "22511__2_011", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__2_013", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "How... how is... how does that work?\nI mean, can you explain that a little?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3488.08, 3490.25], "stop_times": [3490.25, 3493.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3488.08}, "reply_to": "22511__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__2_014", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3493.258], "stop_times": [3493.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3493.258}, "reply_to": "22511__2_013", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__2_015", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Suppose he did... he hasn't violated the statute of limitations.\nHe... he filed it before a year ran from the time that we finally recognized it because we haven't even recognized it yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3493.616, 3496.676], "stop_times": [3496.676, 3503.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3493.616}, "reply_to": "22511__2_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__2_016", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Well, that would be my argument, Your Honor, that he was premature.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3503.748], "stop_times": [3506.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3503.748}, "reply_to": "22511__2_015", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__2_017", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "But what is premature?\nWhat prevents a person from being premature?\nThey just might lose on the merits of their claim is all, and he might anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3506.542, 3508.013, 3510.05], "stop_times": [3508.013, 3510.05, 3514.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3506.542}, "reply_to": "22511__2_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__2_018", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "That's... that's if the Court would allow the retroactivity decision to be made in the... on an initial motion by the district court in that particular case.\nAm I correct?\nMaybe I'm misunderstanding you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3514.85, 3522.593, 3525.035], "stop_times": [3522.593, 3525.035, 3526.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3514.85}, "reply_to": "22511__2_017", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__2_019", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "No.\nI... I was the one who's having a problem.\nI... I didn't see how your client would be hurt if we adopted Justice Stevens'--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3526.918, 3527.824, 3529.19], "stop_times": [3527.824, 3529.19, 3532.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3526.918}, "reply_to": "22511__2_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22511__2_020", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Well, the problem is that some lower courts have held that if you... you file a motion that's untimely--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3532.709], "stop_times": [3536.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3532.709}, "reply_to": "22511__2_019", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__2_021", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Bergmann.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3536.809], "stop_times": [3537.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3536.809}, "reply_to": "22511__2_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22511__2_022", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "--Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3537.976], "stop_times": [3538.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3537.976}, "reply_to": "22511__2_021", "speaker": "janice_l_bergmann"}
{"id": "22511__2_023", "conversation_id": "22511", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5286", "start_times": [3538.585], "stop_times": [3539.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3538.585}, "reply_to": "22511__2_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23679__0_000", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "The Court will now hear argument in Dura Pharmaceuticals against Broudo.\nWe finally get to the arguments.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [0.0, 6.616, 7.796], "stop_times": [6.616, 7.796, 8.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23679__0_001", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThis case presents two disparate views of what kind of loss is necessary to sustain a claim for securities fraud under the Reform Act's loss causation requirement.\nThe minority view of artificial inflation articulated by the Ninth Circuit is illogical and equates loss with purchase, regardless of whether the investor has suffered any economic harm.\nAn investor does not suffer any harm until some form of corrective disclosure occurs and the artificial inflation is removed from the stock.\nThe two events must be related.\nThere is no causal connection between the harm and the misrepresentation otherwise.\nThe majority rule correctly requires a causal connection between the misrepresentation and a decline in value.\nThe... and the statute itself is expressed in terms of causation that a plaintiff prove that the act of the defendant caused the loss.\nWhen we look at the statute of the Reform Act and other provisions, we see supporting language.\nIn section 21D of the Reform Act, we see under the provision that has been known as the look-back provision that the Congress discussed the loss in terms of trading price after a corrective disclosure.\nSimilarly in section 105 of the Reform Act, although dealing with section 12 of the Securities Act, the Reform Act, in its one place where it actually spoke of loss causation and its definition, defined it in terms of depreciation in value.\nAnd the... the depreciation in value of the security would be attributable to the fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [8.887, 17.117, 28.303, 40.974, 50.665, 53.307, 61.997, 70.315, 83.996, 90.674, 107.366, 124.157], "stop_times": [17.117, 28.303, 40.974, 50.665, 53.307, 61.997, 70.315, 83.996, 90.674, 107.366, 124.157, 130.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8.887}, "reply_to": "23679__0_000", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_002", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Can... can you tell me if... if we had not granted certiorari in the case and the Ninth Circuit's opinion became final, what would have happened on remand?\nWhat would have happened in the trial court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [130.797, 139.255], "stop_times": [139.255, 140.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 130.797}, "reply_to": "23679__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23679__0_003", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "At the trial court, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [140.746], "stop_times": [143.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 140.746}, "reply_to": "23679__0_002", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_004", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "And... and wouldn't there have been a... a motion to make the pleadings more specific and they would have then come up with a measure of damages, or am I wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [143.256], "stop_times": [153.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 143.256}, "reply_to": "23679__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23679__0_005", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Well, the Ninth Circuit remanded for specific reasons on repleading, which Your Honor has articulated, and those would have occurred.\nThe other issues relating to loss raise questions concerning whether some of the... the claims might be time barred and whether or not those claims could be stated.\nSo that would have raised a different issue.\nIn addition, throughout the pleadings of this case... we're now on the third complaint... the... the plaintiffs have not raised that issue and have not sought to plead causation consistent with the... our view of the world.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [153.117, 163.087, 174.959, 176.257], "stop_times": [163.087, 174.959, 176.257, 188.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 153.117}, "reply_to": "23679__0_004", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_006", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, I mean, I... I assume you say that the trial judge and... and defense counsel and... and the trial court would have had real problems with this opinion.\nWhat... what were those problems--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [188.995, 196.995], "stop_times": [196.995, 198.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 188.995}, "reply_to": "23679__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23679__0_007", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [198.395], "stop_times": [199.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 198.395}, "reply_to": "23679__0_006", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_008", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--insofar as the measure of loss is concerned?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [199.256], "stop_times": [201.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 199.256}, "reply_to": "23679__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23679__0_009", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Well, the... the real problems that the trial court had and what we would continue to espouse with this opinion is that it doesn't link the loss with the misrepresentation.\nAnd in this case, the misrepresentation offered occurred 9 months after the price drop that is being sought.\nI think when you... when you carve it all back and you look at what the real issue is, at the end of the day, it's... it becomes an issue of what... what damages does the plaintiffs' class seek.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [201.494, 216.03, 223.83], "stop_times": [216.03, 223.83, 234.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 201.494}, "reply_to": "23679__0_008", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_010", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Under this opinion, how would... under the Ninth Circuit's opinion, how would the jury have been instructed to come... to calculate the loss?\nI assume you have a problem with that and I want to know what it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [234.789, 242.44], "stop_times": [242.44, 245.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 234.789}, "reply_to": "23679__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23679__0_011", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "The... the problem is we wouldn't have been able to... to frame a clear jury instruction that would have indicated whether or not the loss that the jury should look at would be related to the disclosure about Albuterol Spiros, which would have occurred in the November time frame, or whether we would have had to step back to the February time frame and... and the loss that was incurred then.\nAnd the issue would have not only related to the... the damages instructions but would have related to the misrepresentation instruction.\nAnd the... the problem that... that we continue to have with the... the case after the Ninth Circuit's opinion is where do you look for the misrepresentation and where do you look for the damage and how do you know that there is a loss under the statute.\nYou're looking at a... at a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [245.328, 264.17, 271.7, 288.55], "stop_times": [264.17, 271.7, 288.55, 290.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 245.328}, "reply_to": "23679__0_010", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_012", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "What would have happened if the disclosure about Albuterol was made before the company announced revenue shortfalls?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [290.584], "stop_times": [298.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 290.584}, "reply_to": "23679__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23679__0_013", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Well, I think that would have been different.\nThat would have been a disclosure prior to the... to the drop, and there... I would expect under pleading that the plaintiffs could have done, they could have tied the two of them together and argued that the cause of the loss was the combination of the two events in the marketplace.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [298.104, 300.045], "stop_times": [300.045, 319.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 298.104}, "reply_to": "23679__0_012", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_014", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Why is it difficult to figure out what the Ninth Circuit was thinking?\nI... I found it... am I right?\nI thought they said the... the seller says we found gold.\nThe stock sells for $60.\nThey have loads of experts who say in the absence of that statement, which was a lie, we found gold, it would have sold for $10.\nThe loss is $50.\nI mean, I take it that's their theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [319.116, 323.465, 325.133, 328.206, 331.275, 340.365, 342.486], "stop_times": [323.465, 325.133, 328.206, 331.275, 340.365, 342.486, 345.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 319.116}, "reply_to": "23679__0_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__0_015", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "That... that would be the theory under the Ninth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [345.121], "stop_times": [348.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 345.121}, "reply_to": "23679__0_014", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_016", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "All right.\nNow, what's wrong with that theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [348.128, 348.338], "stop_times": [348.338, 349.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 348.128}, "reply_to": "23679__0_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__0_017", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [349.003], "stop_times": [349.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 349.003}, "reply_to": "23679__0_016", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_018", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "It's clear.\nI mean, it's certainly clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [349.225, 350.342], "stop_times": [350.342, 351.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 349.225}, "reply_to": "23679__0_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__0_019", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--The problem with... with that theory is that Congress has told us that the misrepresentation has to have caused the loss and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [351.303], "stop_times": [359.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 351.303}, "reply_to": "23679__0_018", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_020", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Yes.\nThey say it caused the loss, $50.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [359.686, 359.886], "stop_times": [359.886, 361.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 359.686}, "reply_to": "23679__0_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__0_021", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--And... and what we would be looking for is evidence that... that such a actual loss occurred in response to a corrective disclosure in the marketplace.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [361.348], "stop_times": [371.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.348}, "reply_to": "23679__0_020", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_022", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, it doesn't depend on... on what you... what you consider to be the value of the stock.\nUntil the disclosure of the fact that they didn't find gold is made, the stock is still worth $60, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [371.339, 375.737], "stop_times": [375.737, 383.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.339}, "reply_to": "23679__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__0_023", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [383.269], "stop_times": [384.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 383.269}, "reply_to": "23679__0_022", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_024", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Because everybody else thinks they found gold too.\nSo you're still holding stock worth $60, if worth means its market value.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [384.035, 386.169, 391.859], "stop_times": [386.169, 391.859, 393.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 384.035}, "reply_to": "23679__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__0_025", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [393.158], "stop_times": [393.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 393.158}, "reply_to": "23679__0_024", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_026", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "And we're dealing with a special rule that looks to market value.\nRight?\nYou don't have to have the... the representation made explicitly to the plaintiff.\nIt's a representation that was made to the market at large which caused the market value of the stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [393.727, 408.354, 398.829, 403.278], "stop_times": [408.354, 398.829, 403.278, 408.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 393.727}, "reply_to": "23679__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__0_027", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [408.608], "stop_times": [409.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 408.608}, "reply_to": "23679__0_026", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_028", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "So he paid $60, he got $60.\nThere's no loss.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [409.378, 411.628], "stop_times": [411.628, 412.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 409.378}, "reply_to": "23679__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__0_029", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "And would have the ability to continue to sell that stock for $60 in the marketplace until such time as there was a corrective disclosure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [412.128], "stop_times": [419.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 412.128}, "reply_to": "23679__0_028", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_030", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Is there any other problem?\nI'm trying to get a list of what the problems are with the simple theory.\nNow, I've heard one that you've ratified.\n[Laughter]\nAnd... and is there any other?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [419.363, 420.31, 424.846, 427.043, 428.009], "stop_times": [420.31, 424.846, 427.043, 428.009, 429.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 419.363}, "reply_to": "23679__0_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__0_031", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Thank you.\nThe... the other is... is I think an issue of certainty as to the marketplace.\nRemember, we are operating on a fraud-on-the-market theory context here in this kind of action, and in that... in that context, when there is a disclosure in the marketplace, you have certainty as to what the market actually valued the decline to be as opposed to speculation that there was in fact inflation at the... at the time of purchase.\nThe Ninth Circuit's purchase time rule in the... in the fraud-on-the-market context doesn't necessarily identify the decline in the value of the stock which you can get from the marketplace, and that I think is just better... a better indicator.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [429.817, 431.468, 436.718, 456.559], "stop_times": [431.468, 436.718, 456.559, 476.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 429.817}, "reply_to": "23679__0_030", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_032", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Now, can we... can they prove this?\n$60.\n$50 is wrong, is inflated because of the gold.\nIt turns out that gold never existed and they knew it.\nThe stock is not selling for $60 anymore.\nIt's selling for $200.\nThey found platinum.\nNo one expected it.\nAll right.\nThey want to prove maybe it is selling for $200, but if we had found gold as well, it would have sold for $250.\nCan they do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [476.21, 477.725, 479.634, 483.548, 488.915, 491.749, 493.768, 495.688, 498.149, 499.328, 507.044], "stop_times": [477.725, 479.634, 483.548, 488.915, 491.749, 493.768, 495.688, 498.149, 499.328, 507.044, 508.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 476.21}, "reply_to": "23679__0_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__0_033", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "The Congress has told us that we should look for loss, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [508.369], "stop_times": [515.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 508.369}, "reply_to": "23679__0_032", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_034", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "It's a loss.\n$250 versus $200.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [515.619, 516.193], "stop_times": [516.193, 518.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 515.619}, "reply_to": "23679__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__0_035", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--and that leads us to the... the point that... that whether the increase can actually be pled.\nBut if there is a disclosure that indicates that the gold component was not part of the... of the... the discoveries, and the plaintiffs can indicate that there was an upward tick because of the platinum and a downward movement in the stock because of the disclosure about gold, then I think those two can be separated and pled accordingly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [518.217, 523.409], "stop_times": [523.409, 550.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 518.217}, "reply_to": "23679__0_034", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_036", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "And both would be all right because what's the difference between not getting as much appreciation as you would have gotten if the correct information had been out there and getting less than you would have gotten.\nI mean, in both cases the shareholder is affected the same way.\nIt didn't get as much in one case.\nSo you're not distinguishing between those.\nI think you're agreeing that in both cases the... the discovery of platinum is the shares go up, but they would have gone up much higher if there had been gold as well.\nThat shareholder has a claim under your theory, doesn't she?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [550.803, 566.15, 570.668, 575.202, 577.789, 589.207], "stop_times": [566.15, 570.668, 575.202, 577.789, 589.207, 594.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 550.803}, "reply_to": "23679__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23679__0_037", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, that shareholder... it would depend on what has happened in the marketplace.\nIf there has not been a disclosure about the absence of gold, that stock would still reflect the... the value of the expectation of gold.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [594.297, 598.739], "stop_times": [598.739, 607.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 594.297}, "reply_to": "23679__0_036", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_038", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Yes, but I'm assuming that... that there is, and so the stock goes up but not as much as it would have.\nBut on the point of disclosure, there is a difference between your position and the Government's, and I really would like you to tell me if that's genuine or it's my misperception.\nYour view is there's the disclosure of the bad news, the lie, and the price drops.\nIn the Government's presentation... and I'm reading from page 19... the fraud can be revealed by means other than a corrective disclosure and a drop in the stock price may not be a necessary condition for establishing loss causation in every fraud on the marketplace.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [607.664, 612.655, 625.204, 632.434], "stop_times": [612.655, 625.204, 632.434, 658.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 607.664}, "reply_to": "23679__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23679__0_039", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Our position is we believe that a drop in the price is necessary to demonstrate the loss.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [658.691], "stop_times": [667.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 658.691}, "reply_to": "23679__0_038", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_040", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "But the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [667.036], "stop_times": [669.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 667.036}, "reply_to": "23679__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23679__0_041", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "They do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [669.343], "stop_times": [669.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 669.343}, "reply_to": "23679__0_040", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_042", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "It doesn't matter in this case, does it?\nIs... is that issue before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [669.86, 671.632], "stop_times": [671.632, 673.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 669.86}, "reply_to": "23679__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__0_043", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "In this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [673.717], "stop_times": [674.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 673.717}, "reply_to": "23679__0_042", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_044", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Do we have to decide that issue here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [674.302], "stop_times": [675.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 674.302}, "reply_to": "23679__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__0_045", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--We don't have to decide that issue for this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [675.372], "stop_times": [678.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 675.372}, "reply_to": "23679__0_044", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_046", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "And is it... is it easy to prove that... that the price of this now valuable stock because they found platinum would have been $40 higher had they found gold?\nI mean, the burden would be on the plaintiff to prove that... would... I mean, if we adopted that theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [678.007, 690.248], "stop_times": [690.248, 694.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 678.007}, "reply_to": "23679__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__0_047", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "The plaintiff has that burden--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [694.269], "stop_times": [695.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 694.269}, "reply_to": "23679__0_046", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_048", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "It would be very hard to prove, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [695.924], "stop_times": [697.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.924}, "reply_to": "23679__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__0_049", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--And... and at the pleading stage, I believe that they could be segregated and... and an upward movement in the stock could be distinguished from a downward movement in the stock.\nBut the downward movement in stock would be the focus from our standpoint.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [697.828, 707.409], "stop_times": [707.409, 710.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 697.828}, "reply_to": "23679__0_048", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_050", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "In... in your view, is the plaintiff entitled to an expectancy measure of damage, or is it more the traditional tort measure which is out-of-pocket losses?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [710.919], "stop_times": [723.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 710.919}, "reply_to": "23679__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23679__0_051", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "We don't believe that they are entitled to any expectation damages.\nIt would be an out-of-pocket loss calculation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [723.704, 727.024], "stop_times": [727.024, 730.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 723.704}, "reply_to": "23679__0_050", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_052", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Is the... is the respondents' position properly characterized as asking for expectancy damages or is that too simplistic a view?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [730.128], "stop_times": [737.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 730.128}, "reply_to": "23679__0_051", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23679__0_053", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I... I think that it is perhaps inclusive of expectancy.\nIt really depends on how you view their price inflation theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [737.52, 745.34], "stop_times": [745.34, 748.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 737.52}, "reply_to": "23679__0_052", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_054", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I think they'd be called reliance damages.\nYou know, I used to teach contract law.\nWe would call it reliance damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [748.25, 750.126, 752.247], "stop_times": [750.126, 752.247, 753.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 748.25}, "reply_to": "23679__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__0_055", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "And it gets back in our view to the transaction causation distinction in the securities cases that talk about the reliance transaction, price inflation that occurs at the front end.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [753.825], "stop_times": [765.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 753.825}, "reply_to": "23679__0_054", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_056", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "If that's so then... then on the platinum/gold theory, you can't really recover what would have happened if there had been gold because it might be that the stock would have been worth $400 if there had been gold even though 15 years earlier when he only paid $50 for it, he's only out of pocket, at most, $50.\nBut if there had been gold, because of the gold market in the world, it would have been a lot more valuable.\nAnd you're saying he can't do that?\nI don't know.\nMaybe that question isn't in the case, but that strikes me as a difficult question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [765.724, 786.455, 793.186, 794.965, 795.589], "stop_times": [786.455, 793.186, 794.965, 795.589, 798.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 765.724}, "reply_to": "23679__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__0_057", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Following your... your suggestion about the price of gold, it would depend on where that... that disclosure occurred in connection with the price of... the price of gold, if that disclosure occurred, and if there was an economic loss that could be... could be tied to it.\nThe passage of time here is important only insofar as it allows for the corrective disclosure and a chance for the market to reflect an economic loss.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [798.96, 817.48], "stop_times": [817.48, 826.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 798.96}, "reply_to": "23679__0_056", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_058", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "But, Mr. Sullivan, you refer to the disclosure as being the key point and when you measure the... the loss and so forth.\nWhat if the information leaks out and there's no specific one disclosure that does it all and the stock gradually declines over a period of 6 months?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [826.35, 832.492], "stop_times": [832.492, 841.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 826.35}, "reply_to": "23679__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23679__0_059", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [841.27], "stop_times": [842.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 841.27}, "reply_to": "23679__0_058", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_060", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "How would you handle that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [842.135], "stop_times": [842.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 842.135}, "reply_to": "23679__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23679__0_061", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--I think that a plaintiff would be able to handle that in... in a pleading and they would have to identify the leaks and if there are several, identify each of them and identify them as--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [842.705], "stop_times": [852.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 842.705}, "reply_to": "23679__0_060", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_062", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, maybe they don't know the leaks.\nThe only thing they can prove is that there was a gross false statement at the time they bought the stock and they don't know what happened to the decline.\nLater on they find out that it gradually leaked out.\nDo they have to prove exactly how the information became public?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [852.871, 854.112, 861.451, 863.828], "stop_times": [854.112, 861.451, 863.828, 868.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 852.871}, "reply_to": "23679__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23679__0_063", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--The key is that they have to prove that the loss was connected to the misrepresentation and that the drop in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [868.101], "stop_times": [875.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 868.101}, "reply_to": "23679__0_062", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_064", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, they... they wouldn't have to prove how it came out.\nThey would just have to prove that the market knew the truth, no matter how the market learned the truth.\nI mean, if it was published in a... in a column by some market reporter who doesn't disclose how he found out.\nSo long as the market knows the truth, isn't that all they need?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [875.014, 877.355, 884.898, 890.948], "stop_times": [877.355, 884.898, 890.948, 893.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 875.014}, "reply_to": "23679__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__0_065", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--So I was distinguishing... yes is the answer to your question.\nI was distinguishing a situation where the price just trickled down and no one knew until later.\nAnd the... the question that Justice Scalia poses about the... the leak coming out over time but it is the... the fact that the market becomes aware of the reason for the misrepresentation, it is in fact appropriate.\nThe... the other point that I would like to make, in addition to the statutory scheme, is... is this Court's decision in Basic v. Levinson creates a tension here, and I... and I think a conflict that is very important to... to discern.\nThe... Basic v. Levinson presents the fraud-on-the-market theory, and from that fraud-on-the-market theory we have a rebuttable presumption of reliance for transaction causation.\nThe Ninth Circuit's view collapses the... the Ninth... the Ninth Circuit's view of transaction causation with loss causation and presents a conflict as it relates to that presumption.\nThe presumption, which is based on a well-developed, efficient capital market that gets the information out quickly and is easily digestible... that... that presumption is at odds with the Reform Act's requirement that there be a burden of proof.\nIf you collapse the transaction causation and the loss causation, you've got a head-on collision between the rebuttable presumption of reliance and the Congress' codification of the loss causation act and the Reform Act.\nAnd we think, at the end of the day, the Ninth Circuit's decision really renders that conflict apparent and makes the act of Congress in the Reform Act one that was meaningless.\nThe... I think the legislative history is also supportive of our position so far as particularly the Senate report is very important in the... in the phrase where it talks about the obligation of the plaintiff to prove that the loss in the value of the stock was caused by the section 10(b) violation and not by other factors.\nThat is a critical component here of the analysis and I think very helpful from the standpoint of the legislative history in identifying what we have.\nFinally, I... the last point I'd like to make is that the Reform Act from Congress was designed to and sought to establish uniform and fairly stringent pleading guidelines, and this was to address congressional concerns over frivolous suits.\nAnd Congress, in enacting the Reform Act, was not signaling any intention to relax the requirements of section 10(b), was... rather, was enacting a very specific loss causation requirement.\nAnd historically there was a very clear and distinct body of law at the time, the Huddleston case, the Bastian case, and that was codified.\nAnd there was a very clear perception that Congress was acting and not collapsing the loss causation transaction rule into the loss... the transaction causation into the loss causation, which I think creates this conflict.\nIf there are no further questions, Justice Stevens, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [893.513, 896.596, 900.835, 916.664, 932.376, 944.134, 956.517, 973.996, 986.528, 998.196, 1020.075, 1028.834, 1044.849, 1054.664, 1065.81, 1081.729], "stop_times": [896.596, 900.835, 916.664, 932.376, 944.134, 956.517, 973.996, 986.528, 998.196, 1020.075, 1028.834, 1044.849, 1054.664, 1065.81, 1081.729, 1086.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 893.513}, "reply_to": "23679__0_064", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_066", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "You certainly may.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1086.354], "stop_times": [1086.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1086.354}, "reply_to": "23679__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23679__0_067", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1086.587], "stop_times": [1087.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1086.587}, "reply_to": "23679__0_066", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__0_068", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Mr. Hungar.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1087.492], "stop_times": [1094.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1087.492}, "reply_to": "23679__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23679__1_000", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nIn a fraud-on-the-market case, a plaintiff who buys a security at an inflated price suffers no loss at the time of purchase because the market continues to value the security at the inflated price, and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1094.413, 1097.786], "stop_times": [1097.786, 1112.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1094.413}, "reply_to": "23679__0_068", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_001", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Would you tell us how you differ with petitioner on what ought to happen here and why?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1112.703], "stop_times": [1119.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1112.703}, "reply_to": "23679__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23679__1_002", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Well, our view... well, what ought to happen in this case is that the judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed because the court failed to require loss causation.\nIn effect, what the court said is that transaction causation is sufficient.\nBut what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1119.701, 1130.082, 1133.773], "stop_times": [1130.082, 1133.773, 1134.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1119.701}, "reply_to": "23679__1_001", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_003", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "You agree with the bottom line.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1134.457], "stop_times": [1136.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1134.457}, "reply_to": "23679__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23679__1_004", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1136.093], "stop_times": [1136.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1136.093}, "reply_to": "23679__1_003", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_005", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Now, where do you disagree?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1136.481], "stop_times": [1138.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1136.481}, "reply_to": "23679__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23679__1_006", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, I'm not sure that I can accurately tell you petitioners' position, but I can tell you our position, which is that in a fraud-on-the-market case the plaintiff cannot... has failed to plead loss causation unless the plaintiff pleads that the... the inflation attributable to the misrepresentation or omission has been removed or reduced from the price of the stock through dissemination of corrective information of some sort to the market.\nThat does not mean that the company must make an announcement or that there must be an admission of fraud or that there must be really any information, any... any sort of formal disclosure.\nBut if the information is disseminated to the market such that the market, in whole or in part, becomes aware of the truth and adjusts the price accordingly, that price adjustment is loss and the plaintiff has alleged loss causation in an amount to be proven at trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1138.084, 1171.832, 1182.084], "stop_times": [1171.832, 1182.084, 1198.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1138.084}, "reply_to": "23679__1_005", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_007", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, doesn't the general rule 8 governing complaints... isn't that adequate?\nYou have to plead under that every element of an affirmative case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1198.716, 1205.797], "stop_times": [1205.797, 1209.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1198.716}, "reply_to": "23679__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23679__1_008", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "That's right.\nExactly right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1209.767, 1210.306], "stop_times": [1210.306, 1211.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1209.767}, "reply_to": "23679__1_007", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_009", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Why is the Government proposing that you have to follow rule 9 not 8 or some other requirement?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1211.383], "stop_times": [1218.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1211.383}, "reply_to": "23679__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23679__1_010", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, the... I don't think the question... we cited rule 9(b) in our brief because fraud must be pled with particularity and... and that... and that rule applies to all the, quote, circumstances constituting a fraud.\nBut the Court doesn't need to address the question because even under rule 8, the plaintiff must allege all the elements of the cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1218.331, 1230.251], "stop_times": [1230.251, 1236.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1218.331}, "reply_to": "23679__1_009", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_011", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "We don't have to get into that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1236.381], "stop_times": [1237.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1236.381}, "reply_to": "23679__1_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23679__1_012", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "That's correct.\nThat's absolutely right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1237.532, 1237.782], "stop_times": [1237.782, 1238.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1237.532}, "reply_to": "23679__1_011", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_013", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "But, Mr. Hungar, if you look at the forms of what's proper pleading under the Federal rules on causation, the sample pleadings say, for example, for money lent, the defendant owes the plaintiff for money lent.\nPeriod.\nOr for goods sold and delivered.\nNothing more.\nJust alleged causation.\nDefendant... plaintiff alleges I lost X amount and it was caused by defendant.\nI thought you pointed to the 9(b) rule because fraud must be pleaded with particularity, but causation does not, not under the rules and not under the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1238.639, 1255.648, 1256.048, 1258.427, 1259.362, 1260.728, 1268.912], "stop_times": [1255.648, 1256.048, 1258.427, 1259.362, 1260.728, 1268.912, 1279.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1238.639}, "reply_to": "23679__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23679__1_014", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, as we said in our brief, we think 9(b) applies here.\nObviously, this is a fraud case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1279.959, 1283.009], "stop_times": [1283.009, 1284.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1279.959}, "reply_to": "23679__1_013", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_015", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "But that... that's to the... to the allegation of fraud, but not causation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1284.356], "stop_times": [1289.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.356}, "reply_to": "23679__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23679__1_016", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, Congress has made very clear that loss causation is an element of the cause of action.\nThe elements must be pled.\nIn a fraud case, they must be pled with particularity, but even... even in a... in a common law--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1289.915, 1293.985, 1295.286], "stop_times": [1293.985, 1295.286, 1299.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1289.915}, "reply_to": "23679__1_015", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_017", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "It says... no.\nIt said fraud must be pleaded with particularity, not all the elements of a fraud claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1299.66, 1300.005], "stop_times": [1300.005, 1304.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1299.66}, "reply_to": "23679__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23679__1_018", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Well, with respect, Your Honor, we think circumstances... it does not constitute fraud if there is no loss causation.\nAt least it certainly doesn't constitute securities fraud under this statute, and if the complaint does not plead loss causation, it hasn't pled fraud.\nSo we submit that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1304.145, 1311.77, 1320.064], "stop_times": [1311.77, 1320.064, 1320.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1304.145}, "reply_to": "23679__1_017", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_019", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, that's not correct I don't think.\nI think there could be a completely fraudulent statement but no... no damages as a result of it.\nThere would still be fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1320.8, 1321.85, 1326.766], "stop_times": [1321.85, 1326.766, 1327.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.8}, "reply_to": "23679__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23679__1_020", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Yes, but in a... in a private action for securities fraud, loss causation is an element of the cause of action.\nIt's not an element in every fraud case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1327.849, 1333.608], "stop_times": [1333.608, 1334.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1327.849}, "reply_to": "23679__1_019", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_021", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "It's not an element of the fraud.\nIt's an element of the cause... cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1334.965, 1335.722], "stop_times": [1335.722, 1338.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1334.965}, "reply_to": "23679__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23679__1_022", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, it may be a semantic question.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1338.34, 1340.251], "stop_times": [1340.251, 1340.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1338.34}, "reply_to": "23679__1_021", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_023", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, that's what Justice Ginsburg's point--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1340.64], "stop_times": [1342.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1340.64}, "reply_to": "23679__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23679__1_024", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--But there... I mean, there are cases in the... in the courts of appeals saying that... that rule 9(b) applies to all the elements, and we're not aware of cases... the... the... one of the amicus briefs cites cases which focus on the nature of the representation, and that's certainly where 9(b) issues are generally fought out because in a... in a typical securities case, loss causation is not a difficult issue because the... the bad news is... is announced, the stock drops, and the plaintiff pleads loss causation as a matter of course.\nIt... it's... it's not a difficult burden to satisfy in your run-of-the-mill securities case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1342.242, 1370.339], "stop_times": [1370.339, 1375.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1342.242}, "reply_to": "23679__1_023", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_025", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1375.666], "stop_times": [1376.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1375.666}, "reply_to": "23679__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__1_026", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "In any event, the difference between getting the... the complaint dismissed on the pleadings or having to wait for a... a 12(b)(6) motion because as soon as you, you know, ask for the... the proof of the elements of the cause of action, you're entitled to have, if... if your analysis of the case is correct, you're entitled to have the drop in... in the value of the stock shown.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1376.04], "stop_times": [1396.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1376.04}, "reply_to": "23679__1_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__1_027", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, as a... as a practical matter, Your Honor, there's a huge difference in how these cases are litigated because it's the difference between spending millions of dollars on discovery, literally millions of dollars on discovery, or not.\nIf... if the plaintiff has failed to allege loss causation and for some reason feels unable to allege it, the... the case is going to be dismissed.\nIf the court doesn't require loss causation, as the Ninth Circuit did... did here, that means the case is going to go to discovery and the defendant is going to have to either spend millions of dollars on their own lawyers or spend millions of dollars to settle even in a case that... where the plaintiff might be unable to establish loss causation.\nThat's why--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1396.402, 1408.822, 1416.651, 1431.141], "stop_times": [1408.822, 1416.651, 1431.141, 1431.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1396.402}, "reply_to": "23679__1_026", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_028", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Is... is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1431.456], "stop_times": [1432.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1431.456}, "reply_to": "23679__1_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__1_029", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Congress did what it did in 1995.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1432.137], "stop_times": [1433.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1432.137}, "reply_to": "23679__1_028", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_030", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Is the reason... is there a further reason that they've got to... to plead loss causation?\nAnd that is, by reading (e)(2), in effect, as... as making... as... as saying that if you were going to recover on a fraud-on-the-market theory, you in effect have... have got to prove your loss in a certain way.\nAnd you're saying if you're going to... if you're going to sue on a fraud-on-the-market theory, you've got to allege all the elements of fraud on the market.\nAnd if you allege all the elements of fraud on the market, you're going to allege exactly what you've just been saying is required.\nSo it's not so the... I... I guess what I'm... I'm getting at is maybe what... maybe the nub of the answer is not necessarily that there's... that there's fraud involved, but there is a fraud-on-the-market theory as the basis for the cause of action, and if that is the basis, it's got to be disclosed in the pleadings as an element.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1433.626, 1437.858, 1454.466, 1461.627, 1468.658], "stop_times": [1437.858, 1454.466, 1461.627, 1468.658, 1486.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1433.626}, "reply_to": "23679__1_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__1_031", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I think that's... that's a helpful way to look at it, Justice Souter, because it's... in... in a fraud-on-the-market case, by definition the plaintiff is alleging that there was an efficient national market and that is what makes the difference.\nIf this were the... you... you buy a gold mine, like the... the old common law cases that respondents cite, there's no efficient national market on which the... the plaintiff can turn around and sell it at the same price until the information has been disclosed.\nBut when it is an... a national, active stock market, the market continues to reflect the inflation, and so... so the plaintiff has not been injured, and the allegation that it was an efficient market and I bought it at an inflated price does not support an inference of... of injury.\nAnd the... and so because it is a fraud-on-the-market case, that's exactly right.\nThe additional information must be pled in the complaint or else no injury has been... been pled and the complaint must be dismissed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1486.92, 1498.264, 1509.636, 1524.759, 1529.946], "stop_times": [1498.264, 1509.636, 1524.759, 1529.946, 1537.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1486.92}, "reply_to": "23679__1_030", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_032", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Do you... do you take the position that the phrase in (e)(2), if the plaintiff... I'm sorry.\nLet me find it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1537.646, 1542.871], "stop_times": [1542.871, 1544.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1537.646}, "reply_to": "23679__1_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__1_033", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "You're referring to section 12(b) or?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1544.711], "stop_times": [1551.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1544.711}, "reply_to": "23679__1_032", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_034", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "No.\nI'm trying to find a phrase in (e)(2).\nIf the plaintiff seeks to establish damages by reference to the market price of a security, do you take that phrase as... as referring to a fraud-on-the-market theory or as being broader than a fraud-on-the... on-the-market theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1551.822, 1552.311, 1554.781], "stop_times": [1552.311, 1554.781, 1569.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1551.822}, "reply_to": "23679__1_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__1_035", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, I suppose a plaintiff in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1569.069], "stop_times": [1573.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1569.069}, "reply_to": "23679__1_034", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_036", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "It certainly includes it.\nThere's no question about that.\nDoes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1573.364, 1574.145, 1575.462], "stop_times": [1574.145, 1575.462, 1575.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.364}, "reply_to": "23679__1_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__1_037", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--I think what that encompasses is a... is a case in which the plaintiff purchased the stock on the market... on... on a open market, which will typically be in practice a fraud-on-the-market case.\nI suppose a plaintiff, in an unusual case, might not allege... might not choose to plead it as fraud-on-the-market case if they have some specific evidence or reliance that they view is stronger, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1575.947, 1587.153], "stop_times": [1587.153, 1596.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1575.947}, "reply_to": "23679__1_036", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_038", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--If... if it's not confined to fraud-on-the-market, then there's the argument on the other side that all... all (2) is really doing is saying that if you are going to establish your damages by reference to market price, this is the way you've got to do it.\nYou've got to go through this mean price analysis and so on.\nBut they are saying we are not simply trying to establish our damages by reference to the market, and therefore we're not bound by... and therefore, (e)(2), in effect, is... is irrelevant.\nWhat... what is your answer--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1596.245, 1610.719, 1613.951, 1625.635], "stop_times": [1610.719, 1613.951, 1625.635, 1626.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1596.245}, "reply_to": "23679__1_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__1_039", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Well, I think they... they unquestionably are trying to establish their damages.\nThe Ninth Circuit's damage theory or... or injury theory establishes damages by reference to the market price.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1626.678, 1630.328], "stop_times": [1630.328, 1635.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1626.678}, "reply_to": "23679__1_038", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_040", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--To the... to the purchase price.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1635.818], "stop_times": [1637.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1635.818}, "reply_to": "23679__1_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__1_041", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "The plaintiffs alleged they purchased at the market price in this fraud-on-the-market case, and... and the damages are the difference between what they paid at that market price and what it should have been.\nThat is in our view an attempt to establish damages by reference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1637.014, 1643.85], "stop_times": [1643.85, 1648.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1637.014}, "reply_to": "23679__1_040", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_042", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "But they paid... they paid whether it was a market price or not.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1648.113, 1650.217], "stop_times": [1650.217, 1651.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.113}, "reply_to": "23679__1_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__1_043", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, they... they alleged they purchased on the market.\nIf... if they weren't purchasing on the market--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1651.105, 1652.916], "stop_times": [1652.916, 1654.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1651.105}, "reply_to": "23679__1_042", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_044", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Well, what they paid happens to be the market price, but... but you can't really say that the Ninth Circuit was referring to the market price as part of its... its damages.\nIts damages are what they paid.\nWhether that... if they paid above market, it would be the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1654.172, 1663.151, 1664.522], "stop_times": [1663.151, 1664.522, 1667.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1654.172}, "reply_to": "23679__1_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__1_045", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Well, in any event, we interpret it to refer to... I mean, by definition they are, in a fraud-on-the-market case, alleging that they have purchased at the market price, and that's exactly what this statute would be encompassing.\nBut beyond that, as... as Mr. Sullivan identified, Congress' explanation of how it understood loss causation, when it... when it enacted section 12(b) as part of the Reform Act, is entirely consistent with our position, and the common law is entirely consistent with our position.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1667.852, 1681.449, 1696.401], "stop_times": [1681.449, 1696.401, 1697.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1667.852}, "reply_to": "23679__1_044", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23679__1_046", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Hungar.\nMr. Coughlin.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1697.23, 1698.942], "stop_times": [1698.942, 1703.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1697.23}, "reply_to": "23679__1_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23679__2_000", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Justice Stevens, may it please the Court:\nIn answer to your question, Justice Kennedy, yes, that's what... exactly what we would do.\nWe would go back and replead, if we were required to do that, with more specificity.\nWe don't think that (9)(b) applies in this situation because both the Eleventh and the Third Circuits have held that (9)(b) only applies to the circumstances constituting fraud.\nIt has never been applied to materiality, loss causation, or damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1703.279, 1706.377, 1712.581, 1716.713, 1727.753], "stop_times": [1706.377, 1712.581, 1716.713, 1727.753, 1732.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1703.279}, "reply_to": "23679__1_046", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_001", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "But surely they wanted to have a person be able to read a complaint and just understand what it's about in a securities fraud case.\nAnd I don't see how you could understand it unless you have in the complaint what your theory is.\nThat's all.\nNobody is asking for some facts.\nIs your theory that the loss took place at the time the person bought the stock because he overpaid $30?\nIs your theory that the stock went down and, because of that, he lost the money?\nIs your theory that the stock didn't go down but it would have gone up more?\nAll they're asking is not for evidence, but a simple, clear explanation of the theory, and plead in the alternative if you want.\nBut I mean, what's the problem?\nWhy is that so hard to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1732.971, 1742.041, 1749.901, 1750.991, 1752.543, 1759.327, 1764.822, 1769.388, 1776.729, 1778.498], "stop_times": [1742.041, 1749.901, 1750.991, 1752.543, 1759.327, 1764.822, 1769.388, 1776.729, 1778.498, 1779.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1732.971}, "reply_to": "23679__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__2_002", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I don't think that's so hard to do.\nAnd you're right.\nWe have to plead the theory, and... and the theory is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1779.979, 1781.479, 1781.927], "stop_times": [1781.479, 1781.927, 1785.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1779.979}, "reply_to": "23679__2_001", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_003", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "And this case doesn't seem to do it.\nI looked through the entire complaint.\nI found exactly two paragraphs.\nI didn't.\nMy law clerk did, frankly.\n[Laughter]\nBut I told him to underline it.\nIn paragraph 179, he found the word, and it caused damage.\nOkay?\nAnd in paragraph 177, it says the same.\nThat's all he could find.\nAnd they were harmed.\nThat's what it says.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1785.206, 1786.923, 1788.543, 1790.784, 1791.363, 1792.574, 1793.103, 1794.283, 1799.894, 1800.963, 1804.064, 1805.172, 1806.692], "stop_times": [1786.923, 1788.543, 1790.784, 1791.363, 1792.574, 1793.103, 1794.283, 1799.894, 1800.963, 1804.064, 1805.172, 1806.692, 1807.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1785.206}, "reply_to": "23679__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__2_004", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--And... and you're right, Your Honor.\nThere's not much in here.\nWe plead the rises.\nThere are approximately seven rises.\nWe plead the purchases.\nWe plead the big drop.\nDo we plead with specificity?\nThe... the losses as to AlSpiros?\nNo.\nWe could have done a better job.\nUnder the Ninth Circuit, though, the law, as we pled it at the time, was that we have to plead an inflation and identify the causes.\nAnd that's what we did under Ninth Circuit law.\nIf this Court were to decide that we had to do more, could we?\nCertainly.\nI mean, we have some of the information in there.\nWe... we tie AlSpiros to the sales force, which is an announcement on 2/24.\nYou know, there's a lack of integrity in management.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1807.742, 1809.846, 1810.885, 1812.003, 1813.784, 1814.982, 1816.212, 1818.694, 1822.182, 1822.742, 1823.605, 1830.762, 1833.774, 1837.084, 1837.786, 1839.922, 1845.284], "stop_times": [1809.846, 1810.885, 1812.003, 1813.784, 1814.982, 1816.212, 1818.694, 1822.182, 1822.742, 1823.605, 1830.762, 1833.774, 1837.084, 1837.786, 1839.922, 1845.284, 1848.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1807.742}, "reply_to": "23679__2_003", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_005", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "But there's a... but there... there is a basic difference between, as was pointed out in the colloquy with Mr. Hungar... one thing is the particularity of pleadings.\nYes, you have to tell the details of the fraud.\nNo, you don't have to tell the details of the loss.\nBut you do have to have a theory on which you can recover, and if your theory is simply I bought at an inflated price and the law doesn't give you a claim for relief on that theory, then you're out the window.\nThere's no discovery.\nThere's nothing.\nYou have to have, as Justice Souter pointed out, a viable theory of relief, and that's the difference between... you say it's enough that the stock was selling for much more than it should have, and the other side said, no, that's not enough.\nYou have to show that when the misrepresentation was corrected, the price dropped.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1848.338, 1861.559, 1863.56, 1866.51, 1880.706, 1881.52, 1882.261, 1901.51], "stop_times": [1861.559, 1863.56, 1866.51, 1880.706, 1881.52, 1882.261, 1901.51, 1909.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1848.338}, "reply_to": "23679__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23679__2_006", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Your Honor, I don't think it's enough to prove that we just paid an overinflated price.\nYou cannot recover under Ninth Circuit law unless you not only prove that you paid an inflated price, but also that you prove that inflation came out.\nI think where we differ from the Government and petitioners is that it... conceptually, at least with the Government, the right framework is to analyze did the inflation come out of the stock.\nAnd our quarrel here is how can the inflation come out of the stock?\nDoes there have to be a corrective disclosure?\nAnd we say no.\nTime itself can take inflation out of the stock.\nCompany-specific information is our biggest concern.\nIf somebody walks a stock down, so to speak, they give out information lowering expectations because stock prices are based on cash flow.\nIf they walk it down and say, hey, our... we're going to have a revenue miss, but they don't announce their problems with AlSpiros at the time, or we're closing some factories, or we're taking a significant write-off, that stock drops.\nWe believe that lowers inflation.\nI think a good case to take a look at to illustrate this is the Wool v. Tandem case out of the Ninth Circuit.\nIn that case, Tandem was shipping to its own warehouses for 2 years, lying about its revenues.\nWool went out and bought the stock.\nThe stock was inflated.\nThe Wall Street Journal, subsequent to that, reported we don't see how Tandem can continue to book these revenues, and then the company itself lowered expectations in one of their SEC filings saying, hey, lower than expected revenues coming up.\nThe stock has dropped and now Wool sells.\nAnd now then after that, it's admitted that there was a fraud.\nDoes... and the stock barely drops hardly at all because the expectations in that stock have already been taken out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [1909.422, 1916.144, 1924.279, 1935.133, 1939.038, 1941.778, 1942.899, 1945.159, 1948.657, 1956.307, 1968.779, 1970.718, 1976.19, 1982.358, 1984.304, 1985.745, 2001.259, 2003.859, 2007.6], "stop_times": [1916.144, 1924.279, 1935.133, 1939.038, 1941.778, 1942.899, 1945.159, 1948.657, 1956.307, 1968.779, 1970.718, 1976.19, 1982.358, 1984.304, 1985.745, 2001.259, 2003.859, 2007.6, 2014.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1909.422}, "reply_to": "23679__2_005", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_007", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Why?\nI don't understand.\nI mean, there would be even more expectation taken out after the fraud is announced.\nI mean, it's just like saying, you know, besides... besides fact that our CEO just died, there's no gold there.\nDon't you think it would go down still further?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2014.332, 2014.819, 2015.459, 2019.119, 2026.759], "stop_times": [2014.819, 2015.459, 2019.119, 2026.759, 2028.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2014.332}, "reply_to": "23679__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_008", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Maybe and maybe not much.\nIt depends on what's your cash in the bank.\nIn this case, they had gone to the market and gotten $400 million of cash in the bank.\nSo as the expectations were lowered with the Ceclor CD sales here not once but twice and the sales force inadequacy, before it was ever announced, they knew when the FDA was coming out.\nThis is not the perfect situation.\nYou're right.\nWe could have just taken this out and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2028.546, 2030.74, 2033.104, 2037.41, 2048.594, 2050.579, 2051.094], "stop_times": [2030.74, 2033.104, 2037.41, 2048.594, 2050.579, 2051.094, 2052.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.546}, "reply_to": "23679__2_007", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_009", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "But it sounds to me as if the things you're saying now are matters for proof, and I... I think the wiggle room in the Government's position was it said it has to be disclosed to the market in some form or other.\nWell, if you're prepared to be broad and turn those over to the experts for the proof, you end up with your theory.\nThe... the inflation comes out and it comes out because they didn't get the earnings that they would have had or there may be many reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2052.636, 2063.915, 2071.196], "stop_times": [2063.915, 2071.196, 2078.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.636}, "reply_to": "23679__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__2_010", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--There's no doubt, Your Honor.\nAnd if we have to do it at the pleading stage, it would be impossible.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2078.005, 2079.396], "stop_times": [2079.396, 2083.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2078.005}, "reply_to": "23679__2_009", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_011", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, you just have to say at the pleading stage what your theory is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2083.244], "stop_times": [2084.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2083.244}, "reply_to": "23679__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__2_012", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "And... and I think we did that.\nWe said the stock was inflated and there was damage, and we could have done a better job.\nAbsolutely--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2084.973, 2086.21, 2089.612], "stop_times": [2086.21, 2089.612, 2090.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2084.973}, "reply_to": "23679__2_011", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_013", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I thought your theory was, at least as I read your brief, that your loss occurs at the moment of purchase, not at some later time, that when you bought the stock, the price was inflated and that's when you suffered your loss, on the day of the purchase, not at a later time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2090.645], "stop_times": [2111.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2090.645}, "reply_to": "23679__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23679__2_014", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--That's absolutely correct.\nWe believe that you suffer your loss and damages on the date you make the purchase.\nOn the day--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2111.267, 2112.275, 2116.847], "stop_times": [2112.275, 2116.847, 2117.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.267}, "reply_to": "23679__2_013", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_015", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "How can you reconcile that with your concession that if the person who... who buys it at an inflated price turns around 2 days later and sells it at that same inflated price, he cannot bring suit?\nYou would not allow recovery in that situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2117.34, 2131.652], "stop_times": [2131.652, 2133.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.34}, "reply_to": "23679__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_016", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Would not allow recovery in that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2133.093], "stop_times": [2134.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2133.093}, "reply_to": "23679__2_015", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_017", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "How... how can you reconcile that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2134.269], "stop_times": [2135.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2134.269}, "reply_to": "23679__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_018", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Because those--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2135.514], "stop_times": [2135.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2135.514}, "reply_to": "23679__2_017", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_019", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--with the notion that the loss occurred at the time your purchased?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2135.914], "stop_times": [2138.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2135.914}, "reply_to": "23679__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_020", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Justice Scalia, because those are... what we're talking about are recoverable damages, and then there's a limitation from section 28.\nIn other words, all the cause of action was satisfied on the date you overpay.\nThe day you pay $100 for a stock that's worth $50, you're out the $50, the economy is out the $50 because it's not working market.\nBut you cannot recover, we would agree, until later.\nAnd the problem with analyzing that at the pleading stage is that is the... that is expert analysis and discovery to connect up how... how the losses came out and what you can recover.\nSo I agree with you that you cannot recover that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2138.825, 2146.055, 2150.225, 2157.866, 2161.731, 2173.268], "stop_times": [2146.055, 2150.225, 2157.866, 2161.731, 2173.268, 2176.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2138.825}, "reply_to": "23679__2_019", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_021", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "They're saying there's no losses.\nI mean, that's... it's inconsistent how the losses come out.\nYou just told us the loss occurs, bang, when you buy it.\nYou've gotten stock that really isn't worth what you paid for it, the notion of... of worth as some... you know, some objective thing rather than what... what people are willing to pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2176.572, 2177.118, 2179.313, 2182.453], "stop_times": [2177.118, 2179.313, 2182.453, 2193.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2176.572}, "reply_to": "23679__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_022", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2193.053], "stop_times": [2194.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2193.053}, "reply_to": "23679__2_021", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_023", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "But that's your theory and it seems to me you're stuck with it.\nAnd if that theory is true, then it shouldn't matter that you later sell it to some other poor, unsuspecting individual for the same amount you bought it for.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2194.08, 2196.208], "stop_times": [2196.208, 2203.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2194.08}, "reply_to": "23679__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_024", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--It doesn't matter for that plaintiff if they sell it to a poor... somebody unexpected.\nFor example, Fannie Mae just publicly, a couple of weeks ago, found out they bought $300 million worth of bonds, and they... they found out about a fraud.\nThey sold it and got fined by the Government because they heard about the fraud and sold it back into the market to recoup their losses or back through their broker.\nThat's... that's not okay.\nThat's just one outrageous example.\nBut somebody ends up with that stock that's inflated.\nOkay?\nAnd when you make the purchase.\nWe agree we have to show the inflation come out before recovery, and... and 90 percent of the time--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2203.658, 2207.559, 2215.063, 2222.038, 2223.866, 2225.9, 2228.719, 2229.449, 2230.298], "stop_times": [2207.559, 2215.063, 2222.038, 2223.866, 2225.9, 2228.719, 2229.449, 2230.298, 2237.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2203.658}, "reply_to": "23679__2_023", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_025", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "You have to show what before recovery?\nYou have to show?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2237.418, 2239.328], "stop_times": [2239.328, 2240.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.418}, "reply_to": "23679__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_026", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--The inflation came out of the stock.\nIn other words, if you pay $100 for a stock that's worth $50, it's inflated by $50.\nYou don't recover that $50 until you show that $50 inflation came out of the stock.\nIt can come out a number of ways.\nLet's say, for example, that somebody announced a competitive product.\nWell, that would take some of the inflation.\nThat would be a market factor that would take some of the inflation out of your false statement that you had a product, the AlSpiros product.\nThere are different ways inflation can come out besides a corrective disclosure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2240.061, 2241.315, 2246.784, 2251.66, 2253.403, 2257.305, 2259.498, 2266.154], "stop_times": [2241.315, 2246.784, 2251.66, 2253.403, 2257.305, 2259.498, 2266.154, 2270.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2240.061}, "reply_to": "23679__2_025", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_027", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Yes, but if you've got to show the inflation, then you don't have a complete cause of action the day after you buy the stock if there's no loss.\nI mean, if you've got to show the... the drop following the inflation, you don't have the complete cause of action if there's no drop the day after you buy the stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2270.393, 2276.593], "stop_times": [2276.593, 2284.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2270.393}, "reply_to": "23679__2_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__2_028", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "That's what they're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2284.194], "stop_times": [2284.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2284.194}, "reply_to": "23679__2_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_029", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "You can only recover--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2284.991], "stop_times": [2285.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2284.991}, "reply_to": "23679__2_028", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_030", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "To me your... your--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2285.927], "stop_times": [2286.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2285.927}, "reply_to": "23679__2_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_031", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--You can only recover if that inflation is taken out of the stock.\nThose are recoverable damages under Ninth Circuit law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2286.307, 2289.696], "stop_times": [2289.696, 2291.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2286.307}, "reply_to": "23679__2_030", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_032", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "No, but I... I thought you were conceding that you... you, in fact, do not have a... a loss... forget what you can recover... that you don't have a loss until the inflation is followed by a drop.\nAnd if there's no drop at the... at time of purchase plus 1 minute, then I don't see how there is even the element of a cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2291.706, 2303.266], "stop_times": [2303.266, 2313.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2291.706}, "reply_to": "23679__2_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__2_033", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I... I believe that the day you overpay something, just like in the Sigafus, just in the... in the Bolles case, both of them had to do with gold mines--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2313.776], "stop_times": [2321.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2313.776}, "reply_to": "23679__2_032", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_034", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Then you're talking about a cause of action without damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2321.432], "stop_times": [2323.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2321.432}, "reply_to": "23679__2_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__2_035", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--You may not have recoverable damages.\nThat is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2323.907, 2327.536], "stop_times": [2327.536, 2328.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2323.907}, "reply_to": "23679__2_034", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_036", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "If you have no damages, you have no cause... I mean, on normal tort theory, you have no cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2328.497], "stop_times": [2333.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2328.497}, "reply_to": "23679__2_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__2_037", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I understand, and I think you have $50 worth of damages right there.\nAnd our concern is what you have to prove--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2333.116, 2336.857], "stop_times": [2336.857, 2339.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2333.116}, "reply_to": "23679__2_036", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_038", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, that's exactly what we're debating, I suppose, that very point.\nAnd... and it's hard to justify, under this statute, finding a cause of action before there's any damage or if there isn't any.\nThat's... that's just very hard to understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2339.03, 2344.097, 2353.136], "stop_times": [2344.097, 2353.136, 2355.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.03}, "reply_to": "23679__2_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23679__2_039", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--In the most complex frauds, a... a company is reporting revenue and earnings and their stock is, let's say, trading at $60 a share.\nPerhaps, because of fraud, it's overstated by $30.\nThere are people in the market buying that stock at $60.\nThat company starts to lower those expectations.\nThis happens to be a real world example, Worldcom.\nThey say we're going to miss revenues by $172 million.\nThe stock starts dropping down.\nThe inflation that was in that stock because of what they lied about starts coming out.\nNobody knows there's fraud.\nNobody understands that.\nIn fact, it's not until that stock goes down at 80 cents that there was an admission of fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2355.111, 2362.679, 2366.857, 2369.676, 2372.187, 2375.356, 2379.116, 2380.501, 2385.421, 2387.048, 2389.002], "stop_times": [2362.679, 2366.857, 2369.676, 2372.187, 2375.356, 2379.116, 2380.501, 2385.421, 2387.048, 2389.002, 2394.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2355.111}, "reply_to": "23679__2_038", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_040", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "All right.\nBut then you're not saying what I think Justice Scalia and I actually thought you were going to say which is that the minute he pays $60 for a stock that should be worth $30 but is $60 because of the lie, at that instant he suffered a loss.\nAfter listening to you, I now think you're saying... but I'm not sure because I've heard you say things that are... both... I now think you're saying, no, he has not suffered a loss until later on when that $30 comes out of the price of the stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2394.958, 2395.158, 2411.819], "stop_times": [2395.158, 2411.819, 2431.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2394.958}, "reply_to": "23679__2_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__2_041", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--And that's worrying me too.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2431.251], "stop_times": [2432.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2431.251}, "reply_to": "23679__2_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_042", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "It might come out in many different ways.\nIt could come out because he announces I'm a liar.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2432.337, 2434.303], "stop_times": [2434.303, 2436.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2432.337}, "reply_to": "23679__2_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__2_043", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2436.86], "stop_times": [2437.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2436.86}, "reply_to": "23679__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_044", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "It could come out because he doesn't say anything but it sort of oozes out as earning reports come in, but it has to come out.\nNow, if you're saying that, then I find what you're saying consistent what I think Judge Posner said.\nAnd that's really what I'm interested in because I read what he said.\nIt seemed to me right.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2437.317, 2445.021, 2451.637, 2455.206, 2457.077], "stop_times": [2445.021, 2451.637, 2455.206, 2457.077, 2457.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2437.317}, "reply_to": "23679__2_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__2_045", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I certainly don't want to be disagreeing with Judge Posner.\nSo I--\n[Laughter]\nThe other--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2457.355, 2459.446, 2459.696, 2460.396], "stop_times": [2459.446, 2459.696, 2460.396, 2461.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2457.355}, "reply_to": "23679__2_044", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_046", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I think... I think you're... I think you're agreeing with the petitioners.\nI think this... this whole thing is a great misunderstanding.\nYou... you didn't--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2461.341, 2464.168, 2466.542, 2467.523], "stop_times": [2464.168, 2466.542, 2467.523, 2468.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2461.341}, "reply_to": "23679__2_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_047", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--I would agree with that, Your Honor.\nThat's just... we come to the same conclusion.\nThere is no doubt about that.\nWe come to the same conclusion.\nWe have to prove that that inflation was in there when we prove it.\nAnd what we're talking about is what the burden is going to be on us at the pleading, and that's what we're concerned about.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2468.022, 2469.902, 2474.483, 2475.931, 2477.032, 2479.821], "stop_times": [2469.902, 2474.483, 2475.931, 2477.032, 2479.821, 2484.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2468.022}, "reply_to": "23679__2_046", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_048", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--When we have this happy agreement and if you'll agree, you at least have to prove what you... you have to plead what you intend to do, that is, you have to plead and there was a loss and this is my theory.\nI would like to know... maybe we won't get beyond this, but in looking at this, I wondered now suppose that the stock goes up in value because of extraneous things.\nCan you recover because it would have been still higher?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2484.781, 2495.062, 2505.242], "stop_times": [2495.062, 2505.242, 2510.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2484.781}, "reply_to": "23679__2_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__2_049", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Justice Breyer, I think the Government says that we can recover.\nWe believe that we could recover.\nIn other words, it didn't go up as high.\nI think it is... as Justice Ginsburg said, it's the same difference.\nYou lost $50 whether you lost it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2510.42, 2513.103, 2514.532, 2515.723, 2519.128], "stop_times": [2513.103, 2514.532, 2515.723, 2519.128, 2521.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2510.42}, "reply_to": "23679__2_048", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_050", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "What happens with the transaction causation?\nBecause I think you'd probably say with your transaction causation in the... in the case that the... that the lie wasn't there, we wouldn't have bought the stock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2521.333, 2524.272], "stop_times": [2524.272, 2536.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2521.333}, "reply_to": "23679__2_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__2_051", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2536.663], "stop_times": [2538.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2536.663}, "reply_to": "23679__2_050", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_052", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "All right.\nIf you say that, they come along and say, okay, you wouldn't have bought the stock.\nI'll tell you, here's one bad thing happened.\nYou lost your $30.\nBut there were six good things that happened that you never thought of, and so the stocks were four times what it would have been and you'd never have those gains, just as you'd never have the losses.\nHow does that factor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2538.074, 2538.625, 2543.184, 2545.593, 2546.977, 2556.582], "stop_times": [2538.625, 2543.184, 2545.593, 2546.977, 2556.582, 2557.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2538.074}, "reply_to": "23679__2_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__2_053", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, I dream to have those clients that gain four times, but since we don't usually have those and it is the drops that we're really talking about.\nThe but-for transaction, when they say, hey, and... and you buy it, and then it goes up, and then you learn about the fraud... and I'm assuming that there's no drop but you can prove that the inflation was there and never came out, and can you prove that it should have gone to $250?\nYou know?\nI'd have to prove that it went to $250.\nI agree with you.\nYou know, I would agree with you that, you know, that I'd get an expert.\nMr. Fischel would come in and testify that it should have been worth $250.\nAnd that's what, you know, would happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2557.952, 2563.874, 2580.115, 2580.563, 2582.603, 2583.487, 2588.17, 2592.028], "stop_times": [2563.874, 2580.115, 2580.563, 2582.603, 2583.487, 2588.17, 2592.028, 2594.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2557.952}, "reply_to": "23679__2_052", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_054", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "But there's a problem.\nTake the concrete facts of this case.\nThe bad news about... what is it?\nAlbuterol?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2594.767, 2595.969, 2598.655, 2604.847], "stop_times": [2595.969, 2598.655, 2604.847, 2606.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.767}, "reply_to": "23679__2_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23679__2_055", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "AlSpiros.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2606.375], "stop_times": [2606.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2606.375}, "reply_to": "23679__2_054", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_056", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Yes.\nThat bad news didn't come out until 9 months after the end of the period that you identify for your class.\nYou say the class is April 15th, '97 until February 24th, '98 purchases.\nThe bad news doesn't come out until November of '98.\nSo how could you possibly hook up your loss to the news that comes out later?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2606.843, 2607.531, 2616.35, 2623.063, 2626.983], "stop_times": [2607.531, 2616.35, 2623.063, 2626.983, 2637.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2606.843}, "reply_to": "23679__2_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23679__2_057", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "If... if we move to the proof stage, the people that purchased in the class period and sold before that announcement will not be able to recover that 20 cent drop at the end.\nPeople who purchased during the class period and held until all of the inflation was taken out by either final announcement from the FDA or when they announced they were abandoning the product would be able to recover from that inflation because all of the inflation was taken out as to AlSpiros.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2637.534, 2647.343], "stop_times": [2647.343, 2662.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2637.534}, "reply_to": "23679__2_056", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_058", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I... I thought that you were trying to pick up on the drop that seemed to be attributable to the other--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2662.77], "stop_times": [2669.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2662.77}, "reply_to": "23679__2_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23679__2_059", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Product, Ceclor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2669.908], "stop_times": [2671.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2669.908}, "reply_to": "23679__2_058", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_060", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Yes, and that's what... well, there... there are two frauds going on.\nThe first one is discovered and the price drops substantially.\nAnd I thought you were trying to attribute that drop to the other product.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2671.108, 2677.248, 2683.499], "stop_times": [2677.248, 2683.499, 2691.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2671.108}, "reply_to": "23679__2_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23679__2_061", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "There... there are some things in that drop attributable to the other product.\nThe sales force insufficiency, as well as management integrity, and there are some other things that weren't pleaded well.\nFirst of all, we were being conservative when we pled this and we pled the rises.\nWe pled the insider sales.\nWe pled the stock offerings.\nAnd all the statements were in that earlier period.\nThey make the announcement.\nThe stock starts down, 50 percent drop.\nIt's walked down another 40 percent after that.\nFinally, you get the FDA announcement.\nAnd we certainly could have, and... and maybe should have, taken that period out right then.\nThe district court ended up having problems with it.\nThe Ninth Circuit, in their questionings... Judge Reinhardt had problems with the... with that.\nAnd they gave us leave to replead, and we told them at that time if that's what we need to do, is tie that in also, if that's a loss that we intend to recover for or seek recovery for, then we'll do that and we'll go back to replead.\nIf there are statute of limitations, that's a different issue, but we can plead that and could have.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2691.6, 2695.529, 2702.668, 2707.249, 2708.369, 2709.569, 2711.868, 2713.276, 2715.653, 2718.166, 2720.611, 2727.127, 2729.819, 2734.623, 2747.823], "stop_times": [2695.529, 2702.668, 2707.249, 2708.369, 2709.569, 2711.868, 2713.276, 2715.653, 2718.166, 2720.611, 2727.127, 2729.819, 2734.623, 2747.823, 2753.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2691.6}, "reply_to": "23679__2_060", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_062", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, one of the problems for me is the Ninth Circuit seems to think that it has a theory... and it is the theory of your complaint... that's different from, say, the Third Circuit.\nThe Ninth Circuit says we recognize that the loss is you bought it at an inflated price, and the Ninth Circuit thinks that's different from a circuit that says you don't have any loss until somehow the bad news comes out and there's a drop in price as a result.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2753.131, 2764.612], "stop_times": [2764.612, 2785.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2753.131}, "reply_to": "23679__2_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23679__2_063", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I wish that the circuit said if the bad news came out, but the Koger case and... and emergent out of the Second Circuit seem a little stronger and talk about almost the only way it can happen is with a corrective disclosure.\nAnd that's... and that's a concern of ours.\nThe Ninth Circuit law is pretty clear, is very clear actually, with the three cases, Blackie, Green, Judge Sneed in the Green v. Occidental case, and the Wool case, saying that the loss occurs at the time of purchase and overpayment, but recoverable damages--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2785.411, 2798.062, 2801.1], "stop_times": [2798.062, 2801.1, 2815.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.411}, "reply_to": "23679__2_062", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_064", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, that may be clear but it may be clearly wrong.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2815.872, 2818.537], "stop_times": [2818.537, 2820.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2815.872}, "reply_to": "23679__2_063", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23679__2_065", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--That... it... it... I understand that, Your Honor.\nI'm hoping that it's not clearly wrong.\nIt's been on the books for 30 years.\nIt was the law.\nIt was the law on the books at the time that this was codified.\nThere was no real or perceived conflict in the circuits at the time this was codified.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2820.007, 2823.672, 2825.413, 2826.887, 2827.822, 2830.611], "stop_times": [2823.672, 2825.413, 2826.887, 2827.822, 2830.611, 2835.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2820.007}, "reply_to": "23679__2_064", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_066", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, I... I thought that Judge Sneed recognized that if the stock was sold before any loss was incurred, even if there's been a misrepresentation, recovery should be denied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2835.79], "stop_times": [2847.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2835.79}, "reply_to": "23679__2_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23679__2_067", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2847.609], "stop_times": [2848.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2847.609}, "reply_to": "23679__2_066", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_068", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2848.622], "stop_times": [2849.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2848.622}, "reply_to": "23679__2_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23679__2_069", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "That's absolutely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2849.153], "stop_times": [2850.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2849.153}, "reply_to": "23679__2_068", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_070", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "That's not what the Ninth Circuit said in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2850.71], "stop_times": [2852.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.71}, "reply_to": "23679__2_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23679__2_071", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "The Ninth Circuit didn't... it cited... it cited the Green v. Occidental opinion and the Blackie I believe.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2852.338], "stop_times": [2858.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2852.338}, "reply_to": "23679__2_070", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_072", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "But I'm submitting it cited it for the wrong conclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2858.925], "stop_times": [2862.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2858.925}, "reply_to": "23679__2_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23679__2_073", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I... I think it... I think it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2862.173], "stop_times": [2865.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2862.173}, "reply_to": "23679__2_072", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_074", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "It cited... I thought cited Knapp and... which, in turn, cited Gray or... or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2865.258], "stop_times": [2872.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2865.258}, "reply_to": "23679__2_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_075", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--There are all the appendants.\nThere's... there's the three that started off.\nKnapp is the ATV case that we tried, and that was Judge Wallace and he relied on Gray.\nAll of them are the same in that you have to... to get by the pleading stage, that you have to plead the inflation and identify the causes for it.\nIt's for proof and expert testimony and discovery to see if you have recoverable damages.\nIf this Court were to say, no, we want identifiable drops, then we could do that.\nYou know, if this Court were to say, listen, you've got to identify the drops, whether they... whether you can connect them up to the fraud at this time, we want a full theory in the complaint... and we can do that.\nIf that's what the... if that's what this Court directs us to do, then we'll do that and we'll put in all the losses, as well as the rises, as well as identifying the causes.\nYou know, we'll do that in... in the complaints.\nSometimes what... what we're saying and where we differ a little bit from the Government is it's hard to necessarily tie one of those innocuous disclosures that may be taking the inflation out back to the misrepresentation, and yet the stock is dropping and inflation is coming out.\nAnd that's what we're worried about.\nAnd there are other market forces that may take it out.\nSo at the pleading stage, we're worried about the burden that almost puts us in... in the position of having an expert come in, and we think that's for a later time for summary judgment or trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2872.66, 2873.609, 2876.219, 2883.945, 2894.63, 2900.389, 2905.719, 2917.543, 2926.689, 2929.409, 2944.838, 2946.262, 2948.718], "stop_times": [2873.609, 2876.219, 2883.945, 2894.63, 2900.389, 2905.719, 2917.543, 2926.689, 2929.409, 2944.838, 2946.262, 2948.718, 2959.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2872.66}, "reply_to": "23679__2_074", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_076", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--I mean, if you're worried about it, why aren't you worried about it later, as well as earlier?\nI mean, if that's going to be a problem, we should know it sooner rather than later, rather than... you know.\nIf you say that's terribly difficult to prove, we can hardly ever prove it, well, good.\nThen let's get rid of this... rid of the case earlier.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2959.863, 2963.109, 2969.32, 2973.555], "stop_times": [2963.109, 2969.32, 2973.555, 2976.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2959.863}, "reply_to": "23679__2_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_077", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I don't think I said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2976.185], "stop_times": [2977.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2976.185}, "reply_to": "23679__2_076", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_078", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I don't... I don't know why... why it's desirable not to include that at the pleading stage.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2977.471], "stop_times": [2980.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2977.471}, "reply_to": "23679__2_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_079", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--I don't think I said that that was difficult or hard to prove.\nI said it was difficult or hard to plead.\nIt is difficult and hard to plead, and... and to tie that... those inflationary things back up because you only get to recover... you only get to recover for things that took the inflation out.\nI mean, if the stock drops... let's say... let's say the stock drops $60 or $50, and where he paid $60, it drops down to $10.\nBut half of that... half of that drop is unrelated to the fraud absolutely.\nWell, under a 10(b) cause of action, you don't get to recover for that market loss.\nWe have to tie... that's why Judge Sneed in Occidental... in Green v. Occidental tied it right to the overpayment because Judge Sneed was worried about... about the issuers being insurers for the market.\nIn other words, if the stock... if... if a down market takes the stock way past what you paid over inflation, defendants should not be liable for the whole market loss as they might in a section 33 case.\nAnd that's really what the... what the point is, to fix the loss.\nThat's why Judge Sneed fixed the loss at the date of overpayment because Judge Sneed didn't want somebody coming in and saying, hey, you paid $60 for a stock that was really worth $30.\nWhen you brought suit, the stock was down at $10.\nDo you get to pay... do you get $50?\nAnd Judge Sneed said no.\nYou only get the overpayment on the date.\nAdmittedly in up or down markets, what petitioners and the Government would suggest might move the damages up or down.\nIn an up market... you know, we're talking about something that was going down here.\nIn an up market, you might get a bigger drop.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [2980.53, 2983.261, 2985.479, 2996.192, 3004.43, 3009.011, 3014.24, 3027.319, 3041.381, 3046.391, 3056.651, 3059.291, 3062.321, 3063.82, 3067.021, 3075.771, 3079.141], "stop_times": [2983.261, 2985.479, 2996.192, 3004.43, 3009.011, 3014.24, 3027.319, 3041.381, 3046.391, 3056.651, 3059.291, 3062.321, 3063.82, 3067.021, 3075.771, 3079.141, 3081.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2980.53}, "reply_to": "23679__2_078", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_080", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "But that's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3081.48], "stop_times": [3082.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3081.48}, "reply_to": "23679__2_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__2_081", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "That's why the term loss causation is used because under the statute it's... it's a loss experienced by the plaintiff caused by the misrepresentation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3082.146], "stop_times": [3094.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3082.146}, "reply_to": "23679__2_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23679__2_082", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Justice O'Connor, I... I couldn't agree more, and that's why it goes to proof.\nIt says this is a proof statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3094.865, 3099.126], "stop_times": [3099.126, 3101.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3094.865}, "reply_to": "23679__2_081", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_083", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3101.059], "stop_times": [3101.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3101.059}, "reply_to": "23679__2_082", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23679__2_084", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3101.75], "stop_times": [3102.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3101.75}, "reply_to": "23679__2_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__2_085", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--I agree.\nIt has to be alleged.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3102.203, 3103.171], "stop_times": [3103.171, 3104.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3102.203}, "reply_to": "23679__2_084", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_086", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--The Government said you don't want unnecessary discovery.\nYou have to put out pleadings that make clear what your theory is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3104.094, 3108.87], "stop_times": [3108.87, 3114.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3104.094}, "reply_to": "23679__2_085", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23679__2_087", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "There's no doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3114.253], "stop_times": [3115.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3114.253}, "reply_to": "23679__2_086", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_088", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--which yours don't do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3115.008], "stop_times": [3116.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3115.008}, "reply_to": "23679__2_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23679__2_089", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "They don't do well enough in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3116.13], "stop_times": [3119.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3116.13}, "reply_to": "23679__2_088", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_090", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "No, but what... it seems to me that what Judge Sneed's theory boils down to is this.\nYou cannot recover any loss except the loss that was caused by the fraud in question.\nIn theory, that limit is established by the inflation at the time you purchase.\nSo that is the limit of your recovery, but it does not follow from that that you have anything to recover for until you have your actual loss if you're pleading a... a fraud-on-the-market theory.\nIsn't that fair to say?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3119.395, 3123.177, 3132.266, 3142.016, 3156.594], "stop_times": [3123.177, 3132.266, 3142.016, 3156.594, 3157.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3119.395}, "reply_to": "23679__2_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__2_091", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "That's fair to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3157.98], "stop_times": [3158.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3157.98}, "reply_to": "23679__2_090", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_092", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3158.685], "stop_times": [3159.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3158.685}, "reply_to": "23679__2_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__2_093", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I agree with that, Your Honor.\nThat is... that's exactly what... that's exactly what Judge Sneed did.\nAnd when we were talking about this statute here, it talks about us proving those... that loss causation and tying it to the actual omissions.\nAnd it follows two sections that deal with pleading, material... deal with particularized pleading as to falsity and as to scienter.\nAnd this statute says that if you don't plead one or two with the particularity required, then the complaint shall be dismissed.\nThis section here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3159.436, 3160.117, 3165.583, 3173.899, 3182.966, 3191.225], "stop_times": [3160.117, 3165.583, 3173.899, 3182.966, 3191.225, 3192.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3159.436}, "reply_to": "23679__2_092", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_094", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "So... so... I'm not sure I understand what... I'm... I'm really coming to believe that this is a misunderstanding.\nIt seems to me you're now saying that the loss does not occur when you make the purchase.\nIt is just that that is the limit on your loss, the difference between what the stock would have cost you had the... the absence of gold been known and what you actually paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3192.677, 3198.46, 3205.58], "stop_times": [3198.46, 3205.58, 3221.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3192.677}, "reply_to": "23679__2_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_095", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--It's the limit on your loss.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3221.633], "stop_times": [3223.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3221.633}, "reply_to": "23679__2_094", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_096", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "But that is not your loss.\nYou're saying now the loss has to occur later when the price goes down and you're thereby harmed.\nIs that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3223.196, 3225.45, 3233.501], "stop_times": [3225.45, 3233.501, 3233.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3223.196}, "reply_to": "23679__2_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_097", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "No.\nI apologize if I haven't been clear.\nThe loss occurs at the time you purchase, but you cannot recover any portion of the loss until the inflation is taken out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3233.953, 3234.347, 3235.835], "stop_times": [3234.347, 3235.835, 3245.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3233.953}, "reply_to": "23679__2_096", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_098", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "But the... let's approach it a different way.\nOn a fraud-on-the-market theory, there are two facts I think that can be assumed.\nNumber one, there was no misrepresentation that was made peculiarly to you.\nThe misrepresentation was to the broad market and was reflected in the broad market price.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3245.141, 3247.31, 3253.152, 3258.921], "stop_times": [3247.31, 3253.152, 3258.921, 3264.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3245.141}, "reply_to": "23679__2_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__2_099", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3264.227], "stop_times": [3264.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3264.227}, "reply_to": "23679__2_098", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_100", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Number two, you as a purchaser do not know about the fraud until the market finds out about the fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3264.768], "stop_times": [3275.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3264.768}, "reply_to": "23679__2_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__2_101", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3275.125], "stop_times": [3276.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3275.125}, "reply_to": "23679__2_100", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_102", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "If that is the case, then I don't see that it makes any sense at all to talk about your having a cause of action the day after you purchase before the market has found out and before the fraud is known.\nI mean, this... this strikes me as an exercise in... in an inconsistent theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3276.414, 3290.233], "stop_times": [3290.233, 3294.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3276.414}, "reply_to": "23679__2_101", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__2_103", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "And here's why it matters, if I might, is that what petitioners and perhaps the Government would say is that you're right.\nYou don't find out about the fraud until the whole market finds out.\nBut before you find out about the fraud, there can be terrific drops in the stock, which we think we could prove are related to the fraud.\nOkay?\nBecause we've had certainly a market loss to what we paid.\nThe stock has dropped down.\nWe don't know about fraud yet.\nAll of a sudden, there's a disclosure of fraud, and we all learn about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3294.753, 3302.574, 3306.244, 3313.235, 3313.955, 3318.087, 3319.07, 3320.674], "stop_times": [3302.574, 3306.244, 3313.235, 3313.955, 3318.087, 3319.07, 3320.674, 3324.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3294.753}, "reply_to": "23679__2_102", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_104", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "You don't know about it, but the market knows about it.\nThat's... that's why the stock has gone down.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3324.493, 3326.617], "stop_times": [3326.617, 3328.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3324.493}, "reply_to": "23679__2_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23679__2_105", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Not necessarily, Your Honor.\nIn other words, you can lower expectations by lower revenue numbers.\nOther market forces like a competitor coming out with a product.\nThere are other things that can lower that.\nI'm sorry.\nAnd when it gets down there, the rule that we fear is being urged is that you only get the drop from either the admission of the fraud or the full disclosure of the fraud, and in the complex cases, the Enrons, the Worldcoms, the Healthsouths of the world, that didn't happen even until long after they were in bankruptcy.\nAnd if we only get the drop, the $3 drop at the end, or the 80 cents to 50 cents that the Government just returned $750 million to in the Worldcom, with every large institution in the country already out of that stock, well, then those that were sought to be protected by the Reform Act aren't.\nWe have to be able to plead certainly... and... and we can... the... the market moving down.\nAnd then that's at the pleading stage, a plain 8(a) statement.\nAnd then we have to prove and tie that back up to get damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3328.575, 3329.545, 3332.953, 3335.604, 3337.284, 3337.645, 3358.935, 3378.272, 3385.434, 3390.764], "stop_times": [3329.545, 3332.953, 3335.604, 3337.284, 3337.645, 3358.935, 3378.272, 3385.434, 3390.764, 3395.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3328.575}, "reply_to": "23679__2_104", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_106", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I thought that that's what the Government was getting at in the passage I read earlier where they don't make it... there must be a statement by the issuer of the correction.\nThey have more leeway.\nBut you... the Ninth Circuit... the litany that it's using, the... the set of cases... for example, plaintiffs were harmed when they paid more for the stock than it was worth.\nThe... the notion that's repeated, that your loss is established on the day you purchase the price, that's just wrong, and I think we would have to at a minimum say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3395.898, 3406.673, 3408.935, 3426.807], "stop_times": [3406.673, 3408.935, 3426.807, 3440.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3395.898}, "reply_to": "23679__2_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23679__2_107", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "I... I don't agree with that, Your Honor.\nI agree with the Ninth Circuit that you suffer the loss of overpayment.\nYou have something in your hand that's worth half as much as its true value.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3440.704, 3443.207, 3445.783], "stop_times": [3443.207, 3445.783, 3450.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3440.704}, "reply_to": "23679__2_106", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_108", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "You... you seem--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3450.253], "stop_times": [3451.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3450.253}, "reply_to": "23679__2_107", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23679__2_109", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Can you recover?\nIs it like the UCC where you've got to mitigate your damages?\nYou cannot recover those damages even though you've suffered them.\nYou have a stock certificate that's worth half of what it's worth even in an efficient market.\nAnd when the truth comes out, that's true, you'll be damaged, and if you sell it before then, you get no recovery.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3451.64, 3452.118, 3455.332, 3458.743, 3463.43], "stop_times": [3452.118, 3455.332, 3458.743, 3463.43, 3468.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3451.64}, "reply_to": "23679__2_108", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_110", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "But aren't... aren't you... aren't you, in... in effect, equating two different things: one, a loss that you suffer which you say occurs immediately upon purchase of the inflated stock; and on the other hand, a limit on the loss that is attributable to the fraud?\nThose are two different things.\nI understand the limit on the loss.\nI don't understand the... the suffering of the loss in fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3468.617, 3487.677, 3490.019, 3492.137], "stop_times": [3487.677, 3490.019, 3492.137, 3496.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3468.617}, "reply_to": "23679__2_109", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23679__2_111", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I think that that's an interesting statement because if the limit is... let's say for a $100 stock that's worth $50 and you overpay by $50, let's say that's the limit of our loss, even if the stock--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3496.309], "stop_times": [3507.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3496.309}, "reply_to": "23679__2_110", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_112", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Mr.... Mr. Coughlin, I'm afraid you've had a full opportunity to explain this very difficult case.\nYou'll have to... your time is up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3507.615, 3511.555], "stop_times": [3511.555, 3513.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3507.615}, "reply_to": "23679__2_111", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23679__2_113", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--Thank you, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3513.296], "stop_times": [3514.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3513.296}, "reply_to": "23679__2_112", "speaker": "patrick_j_coughlin"}
{"id": "23679__2_114", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Mr. Sullivan, you have 2 minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3514.373], "stop_times": [3516.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3514.373}, "reply_to": "23679__2_113", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23679__3_000", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nOne point I think I want to focus upon for the... for the Court is... is the comment in the Senate report which said that the damages had to be a result of the cause... the... the misrepresentation, not other factors.\nI think what we've just heard about, in terms of the decline in the market value, is... is a look at a number of the other factors.\nAnd there are disclosures that are related to fraud and there are disclosures that are not related to fraud.\nAnd if there was a misrepresentation in the marketplace, that... that is one thing.\nIf a new competitor comes out with a new product, that's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3516.135, 3519.355, 3536.015, 3543.085, 3546.995, 3550.91], "stop_times": [3519.355, 3536.015, 3543.085, 3546.995, 3550.91, 3554.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3516.135}, "reply_to": "23679__2_114", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__3_001", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "What's the problem here?\nHe... I mean, well, you heard what he said.\nAnd it sounded to me that he agrees with you he has to prove that in fact the fraud not only led to the overpayment, but that also later on the client who bought the stock lost money because the market went down, and that default, which cost him the money, is caused by the fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3554.646, 3555.647, 3557.275], "stop_times": [3555.647, 3557.275, 3578.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3554.646}, "reply_to": "23679__3_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__3_002", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--And... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3578.355], "stop_times": [3579.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3578.355}, "reply_to": "23679__3_001", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__3_003", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "When it comes out, it just comes out in subtle ways as well as direct ways.\nNow, do you agree with that?\nIf they... if you do, it seems to me there's no case here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3579.723, 3582.92, 3584.074], "stop_times": [3582.92, 3584.074, 3586.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3579.723}, "reply_to": "23679__3_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__3_004", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--I would... I would agree with you and... and I would just--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3586.301], "stop_times": [3588.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3586.301}, "reply_to": "23679__3_003", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__3_005", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Where do you disagree?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3588.982], "stop_times": [3589.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3588.982}, "reply_to": "23679__3_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23679__3_006", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "--I would just add... I don't disagree.\nI would add that the cause is not by other factors because I think when we heard the discussion about the... the reduction of inflation, we were hearing about factors other than that.\nI just want to close by saying the loss causation codification in the Reform Act was meaningful and was part of the Reform Act.\nAnd that really indicates that this is a pleading standard that we... we... we're dealing with, that the cause of action for a securities fraud has to be stated at the time.\nAnd that's consistent with what the Reform Act was trying to achieve which is to give the defendants a chance to respond and actually have the motion to dismiss serve as a meaningful screen in dealing with those cases.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3589.592, 3591.356, 3599.536, 3607.381, 3615.857, 3626.128], "stop_times": [3591.356, 3599.536, 3607.381, 3615.857, 3626.128, 3627.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3589.592}, "reply_to": "23679__3_005", "speaker": "william_f_sullivan"}
{"id": "23679__3_007", "conversation_id": "23679", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-932", "start_times": [3627.477, 3628.792], "stop_times": [3628.792, 3629.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3627.477}, "reply_to": "23679__3_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__0_000", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "We will now hear argument in two different cases: Exxon Mobil against Allapattah and Ortega against Star-Kist Foods.\nMr. Phillips.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [0.0, 11.6], "stop_times": [11.6, 16.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__0_001", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThis Court 32 years ago in Zahn v. International Paper affirmed that a class action could not proceed under 28 U.S.C., section 1332, the diversity statute, if it was clear that some of the unnamed members of that class do not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement.\nThe question in this case is whether Congress in 1990 overturned this Court's ruling in Zahn and its interpretation of section 1332 not by amending section 1332 but, instead, by enacting a supplemental jurisdiction statute, section 1367.\nThe answer to that question, Your Honors, is no.\nPlaintiffs in the lower courts that have felt constrained to conclude that the language of section 1367 requires the conclusion that Zahn and, candidly, also this Court's decision in Strawbridge were overruled by 1367 do so by gliding past the express language in 1367(a) that is the primary basis upon which our argument stands.\nIn the appendix 246a to the petition, there's... the central language is in (a).\nIt says, in any civil action, of which the district courts have original jurisdiction.\nThat language by its terms and... clearly indicates that Congress did not mean to make any adjustments in the background law that exists that defined diversity jurisdiction or Federal court jurisdiction, Federal question jurisdiction as a condition to going forward.\nSo what the Congress says is, look at the law as it exists in 1990, as it's been interpreted by this Court, and then determine whether or not there's Federal jurisdiction, either for diversity or Federal question, and if there is, then you proceed forth from that point.\nAnd what we know is that there are two situations that will not satisfy original jurisdiction under those circumstances.\nThe first one is in the Zahn situation.\nWhere you have both satisfying and unsatisfying plaintiffs in the unnamed... who are in the unnamed members of the class, this Court said you cannot proceed forth under the diversity jurisdiction.\nThe second one is the classic sort of joinder situation, and what the Court held in Strawbridge is that simply because you have a plaintiff who satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement and satisfies the complete diversity requirement does not mean that you're allowed to join under rule 20 an additional plaintiff who does not satisfy both of those requirements.\nAnd if you bring someone in under those circumstances, that defeats jurisdiction at the beginning before you ever took to trying to decide what the scope of section 1367(a) and (b) mean from that point forward.\nSo then the question is, if that's the correct interpretation of 1367(a)'s predicate language, then what work does 1367(a) and 1367(b) do, and does our interpretation do any violence to the structure of the statute?\nAnd the answer to that is clearly no.\nHere we start by looking at what was Congress' clear intent, manifested primarily in the last language of 1367(a), where it says supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.\nHere--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [16.225, 20.062, 39.093, 56.637, 59.609, 83.592, 91.577, 96.595, 115.997, 131.972, 138.084, 140.396, 154.552, 173.954, 187.7, 203.57, 205.328, 219.445], "stop_times": [20.062, 39.093, 56.637, 59.609, 83.592, 91.577, 96.595, 115.997, 131.972, 138.084, 140.396, 154.552, 173.954, 187.7, 203.57, 205.328, 219.445, 220.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 16.225}, "reply_to": "22523__0_000", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_002", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Mr. Phillips, before you proceed to going on to (b), the... you have set up a dichotomy between a Federal question case where, as long as you have a Federal question claim in the case, you qualify within those words, of which the district courts have original jurisdiction.\nBut you say that in a diversity case, that's not so if you have people not of the same citizenship... of the same citizenship on both sides of the party line, so that you have to have a totally qualifying action on the diversity side to come within... to... to be within 1367(a).\nBut we have had at least two cases where the starting lineup did not satisfy the complete diversity rule.\nOne was Caterpillar and the other was Newman-Green, and the Court said, yes, on the day one there wasn't complete diversity, but that's curable later on, in the one case before the case was tried, in the other in the court of appeals.\nSo don't at least those two cases suggest that you can have a diversity case legitimately in the Federal court even though at the outset you don't have... fill all the requirements?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [220.188, 247.309, 271.169, 281.489, 299.693], "stop_times": [247.309, 271.169, 281.489, 299.693, 316.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 220.188}, "reply_to": "22523__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__0_003", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--I... I don't think that's the right conclusion to draw from those cases, Justice Ginsburg, because what happened is by the time that... those cases got to this Court, the jurisdictional problems had been solved and the Court was faced with a question... with what I perceive to be purely a remedial question, is what do you do in terms of trying to put the omelette back into the egg at that point when the litigation has gone forward.\nAnd the Court, as a matter of judicial efficiency, decided essentially to ignore the jurisdictional problem.\nHere, by contrast, this jurisdictional problem existed on day one, and the complaint was filed--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [316.04, 336.352, 341.553], "stop_times": [336.352, 341.553, 347.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 316.04}, "reply_to": "22523__0_002", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_004", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "I thought the Court said that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [347.126], "stop_times": [348.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 347.126}, "reply_to": "22523__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__0_005", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--and continues--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [348.119], "stop_times": [348.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 348.119}, "reply_to": "22523__0_004", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_006", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--I thought the Court didn't say they were ignoring it.\nI thought they said it was curable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [348.285, 350.72], "stop_times": [350.72, 352.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 348.285}, "reply_to": "22523__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__0_007", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well, it... it's curable in the sense that you can eventually excise out portions of the case, but what you cannot do is... is allow the case to go... it remains still jurisdictionally barred to proceed forth with parties who are not properly before the court.\nThat's... that's what this Court said specifically in... in Zahn itself.\nIt said the problem is that you cannot simply go forward with the Federal claim and with the State claims in that... in that format.\nYou surely can excise portions of them, but then you start over again.\nOnce you excise them, that's a new complaint.\nIt's a new case.\nThat's the fundamental difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [352.827, 369.007, 373.92, 381.063, 384.611, 386.923, 387.872], "stop_times": [369.007, 373.92, 381.063, 384.611, 386.923, 387.872, 389.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 352.827}, "reply_to": "22523__0_006", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_008", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "They didn't start over in Caterpillar.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [389.729], "stop_times": [390.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 389.729}, "reply_to": "22523__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__0_009", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [390.638], "stop_times": [391.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 390.638}, "reply_to": "22523__0_008", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_010", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "The Caterpillar didn't start over and Newman-Green wasn't detected till appeal, but the appeals court didn't say start over.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [391.547], "stop_times": [399.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 391.547}, "reply_to": "22523__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__0_011", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "No, I understand that the Court's ultimate remedy in both of those cases was not to do a do-over, but you also have to remember... I mean, I think there are two questions here.\nOne is do you ignore the jurisdictional problem.\nAnd what I'm proposing to you is this Court has never ignored the jurisdictional problem.\nIt always solves the jurisdictional problem somehow, whether it dismisses the case, as it did in... in Grupo Dataflux, whether it dismisses the case, as it... as it proposed would have to happen in Zahn if they didn't excise one of the parties, or whether it makes an adjustment.\nThe Court always takes account of the jurisdictional problem and finds a method of fixing it.\nSo that's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [399.266, 406.508, 409.091, 413.262, 429.609, 434.522], "stop_times": [406.508, 409.091, 413.262, 429.609, 434.522, 435.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 399.266}, "reply_to": "22523__0_010", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_012", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "But why can't it make an adjustment in this case, Mr. Phillips.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [435.469], "stop_times": [437.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 435.469}, "reply_to": "22523__0_011", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__0_013", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--I'm sorry, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [437.615], "stop_times": [438.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 437.615}, "reply_to": "22523__0_012", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_014", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Why can't it make an adjustment in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [438.442], "stop_times": [441.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 438.442}, "reply_to": "22523__0_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__0_015", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "The... well, the... and the question is what adjustment should it make.\nAnd the... and... and our argument is at a minimum you have to dismiss all of the class claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [441.043, 444.015], "stop_times": [444.015, 449.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 441.043}, "reply_to": "22523__0_014", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_016", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "But why is that the minimum?\nWouldn't the minimum be just to dismiss those parties who don't have the aggregate... the necessary jurisdictional amount?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [449.382, 450.785], "stop_times": [450.785, 456.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.382}, "reply_to": "22523__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__0_017", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "And that takes you back to what the district court ruled in Zahn and... and, in effect, what this Court affirmed in Zahn, which is that there's a fundamental difference between sort of finding a single, individual plaintiff and saying, you know, this person, if you could just excise that claim, drop it under rule... that person under rule 21, that fixes it.\nThere's a fundamental difference.\nI mean, the question here is what's the civil action because there are res judicata, collateral estoppel--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [456.646, 475.472, 476.587], "stop_times": [475.472, 476.587, 481.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 456.646}, "reply_to": "22523__0_016", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_018", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, but you do have cases where a complaint is filed seeking to be a class action and then the district judge does not certify the class and the case, nevertheless, goes forward.\nNow, why couldn't you do that here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [481.871, 491.259], "stop_times": [491.259, 492.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 481.871}, "reply_to": "22523__0_017", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__0_019", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well, that would... one of the alternatives on the table... I think it is appropriate... is for the Court to excise the class action allegations--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [492.828], "stop_times": [499.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 492.828}, "reply_to": "22523__0_018", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_020", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [499.144], "stop_times": [499.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 499.144}, "reply_to": "22523__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__0_021", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--and dismiss the entirety of the class and proceed forth solely in the name of the four individual plaintiffs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [499.621], "stop_times": [504.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 499.621}, "reply_to": "22523__0_020", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_022", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, maybe.\nWhy isn't it permissible just to dismiss those parties who don't have the requisite jurisdictional amount?\nThat's what I... where I stumble with this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [504.701, 504.905, 509.752], "stop_times": [504.905, 509.752, 511.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 504.701}, "reply_to": "22523__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__0_023", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "I think the Court has the authority to do that.\nI think the practical implications of that are overwhelming and should be... and should be rejected for that reason because in order to be able to have res judicata/collateral estoppel effects, you have to know what the civil action is.\nAnd with a class of unnamed members, who are, in many instances, unknowable in... in some respects, we don't know what the res judicata or collateral estoppel effects are if your solution is to try to excise those who do not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [511.321, 513.45, 525.627], "stop_times": [513.45, 525.627, 540.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 511.321}, "reply_to": "22523__0_022", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_024", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "I don't... I don't follow that entirely, Mr. Phillips, because the... Exxon lost at... at this trial, and preclusion doctrines... that means that Exxon had one full and fair opportunity to defend.\nSo Exxon is going to be bound by that... by the determination.\nSomebody who was not in the litigation and might say, well, I want more, say, somebody who had opted out--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [540.283, 557.084, 565.069], "stop_times": [557.084, 565.069, 577.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 540.283}, "reply_to": "22523__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__0_025", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "In other words, you'd have the same issue of preclusion problems if you had done the case from the beginning the way you contend it ought to have been done.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [577.229], "stop_times": [586.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 577.229}, "reply_to": "22523__0_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22523__0_026", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, I... I think the case should never have been allowed to go forward except with the named plaintiffs.\nOkay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [586.434, 590.621], "stop_times": [590.621, 591.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 586.434}, "reply_to": "22523__0_025", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_027", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "But I mean, Justice Ginsburg's point is you... you... even with a... a few properly named defendants, you're going to have the same issue preclusion problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [591.076], "stop_times": [599.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 591.076}, "reply_to": "22523__0_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22523__0_028", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, not... but... but it's a much more complicated issue preclusion problem because the question is, is there jurisdiction?\nThis is a judgment that's been entered without jurisdiction.\nThe court doesn't have proper jurisdiction here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [599.809, 605.836, 608.065], "stop_times": [605.836, 608.065, 610.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 599.809}, "reply_to": "22523__0_027", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_029", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, if it's under the language of section 1367, I think it makes more sense to say the court has original jurisdiction over the action, but lacks original jurisdiction over the defective claims.\nI mean, that meets what 1367 seems to say on its face.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [610.212, 624.701], "stop_times": [624.701, 630.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 610.212}, "reply_to": "22523__0_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22523__0_030", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--I... I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [630.524], "stop_times": [631.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 630.524}, "reply_to": "22523__0_029", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_031", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "And I hope you will address the fact that Congress very recently has enacted legislation that makes all this in the future at least non-objectionable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [631.472], "stop_times": [645.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 631.472}, "reply_to": "22523__0_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22523__0_032", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well, it doesn't eliminate it completely, Justice O'Connor.\nThe Class Action Fairness Act only applies to claims where there are plaintiffs who exceed the number of 100, plaintiffs over 100, and... and the $5 million amount-in-controversy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [645.672, 648.661], "stop_times": [648.661, 659.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 645.672}, "reply_to": "22523__0_031", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_033", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Right, and it's not retroactive.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [659.336], "stop_times": [660.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.336}, "reply_to": "22523__0_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22523__0_034", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--But it's not retroactive.\nBut even prospectively, there will be situations where this precise issue will arise in the future.\nSo there is reason for the Court to go ahead and resolve this question that has so badly divided the courts.\nBut, Justice O'Connor, to answer your first question, I would have... I would have thought the conclusion was exactly the opposite, that what... what... the statute says you don't have jurisdiction over civil actions over which you didn't have jurisdiction prior to 1990, but you do have jurisdiction over claims that then can be appended to those for which you have jurisdiction in 1990.\nSo I would have thought the more sensible way, at least from my perspective, to read this case... to read this statute is to say, is this a claim that could have been brought in 1990?\nAnd the answer from Zahn is absolutely no, it couldn't.\nAnd similarly with the... with the joinder cases.\nThey could not have been brought--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [660.262, 661.11, 665.901, 670.981, 691.414, 700.164, 703.424, 705.654], "stop_times": [661.11, 665.901, 670.981, 691.414, 700.164, 703.424, 705.654, 706.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 660.262}, "reply_to": "22523__0_033", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_035", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Unless 1367 effectively overturned Zahn.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [706.647], "stop_times": [711.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 706.647}, "reply_to": "22523__0_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22523__0_036", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--And--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [711.226], "stop_times": [712.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 711.226}, "reply_to": "22523__0_035", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_037", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "It was enacted later.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [712.135], "stop_times": [713.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.135}, "reply_to": "22523__0_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22523__0_038", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--It clearly was enacted later, but my point here is that I think the language... when the Congress both in (a) and (b) harkens back to in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, it's clearly not trying to amend 1331 or 1332.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [713.084], "stop_times": [729.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 713.084}, "reply_to": "22523__0_037", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_039", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, it's not... the weakness in your point, I think, as I... as I understand it, which is a very optimistic assumption, given the complexity here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [729.885], "stop_times": [742.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 729.885}, "reply_to": "22523__0_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__0_040", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "I hope that's not a criticism of the writing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [742.517], "stop_times": [744.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 742.517}, "reply_to": "22523__0_039", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_041", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--is... is that you want to read (a) as if it applies to arising-under jurisdiction and not to diversity jurisdiction.\nVery simple.\nArising-under jurisdiction, you do maintain jurisdiction over the original action.\nYou can add a claim, but as long as there's one good claim arising under, there's original jurisdiction.\nDiversity, there isn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [744.624, 753.995, 755.398, 760.971, 766.422], "stop_times": [753.995, 755.398, 760.971, 766.422, 768.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 744.624}, "reply_to": "22523__0_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__0_042", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [768.667], "stop_times": [769.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 768.667}, "reply_to": "22523__0_041", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_043", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "If you add that plaintiff, you don't get the original... that's not right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [769.394], "stop_times": [771.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 769.394}, "reply_to": "22523__0_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__0_044", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "No, that's not right, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [771.995], "stop_times": [773.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 771.995}, "reply_to": "22523__0_043", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_045", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [773.071], "stop_times": [773.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 773.071}, "reply_to": "22523__0_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__0_046", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "The... the... you know, the traditional case.\nYou're from one State, I'm from another State, I have a claim against you for at least $50,000, I sue you in diversity jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [773.41, 776.043], "stop_times": [776.043, 783.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 773.41}, "reply_to": "22523__0_045", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_047", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [783.118], "stop_times": [783.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 783.118}, "reply_to": "22523__0_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__0_048", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "That is a civil action of which district courts have original jurisdiction.\nSo I've sued you.\nYou have an insurer who's going... who... who lives in the same State I live.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [783.352, 786.696, 787.643], "stop_times": [786.696, 787.643, 791.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 783.352}, "reply_to": "22523__0_047", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_049", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [791.525], "stop_times": [792.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 791.525}, "reply_to": "22523__0_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__0_050", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "You bring in the insurer in a third party... in a third party claim under rule 14.\nOkay?\nThat claim doesn't satisfy the $75,000, whatever the amount-in-controversy requirement is that applies, because you've got a... a retention.\nThen... and so your... your claim against them is only for $50,000.\nThat wouldn't satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement but it does satisfy the supplemental jurisdiction over claims brought separately.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [792.184, 805.355, 797.015, 806.508, 810.035], "stop_times": [805.355, 797.015, 806.508, 810.035, 818.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 792.184}, "reply_to": "22523__0_049", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_051", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "So... so, in... in other words, in that situation, it's a third party claim by the defendant against another person.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [818.003], "stop_times": [823.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 818.003}, "reply_to": "22523__0_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__0_052", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes.\nThat would be one easy one--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [823.693, 824.047], "stop_times": [824.047, 825.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 823.693}, "reply_to": "22523__0_051", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_053", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "So that's then... that does fall within (a).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [825.267], "stop_times": [827.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.267}, "reply_to": "22523__0_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__0_054", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Absolutely falls within (a).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [827.003], "stop_times": [828.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 827.003}, "reply_to": "22523__0_053", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_055", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "And then (b) knocks it out insofar as the plaintiff wants to assert a claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [828.322], "stop_times": [832.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 828.322}, "reply_to": "22523__0_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__0_056", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [832.492], "stop_times": [832.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 832.492}, "reply_to": "22523__0_055", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_057", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "But that person can assert a claim against a plaintiff.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [832.781], "stop_times": [835.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 832.781}, "reply_to": "22523__0_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__0_058", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Exactly.\nThat would be precisely how it operates.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [835.093, 835.464], "stop_times": [835.464, 837.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 835.093}, "reply_to": "22523__0_057", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_059", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "So that, you say, is the answer to what I was going to ask--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [837.322], "stop_times": [838.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 837.322}, "reply_to": "22523__0_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__0_060", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Which is?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [838.27], "stop_times": [839.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 838.27}, "reply_to": "22523__0_059", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_061", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--which is why didn't they just use the word 1331.\nAnd the reason they didn't just use the word 1331 is there is a subset of diversity claims that also have to fall within (a).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [839.179, 841.63], "stop_times": [841.63, 849.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 839.179}, "reply_to": "22523__0_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__0_062", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Right.\nI picked one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [849.227, 849.582], "stop_times": [849.582, 849.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 849.227}, "reply_to": "22523__0_061", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_063", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [849.832], "stop_times": [850.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.832}, "reply_to": "22523__0_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__0_064", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "There's another one that fits--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [850.254], "stop_times": [851.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 850.254}, "reply_to": "22523__0_063", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_065", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "So the other thing, of course, is if these three professors who wrote this had... had figured this out so well, why in heaven's name didn't they at least write an article about it so we'd know what we were doing?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [851.068, 861.349], "stop_times": [861.349, 861.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 851.068}, "reply_to": "22523__0_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__0_066", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well, my guess is if they did, you probably wouldn't want to rely on it as the authoritative source for interpreting the language of the statute in any event.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [861.925], "stop_times": [869.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 861.925}, "reply_to": "22523__0_065", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_067", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--What you're saying, Mr. Phillips, I think is that 1367 does nothing with regard to what was in the old days at least 1367(a), what was called ancillary jurisdiction.\nIt changed pendent jurisdiction to overrule the Finley case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [869.151, 882.897], "stop_times": [882.897, 888.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 869.151}, "reply_to": "22523__0_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__0_068", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Pendent party jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [888.72], "stop_times": [890.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 888.72}, "reply_to": "22523__0_067", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_069", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "So... so you could have appendant parties, but what was once known as ancillary jurisdiction, applicable in diversity cases, was not changed at all by 1367(a).\nI think that's what you're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [890.122, 905.809], "stop_times": [905.809, 907.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 890.122}, "reply_to": "22523__0_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__0_070", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, no.\nActually what I'm saying is that 1367(a), in effect, codifies both aspects of the Kroger... of this Court's decision in Kroger.\nIn Kroger, the Court said you would have ancillary jurisdiction over the third party claim that I identified for Justice Breyer, and that that would fall within 1367(a) under my interpretation of it, but that 1367(b) would not allow the plaintiff then to bring a subsequent action against the third party defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [907.955, 908.576, 916.006], "stop_times": [908.576, 916.006, 935.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 907.955}, "reply_to": "22523__0_069", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_071", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "But whether you... whether you call it codify or anything else, there would be no change.\n1367, as you read it, made no change.\n1367(a) on the Federal question side certainly did.\nIt overruled Finley.\nBefore, you could have pendent party jurisdiction.\nNow you can.\nBut Kroger was unchanged.\nI think what you're... you're telling us is that except for some difference in (b), 1367(a) leaves ancillary jurisdiction as it found it.\nIt doesn't make any change.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [935.697, 939.206, 944.036, 948.207, 948.966, 952.581, 953.795, 957.328, 972.743], "stop_times": [939.206, 944.036, 948.207, 948.966, 952.581, 953.795, 957.328, 972.743, 975.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 935.697}, "reply_to": "22523__0_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__0_072", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "The only way I would just... you know, the only point I would make with respect to that is that I do think that in Finley this Court's opinion cast some doubt on the entire pendent and ancillary jurisdiction doctrines, and I think that 1367(a) is clearly designed to... to eliminate that issue going forward because it says there is a role.\nThere is now a... an express provision from Congress to the courts of supplemental jurisdiction.\nAnd then the question is under what circumstances does it apply.\nSo to go back to the Owen case, you know, we all assumed that there was ancillary jurisdiction over the third party claim.\nThis statute makes it absolutely clear that there is jurisdiction over the third party claim because it... it extends to that claim.\nAnd we know that by the express language of the provision.\nIt wouldn't have changed anything if you accept the idea that the Court had inherent authority to do that.\nIf you question that, then this is the basis on which that jurisdictional grant is provided.\nAnd so that is an important part of 1367(a) that affects--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [975.078, 998.195, 1004.778, 1007.194, 1015.202, 1023.997, 1026.512, 1032.541, 1038.114], "stop_times": [998.195, 1004.778, 1007.194, 1015.202, 1023.997, 1026.512, 1032.541, 1038.114, 1041.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 975.078}, "reply_to": "22523__0_071", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_073", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "So what... what is the language in 1367(a) that effects any... any change in diversity jurisdiction, what was once called ancillary jurisdiction?\nI don't see that there's any change.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1041.458, 1056.13], "stop_times": [1056.13, 1057.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1041.458}, "reply_to": "22523__0_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__0_074", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well, I... I would go back--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1057.683], "stop_times": [1058.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1057.683}, "reply_to": "22523__0_073", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_075", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "You may... you may say that there's a confirmation of what was, but there's no change.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1058.548], "stop_times": [1063.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1058.548}, "reply_to": "22523__0_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__0_076", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well, it just depends on whether you accept as a given that the third party claim and other multi-party litigation was clearly going to fall within the Court's ancillary jurisdiction without the benefit of an express statutory provision granting that authority.\nIf you accept that, then this makes a fundamental change.\nIf I could--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1063.749, 1078.505, 1082.325], "stop_times": [1078.505, 1082.325, 1083.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1063.749}, "reply_to": "22523__0_075", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_077", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "I thought that's what Kroger was about.\nIt said, yes, that you could do it... that the plaintiff then couldn't turn around and sue the third party defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1083.44, 1084.926], "stop_times": [1084.926, 1092.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1083.44}, "reply_to": "22523__0_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__0_078", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1092.168], "stop_times": [1092.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1092.168}, "reply_to": "22523__0_077", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_079", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "But that you did not need diversity between the defendant and the third party defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1092.728], "stop_times": [1096.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1092.728}, "reply_to": "22523__0_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__0_080", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Right, but the... the question is what was the statutory authority for that part of... for the first part of ancillary jurisdiction, which is the bringing in of the third party defendant.\nAnd that's what 1367(a) does in the diversity context.\nIf I could reserve the balance of my time, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1096.793, 1105.071, 1108.21], "stop_times": [1105.071, 1108.21, 1110.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1096.793}, "reply_to": "22523__0_079", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__0_081", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Mr. Long.\nMr. Long, you represent the respondent in the second case.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1110.811, 1113.306, 1122.04], "stop_times": [1113.306, 1122.04, 1122.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1110.811}, "reply_to": "22523__0_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__1_000", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes, Justice Stevens.\nJustice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nI have three basic points.\nFirst, section 1367 does not alter the requirements of section 1332 for original jurisdiction in a civil diversity action, and therefore, the plain language of section 1367 does not alter the complete diversity requirement or the requirement that each plaintiff in a diversity action must have more than $75,000 in controversy.\nSecond, there is no sound basis for distinguishing between the two jurisdictional requirements of section 1332, and therefore, if section 1367 alters the matter-in-controversy rule of Zahn and Clark, it also alters the complete diversity rule of Strawbridge.\nAnd third, the best interpretation of section 1367 and the one that causes the least harm is that it overturns the result in Finley and otherwise, with a few exceptions, codifies the pre-Finley understanding of supplemental jurisdiction.\nNow, our... our primary argument has already been addressed, and I don't want to waste time on it but it is crucial, critical to our argument.\nAnd that is, that the language of 1367(a) is that supplemental jurisdiction is conferred but only in a civil action, of which the district courts have original jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1122.7, 1124.186, 1128.355, 1131.056, 1158.01, 1178.306, 1197.003, 1207.034], "stop_times": [1124.186, 1128.355, 1131.056, 1158.01, 1178.306, 1197.003, 1207.034, 1220.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1122.7}, "reply_to": "22523__0_081", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_001", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "And then you say the civil action has to give... be diverse as to all claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1220.575], "stop_times": [1229.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1220.575}, "reply_to": "22523__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22523__1_002", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, yes.\nI mean, basically each... as to each plaintiff, they must be diverse from each defendant and each--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1229.12, 1231.266], "stop_times": [1231.266, 1237.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1229.12}, "reply_to": "22523__1_001", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_003", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Over every claim... every claim in the class.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1237.005], "stop_times": [1237.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1237.005}, "reply_to": "22523__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22523__1_004", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1237.832], "stop_times": [1238.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1237.832}, "reply_to": "22523__1_003", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_005", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Now, in... in City of Chicago, we did not give that meaning to the term civil action.\nNow, then you would say, well, City of Chicago is a Federal question case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1238.169, 1243.692], "stop_times": [1243.692, 1247.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1238.169}, "reply_to": "22523__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22523__1_006", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1247.203], "stop_times": [1247.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1247.203}, "reply_to": "22523__1_005", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_007", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "But then I would say then you're asking us to interpret civil action differently in two statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1247.984], "stop_times": [1252.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1247.984}, "reply_to": "22523__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22523__1_008", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "No, I don't think so.\nI think what the plain language... and... and here we are, I think... we can rely on plain language.\nWhat 1367(a) says is that in each case you must look to some other statute that confers original jurisdiction.\nIt can be 1331.\nIt can be 1332.\nAnd of course, although those statutes use the same term, original jurisdiction, there are... there's decisional law that comes along--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1252.321, 1253.452, 1259.13, 1268.129, 1270.526, 1272.466], "stop_times": [1253.452, 1259.13, 1268.129, 1270.526, 1272.466, 1280.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1252.321}, "reply_to": "22523__1_007", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_009", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "No, but they also use the term, civil action, and it seems to me that your interpretation of the two differs if... if the City of Chicago--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1280.018], "stop_times": [1286.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1280.018}, "reply_to": "22523__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22523__1_010", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1286.705], "stop_times": [1287.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1286.705}, "reply_to": "22523__1_009", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_011", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--is... is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1287.243], "stop_times": [1287.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1287.243}, "reply_to": "22523__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22523__1_012", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well, but I think it's the same answer.\nOriginal jurisdiction and civil action are found... each of those terms is found in 1331 and 1332.\nAnd I do think it comes out of this Court's decisions that if you have a Federal question... so you're claiming original jurisdiction under 1331... then yes, that is sufficient to give original jurisdiction over the action.\nThat is what the Court held in the City of Chicago case.\nBut it really can't be the same in a diversity case if, for example, there's going to be complete diversity.\nWhat... what the courts have said that have thought that the plain language of 1367 compels this result that Zahn and... and also Strawbridge go, they say look, the only way we can read this is if there's original jurisdiction of... of one claim by one plaintiff against one defendant, then we've got original jurisdiction over the civil action.\nThen we're into supplemental jurisdiction and all we ask is... is that within the same case or controversy, and then there are some exceptions in (b).\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1287.986, 1289.556, 1296.715, 1311.68, 1315.85, 1321.423, 1343.548, 1351.228], "stop_times": [1289.556, 1296.715, 1311.68, 1315.85, 1321.423, 1343.548, 1351.228, 1352.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1287.986}, "reply_to": "22523__1_011", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_013", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Then what you're saying is that this statute, as far as class actions go, changed nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1352.237], "stop_times": [1358.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1352.237}, "reply_to": "22523__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__1_014", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well, of course, our case is not a class action, but... but we would say that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1358.803], "stop_times": [1364.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1358.803}, "reply_to": "22523__1_013", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_015", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Or party joinder, which is your case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1364.603], "stop_times": [1368.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1364.603}, "reply_to": "22523__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__1_016", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Or... yes, exactly.\nIt carries forward the rules of party joinder under 1332.\nStrawbridge is an interpretation of what is now 1332, the requirements for original jurisdiction.\nThere has to be complete diversity.\nYou can't simply look at one plaintiff and one defendant--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1368.484, 1369.022, 1372.942, 1379.88, 1381.82], "stop_times": [1369.022, 1372.942, 1379.88, 1381.82, 1387.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1368.484}, "reply_to": "22523__1_015", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_017", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Strawbridge has become less hallowed in light of the new congressional enactment.\nWhat's it called?\nThe Sunshine in Class Action?\nWhat is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1387.06, 1391.518, 1392.056, 1393.642], "stop_times": [1391.518, 1392.056, 1393.642, 1393.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1387.06}, "reply_to": "22523__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22523__1_018", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--I didn't bring--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1393.997], "stop_times": [1395.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1393.997}, "reply_to": "22523__1_017", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_019", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Class Action Fairness Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1395.855], "stop_times": [1397.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1395.855}, "reply_to": "22523__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__1_020", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Class Action Fairness Act.\nWell, but I think that in... in a way it... it shows what Congress... when Congress means to amend section 1332 and make exceptions to these requirements for original jurisdiction under 1332--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1397.091, 1398.577], "stop_times": [1398.577, 1412.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1397.091}, "reply_to": "22523__1_019", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_021", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, I understand in 2005 Congress doesn't necessarily express what was before, but it... it seems to me there's an institutional judgment that Strawbridge is not that hallowed a... a principle.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1412.656], "stop_times": [1422.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1412.656}, "reply_to": "22523__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22523__1_022", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well, I... I think you could fairly say the... the new statute reflects a judgment by Congress that in these class actions of national importance, which meet certain requirements, minimal diversity should be sufficient.\nAnd, of course, that's constitutionally permissible.\nBut I don't think there's been any suggestion that in the... the more run-of-the-mill cases there ought to be simply minimal diversity.\nI mean, there... there are millions, literally millions, of civil actions filed in State courts each year.\nAbout 60,000 end up in the Federal courts on the diversity side of the docket.\nIf even 1 percent of those cases moves over to Federal court, that's going to be a doubling of the Federal courts' diversity docket, which is about half the trials.\nSo... and I don't think there's been any suggestion by Congress... and, of course, complete diversity and matter-in-controversy are the two rules that keep that from happening.\nNow, the... the class actions will be a sufficient... a significant additional burden on the Federal courts, and to my knowledge, there aren't any additional resources to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1422.565, 1435.569, 1438.662, 1447.95, 1454.061, 1458.603, 1469.31, 1477.922], "stop_times": [1435.569, 1438.662, 1447.95, 1454.061, 1458.603, 1469.31, 1477.922, 1486.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1422.565}, "reply_to": "22523__1_021", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_023", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "What... what is the... can you... this is something I should know, but I don't know.\nAll right.\nIt's very elementary.\nIf you have two parties from different States, diversity claim, they're in court perfectly properly.\nNow, if somebody intervenes under, say... say, rule 24 or suppose it's rule 19, a necessary party, and that destroys the diversity, does the... does the Federal court still have jurisdiction?\nIt does, I gather, under rule 14 if the defendant impleads or brings his own lawsuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1486.754, 1490.925, 1491.418, 1492.244, 1498.643, 1517.424], "stop_times": [1490.925, 1491.418, 1492.244, 1498.643, 1517.424, 1522.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1486.754}, "reply_to": "22523__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_024", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes, but that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1522.997], "stop_times": [1523.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1522.997}, "reply_to": "22523__1_023", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_025", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--against a third party.\nWhat... what happens under... that doesn't destroy it, rule 14.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1523.619, 1523.991, 1527.334], "stop_times": [1523.991, 1527.334, 1528.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1523.619}, "reply_to": "22523__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_026", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--The way... the way this was understood to work--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1528.077], "stop_times": [1529.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1528.077}, "reply_to": "22523__1_025", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_027", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1529.275], "stop_times": [1529.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1529.275}, "reply_to": "22523__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_028", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--and it's in... and this is the answer to the point that, well, there can never be any supplemental jurisdiction on our view in a... in a diversity case.\nYes, there can because in a variety of situations... and... and you've named where there's a rule 14 third party claim and that's by a defendant--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1529.73, 1536.667], "stop_times": [1536.667, 1547.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1529.73}, "reply_to": "22523__1_027", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_029", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "I understand that.\nWhat about 19 and 24?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1547.691, 1547.996], "stop_times": [1547.996, 1548.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1547.691}, "reply_to": "22523__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_030", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well, before... this... this is exactly an excellent example because it's one of the few things that was clearly changed by 1367, and it was changed in the direction of narrowing the... the jurisdiction.\nThe understanding was that you could... if a party came in on its own under rule 24, said I... I can intervene of right--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1548.184, 1560.982], "stop_times": [1560.982, 1570.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1548.184}, "reply_to": "22523__1_029", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_031", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1570.436], "stop_times": [1570.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1570.436}, "reply_to": "22523__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_032", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--but they were coming in on their own... that was allowed.\nI mean, this could potentially be a problem under this rationale of Kroger.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1570.641, 1573.242], "stop_times": [1573.242, 1576.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1570.641}, "reply_to": "22523__1_031", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_033", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Okay.\nSo you mean by allowed that plaintiff is... one... he's from the same State and destroys the diversity.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1576.686, 1576.957], "stop_times": [1576.957, 1583.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1576.686}, "reply_to": "22523__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_034", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes.\nIt would otherwise--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1583.273, 1583.506], "stop_times": [1583.506, 1584.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1583.273}, "reply_to": "22523__1_033", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_035", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "He can do it, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1584.266], "stop_times": [1584.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1584.266}, "reply_to": "22523__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_036", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--It... it would be allowed.\nThat was allowed before.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1584.654, 1585.502], "stop_times": [1585.502, 1586.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1584.654}, "reply_to": "22523__1_035", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_037", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "And what about under rule 19?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1586.495], "stop_times": [1586.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1586.495}, "reply_to": "22523__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_038", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Under rule 19, the rule was that you couldn't do it even if--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1586.988], "stop_times": [1590.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1586.988}, "reply_to": "22523__1_037", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_039", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "You could not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1590.21], "stop_times": [1590.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1590.21}, "reply_to": "22523__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_040", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--You could not, and the idea was this was getting too close to the Kroger problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1590.582], "stop_times": [1595.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1590.582}, "reply_to": "22523__1_039", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_041", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "And rule 20 you could not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1595.123], "stop_times": [1595.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1595.123}, "reply_to": "22523__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_042", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Could not.\nIt was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1595.988, 1597.102], "stop_times": [1597.102, 1597.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1595.988}, "reply_to": "22523__1_041", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_043", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "And rule 24 you could.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1597.641], "stop_times": [1599.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1597.641}, "reply_to": "22523__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_044", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--The Kroger problem is if you... you certainly couldn't put in these nondiverse parties in the initial complaint.\nAnd of course, Kroger worried about, well, the plaintiff leaves them out and then they come in in a second stage, and that's an evasion of completed diversity.\nBut we can see very clearly from subsection (b), this is... this is one part of the statute that is clear... that the... it has now been changed so that claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under rule 19 or rule 24 will not be permitted unless they can satisfy the requirements of section 1332, that is, complete diversity and matter-in-controversy.\nSo this was the kind of thing that was being thought about in the statute.\nThe fact that this was actually not permitted, clearly not permitted, shows that this statute is very concerned about preserving the requirements of complete diversity and matter-in-controversy.\nSo I think that's actually a good example to focus on.\nAnother one... sometimes examples help.\nIn... in the Owen--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1599.043, 1604.039, 1612.417, 1637.681, 1642.344, 1653.74, 1657.743, 1660.427], "stop_times": [1604.039, 1612.417, 1637.681, 1642.344, 1653.74, 1657.743, 1660.427, 1661.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1599.043}, "reply_to": "22523__1_043", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_045", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "The difficulty, I guess, is that I'm having is let's imagine rule 19 or 24.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1661.542], "stop_times": [1665.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1661.542}, "reply_to": "22523__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_046", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1665.629], "stop_times": [1666.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1665.629}, "reply_to": "22523__1_045", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_047", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Now, you're saying that is an instance where, if you bring the party in and he destroys diversity, you're out.\nThat was true before this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1666.538, 1672.566], "stop_times": [1672.566, 1674.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1666.538}, "reply_to": "22523__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_048", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, what would happen is... I mean, you wouldn't get to that stage, Justice Breyer, because you wouldn't let the... the court would not let the party in.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1674.711], "stop_times": [1680.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1674.711}, "reply_to": "22523__1_047", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_049", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1680.49], "stop_times": [1680.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1680.49}, "reply_to": "22523__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_050", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "And sometimes you have to dismiss the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1680.861], "stop_times": [1682.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1680.861}, "reply_to": "22523__1_049", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_051", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "So there... before this statute, there never is going to be a circumstance in which you bring in a person under rule 19 and diversity is destroyed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1682.347], "stop_times": [1693.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.347}, "reply_to": "22523__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_052", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Right, because you won't let them in.\nNow, sometimes you'll have to dismiss the entire case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1693.083, 1695.722], "stop_times": [1695.722, 1698.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1693.083}, "reply_to": "22523__1_051", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_053", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Okay.\nNow... now, this is one of the things that mixes me up here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1698.134, 1698.694], "stop_times": [1698.694, 1700.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1698.134}, "reply_to": "22523__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_054", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "I don't understand what you mean, sometimes you'll have to dismiss the entire case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1700.43], "stop_times": [1702.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1700.43}, "reply_to": "22523__1_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22523__1_055", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "If... if it turns out that the party is indispensable under rule 19.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1702.659], "stop_times": [1706.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1702.659}, "reply_to": "22523__1_054", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_056", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Oh, is indispensable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1706.374], "stop_times": [1707.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1706.374}, "reply_to": "22523__1_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22523__1_057", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Then... then what's confuse... now, we look at 1367(b) and it says the district court shall not have supplemental jurisdiction over a claim by the plaintiff against a rule 19 person who is brought on the defense side.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1707.012], "stop_times": [1723.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1707.012}, "reply_to": "22523__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_058", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1723.092], "stop_times": [1724.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1723.092}, "reply_to": "22523__1_057", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_059", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Where the inconsistent... i.e., it would be nondiverse, but you said there couldn't be such a situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1724.001], "stop_times": [1730.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1724.001}, "reply_to": "22523__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_060", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, I... I may have misspoken.\nWhat... what is happening here in (b) is that it's possible for parties to come in under rules 14, 19, 20, or 24.\nWe think the reading of that is that Congress wanted to allow that.\nSo it's not impermissible, but then if plaintiffs want to turn around and assert a claim against them, it's got to be one that satisfies complete diversity and matter-in-controversy.\nAnd that's to protect the Owen Equipment rationale.\nBut then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1730.03, 1732.38, 1741.38, 1744.519, 1756.491, 1759.873], "stop_times": [1732.38, 1741.38, 1744.519, 1756.491, 1759.873, 1760.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1730.03}, "reply_to": "22523__1_059", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_061", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Michigan plaintiff against Iowa defendant, necessary party, Michigan defendant, rule 19.\nNow we bring him in.\nAnd you're saying before this statute, not going to come in because it will wreck jurisdiction.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1760.494, 1769.865, 1771.806, 1777.379], "stop_times": [1769.865, 1771.806, 1777.379, 1778.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1760.494}, "reply_to": "22523__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_062", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--I think that... well, I think that's correct, if the... at least if the plaintiff was trying to bring it in.\nYou may have got me to a point where I'm not going to be able to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1778.782, 1783.157], "stop_times": [1783.157, 1786.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1778.782}, "reply_to": "22523__1_061", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_063", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "All right.\nWell, then I'm going to stop asking--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1786.834, 1787.105], "stop_times": [1787.105, 1788.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.834}, "reply_to": "22523__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_064", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--give you the exactly right--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1788.237], "stop_times": [1789.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1788.237}, "reply_to": "22523__1_063", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_065", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--because it's very easy to me to reach the outer limit of my understanding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1789.101], "stop_times": [1791.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.101}, "reply_to": "22523__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_066", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well, it would be easy for you to reach it with me.\nBut... but the... the gist of it is certainly if... if the... if the party is coming in under rule 19 as a plaintiff or you can come in as a defendant... maybe that's the answer.\nThat's... that's permissible.\nYou can join parties as to plaintiffs or defendants.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1791.413, 1793.188, 1804.128, 1805.343], "stop_times": [1793.188, 1804.128, 1805.343, 1808.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1791.413}, "reply_to": "22523__1_065", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_067", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "You could have before this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1808.215], "stop_times": [1809.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1808.215}, "reply_to": "22523__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_068", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Right.\nLet me... let me try another simpler example.\nMaybe this one will work better.\nThere are a number of cases that are actually cited in the Court's opinion in Owen Equipment, and they give a sort of brief summary of these situations in which you could actually bring in extra parties and claims in a diversity case and the extra parties or claims would not be satisfying complete diversity or matter-in-controversy, and yet the original jurisdiction of section 1332 would not be destroyed.\nFootnote 18 of Owen Equipment cites one of these cases.\nIt's called Scott against Fancher.\nIt was a Fifth Circuit case.\nThere was an accident with three trucks.\nOne of the drivers was from Texas and the other two were from Oklahoma.\nSo the... their case was brought in Texas against the two.\nThe Texas drivers sued the two Oklahoma drivers, so there was complete diversity.\nIt did meet the matter-in-controversy.\nSo one defendant filed a compulsory counterclaim.\nThat was one of the examples, and this is all mentioned in Owen Equipment.\nAnd that was okay.\nOf course, the citizenship would be the same, but no question about whether the amount in controversy was... was up to the required level.\nAnd they also filed a... a cross claim against the other defendant, and that was also allowed.\nAnd again, no... of course, now you have two citizens from Oklahoma.\nSo that would not be complete diversity, but that... that was allowed.\nAnd again, it's because the defendants are bringing in... this is the language that the Court used in Owen Equipment, that when a defendant is hailed into court against its will, then some of these ancillary claims are going to be permitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1809.785, 1810.106, 1812.879, 1814.243, 1840.371, 1844.252, 1846.11, 1847.596, 1850.196, 1855.11, 1860.971, 1865.057, 1866.832, 1871.579, 1874.801, 1876.946, 1884.46, 1891.641, 1895.067, 1899.154], "stop_times": [1810.106, 1812.879, 1814.243, 1840.371, 1844.252, 1846.11, 1847.596, 1850.196, 1855.11, 1860.971, 1865.057, 1866.832, 1871.579, 1874.801, 1876.946, 1884.46, 1891.641, 1895.067, 1899.154, 1912.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1809.785}, "reply_to": "22523__1_067", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_069", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "But not all.\nYou couldn't have a... if I remember right, a permissive counterclaim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1912.446, 1913.355], "stop_times": [1913.355, 1917.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.446}, "reply_to": "22523__1_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__1_070", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1917.813], "stop_times": [1918.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1917.813}, "reply_to": "22523__1_069", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_071", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "The defendant--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1918.101], "stop_times": [1918.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1918.101}, "reply_to": "22523__1_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__1_072", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1918.845], "stop_times": [1919.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1918.845}, "reply_to": "22523__1_071", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_073", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--can have a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1919.383], "stop_times": [1920.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1919.383}, "reply_to": "22523__1_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__1_074", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "And I'm thinking again this all... I think this all traces back to Owen Equipment in this rationale that we're not going to allow evasion of the requirements of complete diversity in matter-in-controversy by the plaintiff.\nAnd I think there's textual evidence in 1367 that this is what Congress was doing.\nI mean, if you look in subsection (b), you can find textual evidence for this interpretation.\nI mean, first of all, it refers to this rule 14 situation, the impleader of a third party defendant.\nThat was exactly the situation that was at issue in Owen Equipment against Kroger.\nAnd then it uses this somewhat strange language, this language of claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under these rules.\nThis is what Justice Breyer was getting me tripped up on a minute ago.\nBut the... the point here is that these people can come in.\nI mean, this language doesn't make a lot of sense if they can't come in at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1920.226, 1936.76, 1941.756, 1948.072, 1954.676, 1960.127, 1969.908, 1972.797, 1977.217], "stop_times": [1936.76, 1941.756, 1948.072, 1954.676, 1960.127, 1969.908, 1972.797, 1977.217, 1980.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1920.226}, "reply_to": "22523__1_073", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_075", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "No.\nThey could at least come in if the defendant--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1980.106, 1980.461], "stop_times": [1980.461, 1982.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.106}, "reply_to": "22523__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_076", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1982.335], "stop_times": [1982.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1982.335}, "reply_to": "22523__1_075", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_077", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--under rule 14 joined another person.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1982.911], "stop_times": [1985.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1982.911}, "reply_to": "22523__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_078", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1985.429], "stop_times": [1985.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1985.429}, "reply_to": "22523__1_077", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_079", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "And then person X wanted to join--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1985.801], "stop_times": [1987.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1985.801}, "reply_to": "22523__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_080", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1987.824], "stop_times": [1988.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1987.824}, "reply_to": "22523__1_079", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_081", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--that part of the action--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1988.296], "stop_times": [1990.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1988.296}, "reply_to": "22523__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_082", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1990.032], "stop_times": [1990.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1990.032}, "reply_to": "22523__1_081", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_083", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--that could be a 19, 20, or 24.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1990.237], "stop_times": [1992.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1990.237}, "reply_to": "22523__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__1_084", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Exactly.\nThat's... and so there is work to be done in subsection (b) even in a diversity case.\nThe only other point I'll make here is that counterclaims and cross claims come in under rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and there is actually rule 13(h) which says very specifically that parties may be brought in... additional parties may be brought in under rules 19 and 20, once you get a counterclaim or a cross claim going.\nSo that is... could explain why there are these references to rules 19 and 20, as well as 14 and 24, in subsection (b).\nI do want to get to the argument that's made by... or the petitioners in our case, which is really... as I understand their argument, they accept that there must be original jurisdiction over the entire civil action, and they accept that that means that there must be complete diversity.\nBut then they say, well, matter-in-controversy is really different.\nIt should be treated differently.\nIt really doesn't go to whether the court has jurisdiction over the civil action.\nIt only goes to whether it has jurisdiction over a particular claim.\nAnd we don't think that's tenable.\nAnd... and here we would rely on statutory language, and it's the language of section of 1332, which sets out the two requirements for original jurisdiction of a civil action.\nStrawbridge is an interpretation of that requirement.\nTo have original jurisdiction over the civil action, there must be complete diversity.\nPetitioners agree with that.\nThe decisions like Zahn and Clark are an interpretation of the other requirement to have... to meet the matter-in-controversy requirement, and to have original jurisdiction over the civil action, each plaintiff must meet that requirement.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [1992.921, 1993.104, 1998.205, 2020.701, 2030.815, 2051.538, 2054.76, 2056.533, 2062.19, 2065.821, 2069.536, 2081.591, 2085.594, 2090.879, 2093.025, 2108.629], "stop_times": [1993.104, 1998.205, 2020.701, 2030.815, 2051.538, 2054.76, 2056.533, 2062.19, 2065.821, 2069.536, 2081.591, 2085.594, 2090.879, 2093.025, 2108.629, 2109.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1992.921}, "reply_to": "22523__1_083", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_085", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--If we descend from the level of parsing the... the statute to what's going on in these cases, in your cases I take it there was an injury to a child.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2109.083], "stop_times": [2122.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2109.083}, "reply_to": "22523__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__1_086", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2122.458], "stop_times": [2123.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2122.458}, "reply_to": "22523__1_085", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_087", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "And that qualifies under the amount-in-controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2123.035], "stop_times": [2126.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2123.035}, "reply_to": "22523__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__1_088", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2126.75], "stop_times": [2127.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2126.75}, "reply_to": "22523__1_087", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_089", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "And her mother or sister and, I think, father wanted to come in and... and bring claims that were entirely derivative of the injured child's claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2127.372], "stop_times": [2137.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2127.372}, "reply_to": "22523__1_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__1_090", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2137.896], "stop_times": [2138.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2137.896}, "reply_to": "22523__1_089", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_091", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "And on your reading of 1367, there's the... the... there's no accommodation for that.\nSo you'd either have to have the whole lawsuit in the courts of Puerto Rico or you'd have... let the child sue in the Federal court and the parents would have to bring a separate suit?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2138.889, 2148.548], "stop_times": [2148.548, 2164.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2138.889}, "reply_to": "22523__1_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__1_092", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, I mean, it's not... it's... that is the rule of Zahn and Clark that has been the rule for many decades.\nYes, the problem can be cured by dropping some of the plaintiffs.\nThat's a possibility, but you cannot have this piggy-backing, bringing in additional claims that are jurisdictionally insufficient.\nYou can't get around Strawbridge and complete diversity that way, and you can't get around the matter-in-controversy that way either.\nThey... they are parallel in the language of 1332.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2164.44, 2173.152, 2177.648, 2184.79, 2191.645], "stop_times": [2173.152, 2177.648, 2184.79, 2191.645, 2194.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.44}, "reply_to": "22523__1_091", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_093", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, what a legislature might think, well, now this Finley has... we've been... taken care of that.\nAnd your case looks very much the same in terms of breaking up a lawsuit into two when it makes sense to try it all together.\nSo we think that... that old case should go just the way Finley went.\nAnd the same thing with Zahn because, after all, Zahn doesn't fit very well with Ben Hur.\nIf you're saying that the Strawbridge rule... I mean, what really counts is diversity, and... and Ben Hur says the only named representative citizenship counts and yet the amount-in-controversy, the lesser thing in your view... every single member of the class has to meet that amount, but only the named representatives have to be of diverse citizenship.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2194.821, 2201.797, 2210.88, 2217.855, 2224.46], "stop_times": [2201.797, 2210.88, 2217.855, 2224.46, 2248.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2194.821}, "reply_to": "22523__1_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__1_094", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, you've made a number of points.\nI wouldn't agree that the matter-in-controversy is the lesser requirement.\nI mean, indeed, in the class action situation, because of Ben Hur, that's the only rule that keeps out additional plaintiffs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2248.98, 2251.292, 2256.122], "stop_times": [2251.292, 2256.122, 2263.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2248.98}, "reply_to": "22523__1_093", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_095", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "But if you... does it make sense to have a rule that says we're going to ignore the citizenship of the members of the class for diversity purposes, for diversity of citizenship?\nOnly the named representative counts.\nWell, then why shouldn't only the named representative count for amount-in-controversy?\nThat would have been a rational thing for Congress if they wanted to fix that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2263.552, 2275.895, 2278.33, 2282.5], "stop_times": [2275.895, 2278.33, 2282.5, 2286.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.552}, "reply_to": "22523__1_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__1_096", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, in... in the class action context... and again, my case is not a class action... I frankly can't explain how you reconcile Ben Hur and Zahn.\nI think those... the cases... for the same... if... if the rationale of Ben Hur is that the class members are not really parties in the full sense and so we don't need to worry about their citizenship, I would think you could make the same type of argument as to matter-in-controversy that as long as the representatives satisfy it, they're the parties in the full or true sense and so that's all that counts.\nBut the Court decided Zahn.\nThere was really no doubt about that.\nCongress never indicated that it had any... any difficulties with that decision, and it's now well established.\nAnd I think... the final point I'd just make very briefly is that if you were to interpret 1367 to have this broad effect of opening up diversity actions to unlimited joinder of plaintiffs, nondiverse plaintiffs, plaintiffs with... who don't have the requisite amount in controversy, it... it really would be absurd, not in the sense that doing that on its own is absurd.\nI don't contend that.\nBut it... it is not... it would not be rational for Congress to go to all this trouble that it went to in subsection (b) to rule out all these sort of indirect situations where the plaintiffs leave out a party in the initial complaint and then wait for the party to come in some other way... I mean, things that frankly are not likely to happen in a lot of cases... but then say, oh, but the... the doors are... are wide open under rule 20, bring in as many plaintiffs as you want right at the outset or later on if you'd prefer, don't worry about diversity, don't worry about the amount in controversy.\nThose two things just... just don't go together.\nThere are... there are other things about subsection (b) that don't make good sense under the petitioner's view.\nI mean, for example, this is just one of them.\nIf you just look at the language of subsection (b), it says you shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under... a list of rules... and then one of them is rule 20.\nWell, whenever you have more than one defendant in a case just named in the complaint, you use rule 20 get in more than one defendant.\nSo read literally, that says if you had this broad view, plaintiffs can bring in as many additional plaintiffs as they like under rule 20.\nBut on the defendant's side, as soon as you've got a second defendant in the case, suddenly all this supplemental jurisdiction goes away.\nNow, that makes sense under our view because plaintiffs are not supposed to be asserting these kinds of claims anyway.\nWhether there's one defendant or two, it's the rationale of Owen Equipment.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2286.67, 2294.639, 2317.756, 2319.985, 2321.593, 2329.311, 2364.317, 2365.349, 2399.257, 2402.008, 2410.674, 2412.532, 2427.271, 2437.135, 2446.712, 2455.256, 2460.995, 2465.082], "stop_times": [2294.639, 2317.756, 2319.985, 2321.593, 2329.311, 2364.317, 2365.349, 2399.257, 2402.008, 2410.674, 2412.532, 2427.271, 2437.135, 2446.712, 2455.256, 2460.995, 2465.082, 2465.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2286.67}, "reply_to": "22523__1_095", "speaker": "robert_a_long_jr"}
{"id": "22523__1_097", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Long.\nMr. Stearns, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2465.537, 2467.478], "stop_times": [2467.478, 2472.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2465.537}, "reply_to": "22523__1_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_000", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nI believe what's at stake here is whether this Court was serious in the Finley decision, and it's interesting that it was a 5 to 4 decision, in which four of you concluded that pendent party jurisdiction was a logical extension of Gibbs and five among you concluded that it was not up for this Court to make that determination, that only Congress could make that determination, and in the 200 years of history of the Federal courts that had preceded Finley, that the track record of this Court and the lower courts in expanding Federal jurisdiction had been a rocky one.\nBut you weren't going to do it anymore.\nNow, that wasn't the first time this Court had said those words, we're not going to do it anymore, but it was said in a way that got somebody's attention.\nAnd if there was a surprise, it was within a year Congress did precisely what you asked them to do.\nThey adopted 1367, and they did it in the way that Congress does things.\nIt's better not to watch.\nThey don't necessarily explain it carefully.\nThey don't do it in an organized and comprehensive way.\nIt is a matter that was of great interest to a small number of people and of no interest to the great body politic.\nLet's face it.\nDiversity jurisdiction is of great interest to you and me; it's of little interest to the people until they're hauled into court and find that only part of their case can be there.\nAnd when we look at the history of Federal jurisprudence, what do we see?\nWe see that the history of this Court has been largely to allow defendants hauled into court to ignore rules that we once thought were sacrosanct, for example, the notion of destruction of jurisdiction.\nAnd in law school we all learned about destruction of jurisdiction.\nIt doesn't apply.\nWhen a defendant is brought into court, we ignore Strawbridge.\nWe did because this Court and other circuit courts said you could.\nAnd incidentally, when they're brought into court, they're brought into the same civil action as any plaintiff or defendant in the original complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2472.679, 2476.106, 2516.23, 2518.171, 2527.747, 2534.973, 2540.75, 2542.541, 2545.375, 2548.18, 2555.339, 2555.816, 2565.187, 2569.357, 2583.68, 2586.531, 2588.138, 2592.12, 2596.106], "stop_times": [2476.106, 2516.23, 2518.171, 2527.747, 2534.973, 2540.75, 2542.541, 2545.375, 2548.18, 2555.339, 2555.816, 2565.187, 2569.357, 2583.68, 2586.531, 2588.138, 2592.12, 2596.106, 2606.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2472.679}, "reply_to": "22523__1_097", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_001", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Are you talking about a claim mover?\nI'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2606.609, 2608.572], "stop_times": [2608.572, 2609.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2606.609}, "reply_to": "22523__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__2_002", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Any claim, Your Honor, that's brought in in a third party practice, any claim that's brought in an additional party claim is part of the same civil action.\nThere's only one form of action.\nAll the claims are in that one form of action.\nThe importance of this, incidentally, is that their entire argument depends on interpretation of the two words, civil action.\nDoes the district court have original jurisdiction over a civil action if the civil action includes claims over which there's clearly original jurisdiction and claims where there is not?\nNow, historically... incidentally, Exxon has to basically make new law, and they do it by saying that Zahn stands for the proposition that there's no jurisdiction over a class action which includes smaller claimants.\nI... I dare you to read Zahn and find those words.\nThey don't exist.\nAll Zahn says, all Snyder said, which preceded it, is that every class member's claim must be viewed individually.\nNow, that's a very interesting conclusion.\nIn other words, it doesn't say there's no jurisdiction over the class action.\nIt simply says the claims of the absent class members who don't meet the jurisdictional amount should be dismissed.\nNow, interesting, look at the language in 1332.\nIt says the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.\nWell, when we read that statute and we apply Zahn and Snyder, we say civil action doesn't mean the aggregate of all claims.\nThere we say what it means is we must evaluate each individual claim to determine if each individual claim within the civil action meets the jurisdictional minimum of the diversity statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2609.398, 2618.853, 2620.461, 2623.311, 2632.721, 2645.618, 2659.803, 2663.185, 2664.383, 2674.125, 2676.438, 2679.494, 2686.098, 2690.018, 2701.785, 2709.791], "stop_times": [2618.853, 2620.461, 2623.311, 2632.721, 2645.618, 2659.803, 2663.185, 2664.383, 2674.125, 2676.438, 2679.494, 2686.098, 2690.018, 2701.785, 2709.791, 2723.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2609.398}, "reply_to": "22523__2_001", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_003", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "I imagine that if you filed a claim and the plaintiff was a class and the class contained a number of people who did not meet the jurisdictional minimum and they file a claim against a defendant in a diversity suit, I imagine the first thing the judge would say would be, I've read Zahn and we don't have jurisdiction over this action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2723.537], "stop_times": [2746.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2723.537}, "reply_to": "22523__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__2_004", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Indeed.\nThat was prior to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2746.117, 2746.367], "stop_times": [2746.367, 2747.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2746.117}, "reply_to": "22523__2_003", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_005", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes, that was prior to the statute.\nSo... so they say, well, that's what the judge would have said, and moreover, if you had not a class action and you had three plaintiffs and one of them was from a different State than the defendant and the other two were not, the first thing the judge would say is, I'm very sorry.\nThere is not complete diversity.\nI do not have jurisdiction over this action.\nAnd so I take it their point is by coincidence or not, that's what this statute says.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2747.686, 2749.422, 2764.57, 2766.428, 2769.4], "stop_times": [2749.422, 2764.57, 2766.428, 2769.4, 2774.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.686}, "reply_to": "22523__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__2_006", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--I'd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2774.601], "stop_times": [2775.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2774.601}, "reply_to": "22523__2_005", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_007", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "And since that's what the statute says, that's what it means.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2775.073], "stop_times": [2777.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2775.073}, "reply_to": "22523__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__2_008", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2777.862], "stop_times": [2778.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2777.862}, "reply_to": "22523__2_007", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_009", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "It means that this kind of a situation does not fall within 1367(a) because there was not jurisdiction over that action.\nSo I agree with you that those words are what their claim depends upon, but what is the answer to that contention?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2778.045, 2786.944], "stop_times": [2786.944, 2793.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2778.045}, "reply_to": "22523__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__2_010", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Isn't it interesting, Your Honor, that what drove 1367 was this Court's decision in Finley?\nAnd what's interesting about the argument that Exxon makes here is that Finley discussed the words civil action.\nAnd in fact, what Finley said in civil action is rejected, the very argument Exxon makes here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2793.427, 2798.75, 2805.892], "stop_times": [2798.75, 2805.892, 2812.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2793.427}, "reply_to": "22523__2_009", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_011", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "No, no.\nFinley happened to be an arising-under case, and in an arising-under case, as long as there is one claim that arises under, there is jurisdiction over the action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2812.662, 2812.828], "stop_times": [2812.828, 2824.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2812.662}, "reply_to": "22523__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__2_012", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Justice Breyer, I... I agree that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2824.345], "stop_times": [2826.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2824.345}, "reply_to": "22523__2_011", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_013", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "All right.\nWell, if you agree... and I'm... when I'm saying these things in such a definite tone of voice, they reflect deep insecurity because I--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2826.408, 2826.863, 2832.974], "stop_times": [2826.863, 2832.974, 2833.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2826.408}, "reply_to": "22523__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__2_014", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Let... let me tell you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2833.839], "stop_times": [2834.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2833.839}, "reply_to": "22523__2_013", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_015", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "But... but I... I want to know what is the answer to that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2834.461], "stop_times": [2838.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2834.461}, "reply_to": "22523__2_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__2_016", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well, I... I was going to agree and disagree.\nI agree that Finley was a Federal question case.\nThat, however, doesn't go to the point of what this Court said about the words, civil action.\nWhat you said was the 1948 recodification came relatively soon after the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provide that there shall be one form of action to be known as civil action.\nConsistent with this new terminology, the '48 revision inserted the expression, civil action, throughout the provisions governing district court jurisdiction.\nAnd what the Court held is there's no meaning to those words, especially when the revision is more naturally understood as stylistic.\nSo the words, civil action... and when you look at 1332, which is what Zahn is based on, if their interpretation of the words, civil action, was correct, then Zahn was wrongly decided and Snyder was wrongly decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2838.297, 2839.662, 2843.377, 2849.2, 2860.445, 2868.602, 2875.678], "stop_times": [2839.662, 2843.377, 2849.2, 2860.445, 2868.602, 2875.678, 2888.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2838.297}, "reply_to": "22523__2_015", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_017", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Mr. Stearns, there's a difference.\nIt's not just style.\nThere's a difference between a claim and a civil action.\nA civil action can bundle several claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2888.209, 2889.324, 2890.688, 2894.691], "stop_times": [2889.324, 2890.688, 2894.691, 2898.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.209}, "reply_to": "22523__2_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__2_018", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Indeed, Your Honor, but if their argument was correct, that the civil action bundled the claims, as they suggest, then Zahn was wrongly decided.\nThen the amount in controversy in Zahn was the totality of all the claims.\nIn other words, to preserve Zahn, which concluded that the civil action word means an individual analysis of every claim within it, to preserve that conclusion, they have to argue the opposite conclusion that the words, civil action, mean all the claims are aggregated.\nThe problem with that argument is that the historical practice of this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2898.612, 2906.208, 2910.872, 2928.045], "stop_times": [2906.208, 2910.872, 2928.045, 2933.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2898.612}, "reply_to": "22523__2_017", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_019", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "I think they... what... the argument that I heard was not that all the claims have to be aggregated, but that they can't get in the door.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2933.801], "stop_times": [2940.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2933.801}, "reply_to": "22523__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__2_020", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Their... well, Your Honor, respectfully, Congress created two doors.\nAnd they have a... a door which is the door that existed under the Constitution, which is Article III jurisdiction.\nYou can come in as a diversity plaintiff into... into the courthouse.\nNow, Congress says there's another door.\nCongress went through and cleaned up 200 years of Federal court jurisprudence.\nAnd incidentally, it is anathema to law professors who have written books and tomes and lectured to law students, Your Honor, who don't understand what they're reading.\nThe notion that in 1367 in one page, Congress could write down everything you needed to know about supplemental jurisdiction is horrifying to a host of law professors--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2940.472, 2943.156, 2950.297, 2953.475, 2955.666, 2960.413, 2971.02], "stop_times": [2943.156, 2950.297, 2953.475, 2955.666, 2960.413, 2971.02, 2981.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2940.472}, "reply_to": "22523__2_019", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_021", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "But I don't see... where I'm starting from this... because at some point I'd like you to get to the... the virtue of their position in my mind at the moment is, one, it is consistent with the language, which says civil action, not claim.\nTwo, it is consistent with the only instruction I read that any legislator gave to the people who were writing this, staff, namely, write something that's noncontroversial.\nAnd third, I can, on their interpretation at least, I believe at least late at night, make sense out of all the words in these three different sections.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [2981.96, 2994.426, 3004.828], "stop_times": [2994.426, 3004.828, 3015.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2981.96}, "reply_to": "22523__2_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__2_022", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3015.685], "stop_times": [3015.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3015.685}, "reply_to": "22523__2_021", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_023", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "So at some point, I would appreciate your addressing that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3015.885], "stop_times": [3018.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3015.885}, "reply_to": "22523__2_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__2_024", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well, and I appreciate that, Your Honor, because let me start with the first premise.\nThree law professors didn't write this article... didn't write this language.\nThat's incorrect.\nThe article is written by a subcommittee of the Federal Courts Study Committee that was chaired by Judge Posner.\nJudge Posner is the author of one of the decisions that affirms the... has the same view as the Eleventh Circuit.\nJudge Posner had a member of his subcommittee, Mr. Kastenmeier, who was a Representative who just so happened to be chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee that presented this language.\nWhat happened--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3018.736, 3020.798, 3024.391, 3025.589, 3031.411, 3037.356, 3047.591], "stop_times": [3020.798, 3024.391, 3025.589, 3031.411, 3037.356, 3047.591, 3048.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3018.736}, "reply_to": "22523__2_023", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_025", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "The Federal... the Federal Study Committee was divided on Zahn issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3048.334], "stop_times": [3052.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3048.334}, "reply_to": "22523__2_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__2_026", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3052.505], "stop_times": [3053.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3052.505}, "reply_to": "22523__2_025", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_027", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "They... they didn't make a recommendation one way or another on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3053.164], "stop_times": [3056.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3053.164}, "reply_to": "22523__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__2_028", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--That's partially correct, but significantly incorrect, Your Honor.\nThe subcommittee specifically said Zahn was wrong and wrote language to overrule Zahn.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3056.342, 3059.397], "stop_times": [3059.397, 3066.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3056.342}, "reply_to": "22523__2_027", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_029", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes, and the whole committee said we do not want to take a position on Zahn.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3066.167], "stop_times": [3069.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3066.167}, "reply_to": "22523__2_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__2_030", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Respectfully, Your Honor, you have to follow it through.\nThe subcommittee said we intend to overrule Zahn.\nThe words in this statute were written by the people who said we intend to overrule Zahn.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3069.883, 3071.946, 3074.812], "stop_times": [3071.946, 3074.812, 3080.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3069.883}, "reply_to": "22523__2_029", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_031", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "I thought the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3080.435], "stop_times": [3080.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3080.435}, "reply_to": "22523__2_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_032", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "It goes to the full committee.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3080.741], "stop_times": [3081.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3080.741}, "reply_to": "22523__2_031", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_033", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--I thought the committee report said we do not intend to overrule Zahn.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3081.688], "stop_times": [3084.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3081.688}, "reply_to": "22523__2_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_034", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "No.\nActually the subcommittee report said we did, of the Federal Courts Study Committee.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3084.577, 3084.949], "stop_times": [3084.949, 3088.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3084.577}, "reply_to": "22523__2_033", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_035", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Did not the House committee report say we do not intend to overrule Zahn?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3088.376], "stop_times": [3092.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3088.376}, "reply_to": "22523__2_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_036", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "What the House committee--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3092.124], "stop_times": [3093.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3092.124}, "reply_to": "22523__2_035", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_037", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Did it?\nAm I correct or incorrect?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3093.084, 3093.355], "stop_times": [3093.355, 3094.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.084}, "reply_to": "22523__2_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_038", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--The House report--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3094.608], "stop_times": [3096.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3094.608}, "reply_to": "22523__2_037", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_039", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Am I correct or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3096.094], "stop_times": [3096.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3096.094}, "reply_to": "22523__2_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_040", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--yes, said we do not intend to overrule Zahn, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3096.799], "stop_times": [3099.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3096.799}, "reply_to": "22523__2_039", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_041", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Right, and that was also the same report that was filed in the Senate proceedings as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3099.361], "stop_times": [3103.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3099.361}, "reply_to": "22523__2_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_042", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, it is the report that was filed in the Senate.\nIt has a footnote that says we don't intend to overrule Zahn or Ben Hur--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3103.941, 3105.881], "stop_times": [3105.881, 3108.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3103.941}, "reply_to": "22523__2_041", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_043", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3108.688], "stop_times": [3109.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3108.688}, "reply_to": "22523__2_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_044", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--which I think everybody has concluded are mutually exclusive positions, but that's what it said.\nBut, Your Honor, respectfully, we now know, because they've all written Law Review articles, that the people that wrote the House report, because they've said it, wrote those law... wrote those words because they knew that the language did overrule Zahn and they didn't want to achieve that outcome.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3109.059, 3113.312], "stop_times": [3113.312, 3128.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3109.059}, "reply_to": "22523__2_043", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_045", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "I think... I think you're overstating what they say in the article.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3128.257], "stop_times": [3130.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3128.257}, "reply_to": "22523__2_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_046", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, Your Honor, respectfully, what we do have is undisputed fact here because if you see Judge Weis' conclusion, for example, Judge Weis is one of the people who has adopted one of the opinions opposing our view of... of this position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3130.486], "stop_times": [3143.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3130.486}, "reply_to": "22523__2_045", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_047", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "He was the chair of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3143.61], "stop_times": [3145.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3143.61}, "reply_to": "22523__2_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__2_048", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "He was.\nAnd Judge Weis, even in his own opinion, acknowledges that his subcommittee that wrote the language intended to overrule Zahn.\nAnd so what he says is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3145.097, 3145.43, 3153.724], "stop_times": [3145.43, 3153.724, 3155.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3145.097}, "reply_to": "22523__2_047", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_049", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Are you sure he said that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3155.211], "stop_times": [3157.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3155.211}, "reply_to": "22523__2_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_050", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--He does, Your Honor, and what he says is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3157.728], "stop_times": [3159.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3157.728}, "reply_to": "22523__2_049", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_051", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Where did he say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3159.109], "stop_times": [3159.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3159.109}, "reply_to": "22523__2_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_052", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--He says it in a footnote, and he says he was unhappy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3159.752], "stop_times": [3162.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3159.752}, "reply_to": "22523__2_051", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_053", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "In a footnote to what?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3162.436], "stop_times": [3163.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3162.436}, "reply_to": "22523__2_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_054", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--To his opinion in this... in the decision.\nIt will take me a second to find it.\nHis opinion in the Meritcare v. St. Paul.\nIn a footnote, he acknowledges... what he says is he was upset that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3163.179, 3165.658, 3167.061, 3172.938], "stop_times": [3165.658, 3167.061, 3172.938, 3177.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3163.179}, "reply_to": "22523__2_053", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_055", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "That's in an opinion written after the statute was adopted.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3177.008, 3179.693], "stop_times": [3179.693, 3179.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3177.008}, "reply_to": "22523__2_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_056", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Yes, sir.\nYes, Your Honor.\nWhat he says--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3179.943, 3180.193, 3180.852], "stop_times": [3180.193, 3180.852, 3181.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3179.943}, "reply_to": "22523__2_055", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_057", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "When he did this thing... when he was trying to write this statute, he seemed fixated on one thing, Kroger, and... and (b) seems to reflect an effort to make... put in statutory form Kroger.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3181.884], "stop_times": [3193.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3181.884}, "reply_to": "22523__2_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__2_058", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--To put it in context, the subcommittee of the Federal Courts Study Committee says Zahn is bad law and doesn't make any sense, which by the way, respectfully, I think it is.\nSo then you go to the full committee.\nThe full committee... Judge Weis doesn't like diversity jurisdiction at all.\nHe wants to abolish all diversity jurisdiction.\nThey make no recommendations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3193.856, 3200.997, 3202.889, 3205.744, 3207.602], "stop_times": [3200.997, 3202.889, 3205.744, 3207.602, 3209.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3193.856}, "reply_to": "22523__2_057", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_059", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "No, but they do say in no event should the enclosed materials be construed as having been adopted by the committee.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3209.459], "stop_times": [3215.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3209.459}, "reply_to": "22523__2_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__2_060", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Precisely.\nThat's the point he makes in his footnote.\nHe acknowledges what the subcommittee did.\nBut it's... it's important to know Representative Kastenmeier was a member of this subcommittee.\nThe Federal Courts Study Committee is not Congress.\nIt's merely an advisory body.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3215.775, 3216.314, 3217.716, 3219.862, 3224.709, 3226.716], "stop_times": [3216.314, 3217.716, 3219.862, 3224.709, 3226.716, 3228.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3215.775}, "reply_to": "22523__2_059", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_061", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Mr. Stearns, one of the things that we do know was that Congress intended to make a modest change.\nThey had their eye on Finley.\nThey wanted to overrule that.\nAnd if there's an ambiguity, isn't a court well advised to make the least change?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3228.407, 3235.754, 3238.809, 3240.584], "stop_times": [3235.754, 3238.809, 3240.584, 3246.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3228.407}, "reply_to": "22523__2_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__2_062", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, let's take those points.\nThe answer is you make the change that Congress says in the statute you should make.\nAnd so when you have an--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3246.983, 3248.097, 3252.723], "stop_times": [3248.097, 3252.723, 3254.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3246.983}, "reply_to": "22523__2_061", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_063", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, if... if you have a statute with a clear meaning, I agree with you, but this statute seems to be a bit of a muddle.\nAnd if you could read it in two different ways, then why don't you say, well, I'll pick... if they're both plausible, I'll pick the one that doesn't introduce any radical change, that just makes a minor change?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3254.088, 3261.246], "stop_times": [3261.246, 3274.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3254.088}, "reply_to": "22523__2_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__2_064", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Your Honor, respectfully, if we look at the changes that were adopted in 1367, not a single one of the ones you're hearing argued today anybody can seriously argue are significant.\nFor example, the Zahn issue.\nZahn has no material significance on litigation in the Federal courts.\nAnd why is that?\nIt's because most plaintiffs don't want to be in Federal court.\nThese plaintiffs are different.\nAnd incidentally, by the way, this is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3274.809, 3284.302, 3286.038, 3290.262, 3291.072, 3293.962, 3295.342], "stop_times": [3284.302, 3286.038, 3290.262, 3291.072, 3293.962, 3295.342, 3296.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3274.809}, "reply_to": "22523__2_063", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_065", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "It... it does... to the extent that Strawbridge is involved, it... it is a big--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3296.645], "stop_times": [3302.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3296.645}, "reply_to": "22523__2_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__2_066", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Your Honor, respectfully, this Court has been looking the other way on Strawbridge for 200 years, and what Congress did was ratify some of your previous abrogations of Strawbridge and they made another minor adjustment.\nAnd you know what it... what did they did is, again, consistent with 200 years of friendliness to defendants in Federal court.\nThe whole notion of diversity jurisdiction--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3302.218, 3314.356, 3321.703], "stop_times": [3314.356, 3321.703, 3323.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3302.218}, "reply_to": "22523__2_065", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_067", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Wait.\nOn your last statement, I... you... something that I hadn't focused on.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3323.932, 3324.182], "stop_times": [3324.182, 3327.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3323.932}, "reply_to": "22523__2_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__2_068", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--The whole--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3327.154], "stop_times": [3327.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3327.154}, "reply_to": "22523__2_067", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_069", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Can you just... you said it doesn't make any difference.\nI thought it's the defendants who want to be in Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3327.73, 3330.619], "stop_times": [3330.619, 3333.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3327.73}, "reply_to": "22523__2_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__2_070", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Indeed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3333.691], "stop_times": [3334.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3333.691}, "reply_to": "22523__2_069", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_071", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "But they can't remove the action unless it could have been there in the first place.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3334.518], "stop_times": [3337.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3334.518}, "reply_to": "22523__2_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__2_072", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Precisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3337.844], "stop_times": [3338.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3337.844}, "reply_to": "22523__2_071", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_073", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "And therefore, this interpretation, if you're overruling Zahn, would have made a big difference because it would have meant the defendants could have brought a lot of cases into Federal court by the removal, and you would have seen the plaintiffs bar up in arms if, in fact, this provision would have allowed for easier removal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3338.15], "stop_times": [3355.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3338.15}, "reply_to": "22523__2_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__2_074", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Your Honor, respectfully--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3355.511], "stop_times": [3356.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3355.511}, "reply_to": "22523__2_073", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_075", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--As... as indeed they were in the Class Action Fairness--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3356.133], "stop_times": [3358.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3356.133}, "reply_to": "22523__2_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__2_076", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Yes.\nI was going to get there, Your Honor, but in fact, Your Honor, respectfully, I hate to disagree with Your Honor, but I believe you're incorrect.\nIs that what you see in the Class Action Fairness Act, for example... and we filed it in our brief... the House and Senate committee reports which discussed this case and the fact that the majority of circuits of the circuit courts have agreed with our view... there has been no class actions of any materiality filed.\nIn fact, they made the note in 1999 or '97 more class actions were certified in one county in Illinois than filed and certified in the entire Federal system.\nAnd the reason they said that is because most plaintiffs lawyers, notwithstanding Zahn... it isn't... Zahn isn't the issue.\nSnyder was the issue.\nIt's aggregation that's the issue.\nAll plaintiffs lawyers had to do to avoid removal is simply put named plaintiffs that don't meet the jurisdictional standards for diversity, create imperfect diversity, have amounts in controversy of less than the amount in controversy required, and then they could never be removed.\nSo Zahn is simply a footnote, and it got it... all the billing of Zahn, Zahn, Zahn... the reality is the predecessor to Zahn, which is Snyder that says that you can't aggregate under 1332 the amount in controversy, that was the significant decision.\nAnd what Congress has now done a few weeks ago is to take up the Snyder case and has overruled Snyder.\nAnd what they've done is to say, when there's an aggregate claim of more than $5 million, it goes into Federal court.\nBut look at what Congress has said.\nLook at--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3358.855, 3359.227, 3363.851, 3380.653, 3390.7, 3396.628, 3397.948, 3399.972, 3415.204, 3430.724, 3437.95, 3443.727, 3445.047], "stop_times": [3359.227, 3363.851, 3380.653, 3390.7, 3396.628, 3397.948, 3399.972, 3415.204, 3430.724, 3437.95, 3443.727, 3445.047, 3445.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3358.855}, "reply_to": "22523__2_075", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_077", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--They haven't overruled Snyder.\nThey said in this class action context if you meet the standards that they set, you can aggregate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3445.79, 3447.155], "stop_times": [3447.155, 3453.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3445.79}, "reply_to": "22523__2_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__2_078", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--But Snyder was a class action case that says you cannot aggregate claims under 1332.\nAnd so what Snyder says is because... because the Class Action Fairness Act is restricted to diversity cases or diversity type cases, what it says is that... and, therefore, is an amendment to 1332.\nWhat it does is add a new section to create original jurisdiction in diversity cases involving class claims.\nAnd incidentally, the significance of that in this case is... Justice O'Connor, you said is it retroactive.\nThe answer is yes and no.\nIt's applicable to all cases filed after its effective date, which is already effective as of a couple weeks ago.\nIf Exxon gets dismissal of this claim and gets it refiled, we will be applicable to the Class Action Fairness Act and be right back in Federal court where we started.\nAnd so what you're left with is all they're really looking for here now is a new trial, and this is just a procedural game to come back.\nBut there's very... one important point I want to make to you.\nYou said in Finley we're going to not make... do this with jurisdiction anymore.\nWe're going to ask Congress to do it.\nAnd Congress did it.\nAnd so you read 1367 and, respectfully, it is clear.\nEvery court that read it at a certain point said it was clear, and the only ambiguity is created by a House report that says, notwithstanding what it says, we meant something else.\nThat's... the ambiguity is not created by the statute, but by an--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3453.432, 3457.352, 3471.554, 3478.529, 3483.897, 3485.793, 3493.223, 3504.369, 3512.421, 3514.771, 3520.51, 3521.709, 3523.195, 3528.396, 3539.542], "stop_times": [3457.352, 3471.554, 3478.529, 3483.897, 3485.793, 3493.223, 3504.369, 3512.421, 3514.771, 3520.51, 3521.709, 3523.195, 3528.396, 3539.542, 3543.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3453.432}, "reply_to": "22523__2_077", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_079", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "That's not a direct quote of the House report, I might find out.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3543.107, 3545.686], "stop_times": [3545.686, 3545.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3543.107}, "reply_to": "22523__2_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_080", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3545.808], "stop_times": [3546.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3545.808}, "reply_to": "22523__2_079", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_081", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "I say that's not a direct quote of the House report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3546.822], "stop_times": [3549.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3546.822}, "reply_to": "22523__2_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_082", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "I paraphrased, Your Honor.\n[Laughter]\nWhat we're left with here in this circumstance is that... that what... by the way, what you clearly have in the legislative history is... for example, they obviously made a comment, a joke about what this Court will do when you look at the plain language of the statute and the history that they put in it.\nAnd by the way, these three gentlemen did not write the statute.\nIt should be perfectly clear.\nThey were there observing what was going on when it was going on.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3549.134, 3551.53, 3552.023, 3570.599, 3573.2, 3574.314], "stop_times": [3551.53, 3552.023, 3570.599, 3573.2, 3574.314, 3577.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3549.134}, "reply_to": "22523__2_081", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_083", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Do you think they were being intellectually honest in their Law Review or do you think... accuse them of something other than honesty in what they said?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3577.452], "stop_times": [3583.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3577.452}, "reply_to": "22523__2_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_084", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Justice Stevens, I think whether it is or not, it demonstrates the mistake of relying upon something other than what's in the plain language of a statute because once you begin to encourage that kind of game to be played, then how would you have a trial over whether these professors were being honest or not?\nWhat do we know?\nThey did write Law Review articles and they did pretty much admit what they did.\nNow, I may have a different take on it than someone else.\nBut what are we doing here?\nThese... these plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in Federal court.\nThey didn't go to Madison County, Illinois to sue one of the largest companies in the world.\nThey didn't go to a friendly State court forum.\nThey read 1367 to say, okay, we got original jurisdiction here under 1332 of the civil action, and we read civil action, because we just read Finley and Finley says civil action are just words of art.\nIt doesn't mean what they say it means.\nSo we filed in the Federal court and through the second door come these supplemental claims.\nAnd the supplemental claims are... are... incidentally, so it's perfectly clear, in a class action context under rule 23, the named plaintiffs represent themselves and they assert their own claims, all of which were within the jurisdictional minimum, and they represent the claims of unnamed class members who they have jurisdiction over those claims through the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.\nAny way you cut it, this case... all it is is come back again and try it again.\nIt's been in the Federal courts for 14 years.\n14 years.\nEnough.\nIt's over.\nThey were found guilty.\nJudgment should be entered.\nAnd incidentally, that last point.\nThey want to reverse a judgment.\nThere is no judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3583.729, 3600.281, 3601.274, 3604.618, 3607.44, 3608.909, 3612.707, 3616.589, 3619.023, 3631.943, 3634.339, 3639.252, 3662.779, 3667.692, 3670.598, 3672.067, 3672.727, 3673.486, 3675.306, 3676.442, 3677.723, 3679.375], "stop_times": [3600.281, 3601.274, 3604.618, 3607.44, 3608.909, 3612.707, 3616.589, 3619.023, 3631.943, 3634.339, 3639.252, 3662.779, 3667.692, 3670.598, 3672.067, 3672.727, 3673.486, 3675.306, 3676.442, 3677.723, 3679.375, 3681.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3583.729}, "reply_to": "22523__2_083", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_085", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "But do you agree that if they're right on the interpretation of 1367, the judgment has to be reversed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3681.067], "stop_times": [3685.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3681.067}, "reply_to": "22523__2_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_086", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "There is no judgment, Your Honor, because the district court was well aware of the issue that existed here, notwithstanding his disagreement with some other courts, and he refused to enter judgment until the claims process went through where it was determined whether each claimant was above or below the jurisdictional amount.\nAnd so what he did in doing that was to... there is no judgment entered and he said, I'm not going to enter final judgment until this process is over.\nAnd every single case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3685.236, 3701.007, 3709.635], "stop_times": [3701.007, 3709.635, 3710.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3685.236}, "reply_to": "22523__2_085", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_087", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Let me modify the question.\nDo you agree that if they're correct, the entire action has to be dismissed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3710.788, 3711.986], "stop_times": [3711.986, 3715.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3710.788}, "reply_to": "22523__2_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_088", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--There's no case that is... that would support that outcome, including the cases they cite.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3715.496], "stop_times": [3719.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3715.496}, "reply_to": "22523__2_087", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_089", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Your answer is no, I gather.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3719.377], "stop_times": [3719.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3719.377}, "reply_to": "22523__2_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__2_090", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "The answer is no.\nNewman-Green doesn't say that.\nCaterpillar doesn't say that.\nNo reported case says that.\nNo reported case has ever found jurisdiction destruction in a jurisdictional amount case ever in the annals of Federal jurisprudence.\nAnd when people... you invite people to look at a statute, you invite Congress to write one, and people look at it and read it, they ought to be able to rely upon it and not what some staff person put in the back door in a legislative report that's inconsistent with the words of the statute itself.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3719.583, 3720.204, 3721.523, 3723.176, 3724.95, 3732.957, 3748.19], "stop_times": [3720.204, 3721.523, 3723.176, 3724.95, 3732.957, 3748.19, 3748.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3719.583}, "reply_to": "22523__2_089", "speaker": "eugene_e_stearns"}
{"id": "22523__2_091", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stearns.\nMr. Ayer, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3748.894, 3749.554], "stop_times": [3749.554, 3751.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3748.894}, "reply_to": "22523__2_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__3_000", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nWe have a little bit different view I think of the statute than the other counsel arguing this morning.\nWe... we believe that the statute actually makes quite a lot of sense, and we also believe emphatically that it does not reverse the complete diversity requirement.\nI think the clearest indication of the incorrectness of Mr. Phillips' and Mr. Long's position is the comparative treatment under their reading of the Federal question case that is in Federal court and the diversity case.\nUnder their reading, it's perfectly clear... and I think everyone agrees... that... that when additional claims, as in the City of Chicago case, are joined with a Federal question case and they are... they relate to the same subject matter, that it will, in fact... they will be within the supplemental jurisdiction.\nMost importantly, for purposes of this comparison, they will not destroy the original jurisdiction over a civil action even though they are claims that are not themselves within the original jurisdiction.\nSomehow or other, the argument is advanced that when you have a diversity case in Federal court where all parties are diverse and there is the jurisdictional amount satisfied and you bring in other parties who do not destroy complete diversity and therefore do not destroy the jurisdiction of the court over the initial matter that was before it... somehow or other the argument is advanced that the jurisdiction over the civil action in that situation is destroyed even though it is not destroyed in the Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3751.412, 3774.817, 3780.64, 3789.39, 3805.532, 3824.024, 3837.399], "stop_times": [3774.817, 3780.64, 3789.39, 3805.532, 3824.024, 3837.399, 3868.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3751.412}, "reply_to": "22523__2_091", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_001", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "I... I don't know what you mean when you say they... they don't destroy complete diversity.\nYou mean that the original plaintiff and the original defendant are still who they used to be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3868.895, 3872.61], "stop_times": [3872.61, 3877.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3868.895}, "reply_to": "22523__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22523__3_002", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--No, no.\nNo, I'm sorry, Your Honor.\nI... I must have misspoke.\nWhat I mean to say is that... that in the case where a... a diverse additional plaintiff comes in to bring a claim--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3877.357, 3877.811, 3878.35, 3879.586], "stop_times": [3877.811, 3878.35, 3879.586, 3888.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3877.357}, "reply_to": "22523__3_001", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_003", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "You're talking about geographical diversity--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3888.502], "stop_times": [3890.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3888.502}, "reply_to": "22523__3_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22523__3_004", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3890.693], "stop_times": [3891.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3890.693}, "reply_to": "22523__3_003", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_005", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--not jurisdictional.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3891.014], "stop_times": [3891.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3891.014}, "reply_to": "22523__3_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22523__3_006", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Correct.\nI'm... I'm drawing... effectively what... the point I'm making is that this distinction between the Federal question case joined with cases that are not within the original jurisdiction and the diversity case, which is clearly within the original jurisdiction, because all parties are diverse, but it is joined with claims that are below the jurisdictional amount, so that they are not within the diversity jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3891.657, 3892.3], "stop_times": [3892.3, 3913.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3891.657}, "reply_to": "22523__3_005", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_007", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "But I don't understand the distinction that you're making between diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy since 1332 includes both.\nTo qualify for diversity from the very beginning, you have to be of the opposite... you have to be from a different State than your opponent and the matter in controversy must be X. And that's always been part of the diversity... diversity jurisdiction.\nThere were two components.\nOne was the citizenship of the parties.\nTwo was the amount in controversy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3913.272, 3924.706, 3942.251, 3944.768, 3947.574], "stop_times": [3924.706, 3942.251, 3944.768, 3947.574, 3949.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3913.272}, "reply_to": "22523__3_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__3_008", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.\nThe... the question... I think the difference is that the concept of complete diversity, which this Court for 200 years has articulated as in the statute that grants diversity jurisdiction is a relational concept.\nIn order to determine whether you have jurisdiction over any parties in a case, you must look at all of the parties in the case.\nWith regard to amount in controversy, it's perfectly clear, and... and 1367 changes nothing about the fact that 1332 jurisdiction requires meeting the amount in controversy.\nBut if 1367 has conferred, as it has, supplemental, additional jurisdiction, then the question that has to be asked is, does the fact that a party coming in with what is otherwise a supplemental claim... does... does the presence of that party destroy the original jurisdiction that exists where the new party coming in is diverse but doesn't meet the jurisdictional amount?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [3949.226, 3949.886, 3962.972, 3970.403, 3984.809], "stop_times": [3949.886, 3962.972, 3970.403, 3984.809, 4012.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3949.226}, "reply_to": "22523__3_007", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_009", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, they're saying what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.\nIf it does in the amount, it does so in the... if it's... if... you're trying to drive a wedge between the geographical diversity and amount.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4012.839, 4014.531], "stop_times": [4014.531, 4024.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4012.839}, "reply_to": "22523__3_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__3_010", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4024.19], "stop_times": [4025.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4024.19}, "reply_to": "22523__3_009", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_011", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "And they say you can't do that under the statute.\nIf you're prepared to say that bringing in a new plaintiff from the same State as the defendant does destroy diversity over the original action, you must also be prepared to say that bringing in a new plaintiff who only has $3 at issue destroys the original jurisdiction because there's no way, in terms of the original jurisdiction and the wording of 1332, to make that distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4025.016, 4026.835], "stop_times": [4026.835, 4054.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4025.016}, "reply_to": "22523__3_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__3_012", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4054.532], "stop_times": [4054.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4054.532}, "reply_to": "22523__3_011", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_013", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Now, you respond to that what?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4054.921], "stop_times": [4056.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4054.921}, "reply_to": "22523__3_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__3_014", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--I... I will.\nWell, I will.\nI'll respond in terms of the City of Chicago.\nCity of Chicago is a case where you have issues, claims within the Federal question jurisdiction.\nAdditional claims in the case arise under State law.\nThey are not within the Federal question jurisdiction, but they are related to the same case or controversy.\nThe Court said, with no difficulty, both for purposes of 1367 and for purposes of 1441, that is a case within the original jurisdiction.\nIt's a civil action.\nIn both statutes, the same language.\nIt's a civil action within the original jurisdiction.\nAnd... and if that is the case, in a Federal question case... I think I want to... I'm going to get to the important point here.\nThis Court has many, many decisions and many other courts have many decisions saying emphatically that when you add a party or when there is a party in a case who destroys complete diversity, the court loses jurisdiction over the entire matter.\nTo my knowledge, the last time the Court said it as a holding was in the Schacht case a few years ago.\nThere are, I think, dozens of cases from this Court.\nWe cite about five of them on page 24 and 25 of our blue brief.\nThat is a fundamental principle and it is because the concept of complete diversity is a relational concept.\nIt depends on who the parties are in the case.\nAs has been said many times, the requirement of amount in controversy is individual.\nThe fact that a party submits a complaint and the complaint has one party, as in our case, whose claim comes within the diversity jurisdiction and includes other parties who we agree their claims do not come within the original jurisdiction... does the fact that those claims are all put on the same piece of paper, put on a complaint, does that mean the court, the trial court, lacks jurisdiction over the first claim as to which all the requirements are met?\nThere are no nondiverse parties here.\nWe have complete diversity.\nWe have a claimant who meets the jurisdictional amount.\nWe have a civil... a civil action within the original jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4056.474, 4056.929, 4057.55, 4059.918, 4065.762, 4070.592, 4075.754, 4085.535, 4086.9, 4088.425, 4090.82, 4097.341, 4113.688, 4118.6, 4121.162, 4125.453, 4133.545, 4136.024, 4141.43, 4168.095, 4170.037, 4171.439, 4173.546], "stop_times": [4056.929, 4057.55, 4059.918, 4065.762, 4070.592, 4075.754, 4085.535, 4086.9, 4088.425, 4090.82, 4097.341, 4113.688, 4118.6, 4121.162, 4125.453, 4133.545, 4136.024, 4141.43, 4168.095, 4170.037, 4171.439, 4173.546, 4177.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4056.474}, "reply_to": "22523__3_013", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_015", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, you... you could say the same thing about... about a... a second claim that destroys diversity.\nYou could say the same thing.\nDoes that... does that... does the absence of diversity in this second claim destroy the diversity that existed in the first claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4177.345, 4185.723, 4186.837], "stop_times": [4185.723, 4186.837, 4194.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4177.345}, "reply_to": "22523__3_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22523__3_016", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, it does, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4194.928], "stop_times": [4196.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4194.928}, "reply_to": "22523__3_015", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_017", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "I mean, no, I doesn't.\nI mean, the diversity that existed in the first claim is still there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4196.043, 4196.786], "stop_times": [4196.786, 4200.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4196.043}, "reply_to": "22523__3_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22523__3_018", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, I'll... I'll give you an example of a situation that is often trotted out as a problem under our reading of the statute, and we think... the irony of it is, I think, none of the parties actually think it's a problem, and I certainly don't, and that is, the problem of a rule 20 plaintiff who is not listed in (b).\nBut let's just say a... a plaintiff comes in and files a... a complaint.\nThere is complete diversity.\nClever plaintiff says, aha, here I am.\nI've gotten through (a).\nWe're in court.\nNow, I'm in (b) and I am... I'm a rule 20.\nI'm going to add some rule 20 plaintiffs, and I've got these folks who are not diverse and we're going to bring them in.\nWell, we... we have cited cases, I think on page 33 of our brief, where it's perfectly clear that no court, I think, in its right mind is going to turn around 2 weeks later and say, oh, you got me.\nYou know, we're going to have to let these nondiverse plaintiffs in.\nWe're going to have to go forward with this case because you did it in the right order.\nIf you had filed it all in one complaint, you'd be out of court, but you're a clever guy and you filed it in two different steps.\nSo supplemental jurisdiction.\nYou come in.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4200.584, 4216.271, 4219.948, 4221.201, 4223.967, 4224.899, 4226.18, 4228.697, 4234.065, 4246.464, 4250.079, 4253.423, 4259.245, 4260.648], "stop_times": [4216.271, 4219.948, 4221.201, 4223.967, 4224.899, 4226.18, 4228.697, 4234.065, 4246.464, 4250.079, 4253.423, 4259.245, 4260.648, 4261.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4200.584}, "reply_to": "22523__3_017", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_019", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Exactly, but that's the reason for saying that... look, as I understand it... and this is... the... the thing that got me thinking they may have a point here is A, B, and C are dealing with three separate problems.\nThe first problem is how to overrule Finley without affecting anything else like Zahn or any of the others.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4261.308, 4276.168], "stop_times": [4276.168, 4283.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4261.308}, "reply_to": "22523__3_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__3_020", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, we... we disagree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4283.97], "stop_times": [4285.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4283.97}, "reply_to": "22523__3_019", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_021", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "The second problem B is simply Kroger.\nB is how to make statutory Kroger.\nAnd C is United Mine Workers v. Pennington to make sure they have discretion to get rid of supplemental jurisdiction.\nNow, once you see it as three separate problems... I know they wanted me to see it this way, but once you see it as three separate problems, the words fall into place as long as you do interpret that word, civil action, to mean, well, there is no jurisdiction over the civil action where what's happened is you've simply added as a defendant a nondiverse party or you've added as a plaintiff a nondiverse party or a party that doesn't meet the jurisdictional amount.\nNow, I spell all that out because I hope in the next 15 minutes you will tell me why that's wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4285.706, 4287.525, 4291.9, 4299.535, 4334.997], "stop_times": [4287.525, 4291.9, 4299.535, 4334.997, 4341.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4285.706}, "reply_to": "22523__3_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__3_022", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, I... we agree entirely with the first part of what... what Your Honor has said.\nWe... we agree completely that the complete diversity requirement, which has been articulated so many times, means that when you bring in a... a nondiverse party, it destroys jurisdiction.\nThere is not a single case from this Court or that I know of any other court that states that the jurisdiction over the original action is destroyed.\nOne of the things that was said here very... somewhat cleverly this morning is that in Zahn the... the case was not allowed to go forward because of the presence of these other parties.\nThat isn't what they said.\nThree different times in Zahn the Court said these parties must be dismissed.\nThere is no jurisdiction over these parties whose claims are small.\nThey are out.\nNo one ever said, oh, my goodness, we're going to lose jurisdiction over the case.\nEvery time this issue arises in the context of... of complete diversity, the court says, oh, my goodness, we don't have jurisdiction.\nWe can't hear any part of this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4341.062, 4344.778, 4356.295, 4366.12, 4377.183, 4378.176, 4382.839, 4386.842, 4387.768, 4391.672, 4399.741], "stop_times": [4344.778, 4356.295, 4366.12, 4377.183, 4378.176, 4382.839, 4386.842, 4387.768, 4391.672, 4399.741, 4401.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4341.062}, "reply_to": "22523__3_021", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_023", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Mr. Ayer, let... maybe I'm going to oversimplify to the point of the absurd but let me try it.\nThe argument that you're answering is the argument that there is no textual basis in (a) to distinguish the geographical diversity requirement from the amount-in-controversy requirement.\nYour answer is, I think, that when the drafters in (a) refer to action and jurisdiction, those terms have to be understood historically as we have understood them, and the significance of a... a geographical problem, which does destroy jurisdiction traditionally, is different from an amount-in-controversy problem which is... which does not and is dealt with more simply.\nIs that your--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4401.331, 4407.73, 4421.022, 4454.747], "stop_times": [4407.73, 4421.022, 4454.747, 4455.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4401.331}, "reply_to": "22523__3_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22523__3_024", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4455.673], "stop_times": [4456.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4455.673}, "reply_to": "22523__3_023", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_025", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4456.749], "stop_times": [4456.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4456.749}, "reply_to": "22523__3_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22523__3_026", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "That is correct.\nAnd... and I would just like to go on and say one other thing, and that is, this Court has written how many hundreds I don't know, but hundreds of cases articulating nuances... and... and I've learned how remarkable they are, the nuances... of law under 1332 and under what amounts to a case within... it's incredible how complex the law that this Court has spelled out is under 1332.\nOur view of the statute is that that body of law has been preserved and it's been preserved in two places.\nIt has been preserved in the first clause of 1367(a), which is really all that's at issue right here, and it's also been... been preserved in the last clause of 1367(b) which says that... that as to the list of enumerated exceptions... in essence, (b) says if you've got a case within the original jurisdiction, then it says, with regard to plaintiffs' claims against parties joined under 14, 19, 20, and 24 and with regard to claims brought by persons to be joined under 19 or 24, then you don't have supplemental jurisdiction if to do so would be inconsistent with the requirements of jurisdiction under 1332.\nWhat does that mean?\nThat means that those excepted claims may not come in if they could not have been brought in the case originally without destroying original jurisdiction under 1332.\nIt can't possibly mean, as our opponents I think read it, that the only time you have supplemental jurisdiction over these claims is when you already have 1332 jurisdiction over these claims.\nThat isn't supplemental jurisdiction.\nIt would make absolutely no sense to read the statute that way.\nSo how do we read it?\nWe read it to say if these are claims whose presence in the case at the beginning would have destroyed the anchor that gets us into court, which is a case under 1332, then the whole thing goes out the window.\nAnd furthermore, I would say... and again, this is not an easy point to spell out in all of its nuances, but at any point in the case, which will not be many and won't be often... but at any point in the case where this Court's cases would say that you just lost jurisdiction under 1332... and I say that's not often because basically there's a time of filing rule and there are many, many, as you all know better than I... there are many nuances as to what exceptions exist to that and what don't.\nBut the bottom line is if the case falls out of 1332 jurisdiction, such as when the clever plaintiff tries to join a rule 20 compadre to come in and bring a nondiverse claim, goodbye.\nYou're out of court because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4456.871, 4457.326, 4478.974, 4485.478, 4527.626, 4528.824, 4542.57, 4554.292, 4556.438, 4559.493, 4560.525, 4574.066, 4601.847, 4615.304], "stop_times": [4457.326, 4478.974, 4485.478, 4527.626, 4528.824, 4542.57, 4554.292, 4556.438, 4559.493, 4560.525, 4574.066, 4601.847, 4615.304, 4616.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4456.871}, "reply_to": "22523__3_025", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_027", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "See, that... that's what I thought was their view of... of (b).\nTo go to (b), you understand (b), you have to go back before Kroger.\nAnd Kroger was worried about some clever plaintiff, as you say--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4616.336, 4620.422, 4624.509], "stop_times": [4620.422, 4624.509, 4629.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4616.336}, "reply_to": "22523__3_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__3_028", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4629.134], "stop_times": [4629.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4629.134}, "reply_to": "22523__3_027", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_029", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--getting a defendant.\nHe knows this defendant is going to bring a third party complaint against Smith from the same State, and he says, ha, I'll sue this defendant.\nAnd analogous things happen with rule 19 and 24, not really with 20 they said, but 19 and 24.\nAnd then Kroger says, hey, you can't do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4629.627, 4630.992, 4638.422, 4646.679], "stop_times": [4630.992, 4638.422, 4646.679, 4648.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4629.627}, "reply_to": "22523__3_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__3_030", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4648.925], "stop_times": [4649.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4648.925}, "reply_to": "22523__3_029", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_031", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "And so (b) was Judge Weis' effort to make sure that was codified.\nIt wasn't really meant so much as some kind of exception from (a).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4649.091, 4654.126], "stop_times": [4654.126, 4657.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4649.091}, "reply_to": "22523__3_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__3_032", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4657.348], "stop_times": [4657.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4657.348}, "reply_to": "22523__3_031", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_033", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "It was meant to have an independent basis there.\nSo I didn't see, if you give it an independent basis, how anything odd happens--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4657.841, 4660.071], "stop_times": [4660.071, 4664.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4657.841}, "reply_to": "22523__3_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__3_034", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4664.407], "stop_times": [4665.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4664.407}, "reply_to": "22523__3_033", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_035", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--by giving it their reading.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4665.522], "stop_times": [4667.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4665.522}, "reply_to": "22523__3_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22523__3_036", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well, I... I just think that the whole statute makes a very great deal of sense.\nI mean, one question is, does the first clause of (a)... is... is that a gate you have to get through and once you get through it, you're done?\nI think the answer is no.\nI think... I think clearly you've got to have a case within the original jurisdiction under 1332, and if you lose it, the supplemental jurisdiction is a tail that falls off.\nIt... it goes away.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4667.379, 4673.24, 4679.656, 4680.67, 4689.215], "stop_times": [4673.24, 4679.656, 4680.67, 4689.215, 4689.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4667.379}, "reply_to": "22523__3_035", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_037", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Mr.... Mr. Ayer, may I ask you a question on your interpretation?\nI think you were... your position is that Clark against Paul Gray has been overruled, and whatever one may say about the attention that was focused on Zahn, Clark against Paul Gray has been on the books since 1939.\nAnd it seems unlikely that Congress would have overruled that without even making a peep to that effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4689.958, 4693.59, 4712.705], "stop_times": [4693.59, 4712.705, 4721.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4689.958}, "reply_to": "22523__3_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__3_038", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, Clark, of course, is a Federal question case.\nClark is a case at... at the time when there was an amount-in-controversy requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4721.826, 4724.593], "stop_times": [4724.593, 4728.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4721.826}, "reply_to": "22523__3_037", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_039", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Yes.\nIt's about an amount-in-controversy rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4728.802, 4728.968], "stop_times": [4728.968, 4730.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4728.802}, "reply_to": "22523__3_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__3_040", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Right.\nI... I understand, Your Honor.\nI... I think... I mean, I... I would... it seems to me that at the end of the day, we have to say that the statute did what it did, and... and if... if it reversed Zahn, it seems to me that it certainly reversed... reversed Clark, and frankly, we think the conclusion is easier for all of the reasons based in the statute.\nOne thing I would like to do before... before the light goes off here is... is talk a little bit about the legislative history.\nAnd of course, our position first... in the first instance is that there really isn't any reason to consider it because this is not a statute that destroys complete diversity.\nIt doesn't do anything radical.\nIt actually is quite sensible and limited and clear when you read it.\nSo we don't think you need to go to it.\nBut if the Court is going to go to it, we would submit that there is a far more sensible way of thinking about the legislative history than grabbing one sentence out of the House report, which I'll talk about in a minute as to what significance it really has anyway.\nBut essentially the sequence of events here... and I'll try to go through it quickly... is that you... and as Mr. Stearns said, you have basically three versions of this... of this enactment.\nThe last one got tweaked a little bit at the end.\nThe first version is the... is the subcommittee report.\nAnd as he indicated, the subcommittee report, which actually appears at page 14 and 15 of our brief, of our yellow brief... if you read the text of (a), which appears on page 14, what you see is language which on its face clearly does reverse Zahn, and then you have the commentary that went with it in the working papers to the subcommittee, and that commentary could not have been more emphatic of... of the intent to reverse Zahn.\nThe second enactment, which we have put in an addendum to our yellow brief because it, frankly, plays little role in the case in... in thinking through the statute, is the section 120 of House Resolution 5381.\nAnd essentially when Congress... it's quite correct that the Federal Courts Study Committee did not specifically endorse the subcommittee proposal.\nIt passed it along, saying it wasn't taking a position.\nWhen it got to Congress, from somewhere a new enactment came forward onto the floor or onto the committee that was addressing it, and that's this provision in the addendum of our yellow brief.\nAnd all I'm going to say about that is that when you look at that, number one, it looks entirely different.\nNumber two, it actually does a much poorer job of preserving complete diversity, and it does, in fact, explicitly overrule Owen Equipment v. Kroger.\nJudge Weis came in and testified and said, that's bad, don't do that.\nYou know, you've got to show more respect for complete diversity, and... and you shouldn't do that.\nThat got put into the ash can.\nSo that's the end of 120.\nAnd the next thing he did, attached to his same testimony, was... was submit a proposal, which is in our yellow brief at page 16.\nAnd this... this is what we said we think you should enact.\nIf you compare the language of (a) with the language of (a) in the enactment on page 14, you will see that it's a couple lines longer.\nIt has a few more embellishments and words, but it is substantively indistinguishable, the provision in (a).\nAnd so what we have is Judge Weis putting forward a proposal that can't be substantively distinguished from the one that the subcommittee said, clearly correctly, would reverse Zahn.\nThe last question here is what happened then, and what happened then to provision (a)... there are essentially three things that happened to this whole provision that I'm aware of.\nOne is they took out the words, on a claim, and that's the argument that's principally advanced here.\nThey took those.\nSo it's civil action on a claim.\nThey took out on a claim.\nThey also changed the last clause of (b) and they also changed the reference in the supplemental jurisdiction from case or... from... what is the... the transaction or occurrence to case or controversy.\nAnd those are all the changes.\nWe would submit that there is no basis to infer from any of those things, and particularly not the first one that dealt with (a), that they meant by dropping on a claim to somehow say, oh, my goodness, you've got to have jurisdiction over all of the claims before you.\nAgain, that is inconsistent with the Court's opinion in City of Chicago.\nYou can't come out the same way in City of Chicago if the presence of a nonjurisdictional claim destroys original jurisdiction over the civil action.\nThe last thing I... I want to say about the... the jurisdiction which the other side relies upon... essentially it's a sentence that says there was no intent to, quote, affect the jurisdictional requirements of 1332 in diversity-only class actions.\nAnd then there's a cite, a footnote to Zahn and Ben Hur.\nThat's pretty much what there is that they talk about.\nWell, number one, as has been said, the authors... apparently the authors of that language, the ones who put it in conceded that this legislative history was an attempt to correct an oversight in the statute, which it would have been better to have corrected in the statute.\nWe think that's significant.\nBut I would go beyond that and say that if you just look at this language, no... no intent to affect the jurisdictional requirements of 1332 in diversity-only class actions, number one, most importantly, we don't think there's been a change in the requirements under 1332.\nAs I've said before, this statute engrafted this Court's entire body of 1332 jurisprudence in the first line of... of clause (a) and in the last line of clause (b), and so it's all there.\nNo one has changed 1332.\nThis is supplemental jurisdiction additional to it.\nAnd secondly, this is not a class action.\nThere's nothing in our case that relates to a class action.\nThat's an issue, if you think this is relevant, you have to deal with in... in the other case, but you don't have to deal with it in our case.\nI guess the last thing I would say about legislative history is that we think probably the most important legislative history here, other than the tracking of these provisions, which we think is quite indicative, is... is that the... the House report, among other things, also said that what they were trying to do was to provide, quote, a practical arena for the resolution of an entire controversy.\nAnd we think that in the context of our case, as... as has been pointed out here already by Justice Ginsburg, it makes very little sense to resolve our case by splitting it in two and sending it to different courts.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [4730.288, 4730.66, 4731.403, 4752.17, 4757.575, 4765.461, 4766.697, 4772.642, 4773.922, 4789.815, 4800.756, 4803.189, 4806.821, 4835.39, 4849.629, 4856.688, 4859.306, 4870.351, 4874.809, 4884.924, 4888.806, 4894.107, 4895.615, 4897.555, 4905.44, 4910.065, 4918.36, 4924.472, 4935.079, 4943.807, 4949.917, 4950.51, 4952.063, 4953.095, 4968.039, 4969.07, 4983.271, 4987.358, 4997.017, 5013.16, 5017.162, 5019.968, 5034.995, 5036.11, 5054.52, 5067.689, 5069.546, 5072.353, 5074.748, 5078.008, 5083.87, 5107.647, 5118.011], "stop_times": [4730.66, 4731.403, 4752.17, 4757.575, 4765.461, 4766.697, 4772.642, 4773.922, 4789.815, 4800.756, 4803.189, 4806.821, 4835.39, 4849.629, 4856.688, 4859.306, 4870.351, 4874.809, 4884.924, 4888.806, 4894.107, 4895.615, 4897.555, 4905.44, 4910.065, 4918.36, 4924.472, 4935.079, 4943.807, 4949.917, 4950.51, 4952.063, 4953.095, 4968.039, 4969.07, 4983.271, 4987.358, 4997.017, 5013.16, 5017.162, 5019.968, 5034.995, 5036.11, 5054.52, 5067.689, 5069.546, 5072.353, 5074.748, 5078.008, 5083.87, 5107.647, 5118.011, 5118.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4730.288}, "reply_to": "22523__3_039", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "22523__3_041", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Ayer.\nMr. Phillips, you have another 4 minutes, and I see that will be adjournment time, I will let everyone else know.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [5118.754, 5120.462], "stop_times": [5120.462, 5127.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5118.754}, "reply_to": "22523__3_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22523__4_000", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Thank... thank you, Justice Stevens, and I'd just like to make a few points.\nFirst of all, Justice Kennedy, you asked about the City of Chicago case, and Justice Ginsburg said this sort of feels like a Finley type case in the... in... in how it applies in the diversity context.\nBut the fundamental point here is that there is a very different approach and there has always been a very different approach to Federal question jurisdiction and to diversity jurisdiction.\nFederal question jurisdiction has always been claims-driven.\nDiversity jurisdiction has always been party-driven.\nAnd the Congress that enacted 1367 in 1990 had to have understood that.\nIt's been the law for as long as... as we've had... for the 200 years that Strawbridge has been around, that distinction has... has existed.\nAnd so we're not asking the Court to interpret civil action differently in this particular statute.\nWe're asking the Court to focus on civil actions of which the district court has jurisdiction.\nThat incorporates all of the requirements of 1331 and 1332.\nSecond, Justice Breyer, I'm a little reluctant to get into this rule 19, rule 24 to try... but I think I can help at least clarify at least some aspects of it.\nRule 19 by its terms excludes situations that defeat jurisdiction.\nSo it says in the rule that if you're bringing in a necessary party... remember, this is the defendant who is bringing in a necessary party... if it would defeat jurisdiction, you can't do it, and if it still is indispensable, you have to dismiss the entirety of the case, which is precedent for the notion that sometimes you have to dismiss the entirety of the case in situations where you don't have jurisdiction over a particular party.\nBut the... the second question, rule 24.\nI think the standard is that you could bring in a rule 24 party within supplemental jurisdiction that doesn't defeat anything with respect to the original civil action.\nI think that was the rule prior to 1367.\nBut to the extent it was or wasn't, I think 1367(a) and (b) combine to allow that to happen.\n(b) then says that if someone intervenes as a party, the plaintiff cannot bring a claim against that... that intervening party.\nJustice Souter, you asked about the different treatment between the amount-in-controversy requirement and the geography requirement.\nIf there is a distinction... and I don't think this provision allows any kind of meaningful distinction between the two as it applies in the 1367 context... it is that the amount-in-controversy requirement is more important.\nThat's what Zahn held.\nYou can dispense with the geography requirement in Ben Hur, but you cannot dispense with the amount-in-controversy requirement.\nAnd the reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [5127.709, 5131.896, 5143.107, 5152.108, 5155.284, 5158.274, 5163.253, 5171.631, 5176.728, 5181.374, 5186.409, 5193.346, 5198.548, 5218.61, 5223.189, 5232.743, 5235.533, 5240.651, 5247.588, 5253.904, 5264.678, 5265.997, 5272.685], "stop_times": [5131.896, 5143.107, 5152.108, 5155.284, 5158.274, 5163.253, 5171.631, 5176.728, 5181.374, 5186.409, 5193.346, 5198.548, 5218.61, 5223.189, 5232.743, 5235.533, 5240.651, 5247.588, 5253.904, 5264.678, 5265.997, 5272.685, 5272.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5127.709}, "reply_to": "22523__3_041", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__4_001", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "This didn't make a whole lot of sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [5272.973], "stop_times": [5274.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5272.973}, "reply_to": "22523__4_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__4_002", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "--Well, except it does because the... the amount-in-controversy requirement keeps a lot of smaller cases out of Federal court that otherwise would be in there.\nIt is a protection of this Court's docket and all the Federal courts' dockets, and that's important.\nAnd that's also a distinction between the Federal question cases and the diversity cases.\nIf you resolve diversity in favor of driving cases to State court, you are promoting federalism interests because State courts should decide law.\nIf you drive more cases into Federal courts under Federal question, that's right because you think Federal courts are, in general, better suited to resolve Federal courts... Federal questions.\nAnd then finally, with respect to the remedy, Justice Ginsburg, Newman-Green says you can simply excise some parties if there is no prejudice.\nAnd what I submit to you is we have a case that has been litigated from day one without jurisdiction involving more than 1,000 plaintiffs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [5274.459, 5282.633, 5287.546, 5291.882, 5299.23, 5308.722, 5318.565], "stop_times": [5282.633, 5287.546, 5291.882, 5299.23, 5308.722, 5318.565, 5326.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5274.459}, "reply_to": "22523__4_001", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__4_003", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "That... this point was not... would be you're asking us to decide it in the first instance.\nYou, I would expect, make argument to the district judge when you go back.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [5326.472, 5334.44], "stop_times": [5334.44, 5340.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5326.472}, "reply_to": "22523__4_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__4_004", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, except that this Court in Dataflux didn't send it back.\nThis Court in Dataflux decided that the right... in Grupo Dataflux that the right answer is that the remedy for this mistake is the dismissal certainly of the class, but I think frankly the dismissal of the entirety of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [5340.301, 5342.798], "stop_times": [5342.798, 5353.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5340.301}, "reply_to": "22523__4_003", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__4_005", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, that's because the Court conceived of there... there being one entity, so you couldn't... you couldn't change... split that one entity into two fictitious persons.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [5353.183], "stop_times": [5365.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5353.183}, "reply_to": "22523__4_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22523__4_006", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Well, that's... and that's what the district court held in Zahn, which is the reason the district court didn't allow this case to come... didn't allow this to go forward as a class action.\nAnd that's important to remember.\nThis Court didn't say you dismiss out anything in Zahn.\nZahn came up without it being a class action.\nThe district court dismissed the class action.\nIt came up trying to reinstate it.\nThis Court said you can't reinstate it.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [5365.898, 5372.296, 5373.328, 5376.589, 5379.068, 5380.758, 5382.161, 5383.814], "stop_times": [5372.296, 5373.328, 5376.589, 5379.068, 5380.758, 5382.161, 5383.814, 5385.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5365.898}, "reply_to": "22523__4_005", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22523__4_007", "conversation_id": "22523", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Phillips.\nThis... these cases are submitted.\nWe'll hear argument in the next case at one o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-70", "start_times": [5385.095, 5385.755, 5387.779], "stop_times": [5385.755, 5387.779, 5390.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5385.095}, "reply_to": "22523__4_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__0_000", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "We will now hear argument in Exxon Mobil against Saudi Basic Industries.\nMr. Coleman, I trust you will soon tell us why the case is not moot or whether you think it's moot, and if... if not, why not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [0.0, 8.052], "stop_times": [8.052, 40.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__0_001", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Good morning, Justice Stevens.\nMay it please the Court:\nI will begin with that, if you would like.\nThis case is not moot because there is an ongoing case or controversy between the parties.\nThere is a judgment, it is true, from the Delaware State court, which has now been affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court.\nBut preclusion doctrines not Rooker-Feldman and not mootness govern the resolution of the claims that we asserted first--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [40.124, 42.975, 44.005, 45.863, 50.898, 57.38], "stop_times": [42.975, 44.005, 45.863, 50.898, 57.38, 68.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 40.124}, "reply_to": "21815__0_000", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_002", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, what financial interests do your clients have to keep litigating today in another court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [68.731], "stop_times": [75.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 68.731}, "reply_to": "21815__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21815__0_003", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--I don't know the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [75.297], "stop_times": [77.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 75.297}, "reply_to": "21815__0_002", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_004", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "What's going on?\nI mean, it's very confusing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [77.526, 78.019], "stop_times": [78.019, 79.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 77.526}, "reply_to": "21815__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21815__0_005", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Well, certainly, Justice O'Connor, we've not yet recovered on our judgment and that judgment is still there.\nIt is still in existence.\nWe've not yet collected on it.\nBut I don't believe that mootness turns on whether you have, in fact, collected on a judgment.\nThere are very few cases out there in which a party has, in fact, obtained two judgments, one from a State court and one from a Federal court, usually because a party waived the application of preclusion doctrines.\nAnd... and we have conceded previously that that's not our interest.\nWhat is our interest here is that we have asserted Federal jurisdiction.\nThis case was brought in Federal court by SABIC.\nDuring the course of discovery, we found some things out that they had been overcharging us and we indicated that we were going to bring claims against them in Federal court.\nThey ran down to Delaware court by forum shopping in order to try to obtain a shorter statute of limitations, which turned out for them to be a strategic blunder of monumental proportions.\nBut the Federal case, when we filed it, those claims had original jurisdiction in Federal court.\nThey have not yet been resolved in a proper way.\nWe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [79.505, 88.133, 90.158, 91.272, 95.852, 108.855, 112.199, 117.65, 120.744, 130.198, 144.482, 152.573, 157.031], "stop_times": [88.133, 90.158, 91.272, 95.852, 108.855, 112.199, 117.65, 120.744, 130.198, 144.482, 152.573, 157.031, 157.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 79.505}, "reply_to": "21815__0_004", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_006", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "But do you have a continuing case or controversy?\nThat was... that... that's a bedrock Article III requirement, and if you've got all the relief that you were seeking... let's put it this way.\nSuppose your opponent SABIC says, here's the check for the $417 million and we undertake that we're not going to pursue any further relief.\nWould you have a case or controversy left?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [157.979, 161.611, 170.61, 182.87], "stop_times": [161.611, 170.61, 182.87, 185.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 157.979}, "reply_to": "21815__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__0_007", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nWe might not have an interest in pursuing the case, but we have a legal interest in terms of Article III case or controversy.\nIt is well established that the... the fact of taking a judgment does not make a case moot.\nIn fact, if there were a holding that we think that the Federal case were moot--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [185.76, 187.124, 194.926, 201.901], "stop_times": [187.124, 194.926, 201.901, 206.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 185.76}, "reply_to": "21815__0_006", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_008", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "But if you've got all the relief to which you are entitled, that does make a case moot.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [206.359], "stop_times": [211.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 206.359}, "reply_to": "21815__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__0_009", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--In terms of cases that involve injunctive relief where it is impossible for a court to give you the relief that you have... that you are seeking, that is true.\nBut when you are seeking money damage, it is at least theoretically possible... we're not saying that we're going to ask for that, but at least theoretically possible that the Federal district court could still give us relief.\nAnd therefore, what we are asking for is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [211.56, 222.251, 233.769], "stop_times": [222.251, 233.769, 236.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 211.56}, "reply_to": "21815__0_008", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_010", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "What relief could it give you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [236.536], "stop_times": [237.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.536}, "reply_to": "21815__0_009", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__0_011", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "But what for?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [237.401], "stop_times": [237.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 237.401}, "reply_to": "21815__0_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__0_012", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "What relief?\nIf you're paid in full, what... what relief are you entitled to?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [237.855, 238.327], "stop_times": [238.327, 241.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 237.855}, "reply_to": "21815__0_011", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__0_013", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Well, we think the relief that we're entitled to, in terms of this, is for the case to be remanded for the district court to resolve these issues under preclusion doctrines.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [241.365], "stop_times": [252.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 241.365}, "reply_to": "21815__0_012", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_014", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "But what issues would... would the district court resolve?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [252.344], "stop_times": [254.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 252.344}, "reply_to": "21815__0_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__0_015", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Preclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [254.656], "stop_times": [255.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 254.656}, "reply_to": "21815__0_014", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_016", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, if you win on the preclusion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [255.938], "stop_times": [257.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 255.938}, "reply_to": "21815__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__0_017", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Who cares?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [257.916], "stop_times": [258.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 257.916}, "reply_to": "21815__0_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21815__0_018", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--what do you get then in substance?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [258.539], "stop_times": [260.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 258.539}, "reply_to": "21815__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__0_019", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "We don't necessarily intend to take a... another judgment in Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [260.024], "stop_times": [265.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 260.024}, "reply_to": "21815__0_018", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_020", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Then what do you intend to do?\nIf you win on preclusion, what do you do then?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [265.309, 267.083], "stop_times": [267.083, 269.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 265.309}, "reply_to": "21815__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__0_021", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, hopefully we'll win on preclusion with respect not only to this suit, the New Jersey II suit, but also the New Jersey I suit, which we say the district... or the Delaware judgment precludes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [269.479], "stop_times": [280.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 269.479}, "reply_to": "21815__0_020", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_022", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, I think we'd like an answer.\nJustice Ginsburg gives us... gives you a hypothetical case.\nYou've got the money.\nThe judgment has been discharged in the State courts.\nWhat is left to do in the Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [280.458, 281.201, 284.135, 285.621, 289.375], "stop_times": [281.201, 284.135, 285.621, 289.375, 292.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 280.458}, "reply_to": "21815__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21815__0_023", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "It is likely--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [292.141], "stop_times": [293.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 292.141}, "reply_to": "21815__0_022", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_024", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Now, the one answer I heard you give, well, we're interested in preclusion to say... well, that's all historical at that point.\nWho cares?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [293.356, 298.374], "stop_times": [298.374, 298.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 293.356}, "reply_to": "21815__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21815__0_025", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--It... it is likely, Your Honor... and we have previously said... that we may very well dismiss the case of our own accord.\nBut that doesn't mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [298.929, 305.887], "stop_times": [305.887, 308.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 298.929}, "reply_to": "21815__0_024", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_026", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "We're looking for... we're looking for something that makes the case live.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [308.217], "stop_times": [311.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 308.217}, "reply_to": "21815__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21815__0_027", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Our claims are alive.\nThere are claims there that seek relief--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [311.832, 314.988], "stop_times": [314.988, 317.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 311.832}, "reply_to": "21815__0_026", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_028", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "But we're... we're questioning why that is and we're asking you what relief you need to get that you wouldn't get in the hypothetical that Justice Ginsburg posed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [317.322], "stop_times": [325.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 317.322}, "reply_to": "21815__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21815__0_029", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--We thought we would not seek further monetary relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [325.29], "stop_times": [331.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 325.29}, "reply_to": "21815__0_028", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_030", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "So what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [331.401], "stop_times": [332.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 331.401}, "reply_to": "21815__0_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__0_031", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Do you know how many claims in this case that... that were not in the Delaware case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [332.061], "stop_times": [335.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 332.061}, "reply_to": "21815__0_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21815__0_032", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "We have affirmative defenses to the New Jersey I, but... but the claims in New Jersey II and Delaware are the same, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [335.033], "stop_times": [342.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.033}, "reply_to": "21815__0_031", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_033", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Is your answer that you might want equitable relief, an injunction to continue making payments in the future, or something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [342.918], "stop_times": [349.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 342.918}, "reply_to": "21815__0_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21815__0_034", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWe're not seeking additional monetary or equitable relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [349.317, 350.348], "stop_times": [350.348, 353.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 349.317}, "reply_to": "21815__0_033", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_035", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "You... you would be stuck anyway because you made a counterclaim and... and it would be... on which you prevailed.\nAnd in that counterclaim you would be precluded if you didn't ask for everything that you could get.\nBut... but at this stage at least, the... the door... there... there is still conceivably an avenue of further litigation because, SABIC hasn't yet said that it's not going to do anything more, that it isn't going to petition for cert, for example.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [353.981, 362.859, 370.372], "stop_times": [362.859, 370.372, 388.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 353.981}, "reply_to": "21815__0_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__0_036", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "And, indeed, Your Honor.\nI mean, SABIC has represented to the Court that it likely intends to seek certiorari relief from this Court in the Delaware suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [388.288, 389.32], "stop_times": [389.32, 397.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 388.288}, "reply_to": "21815__0_035", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_037", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "So it has--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [397.782], "stop_times": [399.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 397.782}, "reply_to": "21815__0_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__0_038", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--So if they do, it's not finished.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [399.639], "stop_times": [401.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 399.639}, "reply_to": "21815__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__0_039", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "It is not finished--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [401.004], "stop_times": [401.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 401.004}, "reply_to": "21815__0_038", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_040", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Yes, all right.\nI'll ask them that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [401.747, 402.385], "stop_times": [402.385, 403.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 401.747}, "reply_to": "21815__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__0_041", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Getting back to the Rooker-Feldman issue, which is the issue on which the Court granted cert, Rooker-Feldman is a narrow, limited doctrine, but it bars only appellate review not parallel litigation in Federal district courts.\nRooker-Feldman is not a theory of vanishing original jurisdiction, nor is it a jurisdictional substitute for the preclusion analysis mandated by Congress in the Full Faith and Credit Act.\nThe expansive interpretation asserted by SABIC misperceives the fundamental nature of appellate review.\nIt's untethered to any natural negative implication in 28 U.S.C. 1257.\nIt illegitimately displaces the application of section 1738, the Full Faith and Credit Act, in most cases to which it is traditionally applied, and it serves absolutely no useful purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [403.316, 417.684, 431.058, 438.982, 445.752], "stop_times": [417.684, 431.058, 438.982, 445.752, 459.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 403.316}, "reply_to": "21815__0_040", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_042", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, the problem that bothers me... and I don't know that there's an answer to it... is you have plaintiff.\nPlaintiff goes into State court.\nHe brings a lawsuit, a tort suit, a contract suit.\nAnd then he decides he'd also like to go to Federal court.\nHe brings exactly the same suit.\nAnd here we have two suits and exactly the same thing running along at the same time.\nNow, I know there are principles from this Court's case law that says, well, that's what's supposed to happen.\nThey've always bothered me.\nBut now let's take a special instance.\nThe special instance is that in court one in the State, the plaintiff loses.\nNow, what he decides to do is to say to the Federal court, we want you to review what they did in the State court.\nCan't do that.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [459.044, 464.784, 467.506, 473.245, 476.301, 479.023, 484.574, 490.047, 491.095, 494.05, 499.911, 510.497, 512.049], "stop_times": [464.784, 467.506, 473.245, 476.301, 479.023, 484.574, 490.047, 491.095, 494.05, 499.911, 510.497, 512.049, 512.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 459.044}, "reply_to": "21815__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__0_043", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [512.288], "stop_times": [513.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 512.288}, "reply_to": "21815__0_042", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_044", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Okay.\nSo he brilliantly figures out I will omit the word review from my... from my motion.\nI will ask for precisely the same thing just not use that word review.\nI will ask them to go and make their decision which happens to be... in my opinion should be... 100 percent the opposite of what the State court did showing they're wrong.\nBut I won't use the word review.\nNow, you say because he cut the word review out, he can do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [513.946, 514.4, 520.155, 524.681, 534.629, 536.32], "stop_times": [514.4, 520.155, 524.681, 534.629, 536.32, 540.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 513.946}, "reply_to": "21815__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__0_045", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "No, Justice Breyer.\nIt's not because he cut the review out.\nRooker-Feldman is an issue of appellate... the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.\nSo what does appellate jurisdiction mean?\nWell, appellate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [540.324, 542.264, 544.41, 549.695, 552.955], "stop_times": [542.264, 544.41, 549.695, 552.955, 553.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 540.324}, "reply_to": "21815__0_044", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_046", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Mr. Coleman, would you clarify, I think, in response to Justice Breyer's inquiry?\nRooker-Feldman both involved State court litigation that was over and done with.\nThen you come to the Federal court.\nYou have two parallel cases would be... brought within a month of each other?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [553.864, 561.544, 568.975, 571.037], "stop_times": [561.544, 568.975, 571.037, 575.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 553.864}, "reply_to": "21815__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__0_047", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Within 2 months of each other.\nWithin a month of each other, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [575.495, 577.891], "stop_times": [577.891, 579.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 575.495}, "reply_to": "21815__0_046", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_048", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "And isn't the standard defense of the person who has started the other suit first, well, Your Honor, prior action pending, please hold the case that started second in abeyance till we get done?\nAnd if we win in the first case, then it will be precluded.\nThen the second case... the parallel case will be precluded.\nThat's not Rooker-Feldman territory.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [579.377, 593.95, 599.727, 603.526], "stop_times": [593.95, 599.727, 603.526, 606.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 579.377}, "reply_to": "21815__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__0_049", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "That's... that's... Your Honor, that's our position that... concurrent jurisdiction is a separate issue from the appellate review issue that Rooker-Feldman raises.\nJustice Breyer, the answer to your hypothetical is that appellate review is something different from having a parallel action.\nAppellate review is probably best defined by two characteristics that I'll try to flesh out for you.\nThe first is that the proponent alleges some sort of injury causing error by the trial court and not by the adversary and then seeks an order reversing, vacating, or otherwise nullifying that lower court order.\nWhen a party alleges an injury by his adversary rather than the trial court, the most that can really be said is that you are continuing on a parallel litigation but not that you are seeking appellate review.\nYou do not have what looks like appellate review.\nYou're not alleging errors by the lower court.\nYou're not seeking an order that directly nullifies or otherwise undoes the State court judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [606.87, 617.188, 625.567, 631.899, 649.51, 665.486, 670.028, 672.257], "stop_times": [617.188, 625.567, 631.899, 649.51, 665.486, 670.028, 672.257, 679.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 606.87}, "reply_to": "21815__0_048", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_050", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "No, but the argument... it seems to me the argument is that in a de facto sense, when you try to litigate the Federal case, after losing the State case, you in effect are asking the Federal court in some sense to review what happened in the State court.\nJustice Ginsburg's answer to that is preclusion is the answer.\nIs that your answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [679.11, 694.548, 698.718], "stop_times": [694.548, 698.718, 699.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 679.11}, "reply_to": "21815__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__0_051", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [699.749], "stop_times": [700.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.749}, "reply_to": "21815__0_050", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_052", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Because if that... if that is... if we accept that as the answer, then there's no argument for saying you should expand Rooker-Feldman to include the de facto review as opposed to the... the very strict sense of review that you're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [700.371], "stop_times": [714.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 700.371}, "reply_to": "21815__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__0_053", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "That is absolutely our position, Justice Souter, that preclusion addresses all of these issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [714.982], "stop_times": [722.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 714.982}, "reply_to": "21815__0_052", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_054", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, but can you... can you expand on this a little?\nI'm not taking a view on it.\nI'm trying to clear up what's a confusion in my mind.\nI see how you could do this on the parallel business with... with delaying it on the docket and using the doctrine of preclusion.\nI understand that.\nBut we've still got this doctrine called Rooker-Feldman out there, and as long as you have that doctrine, it strikes me as odd if... say, it weren't a plaintiff.\nSay it was the losing party, you know, that was asking the Federal judge, Judge, you have this case on your docket.\nLet's move it up.\nLet's decide it now.\nHe doesn't use the word review, but everything else is the same.\nHe wants a decision out of that court that is going to be the opposite of what the State court did.\nAnd what's concerning me... maybe I shouldn't be concerned, but what's concerning me is whether he can get it or not seems to turn completely on whether he uses the word review in the petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [722.207, 723.898, 725.922, 729.516, 736.408, 737.401, 746.522, 754.612, 755.522, 757.38, 762.497, 770.011], "stop_times": [723.898, 725.922, 729.516, 736.408, 737.401, 746.522, 754.612, 755.522, 757.38, 762.497, 770.011, 779.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.207}, "reply_to": "21815__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__0_055", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "I don't... I don't think that that is true.\nIt should not and does not turn on the words that you use in your petition.\nWhat it turns on is the fundamental nature of the injury that you claim and of the relief that you seek.\nOne reason why you don't need to be necessarily concerned about this is that in all of these cases in which one case has gone to judgment and there is a... either a continuation or a new case, preclusion is going to cover these.\nThe only extension of Rooker-Feldman that SABIC is asking for is what they call the actually litigated test.\nThat is the heart of the Full Faith and Credit Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [779.792, 782.393, 787.389, 795.191, 809.885, 816.573], "stop_times": [782.393, 787.389, 795.191, 809.885, 816.573, 820.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 779.792}, "reply_to": "21815__0_054", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_056", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Rooker-Feldman, if I understand it correctly, is a subject matter jurisdiction bar.\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [820.621, 829.37], "stop_times": [829.37, 829.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 820.621}, "reply_to": "21815__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__0_057", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [829.826, 830.69], "stop_times": [830.69, 831.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 829.826}, "reply_to": "21815__0_056", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_058", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Yes.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [831.228, 831.494], "stop_times": [831.494, 831.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 831.228}, "reply_to": "21815__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__0_059", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--it arises from a negative implication taken from section 1257 and a second negative implication from 1331.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [831.633], "stop_times": [839.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 831.633}, "reply_to": "21815__0_058", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_060", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Well, to... so if the two lawsuits, the State court suit and the Federal suit... they're proceeding concurrently or one is held in abeyance waiting the other, there is certainly subject matter jurisdiction in the Federal court of the Federal action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [839.685], "stop_times": [859.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 839.685}, "reply_to": "21815__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__0_061", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [859.83], "stop_times": [860.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 859.83}, "reply_to": "21815__0_060", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_062", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "To apply Rooker-Feldman in that context would say you had subject matter jurisdiction at the outset, but then you lost it somewhere down the line.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [860.611], "stop_times": [871.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.611}, "reply_to": "21815__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__0_063", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "And... and... yes, Justice Ginsburg.\nAnd that's a distinction between your hypothetical and Justice Breyer's.\nJustice Breyer's, as I... if I understand it correctly, is that the Federal suit starts after the State court is done.\nYours is where you have parallel actions at the same time.\nAnd where the Federal claims are parallel or even filed first, as in our case, you can't say that the moment you file those that you're seeking review of some nonexistent State court judgment.\nYou're simply asking for relief from something that your adversary did to you.\nAnd the argument that SABIC makes that the court relinquishes jurisdiction has no basis or justification in anything this Court has ever said.\nIt is a theory of vanishing jurisdiction that I cannot understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [871.264, 873.326, 876.094, 882.16, 885.298, 896.732, 901.273, 911.138], "stop_times": [873.326, 876.094, 882.16, 885.298, 896.732, 901.273, 911.138, 914.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 871.264}, "reply_to": "21815__0_062", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_064", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Suppose--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [914.936], "stop_times": [915.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 914.936}, "reply_to": "21815__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21815__0_065", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Mr. Coleman, can I interrupt with a question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [915.225], "stop_times": [917.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 915.225}, "reply_to": "21815__0_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__0_066", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [917.082], "stop_times": [917.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.082}, "reply_to": "21815__0_065", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_067", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Is it your position that what should have been done in this case, not in the hypothetical case, is the trial court should have just stayed the action pending the outcome of the Delaware case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [917.704], "stop_times": [928.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 917.704}, "reply_to": "21815__0_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__0_068", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "And, in fact, that's what the Federal district court had done, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [928.022], "stop_times": [931.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 928.022}, "reply_to": "21815__0_067", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_069", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "And that's what... he did... that was correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [931.078], "stop_times": [933.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.078}, "reply_to": "21815__0_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__0_070", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [933.223], "stop_times": [933.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 933.223}, "reply_to": "21815__0_069", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_071", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "And then when the Delaware case was over, then what should he have done?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [933.779], "stop_times": [936.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 933.779}, "reply_to": "21815__0_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__0_072", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, we could either ultimately dismiss it or the Federal district court could say, looks like your Delaware case is over.\nSABIC brings a motion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [936.651, 943.71], "stop_times": [943.71, 945.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 936.651}, "reply_to": "21815__0_071", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_073", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "And... and he has given you all the relief your entitled to.\nTherefore, you go ahead and dismiss the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [945.112, 946.515], "stop_times": [946.515, 948.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 945.112}, "reply_to": "21815__0_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__0_074", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Yes, or SABIC brings a motion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [948.373], "stop_times": [950.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 948.373}, "reply_to": "21815__0_073", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_075", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "And therefore, my next question is why shouldn't we do exactly that now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [950.026], "stop_times": [952.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 950.026}, "reply_to": "21815__0_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__0_076", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Because the question before the Court today is a question of jurisdiction, not of practical consequences other than the mootness question that SABIC has raised.\nBut practical consequences are that what we may do--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [952.998, 963.024], "stop_times": [963.024, 966.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 952.998}, "reply_to": "21815__0_075", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_077", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, maybe we could vacate the judgment of the court of appeals, say that was wrong, but still, order it dismissed after we vacate the judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [966.701], "stop_times": [972.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 966.701}, "reply_to": "21815__0_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__0_078", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--I think, as in Feldman, that's a question that should be first addressed by the district court.\nCertainly we hope that you will vacate or reverse the Third Circuit's judgment and allow the district court to address those issues.\nPerhaps we dismiss it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [972.766, 977.679, 984.201], "stop_times": [977.679, 984.201, 985.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 972.766}, "reply_to": "21815__0_077", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_079", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "But if you don't tell us what issue remains, I don't know why we shouldn't just direct the suit to be dismissed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [985.315], "stop_times": [990.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 985.315}, "reply_to": "21815__0_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__0_080", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "There... there is a live... in... in the terms of Article III, there are live claims that remain pending before the district court.\nAnd while it is true--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [990.395, 999.144], "stop_times": [999.144, 1000.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 990.395}, "reply_to": "21815__0_079", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_081", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "And I take it that's because you don't have the cert period expired yet in the first action and you don't have the check.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1000.137], "stop_times": [1006.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1000.137}, "reply_to": "21815__0_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__0_082", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--At the very minimum--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1006.842], "stop_times": [1008.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1006.842}, "reply_to": "21815__0_081", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_083", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Okay.\nIt's... if the 3 months is expired and the check is in your hand and it's certified, what's left?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1008.061, 1008.683], "stop_times": [1008.683, 1014.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.061}, "reply_to": "21815__0_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__0_084", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--As a practical matter, we have no intention.\nAs a jurisdictional matter, there's still--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1014.643, 1017.804], "stop_times": [1017.804, 1019.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1014.643}, "reply_to": "21815__0_083", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_085", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "I'm not asking about your intention.\nLet's assume you do intend to litigate further.\nWhat for?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1019.828, 1021.23, 1025.317], "stop_times": [1021.23, 1025.317, 1026.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.828}, "reply_to": "21815__0_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__0_086", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--If we did intend to litigate further, SABIC would be entitled to go to the district court and say they can't.\nThey are precluded.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1026.432, 1032.626], "stop_times": [1032.626, 1033.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1026.432}, "reply_to": "21815__0_085", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_087", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "I want... I want an answer to my question.\nWhat are you going to litigate for?\nWhat's left?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1033.573, 1035.348, 1037.205], "stop_times": [1035.348, 1037.205, 1038.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1033.573}, "reply_to": "21815__0_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__0_088", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, again, setting aside our intentions and hypothetically, there are cases in which--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1038.132], "stop_times": [1045.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1038.132}, "reply_to": "21815__0_087", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_089", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "I'm talking about your case.\nWhat's left?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1045.008, 1047.691], "stop_times": [1047.691, 1048.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1045.008}, "reply_to": "21815__0_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__0_090", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--We... we do not seek... will not seek any further review from the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1048.767], "stop_times": [1054.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1048.767}, "reply_to": "21815__0_089", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_091", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Nothing is left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1054.461], "stop_times": [1054.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1054.461}, "reply_to": "21815__0_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__0_092", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1054.611], "stop_times": [1055.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1054.611}, "reply_to": "21815__0_091", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_093", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Now, suppose you don't have the check.\nWhat's left?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1055.204, 1056.856], "stop_times": [1056.856, 1057.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1055.204}, "reply_to": "21815__0_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__0_094", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, the case is still up in the air.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1057.616], "stop_times": [1060.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1057.616}, "reply_to": "21815__0_093", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_095", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1060.117], "stop_times": [1060.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1060.117}, "reply_to": "21815__0_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__0_096", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1060.588], "stop_times": [1061.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1060.588}, "reply_to": "21815__0_095", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_097", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "You have a judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1061.686], "stop_times": [1062.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1061.686}, "reply_to": "21815__0_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__0_098", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--the case... the case is not over.\nIndeed, because the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1062.984, 1063.356], "stop_times": [1063.356, 1064.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1062.984}, "reply_to": "21815__0_097", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_099", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "I never heard of a case that isn't over until you get the check.\nI thought the case is over when you have the judgment.\n[Laughter]\nAnd then if they don't give you the check, you have a different matter.\nWe have to get it enforced.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1064.842, 1066.782, 1068.723, 1069.095, 1071.324], "stop_times": [1066.782, 1068.723, 1069.095, 1071.324, 1072.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1064.842}, "reply_to": "21815__0_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__0_100", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--There is a different matter.\nBut as a matter of Article III jurisdiction, Your Honor, the... the mootness doctrine does not apply to a situation where you have a judgment and it doesn't necessarily apply the moment you get paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1072.438, 1073.264], "stop_times": [1073.264, 1085.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1072.438}, "reply_to": "21815__0_099", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_101", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Suppose that you lost in the State court and the judgment is final.\nYou then go to Federal court.\nAre... is there a context in which Rooker-Feldman might then be applicable?\nThis is all hypothetical.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1085.979, 1092.212, 1094.729, 1101.128], "stop_times": [1092.212, 1094.729, 1101.128, 1102.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1085.979}, "reply_to": "21815__0_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21815__0_102", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Our argument is that it would be applicable only if the injury that we claimed in our Federal suit was an injury caused by the State court... the court itself or the judge rather than our adversary and we sought relief from that judgment.\nThat would obtain the nature of appellate jurisdiction rather than we say, well, SABIC did us wrong, we'd like a judgment.\nAnd then SABIC can come in and say, well, they're precluded.\nThey already tried that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1102.243, 1118.385, 1125.937, 1128.621], "stop_times": [1118.385, 1125.937, 1128.621, 1129.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1102.243}, "reply_to": "21815__0_101", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_103", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "In other words, if you had some ongoing relation and, in this hypothetical, the State court ruled against you and you went in to try to reverse that ruling, that would be... that would Rooker-Feldman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1129.297], "stop_times": [1140.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1129.297}, "reply_to": "21815__0_102", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21815__0_104", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Yes.\nIf we alleged harm from the court and sought relief from the court's judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1140.509, 1141.252], "stop_times": [1141.252, 1146.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1140.509}, "reply_to": "21815__0_103", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_105", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "There were only the two cases, Rooker and Feldman, that established this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1146.825], "stop_times": [1151.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.825}, "reply_to": "21815__0_104", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__0_106", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1151.366], "stop_times": [1151.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1151.366}, "reply_to": "21815__0_105", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_107", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Has this Court ever said anything to suggest that Rooker-Feldman, as apart from preclusion doctrine, applies to parallel litigation instead of you go into Federal court after the State court is over and you're trying to undo what the State court did?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1151.988], "stop_times": [1174.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1151.988}, "reply_to": "21815__0_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__0_108", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "I don't think this Court has ever held any such thing, and I think it would be inconsistent with at least Feldman itself.\nThe idea of... of appellate jurisdiction over the constitutional claims in Feldman that were held not to be barred comes down in the end... SABIC says, well, those claims weren't actually litigated.\nBut the opinion itself on page 467 points out that the Mr. Feldman had raised his constitutional claims in front of the D.C. Court of Appeals in terms of asking for his waiver.\nAnd when I checked the oral argument transcript from the Feldman case, it was mentioned specifically in terms of Mr. Feldman had raised the constitutional claims in front of the D.C. Court.\nAnd that's on pages 9, 14, and 16 of the LEXIS version of the oral argument transcript.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1174.196, 1183.234, 1195.865, 1208.309, 1219.354], "stop_times": [1183.234, 1195.865, 1208.309, 1219.354, 1224.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1174.196}, "reply_to": "21815__0_107", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_109", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "But there's no preclusion unless they're also decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1224.472], "stop_times": [1226.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.472}, "reply_to": "21815__0_108", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__0_110", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Yes.\nWell, yes.\nThe district court could then decide whether in fact they were precluded, and... and it's likely that they were.\nI didn't follow up on what happened when the case went back down on remand.\nBut the Court said, we're not going to decide that.\nWe will allow the district court to address that in the first instance.\nAnd so we think that the actually litigated revision of Rooker-Feldman is simply inconsistent with Feldman itself, that it improperly displaces full faith and credit that is not true to the negative implication from section 1257 which has to be a very narrow implication, indeed, because 1257 gives this Court jurisdiction, and it's only appellate jurisdiction, to suggest that another court doesn't have that appellate jurisdiction must be... must be narrowly limited to the context, the type of lawsuits that this Court would seek, which is not simply they did me wrong, please... please give me money, but rather, that lower court erred.\nIt violated my rights.\nIt is structurally or in some... in violation of Federal rights or something that the court did and that you have been asked to fix.\nThat, we think, is consistent with the proper negative implication from 1257, but overrunning most of preclusion law simply is not.\nFor these reasons, we would ask the Court to reverse.\nAnd, Justice Stevens, I would like to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1226.701, 1228.438, 1229.514, 1235.125, 1237.726, 1240.41, 1243.92, 1294.363, 1295.728, 1302.908, 1312.751, 1315.911], "stop_times": [1228.438, 1229.514, 1235.125, 1237.726, 1240.41, 1243.92, 1294.363, 1295.728, 1302.908, 1312.751, 1315.911, 1318.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1226.701}, "reply_to": "21815__0_109", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__0_111", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "You may do so.\nMr. Castanias.\nI hope you'll tell us also whether you think the case is moot before you're through.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1318.595, 1319.96, 1324.994], "stop_times": [1319.96, 1324.994, 1332.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1318.595}, "reply_to": "21815__0_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__1_000", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThis case is moot.\nThere is nothing for Exxon Mobil to get at this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1332.341, 1334.449, 1335.935], "stop_times": [1334.449, 1335.935, 1338.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1332.341}, "reply_to": "21815__0_111", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_001", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, you're still asking for cert..", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1338.907], "stop_times": [1340.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1338.907}, "reply_to": "21815__1_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__1_002", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--That's right, and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1340.765], "stop_times": [1342.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1340.765}, "reply_to": "21815__1_001", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_003", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, then why is it moot?\nBecause something could happen.\nWe might get this case in theory, take it on cert, and discover a jurisdictional problem that somehow destroys the case without a decision, and should that happen, there luckily for them they have this other case going.\nSo as long as... you're prepared, I take it, to say you're going to ask for cert If that's what you're going to say, I don't see how the case is over.\nIt's up to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1342.001, 1343.365, 1344.646, 1357.444, 1364.625], "stop_times": [1343.365, 1344.646, 1357.444, 1364.625, 1365.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1342.001}, "reply_to": "21815__1_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__1_004", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Okay. Well, I'm... I'm not going to take the Hobson's choice, Your Honor, but I am going to tell you, first of all, that SABIC is going to apply for cert..\nAt least that's my current understanding.\nAnd second of all, that shows why this case is not justiciable at this point because if the most likely event in the... in the event of this Court's review of the Delaware determination, is a reversal on a statute of limitations problem.\nThat's the reason this suit was brought as the, quote, insurance policy that the Third Circuit identified, which was if the Delaware Supreme Court or the Delaware Superior Court had kicked this suit on the ground of the 3-year statute of limitations... and if you look at page 20a of the supplemental brief, the corrected supplemental brief that we filed with the Court, including the Delaware Supreme Court's opinion, you'll see that they had a whale of a time getting over the plain language of their own statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1365.246, 1365.568, 1373.624, 1389.971], "stop_times": [1365.568, 1373.624, 1389.971, 1420.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1365.246}, "reply_to": "21815__1_003", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_005", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "All right.\nIf for... somehow you won on that, even though it sounds a little like a State law issue, but nonetheless, if you won on that and they reversed it as a statute of limitations, then what they're saying is, well, that's just why we filed in Federal court.\nWe didn't want the Federal court to review the State court.\nWe wanted our Federal court suit as an insurance policy in case something goes wrong with the State court suit.\nIt has nothing whatsoever to do with Rooker-Feldman.\nIt is parallel adjudication, just what he said.\nNow, what's your response?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1420.369, 1420.807, 1435.668, 1439.217, 1446.73, 1450.696, 1456.018], "stop_times": [1420.807, 1435.668, 1439.217, 1446.73, 1450.696, 1456.018, 1457.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1420.369}, "reply_to": "21815__1_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__1_006", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "My response, Justice Breyer, is twofold.\nFirst of all, with regard to the mootness question, if that eventuality occurs, that's the time when there may be a justiciable issue for a Federal district court.\nNot now.\nWe've been talking about ifs and hypotheticals and what may happen in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1457.216, 1459.157, 1470.303, 1471.168], "stop_times": [1459.157, 1470.303, 1471.168, 1475.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1457.216}, "reply_to": "21815__1_005", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_007", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Mr. Castanias, was there a proper case in the district court when the complaint was initially filed there some 2 months after you filed in Delaware?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1475.504], "stop_times": [1489.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1475.504}, "reply_to": "21815__1_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__1_008", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "We've never disputed that, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1489.372], "stop_times": [1491.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1489.372}, "reply_to": "21815__1_007", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_009", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "All right.\nSo you can bring two cases, identical cases, in two different courts, and that's an everyday thing, and the defense is prior action pending.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1491.48, 1491.646], "stop_times": [1491.646, 1503.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1491.48}, "reply_to": "21815__1_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__1_010", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1503.906], "stop_times": [1504.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1503.906}, "reply_to": "21815__1_009", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_011", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Now, you are urging that Rooker-Feldman which this Court never applied when you had parallel litigation be extended into a domain which is ordinarily taken care of by preclusion doctrine.\nWhy would you want to mix those two things up that now seem to me rather clear, that if you have Rooker-Feldman, when you rush into a Federal court and say, Federal court, undo that State court judgment, I don't like it?\nRooker was just a paradigm case of that.\nWhy would you want to spread that doctrine?\nWhat is... what is there that preclusion doctrine doesn't accomplish?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1504.649, 1523.597, 1542.19, 1546.072, 1549.065], "stop_times": [1523.597, 1542.19, 1546.072, 1549.065, 1554.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1504.649}, "reply_to": "21815__1_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__1_012", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, Justice Ginsburg, preclusion doctrine may accomplish this in a certain number of cases, but I think it's important... and I think I have to correct my colleague on the other side here with regard to the state of the record.\nYes, there was a stay of the New Jersey II trial court litigation, but it wasn't because of the Colorado River application that we made.\nIn fact, if you'll look in the appendix to the petition--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1554.638, 1566.405, 1573.836], "stop_times": [1566.405, 1573.836, 1577.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1554.638}, "reply_to": "21815__1_011", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_013", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, I'm not talking about anything fancy like Colorado River.\nPrior action pending is a familiar defense.\nYou've got two actions.\nThey could even be in different districts of the same State and one says, Your Honor, this case started second, the other one is going forward, hold it in abeyance because there's a prior action pending.\nThat's not Colorado River abstention or anything like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1577.938, 1580.728, 1584.154, 1585.269, 1600.955], "stop_times": [1580.728, 1584.154, 1585.269, 1600.955, 1604.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1577.938}, "reply_to": "21815__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__1_014", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Well, I... I think, Your Honor, you will see that that is a component of Colorado River, and that was part of the application that we made to the district court in this case under Colorado River.\nAnd my only answer... the only reason that I'm bringing this up, Justice Ginsburg, is that if you'll look in the appendix to the petition for certiorari, you will see that SABIC, my client, made an application for Colorado River abstention, and the district court denied that.\nThe district court denied that in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1604.01, 1614.701, 1630.555], "stop_times": [1614.701, 1630.555, 1633.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1604.01}, "reply_to": "21815__1_013", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_015", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, sometimes district judges rule incorrectly, but... but what happened here is the district court case did not go on because the two of you, both sides, said, okay, the district court... they're all bollixed up with this Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, so we're going to agree.\nYou agreed that the case would go forward in Delaware, the trial in Delaware.\nIs that not so?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1633.443, 1655.818, 1662.999], "stop_times": [1655.818, 1662.999, 1663.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1633.443}, "reply_to": "21815__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__1_016", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, it was... it was... if you'll look at... I believe this is at page 8a of the addendum to the red brief.\nYou'll see that it was Exxon Mobil that pushed in Delaware, but that actually happened before the ruling on sovereign immunity, that... that they elected to go forward in Delaware.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1663.825, 1670.595], "stop_times": [1670.595, 1680.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1663.825}, "reply_to": "21815__1_015", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_017", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, when you say they pushed in Delaware, you brought them into Delaware and a... in a reverse suit.\nYou wanted a declaration of nonliability.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1680.089, 1686.654], "stop_times": [1686.654, 1689.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1680.089}, "reply_to": "21815__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__1_018", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1689.627], "stop_times": [1690.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1689.627}, "reply_to": "21815__1_017", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_019", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "They brought their case for liability in the Federal forum.\nThey were forced by you into the Delaware forum, and now you're saying you were pushed, that Exxon pushed.\nYou brought the case in Delaware.\nThey didn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1690.12, 1693.092, 1700.605, 1702.358], "stop_times": [1693.092, 1700.605, 1702.358, 1702.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1690.12}, "reply_to": "21815__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__1_020", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "We... that is true that we brought the initial case, but the case was eventually tried on their counterclaims.\nThe case was inverted to make them the party plaintiff.\nThey went first at trial and is it... at the page I cited to you, that was where they decided to go forward with the Delaware case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1702.834, 1708.696, 1712.039], "stop_times": [1708.696, 1712.039, 1720.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1702.834}, "reply_to": "21815__1_019", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_021", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "But it was your preferred forum, not theirs.\nWhen they filed their complaint, they filed it in New Jersey where they had a related case pending.\nSo you chose the forum.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1720.007, 1721.306, 1727.066], "stop_times": [1721.306, 1727.066, 1729.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1720.007}, "reply_to": "21815__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__1_022", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "That... that is absolutely the case with regard to the Delaware matter.\nBut I think what your question is getting at... and I think I have to go back a couple of minutes in our colloquy here to talk about why abstention won't do the work in this case.\nIn the lion's share of cases, it probably will, Your Honor, but in this case it didn't.\nAnd this brings me back to Justice Breyer's question which said... in which he said that... that concurrent jurisdiction has always bothered him because what you're ending up with is a race to judgment.\nBut it's important again, Justice Breyer.\nIt's a race to judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1729.75, 1733.465, 1743.784, 1748.714, 1759.1, 1760.669], "stop_times": [1733.465, 1743.784, 1748.714, 1759.1, 1760.669, 1762.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1729.75}, "reply_to": "21815__1_021", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_023", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, that's... you see, Justice Ginsburg answered that.\nI... I mean, she wasn't answering my question, but she did say what was a perfectly satisfactory approach, that... that the second person says, you know, Judge, there's another one pending and the judge says, okay, we'll let that go first except in some unusual instance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1762.239, 1764.839], "stop_times": [1764.839, 1781.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1762.239}, "reply_to": "21815__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__1_024", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Which happens thousands of times in... in all of the courts.\nIt's very common and I don't know why we're over designing this vehicle.\nIt's simply other action pending.\nEnd of case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1781.019, 1784.363, 1788.904, 1790.39], "stop_times": [1784.363, 1788.904, 1790.39, 1791.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1781.019}, "reply_to": "21815__1_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21815__1_025", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Justice Kennedy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1791.505], "stop_times": [1792.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1791.505}, "reply_to": "21815__1_024", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_026", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Or end of argument, not end of case.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1792.703, 1794.682], "stop_times": [1794.682, 1795.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1792.703}, "reply_to": "21815__1_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21815__1_027", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "So why isn't it that the end?\nI mean, here it's not moot.\nThey filed the other action.\nYou point out that you not only think something could wreck the State claim, you would love it to wreck the State claim.\nAnd... and therefore, they have this insurance policy in Federal court which they'll gear up if and when the State claim does get wrecked as you hope.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1795.304, 1797.821, 1799.595, 1801.164, 1807.109], "stop_times": [1797.821, 1799.595, 1801.164, 1807.109, 1816.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1795.304}, "reply_to": "21815__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__1_028", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Justice Breyer, I think this is the point in the argument where I want to turn to the definition of review as this Court has... has put it forth in cases like ASARCO.\nThis is a case that Exxon Mobil dismisses in their reply brief as mere dictum.\nI don't think that this... the discussion of Rooker-Feldman and the ASARCO case can be dismissed as dictum in that it was a specific response to a specific proposal by the United States appearing as amicus to dismiss the case for lack of standing and instead remit the plaintiffs to pursuing a second suit.\nIn that case, the Court wrote that to readjudicate... and I'm quoting here from the opinion, and I don't have the particular page here... to readjudicate the very same issues that were determined in the State court proceedings would be... again quoting... in essence, an attempt to obtain direct review of the Arizona Supreme Court's decision in the lower Federal courts.\nIn ASARCO, there was no reference to what the intent of the plaintiffs was.\nThere was no reference to what the timing of the lawsuits was.\nIt was simply that identical issues actually litigated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1816.025, 1825.602, 1832.949, 1850.66, 1876.417, 1883.726, 1887.457], "stop_times": [1825.602, 1832.949, 1850.66, 1876.417, 1883.726, 1887.457, 1891.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1816.025}, "reply_to": "21815__1_027", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_029", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "So perhaps the Court, if it had been more cautious, would have spoken not in terms of Rooker-Feldman or review, but in terms of this matter has been decided.\nIt is claim precluded.\nThat's what preclusion doctrine is supposed to do.\nSo in that context, maybe this Court used the wrong word.\nMaybe it should have said, you litigated it, it's over and done with, now it's precluded.\nWhy do you need to interject the word review?\nIsn't that... unless you're going to say every time court A decides a case and then you're in court B and someone is raising the same claim, that is a review of court number one rather than you're precluded in court two because of what is... has been litigated and decided in court one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1891.732, 1904.075, 1906.676, 1910.225, 1914.312, 1920.422, 1923.85], "stop_times": [1904.075, 1906.676, 1910.225, 1914.312, 1920.422, 1923.85, 1948.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1891.732}, "reply_to": "21815__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__1_030", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, first of all, Justice Ginsburg, I'm hesitant to say that this Court was incautious in its use of words.\nThis was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1948.657, 1955.716], "stop_times": [1955.716, 1956.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1948.657}, "reply_to": "21815__1_029", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_031", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "It is sometimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1956.476], "stop_times": [1957.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1956.476}, "reply_to": "21815__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__1_032", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--But... understandably, but... but with regard to... with regard to Rooker-Feldman, it was not just... it was not just an accidental... incidental invocation of it.\nIt was the reason for the rejection of the argument.\nThe reason was not res judicata.\nThe reason was respect for the dignity of the State court's work in the case, and that's ultimately--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1957.286, 1967.567, 1971.776, 1974.088], "stop_times": [1967.567, 1971.776, 1974.088, 1981.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1957.286}, "reply_to": "21815__1_031", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_033", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "That's why one has preclusion because you are giving respect, full faith and credit, to a decision elsewhere.\nThat's what preclusion doctrine is all about.\nWe respect the judgment of the court that rendered it.\nWe, therefore, give it full faith and credit.\nThat's what preclusion doctrine is about, is about respect and credit.\nIsn't that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [1981.435, 1990.352, 1992.664, 1997.865, 2000.92, 2006.038], "stop_times": [1990.352, 1992.664, 1997.865, 2000.92, 2006.038, 2006.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.435}, "reply_to": "21815__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__1_034", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--That's... that's... that is... that is generally right, Justice Ginsburg, but at the same time, there... we all agree... Exxon Mobil, SABIC, and the decisions of this Court... that there has to be some overlap with regard to Rooker-Feldman and SABIC... and... excuse me... and... and preclusion doctrine.\nThe... the argument made by Exxon Mobil, which is, in essence, the same question you're asking me, would have destroyed any reason whatsoever for the Rooker and the Feldman cases, as well as the ASARCO case.\nThere's also a significant body of law that's body of law that's been built up over the last 85 years in the lower courts in... in this regard.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2006.965, 2029.24, 2042.614, 2048.696], "stop_times": [2029.24, 2042.614, 2048.696, 2049.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2006.965}, "reply_to": "21815__1_033", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_035", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "But you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2049.385], "stop_times": [2050.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2049.385}, "reply_to": "21815__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__1_036", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "So some of the lower courts have given a broad interpretation to Rooker-Feldman and have turned it into something other than the narrower view of it.\nAnd I think that's why we granted cert in this case, to decide whether to give it a broad or a narrow interpretation.\nThe Third Circuit applies a rather broad interpretation of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2050.094, 2060.748, 2070.119], "stop_times": [2060.748, 2070.119, 2073.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2050.094}, "reply_to": "21815__1_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21815__1_037", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Well, I... I guess in that respect, Justice O'Connor, I disagree because the Third Circuit, admitted by its own words, applies a very narrow version of Rooker-Feldman.\nAnd, in fact, using this case as the vehicle to decide this, the... the definition of Rooker-Feldman in this instance amounts to no more than barring jurisdiction in a second Federal suit over the identical claims.\nThis is not a case where you have to worry about claims that might have been brought, the sort of things that footnote 16 in Feldman dealt with.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2073.667, 2083.039, 2103.844], "stop_times": [2083.039, 2103.844, 2111.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2073.667}, "reply_to": "21815__1_036", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_038", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "But maybe that isn't a proper application of Rooker-Feldman where the complaint is not about something the State court has improperly done.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2111.274], "stop_times": [2119.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.274}, "reply_to": "21815__1_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21815__1_039", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2119.735], "stop_times": [2120.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2119.735}, "reply_to": "21815__1_038", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_040", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "It isn't.\nAnd so in that sense, the Third Circuit has a rather broader view of it I'd say.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2120.934, 2122.42], "stop_times": [2122.42, 2128.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.934}, "reply_to": "21815__1_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21815__1_041", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Well, to be sure, Justice O'Connor, the Third Circuit's view is broader than that which appears to be adopted by the Ninth Circuit, as well as the Seventh Circuit.\nAnd I think this brings me back to the definition of review.\nThe... the Ninth and Seventh Circuits' views in our estimation are wrong because they strictly look to the subjective intent of the plaintiff and as to whether the plaintiff is, in fact, seeking reversal.\nThat... that's the term that's used in these cases.\nNoel says seeking to set aside.\nBut section 1257--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2128.697, 2138.478, 2141.634, 2158.086, 2160.853, 2162.999], "stop_times": [2138.478, 2141.634, 2158.086, 2160.853, 2162.999, 2165.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2128.697}, "reply_to": "21815__1_040", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_042", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Of course, that's the language that was used in both Rooker and Feldman too I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2165.106], "stop_times": [2168.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2165.106}, "reply_to": "21815__1_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__1_043", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--And that's because, Justice Stevens, that's... that was the particular fact pattern of this... of that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2168.161], "stop_times": [2174.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2168.161}, "reply_to": "21815__1_042", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_044", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "And that's the only fact pattern any of our cases have dealt with.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2174.477], "stop_times": [2177.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.477}, "reply_to": "21815__1_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__1_045", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "That's... in the Supreme Court, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2177.738], "stop_times": [2180.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2177.738}, "reply_to": "21815__1_044", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_046", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "And the... and the concern is I think... at least as I understand the... the concern with it, it... it boils down to something like this.\nSomebody comes along and says, don't apply claim preclusion.\nDon't apply it because, for whatever reason, there's this... there's something wrong here, and... and Federal court should determine the... in fact, the... the claim preclusion of the State judgment should not apply.\nThe answer to that is, look, that's an issue to be raised by way of appeal of your State judgment.\nYou don't appeal State judgments in Federal court.\nOut.\nThere's no such claim being made here.\nThe only claim that's being made here or the only conceivable claim, I guess, that can be made here is that we might want to do some litigating in the Federal case after the State case is over.\nThere's no claim here that claim preclusion should not apply in that instance, and because there's no such argument that claim preclusion does not apply, the answer to the problem that you're worried about is simply claim preclusion doctrine.\nThere's no reason to add a perihelion or something onto Rooker-Feldman to deal with what is really a very simple problem and that is, if they try to relitigate anew in Federal court, as Justice Ginsburg says, you... you plead claim preclusion.\nSimple.\nWhy do we need to complicate it beyond that simplicity?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2180.3, 2188.678, 2194.844, 2207.459, 2214.601, 2216.997, 2217.862, 2222.281, 2237.885, 2256.211, 2275.242, 2275.985], "stop_times": [2188.678, 2194.844, 2207.459, 2214.601, 2216.997, 2217.862, 2222.281, 2237.885, 2256.211, 2275.242, 2275.985, 2279.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.3}, "reply_to": "21815__1_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__1_047", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, Justice Souter, I... I don't have any qualms with the application of claim preclusion here.\nThe... the Third Circuit, though, was being... was being sensitive to the interests of the State courts, as well as sensitive to the fact that it had another jurisdictional issue in front of it, which was subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA.\nAnd I'm... I'm certain, as certain can be, that that court would have reached the same result if res judicata had been before it.\nBut the... the fact is that Rooker-Feldman is there and, again, as... as with my response to Justice Ginsburg earlier, your... your question would effectively rub out any need for even Rooker and Feldman themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2279.534, 2286.1, 2299.307, 2307.398], "stop_times": [2286.1, 2299.307, 2307.398, 2324.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2279.534}, "reply_to": "21815__1_046", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_048", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, no, because the... it... it would not rule out the need to have some answer when someone in a Federal court comes along and says, don't apply claim preclusion, whatever the reason may be.\nDon't apply the claim preclusion rules.\nThere's something unfair about doing it here.\nThe answer to that is, look, what you're really asking us to do, when you say don't apply claim preclusion, is to review what happened in the State court, and we don't sit as an appellate court on State courts.\nSo there's still something for Rooker-Feldman to do on, as it were, Justice... Justice Ginsburg's claim preclusion argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2324.449, 2336.459, 2338.234, 2340.092, 2353.095], "stop_times": [2336.459, 2338.234, 2340.092, 2353.095, 2361.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2324.449}, "reply_to": "21815__1_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__1_049", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, Justice Souter, I think again, with respect to the hypothetical that you've put to me, the claim preclusion is appropriately--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2361.147], "stop_times": [2374.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2361.147}, "reply_to": "21815__1_048", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_050", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "It'll get the... it'll get the job done that you say will need to be done if you get to that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2374.083], "stop_times": [2379.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.083}, "reply_to": "21815__1_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__1_051", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--It... it should get the job done.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2379.556], "stop_times": [2380.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2379.556}, "reply_to": "21815__1_050", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_052", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Why won't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2380.959], "stop_times": [2381.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2380.959}, "reply_to": "21815__1_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__1_053", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, there... there are... first of all, there are no guarantees.\nThe... the preclusion doctrines are... are riddled with exceptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2381.58, 2384.014], "stop_times": [2384.014, 2388.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2381.58}, "reply_to": "21815__1_052", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_054", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Then... then you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2388.639], "stop_times": [2389.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2388.639}, "reply_to": "21815__1_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__1_055", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "The preclusion doctrine--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2389.298], "stop_times": [2390.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2389.298}, "reply_to": "21815__1_054", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_056", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Then... then you appeal.\nDon't ask for a new body of law.\nJust say, look, you got the application of claim preclusion wrong in this case.\nWe're going to appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2390.247, 2391.361, 2393.319, 2397.86], "stop_times": [2391.361, 2393.319, 2397.86, 2398.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2390.247}, "reply_to": "21815__1_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21815__1_057", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--I... I disagree, Justice Souter, that... that we're asking for anything like a huge, new body of law or that the Third Circuit was making a huge, new body of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2398.586], "stop_times": [2408.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2398.586}, "reply_to": "21815__1_056", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_058", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Well, you're asking us to extend Rooker-Feldman beyond where this Court has taken it, and if I recall correctly, you really didn't ask for this.\nThe Third Circuit injected Rooker-Feldman into the case.\nIs that not true?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2408.784, 2417.739, 2422.447], "stop_times": [2417.739, 2422.447, 2423.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2408.784}, "reply_to": "21815__1_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__1_059", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, that's true, Justice Ginsburg, but it's true because of the briefing cycle.\nWhen we briefed the case, there was no Delaware judgment.\nAnd it was only on the eve of oral argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2423.523, 2428.186, 2430.87], "stop_times": [2428.186, 2430.87, 2433.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2423.523}, "reply_to": "21815__1_058", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_060", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Mr. Castanias--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2433.964], "stop_times": [2434.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.964}, "reply_to": "21815__1_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21815__1_061", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2434.707], "stop_times": [2435.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2434.707}, "reply_to": "21815__1_060", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_062", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--could... could I come back to mootness?\nOne... one could say that not only is claim preclusion the answer to Rooker-Feldman, it's also the answer to the asserted mootness here.\nI mean, you... you don't have to move to dismiss it as moot.\nAll you have to do is move to dismiss because of a prior adjudication that has resolved this question.\nDo you know of any case in which the existence of a prior judgment in another court has been held to render a suit that someone wants to press to get a second judgment moot?\nI mean, you'd think there would be a case on that, and I suppose the reason there isn't is that because the other side is always going to plead res judicata.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2435.073, 2436.559, 2447.788, 2452.8, 2459.183, 2477.138], "stop_times": [2436.559, 2447.788, 2452.8, 2459.183, 2477.138, 2485.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2435.073}, "reply_to": "21815__1_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21815__1_063", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, or the other side is going to give up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2485.478], "stop_times": [2487.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2485.478}, "reply_to": "21815__1_062", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_064", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Or give up.\nBut is there any case in which mootness is established by the fact that there is a prior judgment of another court giving you what you are asking for from this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2487.829, 2489.109], "stop_times": [2489.109, 2501.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2487.829}, "reply_to": "21815__1_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21815__1_065", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia, in the... in the realm that we're talking about here, the Fourth Circuit's decision in the Friedman's case came to a mootness conclusion.\nWe've also cited in our brief... and I don't recall the names of them off the top of my head... two cases in which the Court either... either dismissed or remanded for consideration of mootness in light of another State court judgment.\nSo I think there is... there is a body of law, but I also know that it is... as recently as yesterday looking at Wright and Miller on this issue, that when complete relief has been accorded by another tribunal, that is the classic case of mootness.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2501.286, 2510.37, 2524.199], "stop_times": [2510.37, 2524.199, 2540.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2501.286}, "reply_to": "21815__1_064", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_066", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, I... I don't know why... well, if it's... if it were so classic, there would be a lot of cases, and I don't... I'm not sure that any of yours are right on point.\nAnd... and I think the reason is that you don't need it, that claim preclusion is... is the remedy for the party who wants to get out of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2540.091, 2548.265], "stop_times": [2548.265, 2557.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2540.091}, "reply_to": "21815__1_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21815__1_067", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, and again, I'm... I'm certainly not going to fight claim preclusion because this is a suit that should not be here.\nThis is... this has had moving parts since we... since the petition was granted with the Delaware Supreme Court ruling and now with yesterday's denial of reargument in the Delaware Supreme Court.\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2557.303, 2564.899, 2576.993], "stop_times": [2564.899, 2576.993, 2577.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2557.303}, "reply_to": "21815__1_066", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_068", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Why is it moot?\nOr even on... why does claim preclusion apply?\nI mean, if you win, from what you've said... somehow convince us that this refusal to apply the State statute of limitations properly violated some Federal law, let's say... then that would show that the State statute of limitations applied and barred their claim.\nWould that be sufficient to knock out the Federal suit too?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2577.919, 2580.42, 2584.218, 2601.885], "stop_times": [2580.42, 2584.218, 2601.885, 2605.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.919}, "reply_to": "21815__1_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__1_069", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--I'm not sure I understand the question, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2605.19], "stop_times": [2611.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2605.19}, "reply_to": "21815__1_068", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_070", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "I mean, is... does the State statute of limitations, if... if it applied to the State's case, does it also apply in the Federal cases, the identical ground that everybody agrees that the State statute governs?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2611.339], "stop_times": [2622.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.339}, "reply_to": "21815__1_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__1_071", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "The... the... there could be... there could be issue preclusive grounds on such a ruling, Justice Breyer, but... but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2622.008], "stop_times": [2629.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2622.008}, "reply_to": "21815__1_070", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_072", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "I mean, if you... if you win, then... then... if you win your State case, because of the argument you made, do you also automatically win the Federal case?\nIs it the same issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2629.543, 2636.231], "stop_times": [2636.231, 2636.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2629.543}, "reply_to": "21815__1_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__1_073", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--I... I don't think I could say that at this point because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2636.99], "stop_times": [2639.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2636.99}, "reply_to": "21815__1_072", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_074", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "So it may not be the same issue.\nThen... then they say, okay, it's not going to be claim preclusion, and you'd have to say insofar as it's not the same issue, it's not claim preclusion.\nAnd therefore, they could proceed with their Federal case, which is what they want to do I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2639.74, 2641.764, 2649.361], "stop_times": [2641.764, 2649.361, 2653.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2639.74}, "reply_to": "21815__1_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__1_075", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--And... and that is a future event.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2653.569], "stop_times": [2654.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2653.569}, "reply_to": "21815__1_074", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_076", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Yes.\nSo we can't say it's moot in any... and we can't say there's an alternative basis where they'd win, can we?\nI mean, I'm saying... I'm thinking if we get into conference, we're discussing this case, and I say, well, I have to think this through, is it the case that if you're right and you end up winning in this Court, that their case in Federal court is over?\nI think no, it may not be.\nThe answer is it may not be.\nThen this is not moot at all.\nThis is not claim precluded at all.\nThey then might proceed with their Federal claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2654.972, 2655.715, 2663.396, 2680.402, 2682.715, 2685.398, 2687.46, 2690.638], "stop_times": [2655.715, 2663.396, 2680.402, 2682.715, 2685.398, 2687.46, 2690.638, 2693.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2654.972}, "reply_to": "21815__1_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__1_077", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, I... I guess, Justice Breyer--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2693.61], "stop_times": [2695.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2693.61}, "reply_to": "21815__1_076", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_078", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Is that right or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2695.551], "stop_times": [2697.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2695.551}, "reply_to": "21815__1_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__1_079", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--I don't think it's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2697.037], "stop_times": [2697.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2697.037}, "reply_to": "21815__1_078", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_080", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Because?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2697.408], "stop_times": [2697.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2697.408}, "reply_to": "21815__1_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__1_081", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "And... and I think the reason it's not right is because that just shows that there's no live controversy right now.\nThat's a controversy that might happen in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2697.946, 2703.352], "stop_times": [2703.352, 2706.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2697.946}, "reply_to": "21815__1_080", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_082", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Oh, well, but that... that isn't fair to them because, for all I know, they filed the Federal case because there's a different statute of limitations, say, that governs it that will have expired if you don't let them file it by the time... until this whole thing is over.\nThey just wanted it as protection.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2706.036, 2720.154], "stop_times": [2720.154, 2721.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2706.036}, "reply_to": "21815__1_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__1_083", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, two answers to that, Justice Breyer.\nFirst of all, that seems to be a... a place for State doctrines of tolling to apply, not Federal law.\nSecond of all, this Court in... in Heck against Humphrey, which we cited in our brief, solves this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2721.557, 2724.323, 2732.042], "stop_times": [2724.323, 2732.042, 2739.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2721.557}, "reply_to": "21815__1_082", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_084", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "That's explaining the unclear by the incredibly hard to understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2739.738], "stop_times": [2742.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2739.738}, "reply_to": "21815__1_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__1_085", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nI'm sorry, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2742.461, 2742.611], "stop_times": [2742.611, 2743.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2742.461}, "reply_to": "21815__1_084", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_086", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "It's explaining the unclear by reference to the incomprehensible.\nBut go ahead.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2743.287, 2746.342, 2747.169], "stop_times": [2746.342, 2747.169, 2749.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2743.287}, "reply_to": "21815__1_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21815__1_087", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "I think I wrote that opinion.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2749.314, 2752.575], "stop_times": [2752.575, 2754.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2749.314}, "reply_to": "21815__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21815__1_088", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "And indeed, you did, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2754.887], "stop_times": [2758.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2754.887}, "reply_to": "21815__1_087", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_089", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "I never did like it.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2758.231, 2758.891], "stop_times": [2758.891, 2760.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2758.231}, "reply_to": "21815__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21815__1_090", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "I... I've also gotten that impression.\nBut... but Heck I think teaches an important... Heck teaches an important lesson for this case as well, which is that Heck was just a suit for money damages, just like this suit.\nAnd... and yet, this Court said that there's going to be no cause of action under section 1983 because of the intersection of 1983 and habeas.\nWell, we have the same result here.\nThere should be no Federal court case here because of the intersection of section 1257--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2760.377, 2762.773, 2773.359, 2782.092, 2783.95], "stop_times": [2762.773, 2773.359, 2782.092, 2783.95, 2788.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2760.377}, "reply_to": "21815__1_089", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_091", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "No, no, because it's where you walk in the door.\nAnd you started out by saying this case, I think as you must, was a proper Federal case.\nIt was properly filed in... and it was properly filed in Delaware.\nSo you can't talk about a case that says, if you've got this kind of case, you go in this door.\nIf that kind of case, you go in that door.\nYou have a case here that could go in either door, the Federal, the State.\nThe usual rule is, is it not, that if Federal jurisdiction attaches, it doesn't get lost because of subsequent events.\nFor example, if a defendant moves into the plaintiff's State and the only basis for Federal jurisdiction is diversity, subject matter jurisdiction isn't lost, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2788.945, 2791.175, 2800.379, 2804.26, 2810.41, 2813.094, 2818.833, 2831.381], "stop_times": [2791.175, 2800.379, 2804.26, 2810.41, 2813.094, 2818.833, 2831.381, 2843.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2788.945}, "reply_to": "21815__1_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__1_092", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--No, and in fact, the case that's cited against us for that proposition, the Freeport-McMoran case, makes clear, in the portion of it not cited by Exxon Mobil, that that rule is limited to the diversity context.\nAnd it's not... it... it does not have its genesis in statute, but it's in policy.\nWe don't want to keep people from moving across State lines.\nWe don't want to... want to impede their... their free movement.\nSo we're going to look at it at the time of filing.\nBut what we have here is a case where maybe it was original jurisdiction when the case was filed, but it's not original anymore.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2843.847, 2859.345, 2864.902, 2868.079, 2872.787, 2875.692], "stop_times": [2859.345, 2864.902, 2868.079, 2872.787, 2875.692, 2883.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2843.847}, "reply_to": "21815__1_091", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_093", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Maybe.\nIt's not... it's not maybe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2883.478, 2883.749], "stop_times": [2883.749, 2884.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2883.478}, "reply_to": "21815__1_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__1_094", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, in this case, yes.\nIn this case, yes.\nBut original jurisdiction when the case was filed but not anymore because there's nothing original about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2884.508, 2885.54, 2887.026], "stop_times": [2885.54, 2887.026, 2893.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2884.508}, "reply_to": "21815__1_093", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_095", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--A case can become moot, but we've already expressed considerable doubt whether that is the fate of this case.\nThe notion... you used it derisively... the insurance policy.\nLawyers bring protective actions all the time, don't they?\nThere's nothing wrong with doing that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2893.425, 2900.029, 2905.564, 2909.567], "stop_times": [2900.029, 2905.564, 2909.567, 2911.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2893.425}, "reply_to": "21815__1_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21815__1_096", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, I guess I come back to... to where I started with Justice Breyer on the... on the merits of the Rooker-Feldman issue this morning, which is that the concurrent jurisdiction is something to be dealt with.\nThis Court has an uneasy body of law in the abstention area dealing with the issue of concurrent jurisdiction, but what it doesn't have is anything that deals with judgments, once you get to a judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2911.546, 2927.233], "stop_times": [2927.233, 2943.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2911.546}, "reply_to": "21815__1_095", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_097", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "May I ask you?\nIt's perhaps an unfair question.\nThe Chief Justice generally likes to confine our attention to cases of this Court rather than the courts of appeals for our primary guidance, and most of the Rooker-Feldman law is court of appeals law, as we... we both know.\nGoing back just to Rooker and to Feldman, those two cases, and putting aside ASARCO for a minute, which of those two cases do you think provides you the stronger support, if indeed any support, between Rooker and Feldman?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2943.087, 2943.869, 2945.438, 2957.038], "stop_times": [2943.869, 2945.438, 2957.038, 2970.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.087}, "reply_to": "21815__1_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__1_098", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, I... I would have to say that Feldman, of the two of them, is probably stronger support.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2970.989], "stop_times": [2976.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2970.989}, "reply_to": "21815__1_097", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_099", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "And that is the case in which the court of appeals was itself a party to the litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2976.357], "stop_times": [2981.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.357}, "reply_to": "21815__1_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__1_100", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "That's right.\nBut at the same time, the... the Rooker case also dealt with relitigation of the identical issues.\nAnd if I could just sum up here, seeing that the light is on here, the issue in this case is limited to identical lawsuits, identical claims.\nThe Third Circuit's decision in this case, if it constitutes an extension of Rooker-Feldman at all, is only a modest extension because it recognizes, consistent with ASARCO, consistent with Heck, and consistent with the very notion, Justice Souter, of de facto appeals, not actual appeals, but de facto appeals being prohibited by the doctrine... it recognizes that claims actually litigated in a State suit to a judgment, if they are litigated anew in the Federal court, that is de facto appellate review.\nThe judgment of the Third Circuit should be affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [2981.392, 2982.013, 2989.731, 3004.055, 3041.661], "stop_times": [2982.013, 2989.731, 3004.055, 3041.661, 3043.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2981.392}, "reply_to": "21815__1_099", "speaker": "gregory_andrew_castanias"}
{"id": "21815__1_101", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Castanias.\nMr. Coleman, you have 8 and a half minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [3043.89, 3047.334], "stop_times": [3047.334, 3050.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3043.89}, "reply_to": "21815__1_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__2_000", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "And I'll take just a few of them, Your Honor.\nI believe the concession that the Federal court exercised original jurisdiction at the time our case was filed is an important concession because I simply do not see yet still any rationale for this idea of vanishing original jurisdiction.\nI also see the concession made in response to... to your question, Justice Breyer, about what happens if they win on the statute of limitations issue.\nWell, one of the cases they cite on page 12, footnote 5 of their brief, the Northern Natural Gas case itself makes clear... and there are other cases.\nThey went to Delaware to apply the Delaware statute of limitations.\nThey conceded in front of the Delaware Supreme Court that even if they had won that, it wouldn't bar another lawsuit in a different forum applying a different statute of limitations.\nThe only way they could even hope to get the shorter statute was in Delaware.\nThe Delaware statute would never apply to our Federal claims, so that if somehow it went back on that procedural ground, it would not bar a trial in Federal court.\nWe don't think that that's likely to happen, but that is another explanation yet of why it's moot.\nWe also cited to the Court the Male case.\nIt is an old case, but it does make clear that when there is the question of jurisdiction before the court and some other court rules on the merits, that does not make the case moot.\nIn fact, you really wouldn't have a need for claim preclusion if that were the rule in... in mootness, because once the case is final over there, they'd all be moot, and you wouldn't need to apply--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [3050.472, 3053.528, 3070.451, 3081.142, 3089.399, 3095.088, 3106.406, 3109.749, 3122.259, 3127.211, 3130.554, 3140.957], "stop_times": [3053.528, 3070.451, 3081.142, 3089.399, 3095.088, 3106.406, 3109.749, 3122.259, 3127.211, 3130.554, 3140.957, 3151.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3050.472}, "reply_to": "21815__1_101", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__2_001", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Well, that depends on who wins.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [3151.442], "stop_times": [3152.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3151.442}, "reply_to": "21815__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21815__2_002", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--You're right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [3152.724], "stop_times": [3155.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3152.724}, "reply_to": "21815__2_001", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__2_003", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "I mean, if you lost in the other suit, your claim here wouldn't be moot.\nI mean, it... it would be precluded, but it's certainly not moot.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [3155.529, 3160.237], "stop_times": [3160.237, 3162.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3155.529}, "reply_to": "21815__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21815__2_004", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "I... I think that's right.\nI'd also like to address, just very briefly, the ASARCO question.\nThe language that the Court used in there we don't necessarily think was loose or inappropriate, Justice Ginsburg, and the reason was the Court cites at that point an amicus brief by the United States and it cites a particular footnote.\nAnd what that footnote says is it's a recommendation that the mining company in that case could file a Federal lawsuit seeking a judgment that the invalidation of the statute was not necessary.\nBut by challenging the invalidation itself, that... that looks more like a direct challenge to the State court judgment.\nIt's not simply a relitigation.\nSo that behind the Court's language there... and of course, it was really just addressing standing.\nIt was not directly addressing Rooker-Feldman.\nBut the US's suggestion in that case was a suit challenging the State court judgment, and in that situation, it looks more like appellate review, more likely to infringe upon Rooker-Feldman-type interests.\nIn the end, we believe that preclusion doctrines adequately cover all of this, that it is not true--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [3162.876, 3164.363, 3168.904, 3185.539, 3201.393, 3208.656, 3210.681, 3215.511, 3217.573, 3232.433], "stop_times": [3164.363, 3168.904, 3185.539, 3201.393, 3208.656, 3210.681, 3215.511, 3217.573, 3232.433, 3240.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3162.876}, "reply_to": "21815__2_003", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__2_005", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Mr. Coleman, I don't mean to take your time, but in the ASARCO case, was the State court judgment final at the time in dispute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [3240.485], "stop_times": [3248.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3240.485}, "reply_to": "21815__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__2_006", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "--Your Honor, there's a question about that.\nI mean, the Court kept jurisdiction, but there was a determination that the statute was invalidate... was invalid and then a remand back to the district court for further proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [3248.037, 3249.978], "stop_times": [3249.978, 3261.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3248.037}, "reply_to": "21815__2_005", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__2_007", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Because if the judgment were final, then that would fit right into your... your analysis, if the judgment of the State court were final.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [3261.373], "stop_times": [3267.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3261.373}, "reply_to": "21815__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__2_008", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [3267.811], "stop_times": [3268.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3267.811}, "reply_to": "21815__2_007", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__2_009", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [3268.842], "stop_times": [3269.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3268.842}, "reply_to": "21815__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__2_010", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "In the... at the end of the day, we believe that this Court's preclusion jurisprudence is not riddled with vagaries, that it's not difficult to understand, and that it's certainly not more vague or difficult than the borrowing that they are attempting to do to bring existing preclusion doctrines into... in order to expand Rooker-Feldman.\nPreclusion is the answer in this case.\nWe believe that the district court should be permitted to address that in the first instance, and we would ask the Court to reverse the judgment of the Third Circuit.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [3269.008, 3294.355, 3296.872, 3305.045], "stop_times": [3294.355, 3296.872, 3305.045, 3306.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3269.008}, "reply_to": "21815__2_009", "speaker": "gregory_s_coleman"}
{"id": "21815__2_011", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Coleman.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [3306.365, 3307.73], "stop_times": [3307.73, 3308.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3306.365}, "reply_to": "21815__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21815__2_012", "conversation_id": "21815", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until Monday next at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1696", "start_times": [3308.76], "stop_times": [3313.507], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3308.76}, "reply_to": "21815__2_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22899__0_000", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "We'll now hear argument in Florida against Nixon.\nMr. Lemieux.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [0.0, 4.458], "stop_times": [4.458, 6.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__0_001", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nWhen experienced counsel thoroughly investigates, prepares for trial, and discusses his trial strategy with his client, a challenge for effectiveness may not presume prejudice.\nRather, this Court's two-part inquiry, articulated in Strickland v. Washington, is the proper measure.\nThe Florida Supreme Court erred in its decision below for three main reasons.\nFirst, they failed to apply Strickland's two-part circumstance-specific, performance prejudice inquiry to a question of trial strategy.\nSecond, it improperly presumed prejudice under this Court's decision in United States v. Cronic where there was neither a complete denial of counsel, nor did counsel entirely fail to subject the State's case to meaningful adversarial testing.\nThird, the Florida Supreme Court improperly expanded this Court's decision in Boykin v. Alabama from governing pleas of guilt to governing tactical decisions made during full-fledged trials.\nFor these three reasons and because the Florida court's decision conflicts with Strickland and its progeny and will disrupt the effective administration of justice, we request reversal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [6.482, 13.502, 23.2, 28.568, 32.654, 40.373, 53.393, 64.977], "stop_times": [13.502, 23.2, 28.568, 32.654, 40.373, 53.393, 64.977, 74.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6.482}, "reply_to": "22899__0_000", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_002", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Counsel, was... was the attorney's essential concession of guilt sort of the functional equivalent of a guilty plea, do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [74.842], "stop_times": [87.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 74.842}, "reply_to": "22899__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22899__0_003", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "No, Justice O'Connor, it was not.\nMr. Corin, after speaking to his client on three occasions about this trial strategy, sought to concede the underlying... the underlying crimes but to argue what was the most essential part of this case, and that was whether or not death should be the outcome of the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [87.556, 89.414], "stop_times": [89.414, 107.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 87.556}, "reply_to": "22899__0_002", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_004", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, yes, he clearly tried to preserve a role in the sentencing, but we often have guilty pleas and then leave the sentencing to be determined.\nWas... was what he did concerning the guilt/innocence phase the equivalent of a guilty plea, do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [107.041, 118.271], "stop_times": [118.271, 125.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 107.041}, "reply_to": "22899__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22899__0_005", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "It was not, Your Honor, because a guilty plea, as this Court talked about in Boykin v. Alabama, gives up rights of the defendant.\nThe lawyer and the defendant waive rights.\nThey waive the right to trial.\nThey waive the right to have the State prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.\nThey waive the right to have a jury, to confront witnesses, to cross examine, all of the attendant trial rights.\nMr. Nixon--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [125.906, 132.389, 134.368, 135.277, 138.333, 143.534], "stop_times": [132.389, 134.368, 135.277, 138.333, 143.534, 144.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 125.906}, "reply_to": "22899__0_004", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_006", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Was there any cross examination of witnesses conducted?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [144.36], "stop_times": [147.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 144.36}, "reply_to": "22899__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22899__0_007", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--There was some cross examination, not a lot.\nThere was cross examination of one of Mr. Nixon's uncles, who was one of the seven confessions in this case, and we don't know specifically why Mr. Corin engaged in that cross examination.\nIt could be because that was probably the weakest of the seven confessions and perhaps he wanted the jury to hear that that confession was weak.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [147.704, 149.85, 160.79], "stop_times": [149.85, 160.79, 166.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 147.704}, "reply_to": "22899__0_006", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_008", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "There was also an objection to introduction of... of photographs that... that were inflammatory, wasn't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [166.734], "stop_times": [173.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 166.734}, "reply_to": "22899__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__0_009", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Yes, there was, Justice Scalia.\nIn fact, you know, Mr. Nixon was... was very much engaged in the guilt phase of this trial.\nHe objected to the introduction of evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [173.671, 174.702, 179.737], "stop_times": [174.702, 179.737, 182.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 173.671}, "reply_to": "22899__0_008", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_010", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Those photographs would have infected the... the penalty phase, as well as the guilt phase.\nSo it was important for him to object to them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [182.049, 189.647], "stop_times": [189.647, 191.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 182.049}, "reply_to": "22899__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__0_011", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [191.626], "stop_times": [192.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 191.626}, "reply_to": "22899__0_010", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_012", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "In the guilt phase.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [192.702], "stop_times": [192.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 192.702}, "reply_to": "22899__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__0_013", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "You said Mr. Nixon was... was the client.\nWas he in the courtroom?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [192.874, 195.963], "stop_times": [195.963, 196.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 192.874}, "reply_to": "22899__0_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22899__0_014", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Mr. Nixon was in the courtroom for portions of the trial.\nHe was in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [196.622, 200.337], "stop_times": [200.337, 200.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 196.622}, "reply_to": "22899__0_013", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_015", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Was... was he there... and I'll check the record... when the attorney told the jury that... that his client was... was guilty, that he basically was conceding guilt?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [200.959], "stop_times": [210.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 200.959}, "reply_to": "22899__0_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22899__0_016", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--Mr. Nixon was not in the courtroom for the opening statement or the closing statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [210.534], "stop_times": [214.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 210.534}, "reply_to": "22899__0_015", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_017", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "But not for the opening statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [214.971], "stop_times": [215.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 214.971}, "reply_to": "22899__0_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22899__0_018", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "He was there during some of voir dire.\nHe was there after the opening statement when two witnesses testified, one who testified that he was the person who tried to sell the victim's car and positively identified him in the courtroom, and another when the sheriff's deputy positively identified him as the person who confessed and gave the 45-minute confession and the person he arrested.\nAfter those two witnesses testified, Mr. Nixon then decided to leave the courtroom on that occasion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [215.108, 217.016, 235.797], "stop_times": [217.016, 235.797, 240.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 215.108}, "reply_to": "22899__0_017", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_019", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "The other side says that guilt is not as... not as clear as you... as you make it out.\nIs... is that... is that issue even before us here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [240.999, 246.821], "stop_times": [246.821, 250.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 240.999}, "reply_to": "22899__0_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__0_020", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Your... Your Honor, none of that evidence has been presented in any of the post-conviction proceedings, and while it's creative, I think it's not before this Court because it's never been entered into evidence.\nIt's just speculation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [250.081, 260.855], "stop_times": [260.855, 261.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 250.081}, "reply_to": "22899__0_019", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_021", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, it isn't a matter of whether it's before it.\nI... I just wonder whether it goes to... to the issue here, whether you needed to get his assent or not.\nIt... it probably goes to the quite separate question of whether there was inadequate performance by counsel.\nNo?\nIs that question before us also?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [261.93, 262.963, 269.4, 276.337, 276.709], "stop_times": [262.963, 269.4, 276.337, 276.709, 279.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 261.93}, "reply_to": "22899__0_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__0_022", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "It is, Your Honor.\nBoth questions are before you.\nI... I believe that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [279.021, 279.643, 280.84], "stop_times": [279.643, 280.84, 282.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 279.021}, "reply_to": "22899__0_021", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_023", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Was... was the latter question ruled upon below?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [282.205], "stop_times": [285.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 282.205}, "reply_to": "22899__0_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__0_024", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--What the Florida Supreme Court did is they found that since this was the functional equivalent of a guilty plea, if there was not explicit and affirmative consent, that Cronic would apply and a presumption of prejudice would follow.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [285.093], "stop_times": [297.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 285.093}, "reply_to": "22899__0_023", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_025", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Okay, but... no.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [297.248, 297.786], "stop_times": [297.786, 298.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 297.248}, "reply_to": "22899__0_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__0_026", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "And never... and never reached the... the inadequate performance of counsel question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [298.324], "stop_times": [302.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 298.324}, "reply_to": "22899__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__0_027", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "The... the only thing that they do say, Your Honor, is that they say that the strategy employed by Mr. Corin may well have been in Mr. Nixon's best interests.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [302.411], "stop_times": [309.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 302.411}, "reply_to": "22899__0_026", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_028", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Okay, but they didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [309.098], "stop_times": [310.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 309.098}, "reply_to": "22899__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__0_029", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "They may, but that wasn't a definitive ruling.\nSo do you agree that if we accept the position that you are taking, a remand would require for that... for that evidence to be considered on the straightforward question did counsel perform adequately?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [310.091, 311.949], "stop_times": [311.949, 328.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 310.091}, "reply_to": "22899__0_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22899__0_030", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Your Honor, there were three hearings in the post-conviction proceedings, and the... the defense, who had the burden in those cases to prove ineffective assistance of counsel only put on Mr. Corin and the State cross examined Mr. Corin and called some other witnesses.\nI don't know what further evidence could be adduced that would go to a separate claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [328.872, 343.899], "stop_times": [343.899, 347.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 328.872}, "reply_to": "22899__0_029", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_031", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--Well, it... it might be that there would be no justification for further evidence, but there would have to be a Strickland ruling on the merits of the Strickland issue, wouldn't there be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [347.864], "stop_times": [355.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 347.864}, "reply_to": "22899__0_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__0_032", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "I think that this Court could engage in that.\nI think you could remand and have the Florida Supreme Court engage in that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [355.582, 358.017], "stop_times": [358.017, 360.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 355.582}, "reply_to": "22899__0_031", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_033", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "But nobody has explicitly done that yet.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [360.617, 363.673], "stop_times": [363.673, 364.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 360.617}, "reply_to": "22899__0_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__0_034", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "They have not because the Florida Supreme Court ruled under Cronic.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [364.311], "stop_times": [366.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 364.311}, "reply_to": "22899__0_033", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_035", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Because of the Cronic point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [366.706], "stop_times": [367.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 366.706}, "reply_to": "22899__0_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__0_036", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [367.466], "stop_times": [368.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 367.466}, "reply_to": "22899__0_035", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_037", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "What... what about the courts below the Florida Supreme Court?\nDidn't they rule on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [368.109, 370.998], "stop_times": [370.998, 371.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 368.109}, "reply_to": "22899__0_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__0_038", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThree trial court judges all found that there was effective assistance of counsel.\nJudge Hall, who presided over the trial, in fact, described Mr. Corin's advocacy as being right on the mark.\nHe found in his approach an excellent analysis of the realities of the case and the preservation of credibility and the credibility of any mitigating circumstances.\nHe also found that it was perhaps the only steps that could have been taken to afford his client some relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [371.824, 372.446, 376.533, 385.366, 392.918], "stop_times": [372.446, 376.533, 385.366, 392.918, 398.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 371.824}, "reply_to": "22899__0_037", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_039", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "May I ask--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [398.657], "stop_times": [399.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 398.657}, "reply_to": "22899__0_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__0_040", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Getting back to the practical equivalent of a guilty plea, Brookhart v. Janis do you think goes to the outer margin of what the functional equivalent is?\nAre there other examples of what a functional equivalent would be that would fall under both Cronic and Brookhart?\nWe have a line-drawing problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [399.733, 409.326, 415.708], "stop_times": [409.326, 415.708, 418.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 399.733}, "reply_to": "22899__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22899__0_041", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Sure, sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [418.614], "stop_times": [419.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 418.614}, "reply_to": "22899__0_040", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_042", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--as... as to whether or not this is the functional equivalent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [419.44], "stop_times": [421.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 419.44}, "reply_to": "22899__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22899__0_043", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Your Honor, I think that Brookhart in fact probably supports our position because in Brookhart the situation was factually different.\nIt was more of a... a guilty plea situation where there was going to be this prima facie trial, which was, in essence, a guilty plea with a profferer through one witness.\nAnd in that case, the defendant stood up and said, I want a trial, I want everyone to understand I'm not pleading guilty.\nAnd this Court said that counsel can't waive those rights to a full trial when the defendant is objecting to it, but if the defendant consents or acquiesces, this Court said the ruling would be different.\nWell, certainly Mr. Nixon at least acquiesced.\nMr. Corin spoke to him on three occasions... and that can be found at 255 of the joint appendix... and talked to him about this strategy.\nMr. Nixon never responded either way as to his assent or what he wanted to be done.\nNow, Judge Ferris, who was the third trial court judge who heard this matter, said that because of the longstanding relationship between this defendant and this lawyer, because he had represented him three times before over a 2-year period, that there was a level of relationship, they were both veterans of the criminal justice system, they had a rapport with each other.\nAnd she was able to determine that there was consent to the trial strategy in the fact that Mr. Nixon did not object to it.\nThe Florida Supreme Court wants explicit and affirmative consent, and they want a colloquy on the record.\nAnd we think that this will be very problematic, and we're already seeing these problems in Florida.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [421.215, 428.356, 437.19, 443.589, 455.023, 457.707, 465.237, 470.877, 489.286, 495.313, 501.174], "stop_times": [428.356, 437.19, 443.589, 455.023, 457.707, 465.237, 470.877, 489.286, 495.313, 501.174, 505.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 421.215}, "reply_to": "22899__0_042", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_044", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Do we have any cases involving what... what you describe as tacit consent?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [505.632], "stop_times": [511.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 505.632}, "reply_to": "22899__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__0_045", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "In terms of a trial strategy, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [511.577], "stop_times": [514.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 511.577}, "reply_to": "22899__0_044", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_046", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "In... in terms of... of pleading guilty.\nDo we have any cases in which a similar thing happened, that the counsel said I'm going to plead you guilty and the... the defendant doesn't say anything, just passively sits there as though, you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [514.921, 517.4], "stop_times": [517.4, 533.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 514.921}, "reply_to": "22899__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__0_047", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Your Honor, I think you do and I think that Boykin addresses that there has to be a colloquy with a plea of guilty, and that the... the defendant can't tacitly consent to a plea of guilty.\nBut our position is that this is not a plea of guilty.\nThis is not a complete surrender.\nThis is a tactical retreat made for reasons of trying to contest the one issue in this case that could be contested, and that was trying to save this defendant's life.\nThis lawyer took 52 depositions.\nHe hired medical professionals.\nHe investigated Mr. Nixon's background, going back to the age of 10.\nHe did everything--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [533.663, 542.785, 545.264, 546.75, 555.749, 558.388, 560.346, 564.333], "stop_times": [542.785, 545.264, 546.75, 555.749, 558.388, 560.346, 564.333, 565.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 533.663}, "reply_to": "22899__0_046", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_048", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "What happened to the photographs?\nI wasn't clear from the submissions.\nThere were inflammatory photographs.\nWere they in fact admitted?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [565.326, 567.305, 571.02, 573.249], "stop_times": [567.305, 571.02, 573.249, 575.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 565.326}, "reply_to": "22899__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22899__0_049", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--They were admitted over his objection, and that was taken up on direct appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, and the Florida Supreme Court, in Nixon I, did not find that they were inflammatory and found that their introduction was proper.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [575.069], "stop_times": [586.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 575.069}, "reply_to": "22899__0_048", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_050", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "But they were not reintroduced at the sentencing phase.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [586.215], "stop_times": [587.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 586.215}, "reply_to": "22899__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22899__0_051", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "They were already in evidence and the State incorporated its evidence from the guilt phase into the sentencing phase.\nIt's just a procedure.\nThe only evidence that the State put on in the guilt phase were his prior two convictions and evidence that Mr. Nixon tortured the defendant by removing her underwear before he burned her alive.\nBesides that, the rest of the evidence was incorporated from the guilt phase.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [587.124, 593.523, 594.388, 606.071], "stop_times": [593.523, 594.388, 606.071, 609.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 587.124}, "reply_to": "22899__0_050", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_052", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--May I ask if... do you think his representation would have been inadequate if he had not discussed the strategy with the client but everything else was exactly the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [609.992], "stop_times": [621.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 609.992}, "reply_to": "22899__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__0_053", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "It may... it may have been but it would be something that would be evaluated under Strickland, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [621.387], "stop_times": [626.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 621.387}, "reply_to": "22899__0_052", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_054", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, why would it be... why would it make any difference under Strickland whether he talked to the client or not if the same... if the same considerations are in play?\nIn other words, he just knew it was the... the wiser strategy to try and save him from the death penalty?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [626.339, 634.141], "stop_times": [634.141, 639.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 626.339}, "reply_to": "22899__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__0_055", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "I think the only point I would make there is this Court said in Strickland that counsel should consult with their... with their client, with the accused, and that that's an obligation on counsel.\nIf there was a failure to consult, perhaps that would be argued that that failure to consult was deficient performance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [639.592, 648.137], "stop_times": [648.137, 653.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.592}, "reply_to": "22899__0_054", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_056", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Isn't that... isn't that because we... we take the consultation at... at least as an indication that the lawyer was... was adequate in communicating back and forth with the client so that the client could tell him what the lawyer needed to know to defend him?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [653.726], "stop_times": [669.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.726}, "reply_to": "22899__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__0_057", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Yes, Justice Souter, I think that's correct.\nI think that there could be meaningful discussions between the defendant and the accused that can help the lawyer represent the defendant at trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [669.601, 671.292], "stop_times": [671.292, 677.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 669.601}, "reply_to": "22899__0_056", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_058", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "But even apart from the competence of the lawyer, whether it shows adequate performance by the lawyer, can't you... can't you divide the Boykin rule, which doesn't relate to the lawyer's competence at all, into three different categories: number one, where there is express consent which is... makes it okay; number two, when there's no consent at all, which is bad; and number three, where there is what... what you call here implicit consent?\nAren't there really three different situations?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [677.874, 712.16], "stop_times": [712.16, 714.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 677.874}, "reply_to": "22899__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__0_059", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that's correct.\nThat's what the Court speaks about in Brookhart, and although we think that that's more of a guilty plea case than a trial strategy case, if this Court were to go in that direction, that standard certainly could apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [714.555, 716.125], "stop_times": [716.125, 725.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 714.555}, "reply_to": "22899__0_058", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_060", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "In--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [725.346], "stop_times": [725.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 725.346}, "reply_to": "22899__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22899__0_061", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "It seems to me rather difficult to... to draw that line.\nIf... if consent is necessary, why shouldn't it be express?\nI'm not saying consent is necessary, but normally if you're going to have something this important and consent is necessary, it seems to me it ought to be clear on the record.\nYou certainly wouldn't accept this for a guilty plea, what you have here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [725.984, 728.668, 732.283, 741.033], "stop_times": [728.668, 732.283, 741.033, 744.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 725.984}, "reply_to": "22899__0_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__0_062", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, but in... I think this Court has held in cases like Jones v. Barnes and Taylor v. Illinois, that questions of strategy are questions that are reserved to the lawyer, and that all--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [744.188], "stop_times": [754.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 744.188}, "reply_to": "22899__0_061", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_063", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "That's right, and that's why I'm suggesting if it really is a question of strategy, you don't even need implicit consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [754.674], "stop_times": [759.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 754.674}, "reply_to": "22899__0_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__0_064", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [759.299], "stop_times": [759.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 759.299}, "reply_to": "22899__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__0_065", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "And I'm not sure there's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [759.875], "stop_times": [760.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 759.875}, "reply_to": "22899__0_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__0_066", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--We--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [760.868], "stop_times": [761.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 760.868}, "reply_to": "22899__0_065", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_067", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--three-part rule, as Justice Scalia says.\nThere's just a two-part rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [761.034, 763.263], "stop_times": [763.263, 764.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 761.034}, "reply_to": "22899__0_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__0_068", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--We... we agree with that position, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [764.462], "stop_times": [767.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 764.462}, "reply_to": "22899__0_067", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_069", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, I... I assume... I assume your response is that if you eliminate from the Boykin rule the possibility of implicit consent, you are forcing the lawyer who believes he has the consent of... of a... an intractable client such as this fellow who... who didn't go into the courtroom, took all his clothes off so they couldn't take him into the courtroom.\nHe was obviously not... didn't want to be responsive.\nYour... you would have forced this lawyer to adopt a strategy which the lower court found would have been damaging to this defendant, even though the lawyer believes that the defendant really approved of the strategy that the lawyer was undertaking.\nWhy would we want to adopt a rule like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [767.146, 790.18, 794.145, 807.641], "stop_times": [790.18, 794.145, 807.641, 809.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 767.146}, "reply_to": "22899__0_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__0_070", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Your Honor, it's not our position that you should a rule of consent.\nI was saying if this Court were going in that direction, that the acquiescence level would be what we would suggest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [809.499, 812.388], "stop_times": [812.388, 817.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 809.499}, "reply_to": "22899__0_069", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_071", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "What... what about a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [817.218], "stop_times": [818.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 817.218}, "reply_to": "22899__0_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22899__0_072", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--If there were a plea... if it were a plea of guilt, wouldn't this be an academic question because I assume Florida has some counterpart to the rule 11 colloquy where the judge must confront the defendant and ask him a series of questions to elicit his consent?\nSo this issue can come up, if you have a counterpart to rule 11, only in the concession of guilt by the attorney but with a trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [818.127, 835.672], "stop_times": [835.672, 847.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 818.127}, "reply_to": "22899__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22899__0_073", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Your Honor, Florida does have a rule for a guilty plea, but... and now the Florida Supreme Court says there has to be a colloquy for a strategy decision that... where there's a concession, but we disagree with that.\nWe don't think that there should be a colloquy.\nWe don't think that that... that should be required.\nAnd we think that that's problematic and we're already seeing in Florida that... that judges, laboring under the Nixon decision, are asking questions to defendants as to whether or not all sorts of strategy decisions are decisions they agreed to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [847.273, 858.707, 859.943, 862.172], "stop_times": [858.707, 859.943, 862.172, 875.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 847.273}, "reply_to": "22899__0_072", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_074", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "If Florida wanted to adopt that procedure on its own, that wouldn't present a Federal question.\nI mean, the prosecutor would have no... the prosecutor would have no right to stop it if the... if Florida said, well, we want that same colloquy to go on whether it's a guilty plea or whether it's a concession of guilt.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [875.341, 881.674], "stop_times": [881.674, 895.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 875.341}, "reply_to": "22899__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22899__0_075", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well... well, Justice Ginsburg, they're doing it under these decisions of this Court is the reason why that they've articulated that this has to be done.\nThey're saying it's a functional equivalent of a guilty plea.\nTherefore, Boykin is required and therefore there has to be a colloquy.\nAnd we think that those colloquies are tremendously problematic, that they invade the attorney-client privilege.\nThey may affect an accused's right to... you know, not to self-incriminate himself.\nThere may violate the relationship between the lawyer and his client.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [895.32, 902.09, 904.32, 907.376, 911.584, 915.937], "stop_times": [902.09, 904.32, 907.376, 911.584, 915.937, 919.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.32}, "reply_to": "22899__0_074", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_076", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Yes, but these... let me just understand.\nThese colloquies are not, in your view, commanded by the Florida Supreme Court's holding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [919.752, 921.321], "stop_times": [921.321, 925.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 919.752}, "reply_to": "22899__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__0_077", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "They are.\nThe Florida Supreme Court specifically says you must have these colloquies to determine consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [925.762, 926.34], "stop_times": [926.34, 931.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 925.762}, "reply_to": "22899__0_076", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_078", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "But only... is it... it's not just when there's the equivalent of the guilty plea, but any major trial strategy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [931.048], "stop_times": [936.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.048}, "reply_to": "22899__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__0_079", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "The lower... Justice, I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [936.083], "stop_times": [938.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 936.083}, "reply_to": "22899__0_078", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_080", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--Is this... I want to know if the Florida Supreme Court's holding is limited to cases that are the functional equivalent of... of a guilty plea, and... and it's only there that they're requiring the colloquy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [938.229], "stop_times": [949.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 938.229}, "reply_to": "22899__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__0_081", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "It's only there that they've required it, but lower courts now defense counsel are making these arguments that, boy, you know, and the judge is concerned this is a strategy decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [949.996], "stop_times": [958.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.996}, "reply_to": "22899__0_080", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_082", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, but of course what the lower courts are doing may or may not be right as a matter of Florida law, but that's not before us really.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [958.457], "stop_times": [965.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 958.457}, "reply_to": "22899__0_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__0_083", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "It's not before Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [965.311], "stop_times": [966.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 965.311}, "reply_to": "22899__0_082", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_084", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Of course, if it were a matter of Florida law, the Florida legislature could change it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [966.343], "stop_times": [969.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 966.343}, "reply_to": "22899__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__0_085", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Yes, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [969.436], "stop_times": [970.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 969.436}, "reply_to": "22899__0_084", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_086", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "If it's a matter of Federal law, it can't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [970.551], "stop_times": [972.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 970.551}, "reply_to": "22899__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__0_087", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "That's correct.\nIf I may, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [972.203, 972.946], "stop_times": [972.946, 975.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 972.203}, "reply_to": "22899__0_086", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__0_088", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Mr. Gornstein.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [975.752], "stop_times": [985.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 975.752}, "reply_to": "22899__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__1_000", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThe most serious problem with the Florida Supreme Court's explicit consent requirement is that it prevents counsel from pursuing what may be the most effective strategy for saving a defendant's life, even when counsel consults with the defendant on that strategy and the defendant does not object.\nIn that situation, the Florida Supreme Court would require counsel to pursue an alternative reasonable doubt strategy even though that might undermine the case for sparing the defendant's life and even though the defendant has not consented to that strategy either.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [985.002, 989.664, 1007.953], "stop_times": [989.664, 1007.953, 1024.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 985.002}, "reply_to": "22899__0_088", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22899__1_001", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Do we take it as a given that if he does not consent, in fact, directs his lawyer not to make this concession, that the lawyer is bound to follow?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1024.05], "stop_times": [1032.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1024.05}, "reply_to": "22899__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22899__1_002", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "No, Justice Kennedy.\nYou would still look at that question through the prism of Strickland's reasonableness inquiry.\nIt would raise distinct concerns.\nA reasonable counsel would make a reasonable effort to iron out differences.\nReasonable counsel takes into account the considered views of his client.\nBut if, at the end of that process, counsel reasonably concludes that this is the only effective strategy for saving the defendant's life, then the pursuit of that strategy is not per se ineffective.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1032.965, 1035.194, 1041.594, 1043.823, 1048.16, 1053.044], "stop_times": [1035.194, 1041.594, 1043.823, 1048.16, 1053.044, 1065.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1032.965}, "reply_to": "22899__1_001", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22899__1_003", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Does... does that up the ante and the defendant now is in the position to terminate the lawyer, or will the judge say it's... it's too late, I'm not going to grant that motion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1065.637], "stop_times": [1076.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1065.637}, "reply_to": "22899__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22899__1_004", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Justice Kennedy, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1076.821], "stop_times": [1078.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1076.821}, "reply_to": "22899__1_003", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22899__1_005", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "As... as a matter of Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1078.862], "stop_times": [1079.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1078.862}, "reply_to": "22899__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22899__1_006", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--As... the defendant could go to the... to the judge and his counsel could go to the judge and say, we have had such a breakdown between us on what should be done here, we think alternative counsel should be appointed.\nBut that would be a discretionary call for the district court.\nSo too, the defendant could say, I want to exercise my right to self-representation, which he has a right to do.\nSo those are the two checks on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1079.876, 1097.049, 1100.56, 1108.112], "stop_times": [1097.049, 1100.56, 1108.112, 1109.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1079.876}, "reply_to": "22899__1_005", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22899__1_007", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "But what... what if there's a third possibility and... and the lawyer makes remarks in front of the jury, as... as this lawyer did, in effect, concession kind of remarks, and the defendant stands up and says, hey, I'm not making those concessions?\nI am not guilty.\nI'm not conceding a darned thing.\nDoes the lawyer at that point at least have a... an option to proceed on the concession theory, leaving it to judge his performance under Strickland afterwards?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1109.886, 1122.146, 1123.427, 1124.997], "stop_times": [1122.146, 1123.427, 1124.997, 1135.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.886}, "reply_to": "22899__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__1_008", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "If I understand your question, Justice Souter, this is a situation where there was no objection initially, the lawyer proceeded to adopt a strategy, and then there was a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1135.604], "stop_times": [1146.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1135.604}, "reply_to": "22899__1_007", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22899__1_009", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, I... actually I... I didn't get into that one way or the other.\nLet's assume we've got a case in which the client says, no, I... I don't agree to these concessions.\nI'm not guilty and I want a defense.\nAs I understood your... your earlier answer, you said if... you know, if it is the lawyer's considered judgment that this is the only way to save his life... he's talked with him, et cetera... he... he still may have that option to concede.\nAnd I'm taking the... the facts one step further and saying let's assume the... the client goes whole-hog in his objection.\nAnd he stands up or... or says in front of the judge and the jury, I... I'm not conceding any of this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1146.628, 1148.979, 1155.006, 1156.625, 1171.081, 1178.95], "stop_times": [1148.979, 1155.006, 1156.625, 1171.081, 1178.95, 1184.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.628}, "reply_to": "22899__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__1_010", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--That... that sounds to me like a case where there ought to be alternative counsel appointed if there has been such a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1184.439], "stop_times": [1190.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1184.439}, "reply_to": "22899__1_009", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22899__1_011", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "I... I would certainly agree if we get to that point.\nBut let's the lawyer does, as you at least left the door open for him to do, and... and he does proceed to represent the guy.\nThe judge doesn't remove him and the lawyer continues to concede.\nDo you... do you think that there is any possibility on a Strickland analysis of finding adequacy of counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1190.483, 1193.272, 1200.991, 1204.214], "stop_times": [1193.272, 1200.991, 1204.214, 1209.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1190.483}, "reply_to": "22899__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__1_012", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--Probably not, Justice Souter, that you would analyze that under Strickland and you would find that that's not the reasonable performance of counsel in that circumstance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1209.331], "stop_times": [1218.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1209.331}, "reply_to": "22899__1_011", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22899__1_013", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1218.703], "stop_times": [1218.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1218.703}, "reply_to": "22899__1_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__1_014", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "And so... but the question here really is what do you do not in a case where there's been an objection, because there was no objection here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1218.953], "stop_times": [1225.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1218.953}, "reply_to": "22899__1_013", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22899__1_015", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "So a substantial component of reasonableness under Strickland is whether or not you follow the client's instructions?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1225.845], "stop_times": [1232.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1225.845}, "reply_to": "22899__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22899__1_016", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "It is one factor that reasonable counsel will take into account, but it is not the only factor.\nIn some situations, if you're not following the defendant's instructions, it can lead to such a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship that you couldn't possibly render effective assistance of counsel.\nSo it is going to be a factor in that respect.\nBut this case presents only the question of what happens when there's no objection, and when there's no objection, it makes no sense to say that where there's been consultation, no objection, that instead of allowing the lawyer to exercise his reasonable judgment on what the best thing to do is, he instead has to pursue an alternative reasonable doubt strategy that is less effective.\nAnd the Sixth Amendment simply can't be read to require counsel to pursue a less effective strategy that the defendant hasn't asked for.\nNow, there's no perfect analogy here, but the closest analogy is to the division of responsibilities for appeal where the defendant has the right to say whether he will appeal, but counsel has the right primarily to make the strategic judgments of what arguments will be raised on appeal.\nSo too here, the... the defendant has the right to decide to stand trial, but client has primary responsibility for making the strategic judgment of what defenses will be raised at that trial.\nNow, there is... this is an important question, and therefore there is a duty on the part of counsel to consult with the defendant, but once that consultation has occurred, and there is no objection, and the choice that counsel made is a reasonable, tactical judgment under all the facts and circumstances, his pursuit of that strategy satisfies constitutional standards.\nThere is no requirement of explicit, affirmative consent, and the Florida Supreme Court's judgment should, therefore, be reversed.\nIf the Court has no further questions, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1232.078, 1237.816, 1249.622, 1252.223, 1275.174, 1284.34, 1302.682, 1315.753, 1338.044, 1345.929], "stop_times": [1237.816, 1249.622, 1252.223, 1275.174, 1284.34, 1302.682, 1315.753, 1338.044, 1345.929, 1349.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1232.078}, "reply_to": "22899__1_015", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22899__1_017", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Gornstein.\nMr. Tillinghast.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1349.122, 1350.964], "stop_times": [1350.964, 1355.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.122}, "reply_to": "22899__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__2_000", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Mr. Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThe issue before the Court today is whether a defense counsel can concede guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in his opening and in his closing statements in the trial, particularly when the defendant is not present.\nWe submit that the answer is no, and there's two reasons that it's no.\nFirst, we believe that it's the functional equivalent of a guilty plea as found by the Florida Supreme Court.\nSecond, because the... what was stated was so clearly an acknowledgement that the State had proven its case, that there was a complete breakdown of the adversarial process and there was no meaningful testing of the State's case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1355.672, 1360.623, 1375.113, 1380.397, 1385.887], "stop_times": [1360.623, 1375.113, 1380.397, 1385.887, 1403.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1355.672}, "reply_to": "22899__1_017", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_001", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Mr. Tillinghast, may I go back to something you said?\nBecause I don't want to lose sight of it.\nYou seem to suggest that the defendant's absence from the trial should work in his favor when this was defendant's own choice not to be there.\nThe judge met with him and said I want to make sure you know what you're doing.\nRight?\nWhy should we count at all in the defendant's favor that he was... he absented himself from trial any more than we would give a fugitive credit for not being there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1403.72, 1407.146, 1409.664, 1421.719, 1427.663, 1428.051], "stop_times": [1407.146, 1409.664, 1421.719, 1427.663, 1428.051, 1440.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1403.72}, "reply_to": "22899__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22899__2_002", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, part of the issue here is... is the lack of consent.\nMr. Nixon was not present during the entire guilt phase of the trial.\nWhat we would submit is that in this case where there was the hearing in a holding cell... it was on the record.\nIt's part of the record before Your Honor... where the judge inquired about Mr. Nixon's willingness to participate in his trial, and he declined to go into the courtroom, that refusal to go into the courtroom, we submit, was a refusal to attend the... the hearing on the presumption that he was going to have a trial consistent with his guilty plea... or not guilty plea... excuse me... the not guilty plea that was entered.\nWhat he anticipated was a trial where the State's case was... was tested and it was consistent with his not guilty plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1440.128, 1445.33, 1450.903, 1459.342, 1488.592], "stop_times": [1445.33, 1450.903, 1459.342, 1488.592, 1497.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1440.128}, "reply_to": "22899__2_001", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_003", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "But he--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1497.015], "stop_times": [1497.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1497.015}, "reply_to": "22899__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__2_004", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, you... you equate this to a case where the defendant is just accidentally not present.\nThat's... that's what I got.\nI... I had the same problem with your opening two sentences as Justice Ginsburg did.\nYou said if the defendant is absent from the courtroom.\nWell, in this case, he was absent because he chose to be absent.\nYou're... you're equating this case to one in which it was as if for some reason they forgot to have him in the courtroom.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1497.387, 1503.852, 1505.521, 1510.927, 1513.156, 1515.485], "stop_times": [1503.852, 1505.521, 1510.927, 1513.156, 1515.485, 1522.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1497.387}, "reply_to": "22899__2_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22899__2_005", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, the... the important issue here is there was not consent.\nThe lack of his presence in the courtroom compounded that problem, but the important issue here and the issue before the Court is that defense counsel conceded guilt and conceded that the State had proven its case without the consent of his own client.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1522.378, 1528.223], "stop_times": [1528.223, 1546.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1522.378}, "reply_to": "22899__2_004", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_006", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--I don't agree with your earlier statement that what... what this defendant expected was a contested trial in which, you know, the State's evidence is challenged, blah, blah, blah.\nThat's to the contrary.\nHe said this whole thing is... is just a big railroad job and that's one reason I don't want to be there.\nGo ahead and do whatever you want.\nHe wasn't... he wasn't expecting... in fact, if you're... if you're talking about is subjective expectations, they would reinforce the lawyer's belief that he had no objection to conceding guilt because he was referring to this as... as one big railroad job.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1546.427, 1558.853, 1561.538, 1566.368, 1568.43], "stop_times": [1558.853, 1561.538, 1566.368, 1568.43, 1585.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1546.427}, "reply_to": "22899__2_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__2_007", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, respectfully, Your Honor, I would... I would disagree because that what... what we do have from Mr. Nixon is he stated that... that he had fired his lawyer.\nHe wanted a black lawyer.\nHe wanted a black judge, and that he didn't want to go into the courtroom because he would be railroaded.\nThat was after in the newspaper it had indicated that he had... that his counsel had pled him guilty in his opening statement, and he was clearly objecting to that conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1585.065, 1596.665, 1598.234, 1603.807], "stop_times": [1596.665, 1598.234, 1603.807, 1616.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1585.065}, "reply_to": "22899__2_006", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_008", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "I thought he had made those statements about being railroaded before he found out about the lawyer's concession.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1616.644], "stop_times": [1623.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.644}, "reply_to": "22899__2_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__2_009", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Actually the... you're correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1623.043], "stop_times": [1627.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1623.043}, "reply_to": "22899__2_008", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_010", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "I think that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1627.873], "stop_times": [1628.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1627.873}, "reply_to": "22899__2_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__2_011", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "The... the railroading statements were before the opening statements.\nThe objection to the newspaper story was after the opening statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1628.073, 1630.556], "stop_times": [1630.556, 1635.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1628.073}, "reply_to": "22899__2_010", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_012", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Let me ask you a question just about what you... what you're assuming when you make the... the statement... prefaced the argument to the effect that there was a complete breakdown of... of the adversary process.\nYou're assuming, I take it, when you say that, that the guilt phase and the penalty phase have got to be regarded as distinct and separate phases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1635.303, 1646.82], "stop_times": [1646.82, 1656.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1635.303}, "reply_to": "22899__2_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__2_013", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1656.358], "stop_times": [1657.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1656.358}, "reply_to": "22899__2_012", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_014", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "You're dividing it in half.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1657.844], "stop_times": [1658.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1657.844}, "reply_to": "22899__2_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__2_015", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1658.792], "stop_times": [1659.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1658.792}, "reply_to": "22899__2_014", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_016", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Why is that... why is that legitimate?\nWhy should a lawyer... I mean, I presume no defense lawyer tailors his... his guilt phase representation without a thought to what is going to happen at the penalty phase if they get to the penalty phase.\nAnd so I... I have difficulty in saying that there should be some kind of a firewall for analytical purposes between guilt and penalty when... when we're in a... a question of Cronic or Strickland.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1659.906, 1661.681, 1676.253], "stop_times": [1661.681, 1676.253, 1689.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1659.906}, "reply_to": "22899__2_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__2_017", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "If the Court... if the Court was to look at the totality and... as opposed to looking at the guilt phase, what would happen would be that capital cases would have... would end up having a lower standard than a non-capital case because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1689.628], "stop_times": [1709.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1689.628}, "reply_to": "22899__2_016", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_018", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, they wouldn't end up having lower standards.\nThey... they would end up having a... a standard at the guilt phase which takes into consideration what the lawyer is or is not going to be able to do plausibly at... at the sentencing phase.\nAnd you know, those... those may be very, very difficult questions, but it's hard for me to say that either the standard is different or that a lawyer should... or that we, in setting down standards, should pretend that a lawyer somehow has to go into a state of oblivion about... about what's going to happen at sentencing if he gets there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1709.79, 1711.259, 1722.488], "stop_times": [1711.259, 1722.488, 1741.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1709.79}, "reply_to": "22899__2_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__2_019", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--The difficulty here is... is this was the functional equivalent of a guilty plea without consent, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1741.352], "stop_times": [1751.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1741.352}, "reply_to": "22899__2_018", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_020", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, let me ask you this.\nDo you think that it's possible that in some instances it is a valid strategy to focus on the punishment/sentencing phase rather than the guilt phase if the lawyer has reviewed all the evidence and it appears to the lawyer to be overwhelming?\nIs it possible that there's a case where a strategy such as this might make sense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1751.3, 1753.341, 1771.241], "stop_times": [1753.341, 1771.241, 1777.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1751.3}, "reply_to": "22899__2_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22899__2_021", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1777.64], "stop_times": [1779.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1777.64}, "reply_to": "22899__2_020", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_022", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Is that possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1779.907], "stop_times": [1780.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1779.907}, "reply_to": "22899__2_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22899__2_023", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--With... with statements in the opening--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1780.65], "stop_times": [1782.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1780.65}, "reply_to": "22899__2_022", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_024", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Is that possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1782.962], "stop_times": [1783.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1782.962}, "reply_to": "22899__2_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22899__2_025", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--Not without the consent of a client with statements like this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1783.872], "stop_times": [1790.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1783.872}, "reply_to": "22899__2_024", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_026", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, now you're building in something that I didn't ask.\nI'm asking you if it is possible that the better strategy for a defendant in a given case would be to focus on the sentencing rather than the guilt phase based on an evaluation by the attorney of the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1790.31, 1794.934], "stop_times": [1794.934, 1811.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.31}, "reply_to": "22899__2_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22899__2_027", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "There could be circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1811.198], "stop_times": [1814.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1811.198}, "reply_to": "22899__2_026", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_028", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "I don't know why you're so... I thought that the literature was replete with Law Review articles saying that this is the best strategy.\nTrial judges have told us this is the best strategy.\nI... I don't quite understand your hesitation unless it's to build in this... this factor of consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1814.892, 1820.736, 1823.17], "stop_times": [1820.736, 1823.17, 1829.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.892}, "reply_to": "22899__2_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22899__2_029", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, it is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1829.197], "stop_times": [1830.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1829.197}, "reply_to": "22899__2_028", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_030", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "I... I thought this... this was something you'd say, well, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1830.145], "stop_times": [1833.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1830.145}, "reply_to": "22899__2_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22899__2_031", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--It... it is the factor of the consent.\nIn... in this case, in the opening statement, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1833.877, 1836.999], "stop_times": [1836.999, 1841.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1833.877}, "reply_to": "22899__2_030", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_032", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, but what... what about the basic question, that as a matter of trial strategy, it is a recognized, acceptable, sometimes prudent, sometimes wise strategy to concentrate on a sentencing phase?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1841.64], "stop_times": [1852.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1841.64}, "reply_to": "22899__2_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22899__2_033", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--In the general sense, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1852.231], "stop_times": [1854.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1852.231}, "reply_to": "22899__2_032", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_034", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "And there's no difference between a capital case and a regular case insofar as the intelligence of that strategy is concerned because even when there is not a separate penalty phase, it is sometimes in the interest of the defendant to, in effect, throw himself on the mercy of the sentencer, whether that is the jury or the judge, by... by not contesting the... the fact that... that he did the acts charged.\nThat... that occurs not just in capital case but in... in regular cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1854.422, 1885.258], "stop_times": [1885.258, 1889.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1854.422}, "reply_to": "22899__2_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__2_035", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, Justice, the... the distinction here is... is it... it wasn't a strategy to not contest the State's case.\nWhat it... what it was was it was a complete concession in opening statement that the State would prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1889.428, 1896.57], "stop_times": [1896.57, 1903.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1889.428}, "reply_to": "22899__2_034", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_036", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Not entirely because both in the opening and in closing, the lawyer said to the jury, he did it, but I want you to know from my very opening that this case is about life or death, and that's the ultimate decision you will have to make.\nHe said that in his opening and he said it in his closing.\nIt wasn't simply a case of saying, my client did and now the prosecutor is going to go through the motions.\nHe told the jury, what I want you to focus on is the decision you're going to have to make whether, in the counsel's words, to spare his life.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1903.174, 1919.992, 1922.948, 1930.916], "stop_times": [1919.992, 1922.948, 1930.916, 1939.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1903.174}, "reply_to": "22899__2_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22899__2_037", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, Justice Ginsburg, the issue here is that he did that and he went beyond just saying that he did it.\nHe said that the State has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt for murder and arson, and he did it without consent.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1939.871, 1949.038, 1955.641], "stop_times": [1949.038, 1955.641, 1956.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1939.871}, "reply_to": "22899__2_036", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_038", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, you say without consent.\nAt least as... the record that we have suggests that the client was told this is what the lawyer planned to do and said nothing.\nJustice Scalia asked a question when the prior argument was ongoing.\nWhen a client doesn't say yes and he doesn't say no, to take the words of a familiar song, mustn't the lawyer then do what he thinks is best to do?\nBecause if he says, okay, I'm going to... I'm going to require a full-stop trial, I'm going to cross examine every witness, he may be damaging his client.\nThe client didn't tell him not to do that any more than he told him to do it.\nSo mustn't the lawyer in that situation exercise his best judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [1956.59, 1958.713, 1969.571, 1978.388, 1990.853, 2002.537, 2006.456], "stop_times": [1958.713, 1969.571, 1978.388, 1990.853, 2002.537, 2006.456, 2010.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1956.59}, "reply_to": "22899__2_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22899__2_039", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--I would submit that in this case, because that it is the functional equivalent of a guilty plea, and as this Court has held under Boykin and under Brookhart that you must have voluntary and willing and knowing consent--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2010.915], "stop_times": [2029.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2010.915}, "reply_to": "22899__2_038", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_040", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, what if we think that's not correct, that it is not the equivalent of a guilty plea?\nThere was some cross examination.\nThere was some participation.\nSo if we don't accept your statement that it is the functional equivalent, then what standard do we employ for the tacit consent or the failure to affirmatively respond?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2029.014, 2034.404, 2036.444, 2037.997], "stop_times": [2034.404, 2036.444, 2037.997, 2052.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2029.014}, "reply_to": "22899__2_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22899__2_041", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--Well, Justice O'Connor, if... if you're... if the Court was to view it as not the functional equivalent, as you've suggested, you could affirm based upon the nature of the statements and finding that there was a complete failure under Cronic.\nAnd... and with respect to the trial, there were... there were 35 witnesses called by the State.\nThere were five what I would submit were perfunctory questions asked on cross.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2052.487, 2068.107, 2073.802], "stop_times": [2068.107, 2073.802, 2078.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2052.487}, "reply_to": "22899__2_040", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_042", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, you said we could affirm if we applied Cronic, but I thought the issue was whether perhaps Strickland applied, and if Strickland applies, I wouldn't think we'd be affirming necessarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2078.054], "stop_times": [2090.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2078.054}, "reply_to": "22899__2_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22899__2_043", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, Strickland is... is respectfully not before the Court.\nIt was... the record below was strictly on--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2090.975, 2093.947], "stop_times": [2093.947, 2096.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2090.975}, "reply_to": "22899__2_042", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_044", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, the... the question of which standard applies I thought was before the Court.\nWas it correct for the Florida Supreme Court to employ the Cronic standard or should it have reviewed it under Strickland?\nIs that not before us?\nIs that not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2096.715, 2102.659, 2112.523, 2113.721], "stop_times": [2102.659, 2112.523, 2113.721, 2115.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2096.715}, "reply_to": "22899__2_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22899__2_045", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2115.867], "stop_times": [2116.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2115.867}, "reply_to": "22899__2_044", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_046", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--one of the questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2116.322], "stop_times": [2117.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2116.322}, "reply_to": "22899__2_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22899__2_047", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2117.065], "stop_times": [2117.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2117.065}, "reply_to": "22899__2_046", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_048", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Okay.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2117.891, 2118.346], "stop_times": [2118.346, 2118.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.891}, "reply_to": "22899__2_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22899__2_049", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "I thought that Boykin and... Boykin and... and Brookhart were about really a somewhat different matter.\nThe language, functional equivalent of a guilty plea, is lifted from Brookhart.\nBoykin and Brookhart are about what a judge does, not about what a lawyer does.\nIn Boykin, the judge accepted the guilty plea, and the Court said you can't do it without the express consent of the defendant.\nIn Brookhart, it was a judge who accepted... now, here it was an odd procedure, and it was that procedure that the Court called the functional equivalent of a guilty plea.\nAnd therefore, we're talking about what a judge can do.\nHere we're not.\nWe're talking about what a lawyer can do and when it arises to the level of improper lack of counsel.\nSo I don't think they govern it.\nRather, I thought... and I want your view on this... that the most relevant case was really Roe v. Flores, you know, where... where the lawyer did a weird thing.\nHe didn't file an appeal.\nAnd here he's doing a little odd thing.\nSo what we said there is you have to consult, which is just what the Government is saying here.\nI'm exposing that thought process to you to get your reaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2118.968, 2126.148, 2131.228, 2138.491, 2148.894, 2163.178, 2166.726, 2168.296, 2177.789, 2179.913, 2190.504, 2191.535, 2194.962, 2201.073], "stop_times": [2126.148, 2131.228, 2138.491, 2148.894, 2163.178, 2166.726, 2168.296, 2177.789, 2179.913, 2190.504, 2191.535, 2194.962, 2201.073, 2205.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2118.968}, "reply_to": "22899__2_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22899__2_050", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "I... I think, first, under... under Jones v. Barnes, it's been held by this Court that there are three fundamental things that only the client can do, one of which is to plead guilty.\nAnd in... in the Roe case, the... the record below was... was unclear as to what happened as to whether there was a duty for the attorney to file an appeal and what the conversations were or were not with... with the defendant.\nBut we would submit that... that a guilty plea is something very special because that it goes to the heart of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2205.16, 2215.684, 2240.947], "stop_times": [2215.684, 2240.947, 2249.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2205.16}, "reply_to": "22899__2_049", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_051", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "This is not a guilty plea and the words... a guilty plea is something accepted by a judge and the judge didn't.\nBut I grant you it's a very odd situation and very special, and that's why I wonder what the appropriate way to... what kind of requirement there ought to be.\nMaybe there should be something.\nI'm not sure why it should rise above the level of consultation since you know, better than I, you can have some awfully difficult clients who are virtually incapable of understanding what's in their interests.\nAnd... and that's why I'm awfully reluctant to go beyond saying you have to consult with your client.\nYou start insisting on an answer, and you don't know what they're going to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2249.121, 2257.477, 2269.637, 2271.002, 2285.158, 2292.217], "stop_times": [2257.477, 2269.637, 2271.002, 2285.158, 2292.217, 2296.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2249.121}, "reply_to": "22899__2_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22899__2_052", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, the... the lawyer here did have alternatives.\nHe... he could have put the State to its burden and consistent with the not guilty plea that was entered in the case.\nOr as an alternative, there could have been an inquiry on the record of... by the judge with the lawyers of Mr. Nixon to determine whether or not he was consenting to this... this sort of... the opening statements and the closing statements, which... which were extraordinary, particularly the closing statement because... and in the closing statement, he specifically said that the State did prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each and every element of the crimes charged, first degree, premeditated murder, kidnapping, robbery, and arson, had been proven, which is truly extraordinary.\nHere is a situation where the lawyer who is the only person in the courtroom, because Mr. Nixon was tried in absentia, who... the only person in the courtroom who was there as the trusted advisor and counselor for Mr. Nixon, stands up in front of the jury in the opening and the closing and concedes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.\nI would submit that upon doing that, the... the whole adversarial process breaks down because it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2296.47, 2301.216, 2308.087, 2349.038, 2369.743], "stop_times": [2301.216, 2308.087, 2349.038, 2369.743, 2377.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2296.47}, "reply_to": "22899__2_051", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_053", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Why?\nWhen... when his object is to spare this person's life.\nHe knows the evidence is very strong.\nHe wants, to the extent that he can, insulate the penalty phase from all that damning evidence that's coming out at the trial.\nSo he wants the evidence to come out at the trial, but he doesn't want to be in a situation where the jury has heard the defendant resist the determination that he did it and then have to plead for his life after.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2377.089, 2377.832, 2381.836, 2383.861, 2393.436], "stop_times": [2377.832, 2381.836, 2383.861, 2393.436, 2409.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2377.089}, "reply_to": "22899__2_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22899__2_054", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--The difficulty, again... it comes back to the lack of consent.\nHad he had consent, it would be different.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2409.207, 2415.19], "stop_times": [2415.19, 2418.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2409.207}, "reply_to": "22899__2_053", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_055", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, my problem... and I... I'm not sure I understand your answer to it.\nIn this case, in fact the client didn't say yes and he didn't say no.\nSo if the... if the lawyer is to assume, well, then since I don't have a positive, explicit yes, I will assume the answer is no, even though that is against the lawyer's best interest... the... the lawyer's best judgment, why is he an effective counsel if he assumes the answer is no?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2418.041, 2421.922, 2427.307], "stop_times": [2421.922, 2427.307, 2450.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2418.041}, "reply_to": "22899__2_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22899__2_056", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "In... in... particularly in a capital case, what this Court and all courts would... would want is a reliable record where there had been testing.\nWhen you have a situation where Mr. Nixon, as here, said nothing, so the... so Mr. Corin didn't know whether there was consent or lack of consent, we would submit that what should have happened is, as I said... suggested before, he shouldn't have... he could have not contested certain things, but the admission on the... what I submit is an admission and a plea of guilty without consent was where the problem was.\nHe could have gone on--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2450.818, 2464.731, 2492.323], "stop_times": [2464.731, 2492.323, 2492.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2450.818}, "reply_to": "22899__2_055", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_057", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, that... but that's not a problem.\nAccording to the lower courts, that was a good strategy.\nI don't know why you want counsel, when... when the client doesn't answer, to say, gee, I... you know, I don't know whether he has approved or disapproved, I'm going to have to take the course that will probably get him executed because I... I haven't received an answer.\nWhy would you force that course on the... on the lawyer?\nIf the lawyer believes that the silence implies consent, as... as silence usually does, why not let the lawyer do what's in the client's best interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2492.945, 2493.975, 2498.639, 2515.812, 2519.172], "stop_times": [2493.975, 2498.639, 2515.812, 2519.172, 2528.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2492.945}, "reply_to": "22899__2_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__2_058", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--He had the alternative of... of having an inquiry with Mr. Nixon, with the court determine whether or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2528.71], "stop_times": [2539.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2528.71}, "reply_to": "22899__2_057", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_059", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "And Nixon... okay.\nYou have the inquiry and Nixon just stands there, the same, doesn't say a thing, assuming you could get him into the courtroom, you know, assuming he had put his clothes on so you could bring him into the courtroom.\nHe just... he just sits there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2539.096, 2539.839, 2548.012], "stop_times": [2539.839, 2548.012, 2550.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2539.096}, "reply_to": "22899__2_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__2_060", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2550.779], "stop_times": [2551.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2550.779}, "reply_to": "22899__2_059", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_061", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "And... and you say, well, since we don't have an answer, we have to take the course that's going to get this guy executed.\nThat doesn't seem to me to make much sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2551.318, 2557.755], "stop_times": [2557.755, 2559.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2551.318}, "reply_to": "22899__2_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__2_062", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--I would respectfully submit that given the nature of the opening and closing, the words that were used, in... in that kind of a extreme situation, that is a decision that the client should make.\nThis is not a decision that is a normal strategy decision that a lawyer would normally make, such as which witnesses to... to call, aside from the defendant himself, the order of the witnesses, and... and types of cross examination.\nThis is a very--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2559.901, 2572.699, 2587.188], "stop_times": [2572.699, 2587.188, 2587.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2559.901}, "reply_to": "22899__2_061", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_063", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "No.\nNo, but I don't think you're getting to... at... at what bothers us.\nNobody is saying that the client should not make a decision.\nThe problem is that the client won't make a decision, and the client acts as if he had made the decision to allow the lawyer to do what the lawyer proposes.\nThis isn't a question of whether he should be heard or not, but what... what to make of the behavior.\nAnd you're saying when... when the behavior appears to be acquiescence from silence, you nonetheless... the lawyer is, nonetheless, obligated to take the course which is coming closest to guaranteeing that he will receive the death penalty.\nAnd that's what's bothering us.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2587.726, 2587.826, 2590.427, 2594.392, 2606.28, 2613.172, 2632.658], "stop_times": [2587.826, 2590.427, 2594.392, 2606.28, 2613.172, 2632.658, 2634.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2587.726}, "reply_to": "22899__2_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__2_064", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--The... in... in this situation, it's... it's the nature of what was said and his lack of presence in the courtroom where there was no affirmative defense.\nAnd in... in the record below where the Florida Supreme Court sent it down to determine whether or not there was consent, there was no acquiescence.\nMr. Nixon simply did nothing.\nWhen... when asked... when Mr. Corin testified and was asked about whether he discussed the trial strategy and whether Mr. Nixon agreed or disagreed, Mr. Nixon simply did nothing.\nHe... he didn't acquiesce to the strategy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2634.637, 2657.195, 2669.372, 2671.584, 2684.299], "stop_times": [2657.195, 2669.372, 2671.584, 2684.299, 2687.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2634.637}, "reply_to": "22899__2_063", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_065", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Mr. Tillinghast, can I ask you if you are familiar with the Loeb/Leopold trial many, many years ago that was conducted by Clarence Darrow?\nIf you're not, I won't push you on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2687.993, 2694.702], "stop_times": [2694.702, 2697.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2687.993}, "reply_to": "22899__2_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__2_066", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Unfortunately, I'm not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2697.924], "stop_times": [2699.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2697.924}, "reply_to": "22899__2_065", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_067", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Because he... he applied exactly this strategy and it was one of his great victories.\nIn... in fact, it's a long, long time ago.\nBut that was the way Clarence Darrow sized up this very problem, and the... and I think in that case they were very young clients that he had.\nThey didn't... they were not... they did not expressly consent to what he did.\nBut he saved their lives.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2699.903, 2703.99, 2707.705, 2717.159, 2722.072], "stop_times": [2703.99, 2707.705, 2717.159, 2722.072, 2723.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2699.903}, "reply_to": "22899__2_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__2_068", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, if... besides the... what we believe was a fundamental... what was a complete failure... excuse me.\nAside from the guilty plea, what we submit is a guilty plea, we believe that when these kinds of statements were made, Your Honor, without the consent, that the advocacy system that was envisioned in Cronic completely failed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2723.02, 2745.311], "stop_times": [2745.311, 2763.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2723.02}, "reply_to": "22899__2_067", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_069", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "May I ask you a question that I asked the other side?\nAnd that is, if we don't accept your argument, if we think when the client is silent, the lawyer must exercise his best judgment and not assume that the client would give an answer that would jeopardize the client's position, if that's the position that this Court adopts, what would you say is left over for remand?\nIs it simply that the Florida Supreme Court then takes the record as it is and determines under Strickland whether there was effective... ineffective performance?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2763.599, 2766.738, 2791.713], "stop_times": [2766.738, 2791.713, 2805.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2763.599}, "reply_to": "22899__2_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22899__2_070", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "The... yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2805.309], "stop_times": [2817.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2805.309}, "reply_to": "22899__2_069", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_071", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "That would be... that would be all.\nSo what do we do with, in the brief, all this information about things that the lawyer should have done by way of cross examination?\nThat wasn't put in the record earlier--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2817.84, 2820.07, 2828.797], "stop_times": [2820.07, 2828.797, 2831.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2817.84}, "reply_to": "22899__2_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22899__2_072", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "When I say yes, the... what would... what would be left is an entire hearing on the... on the Strickland claims and the motion to vacate.\nThat... that would be the remaining part of the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2831.852, 2839.654], "stop_times": [2839.654, 2844.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2831.852}, "reply_to": "22899__2_071", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_073", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Why... why do we need a hearing rather than an examination of the record?\nTell me why.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2844.362, 2847.456], "stop_times": [2847.456, 2848.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2844.362}, "reply_to": "22899__2_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__2_074", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--Because the... the hearings below, when it was sent back down by the Florida Supreme Court, were only on the issue of whether or not there was consent to... to the... what the Florida Supreme Court deemed to be the functional equivalent of a guilty plea.\nThere was not a hearing on the balance of the issues, and it was strictly limited to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2848.282, 2863.431], "stop_times": [2863.431, 2869.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2848.282}, "reply_to": "22899__2_073", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_075", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Hadn't there been a hearing on those issues on the way up?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2869.458], "stop_times": [2871.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2869.458}, "reply_to": "22899__2_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__2_076", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2871.976], "stop_times": [2872.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2871.976}, "reply_to": "22899__2_075", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_077", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "No?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2872.719], "stop_times": [2873.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2872.719}, "reply_to": "22899__2_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__2_078", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2873.441], "stop_times": [2874.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2873.441}, "reply_to": "22899__2_077", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_079", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Wasn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2874.0], "stop_times": [2874.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2874.0}, "reply_to": "22899__2_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__2_080", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "It was actually denied by Judge Hall.\nSo the only thing that's... that's occurred is the hearing strictly on whether or not there was... was consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2874.455, 2876.601], "stop_times": [2876.601, 2884.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2874.455}, "reply_to": "22899__2_079", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_081", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--Why was it denied in the trial court?\nWhy was the introduction of what the lawyer might have done--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2884.653, 2887.641], "stop_times": [2887.641, 2897.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2884.653}, "reply_to": "22899__2_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22899__2_082", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "It was... it was because of the focus of the Florida Supreme Court on... on whether or not there was a consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2897.86], "stop_times": [2906.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2897.86}, "reply_to": "22899__2_081", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_083", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--No.\nWe're talking below.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2906.86, 2907.332], "stop_times": [2907.332, 2908.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2906.86}, "reply_to": "22899__2_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__2_084", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "No.\nWe're talking about the trial court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2908.075, 2908.225], "stop_times": [2908.225, 2908.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2908.075}, "reply_to": "22899__2_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__2_085", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "We're talking below on the way up to the Florida Supreme Court.\nI assume that... that he raised below the issue of inadequate performance of counsel and he had his opportunity to introduce whatever evidence he had on that subject on the way up to the Florida Supreme Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2908.63, 2910.554], "stop_times": [2910.554, 2922.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2908.63}, "reply_to": "22899__2_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__2_086", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "He--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2922.814], "stop_times": [2922.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2922.814}, "reply_to": "22899__2_085", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_087", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "I don't know why the Florida Supreme Court should be obliged to remand it in order to give him a second bite at the apple.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2922.98], "stop_times": [2928.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2922.98}, "reply_to": "22899__2_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__2_088", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--It was raised but... but he was not given an opportunity for a hearing on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2928.787], "stop_times": [2934.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2928.787}, "reply_to": "22899__2_087", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_089", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, was he denied the opportunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2934.497], "stop_times": [2935.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.497}, "reply_to": "22899__2_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__2_090", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2935.983], "stop_times": [2936.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2935.983}, "reply_to": "22899__2_089", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_091", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Did the... did the judge say, look, we're... we're going to confine it strictly to this one issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2936.521], "stop_times": [2939.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2936.521}, "reply_to": "22899__2_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__2_092", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2939.66], "stop_times": [2940.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2939.66}, "reply_to": "22899__2_091", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_093", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2940.236], "stop_times": [2941.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.236}, "reply_to": "22899__2_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__2_094", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "So, in conclusion, Your Honors, we submit that there are two... two approaches to affirming the Florida Supreme Court.\nFirst is... is that it was the functional equivalent of a guilty plea without consent.\nThe second is that because of the nature of the statements, it was a complete failure of the advocacy process where the State's case was not tested in any way.\nIn fact, as I mentioned, there were 35 witnesses.\nThere were five very perfunctory questions asked such as what date was it and when did certain things occur.\nThere was not the material testing of the record to determine the truth, which is what is... is involved in the Sixth Amendment.\nAnd none of... none of the challenges, that are pointed out in... to the facts in our brief ever came out because that there was no testing.\nSimply we have an opening statement where counsel says the State will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these events occurred.\nThen we have virtually no cross examination.\nWe have no witnesses called by the State... excuse me... by... by the defendant throughout the entire guilt phase of the trial.\nAnd in fact, at one point, the... the trial judge stopped asking... asking Mr. Corin if he wished to cross examine.\nAnd then we have the closing statement where Mr. Corin stated that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that... that he is... Mr. Nixon was guilty of the crimes.\nAnd all the while during that guilt phase, Mr. Nixon was not present in the courtroom.\nSo he had no ability to object to the opening or the closing statements because he wasn't here... there to hear them.\nAnd further, as... as the record indicates, there are issues of... of Mr. Nixon's competency, that he's mentally retarded.\nHis own lawyer referred to him as nuts.\nHis own lawyer also referred to him as an ogre in his closing argument.\nThese are the types of statements, we would submit, are... even if they are not the functional equivalent of a guilty plea without consent, they... they substantially and completely destroy the advocacy process.\nSo there is no testing, and under Cronic, the Court should affirm also.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [2941.434, 2955.757, 2960.298, 2971.899, 2974.621, 2981.103, 2991.134, 3003.228, 3011.196, 3014.252, 3021.311, 3029.606, 3040.767, 3047.605, 3056.25, 3069.358, 3071.671, 3077.122, 3093.485, 3097.86], "stop_times": [2955.757, 2960.298, 2971.899, 2974.621, 2981.103, 2991.134, 3003.228, 3011.196, 3014.252, 3021.311, 3029.606, 3040.767, 3047.605, 3056.25, 3069.358, 3071.671, 3077.122, 3093.485, 3097.86, 3101.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2941.434}, "reply_to": "22899__2_093", "speaker": "edward_h_tillinghast"}
{"id": "22899__2_095", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Tillinghast.\nMr. Lemieux, you have about 4 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [3101.271, 3102.469], "stop_times": [3102.469, 3106.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3101.271}, "reply_to": "22899__2_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__3_000", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens.\nI'd like to point this Court to page 486 of the joint appendix where Mr. Corin is asked, do you feel in this case that you were put in a position that you had to make decisions because your client did nothing?\nAnd he said, yes, sir.\nThere is ample evidence in the post-trial proceedings that Mr. Corin wanted the help of his client.\nHe did not want to be on the bridge of the ship alone, but Mr. Nixon abandoned the ship.\nAnd although he consulted with his client at least three times on this trial strategy, there was no input back that would have given him any reason to believe that Mr. Nixon did not want him to go forward to pursue a strategy that Mr. Corin, in his experience of 14 years as a lawyer, after having taken 52 depositions in this case, believed was in the best interest of his client.\nI just have a couple of points I'd like to make.\nThere was a question that was asked about whether or not the... the guilt phase and the penalty phase are distinct parts of a trial.\nThis Court has addressed that in the Monj v. California case when it said that it's really one trial and that issues of guilt and innocence are often, in a capital trial, still being determined in the penalty phase of that matter.\nI'd also like to mention the point that the counsel made about Cronic.\nCounsel would ask, as the Florida Supreme Court did, to apply Cronic to this situation.\nThere is a harmony that exists in this jurisprudence between Strickland and Cronic.\nIssues of trial performance and trial strategy are articulated and evaluated under Strickland's two-part standard.\nQuestions of structural defects that infect the process with error are evaluated under Cronic.\nAnd that harmony works in the system.\nIt allows for the independence and vitality of counsel to pursue strategies in their clients' best interests and it also allows when there are structural defects, for them to be taken care of with the presumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [3106.594, 3107.603, 3120.135, 3121.455, 3127.277, 3131.569, 3152.541, 3154.686, 3160.343, 3173.179, 3178.48, 3183.088, 3187.175, 3193.508, 3199.268, 3201.043], "stop_times": [3107.603, 3120.135, 3121.455, 3127.277, 3131.569, 3152.541, 3154.686, 3160.343, 3173.179, 3178.48, 3183.088, 3187.175, 3193.508, 3199.268, 3201.043, 3211.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3106.594}, "reply_to": "22899__2_095", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__3_001", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Are you going to get to the point of whether there was, indeed, an opportunity for this defendant to introduce evidence about inadequate performance of counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [3211.734], "stop_times": [3219.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3211.734}, "reply_to": "22899__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22899__3_002", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Yes, I am, Your Honor, and I'll get to that right now.\nThere was ample opportunity.\nThere were three hearings.\nAnd in fact, there was disagreement between the sides as to whether or not there was this opportunity for a Strickland hearing.\nWe don't have Strickland hearings--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [3219.164, 3221.022, 3222.469, 3223.334, 3229.278], "stop_times": [3221.022, 3222.469, 3223.334, 3229.278, 3230.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3219.164}, "reply_to": "22899__3_001", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__3_003", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "What... what did the judge... what did judge say?\nYour brother said the judge said, no, I won't hear this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [3230.847, 3232.25], "stop_times": [3232.25, 3234.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3230.847}, "reply_to": "22899__3_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22899__3_004", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--Your Honor, I would point the Court to pages 385 to 390 of the appendix where Judge Smith denies the Strickland claim.\nThe defense has the burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel.\nDuring the first hearing, there was an issue as to whether or not it was an ineffective counsel hearing because it was still on direct appeal.\nBut certainly in hearings two and three, there was ample opportunity to put that evidence on the record, and they didn't take that opportunity.\nNow, they quibbled and said they didn't have notice and they didn't know that they were supposed to be here for a Strickland hearing.\nWe disagree with that because there aren't Strickland hearings, there are not Cronic hearings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [3234.562, 3243.107, 3246.451, 3253.881, 3260.734, 3264.655], "stop_times": [3243.107, 3246.451, 3253.881, 3260.734, 3264.655, 3268.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3234.562}, "reply_to": "22899__3_003", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__3_005", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Why should... why should they put in Strickland evidence if they've won under Cronic?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [3268.636], "stop_times": [3272.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3268.636}, "reply_to": "22899__3_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__3_006", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Well, they had not yet won under Cronic, Your Honor.\nThey were still making those arguments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [3272.335, 3275.224], "stop_times": [3275.224, 3276.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3272.335}, "reply_to": "22899__3_005", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__3_007", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "I thought it was remanded for an issue... for a hearing on the consent issue after--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [3276.81], "stop_times": [3280.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3276.81}, "reply_to": "22899__3_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__3_008", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "This is... there was a hearing before that and a hearing after that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [3280.63], "stop_times": [3283.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3280.63}, "reply_to": "22899__3_007", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__3_009", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "--I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [3283.481], "stop_times": [3284.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3283.481}, "reply_to": "22899__3_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22899__3_010", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "In conclusion, Your Honor, we believe that the harmony between these two lines of cases works, that the Florida Supreme Court got it wrong, and for that reason, we would request reversal.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [3284.224, 3294.748], "stop_times": [3294.748, 3295.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3284.224}, "reply_to": "22899__3_009", "speaker": "george_s_lemieux"}
{"id": "22899__3_011", "conversation_id": "22899", "text": "Thank you.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-931", "start_times": [3295.574, 3296.317], "stop_times": [3296.317, 3297.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3295.574}, "reply_to": "22899__3_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__0_000", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "We will now hear argument in Ashcroft against Raich.\nGeneral Clement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [0.0, 5.266], "stop_times": [5.266, 6.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__0_001", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThrough the Controlled Substances Act, Congress has comprehensively regulated the national market in drugs with the potential for abuse.\nAnd with respect to Schedule I substances, like marijuana, that have both a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use in treatment, Congress categorically prohibits interstate trafficking outside the narrow and carefully controlled confines of federally approved research programs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [6.623, 9.771, 18.067], "stop_times": [9.771, 18.067, 36.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6.623}, "reply_to": "23152__0_000", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_002", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, Mr. Clement, the... I think it is reasonably clear that Congress spoke very broadly in the Act, and the question, for me, turns on whether Lopez and Morrison dictate some concerns with its application in this context.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [36.136], "stop_times": [58.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 36.136}, "reply_to": "23152__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23152__0_003", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, with respect, Justice O'Connor, I don't think either Lopez or Morrison casts any doubt on the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act, and I think, in particular, that's because the decisions in Lopez and Morrison cited, with approval, cases like Darby and Wickard, and preserved those cases.\nAnd, of course, the concurring opinion of Justice Kennedy did so, as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [58.841, 77.105], "stop_times": [77.105, 80.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 58.841}, "reply_to": "23152__0_002", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_004", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, but in Wickard, of course, you had a wheat grower, a small farmer, and his wheat did, in part, go in the national market.\nYou don't have that here.\nAs I understand it, if California's law applies, then none of this home-grown or medical-use marijuana will be on any interstate market.\nAnd it is in the area of something traditionally regulated by states.\nSo how do you distinguish Morrison?\nAnd how do you distinguish Lopez?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [80.556, 89.682, 91.64, 105.258, 110.85, 113.832], "stop_times": [89.682, 91.64, 105.258, 110.85, 113.832, 116.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 80.556}, "reply_to": "23152__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23152__0_005", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, Justice O'Connor, let me first say that I think it might be a bit optimistic to think that none of the marijuana that's produced consistent with California law would be diverted into the national market for marijuana.\nAnd, of course, the Controlled Substances Act is concerned, at almost every step of the Act, with a concern about diversion, both of lawful substances from medical to non-medical uses and from controlled substances under Schedule I into the national market.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [116.648, 128.53], "stop_times": [128.53, 142.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 116.648}, "reply_to": "23152__0_004", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_006", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, in looking at this broad challenge, do we have to assume that the State of California will enforce its law?\nI mean, if it turns out that it isn't and that marijuana is getting in the interstate market, that might be a different thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [142.357, 148.385], "stop_times": [148.385, 155.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 142.357}, "reply_to": "23152__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23152__0_007", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, with respect, Justice O'Connor, on this record, I don't think that there's any reason to assume that California is going to have some sort of almost unnatural ability to keep one part of a fungible national drug market separate.\nAnd I think Congress, here, made important findings that you've alluded to, not just that there's a national market, not just that the intrastate and the interstate markets are linked, but that drugs are fungible, and that because drugs are fungible, it's simply not feasible, in Congress' words, to regulate and separately focus on only drugs that have traveled on interstate commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [155.339, 167.877], "stop_times": [167.877, 187.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 155.339}, "reply_to": "23152__0_006", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_008", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, General Clement, what if we were to assume... I'm not saying this is... that the District Court could find that there is a narrow segment of the market in which they could prevent diversions, and they had... say they made such findings.\nWould we have to disregard them, or say they were irrelevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [187.935, 199.258], "stop_times": [199.258, 202.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 187.935}, "reply_to": "23152__0_007", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__0_009", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "I think you would say they were relevant, Justice Stevens, and that's because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [202.125], "stop_times": [205.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 202.125}, "reply_to": "23152__0_008", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_010", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "But then why do you need to rely on the possibility of diversion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [205.315], "stop_times": [208.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 205.315}, "reply_to": "23152__0_009", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__0_011", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well, because I think it is a reality, in responding to Justice O'Connor's question... I think that in... obviously, in all of these commerce--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [208.756], "stop_times": [216.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 208.756}, "reply_to": "23152__0_010", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_012", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Yeah, but in my hypothesis, it's a nonexistent reality.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [216.171], "stop_times": [218.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 216.171}, "reply_to": "23152__0_011", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__0_013", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well, in your hypothetical... and if I could turn to that... I still think the analysis would not turn on whether or not the truth of the supposition that diversion could be prevented, because this Court, in a series of cases, including Darby, Wickard, Wirtz, and Perez, has made clear that the relevant focal point for analysis is not the individual plaintiff's activities and whether they have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, but whether the class of activities that Congress has decided to regulate has such a substantial effect.\nAnd, in this case, there's no question that the overall production, distribution, and possession of marijuana and other Schedule I substances has a profound effect on interstate commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [218.928, 252.476], "stop_times": [252.476, 264.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 218.928}, "reply_to": "23152__0_012", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_014", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "But it's not an interstate commerce that you want to foster.\nI mean, in these other... in these other cases, Congress presumably wanted to foster interstate commerce in wheat, in Wickard v. Filburn.\nCongress doesn't want interstate commerce in marijuana.\nAnd it seems rather ironic to appeal to the fact that home-grown marijuana would reduce the interstate commerce that you don't want to occur in order to regulate it.\nI mean, you know, doesn't that strike you as strange?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [264.713, 267.922, 275.752, 279.001, 292.232], "stop_times": [267.922, 275.752, 279.001, 292.232, 294.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 264.713}, "reply_to": "23152__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__0_015", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, no, it doesn't, Justice Scalia, but let me respond in two ways.\nFirst of all, I think it's been clear, at least since the lottery case, that Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce includes the authority to prohibit items traveling in interstate commerce and to declare something contraband in interstate commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [294.572, 297.248], "stop_times": [297.248, 311.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 294.572}, "reply_to": "23152__0_014", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_016", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [311.142], "stop_times": [311.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.142}, "reply_to": "23152__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__0_017", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "And I would suggest that it is a perfectly rational exercise of Congress' judgement to treat marijuana and other Schedule I substances not just as contraband in interstate commerce, but as contraband simpliciter, as contraband for all purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [311.873], "stop_times": [324.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 311.873}, "reply_to": "23152__0_016", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_018", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "But that's quite a different rational than Wickard v. Filburn.\nI mean, it seems to me you're not... you're not appealing to the fact that it has a substantial impact on interstate commerce.\nYou're appealing to the fact that the power which Congress has to prohibit the use of goods carried in interstate commerce cannot effectively be implemented without this law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [324.747, 327.317, 333.668], "stop_times": [327.317, 333.668, 347.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 324.747}, "reply_to": "23152__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__0_019", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, I think there's some truth to that, Justice Scalia, but let me say this.\nI think what I'm saying is, I'm taking the rational that this Court accepted in Wickard, and I'm applying it to a different regulatory regime.\nHere, Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [347.906, 351.409, 358.303], "stop_times": [351.409, 358.303, 358.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 347.906}, "reply_to": "23152__0_018", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_020", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "But you're applying it to the opposite kind of regulatory... you're applying it to a regulatory regime in which the government wants to prohibit this subject... substances from being sold or... in interstate commerce.\nAnd if you just follow the litter... the letter of this law, this marijuana won't get into interstate commerce.\nIn fact, it would reduce the demand for marijuana, because it would supply these local users and they wouldn't have to go into the interstate market.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [358.929, 371.007, 376.619], "stop_times": [371.007, 376.619, 384.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 358.929}, "reply_to": "23152__0_019", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__0_021", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well, with respect, Justice Stevens, if you took a look at the Controlled Substances Act, itself, and read it literally, you'd assume that there was absolutely no market, period, in Schedule I substances.\nBut the reality is, there's a $10.5 billion market... illegal market, albeit... but market in marijuana in the United States, on an annual basis.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [384.79, 395.208, 404.262], "stop_times": [395.208, 404.262, 404.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 384.79}, "reply_to": "23152__0_020", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_022", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "But to the extent that this statute has any impact, it will reduce the purchase in the interstate market and confine these to locally grown marijuana.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [404.885], "stop_times": [414.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 404.885}, "reply_to": "23152__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__0_023", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well, first of all, Justice Stevens, that's only true if there will be no diversion, to get back to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [414.008], "stop_times": [418.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.008}, "reply_to": "23152__0_022", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_024", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Then I'm assuming... my hypothetical is that California could pass a law that would prevent diversions from occurring.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [418.231], "stop_times": [423.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 418.231}, "reply_to": "23152__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__0_025", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well, in the same way that the Federal Government has had trouble stamping out the marijuana market entirely, I think California is going to have parallel problems in absolutely preventing diversion.\nBut just--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [423.934, 434.253], "stop_times": [434.253, 434.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 423.934}, "reply_to": "23152__0_024", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_026", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "I suppose some... one answer to that case is the Perez case, with loan sharking.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [434.808], "stop_times": [439.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 434.808}, "reply_to": "23152__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23152__0_027", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Oh, absolutely, Justice Kennedy.\nAnd, in that context, what this Court said is, even though it was focused on what was going to be an... both in that case and generally, an interstate activity, Congress did not have to just look at the particular plaintiff's effect on interstate commerce, but, rather, the effect of the entire class of activities.\nAnd if I could--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [439.329, 441.769, 458.689], "stop_times": [441.769, 458.689, 459.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 439.329}, "reply_to": "23152__0_026", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_028", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "But, as Justice O'Connor brought out earlier, all those cases... Wickard, Perez... they all involved a commercial enterprise.\nAnd, here, we're told this is different, because nobody is buying anything, nobody is selling anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [459.614, 468.383], "stop_times": [468.383, 475.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 459.614}, "reply_to": "23152__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23152__0_029", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well, with respect, Justice Ginsburg, I think the whole point of the Wickard case was to extend rationales that it applied previously to commerce to activity that the Court described as economic, but not commercial.\nAnd I think the production and distribution and possession of marijuana is economic in the same way that the production of wheat was in the Wickard case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [475.526, 489.085], "stop_times": [489.085, 498.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 475.526}, "reply_to": "23152__0_028", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_030", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "But you're... no, I was going to... your whole point, I take it, is that the two particular patients in this case are simply... simply cannot be taken, for our purposes, as representative in the fact that they are getting the marijuana by, I think, growing it themselves or being given it.\nYou're saying, you cannot take that fact as a fact from which to generalize in deciding this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [498.002, 517.828], "stop_times": [517.828, 524.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 498.002}, "reply_to": "23152__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23152__0_031", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "That's exactly right, Justice Souter, and that is the logic, not just of me, but of this Court's cases, in cases like Darby and Wickard and Wirtz and Perez.\nAnd I point to the Wickard case, in particular, only because it, too, involves a non-commercial enterprise or a non-commercial production of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [524.449, 533.402], "stop_times": [533.402, 541.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 524.449}, "reply_to": "23152__0_030", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_032", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, I do take issue with that.\nAs I read the record in Wickard, it involved a small farmer.\nA portion of his wheat went on the interstate market.\nIt also was fed to cattle, which, in turn, went on the interstate market.\nHe used some of it himself, but part of it was commercial.\nI think Wickard can be distinguished on the facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [541.921, 543.349, 547.468, 550.161, 554.337, 557.815], "stop_times": [543.349, 547.468, 550.161, 554.337, 557.815, 560.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 541.921}, "reply_to": "23152__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23152__0_033", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well, Justice O'Connor, it could be... I mean, any case can be distinguished on the facts, of course, but I think what's important is, this Court, in Wickard, itself, recognized that the case was... it was only interesting because a portion of the regulated wheat involved wheat that was going to be consumed on the farm.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [560.854, 577.798], "stop_times": [577.798, 578.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 560.854}, "reply_to": "23152__0_032", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_034", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "The other portion is a matter of xxx interstate commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [578.242], "stop_times": [582.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 578.242}, "reply_to": "23152__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23152__0_035", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well, that's true, Justice O'Connor, but this Court, basically, in its opinion, Justice Jackson, for the Court, put aside... to one side all of the grain that was going to go in interstate commerce, since that's easy under our existing precedents.\nThis case is only interesting, he said, because it involves wheat that's going to be consumed on the farm.\nAnd he specifically talked about both the wheat that would be fed to the animals, but also the wheat that would be consumed by the family.\nAnd what he said is, the intended disposition of the particular wheat wasn't clear from the record of the case.\nAnd, by that, I take him to mean that it wasn't relevant to the Court's analysis in upholding the Agricultural Adjustment Act to the wheat at issue there.\nAnd it's important to recognize that the way the Agricultural Adjustment Act worked is, it applied to all the wheat that was grown in excess of the quota, and so it applied to the wheat that was used by the family for consumption of their own bread.\nAnd, nonetheless, this Court upheld that as a valid Commerce Clause regulation.\nAnd so I think, by parity of reasoning, all of the marijuana that's at issue and covered by the Controlled Substances Act, whether it's lawful under state law, whether it's involved in a market transaction or not, is fairly within the Congress' Commerce Clause--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [582.099, 593.825, 599.069, 606.728, 612.417, 620.249, 632.557, 638.108], "stop_times": [593.825, 599.069, 606.728, 612.417, 620.249, 632.557, 638.108, 652.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 582.099}, "reply_to": "23152__0_034", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_036", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "And is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [652.054], "stop_times": [652.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 652.054}, "reply_to": "23152__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23152__0_037", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [652.465], "stop_times": [652.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 652.465}, "reply_to": "23152__0_036", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_038", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--this a harder or easier case than Wickard when we know that, in Wickard, it was lawful to buy and sell wheat, and, here, it is unlawful to buy and sell marijuana?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [652.681], "stop_times": [665.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 652.681}, "reply_to": "23152__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23152__0_039", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, Justice Kennedy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [665.958], "stop_times": [666.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 665.958}, "reply_to": "23152__0_038", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_040", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Does this make your case easier, in a sense, or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [666.963], "stop_times": [669.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 666.963}, "reply_to": "23152__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23152__0_041", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--I think it does, Justice Kennedy, because, as I said earlier, in responding to a question from Justice Scalia, I think if you're talking about a context where Congress has the undoubted power to prohibit something in interstate commerce entirely, and has exercised that power, so it treats something as effectively contraband in interstate commerce, and then takes the complementary step, especially in light of the fungibility of the product, and says,\n\"We're just going to treat this as contraband simpliciter. \"\nI think that judgement by Congress has a very definite link to interstate commerce and its unquestioned authority to regulate interstate commerce.\nAnd I do think there's a sense in which when Congress is regulating the price of something, there's certainly a temptation to excise out relatively small producers and for Congress to say,\n\"Well, we can still have effective regulation if we regulate the vast majority of production. \"\nBut with respect to something that's unlawful to have and is... and has very significant risks precisely because it's unlawful, any little island of lawful possession of non-contraband marijuana, for example, poses a real challenge to the statutory regime.\nIt would also, I think, frustrate Congress' goal in promoting health.\nAnd I think the clearest example of that is the fact that, to the extent there is anything beneficial, health-wise, in marijuana, it's THC, which has been isolated and provided in a pill form, and has been available as a Schedule III substance, called--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [669.1, 692.11, 694.509, 703.258, 713.779, 718.62, 733.909, 737.468], "stop_times": [692.11, 694.509, 703.258, 713.779, 718.62, 733.909, 737.468, 752.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 669.1}, "reply_to": "23152__0_040", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_042", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "But there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [752.278], "stop_times": [752.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 752.278}, "reply_to": "23152__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23152__0_043", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Marinol.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [752.66], "stop_times": [752.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.66}, "reply_to": "23152__0_042", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_044", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--but there is, in this record, a showing that, for at least one of the two plaintiffs, there were some 30-odd drugs taken, none of them worked.\nThis was the only one that would.\nAnd it... Justice Souter asked you about these two plaintiffs.\nThe law can't be made on the basis of those two plaintiffs.\nBut let's suppose that you're right, generally.\nIf there were to be a prosecution of any of the plaintiffs in this case, would there be any defense, if there were to be a federal prosecution?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [752.905, 763.942, 766.605, 772.063, 777.564, 783.625], "stop_times": [763.942, 766.605, 772.063, 777.564, 783.625, 795.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 752.905}, "reply_to": "23152__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23152__0_045", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think we would take the position, based on our reading of the Oakland cannabis case... and, obviously, different justices on this Court read the opinion differently and had different views on the extent to which the medical-necessity defense was foreclosed by that opinion... I would imagine the Federal Government, in that case, if it took the unlikely step of bringing the prosecution in the first place, would be arguing that, on the authority of Oakland cannabis, the medical-necessity defense was not available.\nBut I think, in any event, what is important, at this point, is that we don't have a prosecution; we have an affirmative effort to strike down the Controlled Substances Act in an injunctive action.\nAnd I think, in that context, certainly Justice Souter is right, that this Court's precedents make clear that one doesn't consider only the individual's conduct, but the entire class of activities that's at issue.\nI think, in this regard, it's also worth emphasizing that a deeper flaw in the Respondent's argument, that California law is somehow relevant here or the fact that their conduct is lawful under California law, is that there's a mismatch between what California law makes lawful and what might be considered relevant for arguing that there's an attenuated effect on interstate commerce.\nBecause the California law makes the possession of marijuana for medical use lawful under state law, without regard to whether that marijuana has been involved in a cash transaction or has crossed state lines.\nAnd so, if Respondents are right on their Commerce Clause theory, I don't see how they can be right because their conduct is lawful under state law or because their... that marijuana use is medical.\nIf they're right, then I think their analysis would extend to recreational use of marijuana, as well as medical use of marijuana, and would extend to every state in the nation, not just--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [795.197, 821.997, 832.291, 844.064, 863.925, 875.811, 886.607], "stop_times": [821.997, 832.291, 844.064, 863.925, 875.811, 886.607, 896.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 795.197}, "reply_to": "23152__0_044", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_046", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [896.665], "stop_times": [897.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 896.665}, "reply_to": "23152__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__0_047", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--those states that made it lawful.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [897.03], "stop_times": [897.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 897.03}, "reply_to": "23152__0_046", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_048", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Doesn't it depend on how you define the \"relevant class of activities\"?\nIs it the entire class that Congress ought to regulate, or is it a narrower class, in which the Plaintiffs contend that the statute cannot constitutionally be applied to a particular very narrowly defined class?\nAnd is it ever permissible to define the class narrowly to escape a... the broad argument that you make?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [897.549, 900.336, 913.12], "stop_times": [900.336, 913.12, 919.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 897.549}, "reply_to": "23152__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__0_049", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, I don't think that is permissible, Justice Stevens.\nI think that's what this Court's cases in Wirtz, in Darby, in Wickard--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [919.055, 921.706], "stop_times": [921.706, 925.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 919.055}, "reply_to": "23152__0_048", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_050", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "So you're saying that this statute could never have an unconstitutional application.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [925.651], "stop_times": [928.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 925.651}, "reply_to": "23152__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__0_051", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Under the Commerce Clause, I... that's exactly right, that would be our position.\nIt is constitutional on its face, and it... and because of that line of authority, an as-applied challenge can be brought, but the legal test that's applied in the as-applied challenge is one that considers the constitutionality of the statute as a whole--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [928.603, 933.29], "stop_times": [933.29, 948.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 928.603}, "reply_to": "23152__0_050", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_052", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "But, in Morrison, did the Court's opinion not say that Congress cannot justify Commerce Cause... Clause legislation by using a long but-for causal chain from the activity in question to an impact on interstate commerce?\nI mean, the Court certainly made that statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [948.835, 964.561], "stop_times": [964.561, 966.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 948.835}, "reply_to": "23152__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23152__0_053", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Oh, absolutely, Justice O'Connor, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [966.911], "stop_times": [968.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 966.911}, "reply_to": "23152__0_052", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_054", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Which cuts against what you're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [968.998], "stop_times": [970.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 968.998}, "reply_to": "23152__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23152__0_055", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well, with respect, I don't think so.\nAnd I'd say two things about it.\nOne, this Court, in Morrison and Lopez, was very important to emphasize... thought it was very important to emphasize two things: one, that the activity there was non-economic in a way that differentiated it, even from Wickard; and, second, the Court also made it clear that the regulation that there... there was not essential to the effectiveness of an overall regulatory scheme.\nAnd I think, on both points, this case is on the constitutional side of the line that separates the Lopez and the Morrison case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [970.506, 972.401, 974.004, 995.216], "stop_times": [972.401, 974.004, 995.216, 1002.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 970.506}, "reply_to": "23152__0_054", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_056", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "The argument on the other side is that this limited exception is a non-economic use... growing for personal use, under prescription--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1002.584], "stop_times": [1013.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1002.584}, "reply_to": "23152__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23152__0_057", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "I understand that... I understand that's their argument, Justice O'Connor, but I don't understand how this Court, in Lopez, could have said that Wickard involved non-economic activity if this activity is not also covered.\nYou're talking about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1013.856, 1025.089], "stop_times": [1025.089, 1026.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1013.856}, "reply_to": "23152__0_056", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_058", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Involved economic activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1026.395], "stop_times": [1027.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1026.395}, "reply_to": "23152__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__0_059", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--I'm sorry if I misspoke.\nEconomic activity.\nBecause what you're talking about here is the possession, the manufacture, the distribution of a valuable commodity for which there is a ready... unfortunately, a ready market, albeit an illicit market.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1027.853, 1028.816, 1029.498], "stop_times": [1028.816, 1029.498, 1040.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1027.853}, "reply_to": "23152__0_058", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_060", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--If we rule for the Respondents in this case, do you think the street price of marijuana would go up or down in California?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1040.201], "stop_times": [1047.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1040.201}, "reply_to": "23152__0_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23152__0_061", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "I would be speculating, Justice Kennedy, but I think the price would go down.\nAnd I think that what... and that, in a sense, is consistent with the government's position, which is to say, when the government thinks that something is dangerous, it tries to prohibit it.\nPart of the effort of prohibiting it is going to lead to a black market, where the prohibition actually would force the price up.\nAnd there is a sense in which this regulation, although not primarily designed as a price regulation... the Controlled Substance Act, I think, does have the effect of increasing the price for marijuana in a way that stamps down demand and limits the... and in a way that reduces demand.\nAnd I think that's all consistent with Congress' judgement here.\nAnd if I could return for a second to the point about Marinol, what's important there is that the process of manufacturing of Marinol, and isolating the one helpful component, does two things.\nOne, the manufacturing process allows there to be a safe use for one of the components in marijuana.\nBut it also provides an unambiguous hook for Congress to exercise its Commerce Clause authority.\nAnd yet the overall regime of trying to get people to use more healthful substances, and not use things like crude marijuana that have harmful effects, is undermined if Congress can't also address that which is more harmful, but is distinct only because it is capable of being locally produced.\nAnd that's exactly what crude marijuana is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1047.394, 1052.389, 1062.564, 1069.703, 1086.775, 1089.734, 1100.454, 1106.055, 1112.003, 1129.781], "stop_times": [1052.389, 1062.564, 1069.703, 1086.775, 1089.734, 1100.454, 1106.055, 1112.003, 1129.781, 1131.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1047.394}, "reply_to": "23152__0_060", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_062", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "In other words, the statute is... it trumps the independent judgement of the physicians who prescribe it for the patients at issue in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1131.591], "stop_times": [1138.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1131.591}, "reply_to": "23152__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__0_063", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, I think, in responding to that, Justice Stevens, I would say, obviously, for purposes of federal law, the idea of medical marijuana is something of an oxymoron, because the Federal Government treats it as a Schedule I substance.\nNow, notwithstanding that, some doctors may make a different judgement about a particular patient; but that's something that this Court, I think, has previously understood, that the federal regulatory regime does not allow individual patients or doctors to exempt themselves out of that regime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1138.603, 1151.954], "stop_times": [1151.954, 1167.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1138.603}, "reply_to": "23152__0_062", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_064", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1167.371], "stop_times": [1167.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1167.371}, "reply_to": "23152__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__0_065", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "I think that's the import of the Rutherford decision with Laetrile.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1167.593], "stop_times": [1169.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1167.593}, "reply_to": "23152__0_064", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_066", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Do you think there could be any state of facts on which a judicial tribunal could disagree with the finding of Congress that there's no acceptable medical use?\nSay they had a... say there was a judicial hearing on which they made a contrary finding.\nWould we have to ignore that?\nWould we have to follow the congressional finding or the judicial finding if that happened?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1169.988, 1179.1, 1183.07, 1184.45], "stop_times": [1179.1, 1183.07, 1184.45, 1188.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1169.988}, "reply_to": "23152__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__0_067", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, it depends on the exact hypothetical you have in mind.\nI think the... the judicial finding that I think would be appropriate, and this Court would not have to ignore in any way, is a finding by the D.C. Circuit that, in a particular case where there's a rescheduling effort before the FDA, that the underlying judgement of the FDA refusing to reschedule is invalid, arbitrary, capricious.\nThat's the way to go after the finding that marijuana is a Schedule I substance without a valid medical use in treatment.\nThis is not a situation in... and your hypothetical might respond to a different statute that raised a harder question, where Congress made such a medical finding, and then just left it there without any mechanism to adjust the finding for changing realities.\nBut, here, Congress made it clear that a process remains open to reschedule marijuana in a way that gets it onto Schedule II or Schedule III.\nAnd I think it's wrong to assume that there's any inherent hostility to the substances at issue here.\nI mean, the FDA, for example, rescheduled Marinol from Schedule II to Schedule III in a way that had the effect of making it easier to prescribe and more available.\nBut I think what's going on with the FDA is an effort to try to counterbalance the risk for abuse, the risk for diversion, with these other considerations of getting safe medicine--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1188.459, 1191.797, 1210.119, 1217.519, 1230.409, 1239.028, 1244.8, 1254.249], "stop_times": [1191.797, 1210.119, 1217.519, 1230.409, 1239.028, 1244.8, 1254.249, 1264.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1188.459}, "reply_to": "23152__0_066", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_068", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Have there--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1264.738], "stop_times": [1265.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1264.738}, "reply_to": "23152__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23152__0_069", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--available to patients--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1265.275], "stop_times": [1266.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1265.275}, "reply_to": "23152__0_068", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_070", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--have there been any applications to change the schedule for marijuana to the FDA?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1266.161], "stop_times": [1271.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1266.161}, "reply_to": "23152__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23152__0_071", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--There have been a number of those petitions that have been filed.\nThere was one recently rejected, I think as recently as 2001; it may be 1999.\nThere was also a series of, kind of, a four or five-iteration effort to change the rescheduling that culminated in a D.C. Circuit opinion in the early '90s.\nSo there's definitely been these efforts.\nBut on the current state of the... of the record, there just is not a justification for changing the schedule.\nAnd I think both of the briefs talked a little bit about the Institute of Medicine's study about the medical efficacy of marijuana.\nAnd I think one thing that's important to keep in mind that that study comes to a conclusion about is, whatever benefits there may be for the individual components in marijuana, that smoked... smoked marijuana itself really doesn't have any future as medicine, because... and that's true, I think, for two reasons.\nOne, there's something like 400 different chemical components in crude marijuana that one would smoke, and it's... it just, sort of, belies any logic that all 400 of those would be helpful.\nAnd a big part of the process of medicine, generally, is to take raw, crude material that somebody could grow in their garden, and actually have people who do this for a living get involved in a process of synthesizing and isolating the beneficial components, and then manufacturing and making that available.\nThe second reason that smoked marijuana doesn't have much of a future as medicine is, as I think people understand, smoking is harmful; and that's true of tobacco, but it's also true of marijuana.\nAnd so the idea that smoked marijuana would be an effective delivery device for medicine, I think, is also something that really doesn't have any future as medicine.\nWhat does have a future for medicine, of course, is an effort to synthesize and isolate the beneficial component.\nThat's been done with Marinol.\nIt is true that some people have difficulty tolerating the pill form that Marinol is available in.\nAnd there's ongoing research to try to figure out different ways to deliver that substance.\nBut there is, in a sense, a little bit of a... and the Institute of Medicine's study has about five pages discussing Marinol, and it makes the point that there's something of a tradeoff.\nBecause one of the downsides of Marinol, as opposed to marijuana, is that it takes longer to get into the bloodstream.\nBut that's also one of the reasons why the FDA has made a judgement that Marinol is less subject to abuse, because it takes longer to get into the drug-stream, and so it doesn't have the characteristic of street drugs that tend to be abused, which is a very quick delivery time between the taking of the substance and the time that it has an effect on the system.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1271.44, 1274.331, 1279.64, 1289.301, 1291.047, 1298.171, 1304.647, 1322.18, 1332.835, 1349.523, 1360.803, 1370.061, 1375.67, 1377.181, 1383.444, 1388.221, 1396.919, 1402.782], "stop_times": [1274.331, 1279.64, 1289.301, 1291.047, 1298.171, 1304.647, 1322.18, 1332.835, 1349.523, 1360.803, 1370.061, 1375.67, 1377.181, 1383.444, 1388.221, 1396.919, 1402.782, 1422.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1271.44}, "reply_to": "23152__0_070", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_072", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "May I go back to your point a few minutes ago about... it was, sort of, a categoric point... you, in effect, said,\n\"If this argument succeeds with respect to medical use of marijuana, the next argument is going to be recreational use, and there's no real way to distinguish between them. \"\nWouldn't this be a way to distinguish between them?\nThat in deciding what class you are going to... or what subclass you're going to consider from which to generalize, you simply ask the question,\n\"What good reasons are there to define a subclass this way? \"\nIn this particular case, the good reasons to define a subclass of medical usage are the benefits... whether you accept the evidence is another thing... but the benefits which the doctors say that, under present circumstances, you can get from smoking it, as opposed to taking the synthesized drug.\nThere's no such argument, I would guess, in favor of recreational marijuana usage as a separate category.\nAnd, for that reason, isn't there a... isn't there a good reason to categorize this as narrowly as the Respondents are doing here, just medical usage, without any risk of generalizing the recreational usage?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1422.361, 1428.169, 1437.418, 1440.331, 1451.701, 1455.61, 1474.572, 1483.272], "stop_times": [1428.169, 1437.418, 1440.331, 1451.701, 1455.61, 1474.572, 1483.272, 1497.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1422.361}, "reply_to": "23152__0_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23152__0_073", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "With respect, Justice Souter, I don't think that it would be a good idea for this Court to get on a path of starting to second-guess Congress' judgement about defining a class of activities--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1497.719], "stop_times": [1507.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1497.719}, "reply_to": "23152__0_072", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_074", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "That may... oh, that may be, but it seems to me that that's a separate argument, because you're... you were arguing before that if you recognize medical usage, you don't have any way of drawing the line against private recreational usage.\nAnd I'm suggesting that you do have a reason for drawing that line, and it's the benefit for medical usage, if you accept the evidence; whereas, there is no reason to categorize recreational usage separately, and that seems to me a category argument, rather than a respect-for-Congress argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1507.154, 1520.932], "stop_times": [1520.932, 1538.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1507.154}, "reply_to": "23152__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23152__0_075", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well, Justice Souter, I have no doubt that this Court could draw a line.\nI think it would find it very difficult to police that line over the broad variety of cases.\nI think it would find it every bit as frustrating as policing the line in Hammer against Dagenhart that this Court abandoned in Darby.\nWith that, I'd like to reserve my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1538.985, 1542.856, 1548.186, 1555.493], "stop_times": [1542.856, 1548.186, 1555.493, 1558.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1538.985}, "reply_to": "23152__0_074", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__0_076", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Mr. Barnett?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1558.143], "stop_times": [1561.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1558.143}, "reply_to": "23152__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__1_000", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nI have two points to make.\nFirst, the class of activities involved in this case are non-economic and wholly intrastate.\nSecond, the federal prohibition of this class of activities it not essential... is not an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme that would be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.\nIf you accept the government's contrary contentions on either of these two points, Ashcroft v. Raich will replace Wickard v. Filburn as the most far-reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1561.343, 1568.543, 1570.27, 1577.188, 1592.12], "stop_times": [1568.543, 1570.27, 1577.188, 1592.12, 1606.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1561.343}, "reply_to": "23152__0_076", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_001", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, on your first point, can't we infer from the fact that there's an enormous market, commercial market, for any given commodity, that simple possession of that commodity is a form of participation in the market?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1606.863], "stop_times": [1625.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.863}, "reply_to": "23152__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23152__1_002", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "It can be, or it might not be.\nIf you possess an item that came from the market or is going to the market, simple possession could easily be a part of the marketplace.\nBut if you're in possession of an item that you've made, yourself, that is disconnected from the market... it didn't come from the market and it's not going to the market--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1625.438, 1628.03, 1636.67], "stop_times": [1628.03, 1636.67, 1643.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1625.438}, "reply_to": "23152__1_001", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_003", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, but it's fungible.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1643.936], "stop_times": [1644.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1643.936}, "reply_to": "23152__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23152__1_004", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--That... the fungibility issue is in this case, but the... but a... the fact that a good is fungible does not make it a market good, and it does not make the possession of that good an economic activity.\nOr--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1644.807, 1658.086], "stop_times": [1658.086, 1658.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1644.807}, "reply_to": "23152__1_003", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_005", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, you know, Congress has applied this theory in other contexts.\nOne is the protection of endangered species.\nCongress has made it unlawful to possess ivory, for example.\nIt doesn't matter whether you got it lawfully, or not; or eagle feathers, the mere possession of it, whether you got it through interstate commerce or not.\nAnd Congress' reasoning is,\n\"We can't tell whether it came through interstate commerce or not, and to try to prove that is just beyond our ability; and, therefore, it is unlawful to possess it, period. \"\nNow, are those... are those laws, likewise, unconstitutional, as going beyond Congress' commerce power?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1658.582, 1663.102, 1667.777, 1672.976, 1681.332, 1683.302, 1693.056], "stop_times": [1663.102, 1667.777, 1672.976, 1681.332, 1683.302, 1693.056, 1700.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1658.582}, "reply_to": "23152__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_006", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Not if they're an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme that would be undercut, unless those activities are reached.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1700.173], "stop_times": [1706.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1700.173}, "reply_to": "23152__1_005", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_007", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, why is that different from this?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1706.272], "stop_times": [1708.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1706.272}, "reply_to": "23152__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_008", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Because this class of activities... because it's been isolated by the State of California, and is policed by the State of California, so that it's entirely separated from the market--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1708.691], "stop_times": [1718.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1708.691}, "reply_to": "23152__1_007", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_009", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Isolated and... I understand that there are some communes that grow marijuana for the medical use of all of the members of the communes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1718.311], "stop_times": [1728.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1718.311}, "reply_to": "23152__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_010", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--That class of activities is not before the Court.\nThat is actually before--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1728.561, 1730.949], "stop_times": [1730.949, 1732.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1728.561}, "reply_to": "23152__1_009", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_011", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "No, but it's before the Court when you... when you raise the policing of the problem by California, and saying it's not a... it's not a real problem, you brought it before the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1732.134], "stop_times": [1740.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1732.134}, "reply_to": "23152__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_012", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--But that class of activities could be... could be... if this Court limits its ruling to the class of activities that is before the Court, that class--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1740.666], "stop_times": [1747.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1740.666}, "reply_to": "23152__1_011", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_013", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Which is... which is what?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1747.151], "stop_times": [1747.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1747.151}, "reply_to": "23152__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_014", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1747.912], "stop_times": [1748.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1747.912}, "reply_to": "23152__1_013", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_015", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "An individual grower?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1748.323], "stop_times": [1749.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1748.323}, "reply_to": "23152__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_016", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--An individual who is growing it for her... him or herself, who has... or has a caregiver growing it for her--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1749.892], "stop_times": [1755.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1749.892}, "reply_to": "23152__1_015", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_017", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Gee, what basis--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1755.422], "stop_times": [1756.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1755.422}, "reply_to": "23152__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_018", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--for--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1756.337], "stop_times": [1756.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1756.337}, "reply_to": "23152__1_017", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_019", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--what basis is there to draw it that narrowly? I mean, I guess if we... we could say people whose last name begins with a Z.\nYou know, that would narrow the category, too.\nBut why does... why does that make any sense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1756.517, 1758.797, 1768.128], "stop_times": [1758.797, 1768.128, 1770.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1756.517}, "reply_to": "23152__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_020", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Justice Scalia, we believe it makes sense because we are talking about a classification of activities that has been identified by the State of California, and which is rational to distinguish from--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1770.126], "stop_times": [1782.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1770.126}, "reply_to": "23152__1_019", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_021", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Oh, but California hasn't identified individual growers.\nCommunes are okay, as far as California law is concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1782.722, 1786.381], "stop_times": [1786.381, 1789.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1782.722}, "reply_to": "23152__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_022", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well, it's not entirely clear whether communes are okay, as far as the California laws are concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1789.472], "stop_times": [1794.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1789.472}, "reply_to": "23152__1_021", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_023", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Why wouldn't it be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1794.498], "stop_times": [1794.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1794.498}, "reply_to": "23152__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_024", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Because if, in fact, commercial activity is taking place, if buying and selling is taking place--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1794.858], "stop_times": [1798.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1794.858}, "reply_to": "23152__1_023", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_025", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "No, no, they're not buying and selling.\nI mean, you can't prove they're buying and selling.\nThere are just a whole lot of people there, with alleged medical needs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1798.523, 1799.543, 1801.625], "stop_times": [1799.543, 1801.625, 1806.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1798.523}, "reply_to": "23152__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_026", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "I mean, I don't understand. Is there any authority in the commerce cases for... an X, which is there in the middle of a state, and it doesn't move one way or the other... now, Congress' power does extend to the X if the state doesn't say something about the X.\nBut if the state says something about the X, then Congress' power does not extend to it.\nThat's hard for me to accept, because I don't see... whether it's commerce or not commerce, whether it affects something or doesn't affect something, doesn't seem to me to have much to do with whether the state separately regulates it, and I can't find any support at all for that in any case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1806.244, 1809.909, 1836.581], "stop_times": [1809.909, 1836.581, 1852.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1806.244}, "reply_to": "23152__1_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_027", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--The support would come from the exception to Lopez and Morrison that the government is urging that the Court adopt, that the Congress can reach non-economic activity that's intrastate, that's wholly intrastate, if doing so is essential to a larger regulatory scheme that would be undercut if they can't reach it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1852.523], "stop_times": [1868.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1852.523}, "reply_to": "23152__1_026", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_028", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, here, they say... look, I take it you're using this because I was going to ask you.\nYou know, he grows heroin, cocaine, tomatoes that are going to have genomes in them that could, at some point, lead to tomato children that will eventually affect Boston.\nYou know, we can... oil that's never, in fact, being used, but we want an inventory of it, federally.\nYou know, I can multiply the examples--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1868.977, 1873.034, 1887.463, 1895.015], "stop_times": [1873.034, 1887.463, 1895.015, 1897.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1868.977}, "reply_to": "23152__1_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_029", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1897.185], "stop_times": [1897.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1897.185}, "reply_to": "23152__1_028", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_030", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--and you can, too.\nSo you're going to get around all those examples by saying what?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1897.459, 1898.443], "stop_times": [1898.443, 1901.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1897.459}, "reply_to": "23152__1_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_031", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--By saying that it's all going to depend on the regulatory scheme, what the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1901.795], "stop_times": [1905.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1901.795}, "reply_to": "23152__1_030", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_032", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1905.67], "stop_times": [1905.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1905.67}, "reply_to": "23152__1_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_033", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--purpose of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1905.962], "stop_times": [1906.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1905.962}, "reply_to": "23152__1_032", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_034", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "So now what you're saying is, in a Commerce Clause case, what we're supposed to do is to start to look at the federal scheme and the state scheme and see, comparing the federal scheme and the state scheme, whether, given the state scheme, the federal scheme is really necessary to include this.\nThat's a task, and I'm trying to make it as complicated as I can in my question.\n[Laughter]\nBut I see it very well.\nHere is what they say.\nThey say that,\n\"By the way, a hundred-thousand people using medical marijuana in California will lead to lower marijuana prices in the nation. \"\n\"Bad. \"\n\"And, second, when we see medical marijuana in California, we won't know what it is. \" \"Everybody'll say, \"Mine is medical\".\"\n\"Certificates will circulate on the black market. \"\n\"We face a mess. \"\n\"For both those reasons, it does have an impact. \"\nthey say.\nNow, what's your response?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1906.505, 1924.678, 1929.2, 1929.767, 1931.207, 1932.745, 1934.967, 1944.561, 1945.398, 1953.178, 1959.085, 1960.954, 1964.843, 1965.583], "stop_times": [1924.678, 1929.2, 1929.767, 1931.207, 1932.745, 1934.967, 1944.561, 1945.398, 1953.178, 1959.085, 1960.954, 1964.843, 1965.583, 1966.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1906.505}, "reply_to": "23152__1_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_035", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well, you've raised at least two different practical issues.\nOne is the fact... the number of people who are in the class, and the second is the ability to identify whether they properly belong in the class.\nAs for the number of people, we are talking about a very small number of people.\nThey say a hundred-thousand.\nThey get their figures from the National Organization from Reform of Marijuana Laws.\nOur figures in our brief come from the government.\nThe figures show it's a very small fraction of persons that would be involved.\nAnd their argument is basically... and the logic of your hypothetical is premised on... the more people that go into the illicit market, the better for federal drug policy, because that will drive the price up.\nYou have to... what we're take... we're doing is, we're taking people out of the illicit drug market, which then, under your hypothetical, would lead to a reduction... and Justice Kennedy's suggestion... would lead to a reduction in the price of the illegal market, which, the opposite would be, they're... it's good for federal policy to have more people in the illicit drug market, because that's going to drive the price up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [1966.785, 1969.614, 1976.095, 1979.92, 1981.761, 1984.987, 1987.133, 1992.304, 2002.726], "stop_times": [1969.614, 1976.095, 1979.92, 1981.761, 1984.987, 1987.133, 1992.304, 2002.726, 2022.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1966.785}, "reply_to": "23152__1_034", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_036", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "No, no, we don't want more people--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2022.952], "stop_times": [2023.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2022.952}, "reply_to": "23152__1_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_037", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Of course not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2023.868], "stop_times": [2024.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2023.868}, "reply_to": "23152__1_036", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_038", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--in the illicit drug market.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2024.297, 2025.164], "stop_times": [2025.164, 2025.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.297}, "reply_to": "23152__1_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_039", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Of course not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2025.493], "stop_times": [2025.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2025.493}, "reply_to": "23152__1_038", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_040", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "And we don't want low prices, either.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2025.937, 2027.589], "stop_times": [2027.589, 2027.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2025.937}, "reply_to": "23152__1_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_041", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "But the... but the... but the scheme of... but the class of activities that have been authorized by the State of California will take people out of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2027.986], "stop_times": [2036.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2027.986}, "reply_to": "23152__1_040", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_042", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "So, normally I would have said, it's up to Congress to figure out how to... the way that... you have one going one way, one going the other way, and balancing those factors would be for Congress.\nThat's what we'd normally say.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2036.412, 2045.362], "stop_times": [2045.362, 2046.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.412}, "reply_to": "23152__1_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_043", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2046.613], "stop_times": [2047.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2046.613}, "reply_to": "23152__1_042", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_044", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "And you say all that stuff is not for Congress; that's for us.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2047.182], "stop_times": [2049.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2047.182}, "reply_to": "23152__1_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_045", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well, within this exception... the threshold issue... I do want to make sure that I focus on this... the threshold issue, which is the issue that has occupied most of our time so far, is whether the activity here is economic or non-economic.\nThe government claims it's economic, we claim it's non-economic.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2049.839, 2061.17], "stop_times": [2061.17, 2063.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2049.839}, "reply_to": "23152__1_044", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_046", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, what it is, is, it's non-economic, and it affects the economic.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2063.991], "stop_times": [2068.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2063.991}, "reply_to": "23152__1_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_047", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Right.\nSo the threshold issue that is... that... upon which Lopez and Morrison terms... turns is whether it's economic or non-economic.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2068.592, 2069.141], "stop_times": [2069.141, 2075.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2068.592}, "reply_to": "23152__1_046", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_048", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, I should have thought that regular household chores of... say, performed in an earlier time mostly by women, was classically economic... washing dishes, making bread.\nAnd now you say growing marijuana isn't?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2075.907, 2090.496], "stop_times": [2090.496, 2094.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2075.907}, "reply_to": "23152__1_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23152__1_049", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "If you accept the government's definition of economic, then every... then washing dishes, today, would be economic, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2094.286], "stop_times": [2101.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2094.286}, "reply_to": "23152__1_048", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_050", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "No, but even--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2101.873], "stop_times": [2102.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2101.873}, "reply_to": "23152__1_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23152__1_051", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--would be within the... within the power of Congress to reach.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2102.43], "stop_times": [2104.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2102.43}, "reply_to": "23152__1_050", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_052", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--But even if we accept your definition of economic, I don't see that it is a basis upon which we ought to make a category decision.\nYou say it's non-economic because one of these people is a... is a self-grower, another one is getting it from a friend for nothing.\nBut I don't see what reason that you have given, or any reason that you haven't given, for us to believe that, out of... now I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument, a hundred-thousand potential users... everybody is going to get it from a friend or from plants in the backyard.\nSeems to me the sensible assumption is, they're going to get it on the street.\nAnd once they get it, under California law, it's not a crime for them to have it and use it.\nBut they're going to get it in the street.\nWhy isn't that the sensible assumption?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2104.413, 2112.153, 2121.684, 2140.782, 2145.532, 2152.543, 2154.33], "stop_times": [2112.153, 2121.684, 2140.782, 2145.532, 2152.543, 2154.33, 2156.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2104.413}, "reply_to": "23152__1_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23152__1_053", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, they have an... they have a very strong incentive not to get it on the street, because getting it on the street is going to subject them to criminal prosecution, under both California and federal law, as well as the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2156.643], "stop_times": [2168.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2156.643}, "reply_to": "23152__1_052", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_054", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Yeah, but the... it's also the case that approximately 10 percent of the American population is doing that every day, if I accept the figures in the government's brief, and they're not getting prosecuted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2168.254], "stop_times": [2181.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.254}, "reply_to": "23152__1_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23152__1_055", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--But we're talking... in that case, we're talking about people who are using it for sport, for recreation.\nWe are talking about a class of people here who are sick people, who don't necessarily want to violate the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2181.215, 2186.52], "stop_times": [2186.52, 2191.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2181.215}, "reply_to": "23152__1_054", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_056", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "And if I am a sick person, I'm going to say,\n\"Look, if they're not prosecuting every kid who buys, what, a nickel bag or whatever you call a small quantity today, they're not going to prosecute me, either. \"\nI mean, there's not going to be any incentive, it seems to me, to avoid the street market.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2191.424, 2193.045, 2202.531], "stop_times": [2193.045, 2202.531, 2207.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2191.424}, "reply_to": "23152__1_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23152__1_057", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "The government, in their brief, asserts that the... that the possession statute that currently exists provides a deterrent effect, which is why they... which is their explanation for why they failed to enforce the possession statute that they say is so essential to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2207.666], "stop_times": [2222.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2207.666}, "reply_to": "23152__1_056", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_058", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "If one--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2222.026], "stop_times": [2222.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2222.026}, "reply_to": "23152__1_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23152__1_059", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--regulatory scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2222.482], "stop_times": [2223.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2222.482}, "reply_to": "23152__1_058", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_060", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--if one takes your view, that this is non-economic activity, so it's outside Congress' commerce power, then explain to me why, if you have someone similarly situated in a neighboring state, somebody whose doctor says,\n\"This person needs marijuana to live. \"\nbut that state doesn't have a compassionate-use act... it's just as isolated... no purchase, no sale, grown at home, good friend grows it... and yet you say Congress could regulate that, if I understand your brief properly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2223.218, 2240.991, 2244.543], "stop_times": [2240.991, 2244.543, 2263.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2223.218}, "reply_to": "23152__1_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23152__1_061", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Yes, Your... yes, Your Honor, because there's the... that's the second step of the analysis.\nThe first step of the analysis is the economic/non-economic.\nIf you don't... if the Court stops there, then they could also apply in these other states.\nBut then if the Court adopts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2263.311, 2267.242, 2270.013, 2275.013], "stop_times": [2267.242, 2270.013, 2275.013, 2276.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2263.311}, "reply_to": "23152__1_060", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_062", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "But if you... if you buy that... so your first answer is, yes, on your first argument, it would be equally impermissible for the feds to regulate medical use anywhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2276.338], "stop_times": [2289.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2276.338}, "reply_to": "23152__1_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23152__1_063", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2289.139], "stop_times": [2289.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2289.139}, "reply_to": "23152__1_062", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_064", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "All right.\nNow you're going to have some limiting--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2289.935, 2290.294], "stop_times": [2290.294, 2291.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2289.935}, "reply_to": "23152__1_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23152__1_065", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "But a limiting principle is the one that I... was identified by the Court in Lopez in which the government is asserting that if it's an essential part of a broader regulation of economic activity to reach this activity, then it may be reached.\nAnd the difference between states in which there is a state law enforcement that's confining the class, and that there is a discrimination between legal and non-legal use, is completely different from a practical enforcement standpoint than a state in which there is no differentiation.\nJust think of the existence, for example, of identification cards, which the State of California is going to be issuing, like driver's license cards.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2291.435, 2303.113, 2317.975], "stop_times": [2303.113, 2317.975, 2325.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2291.435}, "reply_to": "23152__1_064", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_066", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Yeah, but it doesn't right now, and that doesn't make the scheme less valid, in your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2325.217], "stop_times": [2329.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.217}, "reply_to": "23152__1_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23152__1_067", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, because... but this is the sort of regulation... the sort of effectiveness of the regulation that will be at issue and which is, in fact... I believe the Court should be in the position of trusting the State of California to be able to administer its regime.\nThere is no regime in other states to trust, and, therefore, the argument that it is necessary to reach that activity, and a lot of other activity in states in which the states are not attempting to pursue the health of their citizens... the goal of preserving the health of their citizens this way, that would fall under the exception which this Court suggested in Lopez--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2329.554, 2342.019], "stop_times": [2342.019, 2361.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2329.554}, "reply_to": "23152__1_066", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_068", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "So this is a new framework, I take it, and it's very interesting.\nAnd one of the things that interests me... I guess, on your framework, Lopez should have come out my way.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2361.958, 2365.209, 2369.673], "stop_times": [2365.209, 2369.673, 2372.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2361.958}, "reply_to": "23152__1_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_069", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2372.565], "stop_times": [2373.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2372.565}, "reply_to": "23152__1_068", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_070", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Because it's essential to regulate guns in schools as part of a national gun-control regulatory scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2373.07], "stop_times": [2379.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2373.07}, "reply_to": "23152__1_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_071", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Justice Breyer, that's the reason why that exception has to be narrowly treated, so it doesn't reach your result.\n[Laughter]\nIf that exception were treated as broadly as you suggested that it should be in your dissent in Morrison, then the game is up, the exception will swallow the rule, and Lopez and Morrison will be limited to their facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2379.163, 2384.042, 2384.575], "stop_times": [2384.042, 2384.575, 2397.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2379.163}, "reply_to": "23152__1_070", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_072", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, I thought we didn't need to reach all that here, for the reason that the connection here, which is an enforcement-related connection and a market-related connection, is actually, I have to confess, a little more obvious and a little more close than what I had to... what I had to say in Lopez to... was the connection between guns, education, communities, and business.\nSo I would have thought, given the... and I believe that, you know... but, I mean... but that was far further than this, which is just direct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2397.054, 2425.576], "stop_times": [2425.576, 2435.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2397.054}, "reply_to": "23152__1_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_073", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "But this case is completely unlike those cases.\nThis case is completely isolated.\nIn Lopez, that gun probably did come through interstate commerce, not that I believe it should have made any difference, but it probably did.\nHere, we're talking about substances that don't.\nSo there's just no literal connection between this class of activities and this interstate market.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2435.131, 2438.166, 2440.255, 2445.465, 2447.616], "stop_times": [2438.166, 2440.255, 2445.465, 2447.616, 2453.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2435.131}, "reply_to": "23152__1_072", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_074", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, we didn't decide that, in Lopez, on the basis of whether the gun had come in interstate commerce.\nIf the statute in question had applied only to guns that had been transported in interstate commerce, the case might have come out differently.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2453.517, 2460.697], "stop_times": [2460.697, 2467.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2453.517}, "reply_to": "23152__1_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_075", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "I... no doubt, Your... I... and I wasn't suggesting otherwise, Justice Scalia.\nI'm just suggesting that, here, we have... exactly, that if there had been that interstate connection in Lopez, the case might have come out different.\nThere is no interstate connection whatsoever in this class of cases.\nNone.\nThe only way to make it an interstate connection is through some sort of hypothetical economic substitution effect in which somebody who's doing something over here is going to have an affect on somebody else who's doing something over there.\nThere is no connection.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2467.824, 2471.777, 2479.937, 2483.454, 2483.961, 2495.315], "stop_times": [2471.777, 2479.937, 2483.454, 2483.961, 2495.315, 2496.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2467.824}, "reply_to": "23152__1_074", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_076", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Sounds like Wickard to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2496.66], "stop_times": [2498.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.66}, "reply_to": "23152__1_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_077", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, Wickard, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2498.18], "stop_times": [2499.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2498.18}, "reply_to": "23152__1_076", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_078", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "I always used to laugh at Wickard, but that's... that's what Wickard said.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2499.834], "stop_times": [2503.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2499.834}, "reply_to": "23152__1_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_079", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Wickard--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2503.246], "stop_times": [2504.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2503.246}, "reply_to": "23152__1_078", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_080", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Had he not eaten the wheat, it would have been in interstate commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2504.637], "stop_times": [2508.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2504.637}, "reply_to": "23152__1_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_081", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Had that case been about eating wheat, that case would never have arisen.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2508.136], "stop_times": [2512.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2508.136}, "reply_to": "23152__1_080", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_082", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, that's what it was about, as far as the Court's analysis was concerned.\nTo be sure, there were a lot of... there was a lot more use of the wheat on his farm, other than just human consumption, but it seems to me the analysis of the case said,\n\"You take it... you take it out of the stream of commerce by growing it yourself, you make it unnecessary for your... to buy it in interstate commerce. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2512.703, 2516.746, 2528.471], "stop_times": [2516.746, 2528.471, 2538.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2512.703}, "reply_to": "23152__1_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_083", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "It's... the entire analysis... the entire proof that the court relied upon in Wickard was proof of the economic impact of home-consumed wheat on the farms.\nAnd by \"home-consumed\", it did not mean eating at the family... at the family table; it meant feeding to your livestock and then putting it... your livestock--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2538.203, 2548.466], "stop_times": [2548.466, 2557.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2538.203}, "reply_to": "23152__1_082", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_084", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Strange phrase, to mean \"feeding to livestock\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2557.521], "stop_times": [2560.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2557.521}, "reply_to": "23152__1_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_085", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--But the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2560.205], "stop_times": [2560.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2560.205}, "reply_to": "23152__1_084", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_086", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "\"Home-consumed\" is feed it to your pig?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2560.872], "stop_times": [2563.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2560.872}, "reply_to": "23152__1_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_087", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--But, yes, that's exactly what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2563.012], "stop_times": [2564.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2563.012}, "reply_to": "23152__1_086", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_088", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "I don't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2564.275], "stop_times": [2564.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2564.275}, "reply_to": "23152__1_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_089", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--that's exactly what that general term... how that general term was used in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2564.704], "stop_times": [2568.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2564.704}, "reply_to": "23152__1_088", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_090", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "But what the Court said, I take it... and I have quoted a lot of the language there... it says that the wheat farmer's consumption of home-grown wheat, not the part that went in... quote,\n\"though it may not be regarded as commerce-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2568.38, 2579.5], "stop_times": [2579.5, 2583.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2568.38}, "reply_to": "23152__1_089", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_091", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2583.129], "stop_times": [2584.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2583.129}, "reply_to": "23152__1_090", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_092", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--end quote, still can be regulated, quote, \"whatever its nature\", so long as, quote,\n\"it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. \"\nNow, that's the language, and I take it that Justice Scalia is exactly right, I thought, from that language, it's about the analysis, home-grown wheat, which is not economic, having an effect on something that is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2584.029, 2590.995, 2595.264], "stop_times": [2590.995, 2595.264, 2609.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2584.029}, "reply_to": "23152__1_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_093", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "With all respect--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2609.079], "stop_times": [2610.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2609.079}, "reply_to": "23152__1_092", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_094", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Which is not commerce.\nSorry, not commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2610.044, 2611.055], "stop_times": [2611.055, 2612.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2610.044}, "reply_to": "23152__1_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_095", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--With all respect, what... that's... I was about to make that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2612.252], "stop_times": [2616.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.252}, "reply_to": "23152__1_094", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_096", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, the Commerce Clause speaks in terms of commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2616.617], "stop_times": [2618.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2616.617}, "reply_to": "23152__1_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_097", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Right.\nRight.\nWhat the Court was using here was the narrower... the traditional definition of \"commerce\" that Justice Thomas has been urging this Court to adopt.\nAnd they were saying that,\n\"We are not going to limit ourselves to that narrow definition of \"commerce\". \"\nIt would include, for example, agriculture and production.\nThat's all going to be reachable, even though it's not commerce, in the traditional sense.\nBut what we would call it today, and I believe what the Court correctly called it, in Lopez, was \"economic activity\".\nProduction is economic activity.\nManufacturing is economic activity.\nBut... it's not commerce, but it's economic activity that can be reached.\nAnd that is the activity... that's not only the activity that Farmer Filburn was engaged in; that was the activity that the statute was aimed at.\nThe statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2618.793, 2619.027, 2619.267, 2626.272, 2627.295, 2630.616, 2632.957, 2637.367, 2643.641, 2645.508, 2647.028, 2650.368, 2658.762], "stop_times": [2619.027, 2619.267, 2626.272, 2627.295, 2630.616, 2632.957, 2637.367, 2643.641, 2645.508, 2647.028, 2650.368, 2658.762, 2659.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2618.793}, "reply_to": "23152__1_096", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_098", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, why is this not economic activity, if you use the term in that broad sense?\nThis marijuana that is grown, just like the wheat that was grown, in Wickard, since it's grown on the farm, doesn't have to be bought elsewhere, and that makes it an economic activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2659.495, 2663.998], "stop_times": [2663.998, 2677.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2659.495}, "reply_to": "23152__1_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_099", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--What made it an economic activity in Wickard was the fact that it was part of commercial enterprise, that it was being used on the farm... not in interstate commerce, but part of the commercial enterprise of the farm.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2677.494], "stop_times": [2689.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2677.494}, "reply_to": "23152__1_098", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_100", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Again, I don't think that's... that faithfully represents what the opinion said.\nI think the opinion covered... including the amount that he consumed himself, and his family consumed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2689.267, 2694.819], "stop_times": [2694.819, 2700.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2689.267}, "reply_to": "23152__1_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_101", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "The... look, I... for whatever it's worth, it's worth remembering that the statute exempted small commercial farms.\nPeople who had backyard gardens weren't even included within the regulatory regime.\nThe regulatory regime was about regulating or stopping or restricting the supply of wheat that got into the market, or that could have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2700.322, 2709.687, 2713.749], "stop_times": [2709.687, 2713.749, 2721.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2700.322}, "reply_to": "23152__1_100", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_102", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Did the opinion make a point of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2721.585], "stop_times": [2722.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2721.585}, "reply_to": "23152__1_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_103", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2722.641], "stop_times": [2723.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2722.641}, "reply_to": "23152__1_102", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_104", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Did the opinion make a point of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2723.362], "stop_times": [2725.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2723.362}, "reply_to": "23152__1_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_105", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "It... it was mentioned in the opinion.\nIt was not... it was not a major point of this opinion.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2725.393, 2728.184, 2730.853], "stop_times": [2728.184, 2730.853, 2731.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2725.393}, "reply_to": "23152__1_104", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_106", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "I don't think it was a point of the Court's analysis at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2731.244], "stop_times": [2735.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2731.244}, "reply_to": "23152__1_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_107", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--This--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2735.404], "stop_times": [2738.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2735.404}, "reply_to": "23152__1_106", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_108", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Could I... could I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2738.88], "stop_times": [2739.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2738.88}, "reply_to": "23152__1_107", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_109", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Let me ask this question.\nWhat is your view with respect to the impact of the activities concerned in this case on the interstate market for marijuana?\nIs it your view that it will have no impact, that it will increase the interstate demand, or decrease the interstate demand?\nSo there are three alternatives.\nWhich is the one we should follow?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2739.546, 2740.265, 2749.256, 2756.359, 2757.567], "stop_times": [2740.265, 2749.256, 2756.359, 2757.567, 2758.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2739.546}, "reply_to": "23152__1_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__1_110", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Can I pick \"trivial impact\"?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2758.995, 2760.332], "stop_times": [2760.332, 2761.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2758.995}, "reply_to": "23152__1_109", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_111", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "No, but if it... \"trivial impact\", is it a trivial impact that enhances the price of marijuana or decreases the price of marijuana, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2761.663], "stop_times": [2770.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2761.663}, "reply_to": "23152__1_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__1_112", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "The only effect it could have on the price would be a slight trivial reduction, if it has any effect at all, because it's going to withdraw users from the illicit drug market.\nAnd to the extent that they are now in the illicit drug market... and we don't know whether they are or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2770.517, 2780.305], "stop_times": [2780.305, 2785.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2770.517}, "reply_to": "23152__1_111", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_113", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, that would reduce demand and increase price, it seems to me.\nIt's the other way around.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2785.042, 2788.451], "stop_times": [2788.451, 2789.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2785.042}, "reply_to": "23152__1_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__1_114", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well, it would reduce demand and reduce prices, I think.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2789.221, 2795.611], "stop_times": [2795.611, 2796.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2789.221}, "reply_to": "23152__1_113", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_115", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "If you reduce demand, you reduce prices?\nAre you sure?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2796.022, 2797.858], "stop_times": [2797.858, 2798.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2796.022}, "reply_to": "23152__1_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__1_116", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Yes.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2798.394, 2800.126], "stop_times": [2800.126, 2801.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2798.394}, "reply_to": "23152__1_115", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_117", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Oh, you're right.\nYou're right.\nOkay.\nYeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2801.075, 2802.241, 2802.556, 2803.141], "stop_times": [2802.241, 2802.556, 2803.141, 2803.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2801.075}, "reply_to": "23152__1_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__1_118", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Your whole argument for triviality, though, goes... your whole argument for triviality, though, goes back to your disagreement with the government about how many people are involved, because I take it you accept the assumption that the more people who are involved... if there are millions and millions, it is unlikely that this licensed activity is going to be without an effect on the market.\nSo the whole argument boils down to how many people are going to be involved.\nYou don't accept the government's 100,000-dollar figure.\nLet me ask you a question that would... that would get to, maybe, a different number, and that is, Do you know how many people there are in California who are undergoing chemotherapy at any given time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2803.594, 2827.58, 2832.939, 2836.235], "stop_times": [2827.58, 2832.939, 2836.235, 2847.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.594}, "reply_to": "23152__1_117", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23152__1_119", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "I do not know the answer to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2847.76], "stop_times": [2850.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2847.76}, "reply_to": "23152__1_118", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_120", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Isn't that number going to be indicative of the demand for marijuana?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2850.074], "stop_times": [2854.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.074}, "reply_to": "23152__1_119", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23152__1_121", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "It could be, Your Honor, but that also illustrates--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2854.941], "stop_times": [2856.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2854.941}, "reply_to": "23152__1_120", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_122", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "But if you... if you accept that, then there's nothing implausible about the government's hundred-thousand number, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2856.967], "stop_times": [2865.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2856.967}, "reply_to": "23152__1_121", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23152__1_123", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--But whatever... I don't know, because I don't know the number of people using chemotherapy.\nBut whatever the number--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2865.936, 2870.117], "stop_times": [2870.117, 2871.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2865.936}, "reply_to": "23152__1_122", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_124", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "How many people are there in California?\nWhat's the population?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2871.284, 2872.93], "stop_times": [2872.93, 2873.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2871.284}, "reply_to": "23152__1_123", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23152__1_125", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Thirty-four million.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2873.917], "stop_times": [2876.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2873.917}, "reply_to": "23152__1_124", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23152__1_126", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Thank you, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2876.382], "stop_times": [2877.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2876.382}, "reply_to": "23152__1_125", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_127", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Lots... lots--\n[Laughter]\n--lots and lots.\nThey... a hundred-thousand cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy does not seem like an implausible number.\nAnd, in fact, if that number is a plausible one today, its plausibility reflects, among other things, the fact that there is a controversy as to whether California's law, in fact, is enforceable, or not.\nAnd the reason... there is reason to assume that... if we ruled your way, that that number would go up.\nSo, if you accept that line of argument, then your argument, that the effect, whatever it may be, is going to be trivial, seems to me unsupportable.\nAm I missing something?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2877.674, 2878.6, 2878.807, 2879.291, 2888.31, 2902.884, 2909.059, 2920.761], "stop_times": [2878.6, 2878.807, 2879.291, 2888.31, 2902.884, 2909.059, 2920.761, 2922.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2877.674}, "reply_to": "23152__1_126", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23152__1_128", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, two things.\nFirst of all, whatever number it is, it's going to be confined to people who are sick, who are sick enough to use this.\nThat is not an infinitely expandable number, the way, for example, recreational activity is, where lots of people could just decide to do it.\nWe're talking about people who qualify, on a physician's recommendation, for this particular activity.\nThat will limit the number.\nBut the amount of the people... the effect on commerce only matters if the Wickard v. Filburn aggregation principle applies to the class of activities in this case, and it does not apply to the class of activities in this case if they are non-economic, as we assert that they are.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2922.168, 2922.919, 2929.341, 2935.89, 2940.963, 2941.911], "stop_times": [2922.919, 2929.341, 2935.89, 2940.963, 2941.911, 2956.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2922.168}, "reply_to": "23152__1_127", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_129", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well... but that is circular reasoning, because the whole... your whole argument that it's non-economic is based on the claim that there are... the numbers are so few... the number of people involved, from what you could generalize, are so few that it would not be reasonable to infer an effect on the market.\nIf there would be a large market effect, it makes no more sense to call this non-economic than Filburn's use, non-economic.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2956.749, 2977.091], "stop_times": [2977.091, 2986.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2956.749}, "reply_to": "23152__1_128", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23152__1_130", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Lopez and Morrison stand for the proposition that activities that simply have an effect on the market are not necessary... that does not make them economic.\nThis Court rejected that proposition, that just because an activity has an effect... an economic effect makes the activity, itself, economic.\nIt adopted a principle that's less than--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [2986.061, 2995.68, 3002.979], "stop_times": [2995.68, 3002.979, 3006.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2986.061}, "reply_to": "23152__1_129", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_131", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Remote, remote, remote economic effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3006.166], "stop_times": [3009.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3006.166}, "reply_to": "23152__1_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23152__1_132", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "It was inference upon inference upon inference.\nThat's not what we're talking about here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3009.224, 3011.683], "stop_times": [3011.683, 3013.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3009.224}, "reply_to": "23152__1_131", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23152__1_133", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--But just... just have it... just... whether an activity is economic, you have to look to the activity, itself, and an economic activity is one that's associated with sale, exchange, barter, the production of things for sale and exchange, barter.\nThis whole Court's jurisprudence since The New Deal has been premised on the ability to tell the difference between economic activity, on the one hand, and personal liberty, on the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3013.522, 3026.085], "stop_times": [3026.085, 3036.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3013.522}, "reply_to": "23152__1_132", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_134", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Your whole jurisprudence in this case is premised on the assumption that we have got to identify the entire range of potential effect based on the particular character of two individuals in their... in their supply of marijuana.\nAnd the whole point of this argument is that that does not seem to be a realistic premise on which to base constitutional law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3036.149, 3051.422], "stop_times": [3051.422, 3058.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3036.149}, "reply_to": "23152__1_133", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23152__1_135", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "The premise of our... the premise of our economic claim is the nature of the activity involved, not necessarily its effect, but the kind of activity it is.\nThe idea... for example, you... prostitution is an economic activity.\nMarital relations is not an economic activity.\nWe could be talking about virtually the same act.\nAnd there is a market overhang for... from private sexual relations to prostitution, but we don't say that because there is a market for prostitution, that, therefore, everything that is not in that market is economic.\nWe look at the activities, and we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3058.06, 3067.607, 3072.153, 3074.542, 3076.512, 3088.797], "stop_times": [3067.607, 3072.153, 3074.542, 3076.512, 3088.797, 3090.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3058.06}, "reply_to": "23152__1_134", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_136", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "I'd like to ask you one question about the activity--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3090.703], "stop_times": [3092.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3090.703}, "reply_to": "23152__1_135", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_137", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3092.314], "stop_times": [3092.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3092.314}, "reply_to": "23152__1_136", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_138", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--which was brought up before, and I just... I've never understood this.\nI'm not an expert.\nI don't honestly know, if I really think about it, despite all the papers and so forth, whether it's true that medical marijuana is helpful to people in ways that pills are not.\nI really don't know.\nSo I would have thought that the people, like your clients, who have a strong view about it, would go to the FDA, and they would say to the FDA,\n\"FDA, take this off the list. \"\n\"You must take it off the list if it has an accepted medical use and it isn't lacking in safety. \"\nThe FDA will say yes or it will say no.\nIf it says yes, they win.\nIf they say no, they can come right into court and say, \"That's an abuse of discretion\".\nThe Court says yes or no.\nIf it says no, it must be because it wasn't an abuse of discretion, in which case, I, as a judge, and probably as a person, would think it isn't true that marijuana has some kind of special use.\nSo that would seem to me to be the obvious way to get what they want.\nThat seems to me to be relevant to the correct characterization.\nAnd while the FDA can make mistakes, I guess medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3092.725, 3096.542, 3098.036, 3110.532, 3111.343, 3122.487, 3125.344, 3130.822, 3144.821, 3136.441, 3142.796, 3147.037, 3160.167, 3164.517, 3168.407], "stop_times": [3096.542, 3098.036, 3110.532, 3111.343, 3122.487, 3125.344, 3130.822, 3144.821, 3136.441, 3142.796, 3147.037, 3160.167, 3164.517, 3168.407, 3175.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3092.725}, "reply_to": "23152__1_137", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_139", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3175.103], "stop_times": [3176.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3175.103}, "reply_to": "23152__1_138", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_140", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "So that's... I just want to know why.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3176.08], "stop_times": [3178.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3176.08}, "reply_to": "23152__1_139", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_141", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, first of all, that whole process wouldn't dictate what the power of Congress is to reach this activity--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3178.129], "stop_times": [3184.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3178.129}, "reply_to": "23152__1_140", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_142", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "That's all true, but as long as that hasn't been done, don't I have to take this case on the assumption that there is no such thing as medical marijuana that's special and necessary?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3184.468], "stop_times": [3196.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3184.468}, "reply_to": "23152__1_141", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_143", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3196.609], "stop_times": [3197.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3196.609}, "reply_to": "23152__1_142", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_144", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "If has been done, maybe I shouldn't make it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3197.273], "stop_times": [3198.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3197.273}, "reply_to": "23152__1_143", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23152__1_145", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--I would simply ask Your Honor to read the amicus brief by Rick Doblin, in which it describes the government's obstruction of scientific research that would establish the safety and efficacy of cannabis by denying supplies of cannabis... of medical... of cannabis for medical experimentation.\nAnd then I'd ask Your Honor to read the Institute for Medicine's report, that both the government and I... and we have relied upon in our briefs.\nThere has been no impeachment of this report by the National Academy of Sciences on the medical effect.\nAnd what they say is that the... that what information we have is that cannabis does have a substantial medical effect.\nSmoked cannabis does carry with it harms associated with it, as the... as General Clement correctly pointed out.\nIt does carry with it these ancillary harms.\nBut when people are sick and people are suffering and people are dying, they may be willing to run the risk of these long-term harms in order to get the immediate relief, the life-saving relief that cannabis has demonstrably been able to provide.\nI'd just ask Your Honor to look at that, which is in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3198.699, 3214.129, 3222.018, 3228.858, 3235.58, 3244.379, 3246.005, 3257.364], "stop_times": [3214.129, 3222.018, 3228.858, 3235.58, 3244.379, 3246.005, 3257.364, 3259.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3198.699}, "reply_to": "23152__1_144", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_146", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Are prescriptions, under California law, limited only to those people with life-threatening illnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3259.26], "stop_times": [3266.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3259.26}, "reply_to": "23152__1_145", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23152__1_147", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "They are limited to a list of illnesses that are in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3266.96], "stop_times": [3270.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3266.96}, "reply_to": "23152__1_146", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_148", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Some of the illnesses--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3270.659], "stop_times": [3272.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3270.659}, "reply_to": "23152__1_147", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23152__1_149", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Some of which are life-threatening and some of which are not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3272.785], "stop_times": [3275.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3272.785}, "reply_to": "23152__1_148", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_150", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--In one... in one plaintiff's case, I think, there isn't a life-threatening--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3275.031], "stop_times": [3278.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3275.031}, "reply_to": "23152__1_149", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23152__1_151", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nShe has... she has severe back spasms and pain that cannot be controlled by conventional medicines.\nShe's a law-abiding citizen.\nThis goes back to the issue of what the... incentives there are that are created by this.\nThis is a law-abiding woman, who has never been interested in the illicit-drugs market.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3278.185, 3279.434, 3285.892, 3287.781, 3290.848], "stop_times": [3279.434, 3285.892, 3287.781, 3290.848, 3296.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3278.185}, "reply_to": "23152__1_150", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_152", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--May I just ask you one procedural question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3296.244], "stop_times": [3297.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3296.244}, "reply_to": "23152__1_151", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23152__1_153", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3297.855], "stop_times": [3298.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3297.855}, "reply_to": "23152__1_152", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_154", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "And this is... this is a suit for an injunction.\nAnd it... basically an injunction against a criminal prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3298.388, 3301.279], "stop_times": [3301.279, 3306.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3298.388}, "reply_to": "23152__1_153", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23152__1_155", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "And seizure--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3306.175], "stop_times": [3307.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3306.175}, "reply_to": "23152__1_154", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_156", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "And--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3307.586], "stop_times": [3308.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3307.586}, "reply_to": "23152__1_155", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23152__1_157", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--of these plants.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3308.493], "stop_times": [3308.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3308.493}, "reply_to": "23152__1_156", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_158", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--and there's an old saying, in equity, that courts don't enjoin criminal prosecutions.\nSo how is your injunction suit appropriate, given that old saying there that you have to make your defense in the criminal proceeding and not enjoin this operation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3308.876, 3315.233], "stop_times": [3315.233, 3326.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3308.876}, "reply_to": "23152__1_157", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23152__1_159", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Well, it is... it is an... we're seeking an injunction to prevent the enforcement of the statute against these two persons, which includes forfeiture, which has already happened in this case.\nWe've already had Diane Monson's plants seized by the Drug Enforcement Authority.\nThat is not something that we... that we... that has anything to do with criminal prosecution, and yet that puts at risk her supply of medicine, the supply of medicine she needs to get by, to relieve her suffering.\nI see my time--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3326.642, 3334.883, 3339.253, 3350.852], "stop_times": [3334.883, 3339.253, 3350.852, 3352.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3326.642}, "reply_to": "23152__1_158", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_160", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3352.225], "stop_times": [3352.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3352.225}, "reply_to": "23152__1_159", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__1_161", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "--is up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3352.458], "stop_times": [3352.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3352.458}, "reply_to": "23152__1_160", "speaker": "randy_e_barnett"}
{"id": "23152__1_162", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Barnett.\nGeneral Clement, you have four minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3352.717, 3353.119], "stop_times": [3353.119, 3355.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3352.717}, "reply_to": "23152__1_161", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23152__2_000", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nAs I understand Respondents' position, it's effectively that their clients, and clients like them, in their use of medical marijuana, is somehow so hermetically sealed from the rest of the market on marijuana that it has no effect on that market on marijuana and no effect on the government's overall regulatory regime.\nAnd I understand that to be true largely because of state law.\nAnd one of the many problems with that mode of analysis is that the state law is not designed only to carve out those transactions that have no effect on interstate commerce or no effect on the federal regulatory regime.\nProposition 215 was not tasked as an exercise in cooperative federalism; it was passed as an effort to make medical marijuana lawful to possess, whether you bought it in interstate commerce, whether you bought it with the marijuana having traveled in interstate commerce, whether you bought it, whether you grew it yourself.\nThere's a fundamental mismatch with their theory that really, I think, undermines their theory.\nNow, there's the question now about what kind of impact this would have on the federal enforcement scheme.\nNow, we, in our reply brief, try to use the numbers from one of Respondents' own amici, and we suggest that there's a hundred-thousand people that might be lawful medical users, if their position prevails.\nNow, obviously, this is all an effort in, sort of, counter-factual speculation, so the numbers may be a bit off.\nBut they suggest that our own government numbers are somehow better, and they cite them on page 18 of the red brief.\nBut the only numbers on the red brief for California suggest that, in the four counties for which there are data, there was....5 percent of the people use marijuana.\nNow, if you extend that out statewide to the 34 million people in California, that gives you 170,000 people.\nSo their numbers... using the government numbers actually give you more potentially affected people.\nI think in trying to figure out how many people would be affected, it's worth considering what medical conditions are covered.\nAnd this responds to Justice Kennedy's last question, Is this just limited to AIDS or people with terminal cancer?\nAnd it's not.\nAnd if you want to look at what is covered as serious medical condition under the statute, you can turn to page 7(a) of the red brief, in the appendix to the red brief, and it suggests that a serious medical condition... there's a catchall at the end that includes subsection 12...\n\"Any other chronic or persistent medical system that, if not alleviated, may cause serious harm to the patient's safety or physical or mental health. \"\nNow, I think that is an exceedingly broad definition of a serious medical condition for which somebody could be... get a recommendation for marijuana for medical uses.\nAnother point worth considering, in considering the impact on the federal regulatory regime or the effectiveness of California in preventing any diversion, is to take a look at two cases we cite in our reply brief.\nOne is the People against Wright.\nThere's somebody who's arrested with 19 ounces, over a pound, of marijuana.\nThey're packaged such that he has one small bag in his pocket, six other small bags wrapped with a scale in his backpack, two other larger bags in that backpack, and then a pound wrapped in a shirt in the back of his truck.\nAnd yet the Appellate Court in California said that he was entitled to go to the jury with the theory that that was for medical use.\nThe fact that he had a scale, and the fact that it was packaged the way it was, could be explained to the jury because he had just boughten it, and that he used the scale to make sure he wasn't ripped-off.\nI think that shows that it's going to be very hard to enforce the regulatory regime.\nThe other case in the reply brief worth mentioning is the Santa Cruz case, because that's a case where a Federal District Court, after Raich came out, said that it could not enforce the DA and the Controlled Substances Act against a 250-person cooperative.\nAnd that just shows that this is not something that will be limited to one or two users at a time, but will have a substantial impact on the government's ability to enforce the Controlled Substances Act.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3355.581, 3361.789, 3381.638, 3384.529, 3396.529, 3413.867, 3418.258, 3423.899, 3434.978, 3439.984, 3445.938, 3455.368, 3462.508, 3466.978, 3473.057, 3478.938, 3479.922, 3494.398, 3503.358, 3512.919, 3523.588, 3525.318, 3529.677, 3542.757, 3549.529, 3558.167, 3562.819, 3578.247, 3587.585], "stop_times": [3361.789, 3381.638, 3384.529, 3396.529, 3413.867, 3418.258, 3423.899, 3434.978, 3439.984, 3445.938, 3455.368, 3462.508, 3466.978, 3473.057, 3478.938, 3479.922, 3494.398, 3503.358, 3512.919, 3523.588, 3525.318, 3529.677, 3542.757, 3549.529, 3558.167, 3562.819, 3578.247, 3587.585, 3588.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3355.581}, "reply_to": "23152__1_162", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23152__2_001", "conversation_id": "23152", "text": "Thank you, General Clement.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1454", "start_times": [3588.388, 3589.626], "stop_times": [3589.626, 3591.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3588.388}, "reply_to": "23152__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22290__0_000", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Aurelio Gonzalez v. James Crosby.\nMr. Rashkind.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [0.0, 9.781], "stop_times": [9.781, 35.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22290__0_001", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWe confront today the Eleventh Circuit's categorical and jurisdictional prohibition of rule 60(b) in habeas corpus cases absent fraud.\nThat is a rule that has been rejected by nearly all of the other circuits and, in fact, has been rejected by the United States in its amicus brief filed in this case.\nWe urge the Court to adopt instead the approach of the other nine circuits that have commented on this issue, the functional approach, in which a court is deemed to examine each motion individually to determine whether or not the motion comports with both rule 60(b) and AEDPA.\nI think the test we proposed here is a fairly simple one, although I'm not sure in the briefing it comes across as being as simple as it really is, but the test we are proposing, as opposed to the test proposed by the United States, is the one being used in nearly all of the other circuits and it has percolated through the system as one that seems to work very well.\nIt's a two-part test and it's very simple I think.\nFirst, does the motion that's filed challenge the Federal judgment on a ground cognizable under one of the six prongs of rule 60(b)?\nIf not, if it's really a new claim, if it is not within one of the six prongs of rule 60(b), then simply the district court denies it.\nIf, on the other hand, the motion is a true 60(b) motion, as ours was in this case, then the court goes to step two, which is to examine which is the six prongs is implicated, what is the jurisprudence regarding the six... that particular prong, and how would it apply in this particular case.\nThat's the functional approach that most of the circuits have been using.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [35.72, 38.764, 48.847, 57.363, 78.269, 98.894, 101.328, 110.684, 120.081, 139.665], "stop_times": [38.764, 48.847, 57.363, 78.269, 98.894, 101.328, 110.684, 120.081, 139.665, 143.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 35.72}, "reply_to": "22290__0_000", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_002", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "At that point when the court makes that examination under your rule and it comes to point six--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [143.153], "stop_times": [148.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 143.153}, "reply_to": "22290__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22290__0_003", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [148.352], "stop_times": [149.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 148.352}, "reply_to": "22290__0_002", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_004", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--does it refer at any point or in any circumstance to AEDPA?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [149.137], "stop_times": [153.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 149.137}, "reply_to": "22290__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22290__0_005", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "It does not but... but point six has been cabined by jurisprudence.\nAlthough point six appears to be a wide-open door for any motion to be filed and granted, the courts, even before AEDPA, have treated category six as one that requires extraordinary circumstances.\nWe have been able to quantify.\nBoth an amicus who filed on behalf of the petitioner and the United States and the respondent have quantified the number of cases that have gone through the rule 60(b) process.\nThere have only been, since AEDPA was passed, 28 successful motions that we can quantify, that are published in any way.\nAnd we would like to think, at least, that if the State or the Federal Government thought there was an inappropriate application, it would have been raised on appeal and we'd have that statistic.\n28 in the 9-year history of the statute means fewer than 3 per year... or slightly more than 3 per year for the whole country, a fraction for circuits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [153.26, 159.35, 172.301, 173.969, 183.517, 190.789, 198.544], "stop_times": [159.35, 172.301, 173.969, 183.517, 190.789, 198.544, 206.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 153.26}, "reply_to": "22290__0_004", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_006", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, if we were to make clear that 60(b) is widely available, even category six, don't you think... and as a result the AEDPA restrictions don't apply, don't you think that number would increase rather dramatically?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [206.769], "stop_times": [223.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 206.769}, "reply_to": "22290__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22290__0_007", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "I do not.\nAnd I do not because at this point apparently nine circuits are following the rule we propose, and so the statistics that both the respondent that we bring to you are that small, are that infinitesimal because the courts have always treated 60(b) as a last ditch, extraordinary circumstances required.\nOne can go through each of the six prongs and easily hypothesize examples that are appropriate, (b)(1), (b)(2)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [223.355, 224.258, 242.581], "stop_times": [224.258, 242.581, 252.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 223.355}, "reply_to": "22290__0_006", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_008", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, there's no language in category six referring to extraordinary circumstances, any other reason justifying relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [252.064], "stop_times": [261.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 252.064}, "reply_to": "22290__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22290__0_009", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--The Court in the Ackermann decision... there were two early decisions construing 60(b).\nThe first was the Klapprott decision in which the Court recognized that 60(b) is intended to correct the kind of errors that might occur that are important.\nThe Ackermann decision followed a year later and said, however, this is not a wide-open door.\nExtraordinary circumstances are required.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [261.034, 266.865, 274.813, 279.802], "stop_times": [266.865, 274.813, 279.802, 282.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 261.034}, "reply_to": "22290__0_008", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_010", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "But it's still very vague.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [282.245], "stop_times": [283.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 282.245}, "reply_to": "22290__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22290__0_011", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "It is but it isn't.\nIt's vague in terms of reading the simple rule, but it's not vague if one considers the jurisprudence that surrounds the rule.\nOne cannot ignore a half-century of... of decisions, which have rejected 60(b)(6) and other 60(b)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [283.736, 285.442, 291.19], "stop_times": [285.442, 291.19, 298.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 283.736}, "reply_to": "22290__0_010", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_012", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "All that is true, but I think that the court below and the other parties say... almost everybody is on your side.\nHowever, they also note a problem, and the problem is that given the very rigid structure of AEDPA and the imagination of lawyers, that if 60(b) hasn't proved an escape hatch for getting around the AEDPA restriction, it will, and that what the lawyers will do is they will reconstruct what they'd like as a second habeas and put it in the form of a 60(b).\nAnd so I can accept everything you say, but if that in the back of my mind is a concern running around Congress in this way, what form of words could you put in to restrict 60(b) to its domain which is the domain in which it's been used so far?\nNow, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed a brief in which they tried to do that.\nI thought that was a constructive effort.\nSo what's your opinion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [298.716, 308.064, 334.967, 352.617, 358.086, 360.352], "stop_times": [308.064, 334.967, 352.617, 358.086, 360.352, 361.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 298.716}, "reply_to": "22290__0_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__0_013", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Well, I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [361.915], "stop_times": [362.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.915}, "reply_to": "22290__0_012", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_014", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--about how best to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [362.644], "stop_times": [363.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 362.644}, "reply_to": "22290__0_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__0_015", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--I would prefer to rely upon the Court's principles in this regard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [363.669], "stop_times": [367.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 363.669}, "reply_to": "22290__0_014", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_016", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "No, but that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [367.732], "stop_times": [368.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 367.732}, "reply_to": "22290__0_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__0_017", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Rhines... Rhines v. Weber is of good help here.\nRhines v. Weber, that the Court delivered just very recently, considered the interaction of a rule and of AEDPA, and I thought it very clearly set forth three principles which work well within the test here.\nFirst, that there has to be good cause and good cause, of course, is clear in the jurisprudence here, that we're talking about extraordinary circumstances, not a simple legal error.\nIn this case, for example, the extraordinary circumstance is that, for all intents and purposes, my client has been denied his first petition of right because the court foreclosed the issues erroneously.\nSo good cause is the first thing that I learned from Rhines.\nSecondly, that there have to be potentially meritorious underlying issues.\nNow, that's going to filter out a lot of the cases because you can't come into court with another issue that might not be good, it mightn't be an unexhausted issue, it might be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [368.539, 371.734, 383.982, 394.681, 406.003, 408.725, 412.823], "stop_times": [371.734, 383.982, 394.681, 406.003, 408.725, 412.823, 421.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 368.539}, "reply_to": "22290__0_016", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_018", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "It's pretty flabby.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [421.294], "stop_times": [421.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 421.294}, "reply_to": "22290__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22290__0_019", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--one procedurally defaulted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [421.827], "stop_times": [422.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 421.827}, "reply_to": "22290__0_018", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_020", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "It's pretty flabby.\nPotentially meritorious?\nNot probably, potentially.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [422.431, 423.137, 424.93], "stop_times": [423.137, 424.93, 426.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 422.431}, "reply_to": "22290__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22290__0_021", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, it is... it is the terminology used in Rhines.\nAnd what I'm trying to do here for the Court is to draw upon your own authority, the words you've spoken, as opposed to the test proposed by the Criminal Justice Foundation and by the United States, which are interesting tests but in no way depend upon the Court's own jurisprudence.\nI'm trying to offer the Court its own tests that have worked.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [426.619, 429.854, 444.603], "stop_times": [429.854, 444.603, 447.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 426.619}, "reply_to": "22290__0_020", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_022", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "But this is going to be taken up by some 800 district judges and a couple hundred appellate judges, and they're the ones who have the final say in most of these cases just because we decide so few.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [447.755], "stop_times": [462.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 447.755}, "reply_to": "22290__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22290__0_023", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "And I think that's why this test works.\nThe third point would be that there be timeliness.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [462.524, 465.178], "stop_times": [465.178, 467.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.524}, "reply_to": "22290__0_022", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_024", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, aren't we dealing here with a time bar issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [467.267], "stop_times": [470.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 467.267}, "reply_to": "22290__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22290__0_025", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "We are.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [470.58], "stop_times": [471.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 470.58}, "reply_to": "22290__0_024", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_026", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "I mean, there... there was not a determination below, but an extraordinary amount of time expired before the application was made.\nWhy would that count as some extraordinary circumstance?\nWhy shouldn't the petitioner be stuck with the time bar?\nI don't see how this fits even under your proposed rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [471.986, 482.261, 487.83, 491.705], "stop_times": [482.261, 487.83, 491.705, 495.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 471.986}, "reply_to": "22290__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22290__0_027", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "I was going to ask the same question.\nIt's about as pedestrian an issue as you could get.\nIt comes up all the time.\nI mean, this is not a cosmic legal issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [495.299, 496.157, 499.013, 500.103], "stop_times": [496.157, 499.013, 500.103, 502.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 495.299}, "reply_to": "22290__0_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22290__0_028", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "It really isn't as pedestrian as it may have seemed.\nWe underwent a change in the law, in AEDPA, that the Court has recognized is not fully clear.\nAnd so this was one provision the Court had to clarify in Artuz v. Bennett, and there was a very small number of cases.\nI think we totaled eight in which relief was granted because district courts had incorrectly barred a petitioner from the first petition because it really wasn't a violation of... of the statute of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [502.346, 506.212, 513.145, 520.062], "stop_times": [506.212, 513.145, 520.062, 531.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 502.346}, "reply_to": "22290__0_027", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_029", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Why... why did Florida deny relief in... in the post-conviction?\nI mean, one reason that looks like it might apply is that Florida had a 2 year statute of limitations and this was brought up 14 years later.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [531.94, 537.325], "stop_times": [537.325, 546.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 531.94}, "reply_to": "22290__0_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__0_030", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, it wasn't a 2-year statute of limitations, Your Honor.\nIn fact, it was slightly different from the Federal statute of limitations as well.\nThere is a provision that allows for newly discovered evidence to bypass the standard 2-year statute of limitations, which by the way, the Florida statute of limitations wasn't even adopted until well after my client was convicted.\nAs you know, he says that he was told at his sentencing proceeding, you'll serve 13 years, thereabouts, on a 99-year sentence, and that induced his plea of guilty in this case.\nAnd when 13 years came about, he inquired what's happening and they said, no, that's not going to happen.\nYou have a release date of 2057.\nAnd as I think the Court knows from its decision in Linz v. Mathis, Florida... Florida statutes really changed in that way.\nGain time was reduced gradually and then much more quickly so that someone who might have served 13 years in 1982 is really looking at serving the 99.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [546.129, 548.763, 553.605, 565.71, 574.951, 581.263, 583.139, 590.035], "stop_times": [548.763, 553.605, 565.71, 574.951, 581.263, 583.139, 590.035, 599.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 546.129}, "reply_to": "22290__0_029", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_031", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Are you saying that counsel... what... what he alleges counsel told him was, in fact, accurate at the time counsel said it, that somebody who got a 99-year sentence wouldn't have to serve more than 13 years?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [599.986], "stop_times": [614.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 599.986}, "reply_to": "22290__0_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__0_032", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "To be clear... and... and I want to be clear about his allegation is... because he does not speak English... that the interpreter told him this, and this was not during a plea colloquy.\nThis was during discussions between the lawyer and the client through an interpreter in advance of the plea itself.\nAnd so his allegation has consistently been that that's what the interpreter told him his lawyer said.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [614.653, 624.437, 630.516], "stop_times": [624.437, 630.516, 635.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 614.653}, "reply_to": "22290__0_031", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_033", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "But has that been determined--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [635.993], "stop_times": [637.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 635.993}, "reply_to": "22290__0_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22290__0_034", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [637.505], "stop_times": [638.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 637.505}, "reply_to": "22290__0_033", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_035", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--by some court?\nThat's the allegation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [638.21, 638.83], "stop_times": [638.83, 640.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 638.21}, "reply_to": "22290__0_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22290__0_036", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [640.186], "stop_times": [640.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 640.186}, "reply_to": "22290__0_035", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_037", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--pure and simple--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [640.653], "stop_times": [641.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 640.653}, "reply_to": "22290__0_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22290__0_038", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [641.29], "stop_times": [641.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 641.29}, "reply_to": "22290__0_037", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_039", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--yet to be determined.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [641.824], "stop_times": [642.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 641.824}, "reply_to": "22290__0_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22290__0_040", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "And it's never been.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [642.608], "stop_times": [643.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.608}, "reply_to": "22290__0_039", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_041", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "And so we have to know how the time bar element folds in here, and in an ordinary civil case, a time bar would be an adjudication on the merits.\nI mean, that... that would end the case, and why would it be a different, more liberal rule in habeas?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [643.823, 656.369], "stop_times": [656.369, 665.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 643.823}, "reply_to": "22290__0_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22290__0_042", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "It is because that's the way the Court has treated it.\nThe Court has always--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [665.458, 668.683], "stop_times": [668.683, 670.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 665.458}, "reply_to": "22290__0_041", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_043", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "But you're... you're saying it is extraordinary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [670.359], "stop_times": [672.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 670.359}, "reply_to": "22290__0_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22290__0_044", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--In a different sense I'm saying it.\nIn terms of computing whether a time bar is on the merits, the Court has not used that concept, which does relate to some sort of civil proceedings.\nPlaut would make it appear first to money judgment type cases.\nBut the Court has not used that standard, for example, in Martinez-Villareal, has not used it in Slack v. McDaniel.\nInstead, the Court has not looked at the nomenclature of the order that dismissed the case or denied this case.\nInstead, the Court looks to did the... the court below address the claims of the petitioner.\nAnd of course, a claim of statute of limitations is not a claim of a petitioner.\nThat's an affirmative defense of the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [672.894, 675.513, 684.26, 687.178, 693.205, 699.751, 706.89, 710.439], "stop_times": [675.513, 684.26, 687.178, 693.205, 699.751, 706.89, 710.439, 711.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 672.894}, "reply_to": "22290__0_043", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_045", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Okay.\nCounsel, what... that... that brings me to a question that I don't understand about your argument.\nIt seems to me you're biting off more than you have to bite off here.\nWould you win on the following argument?\nAnd I will tell you in advance that it looks to me as though you would.\nBut maybe there's some reason you're not making it.\nNumber one, your statute of limitations claim is not the kind of claim that AEDPA is concerned with when it deals with limits on second and successive petitions.\nNumber two, although a statute of limitations issue is on the merits, it is not on the merits in the second or successive petition category.\nIn this case, you don't have to worry about making a... an... an AEDPA end run so far as second or successive goes, and therefore, 60(b) can be used simply not as a wide-open door, but as a door that could be opened when your claim is a claim about a rule that barred you from getting into Federal court, which is what the statute of limitations rule does.\nThat's all you're asking for.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [711.918, 712.074, 715.732, 718.671, 721.677, 724.806, 727.131, 738.414, 751.784, 780.826], "stop_times": [712.074, 715.732, 718.671, 721.677, 724.806, 727.131, 738.414, 751.784, 780.826, 783.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 711.918}, "reply_to": "22290__0_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22290__0_046", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [783.165], "stop_times": [783.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 783.165}, "reply_to": "22290__0_045", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_047", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "And finally, you have an extraordinary situation here because you have a later determination in Artuz which declared the law not as a change in the law, but as what the law presumably meant from day one.\nAs I understand it, if we accepted that argument, you would win.\nDo you agree?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [783.997, 797.685, 801.98], "stop_times": [797.685, 801.98, 802.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 783.997}, "reply_to": "22290__0_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22290__0_048", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [802.644], "stop_times": [803.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 802.644}, "reply_to": "22290__0_047", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_049", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Then why don't you make that argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [803.306], "stop_times": [804.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 803.306}, "reply_to": "22290__0_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22290__0_050", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "I do make that argument, and to the extent... and... and I make that argument, but that argument was rejected in the court below which addressed it with a completely different approach.\nAnd so I begin in this Court by having to address where I was in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [804.695, 814.929], "stop_times": [814.929, 819.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 804.695}, "reply_to": "22290__0_049", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_051", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Can you go back to the district court before the Eleventh Circuit?\nYou've now told me that the ground on which the Florida court denied relief was not based on the statute of limitations.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [819.932, 822.675, 834.478], "stop_times": [822.675, 834.478, 834.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 819.932}, "reply_to": "22290__0_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__0_052", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [834.866], "stop_times": [835.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 834.866}, "reply_to": "22290__0_051", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_053", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "In the Federal court, what is the ground on which relief was denied and how would Artuz affect that decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [835.294], "stop_times": [845.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 835.294}, "reply_to": "22290__0_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__0_054", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "In the Federal court, the district judge said that the tolling provision would not apply here because it was the district court's determination that it was untimely when filed in the State court.\nThat was not, however, the position of the Florida courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [845.62, 859.167], "stop_times": [859.167, 861.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 845.62}, "reply_to": "22290__0_053", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_055", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "No, but your... your immediate concern is how do I get into a Federal court.\nWhether you win or lose once you get in there is another problem, but I... as I understand it, that's not what we're dealing with here.\nAnd... and the... you... you were kept out of the district court on a statute of limitations issue.\nIf you can say... if you argue all I've got in front of you, us, is a statute of limitations issue, that's all I want under... to raise under 60(b) and I have an extraordinary claim here because of the subsequent Artuz decision, that will get you into Federal court, if we accept that argument.\nWhether... whether you win or lose, once you get there, I don't know, and I don't know that that's before us.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [861.886, 866.318, 873.064, 878.658, 897.95], "stop_times": [866.318, 873.064, 878.658, 897.95, 902.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 861.886}, "reply_to": "22290__0_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22290__0_056", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "And it is not clear.\nI wish it were because that's precisely what my pro se client wrote in his rule 60(b) motion.\nHe said I have been denied my right to a first petition because of an incorrect determination on the statute of limitations, that the Artuz decision makes clear that I was entitled to a tolling period that I was not awarded, and I would like judgment modified or reopened.\nAnd that's as clear as a pro se litigant can make that claim.\nThat's what the claim has been from the very beginning, long before I was ever counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [902.603, 903.875, 908.523, 925.144, 928.634], "stop_times": [903.875, 908.523, 925.144, 928.634, 932.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 902.603}, "reply_to": "22290__0_055", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_057", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--You... you had a question.\nRemember my... you were giving me the three principles to prevent the end run.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [932.913, 935.906], "stop_times": [935.906, 939.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 932.913}, "reply_to": "22290__0_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__0_058", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [939.751], "stop_times": [940.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 939.751}, "reply_to": "22290__0_057", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_059", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "And the first was good cause.\nThe second was potentially meritorious underlying issues, and the third is?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [940.266, 941.836], "stop_times": [941.836, 945.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 940.266}, "reply_to": "22290__0_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__0_060", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "No indication of dilatory tactics by the plaintiff.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [945.938], "stop_times": [948.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 945.938}, "reply_to": "22290__0_059", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_061", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [948.555], "stop_times": [948.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 948.555}, "reply_to": "22290__0_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__0_062", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "And this is very helpful I think because it gives those three rules, which the Court has given us in Rhines, helped us and helped the district court to sort out the things that shouldn't be stopping or reopening proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [948.979], "stop_times": [961.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 948.979}, "reply_to": "22290__0_061", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_063", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "May... may I ask you a question that may be a little bit collateral?\nThere was disagreement on the court of appeals, as I remember it, as to whether or not a COA requirement applies to a denial of a 60(b) motion.\nWhat is your view on that issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [961.404, 964.334, 972.619], "stop_times": [964.334, 972.619, 974.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 961.404}, "reply_to": "22290__0_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22290__0_064", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, I actually argued and I do believe that it shouldn't require a COA.\nAnd the reason is because... part of the reason is because this case began before Slack v. McDaniel and continued after.\nAnd I think that's where Judge Tjoflat's opinion came from.\nHow can someone whose case is dismissed procedurally ever get a COA?\nIt's impossible because there's never going to be a constitutional issue.\nBy virtue of the procedural ruling, the constitutional was not addressed.\nAnd Judge Tjoflat continued that dissenting position through the en banc decision, and I share the view that it is virtually impossible, if not completely impossible, in the typical case of a procedural resolution of the case, to ever get a COA.\nIn this case, the majority would point to the fact the my client did receive a certificate of appealability, but I don't think there are many others who will every get it because the question presented was, is a rule 60(b) still viable post AEDPA?\nAnd that question won't recur, certainly not after the Court rules here.\nAnd I think the very genuine concern that Judge Tjoflat had was and that he... that he articulated is it's virtually impossible to get appellate review.\nOne of the things we know about habeas corpus is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [974.131, 978.607, 986.779, 990.756, 995.644, 999.022, 1002.789, 1020.16, 1034.372, 1037.655, 1046.029], "stop_times": [978.607, 986.779, 990.756, 995.644, 999.022, 1002.789, 1020.16, 1034.372, 1037.655, 1046.029, 1049.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 974.131}, "reply_to": "22290__0_063", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_065", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, we're not talking about ordinary appellate review.\nWe're talking about an appeal from an adverse decision by a Federal habeas court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1049.702, 1052.837], "stop_times": [1052.837, 1059.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1049.702}, "reply_to": "22290__0_064", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22290__0_066", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1059.38], "stop_times": [1059.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1059.38}, "reply_to": "22290__0_065", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_067", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "So that wasn't quite as strange as you make it sound.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1059.855], "stop_times": [1063.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1059.855}, "reply_to": "22290__0_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22290__0_068", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "It is for this reason, Mr. Chief Justice.\nBefore, you could file successive applications.\nIn the early days of habeas corpus, you could file successive applications.\nAnd the reason given was there was no appeal.\nAnd so you could go from one judge to the next judge because there were no appeals.\nThen, of course, we had appeals, and the reason for having successive petitions would diminish.\nBut what has happened to the appeal in a habeas corpus case is it has become so constrained that in many respects it doesn't exist, and that's what happened here.\nHere's my client who faces a situation in which he has clearly been thrown out of court improperly, and he goes to the court of appeals to have that decision reviewed and can't get past the gateway of the certificate of appealability.\nAnd so he has no opportunity to really have an appellate review.\nHe has none.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1063.462, 1066.805, 1071.317, 1074.701, 1076.932, 1080.96, 1086.097, 1096.044, 1106.954, 1110.704], "stop_times": [1066.805, 1071.317, 1074.701, 1076.932, 1080.96, 1086.097, 1096.044, 1106.954, 1110.704, 1111.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1063.462}, "reply_to": "22290__0_067", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_069", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, but maybe that's what Congress wanted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1111.258], "stop_times": [1113.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1111.258}, "reply_to": "22290__0_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22290__0_070", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "I don't think Congress did intend that.\nWhen we looked--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1113.37, 1116.108], "stop_times": [1116.108, 1116.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1113.37}, "reply_to": "22290__0_069", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_071", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "But why isn't that always the case if it's time-barred?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1116.936], "stop_times": [1119.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.936}, "reply_to": "22290__0_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22290__0_072", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--If it is time--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1119.895], "stop_times": [1124.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1119.895}, "reply_to": "22290__0_071", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_073", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "If it's time-barred, you never have your chance to have the merits argued.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1124.089], "stop_times": [1128.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1124.089}, "reply_to": "22290__0_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22290__0_074", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Well, that's one of the ways in which a case could be dismissed procedurally, but it's not time-barred if the court rules it was erroneously.\nAnd that's the concern that I think my client has here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1128.298, 1136.527], "stop_times": [1136.527, 1140.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1128.298}, "reply_to": "22290__0_073", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_075", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Do we bring this all to a halt?\nI mean, there's always one more argument to make that the last court to rule against me was wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1140.216, 1143.337], "stop_times": [1143.337, 1150.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1140.216}, "reply_to": "22290__0_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22290__0_076", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "One of the nice things about rule 60(b) is it really is a disciplined approach to a court examining its own mistakes.\nIt isn't a wide-open door in any respect.\nIt is a disciplined approach.\nThere are six specific grounds, and even though the sixth one looks like it's wide-open, it certainly isn't under the jurisprudence of the Court.\nAnd so what this does is provide a very important opportunity for a judge to be able to look at an intervening decision from the Supreme Court of the United States and say, I have denied this person what Congress wanted them to have.\nThere's no question.\nOne reads AEDPA and one thing is very clear.\nThey... Congress intended for a person who has exhausted claims, not procedurally defaulted them in State court, and has filed a timely petition, that person under 2254 is entitled to have the claim entertained.\nAnd when a court makes a mistake, a procedural mistake, that forgoes or eliminates the opportunity for review, and that fairly reviewable on appeal, depending on how the certificate of appealability may be phrased... and often these folks are pro se... I think what happens is 2254 has failed and what Congress intended to happen isn't going to happen.\nThe person was entitled to one petition, one bite at the apple and never receives that bite at the apple.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1150.484, 1160.791, 1163.145, 1165.036, 1171.934, 1185.337, 1186.509, 1189.559, 1203.989, 1228.026], "stop_times": [1160.791, 1163.145, 1165.036, 1171.934, 1185.337, 1186.509, 1189.559, 1203.989, 1228.026, 1232.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1150.484}, "reply_to": "22290__0_075", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_077", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, now, the Federal Government has a different proposed rule than yours.\nAre you going to comment on their proposal?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1232.983, 1238.886], "stop_times": [1238.886, 1242.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1232.983}, "reply_to": "22290__0_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22290__0_078", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "I will.\nWith due deference to my colleagues, it's 177 words long, over two pages.\nAnd that's why I thought that the approach that we brought to the Court from the other nine circuits is a simpler... what I would call a simple two-step.\nTheir approach actually can be read, as we did in our reply brief, to fit within our own rule, but I think the problem with the Government's rule is it is so broad and it does not rely upon any of the Court's precedents in... in its writing.\nAnd so what you do, if you adopt a rule like that, first of all, is create confusion.\nAnd secondly, what you do is you make a whole new set of rules that are separate and apart from what you... the Court has previously done in its AEDPA jurisprudence.\nTo be able to touch upon Slack v. McDaniel, to be able to draw upon Martinez-Villareal, to be able to take from Rhines v. Weber, create a formula and a package that's familiar to the courts, to take a rule that's 177 words long that the Government puts together that I interpret as being favorable to my client and they interpret as being unfavorable to my client, I think just puts the kind of difficulty in the courts that this case should try to avoid.\nSo my comment on it is that it may well, if it's read as we did in our reply brief, be the same thing that we're saying and what I refer to as a simple two-step test.\nAnd if not, it's just going to be a source of great confusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1242.248, 1243.195, 1249.595, 1258.126, 1273.321, 1277.87, 1288.113, 1313.711, 1324.539], "stop_times": [1243.195, 1249.595, 1258.126, 1273.321, 1277.87, 1288.113, 1313.711, 1324.539, 1328.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1242.248}, "reply_to": "22290__0_077", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_079", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "What about the... you... you said 60(b) fits this like a glove because it's the district court correcting its own errors.\nBut it isn't usually... 60(b) was framed with the idea of the district court being the very first instance court.\nAnd here you will have the district court as the third going up the ladder.\nSo... and... and given that the habeas rules say that... that civil rules are applicable but have to be modified to be compatible with habeas jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1328.118, 1338.282, 1347.853, 1354.232], "stop_times": [1338.282, 1347.853, 1354.232, 1367.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1328.118}, "reply_to": "22290__0_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__0_080", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "I think it's very important to realize that both rule 81 of the Federal Rules of Federal Procedure and rule 11 of the rules of habeas procedure, which the State would have us use as a constraint, really are the first things that tell us that there's supposed to be a functional approach.\nBoth of those rules tell us that the rules apply to the extent that they're compatible, and so that's certainly not a categorical approach.\nThat is a functional approach.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1367.569, 1382.361, 1390.487], "stop_times": [1382.361, 1390.487, 1391.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1367.569}, "reply_to": "22290__0_079", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_081", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "But the... the Government, by the way, seems a broader rule than yours.\nThe only thing it rules out is new legal claims or new evidence.\nI don't see anything in your... tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anywhere where you say we should be able to bring a 60(b) motion based on new legal claims or new evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1391.656, 1395.736, 1399.773], "stop_times": [1395.736, 1399.773, 1409.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1391.656}, "reply_to": "22290__0_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__0_082", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "New legal... this is the part that I think we have to look both at 60(b) and the statute.\nNew claims... new claims... are brought under 2244(b)(2).\nSame claims are either going to be barred by (b)(1) or, if heard at all, under 60(b).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1409.86, 1414.637, 1419.112], "stop_times": [1414.637, 1419.112, 1426.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1409.86}, "reply_to": "22290__0_081", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_083", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "That's what I said.\nI don't see how the Government hurts you.\nI think... I think if you the Government's, you're even better off.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1426.587, 1426.733, 1427.47], "stop_times": [1426.733, 1427.47, 1431.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1426.587}, "reply_to": "22290__0_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__0_084", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, I think that they're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1431.001], "stop_times": [1432.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1431.001}, "reply_to": "22290__0_083", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_085", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "I mean, it's even... but I want to know why... why... there's some reason you don't like the Government, and... and... other than fact that they must hurt you in some way.\nI don't see how it hurts you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1432.814, 1440.516], "stop_times": [1440.516, 1441.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1432.814}, "reply_to": "22290__0_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__0_086", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Well, I don't think it does, but they do.\nSo that troubles me.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1441.954, 1444.234, 1445.469], "stop_times": [1444.234, 1445.469, 1447.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1441.954}, "reply_to": "22290__0_085", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_087", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--make us--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1447.187], "stop_times": [1447.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1447.187}, "reply_to": "22290__0_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__0_088", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "They make an argument that under their test, my client should not prevail.\nI can make an argument under our test my client prevails.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1447.639, 1450.79], "stop_times": [1450.79, 1453.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1447.639}, "reply_to": "22290__0_087", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_089", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--And under their test too, you say it's applying the same rule of... it's not a new claim.\nIt's the same claim as... as... just that they... shows that the district judge got it wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1453.452, 1457.697], "stop_times": [1457.697, 1463.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1453.452}, "reply_to": "22290__0_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__0_090", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "I think the heart of the Government's position is it requires a much more radical departure from general procedure than a simple change of law.\nBut I don't think it's a simple change of law, for example, when it is an intervening decision that interprets a statute that was in effect and that the mistake of not interpreting correctly is to effectively bar the first bite at the habeas apple.\nNow, the Government does not give that ground in their test, and I think it's important that the Court leave that door open.\nAnd that's why I think our test is better and theirs in inadequate.\nI think ultimately we come down to three issues that support the position that we're taking.\nChief Judge Edmonson made note of this in his concurring and dissenting opinion.\nHe was troubled that we were not giving effect to both laws that Congress had approved, 60(b) and AEDPA.\nBy virtue of the majority rule, 60(b) had been categorically eliminated.\nAnd I think the position we take before the Court today is that the Court should honor both provisions that Congress has adopted.\nMay I reserve the balance of my time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1463.343, 1474.285, 1487.921, 1493.348, 1497.253, 1510.977, 1517.25, 1525.124, 1530.103, 1537.165], "stop_times": [1474.285, 1487.921, 1493.348, 1497.253, 1510.977, 1517.25, 1525.124, 1530.103, 1537.165, 1539.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1463.343}, "reply_to": "22290__0_089", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_091", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Very well, Mr. Rashkind.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1539.766], "stop_times": [1541.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1539.766}, "reply_to": "22290__0_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22290__0_092", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1541.269], "stop_times": [1541.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1541.269}, "reply_to": "22290__0_091", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__0_093", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Mr. Kise, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1541.501], "stop_times": [1543.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1541.501}, "reply_to": "22290__0_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22290__1_000", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case presents a fundamental inconsistency to this Court.\nCongress said through AEDPA that a habeas petitioner is to take all their claims, put them in one basket, bring them to court within 1 year, and a sovereign State is going to defend that judgment in Federal court one time.\nRule 60(b) says, petitioner, use as many baskets as you need, take as long as you like, and the State, you're going to have to keep coming back over and over and over again.\nAnd this case here presents that... that very problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1543.412, 1552.701, 1557.151, 1571.398, 1582.677], "stop_times": [1552.701, 1557.151, 1571.398, 1582.677, 1586.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1543.412}, "reply_to": "22290__0_093", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_001", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Isn't that an exaggeration of how 60(b) works in practice?\nIt isn't that every civil judgment can come back and back again with 60(b) motions.\nThe district courts have been rather disciplined in handling 60(b) motions.\nSo I think you have exaggerated what 60(b) does in the ordinary civil rules context.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1586.369, 1589.686, 1595.278, 1600.203], "stop_times": [1589.686, 1595.278, 1600.203, 1607.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1586.369}, "reply_to": "22290__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__1_002", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, respectfully, Justice Ginsburg, I... I would disagree with that in this sense.\nI would disagree with it in the sense that as Justice O'Connor pointed out, if this Court were to open that door, I think you would see that sort of abuse.\nI think you would see that sort of manipulation of the process.\nI think you would see that sort of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1607.256, 1611.595, 1617.823, 1620.8], "stop_times": [1611.595, 1617.823, 1620.8, 1622.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1607.256}, "reply_to": "22290__1_001", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_003", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "But have we seen it in the... there are other circuits who do adopt that rule, aren't there?\nAnd have we seen the abuse you're describing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1622.089, 1626.291], "stop_times": [1626.291, 1627.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1622.089}, "reply_to": "22290__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22290__1_004", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--We have not yet, but I would submit to Your Honor that that is because there is still this uncertainty because this case is here before this Court, and... and because this has not yet been approved.\nIf this is approved by this Court, then you're going to see sovereign States like Florida dragged back in here nearly 25 years later--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1627.822, 1636.429], "stop_times": [1636.429, 1643.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1627.822}, "reply_to": "22290__1_003", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_005", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, that depends--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1643.533], "stop_times": [1644.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1643.533}, "reply_to": "22290__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22290__1_006", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, I had the same comment or the same reaction as Justice Ginsburg.\nForget about the habeas area.\nJust in... with general civil judgments, have there been Law Review articles saying that rule 60(b) undermines finality?\nPeople kept going back, back, and back.\nI... I thought quite the opposite, that we were living very well with rule 60(b).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1644.548, 1647.247, 1649.841, 1656.28, 1658.044], "stop_times": [1647.247, 1649.841, 1656.28, 1658.044, 1661.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.548}, "reply_to": "22290__1_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22290__1_007", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Well, in... in the ordinary civil context, that's perhaps correct, Your Honor, but... but this isn't the ordinary civil context.\nThis is the habeas context.\nAnd Congress has said that this is the structure that we want to take.\nThis is the rule that we want to take.\nAnd as this Court has recognized that... that AEDPA was passed with... with this enduring respect for finality, this respect for the sovereignty of States.\nState, you're only going to have to come back here one time.\nYou're only supposed to litigate one time, one... all the claims in one basket.\nThey're brought within 1 year, and the State is to defend its judgment one time because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1661.796, 1667.051, 1668.209, 1672.476, 1673.738, 1681.022, 1684.245, 1688.604], "stop_times": [1667.051, 1668.209, 1672.476, 1673.738, 1681.022, 1684.245, 1688.604, 1692.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1661.796}, "reply_to": "22290__1_006", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_008", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Okay.\nBut his... his whole argument is you, State, get exactly what you're entitled to if I win on 60(b) because what I was entitled to and what you were entitled to was the 1-year statute but subject to the rule in Artuz.\nThat's all you get, State.\nAnd what he is saying is, I want to get back into court so that I can have the statute of limitations... the benefit of the statute of limitations as Artuz construed it.\nThat means you, State, get what you want and I get my one chance.\nHow is that an open door to the abuse that you're talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1692.825, 1693.331, 1710.125, 1712.798, 1724.086, 1728.446], "stop_times": [1693.331, 1710.125, 1712.798, 1724.086, 1728.446, 1731.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1692.825}, "reply_to": "22290__1_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22290__1_009", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, again, there... there has to be some finality to the process, and... and here what the petitioner got was at the time a perceptively correct view of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1731.899], "stop_times": [1743.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1731.899}, "reply_to": "22290__1_008", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_010", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "He got what Artuz said was an erroneous view of the statute of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1743.221], "stop_times": [1747.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.221}, "reply_to": "22290__1_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22290__1_011", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "2 years after the district judge made his ruling in this particular case.\nAnd it... it was in this particular case 2 years.\nIt could be 10 years.\nIt could be 15 years, and that's the problem that we see is that if--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1747.029, 1751.307, 1753.698, 1754.63], "stop_times": [1751.307, 1753.698, 1754.63, 1757.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1747.029}, "reply_to": "22290__1_010", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_012", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "And do you... do you think that there is... that there is this... this sort of tidal wave of... of erroneous statute of limitations determinations that, if Artuz is applied, will suddenly be coming 5, 10, and 20 years into Federal court?\nI mean, it... it... your argument, in relation to his particular claim seems exaggerated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1757.831, 1773.895], "stop_times": [1773.895, 1780.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1757.831}, "reply_to": "22290__1_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22290__1_013", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, it's not exaggerated when you look at it from the standpoint that... that Congress intended us to be in court one time to defend this judgment in Federal court.\nWe were there.\nHe received a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1780.577, 1791.144, 1791.879], "stop_times": [1791.144, 1791.879, 1793.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1780.577}, "reply_to": "22290__1_012", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_014", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "You... you were there for the purpose of getting him booted out.\nI mean, you didn't... you didn't get into the merits of anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1793.217, 1796.179], "stop_times": [1796.179, 1798.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1793.217}, "reply_to": "22290__1_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22290__1_015", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Well, he received a... a final disposition on the non-technical procedural basis which was the applicable law at the time.\nHe received that adjudication and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1798.52, 1805.1], "stop_times": [1805.1, 1807.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1798.52}, "reply_to": "22290__1_014", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_016", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, it was not the applicable law at the time.\nThe decision related back to before that hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1807.409, 1809.286], "stop_times": [1809.286, 1811.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1807.409}, "reply_to": "22290__1_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22290__1_017", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, then that would, respectfully, eviscerate any... any notion of... of the statute of limitations--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1811.822], "stop_times": [1817.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1811.822}, "reply_to": "22290__1_016", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_018", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "No.\nSometimes there are law changing decisions, but this was not a law-changing decision.\nIt's a decision interpreting what the law was from the date of its enactment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1817.698, 1817.875, 1821.975], "stop_times": [1817.875, 1821.975, 1825.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.698}, "reply_to": "22290__1_017", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22290__1_019", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--But based on that, Your Honor, then there would be no statute of limitations.\nIf... if that decision came out 10 years from now, we would then be back in this Court on a 60(b) motion, which I would submit is fundamentally inconsistent with what Congress intended.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1825.678, 1828.842], "stop_times": [1828.842, 1838.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1825.678}, "reply_to": "22290__1_018", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_020", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "If there had been an Artuz violation and not every statute of limitations determination implicates Artuz.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1838.636], "stop_times": [1844.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1838.636}, "reply_to": "22290__1_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22290__1_021", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nBut at the same time, there may be some other mistake or some other excusable neglect or some other issue that comes up.\nI mean, what Congress intended to prevent is not just the successful filing of a 60(b) or the successful revisiting, if you will, of the judgment.\nIt... it intended to prevent the actual attempt itself.\nI mean, the idea is... is that once this judgment is adjudicated, once we've had this adjudication, you are not to come back.\nYou are not to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1844.852, 1845.806, 1851.977, 1859.799, 1863.335, 1869.813], "stop_times": [1845.806, 1851.977, 1859.799, 1863.335, 1869.813, 1870.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1844.852}, "reply_to": "22290__1_020", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_022", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, what... what Congress was principally concerned with... Congress was concerned with two things.\nIt was concerned with second and successive.\nThat's not what is before us.\nCongress was also concerned with a 1-year statute of limitations.\nWhat is before us on that point is that this guy did not get the benefit of the statute of limitations that he had a right to get the benefit of, that there was a flat mistake of law.\nSo by... by recognizing his statute of limitations claim, we do not open the door to second and successive litigation.\nWe open the door simply to Artuz problems on statute of limitations rulings and that's a pretty narrow category it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1870.471, 1874.704, 1876.886, 1879.305, 1883.578, 1895.904, 1904.982], "stop_times": [1874.704, 1876.886, 1879.305, 1883.578, 1895.904, 1904.982, 1913.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1870.471}, "reply_to": "22290__1_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22290__1_023", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--But I would... I would respectfully disagree with Your Honor's premise that... that he... he's not seeking to revisit an adjudicated petition.\nHe did... he is seeking, as... as we see it, to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1913.268, 1920.199], "stop_times": [1920.199, 1922.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1913.268}, "reply_to": "22290__1_022", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_024", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Sure.\nSure, he does.\nAnd if it's second and successive, he's going to get thrown out again.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1922.942, 1923.126, 1923.362], "stop_times": [1923.126, 1923.362, 1925.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.942}, "reply_to": "22290__1_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22290__1_025", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--And we would submit that it is second and successive because it's seeking to revisit that adjudication, an adjudication that was had on a non technical procedural basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1925.825], "stop_times": [1933.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1925.825}, "reply_to": "22290__1_024", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_026", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "So that's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1933.808], "stop_times": [1934.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1933.808}, "reply_to": "22290__1_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__1_027", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "You may... you may be right, but that's what district courts are there for.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1934.388], "stop_times": [1936.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1934.388}, "reply_to": "22290__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22290__1_028", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "But... but the Congress intended to take that discretion away from the district courts.\n2244(b)(1) says you will not look at it again, and 2244(b)(3) says, in fact, that when you do go back to potentially revisit an issue, when you do go back to potentially look at a second or successive, that it's not even the same district judge that makes that determination.\nAs in 60(b), you go back to the same judge.\n2244(b)(3) says, no, a three-judge panel of a circuit court of appeals must first determine whether or not you even have a right to get in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1936.767, 1940.569, 1956.407, 1958.81], "stop_times": [1940.569, 1956.407, 1958.81, 1967.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1936.767}, "reply_to": "22290__1_027", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_029", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--That's also true of (b)(3).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1967.484], "stop_times": [1968.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1967.484}, "reply_to": "22290__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__1_030", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1968.934], "stop_times": [1970.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1968.934}, "reply_to": "22290__1_029", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_031", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "And not even the Eleventh Circuit said (b)(3).\nAnd therefore, you want to say absolute, or are we really talking about which 60(b) motions escape the strictures of AEDPA?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1970.103, 1972.841], "stop_times": [1972.841, 1983.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1970.103}, "reply_to": "22290__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__1_032", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Well, I... I think we're talking about which 60(b)(3) motions... or 60(b) motions do escape the strictures of AEDPA.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1983.874], "stop_times": [1991.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1983.874}, "reply_to": "22290__1_031", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_033", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "And you're prepared to defend the... the Eleventh Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1991.084], "stop_times": [1993.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1991.084}, "reply_to": "22290__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__1_034", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "I... I am, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1993.869], "stop_times": [1995.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1993.869}, "reply_to": "22290__1_033", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_035", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Correct, though you're alone on that because even the Government doesn't and nor does the Criminal Justice.\nBut if you're prepared to defend them, I guess you'd say why is it that they will allow (b)(3), fraud on the court by the adverse party, to escape, but should your own witness turn out to have been committing his own fraud for whatever set of reasons, you can't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [1995.365, 2000.189], "stop_times": [2000.189, 2017.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1995.365}, "reply_to": "22290__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__1_036", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, I would... I would say why fraud... to answer your question, Your Honor, why fraud... let me back up first to the premise that... that our position and the Government's position are not far apart.\nI would respectfully say that... that we are not that far apart.\nI do not see that much light between the positions, although I know their brief leaves some room--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2017.508, 2026.322, 2029.765], "stop_times": [2026.322, 2029.765, 2033.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2017.508}, "reply_to": "22290__1_035", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_037", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, under I guess the Government, you can bring everything under 60(b).\nBy the way, if they do bring a motion to reopen under 60(b) because of change of law, they're almost bound to lose.\nThere are hardly any cases which find that an adequate ground under 60(b).\nBut they let you do anything under 60(b), I take it, as long as the claims presented do not... as long as they are not trying to obtain relief on the basis of new legal claims or new evidence.\nNow, I just noticed there's another one here.\nDo not support habeas relief.\nMaybe that's the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2033.155, 2037.0, 2044.419, 2049.554, 2065.357, 2067.001, 2069.237], "stop_times": [2037.0, 2044.419, 2049.554, 2065.357, 2067.001, 2069.237, 2071.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2033.155}, "reply_to": "22290__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__1_038", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Perhaps I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2071.091], "stop_times": [2072.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2071.091}, "reply_to": "22290__1_037", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_039", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "You explain.\nI... I thought when I first read this, that this was quite broad, but I may not have read it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2072.286, 2072.779], "stop_times": [2072.779, 2076.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2072.286}, "reply_to": "22290__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__1_040", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Well, and I don't want to pretend to speak for the United States because... because that... that might cause me to misspeak.\nBut to answer your question about why fraud is different, I... I have three bases for why fraud is different and why we think that that exception is the right exception.\nOne, this Court has said in the past that fraud is different than other things.\nIn the Hazel case that's cited in Calderon, this Court has said that tampering with the administration of justice through fraud involves more than an injury to a single litigant.\nIt is a wrong against the very institutions designed to safeguard the public, institutions that cannot tolerate fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2076.953, 2082.703, 2089.899, 2094.443, 2103.292], "stop_times": [2082.703, 2089.899, 2094.443, 2103.292, 2109.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2076.953}, "reply_to": "22290__1_039", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_041", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--So is that also true if his own witness has committed the fraud?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2109.498], "stop_times": [2112.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2109.498}, "reply_to": "22290__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__1_042", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, I... I would... our fraud exception that... that we... we are delineating here is material, intentional conduct that subverts the process.\nAnd it can't be just anyone, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2112.509, 2121.372], "stop_times": [2121.372, 2122.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2112.509}, "reply_to": "22290__1_041", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_043", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2122.635], "stop_times": [2122.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.635}, "reply_to": "22290__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__1_044", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "It needs to be someone in a position to subvert the process for... for a purpose like the Government or the court if you... if... a judge that's been bribed in the unusual example of that, or... or the... the subornation of perjury in the Hazel sense.\nThose examples... that would be fraud that I think is what this Court was talking about in Hazel--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2122.901, 2138.134], "stop_times": [2138.134, 2143.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2122.901}, "reply_to": "22290__1_043", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_045", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "What about a claim that a witness perjured himself, a witness for the government, during trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2143.274], "stop_times": [2149.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2143.274}, "reply_to": "22290__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22290__1_046", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Well, a witness for... a... a claim that a witness for the government perjured himself during the trial would certainly implicate material, intentional conduct designed to subvert the process.\nAnd one of the advantages to using fraud is... is that it is a familiar bright line, workable standard for district courts.\nAnd with fraud, you have to plead a little bit more particularly, and so you would avoid in some respects some of the question marks that would come up--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2149.583, 2159.266, 2165.364], "stop_times": [2159.266, 2165.364, 2172.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2149.583}, "reply_to": "22290__1_045", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_047", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "And all I'm saying is exactly whatever criteria is met, but it happens to be his own witness, and sometimes your own witnesses do have their little games, you know, with prisoners, and so it's the same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2172.276], "stop_times": [2182.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2172.276}, "reply_to": "22290__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__1_048", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2182.592], "stop_times": [2183.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2182.592}, "reply_to": "22290__1_047", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_049", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Does that not count too?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2183.139], "stop_times": [2184.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2183.139}, "reply_to": "22290__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__1_050", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I think that would leave so much room for mischief, it would not be possible to contain the potential for... for appeals.\nI mean, if every jailhouse snitch were... were subject to... to the... the 60(b) exception that we're... we're articulating here, if every... every petitioner could simply say, well, my own witness that I put up on the stand... that... that witness perjured himself or herself, then... then the opportunity for mischief would abound, and we would be back in the same position that we would be in general with... with States having to respond again.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2184.015, 2190.105], "stop_times": [2190.105, 2212.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.015}, "reply_to": "22290__1_049", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_051", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Mr. Kise, this may be important.\nDo you agree with Mr. Rashkind that in the Florida court the dismissal or the denial of relief was not on the Florida statute of limitations--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2212.19, 2215.549], "stop_times": [2215.549, 2230.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2212.19}, "reply_to": "22290__1_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__1_052", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWe... we would submit that it is on the statute of limitations, that... that rule 3.850 provided the petitioner with 2 years within which to apply, and both of his petitions were dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.\nAnd I don't know that that matters--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2230.775, 2231.719, 2244.6], "stop_times": [2231.719, 2244.6, 2246.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2230.775}, "reply_to": "22290__1_051", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_053", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--But it's not... not clear from--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2246.861], "stop_times": [2247.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.861}, "reply_to": "22290__1_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__1_054", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--to the end result here, but... but that... that's our position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2247.168], "stop_times": [2249.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2247.168}, "reply_to": "22290__1_053", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_055", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--That's not what the... this is... the... the form of dismissal in the Florida Supreme Court doesn't tell us that.\nIt just says something about allegations contained therein do not constitute legal grounds for granting the new trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2249.146, 2259.595], "stop_times": [2259.595, 2268.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2249.146}, "reply_to": "22290__1_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__1_056", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Your Honor may be referring to the second 3.850 dismissal, and that second 3.850 didn't meet the requirements of the successive rule.\nThere... there was a first--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2268.972, 2279.305], "stop_times": [2279.305, 2281.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2268.972}, "reply_to": "22290__1_055", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_057", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "The first one was on the statute of limitations?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2281.428], "stop_times": [2283.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2281.428}, "reply_to": "22290__1_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__1_058", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, and then the second one was also on the statute of limitations in addition to the fact that it did not meet the requirements of... of the successive rule because it was essentially the same claim raised again.\nHe raised the same claim a second time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2283.359, 2293.007], "stop_times": [2293.007, 2295.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2283.359}, "reply_to": "22290__1_057", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_059", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Do we have that anyplace in... in the papers before us, the first... the first dismissal in the Florida... in the Florida trial court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2295.347], "stop_times": [2305.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2295.347}, "reply_to": "22290__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__1_060", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "I'm not sure exactly where it is in the appendix, Your Honor.\nLet me see.\nI... I don't know that we do.\nI know we have reference to it, but I don't know that we have the actual language.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2305.96, 2308.998, 2309.397, 2310.34], "stop_times": [2308.998, 2309.397, 2310.34, 2315.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2305.96}, "reply_to": "22290__1_059", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_061", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "But you said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2315.523], "stop_times": [2316.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2315.523}, "reply_to": "22290__1_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__1_062", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "It is... it is in the Eleventh Circuit opinion, I believe, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2316.391], "stop_times": [2319.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2316.391}, "reply_to": "22290__1_061", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_063", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--that it was based on the Florida 2-year statute of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2319.819], "stop_times": [2323.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2319.819}, "reply_to": "22290__1_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__1_064", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Yes.\nI believe... when I said opinion, I'm sorry.\nThe Eleventh Circuit record, Your Honor.\nIt is in the Eleventh Circuit record, the... the decision of the Florida court.\nBut it is not in the appendix before this Court.\nBut returning again to Justice Breyer, because I don't think I finished my three reasons.\nThe first was because this Court said and says fraud is different.\nThe second is because there never was a first review in that sense.\nI mean, they never obtained the first review that they... they were seeking.\nAnd the third is... is the State's finality interest, which this Court has... has recognized as... as near paramount under certain circumstances, must yield where you have the presence of fraud.\nAnd... and so that's why Florida maintains that this is the correct and... and only exception.\nAnd... and there are several reasons that we maintain that this is the correct and only exception.\nThe first and... and most important, and... and as I started this presentation, is that this is the only exception that preserves congressional intent.\nThe second is... is that AEDPA and rule 60(b) cannot coexist except in very narrow circumstances because they address the same subject matter in fundamentally different ways.\nAnd the third is, as I mentioned before, because the court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2323.343, 2325.449, 2327.671, 2329.029, 2333.545, 2336.68, 2343.616, 2347.928, 2351.482, 2354.148, 2364.791, 2373.008, 2377.559, 2385.493, 2395.538], "stop_times": [2325.449, 2327.671, 2329.029, 2333.545, 2336.68, 2343.616, 2347.928, 2351.482, 2354.148, 2364.791, 2373.008, 2377.559, 2385.493, 2395.538, 2398.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2323.343}, "reply_to": "22290__1_063", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_065", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "But is it correct that they address the same subject matter?\nIsn't 60(b) directed at the integrity of the habeas proceeding, whereas AEDPA is directed at the integrity of the original conviction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2398.933, 2401.37], "stop_times": [2401.37, 2409.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2398.933}, "reply_to": "22290__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22290__1_066", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Well, I... I would respectfully disagree with Your Honor because 2244(b)(1) does deal with the... the revisiting of the Federal habeas petition.\nThe 2244(b)(1) specifically applies to the revisitation of the Federal habeas petition.\nAnd in... in terms of how they deal with the same subject matter in different ways, as I began, AEDPA's whole purpose is to provide one basket of claims within 1 year so the State has to defend one time, and 60(b) allows for the potential... and... and I would submit to you more than just the potential if this Court were to approve a standard... for... for repetitive claims, many baskets, many... many years, and... and many times that the State has to come back.\nAnd as I say, in this case the... the principle of finality is all but abolished in this case and all be eviscerated simply by the fact that nearly 25 years later Florida is still in this Court defending this judgment that was based on a guilty plea, not even a... a conviction.\nAnd... and as this Court recognized, albeit not as part of the holding, but... but mentioned in... in Calderon with respect to the enduring respect for finality, this is something that has survived both direct and post-conviction review in the State court system.\nI mean, this is... this is Federal review of a sovereign State's determination as to the application of its criminal laws, and Congress has made a policy determination that... that that Federal review must be limited because State... State exercise of its... of its police power and... and the enforcement of its judgments is something that needs to be respected.\nAnd Congress... because the power to grant habeas is given by written law, Congress has the power to make that policy determination.\nAnd while the petitioner argues that 60(b) somehow strikes a balance, I would submit to this Court that Congress has already struck that balance.\nCongress has already made that determination.\nThere isn't another balance to be struck by the use of 60(b), but that a balance has already been struck by Congress and Congress has made a determination that in most circumstances finality is going to trump.\nAnd this isn't a perfect system.\nThere are going to be exceptions with any bright line rule.\nWith any bright line rule that this Court has ever carved out--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2409.075, 2418.268, 2424.549, 2451.47, 2465.488, 2479.309, 2499.795, 2507.716, 2514.436, 2516.311, 2528.203, 2529.393, 2533.155], "stop_times": [2418.268, 2424.549, 2451.47, 2465.488, 2479.309, 2499.795, 2507.716, 2514.436, 2516.311, 2528.203, 2529.393, 2533.155, 2535.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2409.075}, "reply_to": "22290__1_065", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_067", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Didn't Congress rule... rule out 60(b) in... in death cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2535.537], "stop_times": [2540.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2535.537}, "reply_to": "22290__1_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__1_068", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor.\nSpecifically rule out 60(b)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2540.245, 2543.032], "stop_times": [2543.032, 2544.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2540.245}, "reply_to": "22290__1_067", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_069", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Yes, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2544.823], "stop_times": [2545.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2544.823}, "reply_to": "22290__1_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__1_070", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--in... in capital cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2545.469], "stop_times": [2546.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2545.469}, "reply_to": "22290__1_069", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_071", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2546.167], "stop_times": [2546.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2546.167}, "reply_to": "22290__1_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__1_072", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "I don't know... under the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2546.525], "stop_times": [2548.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2546.525}, "reply_to": "22290__1_071", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_073", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Yes.\nI may be wrong about having--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2548.829, 2550.559], "stop_times": [2550.559, 2552.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2548.829}, "reply_to": "22290__1_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__1_074", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "I'm not certain.\nWe... we're submitting that the Congress under... under AEDPA ruled out 60(b) in all cases with the exception of... of the fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2552.063, 2553.016], "stop_times": [2553.016, 2559.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2552.063}, "reply_to": "22290__1_073", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_075", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--I thought there was a special provision for capital cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2559.888], "stop_times": [2563.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2559.888}, "reply_to": "22290__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__1_076", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "I don't believe so, Your Honor.\nBut with respect to the bright line rule that... that we submit is necessary to effectuate congressional intent, as I was saying, that it's not a perfect system.\nAnd the petitioner can come up with all manner of examples that... that seem to implicate various policy determinations about what should or should not happen in a given situation.\nBut... but our position... and we believe the position of the Eleventh Circuit is... is that Congress has already weighed that now.\nCongress has already made that determination.\nCongress has already told us where the line is going to be drawn and it's going to be drawn on the side of finality and it's going to be drawn on the side of respect for State sovereignty.\nAnd I would... would also submit that... that the Sixth Circuit test and the functional equivalent approach test that's advanced by the petitioner ignores really both the statute and it ignores reality.\nIt ignores the statute because AEDPA tells us you can't revisit an adjudicated habeas petition unless there are certain limited circumstances that are met.\nAnd it ignores reality because the only reason to revisit a habeas petition is to ultimately revisit the underlying State court judgment.\nAnd the only purpose for being there is to ultimately get at that State court conviction that is... that is under siege.\nWith respect to the coexistence, the petitioner made a point about this case is somehow like the Rhines case that was decided recently by this Court.\nBut in the Rhines case, this Court was balancing the exhaustion requirements with the statute of limitations provisions.\nHere there's nothing to balance.\nHere this is just simply a prohibition.\nCongress says you cannot revisit except in these isolated, limited circumstances.\nAnd so rule 81, habeas rule 11, and this Court's decision in Pitchess all say that 60(b) does not trump if the habeas statute holds differently.\nAnd finally, the courts do need a bright line that's not subject to variance, as I mentioned earlier.\nThis is a workable standard.\nThey're familiar with fraud.\nIt's well defined in the case law.\nIt requires more particularized pleading which makes less room for mischief, and it... it gives the courts an easily identifiable standard by which they can effectuate that congressional policy, that congressional policy of one basket of claims within 1 year and the State will come into this Federal court one time to defend its sovereign judgment.\nIf there are no further questions, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2563.572, 2566.075, 2578.296, 2587.35, 2592.721, 2594.852, 2603.713, 2615.416, 2624.375, 2633.626, 2639.412, 2649.82, 2656.18, 2657.939, 2659.879, 2663.838, 2675.082, 2679.773, 2681.488, 2682.739, 2684.217, 2704.801], "stop_times": [2566.075, 2578.296, 2587.35, 2592.721, 2594.852, 2603.713, 2615.416, 2624.375, 2633.626, 2639.412, 2649.82, 2656.18, 2657.939, 2659.879, 2663.838, 2675.082, 2679.773, 2681.488, 2682.739, 2684.217, 2704.801, 2707.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2563.572}, "reply_to": "22290__1_075", "speaker": "christopher_m_kise"}
{"id": "22290__1_077", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Kise.\nMs. Millett, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2707.503, 2708.493], "stop_times": [2708.493, 2710.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2707.503}, "reply_to": "22290__1_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22290__2_000", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nJustice Breyer, let me assure you that our position is, if not as strict, only marginally less strict than the State of Florida's.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2710.129, 2718.725], "stop_times": [2718.725, 2725.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2710.129}, "reply_to": "22290__1_077", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_001", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "On page 24, I read the or wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2725.773], "stop_times": [2728.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2725.773}, "reply_to": "22290__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__2_002", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2728.258], "stop_times": [2728.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2728.258}, "reply_to": "22290__2_001", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_003", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "It's... you meant the things on both sides of the or.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2728.858], "stop_times": [2731.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2728.858}, "reply_to": "22290__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__2_004", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "It's very--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2731.162], "stop_times": [2732.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2731.162}, "reply_to": "22290__2_003", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_005", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "And I was thinking the first side you'd allow, the second side you wouldn't.\nBut if it's very, very strict, which now I understand it, because I read the or correctly when I went back.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2732.04, 2734.824], "stop_times": [2734.824, 2740.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.04}, "reply_to": "22290__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__2_006", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--All right.\nI wanted to make sure--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2740.067, 2740.642], "stop_times": [2740.642, 2741.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2740.067}, "reply_to": "22290__2_005", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_007", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "My question would be why.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2741.209], "stop_times": [2741.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2741.209}, "reply_to": "22290__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__2_008", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Yes.\nAnd... and if you want a shorter statement... I mean, a brief is a brief... a short statement of what our test is, Justice Breyer, it's quite simple, and that is a rule 60(b) motion that seeks to set aside a denial of habeas relief on the grounds that it was incorrectly decided is barred.\nThat is the territory that AEDPA occupies.\nThat includes, Justice Souter, not just determinations on the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2741.783, 2742.238, 2759.149, 2762.542], "stop_times": [2742.238, 2759.149, 2762.542, 2766.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2741.783}, "reply_to": "22290__2_007", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_009", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Would you say that again?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2766.653], "stop_times": [2767.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2766.653}, "reply_to": "22290__2_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22290__2_010", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--A rule 60(b) motion that seeks to set aside a final judgment denying Federal habeas relief on the grounds that it was incorrectly decided is a second or successive petition under AEDPA.\nIt can proceed only under AEDPA's terms, which change not only the standards for a second decision, but the decision-maker, the gatekeeper.\nJustice Souter--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2767.597, 2780.292, 2788.954], "stop_times": [2780.292, 2788.954, 2790.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2767.597}, "reply_to": "22290__2_009", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_011", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Is that a statement of when it's not available?\nI want to be sure I... are you stating it positively or negatively?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2790.257, 2793.646], "stop_times": [2793.646, 2797.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2790.257}, "reply_to": "22290__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22290__2_012", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--It--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2797.101], "stop_times": [2797.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2797.101}, "reply_to": "22290__2_011", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_013", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "It is not available in the circumstance you described.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2797.48, 2800.968], "stop_times": [2800.968, 2801.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2797.48}, "reply_to": "22290__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22290__2_014", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--That's right.\nIt is... it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2801.392, 2801.735], "stop_times": [2801.735, 2802.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2801.392}, "reply_to": "22290__2_013", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_015", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Now, would you state... tell us when it is available?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2802.357], "stop_times": [2804.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2802.357}, "reply_to": "22290__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22290__2_016", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Okay.\nThe flip side of that, if I can... the... the title of section 2244 is finality of determination.\nIf you are seeking to upset a final determination, you are governed by 2244 not 60(b).\nIf you are not seeking to upset a final determination, let me give you the two... the two circumstances that come to mind right away.\nOne is the fraud exception recognized by the court of appeals, and there could be similar errors like that... and this is what we talk about in our brief... that essentially vitiate the existence of a determination in the first place.\nThey are that profound and that rudimentary.\nThen you are not upsetting what our system recognizes to be a determination and what Congress wanted you to have.\nThe other exception is essentially 60(a), clerical... you're not... errors.\nYou're not really upsetting anything.\nYou're actually trying to implement or effectuate the actual ruling by the court of appeals.\nThe only gap... I'm not sure it's a gap at all after the argument here... is that we don't limit it to fraud.\nWe recognize that there are some other foundational, rudimentary, fundamental errors that conceivably could occur.\nI'm not aware of them happening, but something like a biased judge addressed by this Court in Toomey v. Ohio.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2804.075, 2804.603, 2811.484, 2818.037, 2824.562, 2836.556, 2838.759, 2845.054, 2848.816, 2850.597, 2854.293, 2859.403, 2866.443], "stop_times": [2804.603, 2811.484, 2818.037, 2824.562, 2836.556, 2838.759, 2845.054, 2848.816, 2850.597, 2854.293, 2859.403, 2866.443, 2871.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2804.075}, "reply_to": "22290__2_015", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_017", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "But now you're into... I mean, you can use a tone of voice.\nYou know, it sounds very strong.\nBut I thought 60(b)(6) is weird things happen, and 60(b)(1) is there are all kinds of mistakes.\nYou know, some of them can just be accidental.\nThe lawyer was hit by a trolley.\nAnd in fact, all of 60(b) is meant to capture that kind of thing.\nSo it sounds like what you're saying is, sure, follow 60(b), maybe not the evidentiary, maybe not the new evidence part, follow it, but be sure you do so strictly.\nAre you saying more than that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2871.252, 2874.14, 2875.081, 2884.373, 2886.283, 2887.916, 2892.866, 2903.166], "stop_times": [2874.14, 2875.081, 2884.373, 2886.283, 2887.916, 2892.866, 2903.166, 2904.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2871.252}, "reply_to": "22290__2_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__2_018", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "I am saying a lot more than that, and that is, first of all, because the vast majority of things that are covered by 60(b) do not qualify as tantamount to fraud or a biased judge.\nAnd... and the second incredibly important thing is that Congress changed the decision-maker.\nUnder 60(b), you have 645 individual district court judges applying the historic equity power to... to overturn final judgments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2904.929, 2915.103, 2920.191], "stop_times": [2915.103, 2920.191, 2931.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2904.929}, "reply_to": "22290__2_017", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_019", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Where... where do you disagree with Judge Carnes?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2931.291], "stop_times": [2933.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2931.291}, "reply_to": "22290__2_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22290__2_020", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "With Judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2933.188], "stop_times": [2934.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2933.188}, "reply_to": "22290__2_019", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_021", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "With... with the majority of... in... in the Eleventh Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2934.365], "stop_times": [2937.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.365}, "reply_to": "22290__2_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22290__2_022", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "If that opinion is read... and I think fairly it has to be... as saying only fraud and not errors of similar magnitude like a biased judge or some other complete breakdown so that our system doesn't recognize that to be a judgment... it's not what Congress thought it was giving you... then that would be... I can't tell you there's cases where this happens, but that... but the... the rationale for including fraud would exclude... include some other similar errors of magnitude.\nThat's our only--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2937.92, 2964.829], "stop_times": [2964.829, 2965.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2937.92}, "reply_to": "22290__2_021", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_023", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Now, how do you apply it in this case, the Artuz problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2965.525], "stop_times": [2969.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2965.525}, "reply_to": "22290__2_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22290__2_024", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--In... in this case, the Artuz problem is only an argument, and I... we're not even accepting that it's accurate, but only an argument that the court made a mistake of law.\nA mistake of law is not a fundamental breakdown in our system.\nIt does not mean the court didn't act as a court.\nThis Court reverses in... or vacates in about 75 of its cases.\nIt doesn't mean all the lower courts were not operating as courts since we recognize them as at the same level of fraud.\nIt's routine to have mistakes of law--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2969.648, 2979.261, 2983.214, 2985.473, 2990.295, 2996.611], "stop_times": [2979.261, 2983.214, 2985.473, 2990.295, 2996.611, 2998.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2969.648}, "reply_to": "22290__2_023", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_025", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, suppose Artuz had been decided and it was in the mail and the judge forgot to open his advance sheets that day.\nAnd so he goes back to his office, says, oh, my God.\nYou know, I mean, a weird thing like that.\nAnd of course, he says nobody has been hurt yet.\nI'll reopen it.\nOkay?\nIs that all right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [2998.798, 3005.952, 3009.21, 3012.015, 3014.402, 3015.021, 3015.563], "stop_times": [3005.952, 3009.21, 3012.015, 3014.402, 3015.021, 3015.563, 3016.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2998.798}, "reply_to": "22290__2_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__2_026", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--If he does it within 10 days under rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3016.088], "stop_times": [3018.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3016.088}, "reply_to": "22290__2_025", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_027", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, it's 10 days and a half.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3018.581], "stop_times": [3019.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3018.581}, "reply_to": "22290__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__2_028", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--10--\n[Laughter]\nThen, Justice Breyer, the nature of lines is somebody falls on the other side sometimes.\nThere's an appeal process to deal with exactly that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3019.839, 3020.396, 3021.207, 3025.468], "stop_times": [3020.396, 3021.207, 3025.468, 3028.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3019.839}, "reply_to": "22290__2_027", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_029", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "And the reason that it's happened is because all the lawyers were hit by four trolleys.\n[Laughter]\nI mean, you see what I'm doing?\nI'm simply trying to find cases that fit within the language, but they're very weird and justice cries out for a reopening.\nNow, that's what it seems to me one is about.\nTwo is about.\nThree doesn't really.\nThree you agree applies.\nTwo may not apply.\nFour I think you probably agree applies or not at all.\nFive doesn't apply at all, and six is anything under the sun.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3028.127, 3030.032, 3030.601, 3032.583, 3040.427, 3044.803, 3046.142, 3049.993, 3048.211, 3051.593, 3054.649], "stop_times": [3030.032, 3030.601, 3032.583, 3040.427, 3044.803, 3046.142, 3049.993, 3048.211, 3051.593, 3054.649, 3057.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3028.127}, "reply_to": "22290__2_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22290__2_030", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Justice Breyer, the problem is... and... and Justice Souter, you referenced this.\nThere have been many references to this, that 60(b) is not a problem.\nIt's already cabined out there.\nIn fact, it's not.\nIt's abuse of discretion review in courts of appeals.\nWe cite a case, Hamilton v. Newland, from the Ninth Circuit where they used 60(b)(6).\nThe... the petitioner filed his claims.\nThey were clearly barred by the statute of limitations, not an Artuz problem.\nSo he said, all right, I'm going back to Federal court with a 60(b)(6) claim.\nI'm actually innocent.\nThat puts me in 60(b)(6).\nI admit actual innocence.\nIt's... it's a very weak claim.\nI can't been get relief on it.\nBut the district court said, come on in.\nI'm going to decide your claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3057.928, 3061.888, 3065.081, 3066.555, 3068.112, 3070.766, 3075.549, 3077.722, 3080.684, 3084.571, 3086.003, 3087.881, 3089.295, 3090.611, 3091.866, 3093.748], "stop_times": [3061.888, 3065.081, 3066.555, 3068.112, 3070.766, 3075.549, 3077.722, 3080.684, 3084.571, 3086.003, 3087.881, 3089.295, 3090.611, 3091.866, 3093.748, 3094.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3057.928}, "reply_to": "22290__2_029", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_031", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Well, maybe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3094.915], "stop_times": [3095.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3094.915}, "reply_to": "22290__2_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22290__2_032", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "And the... and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3095.652], "stop_times": [3096.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3095.652}, "reply_to": "22290__2_031", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_033", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--maybe the district court shouldn't have done that, but whatever... whatever was wrong there, it was merely a classic application of... of review of a statute of limitations point.\nThere... there was much else involved and maybe it was improper.\nMy question, I guess, is why do you say that the... why do you assume that the policy animating applying 60(b) to a gatekeeping issue like statute of limitations, where there is an unusual circumstance as in Artuz, should be the same policy that animates applying 60(b), let's say, when there is an attempt to... to make an end run around the second and successive rules?\nThe latter I think we can all understand pretty readily.\nI mean, it's very important.\nYou've got the... the... AEDPA if you allow that.\nWith respect to this kind of a statute of limitations problem, what the guy is asking for is what he was entitled to under AEDPA as a matter of timing and gatekeeping.\nWhy is the policy under 60(b) the same in those two cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3096.535, 3105.29, 3108.911, 3135.463, 3138.684, 3139.615, 3143.606, 3156.693], "stop_times": [3105.29, 3108.911, 3135.463, 3138.684, 3139.615, 3143.606, 3156.693, 3161.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3096.535}, "reply_to": "22290__2_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22290__2_034", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Justice Souter, there's two answers to that.\nThe first is that this won't be... it will be hard to limit this to a statute of limitations because the next argument is going to be procedural default, and the next argument is going to be misapplication of Teague's non-retroactivity principle, and the next one is going to be mistake in applying adequate, independent State grounds.\nThe... a bulk... a huge percentage of Federal court decision-making in habeas cases is procedural rules because Federal habeas is not a roving commission for error correction.\nYou have to... at... in the same breath that you establish a constitutional violation, you have to show it's proper for Federal courts to act.\nProcedural default and statute of limitations are as much your job to show to have Federal relief as it is to show that something went wrong under the Constitution.\nIt's a... there's a dual character to Federal habeas relief.\nSo this, in fact, is exactly part of the habeas... this is part of the second or successive determinations that... applications that Congress wanted to bar.\nAnd we have to step back and think about what would happen here.\nWhat we have is the State of Florida coming up 23 years after a guilty plea not because to defend... once again, it's judgment.\nIt's conviction not because of anything they did in the conduct of the trial, not because the guy claims to be actually innocent, but because almost 2 decades after the plea, a Federal court allegedly made a mistake of law that wasn't cleared up through the appellate process.\nThat's not the point of Federal habeas corpus.\nThat's not what it's supposed to be about.\nBut if we open the door, if we let the camel's nose in the tent, a camel is going to come behind it, and it's going to be procedural default, non-retroactivity of Teague, and all of the multiple other grounds on which Federal habeas decisions are made by courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3161.207, 3162.942, 3177.268, 3187.661, 3195.277, 3205.458, 3208.103, 3216.225, 3219.222, 3228.353, 3243.553, 3245.767, 3247.208], "stop_times": [3162.942, 3177.268, 3187.661, 3195.277, 3205.458, 3208.103, 3216.225, 3219.222, 3228.353, 3243.553, 3245.767, 3247.208, 3260.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3161.207}, "reply_to": "22290__2_033", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_035", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Did the Federal court make a mistake of... of law if the... if the Florida court dismissed under the Florida 2-year statute of limitations?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3260.584], "stop_times": [3272.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3260.584}, "reply_to": "22290__2_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__2_036", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Did... did the Florida make a mistake of what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3272.559], "stop_times": [3276.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3272.559}, "reply_to": "22290__2_035", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_037", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "No, no.\nDid the Federal court.\nAnd suppose that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3276.292, 3276.988, 3277.765], "stop_times": [3276.988, 3277.765, 3279.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3276.292}, "reply_to": "22290__2_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__2_038", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--No.\nI guess... I think this Court is going to tell us.\nI think the... the Pace v. DiGuglielmo case that this Court heard... I think it was last month--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3279.868, 3280.089, 3283.71], "stop_times": [3280.089, 3283.71, 3287.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3279.868}, "reply_to": "22290__2_037", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_039", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--It's sub judice, before us now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3287.702], "stop_times": [3288.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3287.702}, "reply_to": "22290__2_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__2_040", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3288.675], "stop_times": [3288.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3288.675}, "reply_to": "22290__2_039", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_041", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "But do you agree with Mr. Kise that the first dismissal in the Florida court, the first denial was on the Florida 2-year statute of limitations?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3288.911], "stop_times": [3299.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3288.911}, "reply_to": "22290__2_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22290__2_042", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "My... the order from the court, my understanding, simply denied it on the grounds of legal insufficiency, and it didn't give a further explanation.\nIt doesn't say what exact grounds was, but if you look to what was argued by Florida, they were arguing on timeliness.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3299.631, 3307.463, 3313.334], "stop_times": [3307.463, 3313.334, 3314.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3299.631}, "reply_to": "22290__2_041", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22290__2_043", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Millett.\nMr. Rashkind, you have 4 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3314.124, 3314.674], "stop_times": [3314.674, 3319.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3314.124}, "reply_to": "22290__2_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22290__3_000", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nIf I may begin by correcting what I think are two inadvertent mistakes, but important ones.\nJustice Ginsburg, in answer to your question about the first State habeas, these are... these documents are contained in... in your record.\nThey're noted at joint appendix 2-5.\nThe first State habeas was dismissed because it was not notarized.\nThat's the sole basis for its dismissal: it was not notarized.\nThe second one was brought and denied, and the court specifically notes, as we note in the yellow brief, footnote 7 on page 12, it set forth the... the court's grounds.\nIt says the motion does not state grounds for relief.\nAt no point does Florida ever adopt the State's position that either of the petitions was untimely.\nThe State court addressed them directly on the merits.\nJustice Breyer, if I may, I can actually hypothesize several examples under subsection (5), of subsection (4), and perhaps even subsection (2) of rule 60(b), which would be permissible.\nFor example, under (5), a judgment that should no longer have continuing effect might be that the district court entered an alternative writ of habeas corpus, tried the defendant within 60 days or 90 days, or set him free.\nAnd when everyone gets back to State court, it becomes plainly apparent that can't be done within 60 days, and either the State or the defendant might go back and say, please, amend that order out of time.\nIt's a final order.\nPlease amend it to make it 180 days.\nWe can come up with examples, I think, for each of the provisions, and I think that's really what's interesting about this rule.\nIt is written in a way that's durable against AEDPA, and it conforms nicely with AEDPA.\nAnd it does not take a lot of extra thought, it does not take a lot more than adopting the Court's previous holdings for us to be able to make it workable within AEDPA.\nThe fact that this case is now in its 25th year is a result of law and not of delay.\nMr. Gonzalez alleges... and no one has ever been able to say otherwise because we've never had a hearing... that it took him 13 years to find out about the newly discovered evidence.\nHe exhausted his claims for 4 years.\nHe was only in Federal court for 1 year before the State raised a bar, a statute of limitations bar, which turns out to be incorrect.\nIn the last 7 years, there's been litigation both in the court of appeals and now before this Court caused by the State's argument that the case should have been dismissed on the statute of limitations.\nMy client is not responsible for the fact that it's the 25th year, but what we do know about this case is he has approximately 76 years remaining on his 99-year sentence.\nAnd unless he gets one bite at the habeas apple, he has not gotten what Congress directed he receive.\nCongress made one thing clear in AEDPA, and I think it's a good thing, and that is, if a defendant goes through and does what he's supposed to do in State court, he does not procedurally default the issues, he exhausts fully, and he timely files a petition, that was the candidate Congress wanted to have to get habeas review.\nIn this case Aurelio Gonzalez did all of those things, and he sits on the outside, having been told you get no bite at the apple, it's too late.\nAnd that's just plain wrong.\nAnd there's something wrong about that, and that's why there's rule 60(b).\n60(b) is nothing but a coalescence of many great writs that were designed for one purpose and one purpose alone and that was to correct mistakes in extraordinary circumstances.\nThere can be no more extraordinary circumstance than that a person is denied their right to habeas review, and that's what's happened here.\nAnd we respectfully submit that rule 60(b) is the only and best tool to remedy the error made within the discretion of the district court, and we ask for that result.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3319.871, 3320.393, 3323.994, 3331.488, 3335.522, 3339.631, 3343.266, 3352.992, 3355.932, 3362.071, 3364.714, 3375.511, 3389.16, 3398.0, 3398.577, 3400.56, 3406.347, 3413.146, 3422.579, 3428.819, 3437.848, 3439.917, 3446.765, 3455.743, 3466.645, 3473.539, 3494.181, 3502.325, 3504.151, 3508.741, 3519.39, 3526.276, 3535.063], "stop_times": [3320.393, 3323.994, 3331.488, 3335.522, 3339.631, 3343.266, 3352.992, 3355.932, 3362.071, 3364.714, 3375.511, 3389.16, 3398.0, 3398.577, 3400.56, 3406.347, 3413.146, 3422.579, 3428.819, 3437.848, 3439.917, 3446.765, 3455.743, 3466.645, 3473.539, 3494.181, 3502.325, 3504.151, 3508.741, 3519.39, 3526.276, 3535.063, 3535.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3319.871}, "reply_to": "22290__2_043", "speaker": "paul_m_rashkind"}
{"id": "22290__3_001", "conversation_id": "22290", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Rashkind.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6432", "start_times": [3535.805, 3537.584], "stop_times": [3537.584, 3539.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3535.805}, "reply_to": "22290__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22794__0_000", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 04-603, Grable & Sons Metal Products v. Darue Engineering.\nMr. Zagrans.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [0.0, 10.207], "stop_times": [10.207, 11.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22794__0_001", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, good morning, and may it please the Court:\nIn Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the Court recognized an important limitation on the Court's prior substantial Federal question cases.\nThe Sixth Circuit should have followed Merrell Dow rather than ignoring it in deciding whether the presence of a Federal issue in this Michigan quiet title action properly gave rise to Federal question jurisdiction.\nAccording to Merrell Dow, any State law claim that alleges a violation of a Federal statute as an element of the State law cause of action does not state a claim arising under Federal law for section 1331 purposes unless--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [11.687, 14.699, 23.043, 35.11], "stop_times": [14.699, 23.043, 35.11, 49.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.687}, "reply_to": "22794__0_000", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_002", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Do you take the view that Merrell Dow somehow just silently overruled about five cases dealing with quiet title actions?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [49.41], "stop_times": [57.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 49.41}, "reply_to": "22794__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22794__0_003", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--No, Justice O'Connor, we do not take that position.\nWe take Merrell Dow--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [57.452, 60.29], "stop_times": [60.29, 61.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 57.452}, "reply_to": "22794__0_002", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_004", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "That seems to be your position.\nI mean, I don't think Merrell Dow necessarily had that effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [61.582, 62.665], "stop_times": [62.665, 68.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 61.582}, "reply_to": "22794__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22794__0_005", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--Agreed.\nWe believe that Merrell Dow's decision can be synthesized with the holdings in those cases that Your Honor is referring to by reference to the nature of the Federal interest that is at stake and the role that Congress plays.\nIn the Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Company line of cases and in Hopkins v. Walker, both of those are different sorts of cases from Merrell Dow where Congress provided the Federal right that was alleged to have been violated, and the Court held that when Congress provides a Federal statute that is... is serving as an element of a State law claim, then Congress must have intended also to provide a Federal private right of action in order for there to be arising-under jurisdiction.\nThat's the distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [68.277, 69.222, 83.151, 116.102], "stop_times": [69.222, 83.151, 116.102, 117.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 68.277}, "reply_to": "22794__0_004", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_006", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Haven't we... haven't we got something equally different here?\nThe... the issue here, as I understand it, is... is not litigation of the State law claim, but a claim under Federal law with respect to the passage of title when property is taken for taxes.\nAs I understand the... the original plaintiff's claim, it simply is that if he's right, under Federal law he is entitled to a declaration that the property is still his.\nIf he's wrong, the other side is entitled to property.\nBut the issue is a Federal issue, and the only way the State has a role in it is that the State provides a mechanism, the quiet title action, analogous maybe to 1983, for getting it into a State court.\nSo it seems to me that the issue is a Federal issue, not as in Merrell Dow, a... a State cause of action that incorporates by reference a Federal standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [117.578, 119.499, 132.093, 142.761, 147.123, 160.413], "stop_times": [119.499, 132.093, 142.761, 147.123, 160.413, 172.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 117.578}, "reply_to": "22794__0_005", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22794__0_007", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Justice Souter, I agree that it is a Federal issue.\nI disagree, with respect, that it's different from Merrell Dow because in both that case and this quiet title action under Michigan law, the alleged Federal issue is one element that needs to be alleged and proved in order to make out the State law claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [172.24, 175.219], "stop_times": [175.219, 190.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 172.24}, "reply_to": "22794__0_006", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_008", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Yes, but I don't... I guess that's where we're parting company.\nI don't see that there is a State law claim as distinct from a State law procedure for trying that claim in a State court.\nAs I... as I said a second ago, it's sort of like 1983.\nIt doesn't create causes of action, but it provides a... a jurisdictional basis for getting into court if you've got a cause of action.\nAnd in this case, it's a Federal cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [190.649, 192.954, 201.467, 205.209, 211.724], "stop_times": [192.954, 201.467, 205.209, 211.724, 213.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 190.649}, "reply_to": "22794__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22794__0_009", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I see, Your Honor.\nUnder Michigan's Compiled Laws and under the rule of procedure that this action was brought under, the plaintiff had to allege and prove four things: that he had title, the alleged nature of the defendant's title.\nHe had to describe the property with reasonable particularity, and finally, he had to allege why his title was superior to the defendant's title.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [213.242, 214.31, 229.415], "stop_times": [214.31, 229.415, 238.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 213.242}, "reply_to": "22794__0_008", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_010", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Which was a Federal issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [238.481], "stop_times": [239.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 238.481}, "reply_to": "22794__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22794__0_011", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "And that is the only Federal issue, just like in Merrell Dow where the Federal... the violation of the Federal labeling standard was alleged to constitute one element of the product liability claim in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [239.671], "stop_times": [251.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.671}, "reply_to": "22794__0_010", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_012", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "But as Justice Souter pointed out, the State law incorporated the Federal standard and made it its own.\nHere you have the Federal tax sale and a very strong Federal interest, which was lacking in Merrell Dow.\nJustice Stevens said that.\nBut here I think there can be no doubt that the Government has a very strong interest in seeing that tax sales convey a secure title.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [251.679, 258.982, 271.922, 274.371], "stop_times": [258.982, 271.922, 274.371, 285.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 251.679}, "reply_to": "22794__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__0_013", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "No doubt, Justice Ginsburg, but I think it is the wrong emphasis to look to what the State's interest is, which was a... a part of the focus that the Solicitor General's was on.\nFor purposes of deciding whether or not Congress intended there to be Federal question jurisdiction, I don't believe the focus should be on the State's interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [285.632, 297.882], "stop_times": [297.882, 305.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 285.632}, "reply_to": "22794__0_012", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_014", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Well, my--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [305.43], "stop_times": [307.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 305.43}, "reply_to": "22794__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__0_015", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [307.094], "stop_times": [307.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 307.094}, "reply_to": "22794__0_014", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_016", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--Please, please.\nI didn't mean to interrupt you.\nDid you finish your answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [307.856, 308.294, 309.179], "stop_times": [308.294, 309.179, 310.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 307.856}, "reply_to": "22794__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__0_017", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "No, but go ahead, Justice Kennedy, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [310.355], "stop_times": [312.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 310.355}, "reply_to": "22794__0_016", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_018", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "No, please.\nWell, my... my initial view of this case was much like Justice Souter's and... and I still think that that may be... may be correct.\nBut I thought your answer to Justice Souter would be that there are many cases in which there is an antecedent Federal title which then goes down through successive purchasers, mining claims, for instance, and those are always under State law.\nI... I thought that would be your answer to Justice Souter and... and also to Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [312.496, 312.708, 321.658, 339.599], "stop_times": [312.708, 321.658, 339.599, 343.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 312.496}, "reply_to": "22794__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__0_019", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Justice Kennedy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [343.345], "stop_times": [344.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 343.345}, "reply_to": "22794__0_018", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_020", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "And you rely on Merrell Dow, which is fine.\nBut I thought there was a separate line of cases that support you, as well as Merrell Dow.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [344.875, 346.55], "stop_times": [346.55, 349.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 344.875}, "reply_to": "22794__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__0_021", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--There are, Your Honor, but I think that to give a... an honest and principled answer to Justice Souter's and Justice Ginsburg's questions, I have to face it in line of Merrell Dow and the cases that Merrell Dow relied on.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [349.863], "stop_times": [365.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 349.863}, "reply_to": "22794__0_020", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_022", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "We hope all your answers will be principled.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [365.396, 369.017], "stop_times": [369.017, 370.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 365.396}, "reply_to": "22794__0_021", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22794__0_023", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Yes, sir, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI hope so too.\nJustice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [370.904, 372.047, 372.878], "stop_times": [372.047, 372.878, 374.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 370.904}, "reply_to": "22794__0_022", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_024", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Well, Justice O'Connor had asked you about the... the quiet title cases, but Kansas City Title & Trust is still good law.\nIt wasn't overruled.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [374.383, 382.494], "stop_times": [382.494, 384.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 374.383}, "reply_to": "22794__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__0_025", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--Yes, Justice Ginsburg, I agree.\nIt is good law.\nAnd I think the distinction that I am asking the Court to draw between that case and Merrell Dow is this.\nBoth cases should be decided under the rubric that arising-under jurisdiction depends upon whether a Federal issue in an otherwise State law case provides a... a... an outcome-determinative means of resolving the case, and that... in other words, where the resolution of the case depends upon a substantial question of Federal law.\nBut the difference between Kansas City Title & Trust and Merrell Dow is the nature of the Federal interest at stake and the different ways they should be applied.\nIn Kansas City Title & Trust, the interest was... or the alleged violation was a Federal constitutional violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [384.027, 384.572, 385.299, 392.533, 417.897, 427.318], "stop_times": [384.572, 385.299, 392.533, 417.897, 427.318, 435.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 384.027}, "reply_to": "22794__0_024", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_026", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Yes, but the Court didn't make it... the Court's proposition in Kansas City Title & Trust was if it appears from the complaint that the right to relief depends on the construction or application of the Constitution or laws of the United States.\nSo are you asking us to take out or laws as dictum, or what is your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [435.676, 453.61], "stop_times": [453.61, 460.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 435.676}, "reply_to": "22794__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__0_027", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I believe that the Court in Merrell Dow made a limitation on that phrase that Your Honor is quoting from, and the limitation is where Congress controls the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, such as with Federal statutory law, then the limitation of Merrell Dow that Congress must also have intended to create a Federal private right of action obtains.\nI believe that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [460.796, 486.684], "stop_times": [486.684, 487.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 460.796}, "reply_to": "22794__0_026", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_028", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Well, when does... when does the... when do the words, or laws, in Kansas City Title & Trust have operative effect?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [487.5], "stop_times": [495.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 487.5}, "reply_to": "22794__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__0_029", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--When... when, as Merrell Dow says, Congress intended there to be a Federal private right of action for violation of the statute is alleged to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [495.355], "stop_times": [508.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 495.355}, "reply_to": "22794__0_028", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_030", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "You mean that the... are you saying then in the context of this case that the Federal law would have to create a quiet title action, which is traditionally State law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [508.585], "stop_times": [520.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.585}, "reply_to": "22794__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__0_031", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, that's exactly what we are arguing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [520.284], "stop_times": [522.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 520.284}, "reply_to": "22794__0_030", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_032", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "But doesn't Congress have to create causes of action for constitutional violations as well, or at least for most of them?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [522.53], "stop_times": [528.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 522.53}, "reply_to": "22794__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__0_033", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Your Honor, Congress has not created a jurisdictional statute for Federal constitutional claims, which is why the Bivens doctrine arose, unlike section 1983.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [528.568], "stop_times": [541.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 528.568}, "reply_to": "22794__0_032", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_034", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Well, maybe this needs... I mean, if were to clarify--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [541.644], "stop_times": [543.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 541.644}, "reply_to": "22794__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22794__0_035", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Wait.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [543.942], "stop_times": [544.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 543.942}, "reply_to": "22794__0_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__0_036", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--Sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [544.343], "stop_times": [545.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 544.343}, "reply_to": "22794__0_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22794__0_037", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I'm... I'm not sure that I... that I'm satisfied with the answer.\nYou're... you're trying to give us one rule for constitutional claims and another rule for statutory claims?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [545.112, 548.26], "stop_times": [548.26, 555.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 545.112}, "reply_to": "22794__0_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__0_038", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I am, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [555.519], "stop_times": [556.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 555.519}, "reply_to": "22794__0_037", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_039", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "On... on what basis?\nI don't understand it.\nCertainly in the text of the jurisdictional statute, there's no such distinction.\nWhat... what is the basis for it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [556.674, 557.239, 558.405, 562.6], "stop_times": [557.239, 558.405, 562.6, 564.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 556.674}, "reply_to": "22794__0_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__0_040", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "It derives from footnote 12 of Merrell Dow where the Court was attempting to explain this... this difference that we are discussing.\nAnd in footnote 12 of Merrell Dow, the Court says that the nature of the jurisdictional answer will frequently depend upon the different nature of the Federal interest that is at stake.\nAnd it distinguished between Smith and... and Moore in that case, Smith being a Federal constitutional question, Moore being a Federal statutory question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [564.005, 572.854, 585.708], "stop_times": [572.854, 585.708, 595.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 564.005}, "reply_to": "22794__0_039", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_041", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "And you think that that explains all of these cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [595.202], "stop_times": [599.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.202}, "reply_to": "22794__0_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__0_042", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Well, Your Honor, yes, I do because of the nature of Congress' control over whether or not there should be Federal private rights of action.\nIt is consistent with the Court's implied private right of action jurisprudence from Alexander v. Sandoval, from the Central National Bank of Denver case, et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [599.369, 608.176], "stop_times": [608.176, 618.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 599.369}, "reply_to": "22794__0_041", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_043", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "But you can't get anything out of the words of the... of the statute arising under to help you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [618.808], "stop_times": [623.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 618.808}, "reply_to": "22794__0_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__0_044", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "No, Justice Kennedy, I don't believe you can because as many of the cases that this Court has decided point out, those words are broad.\nThey are the exact same language that the constitutional grant of Article III jurisdiction uses, and therefore, they have to be given content in some other fashion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [623.719, 633.541], "stop_times": [633.541, 642.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 623.719}, "reply_to": "22794__0_043", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_045", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "So just the strength of the Federal interest is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [642.73], "stop_times": [644.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 642.73}, "reply_to": "22794__0_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__0_046", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Clearly the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [644.19], "stop_times": [646.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 644.19}, "reply_to": "22794__0_045", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_047", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--the controlling test?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [646.464], "stop_times": [647.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 646.464}, "reply_to": "22794__0_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__0_048", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--the strength of the Federal interest is important, Justice Kennedy, but as Merrell Dow pointed out, the Federal interest is not deemed to be substantial enough, or the Federal question at stake in the case is not deemed to be sufficiently substantial unless Congress has created a Federal private right of action for violation of the particular statute that is being pled.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [647.333], "stop_times": [671.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 647.333}, "reply_to": "22794__0_047", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_049", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "That's what I... I wanted to follow up on this because I think it's a confusion that's embedded in my mind in some of the cases, exactly what Justice Scalia was asking you.\nAnd I'd like you to comment on whether the confusion, as I see it, that's involved here is the words... arises out of the words, private right of action.\nPrivate right of action is where, A, one private person sues B, a non-Federal person, under a Federal statute.\nAnd the reason that can lead to confusion is because where you have a statute that governs the relation between the Federal Government and a private person, the words private right of action are out of place normally, because an action between the two parties takes place usually under the APA.\nNow, that's what it seems to me is at work here because the real question is not whether we have a private right of action or APA review.\nThe question is whether Congress wanted to allow a private person to use this particular Federal provision as the basis for judicial review in a lawsuit.\nAnd if that's the right question, the answer here is obviously it did.\nIt happens that we would have titled that normally administrative procedural review under the APA.\nBut whether you call it private right of action or you call it APA review is beside the point.\nIn Merrell Dow, Congress did not want actions to come into a court under the statute there at issue.\nIn this case, Congress doesn't mind at all.\nIn fact, it expects actions to come into court under this statute.\nI'd like you to comment on that thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [671.351, 682.01, 692.887, 701.875, 724.092, 735.417, 752.671, 757.747, 764.247, 772.842, 783.646, 788.802, 794.564], "stop_times": [682.01, 692.887, 701.875, 724.092, 735.417, 752.671, 757.747, 764.247, 772.842, 783.646, 788.802, 794.564, 797.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.351}, "reply_to": "22794__0_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22794__0_050", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Justice Breyer, I disagree with the premise of that thought.\nCongress in section 7433 did provide what I would like to call a Federal private right of action.\nIt's an action by a private party against the Government, not another private party, for damages in the event the Government violates Federal law in the tax collection process.\nWhat Congress did not do... and the Solicitor General concedes it did not do... is create a Federal private right of action for quiet title claims in disputes between two private parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [797.999, 802.595, 811.834, 823.478], "stop_times": [802.595, 811.834, 823.478, 837.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.999}, "reply_to": "22794__0_049", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_051", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "How did Congress... surely Congress did not expect any pronouncement of... of title by the Federal Government to be immune from challenge by private individuals.\nIf Congress did not anticipate that a wrongful assertion of title through the Federal Government could be challenged by a State action of this sort to clear title, how did Congress expect it ever to be challenged?\nI mean, I can't imagine how else you... you would attack somebody who... who claims that he has Federal title.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [837.061, 849.77, 870.279], "stop_times": [849.77, 870.279, 877.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 837.061}, "reply_to": "22794__0_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__0_052", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "You would bring, Your Honor, a State quiet title action, as Grable did in Michigan court, and allege, as the basis for the superiority of plaintiff's title in that case, the violation of Federal statute by the Federal agents.\nAnd therefore, the purchaser at this Federal tax sale, Darue Engineering in this case, does not have superior title.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [877.161, 894.245], "stop_times": [894.245, 902.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 877.161}, "reply_to": "22794__0_051", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_053", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Which is what... is... how does that differ from what happened here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [902.277], "stop_times": [905.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.277}, "reply_to": "22794__0_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__0_054", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "That's exactly what happened here.\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [905.655, 906.984], "stop_times": [906.984, 907.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 905.655}, "reply_to": "22794__0_053", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_055", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "That's exactly what happened here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [907.319], "stop_times": [908.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.319}, "reply_to": "22794__0_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__0_056", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--What differs, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [908.005], "stop_times": [909.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 908.005}, "reply_to": "22794__0_055", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_057", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "And... and is that not precisely what Congress expected?\nDid not Congress, in fact, approve this manner of challenging the asserted Federal title?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [909.016, 912.012], "stop_times": [912.012, 918.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 909.016}, "reply_to": "22794__0_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__0_058", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--I think without question, Your Honor.\nWhat Congress, we are arguing, did not approve is the removal of that State law quiet title action to Federal court under arising-under jurisdiction merely because of the presence of a Federal issue as an element of the State law claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [918.179, 919.82], "stop_times": [919.82, 935.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 918.179}, "reply_to": "22794__0_057", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_059", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Well, I think you... you have to acknowledge there are at least three situations then: number one, where Congress did not create a Federal cause of action and did not expect that the States would create a cause of action to vindicate or challenge the asserted Federal interest; number two, where Congress did create a... a Federal cause of action; and number three, falling between the two where Congress did not create a Federal cause of action but, in the nature of things, must have anticipated that there would be State causes of action resting upon the Federal claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [935.758], "stop_times": [972.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 935.758}, "reply_to": "22794__0_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__0_060", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Yes, I agree, Your Honor.\nAnd in Merrell Dow, the Court held that in those middle cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [972.448, 974.529], "stop_times": [974.529, 978.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 972.448}, "reply_to": "22794__0_059", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_061", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Why was that a middle case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [978.946], "stop_times": [980.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 978.946}, "reply_to": "22794__0_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__0_062", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--Why was that a middle case?\nBecause in Merrell Dow, the State of Ohio had product liability tort law--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [980.892, 983.079], "stop_times": [983.079, 990.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.892}, "reply_to": "22794__0_061", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_063", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Congress would not have necessarily anticipated that the States would glom onto a Federal criterion for purposes of their State... of their State tort law--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [990.04], "stop_times": [1000.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 990.04}, "reply_to": "22794__0_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__0_064", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1000.543], "stop_times": [1000.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1000.543}, "reply_to": "22794__0_063", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_065", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--whereas here, Congress must have anticipated that quiet title actions of this sort would be brought.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1000.911], "stop_times": [1005.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1000.911}, "reply_to": "22794__0_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__0_066", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--Your Honor, when Congress enacted the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and did not provide a Federal cause of action for it and yet laid out Federal standards of conduct for labeling of drugs like Bendectin in that case, Congress must have understood that without it creating a Federal private right of action, the States... the State product liability law, State inadequate warning law would subsume claims--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1005.878], "stop_times": [1037.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1005.878}, "reply_to": "22794__0_065", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_067", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "But it wasn't necessary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1037.634], "stop_times": [1039.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.634}, "reply_to": "22794__0_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__0_068", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--for a violation of that Federal standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1039.026], "stop_times": [1039.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1039.026}, "reply_to": "22794__0_067", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_069", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "It was... that's the difference.\nThe State in Merrell Dow chose to adopt those Federal standards.\nIt was a choice.\nI don't think a State has the prerogative to ignore the effect of a Federal tax sale.\nThis is not a matter of State choice, and that, it seems to me, is the large difference between the two cases: one, where the State chooses to recognize Federal standards when it doesn't have to, and here, there's no question that the Federal law governs the security of this title.\nIt's not an option for the State to ignore it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1039.741, 1041.805, 1046.789, 1047.55, 1057.095, 1079.583], "stop_times": [1041.805, 1046.789, 1047.55, 1057.095, 1079.583, 1082.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1039.741}, "reply_to": "22794__0_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__0_070", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, that's an argument that appears in the Solicitor General's brief as well, and I believe that the Solicitor General's focus on a difference in State interests is misplaced when one is dealing with Federal jurisdictional principles.\nInstead, I think the focus should be on the expression of the Federal interest, and the best expression of the Federal interest at stake is congressional intent when one is dealing with acts of Congress, Federal statutory law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1082.648, 1098.303], "stop_times": [1098.303, 1112.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1082.648}, "reply_to": "22794__0_069", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_071", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Right, except the... except you sort of abandon that for constitutional questions for some inexplicable reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1112.608], "stop_times": [1119.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1112.608}, "reply_to": "22794__0_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__0_072", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1119.027], "stop_times": [1121.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1119.027}, "reply_to": "22794__0_071", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_073", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "No, no.\nIt's an explicable reason to distinguish other earlier cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1121.37, 1122.309], "stop_times": [1122.309, 1125.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1121.37}, "reply_to": "22794__0_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__0_074", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--That's exactly right.\nThat's exactly right.\nTo... to try to... to try to not have to argue that, as Justice O'Connor's initial question to me supposed, that all of that prior case law, prior to Franchise Tax Board and Merrell Dow, somehow would go out the window sub silentio.\nAnd that's not what we are arguing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1125.406, 1126.475, 1127.649, 1144.97], "stop_times": [1126.475, 1127.649, 1144.97, 1146.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1125.406}, "reply_to": "22794__0_073", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_075", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "But you... so you are... you are proposing one way to reconcile Kansas City.\nYou say, well, that's the constitutional claim.\nBut why isn't it at least as good a reconciliation to say once you go through... there's... there's a Federal claim... there's a Federal question that's dispositive of this case, and you agree that that's so here.\nThe whole thing turns on the meaning and effect of that notice provision.\nSo the Federal question is what determines this case, and you satisfy the well-pleaded complaint standard.\nThen at that point, when you satisfy the basic Kansas City Title & Trust provisions, then to see which way to swing, why isn't it appropriate to say is this a case where the State has a large interest and the Federal interest is not significant?\nOr, on the other hand, is it a case where there is a large Federal interest in seeing how this comes out?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1146.606, 1150.095, 1152.933, 1169.41, 1175.047, 1183.006, 1202.59], "stop_times": [1150.095, 1152.933, 1169.41, 1175.047, 1183.006, 1202.59, 1210.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1146.606}, "reply_to": "22794__0_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__0_076", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Because, Justice Ginsburg, I think the focus is on the substantiality of the Federal question and that's where the difference between the two situations you are positing lies.\nWith constitutional claims, they are almost always substantial Federal questions.\nWith Federal statutory violations alleged as part of a State law cause of action, Merrell Dow says they are not substantial enough to confer arising-under jurisdiction unless Congress intended to create a Federal private right of action for the violation of that particular statute.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1210.726, 1224.054, 1230.404, 1249.649], "stop_times": [1224.054, 1230.404, 1249.649, 1250.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1210.726}, "reply_to": "22794__0_075", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_077", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "So you're saying that Merrell Dow did take out those words, or laws, from the Kansas City Title & Trust.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1250.246], "stop_times": [1257.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1250.246}, "reply_to": "22794__0_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__0_078", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nI... I suppose that would be the effect of how it would have to be read--\nBut it's not a question of one Federal interest is less than another.\nAnytime Federal law is involved, the Federal interest is great.\nThe issue is for arising-under purposes, for section 1331 purposes, whether the Federal question is substantial or not sufficiently substantial to confer arising-under jurisdiction.\nThat's the import in our argument and our submission, the holding of Merrell Dow.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1257.418, 1257.882, 1261.195, 1265.023, 1269.264, 1282.12], "stop_times": [1257.882, 1261.195, 1265.023, 1269.264, 1282.12, 1288.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1257.418}, "reply_to": "22794__0_077", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_079", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I take it you would agree that we could leave the... the Kansas City formulation, the oral laws, intact and say that the distinguish... that the distinction between Merrell Dow and this case, which leaves it intact is the distinction between in Merrell Dow's case, the adoption by the State of a Federal standard, though the State did not have to adopt it in its tort law, purely optional, and in this case, the application of Federal law which, under the Supremacy Clause, the State had absolutely no choice but to apply.\nIf we recognize that distinction, we could leave the language in Kansas City exactly where it is, couldn't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1288.114, 1324.852], "stop_times": [1324.852, 1331.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.114}, "reply_to": "22794__0_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22794__0_080", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "No, Justice Souter, I don't think you could because I think to do that would federalize a great many State law causes of action that just happen to have, as an element of them, a violation of some Federal law that, due to the Supremacy Clause, the States would, of course, be obliged to enforce.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1331.317], "stop_times": [1354.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1331.317}, "reply_to": "22794__0_079", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_081", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "What... what are the... sort of the... the horribles that you have in mind?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1354.342], "stop_times": [1357.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1354.342}, "reply_to": "22794__0_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22794__0_082", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "An example would be anytime a tax preparer makes a mistake of Federal income tax law in... in preparing a return for a client and, as a result of that, the client pays more tax than they otherwise should have and they have a claim against the tax preparer either for common law negligence or professional malpractice under State law, but why did the... the preparer commit malpractice?\nBecause of an interpretation of Federal tax law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1357.98, 1384.622], "stop_times": [1384.622, 1388.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1357.98}, "reply_to": "22794__0_081", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_083", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Yes, but in... in that case, the action is not enforcing the Federal tax law, whereas in this case, the action is, indeed, enforcing the passage of title statute under the... under the tax code.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1388.116], "stop_times": [1399.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.116}, "reply_to": "22794__0_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22794__0_084", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "The tax code, section 6338(b) specifically provides that title passes under State law, not under Federal law.\nThe only issue of Federal law here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1399.625, 1407.971], "stop_times": [1407.971, 1410.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1399.625}, "reply_to": "22794__0_083", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_085", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "But Federal law is determinative.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1410.167], "stop_times": [1411.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1410.167}, "reply_to": "22794__0_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22794__0_086", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--The only issue of Federal law here that is determinative is whether or not the agents gave proper notice of the seizure.\nAnd interestingly, Justice Ginsburg made reference to the well-pleaded complaint rule.\nThere is a secondary issue in this case, and that is that the disputed issue of Federal law was not part of the well-pleaded complaint.\nThere is no dispute that the IRS failed to give the statutorily required notice of personal notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1411.654, 1420.962, 1426.768, 1436.162], "stop_times": [1420.962, 1426.768, 1436.162, 1444.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1411.654}, "reply_to": "22794__0_085", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_087", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Wasn't that in the... in the pleading?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1444.608], "stop_times": [1446.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1444.608}, "reply_to": "22794__0_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__0_088", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "It was, indeed, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1446.725], "stop_times": [1448.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1446.725}, "reply_to": "22794__0_087", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_089", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Wasn't that in the complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1448.366], "stop_times": [1448.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1448.366}, "reply_to": "22794__0_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__0_090", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "In the complaint that they failed to do it.\nThat is undisputed.\nThe... the defendant concedes it.\nThe Government concedes it.\nWhat was disputed was that there's a different statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1448.713, 1451.13, 1452.199, 1453.828, 1454.939], "stop_times": [1451.13, 1452.199, 1453.828, 1454.939, 1458.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1448.713}, "reply_to": "22794__0_089", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_091", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "But the... but the well-pleaded complaint doesn't say it has to be a disputed allegation.\nIt says it must be.\nYou couldn't state the claim without having the Federal law in the complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1458.487, 1461.875, 1463.592], "stop_times": [1461.875, 1463.592, 1468.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1458.487}, "reply_to": "22794__0_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__0_092", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--Agreed, Your Honor.\nBut some of the cases suggest that the issue of Federal law, in order to be deemed substantial, must be one that is in good faith disputed.\nThat is to say, undisputed issues of Federal law are not substantial enough by themselves to confer Federal question jurisdiction.\nSo I point out that the disputed Federal issue from a different statute, 6339(b)(2), is in the nature of a defense that Darue asserted.\nNotwithstanding the strict... the lack of strict compliance with the notice provision, 6339(b)(2) allows substantial compliance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1468.37, 1469.896, 1479.516, 1487.384, 1500.007], "stop_times": [1469.896, 1479.516, 1487.384, 1500.007, 1509.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1468.37}, "reply_to": "22794__0_091", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_093", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I know you want to reserve your time.\nJust one quick thing.\nThe Government makes the distinction between an action to remove a cloud on title and an action for possession.\nDo you agree that this is a... a action to remove a cloud on title?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1509.945, 1512.566, 1513.37, 1519.112], "stop_times": [1512.566, 1513.37, 1519.112, 1523.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1509.945}, "reply_to": "22794__0_092", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__0_094", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Justice Kennedy, under Michigan law, as I understand it, there is no distinction any longer.\nThe action to determine title under Michigan Compiled Law 600.2932 seems to telescope and subsume both of those common law causes of action into one.\nUnless there are further questions from the Court, I would like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1523.107, 1527.852, 1540.111], "stop_times": [1527.852, 1540.111, 1545.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1523.107}, "reply_to": "22794__0_093", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__0_095", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Very well, Mr. Zagrans.\nMr. Walton, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1545.65, 1547.011], "stop_times": [1547.011, 1549.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.65}, "reply_to": "22794__0_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22794__1_000", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case involves only questions of Federal law.\nIt involves no questions of fact.\nThere are no disputes on any of the facts in this case, and without the Federal law, there would be no controversy, there would be no claim, there would be no cause of action.\nThe plaintiff's right to relief in the case requires resolution of a substantial question of Federal law in dispute between the parties in this case, which implicates substantial Federal interests.\nThe attempt to distinguish Merrell Dow... Merrell Dow is, in fact, consistent with Smith/Gully/Franchise Tax in establishing that test.\nAnd the language which the Court utilized in Merrell Dow does not, in any way, abandon those cases or indicate that the logic is inappropriate.\nThe Merrell Dow place in the evaluation... in the... in the kaleidoscopic situations which were described by Justice Cardoza is in a situation where a Federal standard has been incorporated into the State law cause of action.\nThat's its place here.\nIt was, I believe, by this Court an attempt to... to illuminate what would occur in that circumstance, and it is limited to that circumstance.\nAnd the... the question, which is set forth at the beginning in Merrell Dow, about the incorporation... and I'm... I'm at page 805.\nThe question presented is whether the incorporation of a Federal standard in a State law cause of action, when Congress intended there be no Federal private action for violations of that Federal standard, makes one arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, all three.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1549.257, 1553.876, 1557.972, 1561.225, 1570.485, 1584.55, 1595.347, 1605.234, 1626.925, 1628.49, 1639.765, 1649.985], "stop_times": [1553.876, 1557.972, 1561.225, 1570.485, 1584.55, 1595.347, 1605.234, 1626.925, 1628.49, 1639.765, 1649.985, 1666.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1549.257}, "reply_to": "22794__0_095", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_001", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Suppose that the plaintiff here alleged that the tax deed were forged, that the occupant simply forged the tax deed and was occupied under forgery.\nState cause of action there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1666.219, 1679.811], "stop_times": [1679.811, 1681.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1666.219}, "reply_to": "22794__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__1_002", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I believe that that would be a State cause of action, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1681.099], "stop_times": [1686.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1681.099}, "reply_to": "22794__1_001", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_003", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "All right.\nThen suppose he alleged not that it was forged, but that this... that the occupier of the land had... had misconstrued the occupier's rights to bid at the tax sale or... or that there... the tax sale should never have been held.\nThen that's a Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1686.611, 1687.127, 1700.928], "stop_times": [1687.127, 1700.928, 1701.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1686.611}, "reply_to": "22794__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__1_004", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Then I... excuse me, Your Honor.\nThen I believe that would be Federal, yes.\nThat would require resolution... that would require construction of the Federal statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1701.913, 1704.291, 1706.147], "stop_times": [1704.291, 1706.147, 1711.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1701.913}, "reply_to": "22794__1_003", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_005", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Suppose--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1711.285], "stop_times": [1714.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1711.285}, "reply_to": "22794__1_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__1_006", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "What if it doesn't require construction, but... but what if there is a factual controversy?\nSuppose there is a factual controversy as to whether notice was given and notice is required under the Federal statute.\nDoes... does that factual controversy with regard to an essential element of... of Federal law make it a Federal case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1714.054, 1718.81, 1728.255], "stop_times": [1718.81, 1728.255, 1739.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1714.054}, "reply_to": "22794__1_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__1_007", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "If it's... excuse me, Your Honor.\nIf it still presents a question of Federal law, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1739.539, 1741.558], "stop_times": [1741.558, 1745.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1739.539}, "reply_to": "22794__1_006", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_008", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Well, it doesn't present any question of law, just a question of fact.\nLet's say both parties agree about the law, but the fact that is determinative of nothing, except the operation of Federal law, is at issue.\nNow, that... that would normally... under 1331, you'd be able to come into Federal court I suppose just where your only dispute is a factual dispute, but it is a factual dispute regarding the operation of Federal law.\nWhat... what if this were just a factual dispute about the operation of Federal law?\nWhat would we do with it?\nDoes the fact that it's a factual dispute make it not substantial, not a substantial Federal question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1745.277, 1748.974, 1757.916, 1770.942, 1774.969, 1775.86], "stop_times": [1748.974, 1757.916, 1770.942, 1774.969, 1775.86, 1783.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1745.277}, "reply_to": "22794__1_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__1_009", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I think that it could still be a substantial Federal question because it could implicate a substantial Federal interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1783.027], "stop_times": [1794.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1783.027}, "reply_to": "22794__1_008", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_010", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Well, you're taking the... I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1794.744], "stop_times": [1796.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1794.744}, "reply_to": "22794__1_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22794__1_011", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--Well, and how is that different from the forgery?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1796.628], "stop_times": [1798.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1796.628}, "reply_to": "22794__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__1_012", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1798.598], "stop_times": [1799.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1798.598}, "reply_to": "22794__1_011", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_013", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "How... how is that different from the forgery hypothetical?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1799.97], "stop_times": [1802.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.97}, "reply_to": "22794__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__1_014", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "It would... it would then be the same, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1802.098], "stop_times": [1803.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1802.098}, "reply_to": "22794__1_013", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_015", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--Well, you're taking the position then, as I understand it... and I... I don't disagree with your... your position necessarily... that its construction or application--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1803.791], "stop_times": [1813.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.791}, "reply_to": "22794__1_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22794__1_016", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1813.236], "stop_times": [1814.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1813.236}, "reply_to": "22794__1_015", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_017", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--of Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1814.555], "stop_times": [1815.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1814.555}, "reply_to": "22794__1_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22794__1_018", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThat's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1815.204, 1815.851], "stop_times": [1815.851, 1816.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1815.204}, "reply_to": "22794__1_017", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_019", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1816.484], "stop_times": [1816.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1816.484}, "reply_to": "22794__1_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22794__1_020", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--Suppose the... there was an issue in this case about the plaintiff in the quiet title action having waited too long.\nI think here it was 6 years after.\nSo... so suppose there was a defense of laches under State law.\nThat could be an issue in an action in this format, quiet title action, which would be governed by State law.\nIsn't that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1816.697, 1832.934, 1834.995, 1840.56, 1850.686], "stop_times": [1832.934, 1834.995, 1840.56, 1850.686, 1851.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1816.697}, "reply_to": "22794__1_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__1_021", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "It would, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1851.631], "stop_times": [1852.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1851.631}, "reply_to": "22794__1_020", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_022", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "So that case wouldn't be removable then if the... if the defense is laches?\nThe plaintiff--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1852.666, 1860.537], "stop_times": [1860.537, 1861.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.666}, "reply_to": "22794__1_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__1_023", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I believe... excuse me, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1861.674], "stop_times": [1862.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1861.674}, "reply_to": "22794__1_022", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_024", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--Yes?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1862.915], "stop_times": [1863.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1862.915}, "reply_to": "22794__1_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__1_025", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I believe that it could be removable because it could still involve the application of the Federal law--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1863.347], "stop_times": [1868.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1863.347}, "reply_to": "22794__1_024", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_026", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "But you might never get to the Federal law if the determination of 6 years is too long to wait to bring a suit like this.\nThen you would remove and you could have an outcome based solely on State law in the Federal court.\nYou'd have a State claim.\nThe issue that divides the parties is how long was too long, and the court decides the case on that basis and never gets to the Federal question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1868.801, 1876.839, 1887.686, 1891.146], "stop_times": [1876.839, 1887.686, 1891.146, 1901.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1868.801}, "reply_to": "22794__1_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__1_027", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--I see, Your Honor, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1901.253], "stop_times": [1905.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1901.253}, "reply_to": "22794__1_026", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_028", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "So if laches is pleaded as a defense, then it's not removable?\nBut don't you... well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1905.598, 1914.21], "stop_times": [1914.21, 1921.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1905.598}, "reply_to": "22794__1_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__1_029", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Your Honor, I'm not certain.\nThat's... I'm sorry.\nI'm not certain.\nI believe that it could be removable, still utilizing the application of the Federal law to that circumstance, even in the factual dispute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1921.404, 1923.253, 1924.749, 1925.504], "stop_times": [1923.253, 1924.749, 1925.504, 1933.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1921.404}, "reply_to": "22794__1_028", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_030", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--Well, at what point do you remove the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1933.331], "stop_times": [1936.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1933.331}, "reply_to": "22794__1_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__1_031", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I'm sorry.\nI don't understand the question, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1936.98, 1940.023], "stop_times": [1940.023, 1941.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1936.98}, "reply_to": "22794__1_030", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_032", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "A complaint is filed in State court, and you are the defendant and you want to remove that case to Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1941.38], "stop_times": [1951.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1941.38}, "reply_to": "22794__1_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__1_033", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1951.161], "stop_times": [1952.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1951.161}, "reply_to": "22794__1_032", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_034", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "How much time do you have to remove?\nWould it be in advance of your answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1952.389, 1957.438], "stop_times": [1957.438, 1960.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1952.389}, "reply_to": "22794__1_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__1_035", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1960.741], "stop_times": [1962.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1960.741}, "reply_to": "22794__1_034", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_036", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "So that in my case, you would remove on the basis of the complaint before you put in your answer, and I think you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1962.743], "stop_times": [1971.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1962.743}, "reply_to": "22794__1_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__1_037", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1971.823], "stop_times": [1972.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1971.823}, "reply_to": "22794__1_036", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_038", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--And then you could get into the Federal court, and the answer could be laches and you're in the Federal court and the only question that's decided is the State law question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1972.354], "stop_times": [1982.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1972.354}, "reply_to": "22794__1_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__1_039", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1982.652], "stop_times": [1984.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1982.652}, "reply_to": "22794__1_038", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_040", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I suppose that happens pretty often in removal... in... in removed cases.\nYou really don't know what the defense is going to be.\nIf it's removed on the basis of the well-pleaded complaint, when the defense gets there, it... it may often be a State... a State defense.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [1984.561, 1999.23, 2001.367, 2011.547], "stop_times": [1999.23, 2001.367, 2011.547, 2012.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1984.561}, "reply_to": "22794__1_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__1_041", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "That's accurate, Your Honor.\nExcuse me.\nIf there are no additional questions, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2012.618, 2013.855, 2014.789], "stop_times": [2013.855, 2014.789, 2025.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2012.618}, "reply_to": "22794__1_040", "speaker": "michael_c_walton"}
{"id": "22794__1_042", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Very well, Mr. Walton.\nMr. Gornstein, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2025.401, 2027.043], "stop_times": [2027.043, 2029.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2025.401}, "reply_to": "22794__1_041", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22794__2_000", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nAn action arises under Federal law not only when Federal law supplies the cause of action, but also when the plaintiff's right to relief under a well-pleaded State law cause of action necessarily depends on a substantial question of Federal law.\nThat second category of arising-under jurisdiction is... applies here because petitioner's right to relief under its State law quiet title action necessarily depends on the allegation in its well-pleaded complaint that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2029.737, 2039.343, 2055.399], "stop_times": [2039.343, 2055.399, 2072.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2029.737}, "reply_to": "22794__1_042", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22794__2_001", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Why wouldn't that same rule apply in a State where there's a common law cause of action for ejectment and it's substantively under State law different from a cloud on the title?\nYou discuss in your brief, very helpfully I think, the... the Hopkins and the Taylor line of cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2072.797, 2083.313], "stop_times": [2083.313, 2089.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2072.797}, "reply_to": "22794__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__2_002", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2089.522], "stop_times": [2089.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2089.522}, "reply_to": "22794__2_001", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22794__2_003", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "How is your statement that you just made consistent with the Court's holding under the Taylor line of cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2089.902], "stop_times": [2094.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2089.902}, "reply_to": "22794__2_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__2_004", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "In the Taylor line of cases, what is necessary to... to allege in a well-pleaded complaint for common law ejectment is only that I have title and you're wrongfully here.\nYou do not have to plead the facts that show superiority of title.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2094.742, 2108.505], "stop_times": [2108.505, 2113.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2094.742}, "reply_to": "22794__2_003", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22794__2_005", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "So if we had exactly the facts of this case and there's a common law ejectment, you would not say that it goes to Federal court.\nIt would stay in State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2113.764, 2119.094], "stop_times": [2119.094, 2119.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.764}, "reply_to": "22794__2_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__2_006", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "No.\nOn Taylor v. Anderson you are not.\nBut the difference, Justice Kennedy, is in that kind of case, the plaintiff wouldn't be eliminating the cloud on his title.\nHe would just be getting possession of the property.\nSo there's always going to be an incentive for the plaintiff who's faced with a document, a deed, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2119.997, 2120.326, 2122.192, 2129.875, 2133.08], "stop_times": [2120.326, 2122.192, 2129.875, 2133.08, 2139.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2119.997}, "reply_to": "22794__2_005", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22794__2_007", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Well, I... I suppose that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2139.183], "stop_times": [2140.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2139.183}, "reply_to": "22794__2_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__2_008", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--to... to sue for cloud on title.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2140.799], "stop_times": [2141.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2140.799}, "reply_to": "22794__2_007", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22794__2_009", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--in a common law ejectment action that we are supposing that what's going to come up is the tax sale.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2141.507], "stop_times": [2145.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2141.507}, "reply_to": "22794__2_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__2_010", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2145.524], "stop_times": [2146.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2145.524}, "reply_to": "22794__2_009", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22794__2_011", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Which is just the facts of this case.\nAnd I suppose that if the plaintiff prevails on the common law cause of action for ejectment, he's got a... a res judicata defense if the... if the present occupier then makes another suit based on the tax deed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2146.464, 2147.669], "stop_times": [2147.669, 2162.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2146.464}, "reply_to": "22794__2_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22794__2_012", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "In the common law cause of action, which isn't available in Michigan, but under the common law cause of action, all was... all that was determined was that you had a right to possession at the time the lawsuit was filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2162.011], "stop_times": [2175.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2162.011}, "reply_to": "22794__2_011", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22794__2_013", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I guess this... this problem is simply a consequence of the well-pleaded complaint rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2175.184], "stop_times": [2180.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2175.184}, "reply_to": "22794__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__2_014", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "It... it is, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2180.287], "stop_times": [2181.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2180.287}, "reply_to": "22794__2_013", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22794__2_015", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "If we... we altered that rule, it would make more sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2181.441], "stop_times": [2183.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2181.441}, "reply_to": "22794__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__2_016", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Well, the... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2183.117], "stop_times": [2184.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2183.117}, "reply_to": "22794__2_015", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22794__2_017", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "This... this kind of peculiarity happens all the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2184.918], "stop_times": [2187.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2184.918}, "reply_to": "22794__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__2_018", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--It does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2187.431], "stop_times": [2188.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2187.431}, "reply_to": "22794__2_017", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22794__2_019", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "It depends on whether the Federal question has to be pleaded or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2188.008], "stop_times": [2190.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2188.008}, "reply_to": "22794__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__2_020", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "That's correct.\nAnd the justification for the well-pleaded complaint rule that the Court has authored is that it provides a quick rule of thumb for determining at the outset of the litigation which cases are most likely to be ones where the Federal law issues are at the forefront.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2190.758, 2191.88], "stop_times": [2191.88, 2208.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2190.758}, "reply_to": "22794__2_019", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22794__2_021", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "It's quick and dirty.\nWe haven't tried to slice the baloney too thin in this area, have we?\nWe... we--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2208.373, 2208.998, 2212.405, 2213.257], "stop_times": [2208.998, 2212.405, 2213.257, 2213.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2208.373}, "reply_to": "22794__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__2_022", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2213.977], "stop_times": [2214.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.977}, "reply_to": "22794__2_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22794__2_023", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "It's enough to be pretty close.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2214.501], "stop_times": [2215.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2214.501}, "reply_to": "22794__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__2_024", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--But the way you stated the rule, if I heard you correctly, you're contending that Merrell Dow was incorrectly decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2215.139], "stop_times": [2221.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2215.139}, "reply_to": "22794__2_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22794__2_025", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "No, because Merrell Dow did not involve a substantial question of Federal law, and that was part of the test that I announced.\nAnd the difference between this case and Merrell Dow is twofold.\nFirst, this case falls within the Hopkins line of cases, and second, this... the role of Federal law in Merrell Dow is completely different than it was in this case and in the Hopkins line of cases.\nWhat was going on in Merrell Dow is that the State adopted a Federal standard as presumptive evidence of State law negligence, and when a State adopts a Federal standard into its own State law standard, the... the action remains one that is fundamentally State law in character.\nSo the Federal question in the case is not regarded as substantial.\nBut here, the situation is entirely different.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2221.535, 2227.891, 2232.081, 2245.652, 2264.89, 2268.163], "stop_times": [2227.891, 2232.081, 2245.652, 2264.89, 2268.163, 2271.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2221.535}, "reply_to": "22794__2_024", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22794__2_026", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "We do occasionally review that kind of a decision here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2271.381], "stop_times": [2274.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2271.381}, "reply_to": "22794__2_025", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22794__2_027", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "You do, Mr. Chief Justice.\nAnd the Court in Merrell Dow drew a distinction between what is substantial enough of a Federal question to trigger arising-under jurisdiction as an original matter and what is substantial enough of a Federal question to obtain this Court's review.\nAnd we're dealing here just with the kind of substantiality that's necessary for original jurisdiction under 1331.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2274.934, 2277.516, 2293.569], "stop_times": [2277.516, 2293.569, 2301.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2274.934}, "reply_to": "22794__2_026", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22794__2_028", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I assume that a fact in a particular case which affects nobody else in the country, but which is determinative of the Federal question is never a substantial question of Federal law.\nIs it?\nSo you... you would not agree that... that it's not only the... the content, but also the application of Federal law that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2301.932, 2315.284, 2315.659], "stop_times": [2315.284, 2315.659, 2324.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2301.932}, "reply_to": "22794__2_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22794__2_029", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Let me draw a distinction between those cases where the cause of action is supplied by Federal law, in which case factual issues are resolved by Federal courts as long as there's a Federal cause of action and cases where there's not a Federal cause of action.\nThen you need... the right to relief has to depend on a substantial question of Federal law.\nSo if the only issue in the case, in that kind of case, is a factual dispute and everybody agrees on the law, then there's no substantial Federal question, no removal jurisdiction.\nBut if the right to relief depends on Federal law and the meaning of Federal law and there's also a factual issue in the case, that would be removable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2324.458, 2338.788, 2344.811, 2355.691], "stop_times": [2338.788, 2344.811, 2355.691, 2365.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2324.458}, "reply_to": "22794__2_028", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22794__2_030", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "If there were only a dispute about when the notice was given and not a factual dispute, then it would not have been removable I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2365.062], "stop_times": [2377.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.062}, "reply_to": "22794__2_029", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22794__2_031", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "It's... it's removable if the only question was whether notice was given.\nBut if the question is was sufficient notice given such as to transfer title under Federal law, then that's removable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2377.252, 2381.588], "stop_times": [2381.588, 2389.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2377.252}, "reply_to": "22794__2_030", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22794__2_032", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Well, that's a very... sliced baloney very thin.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2389.573, 2394.151], "stop_times": [2394.151, 2394.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2389.573}, "reply_to": "22794__2_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22794__2_033", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Well, Mr. Chief Justice, that slices the baloney the way this Court's cases have sliced the baloney, and that... that rule is that there has to be a substantial question of Federal law.\nThere is one when the action depends on the meaning of Federal law, but not one where everybody agrees on the meaning of Federal law and all that's at issue is a dispute about the facts.\nNow, this case, as I said, does fall within the Hopkins line of cases, and in each of those cases, the Court held there was arising-under jurisdiction in a quiet title action where the plaintiff's claim that it had superior title to the land in question depended on the meaning of Federal law.\nAnd, of course, that's true here.\nThe quiet title action provides the mechanism for review of this question, but the question is entirely one of Federal law as to who has the superior interest in the land, the tax sale purchaser or the taxpayer.\nIf the Court has no further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2394.408, 2404.839, 2415.463, 2436.732, 2438.405, 2454.639], "stop_times": [2404.839, 2415.463, 2436.732, 2438.405, 2454.639, 2457.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2394.408}, "reply_to": "22794__2_032", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "22794__2_034", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Gornstein.\nMr. Zagrans, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2457.728, 2462.752], "stop_times": [2462.752, 2466.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2457.728}, "reply_to": "22794__2_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22794__3_000", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nWe agree with General Gornstein's statement of the test.\nThe test is a State cause of action that necessarily depends on a substantial question of Federal law arises under for 1331 purposes.\nThe difference between my argument and the argument of respondent is the meaning of substantial or what constitutes substantiality.\nAnd in Merrell Dow, the Court held for all Federal statutory purposes the Federal law is not substantial enough to confer arising-under jurisdiction unless Congress created a private remedy along with the statute.\nThat's where we part company.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2466.879, 2467.927, 2473.629, 2484.667, 2494.677, 2512.59], "stop_times": [2467.927, 2473.629, 2484.667, 2494.677, 2512.59, 2514.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2466.879}, "reply_to": "22794__2_034", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__3_001", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Mr. Zagrans, there is language in Merrell Dow that makes it sound like it's not as clear and certain as you are urging.\nI think that the opinion author said that 1331's domain is shaped by the demands of reason and coherence, dictates of sound judicial policy, and common sense.\nAnd if you just take that last question when the only question is, is mail notice good enough to satisfy the Federal statute, or do you have to have in-hand service?\nDoesn't common sense say what that section means should be a Federal question, appropriate for a Federal court to decide?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2514.136, 2527.822, 2544.655, 2561.346], "stop_times": [2527.822, 2544.655, 2561.346, 2574.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2514.136}, "reply_to": "22794__3_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__3_002", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I agree, Justice Ginsburg, is... it is a Federal question as a common sense matter and every other way.\nIt does not follow that it should be decided and adjudicated by a Federal court.\nState courts can and do--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2574.59, 2581.275, 2586.937], "stop_times": [2581.275, 2586.937, 2590.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2574.59}, "reply_to": "22794__3_001", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__3_003", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I'm simply making the point that you are reading Merrill Lynch... Merrell Dow in a rather rigid way.\nAnd yet, there is this language in it that says in... in... what was before the court in Merrell Dow made perfectly good sense in that tort action to have it going on in State court.\nThis is quite a different picture.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2590.095, 2598.615, 2612.302], "stop_times": [2598.615, 2612.302, 2616.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2590.095}, "reply_to": "22794__3_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__3_004", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "--I think, Your Honor, that Merrell Dow's emphasis on making pragmatic, sensitive judgments, judgments that are both principled and common sense, dictated the holding in that case which was when it's an act of Congress that is being inserted as an element of a State law claim, in order then to bootstrap that State law claim into Federal court on removal jurisdiction, there would need to be a substantial Federal question.\nWho decides that?\nCongress decides that, both as a matter of judicial power and as a matter of common sense application.\nAnd that's the distinction, by the way, with the Hopkins line of cases.\nI don't believe that the Hopkins line is any different from the Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust line in terms of this emphasis on necessarily depending on a substantial question of Federal law.\nThe difference in Hopkins is that those were competing Federal land claims.\nThe only thing in the case was Federal law.\nBoth sides took their entitlement to the property from Federal mining law, and the Federal issues in that case either were exclusive of all the legal issues or so overwhelmingly predominated over the State law issues, that that was the result in those cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2616.537, 2646.366, 2647.509, 2654.22, 2657.937, 2668.981, 2674.868, 2678.918], "stop_times": [2646.366, 2647.509, 2654.22, 2657.937, 2668.981, 2674.868, 2678.918, 2695.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2616.537}, "reply_to": "22794__3_003", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__3_005", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "I thought that there was no State law issue in this case, that the whole thing turned on what kind of notion... notice was sufficient to convey title.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2695.234], "stop_times": [2703.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2695.234}, "reply_to": "22794__3_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22794__3_006", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "There are many State law issues in this case, Your Honor, in terms of the State quiet title action.\nThe only disputed issue and the issue that the respondent says the State law claim necessarily depends for its resolution is this disputed issue of Federal law over the notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2703.784, 2709.24], "stop_times": [2709.24, 2725.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2703.784}, "reply_to": "22794__3_005", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__3_007", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Zagrans.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2725.808], "stop_times": [2727.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2725.808}, "reply_to": "22794__3_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22794__3_008", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2727.172], "stop_times": [2727.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2727.172}, "reply_to": "22794__3_007", "speaker": "eric_h_zagrans"}
{"id": "22794__3_009", "conversation_id": "22794", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-603", "start_times": [2727.77], "stop_times": [2729.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.77}, "reply_to": "22794__3_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22332__0_000", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Graham County Soil & Water Conservation District v. the United States.\nMr. Browning.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [0.0, 11.802], "stop_times": [11.802, 70.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22332__0_001", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe issue in this case is whether Congress expressly provided for a limitations period for a retaliatory discharge action under the Federal False Claims Act.\nThe 6-year limitation period set out in section 3731(b) of the act is tied to a violation of section 3729, that is, the submission of a fraudulent claim to the Government.\nThe triggering event to start the statute of limitations running under section 3731(b) is a violation of section 3729.\nBecause a violation of section 3729 is not an element of the cause of action for retaliatory discharge, Congress did not intend to provide a limitations period in section 3731(b) for a retaliatory discharge action.\nThe Government in its amicus brief argues that Congress must have intended a uniform limitation period so that all three actions created by the False Claims Act could be brought in the same proceeding.\nThe... the Government's argument undermines the very purpose of the Federal False Claims Act and the retaliatory discharge provision.\nThe retaliatory discharge provision, section 3730(h) of the False Claims Act, not only protects people who blow the whistle, the initial whistleblower, but it expressly protects people who testify at trial.\nAnd we have seen time and again in many of these cases the Government will keep a case under seal for 5, 6, 7 years.\nWe've seen repeatedly situations, because of the complexity of the underlying violation of the false claim, that it might take a decade from when the complaint is filed to when the case actually is put before a jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [70.874, 74.868, 85.194, 99.002, 109.322, 127.253, 141.94, 150.042, 166.991, 176.538], "stop_times": [74.868, 85.194, 99.002, 109.322, 127.253, 141.94, 150.042, 166.991, 176.538, 190.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 70.874}, "reply_to": "22332__0_000", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_002", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Mr. Browning, this argument that you're making, where you seem to be having great solicitude for the... for the whistleblowers, for the people who might be retaliated against... the respondent and the Solicitor General answer your argument by saying in all the years that 3730(h) retaliation claims have been available, there has been no instance of qui tam plaintiff barred because the retaliation occurred outside the 6 but are there any actual cases where the retaliation in fact fell outside the 6-year, dated from the submission of the false claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [190.415], "stop_times": [237.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 190.415}, "reply_to": "22332__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22332__0_003", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I cannot cite to a specific situation where that has occurred, and the Government, you're right, makes very much of the argument that this is simply hypothetical.\nBut it is a very real and concrete problem when you have cases that go to trial, that it takes so long to go to trial, and those people who are testifying at trial have no protection because it' s more than 6 years from the violation of section 3729.\nI... I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [237.897, 247.219, 263.737], "stop_times": [247.219, 263.737, 265.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 237.897}, "reply_to": "22332__0_002", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_004", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Maybe they don't get retaliated against if they testify at trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [265.086], "stop_times": [269.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 265.086}, "reply_to": "22332__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22332__0_005", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [269.768], "stop_times": [270.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 269.768}, "reply_to": "22332__0_004", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_006", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "And if the question is whether there is a problem out there in the real world on... for people whose interest is certainly not identical to yours.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [270.099], "stop_times": [281.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 270.099}, "reply_to": "22332__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22332__0_007", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Your Honor, I recognize that, but you have to look at the statute as a whole to construe it in its proper context.\nAnd there are many situations where there... a number of years pass from... from when the complaint is filed to when the testimony takes place at trial.\nAnd... and as the amicus brief of the National Work Right Institute points out, an organization that's designed to protect the human rights of employees, an organization that's a spin-off of the American Civil Liberties Union, that organization clearly views the interpretation advocated by the respondents and adopted by the Fourth Circuit as detrimental by employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [281.127, 288.941, 298.722], "stop_times": [288.941, 298.722, 324.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 281.127}, "reply_to": "22332__0_006", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_008", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "All right.\nAll that's true, but the question that I think Justice Ginsburg asked was you have on your side the whole National Defense Industrial Association.\nYou have the Equal Employment Advisory Council that represents dozens and dozens, I take it, of businesses.\nWe have your own client.\nWe have you in the firm.\nEverybody.\nI imagine you all racked your brains to say has there ever been such an example, and I take the answer is no, never.\nNot all of you could even find one instance where this happened.\nNow, am I right?\nBecause that's what I think unless you provide the example.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [324.438, 324.859, 332.97, 338.265, 339.422, 340.376, 340.888, 347.959, 351.65, 352.401], "stop_times": [324.859, 332.97, 338.265, 339.422, 340.376, 340.888, 347.959, 351.65, 352.401, 354.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 324.438}, "reply_to": "22332__0_007", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22332__0_009", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "I cannot cite a specific example.\nJustice Breyer, I would direct your attention to the case in the Eleventh Circuit, Childray v. UAPGA, in which 4-and-a-half years had passed between when the initial allegation of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [354.503, 356.098], "stop_times": [356.098, 370.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 354.503}, "reply_to": "22332__0_008", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_010", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Okay.\nSo... so what would be so unreasonable about a Member of Congress concluding the following?\nWe want these things to end after 6 years, you know?\nAnd there's never been an example of this horrible that you think of, and so we are going to end them all after 6 years from the time the thing took place, the cheat took place.\nAnd that's it.\nAnd if there's some other problem of the kind you're worried about that comes up, we will worry about that later through amendment, tolling, et cetera.\nWhy is that an... we don't want 30 day statutes of limitations or 90-day statute of limitations.\nWe want 6 years.\nThat helps most people.\nAnd if there's an odd case that doesn't, we'll worry about it.\nWhat's the answer to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [370.913, 371.335, 375.872, 378.801, 389.238, 390.39, 396.924, 403.164, 404.262, 405.403, 408.849], "stop_times": [371.335, 375.872, 378.801, 389.238, 390.39, 396.924, 403.164, 404.262, 405.403, 408.849, 409.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 370.913}, "reply_to": "22332__0_009", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22332__0_011", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, if Congress had said that, they certainly could have made that decision, but it would run completely contrary to almost 200 years of precedent from this Court that as a general rule, the limitations period does not begin to run before your cause of action even comes into existence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [409.729], "stop_times": [429.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 409.729}, "reply_to": "22332__0_010", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_012", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Yes, that's true, it would be.\nAnd the reason we're doing it is because there's a period of time when somebody lies to the Government and we don't want actions that are related to that.\nWe'll have to go into that proof to take place more than 6 years later.\nNow, that would be the reason, and I agree it would be contrary.\nBut the difficulty for me is the language seems to point to that reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [429.429, 430.725, 439.167, 442.591, 445.801], "stop_times": [430.725, 439.167, 442.591, 445.801, 449.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 429.429}, "reply_to": "22332__0_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22332__0_013", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Well I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [449.198], "stop_times": [449.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 449.198}, "reply_to": "22332__0_012", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_014", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "And I can't find that reason idiotic.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [449.652], "stop_times": [451.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.652}, "reply_to": "22332__0_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22332__0_015", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I... I don't think the language points to that because the language of the limitations period, 3731(b), which is set out in the appendix to the cert petition at page 135a... the language of the statute is a civil action under section 3730 may not be brought more than 6 years after the date of the violation of section 3729.\nThere are two material aspects of... of the statutory language: the violation of section 3729, which is not an element of the cause of action--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [451.46, 485.513], "stop_times": [485.513, 495.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 451.46}, "reply_to": "22332__0_014", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_016", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Well, I... I don't mean to interrupt, but it is true that this is a civil action that's brought under 3730(h), is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [495.539], "stop_times": [500.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 495.539}, "reply_to": "22332__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22332__0_017", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--The... the action is brought under 3730(h), and Justice Stevens--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [500.951], "stop_times": [504.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 500.951}, "reply_to": "22332__0_016", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_018", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "So it is literally within the plain language of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [504.044], "stop_times": [507.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 504.044}, "reply_to": "22332__0_017", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22332__0_019", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Well, it is and it isn't.\nIt is clearly in 3730(h), but when you look at the False Claims Act, Congress has used the phrase, an action under 3730, to mean different things in various portions throughout the False Claims Act.\nCongress has used that phrase on six different occasions, and I would particularly direct the Court's attention to 3731(c).\nIn... in that provision, Congress has provided that in an action brought under section 3730, the United States must prove the elements of the cause of action by a preponderance of the evidence.\nThe respondent and the Government say you must have this little reading of section... the phrase, an action under 3730, and it means all three causes of action in 3731(b), but that... but when you turn to 3731(c), that virtually identical phrase appears and you have to read that statutory provision in context, and read in context--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [507.403, 508.705, 522.374, 531.589, 546.352], "stop_times": [508.705, 522.374, 531.589, 546.352, 573.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.403}, "reply_to": "22332__0_018", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_020", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "It seems... it seems if you read a provision like this, it says what the United States would be required to prove.\nImplicit in... in that is in any action brought by the United States under 3730.\nI think... think (c) is clearly talking about cases in which the United States is bringing the action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [573.093, 577.449, 583.471], "stop_times": [577.449, 583.471, 589.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 573.093}, "reply_to": "22332__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22332__0_021", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Exactly, Justice Ginsburg.\nYou have to read it in context, and I think when you read 3731(b) in context and that limitations period is tied to a violation of section 3729, it is clear that Congress did not intend the phrase, an action under 3730, to... to include a retaliatory discharge action in which a violation of section--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [589.353, 590.691], "stop_times": [590.691, 614.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 589.353}, "reply_to": "22332__0_020", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_022", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Well, I don't think that's at all as clear as that (c) is directed to cases brought by the United States for the reason that Justice Breyer just explained.\nCongress might want to have one 6-year limitation and say, well, maybe there would be this hypothetical case that you're worried about, but for the most part, 6 years will take care of everybody.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [614.568, 624.092], "stop_times": [624.092, 635.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 614.568}, "reply_to": "22332__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22332__0_023", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--And, Justice Ginsburg, my point is just as section 3731(c) is not intended to cover all of the causes of action under the False Claims Act, 3731(b) is not intended to cover all of the actions under the False Claims Act as well, that it's only intended to cover the causes of action in which a violation of section 3729 is an element of the cause of action.\nThe... the Government makes the argument that you need a uniform limitations period so these actions can be tried together, but the Government ignores the fact that a qui tam action or an action brought by the Government is a completely different cause of action than an action for retaliatory discharge action.\nThey involve different substantive claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [635.047, 664.242, 685.261], "stop_times": [664.242, 685.261, 687.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 635.047}, "reply_to": "22332__0_022", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_024", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "That's true, but is it also not true that some of the people who get retaliated against may be the same people who bring the qui tam action?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [687.9], "stop_times": [695.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 687.9}, "reply_to": "22332__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22332__0_025", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "In some cases, that is... is the case, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [695.702], "stop_times": [698.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 695.702}, "reply_to": "22332__0_024", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_026", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "So if they don't get the... recover as being the victim of retaliation, they may still get a very handsome reward for what happened to them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [698.757], "stop_times": [706.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 698.757}, "reply_to": "22332__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22332__0_027", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--That is the case, but... but I also want to point out that in many cases, the person who brings the qui tam action is a completely different plaintiff than the person who brings the retaliatory discharge action.\nThe example of someone who is retaliated against for testifying at trial... in that situation, it's clearly going to be a different plaintiff than the plaintiff who brought the original qui tam action.\nIt can also be a different defendant.\nSection 3730(h) is intended to preclude an industry from blacklisting an employee.\nSo if an employee brings a qui tam action while at one employer and subsequently leaves and go to... goes to work for a second employer, when the second employer recognizes or... or learns that this employee had previously been involved in an investigation under the False Claims Act, that second employer is precluded from retaliating against the... the employee.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [706.383, 718.569, 731.194, 732.863, 741.475, 767.492], "stop_times": [718.569, 731.194, 732.863, 741.475, 767.492, 768.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 706.383}, "reply_to": "22332__0_026", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_028", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "In the real world, do we have such cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [768.072], "stop_times": [770.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 768.072}, "reply_to": "22332__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22332__0_029", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nI cannot cite to a specific case, but I'm aware that that is very much a issue that practitioners face day in and day out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [770.05, 770.881], "stop_times": [770.881, 779.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 770.05}, "reply_to": "22332__0_028", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_030", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Another real-world question.\nDo we... do we have any... do you have any experience that you can rely on either to show that in fact these subsection (h) claims are brought customarily with the main qui tam action or, conversely, that they are brought separately?\nDo we know what's going on?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [779.131, 781.765, 798.571], "stop_times": [781.765, 798.571, 799.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 779.131}, "reply_to": "22332__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22332__0_031", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIt is a real mix, that on many cases you will see a retaliatory discharge action brought independently, and in other cases you'll see the qui tam action and the retaliation action brought simultaneously.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [799.589, 800.175], "stop_times": [800.175, 812.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 799.589}, "reply_to": "22332__0_030", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_032", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "In connection with what's included and what isn't included, the... in that same 3731 provision in (d), (d) is limited to (a) and (b) and so excludes (h).\nAnd if Congress had meant that with respect to the 6-year period, they could have said the same thing, that it relates to (a) and (b) and not (h).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [812.83, 830.078], "stop_times": [830.078, 839.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 812.83}, "reply_to": "22332__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22332__0_033", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Your Honor, I would recognize that there is different language that Congress could have... have chosen to state this in a different way, but... and you're right, that in section 3731(d), Congress did specifically reference section 3730(a) and 3730(b), but Congress did not use that precision in drafting throughout the Federal False Claims Act.\nJust... there are a number of ambiguities that exist throughout the Federal False Claims Act.\nCongress even referred to the General Accounting Office as the Government Accounting Office.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [839.549, 865.447, 871.538], "stop_times": [865.447, 871.538, 876.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 839.549}, "reply_to": "22332__0_032", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_034", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "They could have done the same in 3731(c) also.\nInstead of just saying any action brought under section 3730, they could have said any action brought under... which one?\n(a) of... of... which is the one that allows the Government suit?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [876.471, 880.546, 887.729], "stop_times": [880.546, 887.729, 891.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 876.471}, "reply_to": "22332__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__0_035", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "3730(a), Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [891.159], "stop_times": [892.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 891.159}, "reply_to": "22332__0_034", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_036", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "(a).\nThey could have said (a), and they didn't.\nThey said all of 3730.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [892.956, 893.083, 894.231], "stop_times": [893.083, 894.231, 896.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 892.956}, "reply_to": "22332__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__0_037", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Yes.\nSo... so all you can really take from the statute is that the phrase--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [896.502, 896.698], "stop_times": [896.698, 901.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 896.502}, "reply_to": "22332__0_036", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_038", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Sloppy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [901.956], "stop_times": [902.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 901.956}, "reply_to": "22332__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__0_039", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [902.515], "stop_times": [903.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 902.515}, "reply_to": "22332__0_038", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_040", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--is what you can take.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [903.463], "stop_times": [903.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 903.463}, "reply_to": "22332__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__0_041", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThat you have to look at the context.\nYou have to look at the meaning, and when you're dealing with a statute that is drafted in a way that's sloppy, you have to look at what Congress really intended, and when Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [903.576, 904.168, 906.754], "stop_times": [904.168, 906.754, 918.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.576}, "reply_to": "22332__0_040", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_042", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "May I ask... may I ask you a question about the alternative?\nIf we don't follow this statute, you... you refer to State law for the correct cause... statute of limitations I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [918.033, 920.357], "stop_times": [920.357, 926.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 918.033}, "reply_to": "22332__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22332__0_043", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [926.575], "stop_times": [927.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 926.575}, "reply_to": "22332__0_042", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_044", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "And I imagine because there are different forms of retaliation... sometimes it's a discharge, sometimes it might be slander by defaming the person for his next employer, it might be a tort, they beat him up or something, there could be a lot of different kinds of retaliation... each of which would give rise to a different statute of limitations under State law.\nDoes that seem reasonable?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [927.252, 945.827], "stop_times": [945.827, 947.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 927.252}, "reply_to": "22332__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22332__0_045", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Well, Your Honor, this Court has faced that situation with 1983 in a variety of contexts, and there are a number of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [947.454], "stop_times": [955.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 947.454}, "reply_to": "22332__0_044", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_046", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "We had to make up a rule to fill a gap.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [955.182], "stop_times": [956.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 955.182}, "reply_to": "22332__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22332__0_047", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--And... and in North Carolina it's easy.\nIt is basically a 3-year statute of limitations for everything.\nAnd for a retaliatory discharge action, you look at the... in North Carolina, you look at the limitations period for--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [956.237, 958.738, 962.481], "stop_times": [958.738, 962.481, 970.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.237}, "reply_to": "22332__0_046", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_048", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "But what about Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and... and Florida?\nMaybe they all have different statutes and they have different kinds of causes of action that may be relevant in the retaliation case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [970.838, 974.789], "stop_times": [974.789, 981.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 970.838}, "reply_to": "22332__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22332__0_049", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Your Honor, that is certainly an issue.\nWith respect to the parties in this case, that is a matter that is clear and simple because North Carolina you look to a retaliatory discharge action--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [981.862, 984.208], "stop_times": [984.208, 995.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 981.862}, "reply_to": "22332__0_048", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_050", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "No, but in our construction of the statute, we have to think about its application throughout the United States, not just in North... North Carolina.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [995.183], "stop_times": [1001.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 995.183}, "reply_to": "22332__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22332__0_051", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Yes, and a rule that would apply the residual limitation period for personal injury would certainly be appropriate for a situation like this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1001.006], "stop_times": [1013.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1001.006}, "reply_to": "22332__0_050", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_052", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Is it... is it a necessary element of a successful action for retaliatory discharge that... that the action under the False Claims Act have succeeded?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1013.117], "stop_times": [1026.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1013.117}, "reply_to": "22332__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__0_053", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe courts have repeatedly held that for a retaliatory discharge action, it is not necessary to have a violation of section 3729.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1026.739, 1027.665], "stop_times": [1027.665, 1039.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1026.739}, "reply_to": "22332__0_052", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_054", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "What does the Government contend is to be done under (b)(1) when no violation of section 3729 is committed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1039.195], "stop_times": [1050.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1039.195}, "reply_to": "22332__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__0_055", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Well, the way I read the Government's brief is they want to modify the language of section 3731(b) by inserting the phrase alleged before the phrase, violation of section 3729.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1050.72], "stop_times": [1066.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1050.72}, "reply_to": "22332__0_054", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_056", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "But don't we have to do that anyway when... when in fact a person brings an ordinary claim?\nI mean, Joe Smith brings a claim that XYZ company cheated the Government.\nNow, that doesn't mean it was committed.\nIt just means he says it was committed.\nAfter all, he might lose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1066.82, 1071.205, 1077.94, 1081.353, 1083.567], "stop_times": [1071.205, 1077.94, 1081.353, 1083.567, 1084.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1066.82}, "reply_to": "22332__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22332__0_057", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "But... but, Justice Breyer, when the jury renders its verdict, if there is a violation of section 3729 that's proven to exist, but that... that proven violation is beyond the 6-year period, the defendant would be entitled to judgment based upon the affirmative--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1084.66], "stop_times": [1104.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1084.66}, "reply_to": "22332__0_056", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_058", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "You mean if in fact the plaintiff loses because the jury finds for the defendant in the qui tam action, then it should have been dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1104.35], "stop_times": [1114.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.35}, "reply_to": "22332__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22332__0_059", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nWhat I'm saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1114.579, 1114.995], "stop_times": [1114.995, 1115.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1114.579}, "reply_to": "22332__0_058", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_060", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "No, of course not because... because the word is committed there refers to the claim of a plaintiff.\nDoesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1115.502, 1121.208], "stop_times": [1121.208, 1122.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1115.502}, "reply_to": "22332__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22332__0_061", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--What I'm... what I'm saying is you have to look at the facts that are ultimately proven at trial, and if the fact of the violation is more than 6 years from the filing of the cause of action, clearly that's going to be barred by the limitations period.\nThe word alleged does not appear in the statute, and the Government tries to... they essentially confuse the issue by saying, well, you... you could never... a defendant could never prevail on a motion to dismiss because you have to look at the allegations for a motion to dismiss.\nBut that's the very nature--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1122.36, 1136.418, 1155.469], "stop_times": [1136.418, 1155.469, 1156.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1122.36}, "reply_to": "22332__0_060", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_062", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Well, it seems to me that if... if there's no violation, then there's no triggering event to start the statute of limitations running.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1156.712], "stop_times": [1161.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1156.712}, "reply_to": "22332__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22332__0_063", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nThat... that's the real problem, that even under the Government's reading, that there is not a triggering event.\nSo when you look at 3731(b) as a whole, when you try to discern congressional intent, Congress intended a... the triggering event to be a violation of section 3729 which doesn't apply to a retaliatory discharge action.\nYour Honor, the... the statute here is worded in such a way that throughout the Federal False Claims Act, there are a variety of ambiguities, but when you look at the statute as a whole, when you look at the stated purpose that Congress had of protecting people who testify at trial, there is only one way to read the statute in a way that's harmonious, and that's to read it so that 3731(b) only applies to section 3730(a) and 3730(b)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1161.708, 1164.359, 1171.904, 1191.252], "stop_times": [1164.359, 1171.904, 1191.252, 1232.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1161.708}, "reply_to": "22332__0_062", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_064", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Mr. Browning, is it proper to consider in the calculus that if you use 6 years from the date the... that the false claim was made or was alleged to be made, then you don't have to get into the question which State's statute of limitations, the choice of law question, and then when you identify that State, which limitation period within that State?\nI mean, those are two inquiries which can sometimes be rather complicated.\nThey are obviated entirely if we take the 6 years from the Federal statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1232.512, 1263.66, 1268.679], "stop_times": [1263.66, 1268.679, 1276.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1232.512}, "reply_to": "22332__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22332__0_065", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, you're absolutely right, that if the respondents' and the Fourth Circuit's reading of the statute is correct, that Congress did intend this bizarre result to take place for all three causes of action, then you don't have to look to a State law cause of action to fill the gap.\nBut there are many circumstances where this Court has recognized that you do... when Congress has not expressly provided a limitations period, the most appropriate vehicle is to look to the most closely analogous State law cause of action.\nAs a matter of fact, one of the comparable situations here is ERISA.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1276.71, 1296.507, 1313.744], "stop_times": [1296.507, 1313.744, 1318.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1276.71}, "reply_to": "22332__0_064", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_066", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "We've done it for several hundred years, haven't we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1318.634], "stop_times": [1320.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1318.634}, "reply_to": "22332__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__0_067", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1320.185], "stop_times": [1320.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1320.185}, "reply_to": "22332__0_066", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_068", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--for all Federal causes of action?\nWe've... we've looked to State--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1320.819, 1322.606], "stop_times": [1322.606, 1323.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.819}, "reply_to": "22332__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__0_069", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "When there is no statute of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1323.949], "stop_times": [1326.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1323.949}, "reply_to": "22332__0_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22332__0_070", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "When... when--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1326.707], "stop_times": [1327.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1326.707}, "reply_to": "22332__0_069", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_071", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "The question is Federal statute.\nIs there one?\nAnd my question is deciding is there one... this is not something drawn from thin air.\nThere is a 6-year period right in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1327.469, 1328.638, 1329.821, 1337.395], "stop_times": [1328.638, 1329.821, 1337.395, 1340.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1327.469}, "reply_to": "22332__0_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22332__0_072", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--There... there is a 6-year period and if that is applied by this Court to a retaliatory discharge action, there will still be difficulties because you will have situations where there is no violation of section 3729.\nSo when do you start the limitations period running?\nThe respondent would argue in their brief that you start it running from when they believed that the violation took place.\nSo your... the respondent is arguing you're looking to the mental impression of the litigant that would be the triggering device for the limitations period.\nYour Honor, if there are no further questions, I'd reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1340.232, 1355.693, 1358.573, 1367.095, 1376.007], "stop_times": [1355.693, 1358.573, 1367.095, 1376.007, 1381.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1340.232}, "reply_to": "22332__0_071", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__0_073", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Very well, Mr. Browning.\nMr. Hurt, we'll hear... we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1381.313, 1382.678], "stop_times": [1382.678, 1386.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1381.313}, "reply_to": "22332__0_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22332__1_000", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe text of this statute could not be more clear on this issue.\nA retaliation claim is a civil action under section 3730, and a civil action under 3730 is subject to a 6-year limitations period.\nPetitioners argue, in effect, that the Court should disregard the plain language here and claim that Congress really meant that only two of the three causes of action under section 3730, should be subject to the 6 year limitations period, those brought under sections (a) and (b), and that Congress told us this indirectly by changing the limitations trigger... this simply makes no sense for two reasons.\nFirst, there is no reason why Congress would have limited the scope of the limitations period in such a cryptic manner.\nIn paragraph (d) as Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1386.187, 1388.561, 1391.617, 1401.59, 1424.774, 1430.976], "stop_times": [1388.561, 1391.617, 1401.59, 1424.774, 1430.976, 1433.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1386.187}, "reply_to": "22332__0_073", "speaker": "mark__t_hurt"}
{"id": "22332__1_001", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Sloppiness.\nHow about that as a reason, sloppiness that appears throughout the rest of this... of this piece of legislation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1433.575, 1435.19], "stop_times": [1435.19, 1442.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1433.575}, "reply_to": "22332__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__1_002", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Well, I... I would propose that if Congress really wanted this trigger, wanted a uniform limitations period, they really couldn't have done this particular provision, (b)(1), in a more clear way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1442.933], "stop_times": [1452.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1442.933}, "reply_to": "22332__1_001", "speaker": "mark__t_hurt"}
{"id": "22332__1_003", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Do you... do you know of... of any other situation in which a... a time limit is imposed that has nothing whatever to do with the... with the act that the individual is complaining about, nothing whatever to do with the act--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1452.357], "stop_times": [1470.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1452.357}, "reply_to": "22332__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__1_004", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "And... and where the time limit begins to run even before the act occurs?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1470.367], "stop_times": [1474.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1470.367}, "reply_to": "22332__1_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22332__1_005", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Before the act occurs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1474.069], "stop_times": [1474.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.069}, "reply_to": "22332__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__1_006", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "The answer is no, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1474.8], "stop_times": [1476.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1474.8}, "reply_to": "22332__1_005", "speaker": "mark__t_hurt"}
{"id": "22332__1_007", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "And the time limit could have expired before the act occurs.\nRight?\nSo you get free retaliation after 6 years.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1476.325, 1480.111, 1480.426, 1483.792], "stop_times": [1480.111, 1480.426, 1483.792, 1484.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1476.325}, "reply_to": "22332__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__1_008", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Sometimes equitable doctrines might apply, but the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1484.234], "stop_times": [1488.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1484.234}, "reply_to": "22332__1_007", "speaker": "mark__t_hurt"}
{"id": "22332__1_009", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "No, wait.\nWhat kind of an equitable doctrine?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1488.624, 1489.264], "stop_times": [1489.264, 1490.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1488.624}, "reply_to": "22332__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__1_010", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--For instance, if the employer deliberately waited to retaliate until the 6 years has past, that could be an instance.\nBut the important thing is the retaliation provision in the False Claims Act is unique because it's designed to be a companion or an add-on action to the qui tam action.\nThat's... if you look at the reported cases, the vast majority of those cases show the two actions brought together.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1490.464, 1498.458, 1508.174], "stop_times": [1498.458, 1508.174, 1513.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1490.464}, "reply_to": "22332__1_009", "speaker": "mark__t_hurt"}
{"id": "22332__1_011", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "I thought that one of the major things they were concerned about was retaliation against witnesses in the qui tam action, and that will always occur after.\nI mean, the... the suit for retaliation will then always occur after the qui tam action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1513.111, 1523.98], "stop_times": [1523.98, 1528.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1513.111}, "reply_to": "22332__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__1_012", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "I believe the core concern is to incentivize the whistleblower.\nBut take that particular situation, the witness, and that concern.\nThere are other laws and other causes of actions that will protect the witness in that situation.\nFor instance, section 1985.\nThis Court in Hadel v. Harrison ruled that a witness who is retaliated against at a Federal trial does have a section 1985 action.\nHere, Congress was focusing on the whistleblower, encouraging him to bring this qui tam action.\nIn fact, he's only protected for activities that are... the... the statute says, in furtherance of an action under this section.\nThat is pointing to the qui tam action.\nAnd there's all kinds of problems that arise if these two actions are not brought together if the retaliation action must be brought first.\nFirst, if you accept the petitioner's view, you're going to have situations where as little as 180 days... they have 180 days like in Florida to bring this retaliation action.\nOnce that's gone, the... the whistleblower has possibly 6 years to bring this qui tam action, but no incentive from the retaliation action, which was one of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1528.241, 1531.696, 1535.878, 1540.204, 1542.407, 1551.297, 1557.28, 1564.865, 1567.264, 1576.043, 1585.851], "stop_times": [1531.696, 1535.878, 1540.204, 1542.407, 1551.297, 1557.28, 1564.865, 1567.264, 1576.043, 1585.851, 1596.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1528.241}, "reply_to": "22332__1_011", "speaker": "mark__t_hurt"}
{"id": "22332__1_013", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Mr. Hurt, can you... can you go back a few steps?\nBecause there was a difference between an answer that you gave and one that Mr. Browning gave.\nHe said it's a mixed bag, the litigation of whether it's brought in one action and the whistleblower is making both claims or whether the retaliation claim is saved out and brought in a separate action.\nYou said the vast majority of the cases involve the whistleblower asserting both claims in a single action.\nWhich characterization is right?\nMixed bag or vast majority?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1596.187, 1597.978, 1602.938, 1617.977, 1628.884, 1630.75], "stop_times": [1597.978, 1602.938, 1617.977, 1628.884, 1630.75, 1632.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1596.187}, "reply_to": "22332__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22332__1_014", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Well, the SG's office informed us that they did a search of the reported cases.\nIn the majority of those cases, the... the claims were brought together.\nThe SG, I think, can give you the details on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1632.467, 1635.906, 1638.85], "stop_times": [1635.906, 1638.85, 1641.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1632.467}, "reply_to": "22332__1_013", "speaker": "mark__t_hurt"}
{"id": "22332__1_015", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1641.133], "stop_times": [1641.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1641.133}, "reply_to": "22332__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22332__1_016", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "You're now saying majority, not vast majority.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1641.352], "stop_times": [1644.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1641.352}, "reply_to": "22332__1_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__1_017", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Okay.\nI think it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1644.626, 1645.698], "stop_times": [1645.698, 1646.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1644.626}, "reply_to": "22332__1_016", "speaker": "mark__t_hurt"}
{"id": "22332__1_018", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Well, wait for the SG.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1646.033, 1646.972], "stop_times": [1646.972, 1650.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1646.033}, "reply_to": "22332__1_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__1_019", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--But they point out... they realized, I think, petitioners, that this is a problem that... that this is a unique act, and they... and they point out... they make the claim that the Major Fraud Act somehow renders this not unique.\nThat's a criminal statute and it doesn't have a qui tam action.\nEvery retaliation claim is going to be based in part on an alleged violation of section 3729.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1650.139, 1661.083, 1665.243], "stop_times": [1661.083, 1665.243, 1673.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1650.139}, "reply_to": "22332__1_018", "speaker": "mark__t_hurt"}
{"id": "22332__1_020", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "So you're reading alleged into... into (b)(1).\nRight?\nSure, it will always be based on an alleged violation.\nSo it doesn't have to be a violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1673.211, 1675.877, 1676.48, 1678.774], "stop_times": [1675.877, 1676.48, 1678.774, 1680.741], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1673.211}, "reply_to": "22332__1_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__1_021", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Well, no.\nI think that ignores how statute of limitations are actually construed by courts.\nYou can write a statute basically two ways.\nYou can put the violation as the trigger or you can put the act, alleged to be a violation.\nCourts apply those identically.\nAnd for instance, if you have a summary judgment motion by a qui tam... qui tam defendant, which we always agree that this statute (b)(1) applies, all the defendant has to do is point out the act alleged to be a false claim falls outside of the 6-year period, and he wins.\nHe doesn't have... no one has to show whether the actual claim itself was false or not.\nSo I think, you know, as Justice Breyer points out, this is the way you universally construe statute of limitations.\nHaving the same trigger for all three 3730 actions means the limitations period starts for all three at the same time.\nThis makes it easier for the whistleblower to bring both their qui tam and retaliation actions together.\nIf she's forced to bring the retaliation action first, then if she misses that, then she's got no incentive to then go on and bring the qui tam action from the... the incentive from this whistleblower action, which is the key purpose of it.\nAlso, if she has to bring the... the retaliation action first before the qui tam action, then what will happen, if she's not ready to bring the qui tam action... these can be very complicated allegations, complicated defense contract... then what will happen is she will most likely have to split her claim.\nAnd that exposes the whistleblower to all kinds of... of pitfalls.\nFor instance--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1680.741, 1682.351, 1687.353, 1689.615, 1694.036, 1697.199, 1717.369, 1722.676, 1730.292, 1742.692, 1748.324, 1763.214, 1782.51, 1786.643], "stop_times": [1682.351, 1687.353, 1689.615, 1694.036, 1697.199, 1717.369, 1722.676, 1730.292, 1742.692, 1748.324, 1763.214, 1782.51, 1786.643, 1787.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1680.741}, "reply_to": "22332__1_020", "speaker": "mark__t_hurt"}
{"id": "22332__1_022", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Mr. Hurt, what... what about the argument that unlike most retaliation situations, here if you take that 6-year period, which is much longer than the general run of retaliation statutes take it, then you could have a qui tam plaintiff who waits while the back pay is mounting, and so you can have an exorbitant application both with respect to the amount of back pay and the claim for reinstatement.\n5 years down the road... I haven't worked with this company now... I'm going to insist they take me back, be reinstated.\nThat... that concern, that on your reading there is the potential for much larger damages and much more disruptive reinstatement than is usually the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1787.283, 1823.203, 1830.252], "stop_times": [1823.203, 1830.252, 1842.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1787.283}, "reply_to": "22332__1_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22332__1_023", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--I think that that type of situation is just so highly unlikely.\nIt doesn't really comport with the realities of what whistleblowers are thinking about.\nFor instance, in this case, Ms. Wilson didn't come forward until she saw no one else would come forward and remedy what she saw as theft from the U.S. Government.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1842.034, 1845.736, 1849.767], "stop_times": [1845.736, 1849.767, 1859.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1842.034}, "reply_to": "22332__1_022", "speaker": "mark__t_hurt"}
{"id": "22332__1_024", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "No, but isn't... isn't Justice Ginsburg's question raised by your very argument, that you don't want whistleblowers having to bring their whistleblower actions before they are ready to bring their main actions?\nAnd if it's going to take... you've just said how difficult it may be to prepare one of these qui tam cases.\nIf in fact you're right and it may take a couple of years from the time the employer gets wind that something is going on and fires or does whatever, then in exactly that situation, the... the whistleblower damages are going to be mounting during that period of 1 or 2 or whatever years it may be before the qui tam action starts.\nSo on your hypothesis, it seems to me, you're going to get just the situation that Justice Ginsburg raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1859.292, 1873.088, 1879.02, 1900.113], "stop_times": [1873.088, 1879.02, 1900.113, 1906.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.292}, "reply_to": "22332__1_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22332__1_025", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "I think that... I think there's a split in the lower courts about how the mitigation will apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1906.934], "stop_times": [1912.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1906.934}, "reply_to": "22332__1_024", "speaker": "mark__t_hurt"}
{"id": "22332__1_026", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Well, let's... let's first see about your argument.\nIsn't that what your argument implies?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1912.56, 1914.496], "stop_times": [1914.496, 1916.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1912.56}, "reply_to": "22332__1_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22332__1_027", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "I think that... that that is a possible case, but I think that that's... the priorities for the Government and... and Congress in drafting this law was to get money back for the Government.\nThat's their number one concern here and to incentivize that whistleblower.\nIf it so happens that the whistleblower takes much... takes a long time to prepare his qui tam and brings his... his retaliation action at the same time and ends up getting some more damages, I... I think that ranks low on the list of Congress'priorities in drafting this retaliation provision.\nIt's the... getting the Government's money back, giving the whistleblower protection and an incentive to bring that qui tam claim is really Congress'core concern here.\nAnd I think these other issues about damages mounting can be readily addressed with the mitigation defense and... and dealing with that that will take care of double damages so... so if the whistleblower is just sitting around waiting for that, then the mitigation defense would take care of that.\nAlso, I think the petitioner raised the idea that this is some kind of... the... the retaliator can bring some kind of nebulous fraud allegation if it doesn't... isn't really tied to a specific false claim.\nI think that the courts are not interpreting it that way because this is a False Claims Act retaliation claim, not just a generalized fraud claim.\nSo in a typical case, there will be a claim that... that the whistleblower will... will be able to point to and say I think that this claim is false.\nI have a good faith belief that it is false, and then it... and that's what the trigger would be based on.\nI mean, in summary, if there's no further questions, I'd like to just summarize.\nI think this Court should uphold the plain language of the statute.\nWhile the limitations trigger is unusual, it is the one that Congress set forth in the statute.\nIt makes sense.\nIt reflects the unique considerations of encouraging... the goal of encouraging a whistleblower to bring his qui tam claim with his retaliation claim.\n19 years of experience have shown that the plain language works in the typical cases that arise, and that none of the reasons given by the petitioners come close to providing a justification for this Court to discard the plain language of the statute.\nNone of the reasons... this statute does not rise to the level of absurdity that would justify this Court disregarding the plain language.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [1916.5, 1925.763, 1929.171, 1945.154, 1954.402, 1971.922, 1988.679, 1998.759, 2007.441, 2012.647, 2019.638, 2023.372, 2028.998, 2030.46, 2039.59, 2054.224, 2063.391], "stop_times": [1925.763, 1929.171, 1945.154, 1954.402, 1971.922, 1988.679, 1998.759, 2007.441, 2012.647, 2019.638, 2023.372, 2028.998, 2030.46, 2039.59, 2054.224, 2063.391, 2064.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1916.5}, "reply_to": "22332__1_026", "speaker": "mark__t_hurt"}
{"id": "22332__1_028", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Hurt.\nMr. Driemeier, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2064.393, 2066.971], "stop_times": [2066.971, 2069.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2064.393}, "reply_to": "22332__1_027", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22332__2_000", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nSection 3731(b) provides the statute of limitations for, quote, a civil action under section 3730.\nThere is no question that Ms. Wilson's claim of retaliation is a claim under section 3730.\nPetitioner asks the Court to construe section 3731(b) to include an implicit limitation to claims under subsections (a) or (b)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2069.652, 2082.762, 2091.577, 2098.815], "stop_times": [2082.762, 2091.577, 2098.815, 2110.431], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2069.652}, "reply_to": "22332__1_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_001", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "What he's saying is it should be read to include only those causes of action under 3730 that the rest of (b) makes sense as applied to, just as in (c) the phrase, brought under section 3730, should be interpreted to... to include only those causes of action that the rest of that provision applies to, namely, those... those actions under 3730 that involve the United States.\nI mean, that's... that's a perfectly reasonable--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2110.431, 2143.743], "stop_times": [2143.743, 2146.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2110.431}, "reply_to": "22332__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_002", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Section 3731(c) does not require, in its application, the Court to construe a civil action under section 3730 to mean anything other than what its words import because it only relates to the United States' burden of proof.\nThe petitioner suggested that it implicitly was limited to an action under 3730(a).\nWell, that's certainly not true because if... if an action is brought under 3730(b) and the United States intervenes, section 3731(c) establishes the standard of proof.\nIf Congress were to amend section 3730(h) to allow the United States to bring a claim on behalf of the employee who was retaliated against, section 3731(c) would, by its terms, establish the burden of proof that the United States would have to meet.\nSo there is no inconsistency there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2146.42, 2165.107, 2171.101, 2183.473, 2200.466], "stop_times": [2165.107, 2171.101, 2183.473, 2200.466, 2202.822], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2146.42}, "reply_to": "22332__2_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_003", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--You think... do you think Congress is more likely to amend 3731(b) to say clearly and non-sloppily what it means if we find for the Government here or if we find for the... I mean, for... for the side that the Government supports or if we find for the other side?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2202.822], "stop_times": [2220.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2202.822}, "reply_to": "22332__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_004", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I think that 3731(b) is capable of application exactly as written, and in fact, as we say in our brief, that that is the statute of limitations which most serves the purposes of the statute unlike the alternative the petitioner--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2220.608], "stop_times": [2237.578], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.608}, "reply_to": "22332__2_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_005", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "What... what about this as a general... as a general principle of construction?\nA court should not, unless there is no reasonable alternative, construe a statute of limitations provision in such fashion that the statute can expire before the cause of action arises?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2237.578, 2241.22], "stop_times": [2241.22, 2260.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2237.578}, "reply_to": "22332__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_006", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2260.062], "stop_times": [2260.697], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2260.062}, "reply_to": "22332__2_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_007", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Is that a reasonable proposition?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2260.697], "stop_times": [2262.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2260.697}, "reply_to": "22332__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_008", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--No, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2262.084], "stop_times": [2262.692], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.084}, "reply_to": "22332__2_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_009", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "No?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2262.692], "stop_times": [2263.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.692}, "reply_to": "22332__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_010", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "There are any--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2263.47], "stop_times": [2264.959], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.47}, "reply_to": "22332__2_009", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_011", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "It seems to me reasonable to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2264.959], "stop_times": [2266.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.959}, "reply_to": "22332__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_012", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Many States have adopted statutes of repose, and they apply to a cause of action that under State law accrues for purposes of statute of limitations upon the discovery of the injury.\nBut a statute of repose can come in and instead tied to the act, say, for instance, in which the date that a product was first sold into the market.\nAnd so the cause of action, for purposes of statute of limitations, will not arise in many instances until after the statute of limitations has run because of a statute of repose.\nSo that it's certainly not unheard of in the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2266.148, 2280.504, 2292.19, 2305.107], "stop_times": [2280.504, 2292.19, 2305.107, 2307.625], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2266.148}, "reply_to": "22332__2_011", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_013", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "And that was the point that the Seventh Circuit made clear in... in its--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2307.625], "stop_times": [2312.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2307.625}, "reply_to": "22332__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22332__2_014", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "That's right, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2312.824], "stop_times": [2313.422], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.824}, "reply_to": "22332__2_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_015", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--statute of repose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2313.422], "stop_times": [2315.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2313.422}, "reply_to": "22332__2_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22332__2_016", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "What about an action of ejectment, an action of ejectment that arises only after the adverse possession statute of limitations have run?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2315.058], "stop_times": [2323.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2315.058}, "reply_to": "22332__2_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22332__2_017", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "That's right.\nThere--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2323.954, 2324.812], "stop_times": [2324.812, 2325.628], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2323.954}, "reply_to": "22332__2_016", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_018", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "I'm not sure it is right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2325.628], "stop_times": [2327.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.628}, "reply_to": "22332__2_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22332__2_019", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--there other examples of... of cases in which the time in which a claim can be brought may have expired before the cause of action accrues.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2327.004], "stop_times": [2336.464], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2327.004}, "reply_to": "22332__2_018", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_020", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "But we don't run forward to create situations like that, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2336.464], "stop_times": [2340.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2336.464}, "reply_to": "22332__2_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_021", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2340.646], "stop_times": [2341.318], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2340.646}, "reply_to": "22332__2_020", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_022", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "My... my point isn't that it couldn't exist.\nI just said you should not interpret a statute of limitations if it is reasonably possible to avoid it in that fashion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2341.318, 2343.318], "stop_times": [2343.318, 2351.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2341.318}, "reply_to": "22332__2_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_023", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Well, in the Bay Area Laundry case and in the Reiter case, the Court has acknowledged that there is a general rule that statutes of limitations start to run when the cause of action accrues.\nBut in each of those case... cases, the Court was very clear that that was the rule that applied in the absence of contrary indication by Congress.\nAnd here we have a very explicit contrary indication by Congress, that the statute of limitations for any civil action under section 3730 runs from the date on which the violation of section 3729 was committed.\nIn other words, Congress has opted here to establish a single uniform statute of limitations for all claims that might arise under the False Claims Act.\nAnd as I said before, that serves the purposes of the False Claims Act better, far better certainly, than petitioner's alternative.\nAs we have pointed out, many State statutes of limitations, assuming that one can determine which one applies of the many that might be offered, are much shorter than the statute provided for bringing the qui tam action.\nAs a practical matter, then an employee might be forced to split their claims.\nIf they split their claims, any number of adverse consequences follow.\nFirst, they could find themselves barred from bringing a subsequent qui tam action on behalf of the United States by the public disclosure bar of the False Claims Act.\nThe Eleventh Circuit has a rule that says that the two claims are one for purposes of res judicata.\nSo in the Eleventh Circuit, apparently they could be barred by res judicata from bringing a qui tam action.\nThe disclosures in the course of the wrongful termination of retaliation claim action would, of course, alert the defendant to the scope and extent of any Government investigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2351.488, 2364.005, 2372.357, 2386.922, 2396.686, 2405.561, 2419.843, 2426.339, 2431.043, 2440.813, 2446.046, 2452.376], "stop_times": [2364.005, 2372.357, 2386.922, 2396.686, 2405.561, 2419.843, 2426.339, 2431.043, 2440.813, 2446.046, 2452.376, 2465.234], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.488}, "reply_to": "22332__2_022", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_024", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Well, he's already alerted to the extent that he's taking retaliatory action as true.\nHe may not whole... know the... the whole extent of... of what the employee knows, but he's already been tipped off.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2465.234, 2469.293], "stop_times": [2469.293, 2475.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2465.234}, "reply_to": "22332__2_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22332__2_025", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Well, as a practical matter, oftentimes the employer fires the employee as soon as the employer has a sense that the employee is on to something.\nHe doesn't have a full knowledge of what the employee knows and certainly doesn't know that the employee might have told the Government and that the Government is investigating.\nAnd that's the purpose of the under seal requirement of the False Claims Act, to allow the Government to conduct a full investigation of the claim, talk to other employees about what was going on.\nSometimes the employee really has identified fraud, but may only have identified a portion of the larger scheme of fraud that's going on.\nAnd the Government gets to investigate that while the claim is under seal.\nBut in the course of discovery in any wrongful termination suit or retaliation suit, all of that information would become available to the employer.\nAnd so the sealed provisions of the FCA would be defeated in large extent.\nThere's also the fact of just the litigation efficiencies of litigating the two claims together.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2475.394, 2487.857, 2496.705, 2508.357, 2516.649, 2520.729, 2530.563, 2535.512], "stop_times": [2487.857, 2496.705, 2508.357, 2516.649, 2520.729, 2530.563, 2535.512, 2541.309], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.394}, "reply_to": "22332__2_024", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_026", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Can I ask you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2541.309], "stop_times": [2542.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2541.309}, "reply_to": "22332__2_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_027", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--will be the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2542.387], "stop_times": [2542.883], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2542.387}, "reply_to": "22332__2_026", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_028", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Can I ask you another textual question?\nYou... you want us to say that (b)(1) must apply to all civil actions under section 3730.\nMust (b)(2) apply to all civil actions under 3730 as well?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2542.883, 2545.24, 2554.354], "stop_times": [2545.24, 2554.354, 2560.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2542.883}, "reply_to": "22332__2_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_029", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "The... the most close reading of the text would be that any civil action under 3730 can be brought within 3 years of when the official of the United States... now, we differ from the Ninth Circuit on this.\nWe believe that is only a Government official, in particular a Department of Justice official... knows of the facts relevant to bringing a cause of action that the United States could bring, i. e., the cause of action under 3730(a).\nBut we think that 3 years from that date in the action under 3730 could be brought, including the qui tam action or including a retaliation action.\nBut that reading is not essential to the position that we advocate here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2560.925, 2575.772, 2588.641, 2598.576], "stop_times": [2575.772, 2588.641, 2598.576, 2604.106], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2560.925}, "reply_to": "22332__2_028", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_030", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "So that... that could exclude even a retaliation action by an individual who... who doesn't... who doesn't know when the... when the individual... the official of the United States found out about those facts.\nThat... that doesn't seem to me very reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2604.106, 2619.635], "stop_times": [2619.635, 2622.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.106}, "reply_to": "22332__2_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_031", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Well, of course--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2622.501], "stop_times": [2623.552], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2622.501}, "reply_to": "22332__2_030", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_032", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "That provision is very... very reasonable as applied to qui tam actions.\nIt doesn't seem to me to make any sense as applied to a retaliation action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2623.552, 2628.378], "stop_times": [2628.378, 2633.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2623.552}, "reply_to": "22332__2_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_033", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, it... it does make sense applying it to a retaliation action because it could be, for instance, the employee who was the individual who informed the Government official charged with responsibility to act of the facts that would warrant the United States in filing an action under 3730(a).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2633.039], "stop_times": [2650.911], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2633.039}, "reply_to": "22332__2_032", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_034", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "It might be, but maybe the United States found out before... before that individual came forward.\nMaybe there was an official in the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2650.911, 2655.428], "stop_times": [2655.428, 2658.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2650.911}, "reply_to": "22332__2_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_035", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "That's... that's possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2658.291], "stop_times": [2658.483], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.291}, "reply_to": "22332__2_034", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_036", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "And so he's... you know, he's... he's out of... out of time before he even knows about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2658.483], "stop_times": [2663.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.483}, "reply_to": "22332__2_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_037", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Well, there may be events that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2663.938], "stop_times": [2665.58], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2663.938}, "reply_to": "22332__2_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_038", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Strange.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2665.58], "stop_times": [2666.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2665.58}, "reply_to": "22332__2_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_039", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--There may be instances where the employee would not know that they could take advantage of that provision.\nBut in the Bay Area Laundry case, the Court considered and rejected a virtually identical argument.\nThat case... the statute of limitations also was stated in the alternative, and the second one was 3 years after the information necessary to the claim had arrived.\nAnd the party who was opposed to the position the Court ultimately adopted said that the Court's interpretation of the first of the two alternatives would render the second superfluous.\nAnd the Court said, it may be superfluous to this category of claims, but it's not superfluous to other categories of claims, and so that does not prevent us from construing the first provision in the way that we are.\nSo likewise, even if the Court were to conclude that 3731(b)(2) is unavailable to a retaliation claim or unavailable to a qui tam claim, as some courts of appeals have held, it would not mean that 3731(b)(1) is unavailable, just as holding that 3731(b)(2) is unavailable to a qui tam relator would not mean that 3731(b)(1) is unavailable to a qui tam relator.\nA couple of Justices, Justice Souter--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2666.07, 2670.64, 2676.127, 2688.222, 2699.357, 2713.063, 2740.547], "stop_times": [2670.64, 2676.127, 2688.222, 2699.357, 2713.063, 2740.547, 2743.421], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2666.07}, "reply_to": "22332__2_038", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_040", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "No, but it... but it would mean that just as 3731(b)(2) can be selectively applied to some categories and not to others, so also, by parity of reasoning, (b)(1) can selectively be applied to some categories of violation and not to others.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2743.421], "stop_times": [2761.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2743.421}, "reply_to": "22332__2_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_041", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Well, again, we believe that the best, most faithful reading of the text is that (b)(2) is available to all causes of action under 3730.\nThe... Justice Souter asked a question about statistics and the frequency with which the claims are litigated together.\nIn a review of court of appeals decisions, there were 51 court of appeals decisions actually involving a 3730(h) claim.\nOf those, in 32 the qui tam... a qui tam claim and a retaliation claim were paired.\nThey were litigated together.\nIn only 5 were both a qui tam action and retaliation claim brought, but brought in separate litigation.\nSo 32 to 5 is the relevant comparison there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2761.794, 2771.773, 2779.559, 2788.909, 2797.814, 2799.212, 2806.913], "stop_times": [2771.773, 2779.559, 2788.909, 2797.814, 2799.212, 2806.913, 2810.551], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2761.794}, "reply_to": "22332__2_040", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_042", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "What about the rest?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2810.551], "stop_times": [2811.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2810.551}, "reply_to": "22332__2_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_043", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "In... in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2811.137], "stop_times": [2812.213], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.137}, "reply_to": "22332__2_042", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_044", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2812.213], "stop_times": [2813.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2812.213}, "reply_to": "22332__2_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_045", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--14 claims an individual brought a retaliation claim but never brought a qui tam suit.\nIt may be that the Government had--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2813.088, 2819.601], "stop_times": [2819.601, 2821.511], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2813.088}, "reply_to": "22332__2_044", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_046", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Well, I would count that as being brought separate.\nI think you should add that with the other 5.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2821.511, 2823.862], "stop_times": [2823.862, 2825.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2821.511}, "reply_to": "22332__2_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22332__2_047", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, in... in fact, if we... if we look more closely at those 14 cases, 5 of them were dismissed because the plaintiff was not even involved in protected conduct under the statute.\nSo the closer you get to the core of what Congress had in mind, when it enacted the statute, of... of pulling out employees who have the information that only they have that the Government needs in order to recover fraud, the closer you get to that core, the more likely it is that the claims that are going to be litigated together.\nAnd that's the way the Court ought to apply the statute.\nIt's the way Congress wrote the statute, to serve those purposes.\nThe... I... I think that the alternative of applying State statutes of limitations raises... North Carolina does not dispute that, for example, in Florida the... the analogous statute of limitations under Florida law... it's the Florida State False Claims Act which has a retaliation provision... would be 180 days.\n180 days is far too short to put together the complicated qui tam complaint that is called for under the False Claims Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2825.841, 2837.872, 2858.992, 2862.213, 2866.299, 2889.615], "stop_times": [2837.872, 2858.992, 2862.213, 2866.299, 2889.615, 2899.806], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2825.841}, "reply_to": "22332__2_046", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_048", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Well, apparently Florida didn't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2899.806], "stop_times": [2901.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2899.806}, "reply_to": "22332__2_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22332__2_049", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Excuse me, sir?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2901.027], "stop_times": [2902.228], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2901.027}, "reply_to": "22332__2_048", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_050", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Apparently Florida didn't think it was too short.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2902.228], "stop_times": [2905.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2902.228}, "reply_to": "22332__2_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22332__2_051", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Well, Florida may have made an alternative policy decision in terms of wanting the claims to be litigated together or apart.\nThe Congress has established a single uniform statute of limitations which allows the claims to be litigated together, and as I've said, that is in fact the practice that when someone is going to bring a qui tam action, they almost invariably... there... there are 5 exceptions... bring the cases together.\nIf there are no further questions, thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2905.545, 2911.998, 2932.365], "stop_times": [2911.998, 2932.365, 2936.041], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2905.545}, "reply_to": "22332__2_050", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22332__2_052", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Driemeier.\nMr. Browning, you have 8 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2936.041, 2937.497], "stop_times": [2937.497, 2941.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2936.041}, "reply_to": "22332__2_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22332__3_000", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Thank you.\nThe Government argues that there will be problems that will arise from splitting the qui tam action and the retaliatory discharge action.\nAnd one of the examples that the Government use... uses is the public disclosure doctrine which is set out in section 3730(e)(4)(A) of the False Claims Act.\nThe public disclosure doctrine, however, is a red herring here because the public disclosure doctrine is designed to keep... to avoid parasitic lawsuits where information is in the... the public domain, somebody taking that information, and then filing a... a qui tam lawsuit.\nThe... the public disclosure doctrine, 3730(e)(4)(A), also provides that when someone is the original source of the information, even if the basis for the lawsuit has been made public through a congressional hearing or elsewhere, that person can still bring an action if they're an original source.\nSo it's a complete red herring here.\nThe other red herring that was put forth is a statement that there's a rule in the Eleventh Circuit relating to claims splitting.\nAnd forgive me, I cannot recall the name of the case that the Government is referring to, but it is a decision by James C. Hill.\nAnd that specific case involved a situation where the qui tam action was brought, a settlement was reached, and then well after the fact, the plaintiff said, oh, and I have this retaliation claim.\nIt makes perfect sense in that situation to... to apply principles of res judicata.\nWhat the Government is ignoring is there are no reported decisions anywhere a retaliatory discharge action was brought and then res judicata was used to bar the qui tam action filed at a later date.\nAnd there's a perfectly logical reason for that because they are different causes of action, and they involve different parties.\nA retaliation claim is personal to the individual.\nA qui tam action is an action brought on behalf of the Government.\nOne final point that I'd like to make is the respondent takes the position that the False Claims Act is unique.\nWell, it's not unique.\nIt's not unique in that when you look at the Major Fraud Act, there is a retaliatory discharge provision that is virtually identical to the False Claims Act, and in the Major Frauds Act... with respect to the Major Fraud Act, Congress made a... a conscious decision not to include an express limitations period.\nIt's not... the False Claim Act is also not unique when you compare it to ERISA.\nERISA--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [2941.662, 2942.77, 2952.195, 2963.832, 2981.971, 3006.482, 3008.056, 3016.114, 3022.348, 3036.908, 3042.658, 3057.314, 3063.901, 3067.127, 3071.058, 3082.269, 3084.199, 3104.684, 3110.101], "stop_times": [2942.77, 2952.195, 2963.832, 2981.971, 3006.482, 3008.056, 3016.114, 3022.348, 3036.908, 3042.658, 3057.314, 3063.901, 3067.127, 3071.058, 3082.269, 3084.199, 3104.684, 3110.101, 3111.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2941.662}, "reply_to": "22332__2_052", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__3_001", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Just go back to what you said.\nIn... in the Major... whatever it is... is there any limitation at all, or just the limitation on the qui tam and as here, as you contend is so here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [3111.307, 3112.87], "stop_times": [3112.87, 3124.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3111.307}, "reply_to": "22332__3_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22332__3_002", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "--The Major Fraud Act is a criminal provision that provides a retaliatory discharge provision for anyone who assists the Government in bringing the criminal prosecution.\nThere... there... in the Major Fraud Act, there is a specific limitations period of 7 years in which the prosecution has to be brought by the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [3124.533, 3134.88], "stop_times": [3134.88, 3143.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3124.533}, "reply_to": "22332__3_001", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__3_003", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Oh, that's... that's a criminal proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [3143.536], "stop_times": [3145.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3143.536}, "reply_to": "22332__3_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22332__3_004", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "But... but there is... it... but the criminal statute provides for a civil remedy for a retaliatory discharge, and with respect to that retaliatory discharge provision in the Major Fraud Act, there is no limitations provision.\nOne other point that I want to make is that the False Claims Act is not... not unique when you compare it to ERISA.\nERISA is a statute that has essentially a retaliatory discharge provision as well in section 510 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1140.\nAnd courts... the Federal courts have consistently held that there is no express limitations period for section 510, so we have to look to the limitations period under the most closely analogous State law cause of action.\nOn the other hand, ERISA has numerous provisions, numerous other aspects of the statute, that do have a limitations period.\nThe limitations period for an action for breach of fiduciary duty is a 6-year period with a 3-year tolling provision.\nSo ERISA is a prime example of a statute where Congress has made a decision that when you have a retaliatory discharge provision, not to apply the statute of limitations period, that you look to State law, even though that Federal statute in other aspects has other limitations provisions.\nIf there are no further questions, we would rely upon our briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [3145.071, 3157.816, 3166.233, 3178.035, 3194.484, 3204.35, 3213.89, 3233.57], "stop_times": [3157.816, 3166.233, 3178.035, 3194.484, 3204.35, 3213.89, 3233.57, 3237.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3145.071}, "reply_to": "22332__3_003", "speaker": "christopher_g_browning_jr"}
{"id": "22332__3_005", "conversation_id": "22332", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Browning.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-169", "start_times": [3237.101, 3238.824], "stop_times": [3238.824, 3240.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3237.101}, "reply_to": "22332__3_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23691__0_000", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "We will now hear argument in Granholm against Heald and two related cases.\nMr. Bolick.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [0.0, 6.258], "stop_times": [6.258, 7.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__0_001", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nFor 124 years, as state power over alcohol has ebbed and flowed, one principle has remained virtually constant, that states may regulate alcohol by one set of rules, not by two.\nNew York and Michigan consigned out-of-state wine, and only out-of-state wine, to the three-tier system for closing the market to thousands of small family-run wineries and their customers for the benefit of a liquor distributor oligopoly.\nDiscrimination is the core concern of the Commerce Clause, and it sends a powerful signal that the state is engaged, not in legitimate regulation, but in economic protectionism.\nThe states and the liquor distributors make a sweeping argument that this Court has consistently rejected, that the Twenty-First Amendment creates plenary state authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [7.695, 11.604, 25.164, 41.44, 54.561], "stop_times": [11.604, 25.164, 41.44, 54.561, 66.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7.695}, "reply_to": "23691__0_000", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_002", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, under your view, could the three-tier system, itself, be challenged by a New Jersey wholesaler wanting to sell in New York, or a New York wholesaler wanting to sell in New Jersey?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [66.394], "stop_times": [78.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 66.394}, "reply_to": "23691__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__0_003", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Yes, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [78.863], "stop_times": [80.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 78.863}, "reply_to": "23691__0_002", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_004", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "So, under your view, the whole three-tier system has to go down?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [80.129], "stop_times": [83.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 80.129}, "reply_to": "23691__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__0_005", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "No, Justice Kennedy.\nSo long as the state does not discriminate against out-of-state entities, it is free to, as this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [83.658, 84.881], "stop_times": [84.881, 93.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 83.658}, "reply_to": "23691__0_004", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_006", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, under my hypothetical.\nI don't know exactly how... the way it works, you have to be a New York wholesaler to sell to a New York retailer.\nUnder your view, a New Jersey wholesaler could sell to a New York retailer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [93.253, 94.59, 99.279], "stop_times": [94.59, 99.279, 103.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 93.253}, "reply_to": "23691__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__0_007", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--That is... or a challenge, as you ask the question, Justice Kennedy, could be mounted to that, under the same theory that we're advocating here.\nThe state may have a different set of defenses that it doesn't have here.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [103.632, 112.955, 116.797], "stop_times": [112.955, 116.797, 118.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 103.632}, "reply_to": "23691__0_006", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_008", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "But so far as... the rationale is the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [118.101], "stop_times": [120.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 118.101}, "reply_to": "23691__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__0_009", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [120.567], "stop_times": [120.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 120.567}, "reply_to": "23691__0_008", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_010", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "It seems to me that, under your rationale, that that in-state licensing system has to fall if there's a New Jersey wholesaler.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [120.803], "stop_times": [129.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 120.803}, "reply_to": "23691__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__0_011", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--It has to pass constitutional muster.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [129.032], "stop_times": [131.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 129.032}, "reply_to": "23691__0_010", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_012", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "And when you say there is no precedent... I mean, I think a much more modest claim than you're making, the claim simply that a state cannot discriminate against out-of-state liquor... i.e., the physical liquid... which is really more modest and keeps the three-tier effect... now, your... that claim, that they couldn't do that, was really what was advanced in Young's Market.\nI read the briefs in that case.\nThe briefs presented that Court... you could have written those briefs.\nAnd the difficulty for you is, it articulated that more modest version very clearly, made a tremendously strong case, that was not forbidden by Section 2 of the Twenty-First Amendment.\nAnd this Court squarely rejected it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [131.399, 155.365, 157.791, 160.439, 174.864], "stop_times": [155.365, 157.791, 160.439, 174.864, 176.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 131.399}, "reply_to": "23691__0_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23691__0_013", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Your Honor, Young's Market... the result in Young's Market was correct--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [176.903], "stop_times": [180.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 176.903}, "reply_to": "23691__0_012", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_014", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "The result, I understand, you could put on the basis of there being no discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [180.92], "stop_times": [185.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 180.92}, "reply_to": "23691__0_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23691__0_015", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [185.528], "stop_times": [186.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 185.528}, "reply_to": "23691__0_014", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_016", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Reading Justice Brandeis' opinion, I can't believe that that was the basis for his result.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [186.219], "stop_times": [192.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 186.219}, "reply_to": "23691__0_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23691__0_017", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "The... the cases that followed Young's Market and purported to apply its reasoning took a very sweeping view of the Twenty-First Amendment.\nThe Court began trenching on that very broad view immediately in 1939.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [192.749, 202.382], "stop_times": [202.382, 208.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 192.749}, "reply_to": "23691__0_016", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_018", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "But why wasn't that broad view appropriate, given the difference between the language of the Wilson Act, which has had the words\n\"to the same extent and in the same manner. \"\nand the Webb-Kenyon Act, which became the second section of the Twenty-First Amendment, leaves out\n\"to the same extent and the same manner. \"\nIt just says that\n\"alcoholic beverage so that the state can bar importation for delivery of, or use therein, in violation of laws thereof. \"\nIt doesn't say \"nondiscriminatory laws\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [208.573, 217.472, 220.033, 229.012, 231.024, 233.31, 245.266], "stop_times": [217.472, 220.033, 229.012, 231.024, 233.31, 245.266, 247.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 208.573}, "reply_to": "23691__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__0_019", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Yes, Justice Ginsburg, the... there was no need for the Webb-Kenyon Act to repeat the language of the Wilson Act.\nThe Wilson Act dealt with the question of discrimination.\nThe Webb-Kenyon Act dealt with questions that arose subsequent to the enactment of the Wilson Act.\nAnd as this Court has held in Craig versus--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [247.127, 254.286, 257.024, 262.472], "stop_times": [254.286, 257.024, 262.472, 264.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 247.127}, "reply_to": "23691__0_018", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_020", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, maybe that's the Act, but when they put it in the Constitution, why didn't they adopt the language,\n\"to the same extent and in the same manner? \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [264.624, 271.009], "stop_times": [271.009, 273.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 264.624}, "reply_to": "23691__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__0_021", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--I think the reason for that is because it was so obvious that the state could not, prior to prohibition, discriminate.\nIt was not only embodied in the Wilson Act, but it was embodied in at least three cases of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [273.399, 283.312], "stop_times": [283.312, 289.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 273.399}, "reply_to": "23691__0_020", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_022", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "But it was not obvious to the person who at least drafted the Webb-Kenyon in the first instance, because as I... as I understand it, there was an anti-discrimination provision, and that was then dropped.\nAnd do we know why it was dropped?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [289.026, 302.538], "stop_times": [302.538, 305.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 289.026}, "reply_to": "23691__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__0_023", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "It was dropped essentially because it was redundant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [305.465], "stop_times": [308.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 305.465}, "reply_to": "23691__0_022", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_024", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, but is that a... is that on a legislative history record somewhere?\nDo we know that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [308.605, 312.913], "stop_times": [312.913, 313.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 308.605}, "reply_to": "23691__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__0_025", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "No, Justice Souter, that is not expressly on the record.\nWhat is on the record, however, is that the Court was aiming... or, excuse me, the Congress was aiming at specific Supreme Court decisions.\nThere... and it... and the one case that was clearest on point on discrimination was Scott versus Donald, applying both the Commerce Clause and the Wilson Act to forbid discrimination.\nAnd there was... there is nothing in the legislative history to indicate that Congress intended to overturn that decision.\nAnd as this Court has held in Craig versus Boren, and elsewhere, by enacting the Twenty-First Amendment, Congress clearly intended to incorporate both the Wilson Act and the Webb-Kenyon Act and to restore to the states the police power that they had before prohibition.\nEmphatically, discrimination was not a part of that police power.\nIt was a very accepted context.\nSo, too, is it today.\nWhen the... when the liquor distributors in the states asked this Court to overturn the Bacchus decision and to adopt a plenary view of the Twenty-First Amendment, it is not just asking you to overturn the Bacchus decision; it is asking you to overturn cases starting with the Midcal decision in 1980, the more recent Healy decision, and others, that have held that the core purposes of the Commerce Clause and the Twenty-First Amendment must be harmonized, that the Commerce Clause was never intended to be obliterated.\nAnd when you look at the core values of the two clauses, they do not clash.\nThe core purpose of the Commerce Clause is nondiscrimination.\nThe core purpose of the Twenty-First Amendment is temperance.\nAnd if you have a discriminatory statute, it sends a very strong signal that, in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [313.55, 318.003, 325.935, 337.705, 345.441, 366.349, 370.991, 374.657, 376.601, 412.591, 416.78, 420.475, 425.067], "stop_times": [318.003, 325.935, 337.705, 345.441, 366.349, 370.991, 374.657, 376.601, 412.591, 416.78, 420.475, 425.067, 431.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 313.55}, "reply_to": "23691__0_024", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_026", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, it's not only temperance, but it's control over revenues.\nCan you tell me, is the... is there a New York State excise tax on alcohol?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [431.181, 434.782], "stop_times": [434.782, 440.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 431.181}, "reply_to": "23691__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__0_027", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [440.037], "stop_times": [441.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 440.037}, "reply_to": "23691__0_026", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_028", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "And is it collected by the wholesaler?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [441.275], "stop_times": [442.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 441.275}, "reply_to": "23691__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__0_029", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [442.627], "stop_times": [443.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 442.627}, "reply_to": "23691__0_028", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_030", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "All right.\nWhat is it, ten dollars a gallon, or what?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [443.302, 444.23], "stop_times": [444.23, 447.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 443.302}, "reply_to": "23691__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__0_031", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "It's... it turns out to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [447.427], "stop_times": [450.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 447.427}, "reply_to": "23691__0_030", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_032", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Is it on one--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [450.078], "stop_times": [450.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.078}, "reply_to": "23691__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__0_033", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--a few cents a bottle, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [450.783], "stop_times": [451.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 450.783}, "reply_to": "23691__0_032", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_034", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--It is on one--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [451.644], "stop_times": [452.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 451.644}, "reply_to": "23691__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__0_035", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "It's on... it's... and all alcohol.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [452.133], "stop_times": [453.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 452.133}, "reply_to": "23691__0_034", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_036", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Under our cases, can the California winery be required to remit the tax to the New York State revenue authorities?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [453.278], "stop_times": [461.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 453.278}, "reply_to": "23691__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__0_037", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "We believe so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [461.284], "stop_times": [462.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 461.284}, "reply_to": "23691__0_036", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_038", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Is that consistent with Quill?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [462.781], "stop_times": [464.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 462.781}, "reply_to": "23691__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__0_039", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "It is consistent with Quill.\nThe way that the states... there are 26 states that allow direct interstate shipment of wine, and the FTC has examined their record to see if they are doing okay.\nAnd one of the things that they do... are able to do is tax collection.\nNew Hampshire, Louisiana, and Nevada do collect taxes.\nThe way they do it is by requiring a permit in order to ship wine into the state.\nThat takes care of a number of problems, including all sorts of accountability concerns that the state may raise.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [464.22, 466.151, 476.759, 479.791, 483.589, 488.553], "stop_times": [466.151, 476.759, 479.791, 483.589, 488.553, 495.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 464.22}, "reply_to": "23691__0_038", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_040", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "What--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [495.294], "stop_times": [495.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 495.294}, "reply_to": "23691__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__0_041", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Under--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [495.816], "stop_times": [495.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 495.816}, "reply_to": "23691__0_040", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_042", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--what do you make of the argument that there's no practical way, except at great expense, to audit compliance if they're out of state?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [495.977], "stop_times": [503.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 495.977}, "reply_to": "23691__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__0_043", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Justice Souter, this is one of the most regulated industries in America, of course, and the model legislation that has been adopted by a number of states includes record-keeping provisions, it requires that wineries--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [503.426], "stop_times": [518.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 503.426}, "reply_to": "23691__0_042", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_044", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, I will grant that's required, but the argument, as I understand it, is, to find out whether they're doing what they are required to do, you've got to drop in unexpectedly and make an audit.\nAnd that's one thing in the state; it's another thing across the country.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [518.572, 528.967], "stop_times": [528.967, 532.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 518.572}, "reply_to": "23691__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__0_045", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--No, it's important to recognize, Justice Souter, that under the three-tier system, which is... which is where the states of New York and Michigan are saying that the other state wineries have to go... the three-tier system does not do that.\nThe states already rely on the Federal Government and the other states to police the wineries.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [532.47, 545.924], "stop_times": [545.924, 552.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 532.47}, "reply_to": "23691__0_044", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_046", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "So you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [552.075], "stop_times": [552.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 552.075}, "reply_to": "23691__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__0_047", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Should they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [552.517], "stop_times": [552.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 552.517}, "reply_to": "23691__0_046", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_048", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--saying they are not dropping in to local wineries to do audits, in fact?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [552.692], "stop_times": [556.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 552.692}, "reply_to": "23691__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__0_049", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--They may, in some instances.\nIt is primarily a federal... a federal activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [556.413, 558.539], "stop_times": [558.539, 562.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 556.413}, "reply_to": "23691__0_048", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_050", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "What do we have in the record on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [562.358], "stop_times": [563.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 562.358}, "reply_to": "23691__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__0_051", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "There is not... there is not a great deal on the record, either way, on that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [563.874], "stop_times": [570.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 563.874}, "reply_to": "23691__0_050", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_052", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "I don't know what you mean by \"it's primarily a federal activity\", that the Federal Government polices compliance with the state tax laws?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [570.63], "stop_times": [578.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 570.63}, "reply_to": "23691__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__0_053", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nUnder the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [578.966, 580.699], "stop_times": [580.699, 581.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 578.966}, "reply_to": "23691__0_052", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_054", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "How does that occur?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [581.796], "stop_times": [582.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.796}, "reply_to": "23691__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__0_055", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, any violation of a state law is a federal offense and it is a violation... so basically, whether it's under-age access, whether it's taxation, whatever--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [582.187], "stop_times": [597.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 582.187}, "reply_to": "23691__0_054", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_056", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "But does the federal authority make a routine audit to see that the state tax has been paid?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [597.023], "stop_times": [602.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 597.023}, "reply_to": "23691__0_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__0_057", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Basically, every single time that there is a transaction, it is recorded by the U.S. Trade and Tax Bureau.\nAnd if it may please the Court, I'd like to reserve the rest of my time--\n--for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [602.276, 609.959, 613.897], "stop_times": [609.959, 613.897, 614.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 602.276}, "reply_to": "23691__0_056", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_058", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "I have just one further question.\nJustice Kennedy asked you,\n\"What about the wholesaler? \"\n\"What about the retailer? \"\nWhat about alcoholic beverages other than wine?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [614.49, 616.02, 617.379, 619.583, 620.742], "stop_times": [616.02, 617.379, 619.583, 620.742, 624.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 614.49}, "reply_to": "23691__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__0_059", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, very important question.\nWe are here today because a majority of states have chosen to regulate wine distinctively.\nAnd a handful of them, including Michigan and New York, have chosen to do so in a discriminatory manner.\nSo long as states do not discriminate, in terms of direct shipping with regard to other alcohol... and they don't; there's a flat prohibition across the United States, in terms of beer and other types of spirits... we will not be here, because there would be no discrimination; there would be a single rule, and that rule would be, no one gets to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [624.834, 627.762, 634.686, 640.871], "stop_times": [627.762, 634.686, 640.871, 661.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 624.834}, "reply_to": "23691__0_058", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__0_060", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [661.206], "stop_times": [662.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 661.206}, "reply_to": "23691__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__0_061", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Ms. Sullivan?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [662.384], "stop_times": [669.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 662.384}, "reply_to": "23691__0_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_000", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nNothing in today's case, Justice Kennedy, requires you to take on the three-tier system, for the issue that is presented here is a very narrow one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [669.02, 671.364], "stop_times": [671.364, 679.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 669.02}, "reply_to": "23691__0_061", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_001", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, it's very narrow, but the rationale is sweeping, and that's why I asked.\nI just don't know if the in-state licensure system, which is the cornerstone of the three-tier distribution system, can survive under your rationale, assuming the hypothetical where a New Jersey wholesaler has all of the... you know, the physical facilities and so forth that the New York wholesaler does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [679.524, 683.418], "stop_times": [683.418, 699.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 679.524}, "reply_to": "23691__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__1_002", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "All that we ask in this case, Justice Kennedy, is that you strike down Michigan and New York's decision to apply the three-tier system to everyone except their own in-state--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [699.785], "stop_times": [710.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 699.785}, "reply_to": "23691__1_001", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_003", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, I know, but what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [710.871], "stop_times": [711.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 710.871}, "reply_to": "23691__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__1_004", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--producers of wine--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [711.57], "stop_times": [711.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 711.57}, "reply_to": "23691__1_003", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_005", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--but you're... all you're asking is for a rationale that's sweeping.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [711.836], "stop_times": [714.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 711.836}, "reply_to": "23691__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__1_006", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, in our case, we want to suggest that it is... just as in Healy and Bacchus... that a law that discriminates in favor of in-state producers and against out-of-state producers loses its immunity afforded by the Twenty-First Amendment.\nAs Justice Scalia said in concurrence in Healy, a liquor law's discriminatory character eliminates the immunity afforded by the Twenty-First Amendment.\nIt's really the state's position, aided by their wholesaler allies, that it is the sweeping one.\nTheir position is that every state law that regulates the importation of liquor is, per se, valid if it has any conceivable rational connection to a state purpose.\nSo, for example, if Michigan wanted to simply bar all California wines, facially exclude California wines, saying,\n\"There are too many of them, it interferes with orally market conditions-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [714.957, 734.609, 741.159, 747.065, 761.887, 768.853], "stop_times": [734.609, 741.159, 747.065, 761.887, 768.853, 771.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 714.957}, "reply_to": "23691__1_005", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_007", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Your answer to Justice Kennedy, I glean from what you said, that if New York took away the direct-sale privilege that in-state wineries get, then out-of-state wineries wouldn't be any better off, but they'd have nothing to complain about.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [771.95], "stop_times": [792.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 771.95}, "reply_to": "23691__1_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__1_008", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--That's exactly correct, Justice Ginsburg.\nAs you've said in the context of gender discrimination, you can cure an equal-protection problem by leveling up or leveling down.\nIn this case, we would suggest that the principle of free trade that was the reason, the principal reason, for the framing of the Constitution and has been reflected in over a century of dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence, suggests that you should... the remedy should be to open the markets to out-of-state producers--\nBut that's an issue that can be addressed on remit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [792.682, 794.561, 800.277, 815.389], "stop_times": [794.561, 800.277, 815.389, 817.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 792.682}, "reply_to": "23691__1_007", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_009", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "But that's a decision for the state to make.\nI mean, the... what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [817.107, 817.73], "stop_times": [817.73, 819.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 817.107}, "reply_to": "23691__1_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__1_010", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [819.533], "stop_times": [820.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 819.533}, "reply_to": "23691__1_009", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_011", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Not for this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [820.49], "stop_times": [822.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 820.49}, "reply_to": "23691__1_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__1_012", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [822.334], "stop_times": [823.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 822.334}, "reply_to": "23691__1_011", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_013", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "You don't deny that a state... that Michigan could bar all out-of-state wine... not just... not just California, but they could bar all out-of-state wines?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [823.034], "stop_times": [833.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 823.034}, "reply_to": "23691__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_014", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "That's correct, Justice Stevens, if it were in aid, and only if it were in aid, of the states... and necessary to serve the state's internal purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [833.56], "stop_times": [842.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 833.56}, "reply_to": "23691__1_013", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_015", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "The only reason being given to give a monopoly to local producers, that's their--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [842.35], "stop_times": [844.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 842.35}, "reply_to": "23691__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_016", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [844.8], "stop_times": [844.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 844.8}, "reply_to": "23691__1_015", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_017", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--whole purpose.\nBut could they do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [844.954, 845.588], "stop_times": [845.588, 846.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.954}, "reply_to": "23691__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_018", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--The state can have a monopoly if it's, itself, a market participant.\nWhat the state may--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [846.689, 851.125], "stop_times": [851.125, 852.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 846.689}, "reply_to": "23691__1_017", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_019", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "No, I'm saying just to look at the... just limit to the market to... the only market participants would be Michigan wine--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [852.503], "stop_times": [859.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 852.503}, "reply_to": "23691__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_020", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Private--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [859.608], "stop_times": [860.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 859.608}, "reply_to": "23691__1_019", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_021", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--wineries.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [860.06], "stop_times": [860.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.06}, "reply_to": "23691__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_022", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Justice Stevens, a state may not discriminate against out-of-staters for the sole purpose of economic protectionism.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [860.545], "stop_times": [865.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 860.545}, "reply_to": "23691__1_021", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_023", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, I'm trying to think of what Brandeis could have been thinking.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [865.831], "stop_times": [868.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 865.831}, "reply_to": "23691__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23691__1_024", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "In Young's Market.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [868.487], "stop_times": [869.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 868.487}, "reply_to": "23691__1_023", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_025", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Yes, that's right.\nAnd this is a reconstruction, because I have no doubt, and you have no doubt, that Section 2 was meant to end that part of the dormant Commerce Clause that would come under the name of original package doctrine--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [869.67, 870.77], "stop_times": [870.77, 887.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 869.67}, "reply_to": "23691__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23691__1_026", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [887.961], "stop_times": [888.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 887.961}, "reply_to": "23691__1_025", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_027", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--which meant that the foreign liquor has to be treated better than domestic liquor.\nNow, he's thinking,\n\"Why is that? \"\n\"What is that package doctrine? \"\nAnd the answer is, the dormant Commerce Clause... it's part of the dormant Commerce Clause... the dormant Commerce Clause is the implication from the existence of the commerce power in the Constitution.\nSo if we have an amendment that says\n\"that aspect of the dormant Commerce Clause doesn't apply. \"\nthat means the dormant Commerce Clause doesn't apply, because you can't divide the dormant Commerce Clause into six different parts, or even two.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [888.472, 894.506, 896.376, 897.563, 899.202, 911.609, 915.797, 920.116], "stop_times": [894.506, 896.376, 897.563, 899.202, 911.609, 915.797, 920.116, 929.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 888.472}, "reply_to": "23691__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23691__1_028", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "But Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [929.175], "stop_times": [929.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 929.175}, "reply_to": "23691__1_027", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_029", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Now, maybe... I think that's how he's reasoning.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [929.941], "stop_times": [931.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 929.941}, "reply_to": "23691__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23691__1_030", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [931.666], "stop_times": [932.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 931.666}, "reply_to": "23691__1_029", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_031", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "And if he is, and even if he isn't, why isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [932.103], "stop_times": [934.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 932.103}, "reply_to": "23691__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23691__1_032", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Justice Breyer, the Young's Market language permitting state discrimination is, indeed, broad, but it's been superceded by 40 years of this Court's jurisprudence harmonizing the Twenty-First Amendment with the rest of the Constitution.\nRemember, Justice Brandeis, in Young's Market, didn't even think the Equal Protection Clause applied to liquor imports, a position that's inconsistent with Craig against Boren.\nAnd nobody would suggest today that equal protection permits a state to import only from male-owned wineries or only import wine from white-owned wineries.\nSo there... the 40 years of jurisprudence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [934.884, 949.398, 957.012, 967.385], "stop_times": [949.398, 957.012, 967.385, 970.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 934.884}, "reply_to": "23691__1_031", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_033", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "But Craig against Boren was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [970.035], "stop_times": [971.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 970.035}, "reply_to": "23691__1_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_034", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--has been--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [971.211], "stop_times": [971.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 971.211}, "reply_to": "23691__1_033", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_035", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [971.509], "stop_times": [973.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 971.509}, "reply_to": "23691__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_036", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Correct, Your Honor, but if... if there were a law... the states are claiming that any law governing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [973.27], "stop_times": [979.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 973.27}, "reply_to": "23691__1_035", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_037", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Nothing to do with importation, either.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [979.947], "stop_times": [980.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 979.947}, "reply_to": "23691__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_038", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--But the dormant Commerce Clause reflects a fundamental structural principle that is every bit as much a part of the Constitution as the Equal Protection Clause upheld in Craig v. Boren.\nIndeed this Court, in cases from McCulloch to the Eleventh Amendment cases and state sovereignty cases, has recognized that a principle of the Constitution is no less fundamental because it is a structural implication of the text.\nSo the dormant Commerce Clause stands on the same footing as the affirmative power of Congress and on... it's the same footing as the Equal Protection Clause at issue--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [980.833, 989.623, 1001.168], "stop_times": [989.623, 1001.168, 1008.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 980.833}, "reply_to": "23691__1_037", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_039", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Do you think Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1008.704], "stop_times": [1009.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.704}, "reply_to": "23691__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_040", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--in Craig v. Boren--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1009.239], "stop_times": [1009.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1009.239}, "reply_to": "23691__1_039", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_041", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--could enact a statute authorizing the states to do just what they've done here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1009.6], "stop_times": [1013.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1009.6}, "reply_to": "23691__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_042", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Absolutely, but it has not.\nAnd the Wilson Act... to go back to Justice Souter's question and Justice Ginsburg's question... Congress could authorize it as it has done, for example, in the McCarran-Ferguson Act, allowing the states to discriminate against out-of-state industry with respect to the industry of insurance.\nIt has not done so here.\nWebb-Kenyon did not authorize discrimination, and the Wilson Act forbade discrimination for just... reasons Justice Ginsburg described.\nIt said you may regulate imports of liquor in the same manner as local liquor laws.\nAnd, of course, the purpose of Section 2 was to allow to the dry states to keep dry by preventing all those original packages from piling up in the railway stations and being open to bootleggers throughout the state, undermining the dry policies of the state.\nWilson forbade discrimination.\nWeb Kenyan didn't authorize it.\nAnd in Congress' most recent articulation of its view of the harmony between the Twenty-First Amendment and the rest of the Constitution, the Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act, passed in 2000, enacted in 2000, Congress has a rules-of-construction section that says,\n\"We view any state plea to the federal courts to enforce their laws as reflecting the jurisprudence of this court. \"\nAnd, in fact, floor debate on that rules-of-construction section reflected allusions to Bacchus, Healy, and the other cases that said dormant commerce... the negative implications of the Commerce Clause, no less than the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause or the Establishment Clause, constrain the states in their regulation of importation of liquor.\nSo with all respect to Justice Brandeis, Justice Breyer, the Young's Market statements about discrimination have been superceded.\nWhat New York and Michigan have done here is say that one set of exceptions apply only to in-state producers, just as Connecticut, in Healy, said,\n\"If you just sell beer within our state, you don't have to face price ceilings that you have to face if you do business over in Massachusetts or Rhode Island. \"\nJust as in Bacchus, the... you struck down a decision... an excise tax exemption that said,\n\"If you're an importer of liquor, you have to pay an excise tax, but if you're a local producer of locally produced wine and spirits, you get out of that restriction. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1013.255, 1014.765, 1028.915, 1030.577, 1037.964, 1042.407, 1054.225, 1056.05, 1057.527, 1071.287, 1080.414, 1097.578, 1105.309, 1115.891, 1124.712, 1133.102], "stop_times": [1014.765, 1028.915, 1030.577, 1037.964, 1042.407, 1054.225, 1056.05, 1057.527, 1071.287, 1080.414, 1097.578, 1105.309, 1115.891, 1124.712, 1133.102, 1143.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1013.255}, "reply_to": "23691__1_041", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_043", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Okay, we've got one difference from Bacchus, because the claim that's being made here, which I gather was not made, or made seriously, in Bacchus, is there really is a need for differential treatment for purposes of enforcement.\nGo back to the enforcement of the tax law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1143.239, 1155.921], "stop_times": [1155.921, 1158.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1143.239}, "reply_to": "23691__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__1_044", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1158.632], "stop_times": [1159.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1158.632}, "reply_to": "23691__1_043", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_045", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "How are we supposed... what standard are we supposed to use to judge that argument?\nAnd, by that standard, how good is the argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1159.74, 1163.811], "stop_times": [1163.811, 1166.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1159.74}, "reply_to": "23691__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__1_046", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Justice Souter, we believe the standard should be strict scrutiny, though there must be a necessity to serve--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1166.187], "stop_times": [1172.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1166.187}, "reply_to": "23691__1_045", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_047", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1172.208], "stop_times": [1173.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1172.208}, "reply_to": "23691__1_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__1_048", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--a legitimate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1173.149], "stop_times": [1173.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1173.149}, "reply_to": "23691__1_047", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_049", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--it's facial discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1173.743], "stop_times": [1174.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1173.743}, "reply_to": "23691__1_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__1_050", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Because it's facial discrimination.\nIt's absolutely undisputed.\nMichigan... in fact, Michigan state concedes that they have flatly banned out-of-state wineries from shipping directly to consumers.\nThere's no question that this is facially discriminatory.\nBut even if the standard were a more deferential one in which all the state needed to show was a reasonable need for discrimination, it can't come close to doing that here.\nNeither Michigan nor New York has shown that the facial discrimination here is necessary to protect minors or to protect the collection of taxes.\nLet's start with minors.\nThe Michigan claim that it's protecting against under-18 sales is belied by the fact that Michigan is allowing 40 Michigan wineries and, at last count, 7500 Michigan retailers to deliver directly to consumers.\nThe way to protect my... so just as in Craig v. Boren, the exception for young women to drink 3.2 beer, as opposed to young men, belied the state's interest in temperance.\nSo the pattern of exceptions here that Michigan has created belies any notion that it's protecting under-18-year-olds from drinking.\nAnd, of course--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1174.164, 1175.242, 1177.402, 1184.312, 1187.072, 1195.984, 1204.857, 1206.708, 1224.097, 1234.26, 1241.452], "stop_times": [1175.242, 1177.402, 1184.312, 1187.072, 1195.984, 1204.857, 1206.708, 1224.097, 1234.26, 1241.452, 1242.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1174.164}, "reply_to": "23691__1_049", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_051", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "But what about audits for revenue--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1242.074], "stop_times": [1243.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1242.074}, "reply_to": "23691__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__1_052", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--On revenue, the nondiscriminatory means that's available to the state that Michigan and New York have not shown any reason to reject... 26 states have adopted some version of this... is to require an out-of-state winery to get a permit.\nAnd that's a... Justice Breyer, one thing that's still left of Brandeis.\nYou can require a permit from an out-of-state winery, which would be unusual to acquire from widgets or milk.\nBut you can require a permit, and, as a condition of the permit, Justice Souter.\nThe out-of-state winery has to agree to submit to the state's jurisdiction, to submit to the state's tax jurisdiction.\nAnd, Justice Kennedy, whether or not Quill would permit taxation if you were simply sending by common carrier, our clients want to... want to pay taxes, want to sign up for permits, want to play on a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1243.725, 1257.079, 1260.466, 1266.373, 1270.257, 1276.291], "stop_times": [1257.079, 1260.466, 1266.373, 1270.257, 1276.291, 1286.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1243.725}, "reply_to": "23691__1_051", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_053", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1286.155], "stop_times": [1286.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1286.155}, "reply_to": "23691__1_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__1_054", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--level playing field--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1286.484], "stop_times": [1286.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1286.484}, "reply_to": "23691__1_053", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_055", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--well, they do today, I'm sure, but--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1286.974, 1288.188], "stop_times": [1288.188, 1291.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1286.974}, "reply_to": "23691__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__1_056", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--But, Justice Souter, to... look at the experience--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1291.219], "stop_times": [1294.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1291.219}, "reply_to": "23691__1_055", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_057", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--They... you say they don't want to go to California to do an audit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1294.237], "stop_times": [1296.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.237}, "reply_to": "23691__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__1_058", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--They certainly don't, Justice Souter, but New Hampshire is a state that has actually... your own state is a state that has on its Web site a set of out-of-state wineries.\nIt requires that they keep and supply sales records on a monthly basis, that they keep those records for three years--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1296.64, 1304.578], "stop_times": [1304.578, 1310.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1296.64}, "reply_to": "23691__1_057", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_059", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Maybe we're getting ripped off.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1310.844], "stop_times": [1311.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1310.844}, "reply_to": "23691__1_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__1_060", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--I--\n[Laughter]\n--think New Hampshire's done very well collecting taxes from out-of-state producers, Justice Souter.\nIt's a leader--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1311.396, 1312.448, 1313.124, 1316.869], "stop_times": [1312.448, 1313.124, 1316.869, 1317.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1311.396}, "reply_to": "23691__1_059", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_061", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Ms. Sullivan--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1317.219], "stop_times": [1317.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1317.219}, "reply_to": "23691__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__1_062", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--in the field.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1317.37], "stop_times": [1317.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1317.37}, "reply_to": "23691__1_061", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_063", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--may I... may I... I just want to clarify one point.\nIt was just... the question Justice Stevens asked.\nIt's your position that if Michigan allows Michigan wines to be sold and possessed and consumed, that it must also allow out-of-state wine to be sold, possessed, and consumed.\nWould--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1317.709, 1319.944, 1321.91, 1332.627], "stop_times": [1319.944, 1321.91, 1332.627, 1333.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1317.709}, "reply_to": "23691__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__1_064", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1333.214], "stop_times": [1333.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1333.214}, "reply_to": "23691__1_063", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_065", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--That is your--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1333.651], "stop_times": [1334.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1333.651}, "reply_to": "23691__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__1_066", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "That's correct, Justice Kennedy.\nBut to go back to the physical-presence question, Justice Souter, Michigan is not now... Michigan officials are not now traipsing up to the upper peninsula and all around the state to inspect wineries.\nThe record is clear on that.\nWhat Michigan does is require that wineries in Michigan send samples and records to their offices.\nAnd the Internet actually, if anything... the states say that the Internet increases the danger, but the Internet also increases, in parallel, the power of the states to police out-of-state wineries without an in-state presence.\nJust as, Justice Stevens, the Internet may make every speaker with a PC a town crier, as you said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1334.257, 1335.133, 1344.679, 1346.224, 1351.428, 1363.416], "stop_times": [1335.133, 1344.679, 1346.224, 1351.428, 1363.416, 1369.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1334.257}, "reply_to": "23691__1_065", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_067", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Could--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1369.114], "stop_times": [1369.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.114}, "reply_to": "23691__1_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__1_068", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--in Reno versus ACLU--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1369.511], "stop_times": [1370.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1369.511}, "reply_to": "23691__1_067", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_069", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--could a state--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1370.372], "stop_times": [1371.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1370.372}, "reply_to": "23691__1_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__1_070", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--so it makes every interstate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1371.645], "stop_times": [1372.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1371.645}, "reply_to": "23691__1_069", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_071", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--could a state require an out-of-state winery to keep its books online, subject to a password, so that, with a password, they could go in and audit the books across the country, by wire?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1372.877], "stop_times": [1385.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1372.877}, "reply_to": "23691__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__1_072", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Yes, Justice Souter, if it were part of a... an agreement to a permit that the... that the out-of-state winery is willing to make, then there's no extraterritorial regulation there, that would be just fine.\nSo, yes, the state can, through Internet, so to speak,... Internet monitoring, through virtual monitoring... do all the work it needs to do to make sure that the out-of-state winery is paying taxes.\nAnd, by the way, Michigan does not collect taxes, Justice Kennedy, through the distributors.\nMichigan collects taxes from the wineries, whether they're in-state or whether they're out-of-state wine shippers.\nSo Michigan can give no justification for why out-of-state wineries have to go through the distributors for tax purposes.\nThey're not using the distributors as their tax-collection agents now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1385.053, 1394.899, 1405.657, 1410.038, 1415.511, 1421.751], "stop_times": [1394.899, 1405.657, 1410.038, 1415.511, 1421.751, 1425.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1385.053}, "reply_to": "23691__1_071", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_073", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Commerce Clause, in effect, protects consumers in states from entrenched business interests that want to have protectionism, and you're... you object to that and invoke the Commerce Clause to do it.\nUnder that rationale, aren't all the California reciprocity laws invalid, as well?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1425.188, 1440.121], "stop_times": [1440.121, 1445.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1425.188}, "reply_to": "23691__1_072", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__1_074", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Justice Kennedy, reciprocity laws... yet... possibly.\nThey may be a necessary requirement now that so many states are closed to states.\nThey may be a necessary mechanism for some states trying to get wines to market in the way that the framers envisaged.\nIt may be a necessary, for now, to get into closed states.\nIn a world that we hope that you create, in which discrimination is not allowed, they would be completely unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional.\nBut to return to the key point here, Michigan and New York may not facially discriminate in favor of their own producers unless they can show that reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives are unavailable.\nAnd here, Justice Souter, on any standard of heightened scrutiny, they have not come close to making that kind of showing, because there are all these other means... means that have been recognized by the 26 states that don't discriminate, means that have been proven in states from New Hampshire to Virginia, means that are not based on facial discrimination.\nIt's the discrimination that has to be shown to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1445.521, 1449.732, 1454.737, 1460.873, 1464.149, 1472.909, 1484.948, 1504.594], "stop_times": [1449.732, 1454.737, 1460.873, 1464.149, 1472.909, 1484.948, 1504.594, 1506.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1445.521}, "reply_to": "23691__1_073", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_075", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Let me just--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1506.543], "stop_times": [1507.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1506.543}, "reply_to": "23691__1_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_076", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--be necessary here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1507.057], "stop_times": [1507.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1507.057}, "reply_to": "23691__1_075", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_077", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--be sure I heard your answer to Justice Kennedy correctly.\nYou'd concede that the reciprocity laws are all unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1507.394, 1509.327], "stop_times": [1509.327, 1513.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1507.394}, "reply_to": "23691__1_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_078", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Not... they are subject to heightened scrutiny because they discriminate against out-of-staters in a way that you could not... for example, in New Energy, you said that you can't have a preference for... you can't have a discrimination in Ohio in reciprocity for Indiana.\nReciprocity laws normally do violate the principle of dormant Commerce Clause invalidation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1513.2, 1528.117], "stop_times": [1528.117, 1532.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1513.2}, "reply_to": "23691__1_077", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_079", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "And you contend that they do... the liquor reciprocity laws, all of them are unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1532.839], "stop_times": [1537.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1532.839}, "reply_to": "23691__1_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_080", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Not... we contend that they would be subject to strict scrutiny, and they could be upheld if the state could show that they are closely tailored in a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1537.187], "stop_times": [1544.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1537.187}, "reply_to": "23691__1_079", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_081", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "They can... that they can be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1544.712], "stop_times": [1545.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1544.712}, "reply_to": "23691__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_082", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--way that these laws are not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1545.528], "stop_times": [1545.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1545.528}, "reply_to": "23691__1_081", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_083", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--upheld by making a showing that you say is virtually impossible to make.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1545.988], "stop_times": [1548.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.988}, "reply_to": "23691__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_084", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Your Honor, that's not before, and if there were other reasons--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1548.73], "stop_times": [1552.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1548.73}, "reply_to": "23691__1_083", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_085", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "No, but I think it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1552.575], "stop_times": [1553.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1552.575}, "reply_to": "23691__1_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_086", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--the state could--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1553.142, 1553.329], "stop_times": [1553.329, 1553.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1553.142}, "reply_to": "23691__1_085", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_087", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--it is an interesting question as to whether that's a... that's a... you know, that's a necessary consequence of this decision, in your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1553.757], "stop_times": [1560.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1553.757}, "reply_to": "23691__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__1_088", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Nothing in this decision requires you to reach the question of whether there are other state defenses in other cases.\nThe justifications the states have given here are so terribly weak in relation to their discriminatory laws that you should strike down these laws, you should invalidate them, you should affirm the judgement of the Sixth Circuit and reverse the judgements of the Second Circuit.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1560.758, 1566.559, 1579.858], "stop_times": [1566.559, 1579.858, 1580.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1560.758}, "reply_to": "23691__1_087", "speaker": "kathleen_m_sullivan"}
{"id": "23691__1_089", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Sullivan.\nMr. Casey.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1580.459, 1580.91], "stop_times": [1580.91, 1588.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1580.459}, "reply_to": "23691__1_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__2_000", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nFor more than 70 years, the Twenty-First Amendment has permitted states to restrict the importation and delivery of alcohol by out-of-state vendors.\nThere are substantial differences between licensed in-state vendors of alcohol and out-of-state vendors that are not subject to the full extent of state regulatory and taxing powers.\nBecause of those differences, Michigan requires that sales, including direct shipment of alcohol, be performed only by licensed, strictly regulated, in-state vendors.\nThis importation regulation is a power expressly conferred by the text of the Twenty-First Amendment.\nIt's consistent with the entire history of alcohol regulation in this country, and it's consistent with this Court's jurisprudence interpreting the Twenty-First Amendment--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1588.942, 1592.357, 1600.586, 1611.406, 1622.857, 1628.563], "stop_times": [1592.357, 1600.586, 1611.406, 1622.857, 1628.563, 1637.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1588.942}, "reply_to": "23691__1_089", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_001", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Now the Bacchus case cuts against you, to some extent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1637.574], "stop_times": [1642.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1637.574}, "reply_to": "23691__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23691__2_002", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--The Bacchus case was a very unique situation that we believe is not in any way controlling in the present case.\nIt was not an importation case; it was an exemption from a state excise tax on wholesalers for alcohol that was already within the state's stream of commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1642.041, 1648.956], "stop_times": [1648.956, 1660.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1642.041}, "reply_to": "23691__2_001", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_003", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, but I think what's fairly implied in Justice O'Connor's question, you have to look at the language of Bacchus, and the language of Bacchus, in effect, restored the anti-discrimination component of the Commerce Clause to liquor control.\nI think that's a fair and necessary reading of the case.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1660.561, 1675.79, 1678.748], "stop_times": [1675.79, 1678.748, 1680.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.561}, "reply_to": "23691__2_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__2_004", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "I disagree that that is a necessary reading--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1680.551], "stop_times": [1682.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1680.551}, "reply_to": "23691__2_003", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_005", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--And I know it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1682.424], "stop_times": [1682.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.424}, "reply_to": "23691__2_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__2_006", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1682.819], "stop_times": [1683.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1682.819}, "reply_to": "23691__2_005", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_007", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--involved pineapple wine and all that.\nI know that, but--\n[Laughter]\n--what we're talking about is the language of the Court in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1683.113, 1684.284, 1684.812, 1686.432], "stop_times": [1684.284, 1684.812, 1686.432, 1690.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.113}, "reply_to": "23691__2_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__2_008", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Correct, but you're... you have to understand that language in light of the actual context.\nThere, the state did not even assert a Twenty-First Amendment defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1690.053, 1694.573], "stop_times": [1694.573, 1697.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1690.053}, "reply_to": "23691__2_007", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_009", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, then you have to understand Young in the light of its context, where there was no discrimination--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1697.781], "stop_times": [1702.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1697.781}, "reply_to": "23691__2_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__2_010", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "There was discrimination in Young, Your Honor, and I'd like to get to that.\nBut to focus on Bacchus for a moment, the state never asserted the Twenty-First amendment, and it was undisputed--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1702.005, 1705.198], "stop_times": [1705.198, 1711.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1702.005}, "reply_to": "23691__2_009", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_011", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "No, but the question was before the Court, because the dissent certainly raised the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1711.822], "stop_times": [1715.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1711.822}, "reply_to": "23691__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__2_012", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Correct.\nAnd we have suggested, in our brief, that the Bacchus case is distinguishable and not controlling here.\nWe have also suggested that Bacchus was incorrectly decided.\nWe can prevail in this case without overruling Bacchus, but we have suggested that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1715.949, 1716.577, 1722.034, 1725.966], "stop_times": [1716.577, 1722.034, 1725.966, 1731.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1715.949}, "reply_to": "23691__2_011", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_013", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, why don't you focus on that?\nBecause it's a little hard to plan on overruling that case.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1731.018, 1732.579, 1739.795], "stop_times": [1732.579, 1739.795, 1740.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.018}, "reply_to": "23691__2_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23691__2_014", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1740.072], "stop_times": [1740.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1740.072}, "reply_to": "23691__2_013", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_015", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "So why don't you at least address how you would distinguish Bacchus?\nBecause there is a lot of language in there that cuts against your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1740.354, 1744.91], "stop_times": [1744.91, 1749.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1740.354}, "reply_to": "23691__2_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23691__2_016", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--The only justification for the statute in Bacchus was what the Court characterized as \"mere protectionism\".\nThat's not the situation with the Michigan statute.\nAgain, the Michigan statute involves the paradigm... or the quintessential Twenty-First Amendment power of regulating importation; it's not an... attacks on alcohol that's already an exemption from a tax for two particular products.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1749.345, 1756.52, 1759.641], "stop_times": [1756.52, 1759.641, 1774.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1749.345}, "reply_to": "23691__2_015", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_017", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, no... I mean, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1774.583], "stop_times": [1775.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.583}, "reply_to": "23691__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__2_018", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Do you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1775.439], "stop_times": [1775.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1775.439}, "reply_to": "23691__2_017", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_019", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--that rather lengthy statement you made earlier, that the Bacchus case didn't involve the importation of alcohol.\nBut it did.\nI mean, the only reason that the in-state exemption was held to be unconstitutional was because you were treating out-of-state sellers differently.\nHow can you possibly say that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1775.648, 1785.713, 1787.163, 1798.888], "stop_times": [1785.713, 1787.163, 1798.888, 1800.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1775.648}, "reply_to": "23691__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__2_020", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--It was treating--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1800.253], "stop_times": [1801.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1800.253}, "reply_to": "23691__2_019", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_021", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--the case didn't involve it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1801.588], "stop_times": [1802.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1801.588}, "reply_to": "23691__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__2_022", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--it was treating two particular items of in-state production differently than all other in-state items and out-of-state items; but it was a taxation issue, not an importation issue.\nAnd as the Court said in Bacchus and in Capital Cities, the correct analysis in the... in evaluating this kind of case is to determine, first, whether the activity of the regulation at issue is an exercise of a power conferred by the Twenty-First Amendment--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1802.619, 1813.861], "stop_times": [1813.861, 1831.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1802.619}, "reply_to": "23691__2_021", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_023", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, why don't we focus on the Court's rationale, which was stated very concisely by Justice White.\nHe said, \"Hawaii's discriminatory tax cannot stand\".\nAnd then he said,\n\"Whatever you can say about the Twenty-First Amendment, one thing is certain, the central purpose was not to empower the states to favor local liquor industries by erecting barriers to competition. \"\nThat was this Court's explanation for ruling the way it did, even though there was this infant industry of pineapple whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1831.494, 1840.658, 1846.486, 1848.372, 1865.287], "stop_times": [1840.658, 1846.486, 1848.372, 1865.287, 1876.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1831.494}, "reply_to": "23691__2_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__2_024", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--That was the first stage of the Court's analysis.\nThe Court went on to say it was not supported by any clear concern of the Twenty-First Amendment in combating the evils of an unrestricted traffic in liquor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1876.828, 1879.897], "stop_times": [1879.897, 1889.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1876.828}, "reply_to": "23691__2_023", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_025", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, your opponents have said that there isn't any clear countervailing interest here.\nThey're saying you can't claim you're protecting kids, because you're selling to the kids at home; there's no serious audit-collection problem; and the other regulatory interests... they didn't say this, but are, sort of, gauzy the way they're stated.\nI mean, they're saying that, by a process of elimination, what you get down to is nothing but discrimination and protectionism.\nWhat is... what is your answer to that?\nWhere is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1889.058, 1894.949, 1911.128, 1917.401, 1918.854], "stop_times": [1894.949, 1911.128, 1917.401, 1918.854, 1919.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1889.058}, "reply_to": "23691__2_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__2_026", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--We--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1919.215], "stop_times": [1919.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1919.215}, "reply_to": "23691__2_025", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_027", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--the substantial interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1919.377], "stop_times": [1920.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1919.377}, "reply_to": "23691__2_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__2_028", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--we disagree wholeheartedly with that.\nThe Michigan--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1920.215, 1921.66], "stop_times": [1921.66, 1922.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1920.215}, "reply_to": "23691__2_027", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_029", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "I know, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1922.534], "stop_times": [1922.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.534}, "reply_to": "23691__2_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__2_030", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--the Michigan regulations do promote the state's interest in temperance.\nThey do give the state a better--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1922.915, 1926.308], "stop_times": [1926.308, 1929.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1922.915}, "reply_to": "23691__2_029", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_031", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Well, you... I mean, you say that, but how?\nThe very activity that you don't want them to engage in, you're engaging in, or your local wineries are engaging in, for example.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1929.11, 1931.469], "stop_times": [1931.469, 1939.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1929.11}, "reply_to": "23691__2_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__2_032", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--But the key is, with an in-state licensee, the state has the ability to enforce against that licensee, to inspect, to punish the licensee--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1939.206], "stop_times": [1946.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1939.206}, "reply_to": "23691__2_031", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_033", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Do we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1946.897], "stop_times": [1947.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1946.897}, "reply_to": "23691__2_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__2_034", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--to hold them accountable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1947.32], "stop_times": [1948.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1947.32}, "reply_to": "23691__2_033", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_035", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--do we have a record of what the state is doing with respect to its in-state licensees, indicating what it could not do effectively to out-of-staters?\nWhat do we have in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1948.016, 1955.686], "stop_times": [1955.686, 1956.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1948.016}, "reply_to": "23691__2_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__2_036", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "The record in this case consisted of a small number of affidavits, answers to interrogatories, some surveys that were submitted as exhibits to motions for summary judgement.\nBoth sides submitted that type of evidence.\nThe District Court decided this was a question of law, and specifically said that he did not consider any of the factual evidence.\nSo the record--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1956.816, 1967.791, 1971.343, 1978.149], "stop_times": [1967.791, 1971.343, 1978.149, 1978.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1956.816}, "reply_to": "23691__2_035", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_037", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, should--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1978.664], "stop_times": [1979.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1978.664}, "reply_to": "23691__2_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__2_038", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--was not fully developed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1979.304], "stop_times": [1979.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1979.304}, "reply_to": "23691__2_037", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_039", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--should we send it back for... if we disagree with the rationale, should one or the other of these cases go back for evidence on what, in fact, the state is doing in relation to its in-state licensees and evidence that it could not effectively do the same with respect to out-of-staters?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1979.902], "stop_times": [1999.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1979.902}, "reply_to": "23691__2_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__2_040", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Yes, if--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [1999.02], "stop_times": [2000.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1999.02}, "reply_to": "23691__2_039", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_041", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "And what would you show?\nWhat do you, in effect... make an offer of proof.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2000.709, 2002.228], "stop_times": [2002.228, 2004.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.709}, "reply_to": "23691__2_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__2_042", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--We would show that the Michigan requirement limiting sales and direct shipping to in-state licensees is required because the state only has effective enforcement authority over in-state licensees.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2004.581, 2020.959], "stop_times": [2020.959, 2021.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2004.581}, "reply_to": "23691__2_041", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_043", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, but wait a minute.\nYou... it was suggested that the state could require a license of an out-of-state supplier, and that that license could be conditioned upon submission to Michigan's jurisdiction in all respects.\nIs that not feasible?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2021.245, 2022.078, 2038.715], "stop_times": [2022.078, 2038.715, 2040.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2021.245}, "reply_to": "23691__2_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23691__2_044", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Michigan does have a current license for out-state seller of wine.\nYou know, these players--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2040.396, 2044.36], "stop_times": [2044.36, 2045.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2040.396}, "reply_to": "23691__2_043", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_045", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "But could you not require submission to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2045.674], "stop_times": [2047.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2045.674}, "reply_to": "23691__2_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23691__2_046", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--We--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2047.742], "stop_times": [2048.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2047.742}, "reply_to": "23691__2_045", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_047", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Michigan's jurisdiction for all purposes of enforcement?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2048.475], "stop_times": [2051.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2048.475}, "reply_to": "23691__2_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23691__2_048", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Certainly, we could pass a law to that effect.\nThe problem is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2051.625, 2053.862], "stop_times": [2053.862, 2054.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2051.625}, "reply_to": "23691__2_047", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_049", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "And if you... if you did that, could you require, as I suggested of Counsel on the other side, that you... that, as a condition of the licensing, that the business records of these companies be placed in some secure online fashion, that, with a password, you could get into and do an audit across the continent just as readily as you could do an audit next door?\nCould Michigan not do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2054.507, 2076.737], "stop_times": [2076.737, 2079.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2054.507}, "reply_to": "23691__2_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__2_050", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--But there is no guarantee that such an audit would be just the same as an audit of an in-state--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2079.168], "stop_times": [2083.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2079.168}, "reply_to": "23691__2_049", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_051", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Well, let me ask, once we accept the proposition... I think this is the necessary reading of Bacchus... that the Commerce Clause applies to liquor and prevents discrimination, it seems to me it's just like any other commodity... food, milk, et cetera... and, in this case, you have a very substantial burden to show that this discriminatory treatment is justified... maybe strict scrutiny, maybe heightened scrutiny.\nAnd this trial has occurred.\nYou have had that opportunity.\nI don't see why you have a right to go back.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2083.822, 2113.131, 2116.108, 2117.44], "stop_times": [2113.131, 2116.108, 2117.44, 2119.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2083.822}, "reply_to": "23691__2_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__2_052", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Despite the lack of evidence in the record and the fact that District Court did not consider that evidence, the Sixth Circuit dismissed all of those claims of the state and remanded for entry of judgement on the Plaintiffs without giving us an opportunity to develop that record.\nI also want to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2119.066, 2135.921], "stop_times": [2135.921, 2137.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2119.066}, "reply_to": "23691__2_051", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_053", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "See, I don't... I don't understand.\nDidn't you have an opportunity to develop the record?\nI mean, this was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2137.615, 2138.742, 2141.376], "stop_times": [2138.742, 2141.376, 2142.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2137.615}, "reply_to": "23691__2_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__2_054", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--There was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2142.377], "stop_times": [2142.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2142.377}, "reply_to": "23691__2_053", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_055", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--a discriminatory matter.\nIt was your burden to show that whatever discrimination existed... assuming that we find the law the way Bacchus seemed to say it is... it was your burden to show that there was some justification for that discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2142.858, 2143.91], "stop_times": [2143.91, 2158.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2142.858}, "reply_to": "23691__2_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__2_056", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--There--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2158.317], "stop_times": [2158.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2158.317}, "reply_to": "23691__2_055", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_057", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "You had your chance to show it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2158.883], "stop_times": [2159.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2158.883}, "reply_to": "23691__2_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__2_058", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--there was evidence in the record.\nThere were affidavits from Michigan enforcement officials about stings, about problem with enforcing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2159.895, 2161.536], "stop_times": [2161.536, 2166.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2159.895}, "reply_to": "23691__2_057", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_059", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "All right, well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2166.2], "stop_times": [2166.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2166.2}, "reply_to": "23691__2_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__2_060", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--against Internet--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2166.837], "stop_times": [2167.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2166.837}, "reply_to": "23691__2_059", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_061", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--tell us what those... what that material is, and if we find that material sustains your burden, that's fine, you win; and if it doesn't, you lose.\nI don't know why we have to let you go back and--\n[Laughter]\n--and retry the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2167.178, 2174.74, 2176.664, 2176.958], "stop_times": [2174.74, 2176.664, 2176.958, 2179.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2167.178}, "reply_to": "23691__2_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__2_062", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Our key position is that before you get to that kind of evidentiary burden, the legal question--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2179.78], "stop_times": [2185.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2179.78}, "reply_to": "23691__2_061", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_063", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "That's what I'm interested in.\nYou win, either way.\nIf it... maybe if the Commerce Clause... dormant Commerce Clause discrimination principle applies, you win, if we scrutinize strictly and say you have a good justification.\nWhether you do or not, I guess I'll find out from reading the record, but I'm more interested in the first half, which is... doesn't apply at all.\nNow, your opponent said, in response to my pointing to Brandeis on this, that to support you, as to precedent, Bacchus.\nYoung's Market isn't any good anymore.\nAs to concept, you can divide the dormant Commerce Clause into a... you have to favor out-of-state principle, which was the original package doctrine, which has long since disappeared, and the anti-discrimination principle, which hasn't disappeared.\nAnd her third part, implicit, is, historically, this whole Section 2 was aimed at the original package part; there is not a word in any brief I saw that suggests any motive in Section 2 to get rid of the anti-discrimination principle.\nI haven't found a word in support on your side on that.\nSo she says,\n\"Put those three things together, and we win. \"\nThat's her point.\nNow, what's your response?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2185.901, 2187.33, 2188.843, 2199.65, 2206.621, 2217.033, 2219.721, 2237.431, 2256.693, 2259.615, 2260.066, 2262.139, 2262.795], "stop_times": [2187.33, 2188.843, 2199.65, 2206.621, 2217.033, 2219.721, 2237.431, 2256.693, 2259.615, 2260.066, 2262.139, 2262.795, 2264.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2185.901}, "reply_to": "23691__2_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__2_064", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--We disagree with that entire position.\nThe text--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2264.45, 2267.943], "stop_times": [2267.943, 2268.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2264.45}, "reply_to": "23691__2_063", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_065", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "I know you do.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2268.739, 2269.266], "stop_times": [2269.266, 2269.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2268.739}, "reply_to": "23691__2_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23691__2_066", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--the text of the Twenty-First Amendment... the text of the Twenty-First Amendment gives states the right to control imports.\nThe history of the Twenty-First Amendment in the Webb-Kenyon Act clearly demonstrate... the purpose of the Webb-Kenyon Act was to eliminate alcohol shipments from--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2269.746, 2274.996], "stop_times": [2274.996, 2284.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2269.746}, "reply_to": "23691__2_065", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_067", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Do you think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2284.774], "stop_times": [2287.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2284.774}, "reply_to": "23691__2_066", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__2_068", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--the Commerce Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2287.463], "stop_times": [2287.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2287.463}, "reply_to": "23691__2_067", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_069", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--that Michigan can prohibit the importation of any wine, but still allow its own wine to be produced, sold, and consumed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2287.874], "stop_times": [2295.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.874}, "reply_to": "23691__2_068", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__2_070", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Yes.\nThat's precisely what the situation was with--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2295.019, 2295.63], "stop_times": [2295.63, 2298.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2295.019}, "reply_to": "23691__2_069", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_071", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "I know you do, but the principle of Webb-Kenyon, which was enacted when the Wilson Act was already there... very clear... is to stop the original package doctrine, stop favoritism of the out-of-state liquor shipment, which meant, in a dry state, you had to sell less.\nI mean, that's what it's there for.\nI didn't find a word, in other words, contrary to what I've just said; and if there are such words, now is the time to point them to me... to point them out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2298.158, 2316.347, 2319.051], "stop_times": [2316.347, 2319.051, 2326.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2298.158}, "reply_to": "23691__2_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23691__2_072", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--The title of the Webb-Kenyon Act is,\n\"It is in... an act divesting intoxicating liquors of their interstate character in certain cases. \"\n\"The clear intent of the Webb-Kenyon Act was to remove alcohol from the Commerce Clause. \"\n\"The Constitution... the Twenty-First Amendment constitutionalized that Commerce Clause framework. \"\nThat's what this Court said in Craig v. Boren.\nCraig v. Boren also said,\n\"The Twenty-First Amendment creates an exception to the operation of... the normal operation of the dormant Commerce Clause. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2326.606, 2328.302, 2333.436, 2338.03, 2343.905, 2346.157, 2347.813], "stop_times": [2328.302, 2333.436, 2338.03, 2343.905, 2346.157, 2347.813, 2353.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2326.606}, "reply_to": "23691__2_071", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_073", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, then you are asking us, I guess, not only to reject Bacchus, but who was the first one that said that the Commerce Clause remains alive and well?\nWas it Justice Stewart?\nAnd I forgot which case it was.\nIt was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2353.995, 2363.071, 2363.888, 2366.118], "stop_times": [2363.071, 2363.888, 2366.118, 2366.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2353.995}, "reply_to": "23691__2_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__2_074", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "That may be.\nThe Commerce Clause remains alive and well, but the Commerce Clause--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2366.661, 2367.013], "stop_times": [2367.013, 2370.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2366.661}, "reply_to": "23691__2_073", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_075", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--In the context of alcoholic beverages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2370.281], "stop_times": [2373.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2370.281}, "reply_to": "23691__2_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__2_076", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--In the context of powers expressly conferred upon the states by the Twenty-First Amendment, that's an exception to the operation... the normal operation of the dormant Commerce Clause.\nCommerce Clause has to be read in light of the Twenty-First Amendment, just as the Twenty-First Amendment has to be read in light of the Commerce Clause and other provisions of the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2373.479, 2383.017], "stop_times": [2383.017, 2391.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2373.479}, "reply_to": "23691__2_075", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_077", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "But that's a different argument than the one you made before, which seems to be saying the Twenty-First Amendment trumps, not that the two have to be harmonized.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2391.915], "stop_times": [2400.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2391.915}, "reply_to": "23691__2_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__2_078", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "When you read the two in light of each other, the purposes of each, it is clear that the purpose of the Twenty-First Amendment was to remove alcohol from interstate commerce as a constitutional matter, to prevent Congress from tampering with it in the future, to give the judgement to the states as to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2400.496], "stop_times": [2419.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2400.496}, "reply_to": "23691__2_077", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_079", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2419.005], "stop_times": [2419.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.005}, "reply_to": "23691__2_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__2_080", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--the necessity for--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2419.447], "stop_times": [2419.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2419.447}, "reply_to": "23691__2_079", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_081", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--you say further than that; you say the purpose was to allow that the states discriminate in favor of home industry, if it chooses.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2419.87], "stop_times": [2425.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.87}, "reply_to": "23691__2_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__2_082", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--That is one of the purposes, yes.\nIn that... in the case that was decided immediately after the Young's Market, Mahoney, and Indianapolis Brewing, the Court said,\n\"Discrimination is permissible in this narrow context, where the state is acting pursuant to its Twenty-First Amendment powers and regulating importation of alcohol. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2425.37, 2427.418, 2434.46], "stop_times": [2427.418, 2434.46, 2444.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2425.37}, "reply_to": "23691__2_081", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_083", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "But that gets us back to Bacchus and what to make of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2444.125], "stop_times": [2447.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2444.125}, "reply_to": "23691__2_082", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23691__2_084", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "I... as I indicated, I don't believe Bacchus overrules those cases; it didn't even cite most of those cases.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2447.392, 2453.569], "stop_times": [2453.569, 2454.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2447.392}, "reply_to": "23691__2_083", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_085", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, the dissent seemed to think so--\n[Laughter]\n--didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2454.217, 2456.334, 2456.804], "stop_times": [2456.334, 2456.804, 2457.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2454.217}, "reply_to": "23691__2_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23691__2_086", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--That's correct.\nBut, as I said, we believe Bacchus is distinguishable, because that was mere protectionism, the state does have other justifications here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2457.921, 2460.295], "stop_times": [2460.295, 2467.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2457.921}, "reply_to": "23691__2_085", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_087", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, we've also said that mere protectionism is permitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2467.503], "stop_times": [2470.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2467.503}, "reply_to": "23691__2_086", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__2_088", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Mere protectionism is permitted.\nIn this case, if we have to present other justifications, we have, and there are other justifications, unlike the situation in Bacchus.\nSo even if the Bacchus rationale is good law, we still prevail on that.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2470.387, 2472.374, 2480.77, 2484.772], "stop_times": [2472.374, 2480.77, 2484.772, 2487.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2470.387}, "reply_to": "23691__2_087", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23691__2_089", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Ms. Halligan?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2487.805], "stop_times": [2495.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2487.805}, "reply_to": "23691__2_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__3_000", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nIn answer to your question first, Justice Breyer, the Twenty-First Amendment does not impose a nondiscriminatory ban.\nThe Court rejected that position, not just in Young's Market and Mahoney in Indianapolis, but also in Clark Distilling, the case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Webb-Kenyon Act, itself.\nIt held that the Webb-Kenyon Act operated to remove any immunity that had been conferred by the dormant Commerce Clause.\nBacchus is not to the contrary.\nIn North Dakota, which follows Bacchus, the Court relied again on Young's Market to say that the states could impose different rules on out-of-state vendors where they were necessary to protect the integrity--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2495.628, 2497.67, 2504.105, 2514.513, 2521.692, 2523.75], "stop_times": [2497.67, 2504.105, 2514.513, 2521.692, 2523.75, 2536.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2495.628}, "reply_to": "23691__2_089", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_001", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Do you... do you take the position that your colleague on your same side takes, that a state can permit only the sale, consumption, and... of its own wines, and bar all out-of-state wines?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2536.412], "stop_times": [2547.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2536.412}, "reply_to": "23691__3_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__3_002", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--The express terms of the Twenty-First Amendment would allow that if... particularly if it were necessary to advance the concerns of the Twenty-First Amendment.\nFor example--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2547.86, 2555.886], "stop_times": [2555.886, 2556.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2547.86}, "reply_to": "23691__3_001", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_003", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "No, no, don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2556.391], "stop_times": [2556.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2556.391}, "reply_to": "23691__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_004", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "No--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2556.956], "stop_times": [2557.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2556.956}, "reply_to": "23691__3_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__3_005", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--don't put in the qualifications.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2557.13], "stop_times": [2558.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2557.13}, "reply_to": "23691__3_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_006", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--just for local protectionism.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2558.439], "stop_times": [2558.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2558.439}, "reply_to": "23691__3_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__3_007", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Simply for mere protectionism?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2558.867], "stop_times": [2561.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2558.867}, "reply_to": "23691__3_006", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_008", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "It's just for local protectionism.\nWe want to promote our wines, and not anybody else's.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2561.407, 2564.046], "stop_times": [2564.046, 2567.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2561.407}, "reply_to": "23691__3_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__3_009", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "The terms of the amendment would allow that, but I don't think the Court needs to explore the outer parameters of the Twenty-First--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2567.638], "stop_times": [2573.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2567.638}, "reply_to": "23691__3_008", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_010", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, I'm trying to understand what your--\n--what your theory is.\nAnd so you are in agreement with your colleague that this could be done, if New York chose.\nYou can only drink New-York-grown wines in... sell and consume... in the state of New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2573.668, 2574.208, 2574.901, 2578.556], "stop_times": [2574.208, 2574.901, 2578.556, 2583.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.668}, "reply_to": "23691__3_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__3_011", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--It could be done, but that question really isn't presented here, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2583.244], "stop_times": [2586.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2583.244}, "reply_to": "23691__3_010", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_012", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "But could Congress pass a law forbidding it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2586.638], "stop_times": [2588.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2586.638}, "reply_to": "23691__3_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23691__3_013", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--That's a difficult question, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2588.664], "stop_times": [2591.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2588.664}, "reply_to": "23691__3_012", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_014", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Yeah.\nAll right.\nBut I need an answer to it.\n[Laughter]\nBecause, you see, what's going to come next is, if you say yes, I'm going to say,\n\"Well, didn't it pass that law with the Wilson Act? \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2591.815, 2592.062, 2592.491, 2593.897, 2594.039, 2597.665], "stop_times": [2592.062, 2592.491, 2593.897, 2594.039, 2597.665, 2600.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2591.815}, "reply_to": "23691__3_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23691__3_015", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Let me answer both of those questions, if I can, Your Honor.\nCertainly, this Court has held, repeatedly, that the Twenty-First Amendment did not, in any substantial way, completely repeal Congress' affirmative power under the Commerce Clause.\nIt said that in Midcal and Capital Cities.\nBut we would argue that if Congress acted in a way which completely removed state authority to determine whether or not alcohol could be sold and the terms under which it could be sold... for example, if Congress said all states must be dry... then we would argue that the Twenty-First Amendment wouldn't allow that, because that would completely eviscerate any state authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2600.142, 2603.685, 2614.888, 2616.665], "stop_times": [2603.685, 2614.888, 2616.665, 2637.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2600.142}, "reply_to": "23691__3_014", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_016", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "How can that be?\nI mean, if this is a constitutional elimination of the Commerce Clause, how can Congress bring it back in simply by enacting a statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2637.541, 2638.221], "stop_times": [2638.221, 2648.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2637.541}, "reply_to": "23691__3_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_017", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "The legislative history makes clear that the Twenty-First Amendment was intended to eliminate the impediments posed by the dormant Commerce Clause and authorize states to regulate it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2648.026], "stop_times": [2658.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2648.026}, "reply_to": "23691__3_016", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_018", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "But you... you want us to read it by its terms.\nIt doesn't say anything about the dormant Commerce Clause.\nIf we read it absolutely the way one of your arguments wants us to do, surely it excludes Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2658.217, 2662.173, 2664.432], "stop_times": [2662.173, 2664.432, 2672.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.217}, "reply_to": "23691__3_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_019", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "By terms of our--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2672.131], "stop_times": [2674.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2672.131}, "reply_to": "23691__3_018", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_020", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "So you don't want us to read it absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2674.51], "stop_times": [2675.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2674.51}, "reply_to": "23691__3_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_021", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Your Honor, I don't think that... again, I don't think that you need to decide those questions in this case.\nThis case goes to what's at the very core of the Twenty-First Amendment, whether states can decide who can sell liquor to their citizens and whether or not states--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2675.746, 2682.126], "stop_times": [2682.126, 2689.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2675.746}, "reply_to": "23691__3_020", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_022", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "But it also goes to the very core of the Commerce Clause.\nAnd there are really two classifications of dormant Commerce Clause cases.\nOne is... and I think it's an improper use of the term \"dormant clause\"... is where there's discrimination.\nOnly the Congress can allow discrimination against out-of-state products.\nThat's one whole classification.\nAnd that's what's... and that's what's involved here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2689.614, 2691.82, 2695.438, 2699.778, 2704.815, 2706.174], "stop_times": [2691.82, 2695.438, 2699.778, 2704.815, 2706.174, 2707.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2689.614}, "reply_to": "23691__3_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23691__3_023", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--North Dakota indicates otherwise, I believe, Your Honor.\nIn North Dakota, this Court said that, because, when alcohol flows across the border, it poses unique risks to the regulatory regime, because the state can't bring the alcohol within the full extent of its regulatory and supervisory powers, that it may be appropriate and necessary for states to impose unique rules on out-of-state vendors.\nIn North Dakota, the Court did not say--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2707.886, 2710.6, 2730.116], "stop_times": [2710.6, 2730.116, 2732.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2707.886}, "reply_to": "23691__3_022", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_024", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, but that's fine.\nAnd the other side isn't denying that here, that if, you know, they're... discrimination means treating out-of-state people differently without good reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2732.233, 2732.713], "stop_times": [2732.713, 2742.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.233}, "reply_to": "23691__3_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_025", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--But there is good reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2742.814], "stop_times": [2744.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2742.814}, "reply_to": "23691__3_024", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_026", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Now, if you're willing to... okay, if you're willing to acknowledge that, then we're halfway there and we're just arguing about whether there is good reason here or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2744.418], "stop_times": [2751.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2744.418}, "reply_to": "23691__3_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_027", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--There is good reason here, Your Honor.\nWhat's critical about New York's law, as well as Michigan's law, is that it requires that any alcohol vendor have a physical presence in the state.\nAnd that's important for a couple of reasons.\nThe state can't meaningfully oversee traffic in alcohol with an out-of-state entity.\nPetitioner suggested--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2751.486, 2753.414, 2762.778, 2764.29, 2768.975], "stop_times": [2753.414, 2762.778, 2764.29, 2768.975, 2769.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2751.486}, "reply_to": "23691__3_026", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_028", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "What is it doing with the in-state entities?\nI mean, one of the claims is that nobody is posting officers outside the in-state wineries, no one's making substantial physical audits of in-state wineries.\nIs that wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2769.982, 2771.858, 2782.099], "stop_times": [2771.858, 2782.099, 2783.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.982}, "reply_to": "23691__3_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__3_029", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--It is wrong, Your Honor.\nIt's certainly not the case that we have an SLA inspector outside every entity that sells liquor.\nThat would not be possible.\nBut it is true that the state liquor authority can, and does, physically inspect the premises.\nThey do so to determine whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2783.623, 2785.009, 2790.195, 2791.316, 2796.511], "stop_times": [2785.009, 2790.195, 2791.316, 2796.511, 2798.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2783.623}, "reply_to": "23691__3_028", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_030", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "What do they inspect them for?\nTheir books, I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2798.189, 2799.262], "stop_times": [2799.262, 2800.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2798.189}, "reply_to": "23691__3_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__3_031", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Well, more than that, and this is why the physical presence is important and why the Internet hypothetical that Your Honor raised would not... would not satisfy the state's concerns.\nWhat the state can do is, it can go onto a premises, and it can count whether the bottles on the shelves of that premises match the records.\nThat's the best way to detect whether or not there is evasion.\nBecause if you have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2800.345, 2808.163, 2815.878, 2818.385], "stop_times": [2808.163, 2815.878, 2818.385, 2819.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2800.345}, "reply_to": "23691__3_030", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_032", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "And is there a record that the state is doing that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2819.476], "stop_times": [2821.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2819.476}, "reply_to": "23691__3_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__3_033", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--There is not clear evidence in the record with respect to that... to that level of detail, but that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2821.288], "stop_times": [2827.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2821.288}, "reply_to": "23691__3_032", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_034", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, isn't that the end of that issue, then?\nI mean, it is your burden, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2827.332, 2829.361], "stop_times": [2829.361, 2831.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2827.332}, "reply_to": "23691__3_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__3_035", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Your Honor, there is material in the McKeon affidavit, which is in the Joint Appendix... Mr. McKeon is the Chair of the state liquor authority... but it's also the case that to suggest that because there is some option out there... and there's no firm evidence that a less prescriptive rule would, in fact, satisfy the state's concerns in preventing diversion and tax evasion... but the possibility that's there's some rule out there, because other states have adopted more lax rules, is to treat alcohol like any other product.\nAnd the Twenty-First Amendment reflects a consensus by this nation that alcohol is unique, that it should not be open to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2831.729, 2859.689], "stop_times": [2859.689, 2865.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2831.729}, "reply_to": "23691__3_034", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_036", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, the Twenty-First Amendment at least recognizes that alcohol can be treated as unique, and the issue here is whether you're really doing that in a way that supports your claim of interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2865.469], "stop_times": [2877.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2865.469}, "reply_to": "23691__3_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__3_037", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2877.387], "stop_times": [2878.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2877.387}, "reply_to": "23691__3_036", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_038", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "And, so far, the one specific thing I've heard from you is that state inspectors do go on winery premises, and they count bottles, and they see if they match what's on the written record.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2878.22], "stop_times": [2890.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2878.22}, "reply_to": "23691__3_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__3_039", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--They also draw on the assistance of local law enforcement.\nAnd this is also--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2890.58, 2892.89], "stop_times": [2892.89, 2893.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2890.58}, "reply_to": "23691__3_038", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_040", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "But if that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2893.643], "stop_times": [2894.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2893.643}, "reply_to": "23691__3_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__3_041", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--set forth--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2894.288], "stop_times": [2894.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2894.288}, "reply_to": "23691__3_040", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_042", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--if that's really what New York's concern is, then why does New York say,\n\"Ah, but out-of-staters, if only you establish an office here... not a winery; an office... you can operate, and you can make the direct sales from that office, and even in. \"\n--I think your brief told us that, well, these small wineries, out-of-state wineries, haven't got all that much to worry about, because, after all, they could join together... a group of them could open an office.\nNow, that office, owned by a group of out-of-state vintners is not going to have bottles on the shelf, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2894.616, 2899.373, 2913.793, 2927.128], "stop_times": [2899.373, 2913.793, 2927.128, 2933.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2894.616}, "reply_to": "23691__3_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__3_043", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, it would.\nThat's... the state laws requires that any licensed winery have a government-bonded storehouse or ware-room... storehouse... storeroom or warehouse, pardon me--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2933.508, 2934.415], "stop_times": [2934.415, 2945.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2933.508}, "reply_to": "23691__3_042", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_044", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, isn't the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2945.421], "stop_times": [2946.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2945.421}, "reply_to": "23691__3_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__3_045", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--The reason for that is because physical products--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2946.154], "stop_times": [2947.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2946.154}, "reply_to": "23691__3_044", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_046", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--How do you envision this combination of small wineries?\nYou said that in-state establishments might be jointly maintained by out-of-state wineries.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2947.433, 2952.051], "stop_times": [2952.051, 2959.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2947.433}, "reply_to": "23691__3_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__3_047", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nThe state liquor authority has not issued any regulations on this, but presumably what they would say is, you could share a space, provided that the physical property of each winery, the bottles, is segregated so that the states can come in and check whether or not each winery's products conform with their records.\nThere are other reasons why a physical presence is important, as well.\nFirst of all, the state draws on local law enforcement extensively to identify illegal activities, and that would not be possible with any entity located out-of-state.\nAdditionally--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2959.87, 2960.566, 2977.381, 2980.07, 2988.507], "stop_times": [2960.566, 2977.381, 2980.07, 2988.507, 2989.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2959.87}, "reply_to": "23691__3_046", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_048", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "What illegal... I'm sorry... you've got to be specific.\nWhat illegal activities?\nSelling to minors?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2989.377, 2993.002, 2994.339], "stop_times": [2993.002, 2994.339, 2995.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2989.377}, "reply_to": "23691__3_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__3_049", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--It could be selling to minors, but it could also simply be sale out of an unlicensed premises, where you are selling outside the proper hours of sale, or sale outside of the three-tier system--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [2995.55], "stop_times": [3006.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2995.55}, "reply_to": "23691__3_048", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_050", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Yeah, but if licensed premises don't serve a state interest, then you can't require a licensed premises, so that argument doesn't get too far.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3006.315], "stop_times": [3013.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3006.315}, "reply_to": "23691__3_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__3_051", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--But, Your Honor, the principle that having entities that sell liquor be licensed, is one that is at the heart, not just at the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3013.848], "stop_times": [3022.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3013.848}, "reply_to": "23691__3_050", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_052", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "How does... how does requiring them to have an in-state office somehow prevent them from shipping to minors from out of state--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3022.449], "stop_times": [3032.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3022.449}, "reply_to": "23691__3_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_053", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--It--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3032.649], "stop_times": [3033.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3032.649}, "reply_to": "23691__3_052", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_054", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--or from shipping to consumers from out of state without paying you their tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3033.302], "stop_times": [3038.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3033.302}, "reply_to": "23691__3_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_055", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--It--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3038.38], "stop_times": [3038.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3038.38}, "reply_to": "23691__3_054", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_056", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "How does the opening of an--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3038.913], "stop_times": [3039.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3038.913}, "reply_to": "23691__3_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_057", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3039.99], "stop_times": [3040.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3039.99}, "reply_to": "23691__3_056", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_058", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--an office in New York State at all prevent that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3040.259], "stop_times": [3041.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3040.259}, "reply_to": "23691__3_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_059", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "It can't prevent it a hundred percent, but no--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3041.984], "stop_times": [3044.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3041.984}, "reply_to": "23691__3_058", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_060", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "It can't prevent it at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3044.346], "stop_times": [3045.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3044.346}, "reply_to": "23691__3_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_061", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Your Honor, it can deter it, and it can deter it significantly, because, first of all, there is a much more significant opportunity to identify the illegal activities; and, secondly, if a retailer or a wholesaler or a manufacturer knows that, that operates as a powerful deterrent--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3045.623], "stop_times": [3061.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3045.623}, "reply_to": "23691__3_060", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_062", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "What did--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3061.865], "stop_times": [3062.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3061.865}, "reply_to": "23691__3_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23691__3_063", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "We seem to be talking... may I just ask one... we seem to be talking about two different things.\nJustice Scalia was assuming that, if you have the license and some in-state warehouse, you can ship from outside.\nAnd I... is that the assumption?\nOr is your argument that New York can require... does require the in-state warehouse, and you can ship into... in New York, you can ship only from that warehouse?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3062.373, 3065.942, 3071.851, 3075.386], "stop_times": [3065.942, 3071.851, 3075.386, 3086.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3062.373}, "reply_to": "23691__3_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__3_064", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--To be clear, the state has not issued regulations that specifically address that point, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3086.79], "stop_times": [3091.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3086.79}, "reply_to": "23691__3_063", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_065", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "So the... we don't know yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3091.746], "stop_times": [3092.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3091.746}, "reply_to": "23691__3_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__3_066", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--We don't know.\nBut in talking with the state liquor authority, they have made it clear that their intent would be to require that the liquor come first to the in-state premises--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3092.337, 3092.79], "stop_times": [3092.79, 3101.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3092.337}, "reply_to": "23691__3_065", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_067", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, even if... I'm willing to assume that.\nHow does that guarantee that the out-of-state winery will not, in violation of New York State law, ship directly to minors or ship directly to consumers, just simply bypassing its cache of wine in New York?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3101.587, 3103.499], "stop_times": [3103.499, 3119.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3101.587}, "reply_to": "23691__3_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_068", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--There is no guarantee, Your Honor, but there is never any guarantee--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3119.207], "stop_times": [3121.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3119.207}, "reply_to": "23691__3_067", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_069", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "There's no guarantee.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3121.706], "stop_times": [3121.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3121.706}, "reply_to": "23691__3_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_070", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--that people won't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3121.969], "stop_times": [3122.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3121.969}, "reply_to": "23691__3_069", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_071", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "It doesn't... it doesn't enable you to enforce your law any more rigorously than without having a requirement for a local office.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3122.889], "stop_times": [3129.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.889}, "reply_to": "23691__3_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_072", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--That, I would respectfully disagree with.\nIt does operate as a powerful deterrent and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3129.169, 3130.602], "stop_times": [3130.602, 3133.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3129.169}, "reply_to": "23691__3_071", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_073", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, your argument there is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3133.289], "stop_times": [3134.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3133.289}, "reply_to": "23691__3_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__3_074", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--as an investigative aid.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3134.834], "stop_times": [3135.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3134.834}, "reply_to": "23691__3_073", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_075", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--if they break the law, you can shut down the warehouse; whereas, you can't effectively do that if the warehouse is in California.\nIsn't that your point?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3135.053, 3140.341], "stop_times": [3140.341, 3141.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3135.053}, "reply_to": "23691__3_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23691__3_076", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "That's one of the points, but also that we're much more likely to be able to identify the illegal activities in the first place.\nThe suggestion that we would send inspectors to California or any other place to look at books and count bottles is completely infeasible.\nAnd the Twenty-First Amendment was intended to allow states to deal with the regulatory challenges that are posed when liquor comes across the border.\nIf we had to demonstrate that there was a hundred-percent compliance, then we couldn't have any regulation at all.\nThat's not, I would submit, a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3141.106, 3146.472, 3154.917, 3164.074, 3169.931], "stop_times": [3146.472, 3154.917, 3164.074, 3169.931, 3172.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3141.106}, "reply_to": "23691__3_075", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_077", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, to what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3172.533], "stop_times": [3173.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3172.533}, "reply_to": "23691__3_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__3_078", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--reasonable measure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3173.033], "stop_times": [3173.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3173.033}, "reply_to": "23691__3_077", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_079", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--to what extent does New York take account of, say, the rigorous regulation in the states from which this wine is coming?\nYou say we must do this to police for all kinds of things.\nBut don't other states... California, Virginia... don't they have laws that their local wineries must meet?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3173.566, 3183.5, 3189.375], "stop_times": [3183.5, 3189.375, 3198.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3173.566}, "reply_to": "23691__3_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__3_080", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "They--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3198.041], "stop_times": [3198.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3198.041}, "reply_to": "23691__3_079", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_081", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "And is New York just saying,\n\"We're going to treat this thing as though it's totally unregulated, anyway? \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3198.674, 3200.984], "stop_times": [3200.984, 3204.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3198.674}, "reply_to": "23691__3_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__3_082", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--We're not suggesting that, Your Honor.\nWhat we are suggesting is that relying on other states to enforce law violations in New York State is not a very feasible alternative.\nAdditionally, there are 33 states that have agreed with New York, a number of whom are states that have either reciprocal or unrestricted shipping statutes, and said to this Court,\n\"Please do not prohibit the kinds of laws that are at issue in New York and Michigan. \"\nSo it's obviously important to the regulators in those states, as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3204.701, 3206.809, 3215.691, 3225.737, 3231.708], "stop_times": [3206.809, 3215.691, 3225.737, 3231.708, 3234.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3204.701}, "reply_to": "23691__3_081", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_083", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "What about the states that do a allow shipment from out of state?\nThey don't care about their--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3234.488, 3238.516], "stop_times": [3238.516, 3240.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3234.488}, "reply_to": "23691__3_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_084", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "I can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3240.631], "stop_times": [3241.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3240.631}, "reply_to": "23691__3_083", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_085", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--How many are there that allow shipment from out-of-state wineries?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3241.531], "stop_times": [3245.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3241.531}, "reply_to": "23691__3_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_086", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--I believe that the current number is 26 states.\nI certainly can't speak to the regulatory motivations of each of those states, or the reasons why those laws might have been passed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3245.294, 3249.112], "stop_times": [3249.112, 3254.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3245.294}, "reply_to": "23691__3_085", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_087", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "It certainly suggests that what... that what you're arguing is not essential to the state's enforcement of its alcohol laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3254.731], "stop_times": [3261.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3254.731}, "reply_to": "23691__3_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_088", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, a number of those states have, in fact, joined New York and Michigan in asking the Court not to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3261.889], "stop_times": [3267.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3261.889}, "reply_to": "23691__3_087", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_089", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "States don't like federal regulation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3267.123], "stop_times": [3268.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3267.123}, "reply_to": "23691__3_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_090", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--restrict that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3268.622], "stop_times": [3268.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3268.622}, "reply_to": "23691__3_089", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_091", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--of any sort, of course.\nI know that.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3268.896, 3270.28, 3270.979], "stop_times": [3270.28, 3270.979, 3271.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3268.896}, "reply_to": "23691__3_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_092", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Your Honor, I think that all the Twenty-First Amendment requires the states to demonstrate is that the regulatory regime that they have chosen has some relationship to their goals of protecting the integrity of the state's system.\nAnd that's certainly what the Court suggested in North Dakota.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3271.46, 3284.861], "stop_times": [3284.861, 3287.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3271.46}, "reply_to": "23691__3_091", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_093", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, I'm not sure.\nWhen you have facial discrimination against out-of-state products, I think you're... the bar is a little higher than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3287.191, 3287.975], "stop_times": [3287.975, 3294.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3287.191}, "reply_to": "23691__3_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__3_094", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Well, that was the case in North Dakota, as well.\nIn North Dakota, the state imposed regulations on out-of-state vendors that were extremely onerous, so onerous that some vendors said they wouldn't ship products at all.\nThat was alcohol that was not even destined for consumption within the state; but on a federal enclave.\nAnd the mere risk of diversion into unregulated and unlawful channels was enough to allow the state to impose those discriminatory rules.\nThe same is true here.\nJustice O'Connor, you also asked about Bacchus, as well, and I would like to take a moment to address that.\nBacchus is distinguishable in several ways.\nFirst of all, Bacchus was a tax.\nAnd while we would argue that taxes could be used to further states' interest in suppressing consumption, for example, it is certainly not at the heart of the... of the Twenty-First Amendment in the way that the direct regulation of alcohol across the border is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3294.195, 3296.814, 3304.547, 3309.48, 3318.545, 3319.804, 3328.803, 3331.724, 3333.201], "stop_times": [3296.814, 3304.547, 3309.48, 3318.545, 3319.804, 3328.803, 3331.724, 3333.201, 3347.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3294.195}, "reply_to": "23691__3_093", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_095", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "No, but if you can't grant a tax exemption... and it seems to me, a fortiori... you can't grant a prohibition about importing at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3347.578], "stop_times": [3355.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3347.578}, "reply_to": "23691__3_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__3_096", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "I, respectfully, would disagree with that, Your Honor.\nIf you can't address the alcohol that flows across the border, which was precisely why the Twenty-First Amendment was enacted, as well as Webb-Kenyon, because the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3355.765, 3358.174], "stop_times": [3358.174, 3366.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3355.765}, "reply_to": "23691__3_095", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_097", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "No, I'm suggesting a tax on imports is less restrictive than a prohibition on imports.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3366.501], "stop_times": [3371.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3366.501}, "reply_to": "23691__3_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__3_098", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Well, we would certainly, you know, welcome the authority to do both, but importation is what is at the heart of the Twenty-First Amendment.\nBacchus is also different, because, there, the state made no effort whatsoever to defend the statute with reference to any concerns related to the Twenty-First Amendment.\nAnd Bacchus--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3371.756, 3379.934, 3388.602], "stop_times": [3379.934, 3388.602, 3389.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3371.756}, "reply_to": "23691__3_097", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_099", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "And according to the District Court, in this very case, the State Attorney General conceded that New York's measure allowing direct sales by in-state wineries was designed to benefit local farmers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3389.102], "stop_times": [3404.251], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3389.102}, "reply_to": "23691__3_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23691__3_100", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--That was an off-the-cuff remark by a single attorney, Your Honor, and that can't be taken as dispositive, given the state's vigorous defense of this statute.\nIt also was regarding a provision that is not even directly before the Court right now which confers no different shipment privileges than are conferred on any winery, whether in-state or out-of-state, that would obtain a license to sell in New York.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3404.251, 3411.366], "stop_times": [3411.366, 3423.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3404.251}, "reply_to": "23691__3_099", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_101", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Halligan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3423.79], "stop_times": [3425.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3423.79}, "reply_to": "23691__3_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__3_102", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3425.362], "stop_times": [3425.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3425.362}, "reply_to": "23691__3_101", "speaker": "caitlin_j_halligan"}
{"id": "23691__3_103", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Mr. Bolick, you have, let's see, about four minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3425.717], "stop_times": [3431.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3425.717}, "reply_to": "23691__3_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__4_000", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens.\nThree very brief points.\nThere his a panoply of tools available to states to police out-of-state wineries in direct shipping, as the Federal Trade Commission has recognized.\nThey can, if they issue a permit, revoke that permit.\nAnd New York has authority to issue such permits under Section 105-9.\nThe Twenty-First Amendment Enforcement Act, for which the liquor distributors and states lobbied very hard, gives injunction authority in the home federal courts.\nAnd, of course, the federal agency, the Tax and Trade Bureau, can revoke a permit if state law is violated.\nIn the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3431.064, 3434.148, 3435.408, 3445.67, 3448.325, 3452.992, 3462.027, 3469.9], "stop_times": [3434.148, 3435.408, 3445.67, 3448.325, 3452.992, 3462.027, 3469.9, 3470.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3431.064}, "reply_to": "23691__3_103", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__4_001", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Who's going to count the bottles?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3470.638, 3471.845], "stop_times": [3471.845, 3472.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3470.638}, "reply_to": "23691__4_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__4_002", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--Your Honor, the state... the Federal Government is able to count those, but the evidence is that they don't.\nAnd that goes back to a question, I believe, Justice Souter asked.\nIn the Michigan case, a question was posed in an interrogatory,\n\"What enforcement by... is done of in-state wineries. \"\nIn that regard, the answer was, \"None\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3472.677, 3481.726, 3484.521, 3489.216, 3493.491], "stop_times": [3481.726, 3484.521, 3489.216, 3493.491, 3495.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3472.677}, "reply_to": "23691__4_001", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__4_003", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "How do you count bottles?\nI would have thought the consumers have all the bottles.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3495.696, 3497.003, 3500.198], "stop_times": [3497.003, 3500.198, 3500.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3495.696}, "reply_to": "23691__4_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23691__4_004", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "That's exactly right.\nAnd, certainly in the directly shipping context in-state, that is emphatically the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3500.953, 3502.269], "stop_times": [3502.269, 3509.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3500.953}, "reply_to": "23691__4_003", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__4_005", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "I think they were referring to full bottles.\nI guess--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3509.364, 3511.348, 3512.32], "stop_times": [3511.348, 3512.32, 3512.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3509.364}, "reply_to": "23691__4_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23691__4_006", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "With direct shipping--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3512.986], "stop_times": [3516.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3512.986}, "reply_to": "23691__4_005", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__4_007", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "They've all been drinking--\n[Laughter]\n--to arbitrators.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3516.483, 3516.842, 3517.128], "stop_times": [3516.842, 3517.128, 3517.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3516.483}, "reply_to": "23691__4_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__4_008", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--With direct shipping, Justice Scalia, we can personalize things.\nIn terms of the Bacchus case, as Justice Ginsburg pointed out, New York, like Hawaii, conceded protectionism.\nIt is very rife in the legislative record in 1970, when the direct shipping was extinguished.\nIn 1995, when Governor Pataki vetoed a bill that would have solved this problem, he said, and I quote... and this is in the record, the Joint... the Second Circuit Joint Appendix, at 442... he said, and I quote,\n\"Since the vast majority of this country's wines are produced in California, I believe that this bill would inevitably lead to a significant increase in mail-order wines from that state into New York. \"\n\"This increase could, in turn, lead to a decrease in sales for New York liquor stores and their distributors, and shrink New York wineries' market share. \"\n\"That is protectionism. \"\nAnd, finally, the notion that small winemakers could go to all 50 states and open offices in order to do this... if you could drive out to Middleburg and visit Juanita Swedenburg's winery... and she invites you to do so--\n[Laughter]\n--you will find Mrs. Swedenburg selling wine, harvesting grapes, and bottling.\nThis is a ban on... this is market foreclosure, sure and simple... fewer than 600 wineries are represented on the stores of New York's shelves, out of over 3,000 wineries--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3517.566, 3521.267, 3529.789, 3535.62, 3548.394, 3558.159, 3565.848, 3567.791, 3583.249, 3589.631, 3595.566], "stop_times": [3521.267, 3529.789, 3535.62, 3548.394, 3558.159, 3565.848, 3567.791, 3583.249, 3589.631, 3595.566, 3609.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3517.566}, "reply_to": "23691__4_007", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__4_009", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "The question--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3609.199], "stop_times": [3609.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3609.199}, "reply_to": "23691__4_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__4_010", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--in the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3609.616], "stop_times": [3610.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3609.616}, "reply_to": "23691__4_009", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__4_011", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "--really is whether the plain language of the Twenty-First Amendment allows that very protectionism.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3610.117], "stop_times": [3614.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3610.117}, "reply_to": "23691__4_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23691__4_012", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "And I would refer you, in my brief time remaining, to the brief, the Carter-Phillips brief for the Napa Valley Vintners Association, the DKT Liberty brief, which go into the history of the Twenty-First Amendment, which was intended to restore the police power, which did not include the power to discriminate.\nOur clients cannot compete with the liquor distributors in the political marketplace in their... in their... in their home states.\nThey can, however, compete in the economic marketplace.\nThe Commerce Clause protects that right, that level playing field.\nThe Twenty-First Amendment was never intended to take it away.\nWe ask this Court, respectfully, to honor 124 years of precedent in the National Economic Union.\nIf there are no further questions, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3614.404, 3629.564, 3638.357, 3641.612, 3645.71, 3648.588, 3654.96], "stop_times": [3629.564, 3638.357, 3641.612, 3645.71, 3648.588, 3654.96, 3656.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3614.404}, "reply_to": "23691__4_011", "speaker": "clint_bolick"}
{"id": "23691__4_013", "conversation_id": "23691", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Bolick.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1116", "start_times": [3656.599, 3657.226], "stop_times": [3657.226, 3658.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3656.599}, "reply_to": "23691__4_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__0_000", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Antonio Dwayne Halbert v. Michigan.\nMr. Moran.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [0.0, 7.642], "stop_times": [7.642, 9.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23105__0_001", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe issue in this case is whether, 42 years after this Court decided in Douglas v. California that indigent defendants have the right to the assistance of counsel for a first-tier direct felony appeal--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [9.418, 12.357], "stop_times": [12.357, 24.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.418}, "reply_to": "23105__0_000", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_002", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, now, Douglas didn't involve a guilty plea, I guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [24.17], "stop_times": [28.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 24.17}, "reply_to": "23105__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23105__0_003", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--It did not, Your Honor.\nIt was a trial case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [28.729, 30.373], "stop_times": [30.373, 31.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 28.729}, "reply_to": "23105__0_002", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_004", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "And did the Court say anything about the effect of having it be a guilty plea?\nI guess it didn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [31.034, 36.558], "stop_times": [36.558, 37.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 31.034}, "reply_to": "23105__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23105__0_005", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "It did not.\nNone of this Court's cases in the Douglas line have turned on whether the conviction was by trial or by plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [37.721, 38.371], "stop_times": [38.371, 43.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 37.721}, "reply_to": "23105__0_004", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_006", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Does that make a difference or could it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [43.938], "stop_times": [46.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 43.938}, "reply_to": "23105__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23105__0_007", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I don't believe it does, Your Honor, because as Mr. Halbert's case demonstrates, all sorts of difficult, technical issues can arise in a guilty plea.\nOf course, certain issues are waived.\nTrial issues are waived by the effect of a guilty plea, but many other issues remain.\nAnd as Mr. Halbert's case demonstrates, especially in the guilty plea cases... this Court well knows the effect of the Federal sentencing guidelines... very complicated issues of sentencing law arise.\nAnd now Michigan has a sentencing guideline system that is perhaps more complicated than the Federal system that's been in effect since the 1980's.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [46.162, 55.112, 57.25, 62.146, 72.593], "stop_times": [55.112, 57.25, 62.146, 72.593, 80.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 46.162}, "reply_to": "23105__0_006", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_008", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Did... did your client waive any right to appeal here in connection with the proceedings at the plea?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [80.919], "stop_times": [89.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 80.919}, "reply_to": "23105__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23105__0_009", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "He did not waive a right to file an application for leave to appeal.\nBecause of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [89.852, 93.312], "stop_times": [93.312, 95.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 89.852}, "reply_to": "23105__0_008", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_010", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "What did he waive?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [95.131], "stop_times": [96.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 95.131}, "reply_to": "23105__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23105__0_011", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--He waived the right to have a... to have what is called in Michigan an automatic appeal, in other words, the right to automatically have full briefing and oral argument.\nSo what he agreed to by pleading was to go through the application for leave to appeal procedure which involves a preliminary determination of merit as to whether the appeal should proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [96.218, 104.201], "stop_times": [104.201, 114.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 96.218}, "reply_to": "23105__0_010", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_012", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Why didn't he waive the right to have counsel for that... for that purpose since that was the law in Michigan?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [114.729], "stop_times": [121.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 114.729}, "reply_to": "23105__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_013", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, he did not... first of all, as a matter of fact, he did not.\nHe was never told at any point during the plea proceedings that he would be giving up his right to counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [121.3, 124.59], "stop_times": [124.59, 130.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 121.3}, "reply_to": "23105__0_012", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_014", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, he was told what... what right to counsel he would have and it didn't include this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [130.115], "stop_times": [135.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 130.115}, "reply_to": "23105__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_015", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "He was told that under certain circumstances the judge would appoint counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [135.107], "stop_times": [138.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 135.107}, "reply_to": "23105__0_014", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_016", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [138.871], "stop_times": [139.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 138.871}, "reply_to": "23105__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_017", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But the judge never said, under any other circumstances, I will not appoint counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [139.293], "stop_times": [142.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 139.293}, "reply_to": "23105__0_016", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_018", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, isn't that a perfectly natural inference if you're told you get A and B, that C and D might have been... that C and D will not be given?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [142.908], "stop_times": [154.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 142.908}, "reply_to": "23105__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23105__0_019", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "It might be a natural inference for somebody with a level of sophistication, but Mr. Halbert is a special education student, functionally illiterate.\nAnd nobody explained to him that he wouldn't be given his right to counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [154.79, 163.344], "stop_times": [163.344, 166.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 154.79}, "reply_to": "23105__0_018", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_020", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, did we take this case on the ground that he wasn't adequately advised or did we take the case on the ground that even if he were advised, he'd still have his right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [166.7], "stop_times": [173.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 166.7}, "reply_to": "23105__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23105__0_021", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I hope the latter, Justice Kennedy, because this is a case in which the State is making a waiver argument.\nAnd, of course, the waiver argument is not part of... is not the intent of the statute.\nWhat the statute does is it tacks on and, by the way, the defendant should be advised at the time of the plea that they won't be getting counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [173.829, 180.458, 185.118], "stop_times": [180.458, 185.118, 191.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 173.829}, "reply_to": "23105__0_020", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_022", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, I... I take it you would challenge the validity of the waiver even if he were advised?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [191.961], "stop_times": [196.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 191.961}, "reply_to": "23105__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23105__0_023", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [196.361], "stop_times": [197.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 196.361}, "reply_to": "23105__0_022", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_024", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "And even if he said, I hereby waive?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [197.054], "stop_times": [198.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 197.054}, "reply_to": "23105__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23105__0_025", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Absolutely, we would because that is a waiver that is designed to extract only from the poor.\nThat waiver has no effect whatsoever on those with money because, in fact, a money defendant is not even eligible for appointed counsel on appeal.\nSo that waiver has no effect whatsoever on--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [198.644, 205.177, 212.754], "stop_times": [205.177, 212.754, 216.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 198.644}, "reply_to": "23105__0_024", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_026", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, wouldn't... I'm... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [216.418], "stop_times": [217.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 216.418}, "reply_to": "23105__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__0_027", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--It would have no effect whatsoever on money defendants I'm saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [217.617], "stop_times": [220.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 217.617}, "reply_to": "23105__0_026", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_028", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Wouldn't your position be different if he had been advised that he had exactly the right that you claim he has, and the court said, however, in Michigan you may not enter the... the plea unless you waive that right?\nIf... if you don't want to waive that right, which I've just explained to you, we'll... we'll have a trial.\nWould... would your answer still be that... that waiver would be as a matter of law impossible?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [220.763, 235.232, 240.816], "stop_times": [235.232, 240.816, 245.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 220.763}, "reply_to": "23105__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__0_029", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "The waiver would be unconstitutional under those conditions because it is a discriminatory waiver.\nTo show how breathtaking the State's argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [245.808, 250.405], "stop_times": [250.405, 254.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 245.808}, "reply_to": "23105__0_028", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_030", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "How... why is that prejudicial to him?\nHe says, okay, I can't plead guilty.\nI really did it but I can't plead guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [254.025, 257.976, 259.625], "stop_times": [257.976, 259.625, 261.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 254.025}, "reply_to": "23105__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23105__0_031", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [261.199], "stop_times": [263.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 261.199}, "reply_to": "23105__0_030", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_032", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Why doesn't he just have a trial?\nHe says, I'm not going to contest the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [263.119, 265.124], "stop_times": [265.124, 267.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 263.119}, "reply_to": "23105__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23105__0_033", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, as this Court has long recognized, a trial provides very substantial benefit.\nI mean, excuse me.\nA guilty plea provides very substantial benefits.\nAnd so the effect of the Michigan statute then would be only the money defendant can receive the benefits of a guilty plea and then have sentencing errors corrected.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [267.012, 271.368, 271.726, 273.896], "stop_times": [271.368, 271.726, 273.896, 282.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 267.012}, "reply_to": "23105__0_032", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_034", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I thought you were going to say to Justice Souter, before I interrupted, that it's... that it's far-reaching.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [282.349], "stop_times": [286.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 282.349}, "reply_to": "23105__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23105__0_035", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Yes.\nWell, not only that, if the State's waiver argument is correct, then presumably the State could extract a waiver saying you can't have free transcripts.\nYou can't have the waiver of the filing fees.\nIn fact, the State could extract a waiver saying you can't have counsel at sentencing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [286.012, 286.978, 295.942, 299.313], "stop_times": [286.978, 295.942, 299.313, 303.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 286.012}, "reply_to": "23105__0_034", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_036", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "These are all disparate impact arguments.\nThere's... there's... you're not making any argument that the State intentionally discriminates against the poor.\nYou're just saying the effect of this is harder on the poor than it is on the rich.\nBut I thought our... our equal protection cases have... have said that disparate impact doesn't... doesn't hack it as far as equal protection is concerned.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [303.132, 305.147, 311.164, 316.492], "stop_times": [305.147, 311.164, 316.492, 327.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 303.132}, "reply_to": "23105__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_037", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia, I actually have two responses to that.\nFirst, this is intentionally aimed at the poor.\nLooking at 770.3a, the statute under... in question here, it is clearly aimed at the indigent.\nIt refers to the indigent.\nSo this is a statute that on its face is... is taking away the right of the indigent and only the indigent to have... have an attorney.\nSo I don't agree that is is a... simply a disparate impact case.\nBut in the context of appellate counsel for a first-tier felony appeal, this Court's cases have... have not applied the same line of analysis that this Court has applied in other contexts, and I think that's quite clear most recently in the MLB case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [327.223, 329.27, 331.9, 337.82, 338.891, 346.481, 349.665], "stop_times": [329.27, 331.9, 337.82, 338.891, 346.481, 349.665, 364.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 327.223}, "reply_to": "23105__0_036", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_038", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "In any event, you pointed out that on the face there is the distinction on the face of it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [364.912], "stop_times": [371.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 364.912}, "reply_to": "23105__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__0_039", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [371.083], "stop_times": [371.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 371.083}, "reply_to": "23105__0_038", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_040", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--it is not a disparate impact case at all--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [371.563], "stop_times": [374.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.563}, "reply_to": "23105__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__0_041", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [374.464], "stop_times": [374.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 374.464}, "reply_to": "23105__0_040", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_042", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--because it affects only indigents.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [374.842], "stop_times": [376.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 374.842}, "reply_to": "23105__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__0_043", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Yes.\nThere is no question that this statute was enacted for and specifically applies only to the indigent.\nIt has... it has no impact whatsoever on the wealthy, and it's aimed at the... at the indigent only.\nSo I do... I do not agree that this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [376.523, 377.792, 382.879, 388.639], "stop_times": [377.792, 382.879, 388.639, 389.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 376.523}, "reply_to": "23105__0_042", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_044", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Whenever a State has... has initially given a broad benefit to the poor, whenever it cuts back on poor... on part of that benefit, it is denying equal protection to the poor?\nThat... that seems to be an extraordinary proposition.\nThe State isn't picking on the poor.\nIt's just saying that... that the... the free counsel we have agreed to provide in the past we're no longer going to provide in this... in this one instance of guilty pleas.\nAnd... and you say that... that is intentional discrimination against the poor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [389.781, 406.116, 409.162, 411.342, 421.976], "stop_times": [406.116, 409.162, 411.342, 421.976, 426.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 389.781}, "reply_to": "23105__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_045", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--It's not a... a disparate impact claim I say, because it is intentionally aimed at the poor.\nThe statute was designed to take away counsel from the poor and only from the poor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [426.456, 431.746], "stop_times": [431.746, 436.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 426.456}, "reply_to": "23105__0_044", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_046", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "So any cutback on benefits that is given... on benefits that are given to the poor is intentional discrimination against the poor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [436.051], "stop_times": [444.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 436.051}, "reply_to": "23105__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_047", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I'm not saying any, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [444.823], "stop_times": [447.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 444.823}, "reply_to": "23105__0_046", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_048", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Just this one because that's your case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [447.08], "stop_times": [448.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 447.08}, "reply_to": "23105__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_049", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "This case certainly is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [448.684], "stop_times": [449.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 448.684}, "reply_to": "23105__0_048", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_050", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "You're saying this is case like Douglas which was equal protection, like a free transcript, like a filing fee for an appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [449.809], "stop_times": [458.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.809}, "reply_to": "23105__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__0_051", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [458.017], "stop_times": [458.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 458.017}, "reply_to": "23105__0_050", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_052", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "You're bracketing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [458.502], "stop_times": [459.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 458.502}, "reply_to": "23105__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__0_053", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "This case... in many ways the restrictions that are placed on the indigent's ability to appeal in Michigan, as a result of this statute, are worse than those that were struck down in Douglas because at least in Douglas the court, the appellate court, would review the entire transcript, looking for arguable issues.\nWe don't even have that here.\nAll we have here is the indigent forced to shift for himself, forced to try and determine whether there are any issues, forced to order his own transcript.\nUnder the Michigan statute, the indigent has to figure out how to obtain his or her docket entries, his or her transcripts, his or her prisoner account statements, all the documents necessary for filing a first appeal that would ordinarily be done by counsel.\nAnd so--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [459.179, 476.688, 478.341, 487.674, 503.407], "stop_times": [476.688, 478.341, 487.674, 503.407, 503.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 459.179}, "reply_to": "23105__0_052", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_054", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "May I just understand one point that Justice Scalia's question raises for me?\nIn your view, is the provision of counsel for the indigent for appellate purposes purely a matter of grace, or was there some underlying obligation to provide counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [503.946, 508.703], "stop_times": [508.703, 518.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 503.946}, "reply_to": "23105__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__0_055", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Oh, it's my... it's certainly my contention, Justice Stevens, that Michigan is required to afford appellate counsel in this situation for a first tier direct felony appeal on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [518.852], "stop_times": [529.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 518.852}, "reply_to": "23105__0_054", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_056", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "So that ultimately your case rests not on equal protection but due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [529.721], "stop_times": [533.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 529.721}, "reply_to": "23105__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__0_057", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "It's a merger of both principles, as this Court said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [533.918], "stop_times": [536.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 533.918}, "reply_to": "23105__0_056", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_058", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But it's one as much as the other, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [536.766], "stop_times": [538.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 536.766}, "reply_to": "23105__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__0_059", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [538.578], "stop_times": [539.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 538.578}, "reply_to": "23105__0_058", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_060", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I mean, you're... we're saying if you're going to provide a first appeal of right, one incident of that is, as a matter of due process, you've got to provide counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [539.117], "stop_times": [548.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 539.117}, "reply_to": "23105__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__0_061", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Yes, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [548.311], "stop_times": [549.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 548.311}, "reply_to": "23105__0_060", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_062", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "So you're... you're retracting the pure equal protection claim?\nI don't think you want to do that.\nI mean, you would say that even if there were not a due process right, you would still regard this as... as directed against the poor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [549.132, 553.543, 554.465], "stop_times": [553.543, 554.465, 562.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.132}, "reply_to": "23105__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_063", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "It is directed--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [562.768], "stop_times": [564.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.768}, "reply_to": "23105__0_062", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_064", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [564.064], "stop_times": [564.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 564.064}, "reply_to": "23105__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_065", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--It is directed against the poor, which is why there is an equal protection component to this argument, but this Court's cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [564.485], "stop_times": [569.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 564.485}, "reply_to": "23105__0_064", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_066", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But you say that component wouldn't exist unless you begin with a due process right to have counsel on appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [569.722], "stop_times": [574.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 569.722}, "reply_to": "23105__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_067", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--I believe that's right.\nIt's... it's difficult... I have to confess, Your Honor, it's difficult sometimes to separate out the due process and equal protection strands from the Griffin and Douglas, and this Court most recently in MLB said that there is a certain merger.\nAlso, I believe in Smith v. Robbins this Court reiterated that there is a certain merger of the lines in these cases.\nBut there--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [574.852, 576.579, 588.855, 593.948], "stop_times": [576.579, 588.855, 593.948, 595.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 574.852}, "reply_to": "23105__0_066", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_068", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "You're... you're saying that the due process is what gets you beyond the stage of merely providing counsel as a matter of grace.\nThat's what due process does for you.\nBecause they have to provide counsel not merely as a matter of grace, you have a very clear equal protection case which you would not otherwise have.\nIsn't... isn't that the way the two work together?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [595.025, 602.246, 605.381, 615.189], "stop_times": [602.246, 605.381, 615.189, 617.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.025}, "reply_to": "23105__0_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__0_069", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--I think that's right, Justice Souter.\nI think I agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [617.124, 618.456], "stop_times": [618.456, 619.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 617.124}, "reply_to": "23105__0_068", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_070", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Can... in your view, can the State require a waiver of the right to appeal for everyone?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [619.324], "stop_times": [625.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 619.324}, "reply_to": "23105__0_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23105__0_071", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "That's a question this Court hasn't decided, and I don't have a position on that.\nBut that's far different from this case because that would not be discriminatory.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [625.51, 629.974], "stop_times": [629.974, 633.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 625.51}, "reply_to": "23105__0_070", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_072", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, I'm not so sure.\nIt certainly goes to the importance of the significance of the underlying right.\nMy understanding is... correct me if I'm wrong... that in the Federal system, we require waivers of the right to appeal frequently, even waiver of the right to appeal the sentence even before the sentence is calculated, as I understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [633.712, 635.663, 640.912], "stop_times": [635.663, 640.912, 655.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 633.712}, "reply_to": "23105__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23105__0_073", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [655.572], "stop_times": [656.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 655.572}, "reply_to": "23105__0_072", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_074", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "And do you question the lawfulness of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [656.287], "stop_times": [658.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 656.287}, "reply_to": "23105__0_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23105__0_075", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I don't.\nAnd that... that case has not come before this Court yet, and so I don't know how this Court would decide that case if it comes.\nI know some of the Federal circuits have upheld such appellate waivers as a part of a negotiated guilty plea.\nOne thing the Michigan statute is... does is it takes away the right to appeal effectively for indigents without negotiation.\nIt's... it's the baseline.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [658.17, 659.417, 664.762, 670.74, 677.779], "stop_times": [659.417, 664.762, 670.74, 677.779, 678.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 658.17}, "reply_to": "23105__0_074", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_076", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But, Mr. Moran, if... if you're... if you're tying your equal protection claim to a due process claim and if it is not a violation of due process to require people to waive their... I mean, you can waive entirely the right to appeal.\nSurely you can waive the right to counsel on appeal.\nIf that's not a violation of due process, then your equal protection claim dissolves.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [678.942, 695.88, 698.039], "stop_times": [695.88, 698.039, 702.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 678.942}, "reply_to": "23105__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_077", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But, Your Honor, the problem is... is that the statute requires only the poor, imposes a forced waiver on only the poor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [702.764], "stop_times": [710.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 702.764}, "reply_to": "23105__0_076", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_078", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "That's an equal protection claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [710.876], "stop_times": [711.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 710.876}, "reply_to": "23105__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_079", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "That's an equal protection claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [711.909], "stop_times": [712.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 711.909}, "reply_to": "23105__0_078", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_080", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But you've... you've said your equal protection claim hinges on the due process claim.\nIf the due process claim, in turn, hinges upon waiver, then apart from the... from the dispute in this case as to whether waiver occurred or not, if waiver does occur, there's no due process claim, and then there's no equal protection claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [712.443, 715.989], "stop_times": [715.989, 730.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.443}, "reply_to": "23105__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_081", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I'm really not sure that you can separate out the two strands of the Fourteenth Amendment again, and I know this Court didn't try in MLB, and I know this Court didn't try in Smith v. Robbins, so that there is... there is a component of both.\nAnd it's precisely because of these sorts of questions that I think you have to view them as an integrated whole for purposes of the Griffin/Douglas line.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [730.772, 742.703], "stop_times": [742.703, 749.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 730.772}, "reply_to": "23105__0_080", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_082", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "In any case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [749.593], "stop_times": [750.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 749.593}, "reply_to": "23105__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__0_083", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Where... where do we find the waiver here?\nIs it in the joint appendix?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [750.339, 752.77], "stop_times": [752.77, 754.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 750.339}, "reply_to": "23105__0_082", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23105__0_084", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, it's my position there was no waiver, but the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [754.904], "stop_times": [758.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 754.904}, "reply_to": "23105__0_083", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_085", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But you referred to something that was waived.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [758.125], "stop_times": [761.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 758.125}, "reply_to": "23105__0_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23105__0_086", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [761.068], "stop_times": [761.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 761.068}, "reply_to": "23105__0_085", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_087", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Where would we find that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [761.201], "stop_times": [762.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 761.201}, "reply_to": "23105__0_086", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23105__0_088", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, the plea proceeding.\nIt's the plea proceeding.\nAnd it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [762.677, 762.545, 764.08], "stop_times": [762.545, 764.08, 766.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 762.677}, "reply_to": "23105__0_087", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_089", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, don't take your time to look it up.\nMaybe counsel for respondent can find it for us.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [766.832, 768.954], "stop_times": [768.954, 773.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 766.832}, "reply_to": "23105__0_088", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23105__0_090", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--It's... it's in the joint appendix--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [773.668], "stop_times": [773.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 773.668}, "reply_to": "23105__0_089", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_091", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [773.801], "stop_times": [774.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 773.801}, "reply_to": "23105__0_090", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23105__0_092", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--beginning on page 19.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [774.862], "stop_times": [777.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 774.862}, "reply_to": "23105__0_091", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_093", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "It's their argument anyway.\nLet them--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [777.108, 778.319], "stop_times": [778.319, 778.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 777.108}, "reply_to": "23105__0_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_094", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I'm missing something on waiver, but I would have thought a person can waive a... a right to have a counsel on appeal.\nHe can waive a trial.\nHe can waive a jury trial.\nBut before he has to... before he decides, he has to know that he has the constitutional right to a jury trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [778.59, 785.416, 786.887, 789.016], "stop_times": [785.416, 786.887, 789.016, 795.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 778.59}, "reply_to": "23105__0_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__0_095", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [795.986], "stop_times": [797.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 795.986}, "reply_to": "23105__0_094", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_096", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "And why wouldn't he also have to have the... to know that he has the constitutional right to a lawyer to represent him?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [797.302], "stop_times": [803.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.302}, "reply_to": "23105__0_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__0_097", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, that's my position--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [803.093], "stop_times": [803.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 803.093}, "reply_to": "23105__0_096", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_098", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "All right.\nThat has nothing to do with equal protection.\nIt has to do simply with a very common sense rule that we apply in every case, jury trial, et cetera.\nSo all we'd have to say is, of course, he has a right to a lawyer.\nNow, if he wants to go back and waive that right, fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [803.989, 804.522, 805.961, 813.848, 818.2], "stop_times": [804.522, 805.961, 813.848, 818.2, 821.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 803.989}, "reply_to": "23105__0_097", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__0_099", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [821.086], "stop_times": [821.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 821.086}, "reply_to": "23105__0_098", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_100", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "That's all.\nThat's the end of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [821.95, 822.674], "stop_times": [822.674, 823.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 821.95}, "reply_to": "23105__0_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__0_101", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [823.372], "stop_times": [823.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 823.372}, "reply_to": "23105__0_100", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_102", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "So what's all this complicated thing about?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [823.603], "stop_times": [824.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 823.603}, "reply_to": "23105__0_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__0_103", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "If an indigent, after being sentenced, decided for whatever reason I would prefer to go on appeal by myself, which is actually a... a right this Court rejected in Martinez, that you have a right to represent yourself on appeal, but in Michigan an indigent is allowed to... would be allowed to represent himself or herself on appeal if they chose to do so.\nThe problem here is that the statute purports to take away the right, and it's our position that this is a constitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [824.855, 842.497], "stop_times": [842.497, 848.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 824.855}, "reply_to": "23105__0_102", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_104", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "No, no.\nYou'd have to say the statute is wrong in taking away the right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [848.272, 848.379], "stop_times": [848.379, 852.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 848.272}, "reply_to": "23105__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__0_105", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [852.379], "stop_times": [852.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 852.379}, "reply_to": "23105__0_104", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_106", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But he can waive it if he wants to, knowing that he has the right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [852.591], "stop_times": [857.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 852.591}, "reply_to": "23105__0_105", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__0_107", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "That's right.\nWe have no problem with a voluntary waiver.\nWe certainly have a problem with a forced waiver saying that you cannot enter a plea which produces tremendous benefits in Michigan, as everywhere else, unless... unless you agree to waiver--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [857.406, 858.013, 859.974], "stop_times": [858.013, 859.974, 870.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 857.406}, "reply_to": "23105__0_106", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_108", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Oh, but... but that happens all the time.\nI mean, the waiver... waiver of appeal in... in guilty... in guilty pleas.\nThat's... that's not permissible either?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [870.912, 872.986, 877.39], "stop_times": [872.986, 877.39, 879.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 870.912}, "reply_to": "23105__0_107", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_109", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--I take no position on that.\nIt may or may not permissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [879.033, 880.942], "stop_times": [880.942, 882.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 879.033}, "reply_to": "23105__0_108", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_110", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, you have to if you're going to make the argument you just made.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [882.344], "stop_times": [883.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.344}, "reply_to": "23105__0_109", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_111", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But it's far different because that's something that can be obtained in negotiation.\nBut what we would have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [883.912, 888.268], "stop_times": [888.268, 889.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 883.912}, "reply_to": "23105__0_110", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_112", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, Mr. Moran, here on page 22 of the joint appendix, the court is speaking to the defendant and says, you understand if I accept your plea, you are giving up or waiving any claim of an appeal as of right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [889.67], "stop_times": [904.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 889.67}, "reply_to": "23105__0_111", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23105__0_113", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [904.389], "stop_times": [904.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 904.389}, "reply_to": "23105__0_112", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_114", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "And you think that was not effective?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [904.809], "stop_times": [909.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 904.809}, "reply_to": "23105__0_113", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23105__0_115", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "No.\nThat was effective.\nThat... that's referring to the automatic appeal that he would have if he went to trial where he would have full briefing and oral argument.\nThe Michigan--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [909.053, 909.806, 910.712, 917.416], "stop_times": [909.806, 910.712, 917.416, 918.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 909.053}, "reply_to": "23105__0_114", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_116", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, I... it doesn't say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [918.225], "stop_times": [920.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 918.225}, "reply_to": "23105__0_115", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23105__0_117", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--No, it doesn't.\nThis was a... this was a pretty poor waiver proceeding in a number of... of respects, but it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [920.135, 921.341], "stop_times": [921.341, 928.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 920.135}, "reply_to": "23105__0_116", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_118", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, he does--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [928.231], "stop_times": [928.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.231}, "reply_to": "23105__0_117", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23105__0_119", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [928.678], "stop_times": [928.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.678}, "reply_to": "23105__0_118", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23105__0_120", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--he does go on to say that... that he can appoint a lawyer for... in certain instances.\nHe doesn't complete the explanation by saying there are other instances and when I will not appoint one.\nThat he leaves out, although this a represented defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [928.785, 935.739, 942.549], "stop_times": [935.739, 942.549, 945.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 928.785}, "reply_to": "23105__0_119", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23105__0_121", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Yes, he was.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [945.13], "stop_times": [945.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 945.13}, "reply_to": "23105__0_120", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_122", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "He had a counsel at the plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [945.759], "stop_times": [946.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 945.759}, "reply_to": "23105__0_121", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23105__0_123", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "He did.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [946.772], "stop_times": [947.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 946.772}, "reply_to": "23105__0_122", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_124", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I'm mixed up again.\nWhat is the answer to this?\nI... I would have thought that even if those words that Justice O'Connor read referred directly to the kind of appeal that we have in front of us... in other words, the one that's at issue... that still he'd have to know he has a right to a lawyer on that appeal before he could waive it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [947.205, 948.613, 949.86], "stop_times": [948.613, 949.86, 969.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 947.205}, "reply_to": "23105__0_123", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__0_125", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Yes, Justice Breyer, I agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [969.534], "stop_times": [970.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 969.534}, "reply_to": "23105__0_124", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_126", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "And does anybody dispute that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [970.926], "stop_times": [972.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 970.926}, "reply_to": "23105__0_125", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__0_127", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [972.867], "stop_times": [974.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 972.867}, "reply_to": "23105__0_126", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_128", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Is that at issue here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [974.727], "stop_times": [975.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 974.727}, "reply_to": "23105__0_127", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__0_129", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--I... I believe the State might dispute that.\nI'm not sure.\nWhat the Michigan constitution does, Justice O'Connor, if I may come back to your question, is it says that for somebody who pleads guilty or nolo contendere, they are giving up the right to the automatic appeal, and they have... they then have to proceed by the application for leave to appeal.\nAnd so the Michigan constitution explicitly still provides a right to appeal, but it changes the method.\nAnd so Michigan's appeal, after a guilty plea now, is like the first appeal in several other States, Virginia, West Virginia, and... and several other States have guilty plea appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [975.206, 978.56, 979.028, 995.101, 1001.4], "stop_times": [978.56, 979.028, 995.101, 1001.4, 1011.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 975.206}, "reply_to": "23105__0_128", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_130", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "That's a strange terminology.\nIt doesn't provide a right to appeal.\nIt... it provides a right to apply for an appeal, a right to ask for an appeal.\nA right to ask for an appeal is not a right to get an appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1011.367, 1012.534, 1014.502, 1020.384], "stop_times": [1012.534, 1014.502, 1020.384, 1023.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1011.367}, "reply_to": "23105__0_129", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_131", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "It's framed in terms of a... of a right.\nPage 2 of the brief--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1023.621, 1027.055], "stop_times": [1027.055, 1028.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1023.621}, "reply_to": "23105__0_130", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_132", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "So you have an absolute right to ask for an appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1028.771], "stop_times": [1030.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1028.771}, "reply_to": "23105__0_131", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_133", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1030.643], "stop_times": [1030.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1030.643}, "reply_to": "23105__0_132", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_134", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But that's not a right to appeal.\nIt's a right to request an appeal, which can be granted or denied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1030.994, 1033.102], "stop_times": [1033.102, 1036.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1030.994}, "reply_to": "23105__0_133", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_135", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1036.771], "stop_times": [1037.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1036.771}, "reply_to": "23105__0_134", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_136", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1037.661], "stop_times": [1038.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.661}, "reply_to": "23105__0_135", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_137", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But it's a... it's... what Michigan has done is it has changed the method of the appeal.\nAnd so Virginia, for example, has first-tier appeals by petition.\nWest Virginia has a first-tier by petition and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1038.392, 1043.575, 1048.188], "stop_times": [1043.575, 1048.188, 1051.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1038.392}, "reply_to": "23105__0_136", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_138", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, it's done more than change the method.\nIt's changed the entitlement.\nThe court can simply say we're not interested in your appeal.\nIt doesn't raise a significant legal issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1051.67, 1053.185, 1054.977, 1059.238], "stop_times": [1053.185, 1054.977, 1059.238, 1061.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1051.67}, "reply_to": "23105__0_137", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_139", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Yes, Justice Scalia, but that's not how the... the Michigan Court of Appeals works.\nThe Michigan Court of Appeals is an error-correcting court.\nAnd so in Mr. Halbert's case, the Michigan Court of Appeals denied his appeal, after his futile attempt to... to identify his issues, with an order saying that there was a lack of merit in the grounds presented.\nThat is a preclusive decision on the merits of his case.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1061.59, 1065.973, 1068.432, 1080.677, 1083.931], "stop_times": [1065.973, 1068.432, 1080.677, 1083.931, 1084.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1061.59}, "reply_to": "23105__0_138", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_140", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--That's just... but that's just boiler plate, isn't it?\nThat's what they say in all these cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1084.39, 1086.773], "stop_times": [1086.773, 1088.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1084.39}, "reply_to": "23105__0_139", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__0_141", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1088.661], "stop_times": [1089.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1088.661}, "reply_to": "23105__0_140", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_142", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "And I think Michigan cites a Michigan Supreme Court decision that says it's not on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1089.531], "stop_times": [1097.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1089.531}, "reply_to": "23105__0_141", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__0_143", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "That--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1097.05], "stop_times": [1097.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1097.05}, "reply_to": "23105__0_142", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_144", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "It's People v. Berry?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1097.967], "stop_times": [1099.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1097.967}, "reply_to": "23105__0_143", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__0_145", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Yes.\nThat was a decision of the Michigan Supreme Court referring to its own orders denying applications for leave to appeal which are not on the merits.\nThe Michigan Supreme Court denies the applications for saying... by saying, we are not persuaded that we should hear the questions presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1099.284, 1099.63, 1107.133], "stop_times": [1099.63, 1107.133, 1114.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1099.284}, "reply_to": "23105__0_144", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_146", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, why wouldn't it be the same if the... if it's a discretionary appeal at the intermediate appellate level?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1114.531], "stop_times": [1121.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1114.531}, "reply_to": "23105__0_145", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__0_147", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Because the Michigan Court of Appeals, unlike the Michigan Supreme Court, is an error correcting court.\nAnd so it issues orders saying denied for lack of merit.\nAnd the Michigan Court of Appeals dozens and dozens of times in the last 25 years has said, without exception, that is a decision on the merits that precludes relitigation under the law of the case doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1121.026, 1125.174, 1128.705], "stop_times": [1125.174, 1128.705, 1140.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1121.026}, "reply_to": "23105__0_146", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_148", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Didn't... didn't the supreme court in the Bulger case... was that the name of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1140.812], "stop_times": [1144.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1140.812}, "reply_to": "23105__0_147", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_149", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1144.966], "stop_times": [1145.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1144.966}, "reply_to": "23105__0_148", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_150", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Didn't it say that the... that the intermediate court's denial of... of appeals was a discretionary judgment?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1145.424], "stop_times": [1153.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1145.424}, "reply_to": "23105__0_149", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_151", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "It called it a discretionary appeal, Justice Scalia, without ever explaining why, and the... the dissent in Bulger pointed out the Michigan Court of Appeals is an error-correcting court.\nAnd in fact, the very author of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1153.626, 1163.734], "stop_times": [1163.734, 1165.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1153.626}, "reply_to": "23105__0_150", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_152", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "That was a dissent, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1165.808], "stop_times": [1167.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1165.808}, "reply_to": "23105__0_151", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_153", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--That's right, but the very author of the opinion in Bulger, Chief Justice Corrigan, just 1 year later or 2 years later describes the effect of... of an order denying leave to appeal in the Michigan Court of Appeals, and says it clearly shows they considered and rejected the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1167.259], "stop_times": [1181.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1167.259}, "reply_to": "23105__0_152", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_154", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--So, in effect, it's discretionary in the sense that it's discretionary as to whether to give it full-dress treatment, but the bottom line, whether they give it full dress or... or merely discretionary denial is... is an implication on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1181.477], "stop_times": [1196.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1181.477}, "reply_to": "23105__0_153", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__0_155", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Yes, exactly as in Virginia.\nIn Jackson v. Virginia, the Court recognized that the... the Virginia situation is exactly the same, that there is a petition to appeal to the Virginia Court of Appeals, and that each petition is considered on the merits, and a denial of the petition is seen as a decision on the merits that precludes relitigation under the law of the case doctrine.\nAnd so Michigan's appeal after a guilt plea now is exactly like the one in Virginia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1196.692, 1197.971, 1215.171], "stop_times": [1197.971, 1215.171, 1219.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1196.692}, "reply_to": "23105__0_154", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_156", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Is that something the intermediate appellate court has said?\nHave they said that, that... we have a... a discretionary appeal, but every... in every case it's a merits decision?\nWe don't have any decisions that say we are exercising our discretion not to review.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1219.224, 1222.067, 1230.515], "stop_times": [1222.067, 1230.515, 1238.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1219.224}, "reply_to": "23105__0_155", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__0_157", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "If a... if a appeal or an application to the Michigan Court of Appeals is filed in the wrong form or is untimely or has some other defect, then the court will occasionally issue an order denying the application for that reason.\nBut for any properly filed application for leave to appeal, the longstanding practice of the Michigan Court of Appeals is to say it is denied for lack of merit in the grounds presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1238.173, 1251.868], "stop_times": [1251.868, 1261.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1238.173}, "reply_to": "23105__0_156", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_158", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "This means, I would presume, that... that we would... we would have to give... our Federal courts on habeas would have to give deference to all decisions of the intermediate court since they're all on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1261.766], "stop_times": [1277.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1261.766}, "reply_to": "23105__0_157", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_159", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "And they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1277.109], "stop_times": [1277.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1277.109}, "reply_to": "23105__0_158", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_160", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Federal courts do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1277.578], "stop_times": [1279.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1277.578}, "reply_to": "23105__0_159", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_161", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1279.668], "stop_times": [1279.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1279.668}, "reply_to": "23105__0_160", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_162", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "They assume that all factual and legal arguments have been decided against the... the person applying for a discretionary appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1279.78], "stop_times": [1288.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1279.78}, "reply_to": "23105__0_161", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__0_163", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Yes.\nAfter Abela v. Martin in the Sixth Circuit.\nAnd there is a... a whole host of Federal district court decisions in the Eastern and Western District of Michigan all saying that when an order is denied for lack of merit in the grounds presented, the AEDPA standard of review applies.\nAnd so the State obtains tremendous benefits from this procedure.\nThey obtain deference on habeas corpus review.\nThey prevent the indigent, if the indigent were to ever get a lawyer at some later stage, from beginning relitigation on State collateral review.\nAnd so the State very happily argues for all of those purposes that this is a decision on the merits, but then they come before this Court and they say, oh, no, it's not a decision on the merits.\nIt's really discretionary despite what it says because they are hoping that this Court will conclude that it is a discretionary appeal.\nIn fact, the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1288.403, 1288.809, 1291.656, 1305.41, 1309.42, 1311.696, 1318.377, 1330.616, 1337.698], "stop_times": [1288.809, 1291.656, 1305.41, 1309.42, 1311.696, 1318.377, 1330.616, 1337.698, 1338.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1288.403}, "reply_to": "23105__0_162", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_164", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Mr. Moran.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1338.465], "stop_times": [1338.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1338.465}, "reply_to": "23105__0_163", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__0_165", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--has made an even more radical argument in its brief.\nThe State maintains that the appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals is a second-tier appeal, and that is plainly contrary to the... to the actual function of that court because there is a provision that if trial counsel suddenly realizes in a plea case, after sentencing, that there are issues that she should have raised, it allows her to do that.\nAnd so the State now argues that that's really the first-tier appeal, and then the application that follows after that to the Michigan Court of Appeals is a second-tier appeal.\nI'll just point out that even the State's amicus doesn't agree with that, and... and rightfully so in light of Swenson v. Bosler, which has rejected an attempt to reorganize by labeling how one's appeals go.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1338.583, 1340.886, 1360.715, 1369.382], "stop_times": [1340.886, 1360.715, 1369.382, 1382.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1338.583}, "reply_to": "23105__0_164", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_166", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Mr. Moran, before your... your time is up, I did want to know what is your position on... let's say that there is... you prevail and there is a right to counsel for these applications to appeal.\nAnd if counsel looks at the case and determines that there is no tenable ground for an appeal, could counsel file the equivalent of an Anders brief?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1382.768, 1397.221], "stop_times": [1397.221, 1412.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1382.768}, "reply_to": "23105__0_165", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__0_167", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Yes.\nYes, Justice Ginsburg, and in fact, I have done that personally.\nBefore I became an academic, I worked at the State Appellate Defender Office in Detroit and was appointed to represent indigents on plea appeals.\nAnd in a significant percentage of the cases... I can't quote you the numbers off the top of my head... after reviewing the case, the appellate counsel then concludes that there is no merit, that there are no grounds to proceed, that the defendant in fact got whatever it was she bargained for in the plea bargaining, at which point then either a motion to withdraw may be filed or... or the equivalent, the Michigan equivalent, of an Anders brief.\nAnd so that is done in a number of cases.\nIt is our position that that procedure actually helps improve the appellate process in Michigan because without that process, all you have are indigents like Mr. Halbert, a special education student with mental disabilities, trying to identify his own issues and fall... and filing, in... in his case, with the help of a fellow prisoner because he could not have done it himself... the help of a fellow prisoner, an application that is completely incoherent, misses several issues that are right on the face of the record, correctly asserts that his sentencing guidelines were misscored but... but without explaining why, without even identifying which sentencing guidelines were misscored.\nAnd in fact, he received a minimum sentence that was approximately three times too high under the sentencing guidelines.\nThe State concedes that one of the sentencing guidelines was scored in the State's favor erroneously.\nWe concede one of the... one of the sentencing guidelines was scored in Mr. Halbert's favor erroneously.\nBut then there were two others, and the most important ones, the OV, Offense Variable, 13.\nThat was scored for 25 points in both cases.\nAnd so Mr.... Mr. Halbert, in fact, received a sentence that was much too high.\nMichigan requires... Michigan is one of the few States that requires that ineffective assistance of counsel claims be raised on direct appeal or they're lost.\nAnd so at that point, Mr. Halbert had to figure out a way to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel hearing, which requires an evidentiary hearing at which trial counsel must be called, assuming trial counsel is still available to be called, all from prison, and there was no possible way he could do that.\nSo it's not very surprising that even with the help of a fellow inmate, that his application for leave to appeal was completely incoherent.\nThe fellow inmate actually did write the... the trial judge and say we need to have an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel.\nBut under the statute, the judge had no discretion to grant that motion.\nUnder the statute, only if there was already an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines, only then would the judge be required to appoint counsel, and of course, the guidelines, as misscored without objection from defense counsel... there was no upward departure at that point.\nIf the Court has no further questions, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1412.139, 1412.763, 1415.418, 1422.953, 1445.422, 1447.667, 1482.92, 1489.4, 1494.653, 1499.506, 1504.626, 1507.293, 1511.191, 1520.055, 1537.501, 1544.994, 1551.927, 1555.5, 1571.02], "stop_times": [1412.763, 1415.418, 1422.953, 1445.422, 1447.667, 1482.92, 1489.4, 1494.653, 1499.506, 1504.626, 1507.293, 1511.191, 1520.055, 1537.501, 1544.994, 1551.927, 1555.5, 1571.02, 1574.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1412.139}, "reply_to": "23105__0_166", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__0_168", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Very well, Mr. Moran.\nMr. Restuccia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1574.776, 1576.188], "stop_times": [1576.188, 1579.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1574.776}, "reply_to": "23105__0_167", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23105__1_000", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI want to start with the factual claim regarding the waiver that the Court identified, pages 22 and 23 from the joint appendix, being the point at which Mr. Halbert, in fact, waived his right to the appointment of appellate counsel.\nI think Justice Scalia is right in noting that he was told specifically it's under these conditions you'll be appointed a counsel; under these conditions, you might be appointed counsel.\nFrom context it's unambiguous that he would otherwise not receive counsel.\nAnd what's important is at the joint appendix on page 45, the trial court, in fact, made a factual finding on this point.\nSo in order for this Court to conclude that Mr. Halbert did not waive his right to appellate counsel under the particular circumstances, you would have... you would have to conclude that the trial court was clearly erroneous in its factual finding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1579.666, 1587.1, 1599.863, 1610.642, 1615.708, 1624.487], "stop_times": [1587.1, 1599.863, 1610.642, 1615.708, 1624.487, 1637.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1579.666}, "reply_to": "23105__0_168", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_001", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, I mean, wouldn't we have to conclude that if we're going to apply the same standards here that we usually do in... in the plea waiver situation?\nI mean, we... the... the classic point of it all is the knowing... the... the intelligent, voluntary waiver of a known right.\nAnd leaving aside the equal protection problem here, even if we didn't have that, I don't see that there would be... have been an adequate waiver here because he was never told that he had the right that he now claims as a matter of due process.\nYou indeed, dispute it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1637.005, 1644.743, 1653.889, 1671.003], "stop_times": [1644.743, 1653.889, 1671.003, 1672.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1637.005}, "reply_to": "23105__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__1_002", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1672.065], "stop_times": [1672.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1672.065}, "reply_to": "23105__1_001", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_003", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But unless he were told that, the... the waiver that... that depends upon parsing the difference between must and may in the two paragraphs of explanation certainly wouldn't be taken as the predicate for a waiver of a known right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1672.523], "stop_times": [1688.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1672.523}, "reply_to": "23105__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__1_004", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I... I think that the colloquy makes clear that he does not... he's not going to have an appeal as of right, and then when told that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1688.122], "stop_times": [1694.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1688.122}, "reply_to": "23105__1_003", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_005", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, the... the appeal of his right... the appeal as of right point, as I understand it, is a different point.\nWhat they're getting at there is it will be discretionary with the reviewing court whether your case is reviewed on the merits on some point if you ask for it.\nWe're here dealing with the right to counsel, and it seems to me unless he were told that he had the right to counsel that he claims and he then waived it, that there wouldn't be a... an... an adequate waiver under Boykin.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1694.697, 1701.56, 1714.503], "stop_times": [1701.56, 1714.503, 1729.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1694.697}, "reply_to": "23105__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__1_006", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--I think in... in context when told that only under these circumstances you're going to receive counsel in bringing discretionary application, that it's clear that he is waiving in his decision to go forward with the... his plea--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1729.74], "stop_times": [1741.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1729.74}, "reply_to": "23105__1_005", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_007", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Look, the... imagine... I'm just repeating what Justice Souter said.\nThere must be... it's so obvious that there must be an obvious answer, but I haven't heard the answer.\nHe knows Michigan law or his lawyer does.\nThe Michigan lawyer looks at the statute.\nIt says a defendant who pleads guilty shall not have appellate counsel appointed for review with some exceptions, which they claim are inadequate.\nSo he thinks the law is shall not.\nI have no right.\nSo he doesn't not only... not only is he not waiving a known right, there's nothing for him to waive.\nHe has no such right.\nNow, obviously, when there's nothing for him to waive, how could he waive anything?\nAnd obviously, a person who's told, hey, you don't have a right to appeal no matter what and then he says, okay, I waive my right to appeal, I mean, really.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1741.233, 1746.309, 1751.968, 1755.659, 1759.184, 1768.276, 1772.308, 1773.829, 1781.141, 1782.879, 1788.505], "stop_times": [1746.309, 1751.968, 1755.659, 1759.184, 1768.276, 1772.308, 1773.829, 1781.141, 1782.879, 1788.505, 1801.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.233}, "reply_to": "23105__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__1_008", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--I think that the... the... for the two questions that are asked, he explains... the court explained to him he didn't have appeal as of right but then said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1801.242], "stop_times": [1809.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1801.242}, "reply_to": "23105__1_007", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_009", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Okay, that's the end of it.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1809.221, 1810.964], "stop_times": [1810.964, 1811.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1809.221}, "reply_to": "23105__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__1_010", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--But then... and then the... the following--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1811.236], "stop_times": [1813.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1811.236}, "reply_to": "23105__1_009", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_011", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But he had an appeal of right until he pleaded guilty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1813.021], "stop_times": [1816.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1813.021}, "reply_to": "23105__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__1_012", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1816.777], "stop_times": [1817.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1816.777}, "reply_to": "23105__1_011", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_013", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "And that's where... that's what the waiver consists of.\nTo say he didn't have an appeal of right, no.\nThat's... he had an appeal of right up until the point where he pleads guilty, and that's what... and that's what the judge is asking.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1817.934, 1820.69, 1823.292], "stop_times": [1820.69, 1823.292, 1829.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.934}, "reply_to": "23105__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__1_014", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Precisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1829.083], "stop_times": [1829.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1829.083}, "reply_to": "23105__1_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__1_015", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Do you want to... do you want to plead guilty, even though if you plead guilty, you'll get... you'll get a lawyer only under these circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1829.851], "stop_times": [1836.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1829.851}, "reply_to": "23105__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__1_016", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Precisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1836.89], "stop_times": [1837.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1836.89}, "reply_to": "23105__1_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__1_017", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "The court didn't say only--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1837.344], "stop_times": [1838.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1837.344}, "reply_to": "23105__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__1_018", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "And that's what we're deciding is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1838.25], "stop_times": [1839.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1838.25}, "reply_to": "23105__1_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__1_019", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--That's the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1839.828], "stop_times": [1839.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1839.828}, "reply_to": "23105__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__1_020", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--That's exactly the issue in front of us.\nIs it constitutional or not constitutional?\nAnd waiver has nothing to do with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1839.94, 1842.175, 1845.626], "stop_times": [1842.175, 1845.626, 1847.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1839.94}, "reply_to": "23105__1_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__1_021", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I think that... I also want to make the point, of course, that there was a factual finding, so if this Court did conclude, it would have to find the trial court was clearly erroneous.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1847.563, 1854.671], "stop_times": [1854.671, 1855.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1847.563}, "reply_to": "23105__1_020", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_022", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Mr. Restuccia, the... we are dealing here, as is not uncommon, with someone who is learning disabled, mentally impaired, and the trial court did not say if you plead, you relinquish your right to counsel in seeking leave to appeal.\nIt said only when... if this exists, I must, and if that exists, I must, but did not say if you plead, you relinquish your right to counsel in seeking leave to appeal.\nAnd I was curious as a matter of what is going on in Michigan trial courts now.\nDo judges routinely tell defendants who plead guilty... tell them not only when the court must give them counsel, but if you plead, you relinquish your right to counsel in seeking leave to appeal?\nBecause that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1855.609, 1877.966, 1888.372, 1894.771, 1913.228], "stop_times": [1877.966, 1888.372, 1894.771, 1913.228, 1914.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1855.609}, "reply_to": "23105__1_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__1_023", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1914.013], "stop_times": [1914.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1914.013}, "reply_to": "23105__1_022", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_024", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--that was never imparted in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1914.552], "stop_times": [1917.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1914.552}, "reply_to": "23105__1_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__1_025", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "The advice concerning right to appeal, the one that was used in the trial court here, was a form from 2000.\nThe... the 2004 form is available from the Michigan Supreme Court web site, and it has been modified now that... because the trial court... it seems apparent that he was reading from the advice concerning right of... to appeal.\nThe way it reads now is it will say you are not entitled to have a lawyer appointed at public expense to assist you in filing an application for leave to appeal.\nSo this... this... the colloquy now would happen differently, but I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1917.101, 1923.175, 1937.357, 1946.385], "stop_times": [1923.175, 1937.357, 1946.385, 1950.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1917.101}, "reply_to": "23105__1_024", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_026", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Of course, your case is a little stronger than... than the court just asked... just saying I must appoint counsel in this circumstance and I must appoint counsel in another circumstance.\nThat might have left open the implication that you could appoint counsel in other circumstances, but the court went on and to say I might appoint counsel in this circumstance and I might appoint counsel in the other circumstance.\nSo if there's any implication from it, the implication is not just that I have... I have listed all the areas in which I must, but it's also I have listed all the areas in which I either must or even may, if there's an implication.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1950.731, 1960.112, 1974.73], "stop_times": [1960.112, 1974.73, 1991.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1950.731}, "reply_to": "23105__1_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__1_027", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--I think... I think that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1991.653], "stop_times": [1992.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1991.653}, "reply_to": "23105__1_026", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_028", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, apparently the people who... who redid the model instructions thought that this would be a clearer one, to tell him up front you don't get counsel if you don't fit under these exceptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [1992.73], "stop_times": [2005.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1992.73}, "reply_to": "23105__1_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__1_029", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "That's right.\nAnd they... they did... they did modify the form.\nSo on the question of the underlying constitutionality, I want to... I want to make a few points, that the... the threshold question really is whether there's an appeal as of right in Michigan for a plea-based conviction.\nMichigan law is clear that there is no appeal by right.\nIt's an application process and it's a discretionary review.\nThe Michigan Court of Appeals has no obligation to correct errors in these cases, has no obligation to review the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2005.625, 2006.141, 2008.007, 2020.577, 2024.247, 2026.951], "stop_times": [2006.141, 2008.007, 2020.577, 2024.247, 2026.951, 2033.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2005.625}, "reply_to": "23105__1_028", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_030", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Do you agree with your opponent that for AEDPA purposes, they treat the intermediate decision as a decision on the merits?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2033.414], "stop_times": [2038.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2033.414}, "reply_to": "23105__1_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__1_031", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "No I'd--\nThe law in the Sixth Circuit is in fact in conflict with a case... an earlier case, McKenzie v. Smith... had determined that the... a decision with that language, that virtually identical language, is not... is not entitled to deference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2038.46, 2038.635], "stop_times": [2038.635, 2053.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2038.46}, "reply_to": "23105__1_030", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_032", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "So your opponent has misrepresented Michigan law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2053.178], "stop_times": [2055.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2053.178}, "reply_to": "23105__1_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__1_033", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "No.\nI didn't say... I wasn't suggesting that.\nAbela is one case stating one position.\nMcKenzie, an earlier case, stated another position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2055.369, 2055.581, 2057.388, 2061.179], "stop_times": [2055.581, 2057.388, 2061.179, 2063.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2055.369}, "reply_to": "23105__1_032", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_034", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But he says there are dozens of cases at the district court level that apply AEDPA in the way he described.\nIs that wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2063.402, 2069.225], "stop_times": [2069.225, 2069.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2063.402}, "reply_to": "23105__1_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__1_035", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, he didn't cite those cases.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2069.945, 2072.467], "stop_times": [2072.467, 2072.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2069.945}, "reply_to": "23105__1_034", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_036", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "No, he didn't, but do you think he's wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2072.857], "stop_times": [2074.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2072.857}, "reply_to": "23105__1_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__1_037", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--I... I know that our office handles all the habeas... habeas corpus--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2074.275], "stop_times": [2078.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2074.275}, "reply_to": "23105__1_036", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_038", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Do you think he's wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2078.498], "stop_times": [2078.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2078.498}, "reply_to": "23105__1_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__1_039", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--I think he is wrong.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2078.797, 2079.88], "stop_times": [2079.88, 2081.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2078.797}, "reply_to": "23105__1_038", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_040", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Are you going on... on record as saying that Michigan does not and will not, in the United States courts, claim any AEDPA deference as a result of one of these determinations?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2081.356], "stop_times": [2091.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2081.356}, "reply_to": "23105__1_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__1_041", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--The Solicitor General made that position clear before the argument... before this Court in Tesmer v. Kowalski.\nSo we have not been advancing that claim.\nIn fact, we've been advancing a claim--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2091.056, 2096.643, 2098.084], "stop_times": [2096.643, 2098.084, 2099.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2091.056}, "reply_to": "23105__1_040", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_042", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "And you have not been... and... and Michigan lawyers have not been advancing that claim in the district courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2099.636], "stop_times": [2104.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.636}, "reply_to": "23105__1_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__1_043", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--The... all the habeas petitions are run through the office of the Attorney General, so that the... when the Solicitor General from the State of Michigan instructed our staff not to advance that claim, that means all habeas cases in Michigan essentially there will be... that argument will not be advanced.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2104.286], "stop_times": [2123.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2104.286}, "reply_to": "23105__1_042", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_044", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "So, so far as you can tell, that's the way it's been.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2123.032], "stop_times": [2125.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2123.032}, "reply_to": "23105__1_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__1_045", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "That's right.\nAnd because there is no appeal as of right under Michigan law, this... the Douglas case doesn't govern the disposition.\nUltimately the... the controlling is Ross.\nAnd the issue then is whether Michigan provides a meaningful access to an indigent defendant who wants to bring an application for leave.\nThat's really the... I think the heart of the constitutional issue.\nThere are three distinct characteristics of the Michigan system.\nThe... the nature of the review is discretionary, and I think comparable to the kind of review in Ross that was described by this Court for the North Carolina Supreme Court.\nMr. Moran makes a claim that the Michigan Court of Appeals is an error-correcting court.\nWith regard to applications for leave where there is no right to have the merits reviewed, it is not an error-correcting court.\nIn fact, one of the reasons for the legislation in Michigan, the reason the Michigan constitution was changed was because of the heavy volume that the Michigan Court of Appeals was facing.\nThere are 28 judges in the Michigan Court of Appeals, and they produce--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2125.373, 2125.863, 2133.089, 2135.301, 2143.371, 2146.245, 2149.189, 2158.453, 2163.018, 2168.996, 2177.401], "stop_times": [2125.863, 2133.089, 2135.301, 2143.371, 2146.245, 2149.189, 2158.453, 2163.018, 2168.996, 2177.401, 2181.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2125.373}, "reply_to": "23105__1_044", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_046", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Do they all sit together?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2181.262], "stop_times": [2182.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2181.262}, "reply_to": "23105__1_045", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23105__1_047", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--No.\nThey're panels of three.\nThey issue about 4,000 opinions each year.\nSo each judge is responsible for authoring--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2182.825, 2183.39, 2184.349, 2188.231], "stop_times": [2183.39, 2184.349, 2188.231, 2190.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2182.825}, "reply_to": "23105__1_046", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_048", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But it's just one court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2190.374], "stop_times": [2191.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2190.374}, "reply_to": "23105__1_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23105__1_049", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--One court.\nThat's right.\nSo each judge is responsible for authoring between 130-140 opinions, having to join in another 280.\nSo resource allocation is one of the pressing concerns in the Michigan Court of Appeals.\nThe situations in which the court of appeals will grant leave on application are rare.\nIt's... it's reluctant to grant leave in these cases in part because of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2191.873, 2192.871, 2193.569, 2199.883, 2204.203, 2209.36], "stop_times": [2192.871, 2193.569, 2199.883, 2204.203, 2209.36, 2213.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2191.873}, "reply_to": "23105__1_048", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_050", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Then why... if it's just denying... or not granting appeal, why does it use the boiler plate, for lack of merit in the grounds presented?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2213.199], "stop_times": [2224.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.199}, "reply_to": "23105__1_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__1_051", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--It's used that standard order for the last 20 years or longer.\nThe only Michigan Court of Appeals case in... only published case in an application for leave setting is the Bobenal case cited by the people in our... the State of Michigan in its brief, in which the Michigan Court of Appeals said there is no... this is not a determination on the merits.\nThe only published case for Michigan in which there was an application for leave from a plea-based conviction is People v. Berry in which the Michigan Court of Appeals, after initially having denied leave, then in a collateral attack granted leave on the very same issue and said that its original--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2224.057, 2228.078, 2244.488], "stop_times": [2228.078, 2244.488, 2258.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2224.057}, "reply_to": "23105__1_050", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_052", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Why... sorry.\nFinish.\nI just had a... I wanted to go back to something you said, but I want you to be finished.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2258.776, 2260.514, 2261.17], "stop_times": [2260.514, 2261.17, 2265.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2258.776}, "reply_to": "23105__1_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__1_053", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Could I ask about grounds presented before we get off this?\nIs it conceivable that the lack of merit in the grounds presented means lack of merit in the... in the grounds of application?\nIs... is the applicant required to state why this particular appeal is worthy of being entertained?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2265.036, 2267.276, 2277.121], "stop_times": [2267.276, 2277.121, 2285.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2265.036}, "reply_to": "23105__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__1_054", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--They're supposed to raise those arguments.\nI think that's exactly right, that merits can have different meanings, and it can... it can relate to whether it would justify the resources of the court to examine the underlying merits of the claim.\nI think that's right.\nThat's one understanding of the... of the order that's consistent with the way it's been treated by the court of appeals and also, most importantly, by the Michigan constitution, when the people of the State of Michigan said trial-based convictions, there's an appeal as of right.\nFor all other convictions, for plea-based convictions, it would be by leave.\nAnd Michigan's Supreme Court, in examining this very question about the nature of review, said that it was discretionary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2285.307, 2286.513, 2295.233, 2296.24, 2309.199, 2312.692], "stop_times": [2286.513, 2295.233, 2296.24, 2309.199, 2312.692, 2319.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2285.307}, "reply_to": "23105__1_053", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_055", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "What of Mr.... Mr. Moran's point that this... whatever the merits are, it counts as law of the case and it's... it conclusively determines the issues presented?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2319.102], "stop_times": [2331.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2319.102}, "reply_to": "23105__1_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__1_056", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "That's not what happened in... in People... in the Bobenal case, which was a court of appeals published decision where the order read virtually identical... identically to this one, and the court of appeals said it could... would not be bound by its original denial of leave for the lack of merits on the grounds presented and reached the merits of the claim.\nThe same thing happened in... in the Berry case in which--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2331.507, 2347.56], "stop_times": [2347.56, 2350.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2331.507}, "reply_to": "23105__1_055", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_057", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, that was the same court, though, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2350.333], "stop_times": [2352.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2350.333}, "reply_to": "23105__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__1_058", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2352.514], "stop_times": [2353.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2352.514}, "reply_to": "23105__1_057", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_059", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But what... what about preclusion on other courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2353.33], "stop_times": [2356.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2353.33}, "reply_to": "23105__1_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__1_060", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2356.034], "stop_times": [2357.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2356.034}, "reply_to": "23105__1_059", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_061", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "In litigation in other courts.\nThey... did... did they ever say there is no claim or issue preclusion in other courts as a result of... of our denials?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2357.373, 2358.647], "stop_times": [2358.647, 2367.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2357.373}, "reply_to": "23105__1_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__1_062", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--The court of appeals was only examining its effect on itself, and wasn't examining on subsequent courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2367.004], "stop_times": [2371.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2367.004}, "reply_to": "23105__1_061", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_063", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "And any... any court, I mean, in... in theory, can... can revise its own... its own opinions.\nBut the... I mean, we look to preclusion really on... on the effect of the judgment in another court, and I take it they have not ruled on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2371.339, 2376.874], "stop_times": [2376.874, 2385.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2371.339}, "reply_to": "23105__1_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__1_064", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, but both... both opinions, in Bobenal and Berry, the court said it was not a ruling on the merits.\nIn other words, if a subsequent court then said it was a merits determination, it would be inconsistent with the holding from Bobenal and it would be inconsistent with Berry with saying the merits have not been reached.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2385.248, 2389.488], "stop_times": [2389.488, 2398.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2385.248}, "reply_to": "23105__1_063", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_065", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "And they have said the same, you tell us, as to Federal courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2398.602], "stop_times": [2401.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2398.602}, "reply_to": "23105__1_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__1_066", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Right.\nThe Federal courts have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2401.674, 2403.348], "stop_times": [2403.348, 2404.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2401.674}, "reply_to": "23105__1_065", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_067", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I mean, that's another court, and... and they are not asserting that they've decided on the merits in Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2404.046], "stop_times": [2409.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2404.046}, "reply_to": "23105__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__1_068", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--The Federal courts have been ambiguous.\nIn other words, the Abela case... they said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2409.512, 2411.138], "stop_times": [2411.138, 2412.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2409.512}, "reply_to": "23105__1_067", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_069", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I'm not talking about what the Federal courts have said.\nI'm talking about what... what Michigan has said and... and what the court of... has the court of appeals spoken on that subject?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2412.919, 2414.326], "stop_times": [2414.326, 2421.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2412.919}, "reply_to": "23105__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__1_070", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Yes.\nThe court of appeals in the Bobenal case said, in fact, examining virtually the identical language of the issue raised here, that this was not a decision on the merits and that it was not itself bound as law of the case because the merits had not been resolved.\nI think the Bulger case is kind of the paramount case because it is the Michigan Supreme Court conferring the proper legal understanding of the applications for leave, and it said that the nature of the leave is discretionary.\nI think that fits with common sense understanding because there is no right to have the merits reviewed.\nOtherwise, it wouldn't make sense to say the application were discretionary if a defendant would have a claim to have any error corrected.\nOtherwise, he would have a claim on the court of appeals.\nThe court of appeals has full authority to make the determination that even if everything alleged is true, it's not going to correct the error.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2421.083, 2421.914, 2435.348, 2448.681, 2453.603, 2460.418, 2462.358], "stop_times": [2421.914, 2435.348, 2448.681, 2453.603, 2460.418, 2462.358, 2469.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2421.083}, "reply_to": "23105__1_069", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_071", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Look, this is what I'm... I'm interested in.\nIt seems like Michigan is unique here.\nWhy not do, if you're worried about resources, what other States have done?\nYou just say, okay, of course, you have a right to an appeal and, of course, you have a lawyer.\nWe'll give it to you if you're poor.\nBut, by the way, if you want to plead guilty, we're not entering into that deal unless you waive it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2469.088, 2472.245, 2476.186, 2480.633, 2485.16, 2486.904], "stop_times": [2472.245, 2476.186, 2480.633, 2485.16, 2486.904, 2492.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2469.088}, "reply_to": "23105__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__1_072", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, I think that, in a way, Michigan provides a... a greater protection by enabling itself.\nWhat the court of appeals is essentially doing with its review is for the... for a case where there's a... an... an egregious set of facts, it can reach in and grant an application and review it on the merits.\nIt's a... it's... it's a kind of a determination about resource allocation, making kind of the hard choices about policy decisions that States have to make.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2492.238, 2497.699, 2509.943], "stop_times": [2497.699, 2509.943, 2518.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2492.238}, "reply_to": "23105__1_071", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_073", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Is this a case where it would meet the standard for granting leave to appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2518.439], "stop_times": [2524.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2518.439}, "reply_to": "23105__1_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23105__1_074", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "No.\nThis... for... for Mr. Halbert--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2524.028, 2524.246], "stop_times": [2524.246, 2526.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2524.028}, "reply_to": "23105__1_073", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_075", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Because of the error in scoring?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2526.096], "stop_times": [2528.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2526.096}, "reply_to": "23105__1_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23105__1_076", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--In fact, anyone who's very familiar with the Michigan guideline system would recognize that Mr. Halbert, if anything, received a break in the scoring of the guidelines.\nThat... that ultimately the Offense Variable 13 is a very easy answer to why it was properly scored.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2528.32, 2535.285], "stop_times": [2535.285, 2540.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2528.32}, "reply_to": "23105__1_075", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_077", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "You take the position that in fact there was no error in scoring.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2540.97], "stop_times": [2544.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2540.97}, "reply_to": "23105__1_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23105__1_078", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "No.\nThe... there was no error in scoring.\nThe Offense Variable 13 claim relates to three... whether the defendant had committed three... three offenses against a person within the... within 5 years.\nMichigan allows a determination based on preponderance even if there was no conviction entered.\nMr. Halbert was a serial child molester who admitted to having sexually assaulted his 14-year-old stepdaughter, a 10-year-old girl, a 6-year-old girl.\nAll that information was in the presentence investigation report.\nThere was no objection to the scoring of Offense Variable 13 because he admitted to the sexual assault.\nThere was... it was never raised--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2544.841, 2545.283, 2546.845, 2557.036, 2561.49, 2571.191, 2574.065, 2579.383], "stop_times": [2545.283, 2546.845, 2557.036, 2561.49, 2571.191, 2574.065, 2579.383, 2580.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2544.841}, "reply_to": "23105__1_077", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_079", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I thought at page 36 of your brief that you agreed that he made a correct... that there was an error in... of application.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2580.993], "stop_times": [2587.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2580.993}, "reply_to": "23105__1_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__1_080", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Right.\nThe Offense Variable 9 was... there was an error with respect to that, but it wouldn't affect the ultimate position he would be placed in the... in the brackets.\nIn fact, the only error that did occur that would have affected the scoring was one in his favor, which would have put him... put him in a higher bracket.\nSo he in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2587.029, 2587.141, 2593.637, 2599.689], "stop_times": [2587.141, 2593.637, 2599.689, 2601.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2587.029}, "reply_to": "23105__1_079", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_081", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "So there were at least two errors.\nHow they balance out I guess is your view they didn't hurt him at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2601.572, 2602.937], "stop_times": [2602.937, 2606.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2601.572}, "reply_to": "23105__1_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__1_082", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Well, in fact, if anything, helped him.\nBut on a more basic level--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2606.952, 2608.355], "stop_times": [2608.355, 2609.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2606.952}, "reply_to": "23105__1_081", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_083", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Is that correct?\nThere were two errors in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2609.858, 2610.37], "stop_times": [2610.37, 2611.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2609.858}, "reply_to": "23105__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__1_084", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2611.496], "stop_times": [2612.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2611.496}, "reply_to": "23105__1_083", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_085", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--at least.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2612.039], "stop_times": [2612.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2612.039}, "reply_to": "23105__1_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__1_086", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2612.162], "stop_times": [2612.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.162}, "reply_to": "23105__1_085", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_087", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "And he contends there were two more, and that hasn't been resolved.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2612.695], "stop_times": [2615.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2612.695}, "reply_to": "23105__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__1_088", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "That's... that's right, but I... I think those claims are--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2615.617], "stop_times": [2618.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2615.617}, "reply_to": "23105__1_087", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_089", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "So at... at least we have to assume that it was not an error-free sentencing proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2618.555], "stop_times": [2623.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2618.555}, "reply_to": "23105__1_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__1_090", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Yes.\nWell, more importantly, the kinds of issues at play for the sentencing cases are all like this.\nThey... they relate to the minimum sentencing.\nMichigan systems then determine from a maximum... from a minimum to a maximum which will get a... a range of time.\nAll the... these sentencing guideline cases relate to the minimum sentence.\nFor Mr. Halbert as a sex offender, this is really a question about when he will be eligible for release from the Department of Corrections.\nHe's going to be facing 30 years because all the sentences in Michigan are set by the statute.\nSo these arguments relating lesser liberty--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2623.786, 2624.623, 2630.099, 2631.934, 2637.823, 2641.183, 2647.188, 2652.75], "stop_times": [2624.623, 2630.099, 2631.934, 2637.823, 2641.183, 2647.188, 2652.75, 2655.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2623.786}, "reply_to": "23105__1_089", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_091", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "May I ask another question?\nAm I correct in assuming from the order entered on page 43 of the joint appendix that even though there were lots of errors there, the fact that they were not raised until after December 11th would have precluded review at the trial court level?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2655.961, 2657.261], "stop_times": [2657.261, 2670.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2655.961}, "reply_to": "23105__1_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__1_092", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--No.\nHis... the point of the trial court there was that the defendant, if he wanted to withdraw his plea, should have raised that before the sentencing itself because the court has discretion before sentencing to let him out of his plea.\nAfter sentencing, he has to show that the plea was invalid.\nSo his time... he was untimely trying to withdraw his plea because he was concerned about consecutive as against concurrent sentences.\nIn... in summary, the... the Michigan system... the... with the limited date to the review and the kinds of issues from plea-based convictions that are at issue are not... are lesser liberty interest questions because they have to do with amount of punishment.\nThe Michigan system extends the relationship of trial counsel to the defendant and asks the trial counsel to raise the motions regarding post-conviction motions which will enable him to have a factual record from which to advance his claims.\nHe's not left to shift for himself, that there is a counsel appointed to identify those meritorious claims--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2670.449, 2670.571, 2679.274, 2681.744, 2688.068, 2699.876, 2713.16], "stop_times": [2670.571, 2679.274, 2681.744, 2688.068, 2699.876, 2713.16, 2718.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2670.449}, "reply_to": "23105__1_091", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_093", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But if the counsel happens to be incompetent, that's the end of the ball game.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2718.013], "stop_times": [2721.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2718.013}, "reply_to": "23105__1_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__1_094", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--And that's always the circumstance for a defendant who's bringing a discretionary application where his prior counsel was ineffective, that he can be left to identify the meritorious claims on his own and to make the argument of ineffective assistance of counsel.\nThat's true in Ross as well where your first... where your first appeal as of right, your... your appellate counsel is incompetent.\nYou're going to be left to identify those meritorious claims, raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, and to try to avoid procedural bars that you'll be facing.\nEvery system is going to have to draw that line and to say that at some point you're not going to get appointed another attorney.\nJust because there's access to the system doesn't mean there always has to be another attorney appointed.\nOtherwise, the point is that you would have to have two attorneys make a review on your case, whereas there is no right to an appeal here that this Court has recognized that ultimately where there... since there is no right to appeal, that he had an opportunity to have a trial counsel--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2721.004, 2731.638, 2737.008, 2744.566, 2750.549, 2754.411], "stop_times": [2731.638, 2737.008, 2744.566, 2750.549, 2754.411, 2769.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2721.004}, "reply_to": "23105__1_093", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_095", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But, of course, if he had had paid counsel, he would not have had these handicaps.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2769.477], "stop_times": [2773.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.477}, "reply_to": "23105__1_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__1_096", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--That's right, that the... there is some advantage, but that's not the ultimate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2773.317], "stop_times": [2781.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2773.317}, "reply_to": "23105__1_095", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_097", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Competent paid counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2781.29], "stop_times": [2782.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2781.29}, "reply_to": "23105__1_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__1_098", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2782.602], "stop_times": [2783.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2782.602}, "reply_to": "23105__1_097", "speaker": "bernard_e_restuccia"}
{"id": "23105__1_099", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Restuccia.\nMr. Schaerr, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2783.68, 2788.181], "stop_times": [2788.181, 2790.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2783.68}, "reply_to": "23105__1_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23105__2_000", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nLike the Sixth Circuit's invalidation of this Michigan statute in the Tesmer case, petitioner's attempt to invalidate that statute here runs counter to this Court's longstanding tradition of deference to the people of the individual States and to their legislatures in the design and implementation of their criminal justice systems.\nAs the Court said in Coleman v. Thompson, a case like this is a case about federalism because it involves the respect that Federal courts must pay to States and the States' procedural rules.\nRespect for the State's choices is especially important here because, as the Court put it in Medina v. California, preventing and dealing with crime is much more the business of the States than it is of the Federal Government.\nTherefore, the Court said we should not lightly construe the Constitution so as to intrude upon the administration of justice by the individual States.\nAnd... and as to the question of... of when to provide State-paid counsel, as Justice O'Connor reminded us in Murray v. Giarratano, that's a choice that should be one of legislative choice, especially since it involves difficult policy considerations and the allocation of scarce legal resources.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2790.687, 2793.391, 2814.127, 2825.743, 2839.012, 2847.796], "stop_times": [2793.391, 2814.127, 2825.743, 2839.012, 2847.796, 2866.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2790.687}, "reply_to": "23105__1_099", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_001", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Now, I take it that the basic rule that we've followed... and this is what people are arguing about... could be a criminal trial or proceeding, plea, something in a trial court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2866.196], "stop_times": [2883.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2866.196}, "reply_to": "23105__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__2_002", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2883.63], "stop_times": [2884.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2883.63}, "reply_to": "23105__2_001", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_003", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "It emerges with a judgment, and then there is going to be the first review.\nCall it a leave to appeal, call it an appeal, call it whatever you want, but it is the first review.\nAnd in those two instances, State, if the defendant is poor, give him a lawyer.\nThat's simple.\nThat's clear.\nEverybody could understand it.\nThey may not even have a lot of legal arguments.\nNow, what significant... what does that prevent a State from doing that it's reasonably important for a State to want to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2884.253, 2890.258, 2896.988, 2904.668, 2906.444, 2908.076, 2910.311, 2912.625], "stop_times": [2890.258, 2896.988, 2904.668, 2906.444, 2908.076, 2910.311, 2912.625, 2923.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2884.253}, "reply_to": "23105__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__2_004", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, again, Justice Breyer, it's a question of allocating scarce legal resources.\nIf you... and this case is a perfect example of that.\nThis case is not... does not involve an appeal as of right.\nIt involves a discretionary appeal, and... and that's the vast bulk of... of appeals that are addressed by the... by the Michigan Court of Appeals.\nSo if you impose here on the State of Michigan an obligation to provide counsel in all of those cases, you are, in essence, forcing the people of Michigan to reallocate their legal resources away from other cases or you're requiring the legislature to increase taxes to pay for that... to pay for that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2923.98, 2929.062, 2932.197, 2937.083, 2944.778], "stop_times": [2929.062, 2932.197, 2937.083, 2944.778, 2963.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2923.98}, "reply_to": "23105__2_003", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_005", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Is there any other State that's done it the way Michigan has?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2963.07], "stop_times": [2965.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2963.07}, "reply_to": "23105__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__2_006", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--I don't believe there's another State that's done it exactly the same way.\nBut I... but I would point out... and I think this is important, Justice Breyer... that... that at least according to the Michigan Supreme Court in the Bulger case, the majority of States don't allow any appeal at all from a plea-based conviction.\n21 of them rule it out entirely and expressly, and another 17 effectively rule out appeals from plea-based convictions by... by allowing prosecutors to impose that... impose a waiver as a condition of entering into a plea.\nSo... so the relevant universe for comparison is quite small here.\nIt's really 12 States at most, and... and Michigan sort of fits within the middle of those States in terms of the amount of resources that it provides and opportunities that it provides.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [2965.731, 2969.255, 2983.436, 2999.873, 3003.676], "stop_times": [2969.255, 2983.436, 2999.873, 3003.676, 3013.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2965.731}, "reply_to": "23105__2_005", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_007", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Are you saying... I just want to be clear... that even if this defendant had had paid counsel, he would not have had any right to appeal to the intermediate court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3013.121], "stop_times": [3021.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3013.121}, "reply_to": "23105__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__2_008", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "That's correct.\nIt... it's discretionary, and that's clear not just... not just from analysis of the... of the Michigan courts' opinions, but from the provision of the... of... but from the constitutional provision that... that created this entire controversy, which was added in 1994.\nIt's article I, section 20.\nAnd that constitutional provision itself draws a sharp distinction between appeals of right and appeals by leave of court.\nSo even if the Michigan courts wanted to have a system of... of mandatory appeals, they're now precluded by the Michigan constitution from doing that.\nAnd so... and so clearly, if this Court adheres to the sharp distinction and... which I think is equally sharp and clear, that this Court has made between... between appeals of right and discretionary appeals--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3021.392, 3022.384, 3038.886, 3040.304, 3049.284, 3059.224], "stop_times": [3022.384, 3038.886, 3040.304, 3049.284, 3059.224, 3072.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3021.392}, "reply_to": "23105__2_007", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_009", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But it's not that... it's not that sharp because it was... in Ross, it was the second appeal.\nSo here we have one factor that is like Douglas, Griffin, and one factor that's like Ross.\nYou can't say that it falls in one camp more than the other.\nThis is the first-tier appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3072.802, 3077.623, 3085.062, 3088.961], "stop_times": [3077.623, 3085.062, 3088.961, 3092.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.802}, "reply_to": "23105__2_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23105__2_010", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--I... I understand, Justice Ginsburg, but... but that's not the distinction that I understand this Court's decisions draw.\nSeveral times since Douglas and Ross, this Court has said that the right to paid counsel addressed in Douglas extends only to the first appeal of right and no further.\nAnd that's... that's Coleman and... and Finley, among others.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3092.694, 3099.292, 3109.862], "stop_times": [3099.292, 3109.862, 3112.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3092.694}, "reply_to": "23105__2_009", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_011", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Of course, the question is whether the words, of right, were essential to that statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3112.764], "stop_times": [3115.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3112.764}, "reply_to": "23105__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__2_012", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I... I'm assuming that the Court was being careful in its... in its choice of words, and I believe it was because that... that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3115.366], "stop_times": [3123.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3115.366}, "reply_to": "23105__2_011", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_013", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Because then it wouldn't have needed to include the word first.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3123.211], "stop_times": [3125.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3123.211}, "reply_to": "23105__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__2_014", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3125.573], "stop_times": [3126.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3125.573}, "reply_to": "23105__2_013", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_015", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "But then the word first was redundant, not the words, of right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3126.636], "stop_times": [3129.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3126.636}, "reply_to": "23105__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23105__2_016", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "No, I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3129.851], "stop_times": [3130.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3129.851}, "reply_to": "23105__2_015", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_017", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "You can have two appeals of right--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3130.662], "stop_times": [3133.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3130.662}, "reply_to": "23105__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__2_018", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3133.531], "stop_times": [3134.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3133.531}, "reply_to": "23105__2_017", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_019", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--I suppose if you wanted to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3134.203], "stop_times": [3135.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3134.203}, "reply_to": "23105__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__2_020", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "That's right.\nNow, so... so the real question here, with regard to the right to paid counsel, is does it make sense to extend what the Court did in Douglas to this new situation.\nWe think it does not.\nThis Court's decisions, Ross and Justice Kennedy's concurrence in... in Murray, as I recall, draw... draw a distinction between the removal of barriers that the State imposes to the exercise of litigation rights on the one hand and, on the other hand, subsidizing, affirmatively subsidizing litigation rights--\nAnd... and I think this Court's care in distinguishing between appeals of right and discretionary appeals reflects a desire to cabin Douglas and... and to avoid any further excursions into the area of subsidies.\nAnd we think that's a... we think that's... we think that's good as a matter of policy for the Court to do that, for one thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3135.003, 3136.027, 3145.311, 3147.077, 3167.802, 3182.233], "stop_times": [3136.027, 3145.311, 3147.077, 3167.802, 3182.233, 3189.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3135.003}, "reply_to": "23105__2_019", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_021", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "May... may I ask you one thing lest we forget it?\nIs... is your argument premised on the assumption that a refusal to hear an appeal is... is not regarded as a determination on the merits and thus--\npreclusive?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3189.87, 3192.467, 3202.472], "stop_times": [3192.467, 3202.472, 3202.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3189.87}, "reply_to": "23105__2_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__2_022", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--No, I don't think so.\nI... I think that helps the argument.\nBut in fact, there are lots of discretionary appeals or discretionary appellate proceedings that... that do result in decisions on the merits.\nThis Court, for example, sometimes summarily affirms or reverses on cert, and the fact that the Court does that doesn't create--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3202.936, 3204.248, 3206.279, 3215.932], "stop_times": [3204.248, 3206.279, 3215.932, 3222.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3202.936}, "reply_to": "23105__2_021", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_023", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, we accept cert before we do that.\nI thought the question was that the denial of an application for appeal does not have any merits consequence.\nWasn't that the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3222.193, 3224.912, 3232.379], "stop_times": [3224.912, 3232.379, 3234.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3222.193}, "reply_to": "23105__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__2_024", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Yes, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3234.903], "stop_times": [3235.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3234.903}, "reply_to": "23105__2_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__2_025", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Does the denial of an application for appeal have any merits consequence?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3235.569], "stop_times": [3239.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3235.569}, "reply_to": "23105__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__2_026", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Well, as... if... if that's the question, I... I would defer to... to Michigan counsel--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3239.323], "stop_times": [3244.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3239.323}, "reply_to": "23105__2_025", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_027", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "No. But I'm asking whether that's a premise of your argument because the consequences of your argument are going to be very different depending on whether that is the premise or whether it isn't, whether that premise is true or whether it isn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3244.106], "stop_times": [3254.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3244.106}, "reply_to": "23105__2_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__2_028", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--I... I think the distinction is... is not necessarily whether the decisions are on the merits or not.\nI think the distinction is between appeals of right and... and appeals that are discretionary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3254.057, 3259.785], "stop_times": [3259.785, 3264.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3254.057}, "reply_to": "23105__2_027", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_029", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "If it's always on the merits, it's an... it's an appeal of right, it seems to me.\nHow can you have a... a discretionary appeal which always decides the merits of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3264.701, 3268.422], "stop_times": [3268.422, 3273.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3264.701}, "reply_to": "23105__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__2_030", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Well, I... in... in fact, I don't think that's what happens in Michigan, and... and I think the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3273.557], "stop_times": [3278.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3273.557}, "reply_to": "23105__2_029", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_031", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "So your... the assumption of your argument is that it is not on the merits.\nI. e., it is not a merits determination if there's a denial and hence there is no preclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3278.794, 3282.608], "stop_times": [3282.608, 3287.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3278.794}, "reply_to": "23105__2_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23105__2_032", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--I... I think that's true.\nWhether it's an assumption of the argument, I'm not... I'm not so sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3287.167, 3289.828], "stop_times": [3289.828, 3292.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3287.167}, "reply_to": "23105__2_031", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_033", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "You're talking about a piece of paper, that first piece of paper saying to the appeals court, appeals court, please hear my appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3292.84], "stop_times": [3297.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3292.84}, "reply_to": "23105__2_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__2_034", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3297.71], "stop_times": [3298.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3297.71}, "reply_to": "23105__2_033", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_035", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "And then it lists a whole lot of reasons like a cert petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3298.35], "stop_times": [3301.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3298.35}, "reply_to": "23105__2_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__2_036", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3301.155], "stop_times": [3301.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3301.155}, "reply_to": "23105__2_035", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_037", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "And those are likely to do with the merits of the case.\nI mean, they'll tell all the horrible things that went on.\nAnd the question is, is he going to have a lawyer to help him with that piece of paper or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3301.662, 3303.811, 3305.895], "stop_times": [3303.811, 3305.895, 3309.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3301.662}, "reply_to": "23105__2_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__2_038", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3309.869], "stop_times": [3310.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3309.869}, "reply_to": "23105__2_037", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_039", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "All right.\nNow... now, it sounds to me just the kind of thing you'd write if you had an appeal on the merits too.\nNo.\nIt's even harder.\nEven harder.\nYou've got to convince them to take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3310.525, 3310.999, 3315.484, 3317.051, 3317.617, 3319.121], "stop_times": [3310.999, 3315.484, 3317.051, 3317.617, 3319.121, 3320.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3310.525}, "reply_to": "23105__2_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__2_040", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "It... it is more difficult, but... but the disparity between--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3320.593], "stop_times": [3324.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3320.593}, "reply_to": "23105__2_039", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_041", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "So why draw that distinction?\nThe piece of paper is the same, even harder to write, needs the lawyer as much, first chance he gets after the trial court.\nWhy draw that distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3324.262, 3326.325, 3331.781], "stop_times": [3326.325, 3331.781, 3333.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3324.262}, "reply_to": "23105__2_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23105__2_042", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Well, again, because... because if you... if you broaden the right to State-paid counsel, as... as in Douglas, you're going to require States to... to reallocate resources to that priority and away from other priorities.\nAlso, if you... if you subsidize litigation in the name of providing adequate access to courts or meaningful access to courts, then there's going to be a lot of litigation in the lower Federal courts about exactly how much of a subsidy is necessary reach that standard.\nAnd also, if... and this is particularly important here I think.\nIf you require States to subsidize the exercise of a right that they're not required to provide in the first place, like the right to seek review of a... of a plea-based conviction, then you give the States a strong incentive to cut back on or eliminate that right altogether.\nAnd... and, you know, who knows?\nBut perhaps that's what's going on in the... in the trend in the States away from providing this right.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3333.291, 3345.222, 3361.419, 3365.13, 3382.475, 3384.645, 3389.338], "stop_times": [3345.222, 3361.419, 3365.13, 3382.475, 3384.645, 3389.338, 3390.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3333.291}, "reply_to": "23105__2_041", "speaker": "gene_c_schaerr"}
{"id": "23105__2_043", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Schaerr.\nMr. Moran, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3390.41, 3391.488], "stop_times": [3391.488, 3395.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3390.41}, "reply_to": "23105__2_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23105__3_000", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Thank you.\nI have to begin by correcting several misstatements of fact and of Michigan law.\nFirst of all, Mr. Schaerr just said that only a dozen States, I believe, allow for appeals from guilty pleas.\nThat's not correct.\nEvery State in the United States currently allows for appeals from guilty plea... pleas.\nThe Bulger case did say that.\nThey cited a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3395.317, 3396.586, 3401.573, 3407.157, 3407.951, 3412.548, 3414.058], "stop_times": [3396.586, 3401.573, 3407.157, 3407.951, 3412.548, 3414.058, 3415.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3395.317}, "reply_to": "23105__2_043", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__3_001", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Appeals as of right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3415.109], "stop_times": [3416.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3415.109}, "reply_to": "23105__3_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23105__3_002", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--Not necessarily.\nAs I cited in my brief, a number of States allow for applications or petitions from guilty pleas, but every State has a first tier direct appeal from guilty pleas.\nThe Bulger... the Michigan Supreme Court in Bulger cited a... an article from an Arizona Attorney magazine that was simply incorrect on that.\nSecondly, on the issue of what is the effect of a order denying leave to appeal for lack of merit on the grounds presented, the State continues to rely on McKenzie v. Smith, an earlier Sixth Circuit opinion, People v. Berry, and Bobenal v. Saginaw Investment.\nNone of those cases uses the phrase, lack of merit on the grounds presented.\nThat phrase does not appear in any of those three cases.\nThe Berry and the Bobenal cases, those are Michigan Court of Appeals cases before 1981. Beginning in 1981, in a series of three cases, People v. Douglas, People v. Hayden, and People v. Wiley, the Michigan Court of Appeals held unambiguously that our orders denying applications or remand orders, in that case, for lack of merit on the grounds presented, was law of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3416.068, 3417.711, 3425.967, 3434.291, 3447.678, 3452.169, 3455.033], "stop_times": [3417.711, 3425.967, 3434.291, 3447.678, 3452.169, 3455.033, 3460.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3416.068}, "reply_to": "23105__3_001", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__3_003", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "What's the effect of the constitutional provision then?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3460.366], "stop_times": [3478.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3460.366}, "reply_to": "23105__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__3_004", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I'm sorry?\nI... I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3478.168, 3481.821], "stop_times": [3481.821, 3483.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3478.168}, "reply_to": "23105__3_003", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__3_005", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "If that's so, what is the effect of the constitutional provision that Mr. Schaerr read?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3483.234], "stop_times": [3487.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3483.234}, "reply_to": "23105__3_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__3_006", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "--The Michigan constitutional provision?\nIt changes the way in which guilty plea appeals proceed.\nBefore 1994, there were other types of appeals that had to proceed by application for leave to appeal, primarily latent appeals.\nIf the appeal was filed too late, it had to proceed by application for leave to appeal.\nIn 1994, as a result of the constitutional amendment, guilt plea appeals now have to proceed by application for leave to appeal.\nThat's constitutional.\nWe have no problem with that, and that is the method by which the caseload management problems have been solved.\nThey have been solved.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3487.483, 3491.11, 3494.95, 3502.241, 3505.889, 3512.508, 3513.846, 3519.078], "stop_times": [3491.11, 3494.95, 3502.241, 3505.889, 3512.508, 3513.846, 3519.078, 3520.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3487.483}, "reply_to": "23105__3_005", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__3_007", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "I... I... you... you have the wrong one.\nI meant the one that said that applications to the court of appeals are... are... require leave to appeal.\nWhat's the effect of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3520.076, 3522.017, 3529.141], "stop_times": [3522.017, 3529.141, 3530.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3520.076}, "reply_to": "23105__3_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__3_008", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "The... I assume you're still referring to article I, section 20 of the Michigan constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3530.235], "stop_times": [3537.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3530.235}, "reply_to": "23105__3_007", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__3_009", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Yes.\nIt says that for the court of appeals, you need leave to appeal.\nI thought they were doing something there.\nWhat were they doing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3537.007, 3537.081, 3540.723, 3542.371], "stop_times": [3537.081, 3540.723, 3542.371, 3543.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3537.007}, "reply_to": "23105__3_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23105__3_010", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "They were saying that first-tier felony appeals in Michigan following pleas require leave of the court, require an application for leave to appeal, like latent appeals from trial cases do.\nBut all of those appeals are still decided on the merits with preclusive effect for law of the case purposes.\nAnd the Sixth Circuit specifically dealt with that in... in the Abela case.\nMcKenzie v. Smith never... never mentions anything about the lack of merit in the grounds presented.\nThe resource allocations point is simply that not all of these guilty plea appeals are... lead to full argument and full briefing, and that's fine.\nMichigan can do that.\nBut what Michigan cannot do, as a result of Ellis and Douglas, is for that first gatekeeping part of the appeal, which is where the court has to decide is there merit in this case, to make the indigent shift for himself.\nAnd so in... in Smith v. Robbins, this Court, specifically referring back to the Ellis case, said that the problem that the Court identified in Ellis and that became part of the constitutional minimum in Douglas, was that the old California procedure did not require... I see my time is up.\nThank you, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3543.282, 3554.268, 3560.754, 3566.966, 3572.817, 3582.119, 3583.142, 3595.649, 3612.876], "stop_times": [3554.268, 3560.754, 3566.966, 3572.817, 3582.119, 3583.142, 3595.649, 3612.876, 3614.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3543.282}, "reply_to": "23105__3_009", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23105__3_011", "conversation_id": "23105", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Moran.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-10198", "start_times": [3614.038, 3615.372], "stop_times": [3615.372, 3616.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3614.038}, "reply_to": "23105__3_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23548__0_000", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "We'll hear argument in Howell against Mississippi.\nMr. Mitchell.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [0.0, 6.194], "stop_times": [6.194, 55.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__0_001", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThe Court has directed us to address, in addition to the question raised in the petition for writ of certiorari, the following question.\nWas petitioner's Federal constitutional claim properly raised before the Mississippi Supreme Court for purposes of 28 United States Code, section 1257?\nAccordingly, we begin by addressing that question and answering it affirmatively.\nHere, Howell maintains, one, the standards for adjudicating State and Federal claims of this particular type are identical--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [55.068, 58.7, 66.585, 76.949, 83.386], "stop_times": [58.7, 66.585, 76.949, 83.386, 93.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 55.068}, "reply_to": "23548__0_000", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_002", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Where--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [93.706], "stop_times": [94.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 93.706}, "reply_to": "23548__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23548__0_003", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--where they're labeled as such--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [94.615], "stop_times": [95.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 94.615}, "reply_to": "23548__0_002", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_004", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--where was that... where was that maintained?\nBecause I thought that below, all there were this was a... was it a lesser-included offense under State law, and I didn't see below any reference to the Federal Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [95.358, 97.01], "stop_times": [97.01, 112.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 95.358}, "reply_to": "23548__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23548__0_005", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, we believe that the rule in Beck establishes that State law must be viewed and State law is the determiner of whether an offense is a lesser-included offense, but Federal law, the Federal Constitution determines whether, as a matter of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and Eighth Amendment concerns, whether an instruction must be given as a Federal constitutional matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [112.076], "stop_times": [139.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 112.076}, "reply_to": "23548__0_004", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_006", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "And... and the standards under Beck are different from the standards under the roughly comparable State rule, as I understand it, because under the State rule, the lesser offense need not be an included offense, in the technical sense; and number two, there need not be, in the absence of a further instruction, a... a limitation to the jury to two choices, death or acquittal, so that unless one is very careful to raise the Federal standard, simply raising the State standard wouldn't do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [139.819], "stop_times": [171.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.819}, "reply_to": "23548__0_005", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__0_007", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Respectfully, Justice Souter, we would submit that Mississippi's own law says that it embraces the Beck standard and that Mississippi's own law--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [171.481], "stop_times": [182.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 171.481}, "reply_to": "23548__0_006", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_008", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Sure, it embraces it because it's broader, which means that if you raise... if you... if you make a claim under the State standard, you are not necessarily making a claim under the narrower, more restrictive Federal standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [182.96], "stop_times": [196.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 182.96}, "reply_to": "23548__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__0_009", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--We would respectfully submit that... that in Mississippi, for example, as contrasted with the statutory scheme that was present in Hopkins, the Nebraska scheme, in the Mississippi scheme, Mississippi has held that simple murder is a lesser-included offense, and therefore, by definition that offense at least mirrors what is required under Beck.\nNow, the question of whether some other lesser--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [196.744, 222.274], "stop_times": [222.274, 224.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 196.744}, "reply_to": "23548__0_008", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_010", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "What about... what about the... the Beck condition that in the absence of the instruction, there must be a choice between... the jury must be confined to a choice between death and acquittal?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [224.487], "stop_times": [237.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 224.487}, "reply_to": "23548__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__0_011", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--In--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [237.794], "stop_times": [238.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 237.794}, "reply_to": "23548__0_010", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_012", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "That's... that's not the same in the State's scheme, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [238.992], "stop_times": [241.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 238.992}, "reply_to": "23548__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__0_013", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Well, we believe that... that it is the same.\nAnd in fact, the... the case that the State cites, State v. Goodin, explains that.\nThe representation of Goodin in the State's brief, as it appears in the respondent's brief at page 23, we contend is not faithfully representative of what the Court said in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [241.388, 243.617, 249.683], "stop_times": [243.617, 249.683, 265.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 241.388}, "reply_to": "23548__0_012", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_014", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Is... is Goodin the case that... that stands for the proposition that under... under State law, the... the jury has an... an option to sentence for life, as... as well as... as to impose the death sentence?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [265.741], "stop_times": [281.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 265.741}, "reply_to": "23548__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__0_015", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Goodin is the case that the State cited for that purpose, but an analysis of what the Mississippi Supreme Court actually said at page 656 of the Southern Reporter, 787, is this.\nThe Goodin jury did not face the dilemma of the Beck jury.\nHere, the jury's alternatives in the guilt phase were to convict Goodin of capital murder, simple murder, or to acquit him, which is the very purpose that the later cases... and Beck itself explains.\nSchad, for example, explains that the reason for the Beck determination was that presenting only the option of convicting of a capital offense or acquitting was not constitutionally permissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [281.262, 294.431, 297.859, 310.119], "stop_times": [294.431, 297.859, 310.119, 325.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 281.262}, "reply_to": "23548__0_014", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_016", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "So... so I just want to make sure I know where we stand.\nYou're saying that the assumption I was making, that under Mississippi law, in the absence of an instruction for a lesser offense, the jury has an option not only to acquit or to impose the death penalty, but an option of life with or without parole, that assumption is simply incorrect as a... as a fact about Mississippi law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [325.351, 328.323], "stop_times": [328.323, 350.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 325.351}, "reply_to": "23548__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__0_017", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "No, I do not believe that is incorrect.\nI'm sorry, Your Honor.\nWhat I do believe is correct is that under Mississippi law, the jury, because of the bifurcated nature of the... of the case, is given at least the preliminary reference or preliminary instruction that if there is a guilt verdict, then there will be a sentencing phase.\nBut we submit that that is a distinction that this Court has not adopted, nor have other courts adopted because in this situation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [350.076, 351.44, 352.222, 369.106], "stop_times": [351.44, 352.222, 369.106, 380.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 350.076}, "reply_to": "23548__0_016", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_018", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "But it takes you out of Beck, at least arguably, doesn't it?\nThe... the question is, have you raised something that is necessarily on all fours with Beck?\nAnd given this sentencing scheme, we can't say that simply raising a State claim necessarily raises the Beck claim.\nIsn't that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [380.54, 383.141, 388.797, 395.856], "stop_times": [383.141, 388.797, 395.856, 396.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 380.54}, "reply_to": "23548__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__0_019", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Your Honor, we would respectfully disagree with that position because of the analysis that the Court has undertaken, for example, in Hopkins and because of the analysis in Spaziano v. Florida.\nIn those cases, they were presented with schemes in which the jury did not, of necessity, impose the death penalty.\nHowever, the jury was confronted with exactly the same position--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [396.516, 410.512, 419.057], "stop_times": [410.512, 419.057, 423.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 396.516}, "reply_to": "23548__0_018", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_020", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "But the consequence of the jury verdict was... was the death penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [423.144], "stop_times": [427.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 423.144}, "reply_to": "23548__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__0_021", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Well, the consequence of the jury verdict may have been the death penalty.\nFor example, in Spaziano, the... the jury returned a verdict of guilty.\nThe jury recommended life, but the judge imposed a sentence of death nevertheless.\nIn the Hopkins case, the... a three-judge panel then imposed the death penalty.\nThose... those differences in sentencing schemes we do not believe separates the rationale of Beck which is the danger of affecting the jury verdict by being faced with the dilemma of either convicting of a capital offense or acquitting.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [427.025, 430.286, 434.744, 439.574, 447.021], "stop_times": [430.286, 434.744, 439.574, 447.021, 472.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 427.025}, "reply_to": "23548__0_020", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_022", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Mr. Mitchell, my... my problem is even more fundamental than Justice Souter's.\nConceding that the rule in Mississippi is exactly the same as the Federal rule in Beck, it doesn't seem to me that arguing Mississippi law, just because it happens to be the same as Federal law, amounts to raising a Federal question.\nLet's assume you have a... a State law against wire-tapping.\nIt is unlawful.\nAnd you... you come in and you ask that the evidence be... be excluded because it's contrary to the State law.\nHave you raised a... a Federal... a Federal question when all you cite is the State law, even though the effect under State law is the same as the Federal effect under the Fourth Amendment?\nIt's not my understanding that you've raised a Federal question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [472.35, 476.642, 495.673, 500.131, 500.957, 506.902, 518.336], "stop_times": [476.642, 495.673, 500.131, 500.957, 506.902, 518.336, 521.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 472.35}, "reply_to": "23548__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__0_023", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "I do not believe that I would have unless in that particular State, if its highest court had said, we embrace the same standard and we apply the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [521.019], "stop_times": [531.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 521.019}, "reply_to": "23548__0_022", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_024", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "That's all it takes for the New York State Supreme Court, for example, to have said, well, you know, our... our wire-tap statute does the same thing as the Fourth Amendment does anyway?\nThat's all it takes?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [531.589, 541.287], "stop_times": [541.287, 541.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 531.589}, "reply_to": "23548__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__0_025", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [541.908], "stop_times": [542.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 541.908}, "reply_to": "23548__0_024", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_026", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "And thereafter, all you have to do is cite the New York State statute, and you've raised a Federal question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [542.773], "stop_times": [546.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 542.773}, "reply_to": "23548__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__0_027", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--No, respectfully, Your Honor.\nHowever, if the State supreme court has adopted not only the same purpose, but the very language and has, in effect, said, our ruling in these cases is controlled by the same provision of law, whether a... a decision of this Court, as in the Beck standard that we believe Mississippi has adopted, or if the court has articulated that the United States Constitution controls this particular provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [546.738, 548.157], "stop_times": [548.157, 579.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 546.738}, "reply_to": "23548__0_026", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_028", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Well, I mean, if... but the State standard always has to... has to comply with the Federal requirement, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [579.448], "stop_times": [585.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 579.448}, "reply_to": "23548__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__0_029", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "It always has to comply with the... with the Federal requirement, but as Justice Souter pointed out, it may be broader, for example, in situations where there might be a right to a... a jury instruction on a lesser-related offense.\nFor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [585.005, 599.698], "stop_times": [599.698, 599.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 585.005}, "reply_to": "23548__0_028", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_030", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "So all it takes is a... is a single decision by the State supreme court which says that our rule is no broader than the Federal constitutional requirement, and thereafter all you have to do is appeal to State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [599.864], "stop_times": [612.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 599.864}, "reply_to": "23548__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__0_031", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Well, while we believe that is minimally sufficient, we believe that thereafter it is important certainly to raise a claim which puts the court on notice of a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [612.141], "stop_times": [624.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 612.141}, "reply_to": "23548__0_030", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_032", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Of course--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [624.59], "stop_times": [624.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 624.59}, "reply_to": "23548__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__0_033", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [624.84], "stop_times": [625.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 624.84}, "reply_to": "23548__0_032", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_034", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--it does.\nWhy... why is that... I mean, it seems to me counsel should stand up on his two feet and say, we're raising a Federal question.\nWhy is that too much of an imposition when the statute requires that you raise a Federal question?\nWhy do we have to go researching what the State supreme court said several years ago?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [625.062, 625.45, 632.658, 638.415], "stop_times": [625.45, 632.658, 638.415, 643.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 625.062}, "reply_to": "23548__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__0_035", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Where... where it is generally understood, as in this case, that the two claims are interwoven, we believe the jurisdiction of this Court, as the Court has said, is plain.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [643.349], "stop_times": [655.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 643.349}, "reply_to": "23548__0_034", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_036", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "So we have to figure out in every case whether the two claims are interwoven.\nDo you think... do you think counsel for the defense isn't always going to say that they're interwoven?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [655.981, 659.779], "stop_times": [659.779, 663.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 655.981}, "reply_to": "23548__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__0_037", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "I think counsel for the defense would, indeed, contend that they were interwoven.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [663.866], "stop_times": [668.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 663.866}, "reply_to": "23548__0_036", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_038", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "I don't think it's too much to ask counsel for the defense to say, we are raising a Federal question.\nAnd it solves the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [668.408, 672.699], "stop_times": [672.699, 674.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 668.408}, "reply_to": "23548__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__0_039", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "The... the difficulty in saying that we... that we raise a Federal question is that suppose, in this instance, the trial counsel and appellate counsel, Mr. Lott, had said, the jury in this case is presented with an untenable position, convicting of a capital offense or acquitting.\nThat's untenable and that raises a Federal question.\nWould the State then concede that that was a sufficient assertion of a Federal constitutional claim?\nProbably not, and that is because the State contends, just as the amicus brief contends, that this Court should adopt some inflexible rule that is extremely and extraordinarily difficult to apply in the context of, for example, a trial in Mississippi or North Carolina where counsel understands the lifeblood of the rule, the lifeblood even of the Constitution, but cannot at the moment recall the correct citation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [674.64, 693.688, 696.477, 703.081], "stop_times": [693.688, 696.477, 703.081, 733.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.64}, "reply_to": "23548__0_038", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_040", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "I mean, my goodness, all it requires... look, the problem is not a technical problem.\nIt's a human problem.\nA judge is a human being.\nHe gets the petition.\nThere are 28 different issues.\nThat's a lot of work.\nHe goes down one, two, three, four.\nHe gets to this issue, which is somewhere hidden among the 28, and what it says is, there should have been a lesser-included offense instruction and it cites three Mississippi cases, which in turn cite one other case, and that... that other case says that the Mississippi rule has constitutional implications and cites Beck.\nWell, I mean, if that's supposed to be sufficient, I as a judge would have to, in every one of these cases that's cited in these 28 different issues, start looking up the other cases in Mississippi to see if there's some other place they cite some other case that says something about a Federal case.\nI mean, you see it's impossible.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [733.812, 739.201, 740.027, 741.431, 742.917, 744.857, 746.427, 749.028, 771.812, 789.068], "stop_times": [739.201, 740.027, 741.431, 742.917, 744.857, 746.427, 749.028, 771.812, 789.068, 790.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.812}, "reply_to": "23548__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__0_041", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "And... and we would concede that but for the fact that in this particular instance, this particular rule is so clearly identifiable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [790.554], "stop_times": [800.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 790.554}, "reply_to": "23548__0_040", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_042", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "But it isn't even because, after all, Beck talked about an instruction where the choice was either convict the person of murder, death penalty, or acquit him, and your case happens to involve an instruction which said to the jury, convict him or give him a life sentence or acquit him.\nSo we don't even know if... if Beck applies to your case.\nThat's never been decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [800.298, 817.88, 822.133], "stop_times": [817.88, 822.133, 823.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 800.298}, "reply_to": "23548__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__0_043", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Well, Your Honor, we would respectfully submit suppose that the... that Howell's counsel here had called this a Schad issue, for example, where a sentencing scheme somewhat similar to the present--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [823.415], "stop_times": [837.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 823.415}, "reply_to": "23548__0_042", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_044", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "I don't even know... I am so ignorant I don't even know if Schad is a Federal case or a State case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [837.094], "stop_times": [842.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 837.094}, "reply_to": "23548__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__0_045", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--And... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [842.772], "stop_times": [843.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 842.772}, "reply_to": "23548__0_044", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_046", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "So I guess if he had, he should have said Fed. or U.S. or whatever it is so that I'll know.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [843.515], "stop_times": [849.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 843.515}, "reply_to": "23548__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__0_047", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Or... or suppose--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [849.997], "stop_times": [851.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 849.997}, "reply_to": "23548__0_046", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_048", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "That doesn't seem like such a burden.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [851.317], "stop_times": [852.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 851.317}, "reply_to": "23548__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__0_049", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Or... or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [852.432], "stop_times": [853.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 852.432}, "reply_to": "23548__0_048", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_050", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "I... I wrote it.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [853.053, 853.712], "stop_times": [853.712, 854.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 853.053}, "reply_to": "23548__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__0_051", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--But Justice Souter--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [854.168], "stop_times": [859.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 854.168}, "reply_to": "23548__0_050", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_052", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Justice Souter was... was a State court judge as well.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [859.202, 862.174], "stop_times": [862.174, 863.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 859.202}, "reply_to": "23548__0_051", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23548__0_053", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Suppose, though, that this were not... were not a... a lesser-included instruction case.\nSuppose that what had happened in this case was that Howell had stood before the judge and said, I'm asking for you to appoint counsel, and the judge said, well, under the law of this State, I don't have to do that.\nBut then Howell had responded, but the Supreme Court says that you do.\nWould that then be sufficient to raise--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [863.0, 870.348, 884.011, 888.719], "stop_times": [870.348, 884.011, 888.719, 891.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 863.0}, "reply_to": "23548__0_052", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_054", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Supreme Court?\nYes, that's probably pretty clear it's Federal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [891.031, 891.607], "stop_times": [891.607, 893.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.031}, "reply_to": "23548__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__0_055", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [893.67], "stop_times": [894.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 893.67}, "reply_to": "23548__0_054", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_056", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Maybe he meant the State supreme court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [894.042], "stop_times": [895.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 894.042}, "reply_to": "23548__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__0_057", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Maybe he meant the State supreme court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [895.694], "stop_times": [896.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.694}, "reply_to": "23548__0_056", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_058", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "All right.\nI'm saying you don't carry it to extremes.\nDon't be ridiculous about it, but that isn't an extreme case we have.\nWe have which is the case we have, the State, and then three State cases, and then referring to one State case that says that Beck is... is a constitutional implication citing Beck.\nI mean, I don't have to be extreme in order to say yours isn't that extreme example.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [896.52, 896.753, 898.999, 903.086, 912.95], "stop_times": [896.753, 898.999, 903.086, 912.95, 917.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 896.52}, "reply_to": "23548__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__0_059", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "No, but we would say... we would say this, Your Honor, that the effort to federalize the claim as was done in the Mississippi Supreme Court was done in an effort to address the instructions as a whole, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [917.78], "stop_times": [932.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.78}, "reply_to": "23548__0_058", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_060", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Well, it isn't even clear here that Beck would have been violated.\nAs I understand it, in... in Mississippi the jury could have given a sentence less than death despite the conviction.\nIsn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [932.641, 936.356, 944.912], "stop_times": [936.356, 944.912, 945.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 932.641}, "reply_to": "23548__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23548__0_061", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--We would concede that.\nOnce the sentencing phase was reached.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [945.605, 946.925], "stop_times": [946.925, 949.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 945.605}, "reply_to": "23548__0_060", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_062", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Yes.\nSo I'm not sure if Beck even applies on its own terms.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [949.238, 949.897], "stop_times": [949.897, 954.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 949.238}, "reply_to": "23548__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23548__0_063", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "It would be our contention, Your Honor, that... that Spaziano v. Florida, that Schad, and the cases following Beck, Hopkins v. Nebraska even would, of necessity... or Hopkins v. Reeves... I'm sorry... the Nebraska scheme... would, of necessity, report to the court the continuing vitality of Beck even under these circumstances, but it... it is a matter that we believe was at least made fairly and reasonably presented to the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [954.81], "stop_times": [994.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 954.81}, "reply_to": "23548__0_062", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_064", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Mr. Mitchell, what gives me pause is that there are Mississippi cases... you no doubt know them... where the court has seemed to think that the Federal issue under Beck was discrete from the State issue.\nSo I forgot the name of them, but one of them was striking because it says this doesn't run afoul of Beck, and then it says, now we turn to Mississippi law on lesser-included offense.\nAnd it... the... the State supreme court treated those two as discrete.\nSo when you just say lesser-included offense, why should the Court assume that you're talking about one rather than the other when the Mississippi Supreme Court itself has made it clear that it thinks they are discrete inquiries?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [994.563, 1008.059, 1020.402, 1025.028], "stop_times": [1008.059, 1020.402, 1025.028, 1039.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 994.563}, "reply_to": "23548__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23548__0_065", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, we would respectfully submit that... that the State's recitation of Goodin is not a faithful representation of what happened in Goodin.\nIn Goodin, he was... the defendant was given the lesser-included simple murder instruction, which Howell seeks.\nIt was a robbery case.\nThe report of the case appears at 787 So.2d, beginning, I believe it's, 639.\nAt pages 655 and 656, the court addresses the Beck issue, and it says there that because the jury's alternative in the guilt phase was either to convict of capital murder or simple murder or to acquit, then and in that circumstance, the Beck... that Beck was not violated.\nIt then says we must look to our practice to determine whether a manslaughter instruction should be given.\nAnd it is for that reason that we respectfully submit that Goodin does not attempt to distinguish Beck, but in fact squarely addresses a Beck claim, although... and we candidly admit... Goodin's counsel did cite Beck itself to the Mississippi court.\nNevertheless, the claim was phrased in precisely the same manner in which Mr. Howell's counsel expressed the same claim.\nThese claims, therefore, we would respectfully contend, are not virtually identical but are in fact identical.\nBut even if there were some minor variations, some deviations, as this Court indicated would appear from time to time, we contend that clearly that such identity, such virtual identity is sufficient to raise the issue.\nIn this case, Howell's trial and appellate counsel raised two issues with regard to the jury instructions.\nThose two issues themselves were interrelated.\nThose two issues were a whole.\nThose issues related to whether or not there was sufficient evidence to convict of robbery and whether or not... or attempted robbery rather, and whether or not there was a basis to give a lesser-included instruction.\nThe cases which he cites are State cases related to the necessity of giving lesser-included instructions where there's an attempted robbery and simple murder is, therefore, included in that offense.\nHe also, at the outset of his contentions with regard to jury instructions, says that under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, these jury instructions... and we contend that they must be considered as a whole.\nThese jury instructions violate his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.\nIt is our position that this is sufficient... while not a cognate of that, is sufficient to at least be a corresponding claim, a substantially identical claim to Beck, and one which entitles the defendant as a matter of due process and as a matter of Eighth Amendment consideration and concern, to an instruction.\nThe difficulty that we face in a circumstance such as this where the instruction is not given is that the jury's function, while not always reviewable, but which is always entitled to protection, may be called into question and the quality of the verdict impeached, in effect, by the failure to have the third option.\nIn essence, it is our contention that where a defendant uses the very words that this Court has used to describe the constitutional claim, where it uses the very words that the State supreme court has used--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1039.637, 1046.696, 1053.939, 1055.697, 1063.87, 1086.328, 1093.137, 1112.828, 1124.511, 1132.025, 1150.684, 1161.663, 1164.652, 1167.031, 1184.614, 1199.27, 1212.932, 1218.505, 1244.307, 1271.716], "stop_times": [1046.696, 1053.939, 1055.697, 1063.87, 1086.328, 1093.137, 1112.828, 1124.511, 1132.025, 1150.684, 1161.663, 1164.652, 1167.031, 1184.614, 1199.27, 1212.932, 1218.505, 1244.307, 1271.716, 1290.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1039.637}, "reply_to": "23548__0_064", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_066", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "May I ask you this question, Mr. Mitchell?\nSupposing the... there are alternative lesser-included offenses that might be urged by the defendant as to... to get an instruction on, and he asks for the wrong one.\nIn other words, the question... there is a question here about exactly what is the lesser-included offense.\nIt seems to me that if he tried to kill... if he killed the driver of the vehicle, there may well have been some kind of crime.\nBut maybe you ask for a lesser-included offense of, say, simple murder and the facts don't fit simple murder, but they might fit manslaughter or something else.\nWould your request for... for a simple murder, lesser-included offense instruction be sufficient if you should really have asked for a different lesser-included offense instruction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1290.375, 1291.74, 1302.68, 1307.798, 1313.454, 1321.728], "stop_times": [1291.74, 1302.68, 1307.798, 1313.454, 1321.728, 1333.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.375}, "reply_to": "23548__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__0_067", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--We would respectfully submit that... that even the Mississippi court has addressed that situation in... in a case cited in... in the briefs in Mease.\nAnd there, the defendant asked five times for instructions, lesser-included offense instructions, and never actually got them right.\nThe court said that that is not a basis upon which to deny the instruction and then, citing back, said that where there is a proper lesser-included offense, the fact that the... that the defendant does not request the proper instruction still rises to the constitutional proportions that a Beck claim does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1333.683, 1343.714, 1353.995], "stop_times": [1343.714, 1353.995, 1374.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1333.683}, "reply_to": "23548__0_066", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_068", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Is... is that the case here too?\nOne of the things that's neither here nor there I guess, but one of the things that perplexed me was that I would have thought that the lesser-included offense on... on the theory that the... that he didn't intend to kill, he was sprayed with mace, got mad, pulled out a gun, and shot and so on... I would have thought the lesser-included offense was a heat of passion kind of killing.\nBut as... as I read the... the statement of... of simple murder, which requires a deliberate act, that didn't sound like it.\nAnd I... I read negligent homicide, and that didn't sound like heat of passion.\nBut is... is it your point here, if... if we get into it, that as long as you asked for some lesser-includeds, under Mississippi law that raises the issue adequately?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1374.8, 1376.658, 1396.243, 1405.242, 1410.361], "stop_times": [1376.658, 1396.243, 1405.242, 1410.361, 1420.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1374.8}, "reply_to": "23548__0_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__0_069", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "We... we believe that it does raise it adequately.\nWe believe that it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1420.946, 1423.614], "stop_times": [1423.614, 1425.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1420.946}, "reply_to": "23548__0_068", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_070", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "But then what would be a lesser-included offense?\nBecause if it's not simple murder and it's not manslaughter, you haven't suggested a third that it might be.\nI thought your whole position was that this simple murder was right and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1425.271, 1427.617, 1434.554], "stop_times": [1427.617, 1434.554, 1438.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1425.271}, "reply_to": "23548__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23548__0_071", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--We do contend that it was right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1438.974], "stop_times": [1440.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1438.974}, "reply_to": "23548__0_070", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_072", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--and the judge was obliged to give it.\nSo why... in view of what Justice Souter just said about simple murder requiring a deliberate design, where was the deliberate design here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1440.089, 1440.915], "stop_times": [1440.915, 1450.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.089}, "reply_to": "23548__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23548__0_073", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "We believe that... that there are, in effect, two forms of simple murder because of the structure of... and in fact, the Mississippi Supreme Court has said this... because of the structure of the Mississippi murder definitions.\nThey are contained in a number of separate sections, but the most important of which is that a killing, not done in certain enumerated felonies, such as robbery or attempt to rob, would constitute simple murder.\nWe believe that the simple murder instruction would have been correct.\nBut even if it were not, we would respectfully submit that that is sufficient to raise the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1450.657, 1463.494, 1480.75, 1483.556], "stop_times": [1463.494, 1480.75, 1483.556, 1489.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1450.657}, "reply_to": "23548__0_072", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_074", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "But what would be if it were not?\nWhat would be the lesser-included offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1489.501, 1491.442], "stop_times": [1491.442, 1495.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1489.501}, "reply_to": "23548__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23548__0_075", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Arguably it would be manslaughter.\nFor example, the Mease case, which the State cites and to which I made reference, was a case in which capital murder was not robbery murder as in this case, but the killing of a police officer.\nIn Mease, there was an altercation between the sheriff and Mease.\nDuring that altercation, Mease was struck on the head by another deputy.\nHis contention was that the gun fired, which he was holding next to the sheriff's neck.\nThe gun fired by reaction for two reasons, one that he was in a fight and, secondly, that he was struck.\nThe Mease court said that that was a proper basis to instruct on manslaughter, the fact that he had pulled the gun and was using it during the course of the fight.\nNow, while I find that case difficult to parse, we believe that that certainly could have been an argument that could have been raised and that, albeit it was not, it could have been a proper instruction to have been given.\nIf there are no further questions, I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1495.24, 1497.014, 1510.185, 1515.302, 1520.587, 1526.986, 1535.819, 1549.36, 1564.676], "stop_times": [1497.014, 1510.185, 1515.302, 1520.587, 1526.986, 1535.819, 1549.36, 1564.676, 1568.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1495.24}, "reply_to": "23548__0_074", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__0_076", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "You may.\nGeneral Hood.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1568.141, 1568.884], "stop_times": [1568.884, 1575.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.141}, "reply_to": "23548__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_000", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Justice Stevens, may it please the Court:\nI'd like to make the point, as far as jurisdiction goes, that... that the defendant has failed to make a Federal claim and he is required under Webb v. Webb.\nIf the Mississippi Supreme Court... if the lower court does not address the issue, then it is assumed that it was not properly raised.\nNow, as to the issue of Beck, there is no Beck violation.\nActually Mississippi finally... we've gotten in one instance, we've... we've become first in... in this regard.\nIn Jackson v. State in 1976, our Supreme Court... which was cited in a footnote 10, I believe, in... in Beck.\nIn the Jackson case, Mississippi said... we had the same statute, pretty much, that Alabama had that restricted a lesser-included offense instruction.\nMississippi said, number one, you cannot restrict that lesser-included offense instruction if it is supported by the facts, and number two, in the Jackson case, the court held that there had to be bifurcation, which was the problem, the impact on the guilt phase.\nAnd... and so I would submit to the Court that there is no impact in Mississippi in this case on the guilt phase, nothing to influence the jurors' decision, and that was the inherent problem that the Court recognized in Beck.\nNumber two, Mississippi allows a life sentence, which also distinguishes Beck.\nIt... it allows the jury, in a separate, bifurcated hearing, to determine whether or not the defendant should receive life or the death penalty.\nAnd then thirdly, in Mississippi, we have a broader standard than the Federal standard.\nIf it's any lesser offense in Mississippi, then the defendant is entitled to it if it's supported by the facts of the case.\nSo we have a broader standard that gives the defendant an easier opportunity to meet that standard.\nAnd thirdly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1575.655, 1578.627, 1588.62, 1595.39, 1599.189, 1606.164, 1614.133, 1623.543, 1640.527, 1655.455, 1661.438, 1669.406, 1674.812, 1684.266, 1692.44], "stop_times": [1578.627, 1588.62, 1595.39, 1599.189, 1606.164, 1614.133, 1623.543, 1640.527, 1655.455, 1661.438, 1669.406, 1674.812, 1684.266, 1692.44, 1693.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1575.655}, "reply_to": "23548__0_076", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_001", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "I don't get your point.\nIt doesn't have to be a... a lesser-included offense--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1693.554, 1694.297], "stop_times": [1694.297, 1696.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1693.554}, "reply_to": "23548__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__1_002", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Yes, yes, sir--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1696.982], "stop_times": [1698.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1696.982}, "reply_to": "23548__1_001", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_003", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--so long as it's a lesser offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1698.551], "stop_times": [1699.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1698.551}, "reply_to": "23548__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__1_004", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Justice Scalia.\nIt just has to be a lesser offense.\nAnd I would submit to the Court that if we are analyzing a Federal constitutional issue, then perhaps we... we should follow Federal constitutional standards, which was stated... the strict elements test, in other words, because under... under Federal law, it has to be, well, number one, a lesser-included offense, a true lesser-included offense, and under the Schmoke case, this Court has stated that that is in fact applying the strict elements--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1699.09, 1699.749, 1702.062], "stop_times": [1699.749, 1702.062, 1732.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1699.09}, "reply_to": "23548__1_003", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_005", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "May I interrupt with a question there, General Cox?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1732.155], "stop_times": [1734.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1732.155}, "reply_to": "23548__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_006", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1734.013], "stop_times": [1734.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1734.013}, "reply_to": "23548__1_005", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_007", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "In this case, if the man approached the victim in the car and shot him and killed him, as I understand it, and the theory was an attempted robbery and therefore the... the capital offense.\nNow, are you telling me that if they failed to prove there was an attempted robbery, it was not an offense at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1734.55, 1745.901], "stop_times": [1745.901, 1751.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1734.55}, "reply_to": "23548__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_008", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "No, sir.\nI... I'm not stating that.\nIt would... it would be an offense, but based upon these facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1751.557, 1753.415, 1755.272], "stop_times": [1753.415, 1755.272, 1758.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1751.557}, "reply_to": "23548__1_007", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_009", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "But why wasn't he entitled to an instruction on whatever offense it was?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1758.04], "stop_times": [1761.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1758.04}, "reply_to": "23548__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_010", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Because the... the facts in this case show that there was no other reason for him to approach that vehicle than to rob that individual.\nThere was no premeditated intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1761.755, 1769.307], "stop_times": [1769.307, 1770.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1761.755}, "reply_to": "23548__1_009", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_011", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "But his theory was if there was a failure of proof on the attempted robbery, that all was left was a... a killing for some other reason.\nAnd if there was a killing... if there was a failure of proof on attempted robbery, would he not then have been entitled to a... a lesser offense instruction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1770.876, 1777.109], "stop_times": [1777.109, 1788.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1770.876}, "reply_to": "23548__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_012", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Yes, sir, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1788.337], "stop_times": [1789.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1788.337}, "reply_to": "23548__1_011", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_013", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "So what your theory is then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1789.906], "stop_times": [1791.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.906}, "reply_to": "23548__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_014", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "It depends on--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1791.642], "stop_times": [1791.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1791.642}, "reply_to": "23548__1_013", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_015", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--if I understand it correctly, is the proof that there was an attempted robbery is so convincing that no other theory was available.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1791.864], "stop_times": [1798.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1791.864}, "reply_to": "23548__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_016", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Well, that's the facts that we had in this case.\nAnd your analysis there again will... will hinge on whether or not... in Mississippi admittedly murder would be a lesser-included offense if the facts support it and also manslaughter.\nBut now, if you apply the Federal standard--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1798.329, 1801.135, 1815.791], "stop_times": [1801.135, 1815.791, 1817.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1798.329}, "reply_to": "23548__1_015", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_017", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "But I still don't understand your answer to Justice Stevens' question.\nI had the... I had the same problem.\nThe evidence of robbery here was circumstantial, strong, but still circumstantial based on his earlier statements that he was going to make a sting, I think he said, and then the witness saw him outside the window and... and he stopped the car.\nAnd I take it, he didn't take the stand and say, I stopped the car to ask for directions or something.\nBut still it's... it's... that's certainly a jury issue as to whether there was a robbery.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1817.36, 1820.249, 1822.001, 1838.454, 1843.821], "stop_times": [1820.249, 1822.001, 1838.454, 1843.821, 1849.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1817.36}, "reply_to": "23548__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23548__1_018", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Yes, sir, it is.\nIt's... the... the facts were in this case, though, all night long they had ridden around looking for someone to rob.\nThey made a statement in Tupelo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1849.106, 1852.283, 1858.766], "stop_times": [1852.283, 1858.766, 1859.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1849.106}, "reply_to": "23548__1_017", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_019", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "But... but would the State of Mississippi take the position that if there was no robbery, there was no crime in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1859.881], "stop_times": [1867.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.881}, "reply_to": "23548__1_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23548__1_020", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--No, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1867.932], "stop_times": [1868.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1867.932}, "reply_to": "23548__1_019", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_021", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--when a man is shot and killed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1868.508], "stop_times": [1869.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1868.508}, "reply_to": "23548__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23548__1_022", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "On the facts that we had, if... if you analyze it under the Federal standard... and I would submit to the Court that we should apply--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1869.54], "stop_times": [1876.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1869.54}, "reply_to": "23548__1_021", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_023", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "No.\nI'm talking about just Mississippi law.\nYou're the prosecutor saying, we... we may not get robbery here.\nThe... is that the only thing they charge is robbery or let the man go after he shoots and kills the person he doesn't even know?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1876.31, 1876.782, 1877.796, 1881.223], "stop_times": [1876.782, 1877.796, 1881.223, 1888.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.31}, "reply_to": "23548__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23548__1_024", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--We don't know... he didn't know this defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1888.487], "stop_times": [1891.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1888.487}, "reply_to": "23548__1_023", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_025", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "No, no, but the question is suppose we have a different case, not this case.\nEverything is the same but for the fact we know for sure it wasn't a robbery.\nThat's all.\nNow, in that different case, is it a crime under the law of Mississippi what happened?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1891.338, 1896.455, 1902.234, 1903.598], "stop_times": [1896.455, 1902.234, 1903.598, 1908.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1891.338}, "reply_to": "23548__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__1_026", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Well, first--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1908.921], "stop_times": [1911.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1908.921}, "reply_to": "23548__1_025", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_027", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "I've told you everything about the case.\nIt's just like this one except we know it isn't a robbery.\nNow, is it a crime?\nThe answer we think is absolutely it's a crime.\nAnd my next question is which crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1911.233, 1912.902, 1915.691, 1916.517, 1919.035], "stop_times": [1912.902, 1915.691, 1916.517, 1919.035, 1920.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1911.233}, "reply_to": "23548__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__1_028", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Which crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1920.854], "stop_times": [1921.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1920.854}, "reply_to": "23548__1_027", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_029", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Okay?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1921.009], "stop_times": [1922.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1921.009}, "reply_to": "23548__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__1_030", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Yes, sir.\nYou're correct.\nFirst, we wouldn't have... have charged--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1922.002, 1922.207, 1922.95], "stop_times": [1922.207, 1922.95, 1924.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1922.002}, "reply_to": "23548__1_029", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_031", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "So which crime is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1924.724], "stop_times": [1925.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1924.724}, "reply_to": "23548__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__1_032", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Based upon the facts that we had... and he didn't know this individual.\nHe had no premeditated intent to kill him.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1925.633, 1930.669], "stop_times": [1930.669, 1932.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1925.633}, "reply_to": "23548__1_031", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_033", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1932.527], "stop_times": [1932.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1932.527}, "reply_to": "23548__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__1_034", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "It would not be murder.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1932.899], "stop_times": [1933.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1932.899}, "reply_to": "23548__1_033", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_035", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "No.\nSo it would be something.\nWhat would it be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1933.642, 1933.975, 1934.513], "stop_times": [1933.975, 1934.513, 1935.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1933.642}, "reply_to": "23548__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__1_036", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "It could arguably be a felony murder, which is a separate statute in Mississippi.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1935.256], "stop_times": [1941.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1935.256}, "reply_to": "23548__1_035", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_037", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "All right.\nSo then maybe there's a felony--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1941.079, 1941.283], "stop_times": [1941.283, 1942.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1941.079}, "reply_to": "23548__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__1_038", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "He meant to commit another--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1942.109], "stop_times": [1943.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1942.109}, "reply_to": "23548__1_037", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_039", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Is anything else possible?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1943.018], "stop_times": [1943.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.018}, "reply_to": "23548__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__1_040", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--another crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1943.474], "stop_times": [1944.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.474}, "reply_to": "23548__1_039", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_041", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Manslaughter?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1944.338], "stop_times": [1946.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1944.338}, "reply_to": "23548__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__1_042", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1946.074], "stop_times": [1947.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1946.074}, "reply_to": "23548__1_041", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_043", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "I mean, it's odd that in Mississippi people just go around shooting each other all the time and there's no statute that seems to cover it.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1947.643, 1953.876], "stop_times": [1953.876, 1953.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1947.643}, "reply_to": "23548__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__1_044", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "And if you don't know someone, then it's not murder?\n[Laughter]\nI don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1953.876, 1955.917, 1956.121], "stop_times": [1955.917, 1956.121, 1956.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1953.876}, "reply_to": "23548__1_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23548__1_045", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Oh, yes, sir.\nThat... that happens all the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1956.643, 1957.386], "stop_times": [1957.386, 1958.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1956.643}, "reply_to": "23548__1_044", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_046", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "All right.\nSo there must be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1958.584, 1959.077], "stop_times": [1959.077, 1960.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1958.584}, "reply_to": "23548__1_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__1_047", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "But, of course, it's premeditation.\nIf there were evidence, say, for example--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1960.646, 1961.927], "stop_times": [1961.927, 1963.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1960.646}, "reply_to": "23548__1_046", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_048", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--No, no, no.\nThey just do it... who knows why.\nAll we know about them is they went and killed somebody.\nNow, I think it's still a crime to kill people in, I thought, all 50 States, but... but--\n[Laughter]\nSo I'm going to say which--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1963.33, 1963.952, 1965.688, 1967.933, 1972.747, 1973.24], "stop_times": [1963.952, 1965.688, 1967.933, 1972.747, 1973.24, 1976.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1963.33}, "reply_to": "23548__1_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__1_049", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Let's make it... if we make it concrete, let's take all that we have in this case is the testimony that Rice gave.\nRice was the one who observed this murder, and he didn't have any statements about the defendant needing money to pay off his debt.\nYou have only that snapshot scene of what the witness saw from the window, which doesn't establish any robbery at all because Rice said he didn't observe any robbery going on.\nAll he observed was the killing.\nNow, if that's all you have in this case, a person was killed, an eyewitness to the shooting, the eyewitness testifies exactly as Mr. Rice did in this case, what crime would you indict for?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [1976.584, 1982.9, 1993.114, 2006.677, 2009.156], "stop_times": [1982.9, 1993.114, 2006.677, 2009.156, 2022.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1976.584}, "reply_to": "23548__1_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23548__1_050", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, to... to... first of all, we wouldn't have indicted for capital murder if we didn't have that evidence.\nWe wouldn't be discussing the Beck issue.\nIt wouldn't be a lesser-included offense question.\nWe'd strictly be focusing on those facts, number one, that particular witness Rice was on the other side of the vehicle.\nYou had separate testimony from Lipsey, the co-defendant who was in the vehicle and could... behind where... where--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2022.902, 2032.478, 2034.048, 2036.399, 2042.797], "stop_times": [2032.478, 2034.048, 2036.399, 2042.797, 2049.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2022.902}, "reply_to": "23548__1_049", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_051", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Yes, but I'm giving you a hypothetical where--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2049.213], "stop_times": [2051.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2049.213}, "reply_to": "23548__1_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23548__1_052", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "General Scott, I suggest you try to answer her question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2051.032], "stop_times": [2052.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2051.032}, "reply_to": "23548__1_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_053", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Yes.\nAll you have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2052.063, 2052.436], "stop_times": [2052.436, 2053.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.063}, "reply_to": "23548__1_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23548__1_054", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "The question is that's... one witness is all you had.\nWould there be a crime against the law of Mississippi and if so, what would it be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2053.179, 2054.915], "stop_times": [2054.915, 2058.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2053.179}, "reply_to": "23548__1_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_055", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--It would be manslaughter, I suppose, Your Honor.\nThat's not the facts in this case and... and I apologize--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2058.463, 2062.094], "stop_times": [2062.094, 2065.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2058.463}, "reply_to": "23548__1_054", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_056", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Okay.\nSo what... but... but the line of reasoning is... is... now, there is a crime. Let's call it X.\nAll right?\nAnd what you're... what counsel says is it's the law of Mississippi that if there is a crime and it's X and it's lesser, you've got to charge it if somebody just says, please give me a lesser-included instruction, even if he's all mixed up as to what the right crime is.\nI don't know if that's the law of Mississippi.\nFrom reading the Mississippi Supreme Court opinion, I would say it wasn't the law of Mississippi because they say you're not supposed to charge people in ways that would mix them up.\nBut, I mean, anyway... but that's the argument.\nSo what's the response?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2065.318, 2065.811, 2069.321, 2071.467, 2086.411, 2088.806, 2096.647, 2098.688], "stop_times": [2065.811, 2069.321, 2071.467, 2086.411, 2088.806, 2096.647, 2098.688, 2100.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2065.318}, "reply_to": "23548__1_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__1_057", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--There--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2100.528], "stop_times": [2102.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2100.528}, "reply_to": "23548__1_056", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_058", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "And don't take the one I just suggested because I'm not sure that's right.\nWhat is your response?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2102.114, 2104.821], "stop_times": [2104.821, 2107.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2102.114}, "reply_to": "23548__1_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23548__1_059", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--There are 12 separate manslaughter sections in the Mississippi code, not in one section.\nOur murder section lists... lists four just in one section.\nThere are 12 different ones.\nWe have one if you drive a nail in a tree and... and you're... you're cutting lumber and it kills someone, that's a manslaughter still.\nThis defendant only requests a culpable manslaughter instruction.\nThere was no evidence to... to support that.\nThe only potentially... I... I could even make a stretch... would be heat of passion.\nHe did not request that... request the instruction, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2107.15, 2112.212, 2116.875, 2117.824, 2123.108, 2126.33, 2128.104, 2133.018], "stop_times": [2112.212, 2116.875, 2117.824, 2123.108, 2126.33, 2128.104, 2133.018, 2136.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2107.15}, "reply_to": "23548__1_058", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_060", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Well, is that fatal to him?\nI mean, that's what we're... one of the things we're trying to get at I guess.\nIs... is that fatal to him?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2136.444, 2137.763, 2141.328], "stop_times": [2137.763, 2141.328, 2142.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2136.444}, "reply_to": "23548__1_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_061", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--His failure to request--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2142.427], "stop_times": [2144.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2142.427}, "reply_to": "23548__1_060", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_062", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Under Mississippi law, would he be entitled to a lesser offense instruction if he asked for the wrong lesser offense?\nI.e., in this case, if he failed to ask for heat of passion, would he still be entitled to a correct lesser instruction, even when he didn't ask for it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2144.079, 2150.972], "stop_times": [2150.972, 2161.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.079}, "reply_to": "23548__1_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_063", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Perhaps the judge should correct within a particular statute, but not go look at all 12 statutes that he's under... which... which would classify as murder.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2161.374], "stop_times": [2171.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2161.374}, "reply_to": "23548__1_062", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_064", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "So you say he's not entitled then.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2171.034], "stop_times": [2173.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2171.034}, "reply_to": "23548__1_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_065", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2173.346], "stop_times": [2174.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2173.346}, "reply_to": "23548__1_064", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_066", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "The... the only thing he would be entitled to, if he were correct, is the lesser instruction that he asked for, and if he's not correct, there's no error.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2174.172], "stop_times": [2182.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.172}, "reply_to": "23548__1_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_067", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Yes, sir.\nHe would have had to... to have specifically requested heat of passion.\nBut there again, I don't believe that he put on evidence to support even--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2182.445, 2183.915, 2188.001], "stop_times": [2183.915, 2188.001, 2191.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2182.445}, "reply_to": "23548__1_066", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_068", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "No.\nWe're just trying to get at what Mississippi law is, and I think you've--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2191.716, 2191.882], "stop_times": [2191.882, 2194.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2191.716}, "reply_to": "23548__1_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_069", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "And under your view of the facts, as I understand it, he would have been entitled to a manslaughter instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2194.938], "stop_times": [2199.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2194.938}, "reply_to": "23548__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_070", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--I don't... that's only a stretch to answer... answer Justice Breyer's question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2199.889], "stop_times": [2204.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2199.889}, "reply_to": "23548__1_069", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_071", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Well, surely... surely, if one walks up to a car and shoots the driver dead, that's must be a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2204.68], "stop_times": [2210.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2204.68}, "reply_to": "23548__1_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_072", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Yes, sir.\nIt... it would have to be classified as--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2210.086, 2210.746], "stop_times": [2210.746, 2212.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2210.086}, "reply_to": "23548__1_071", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_073", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "And the question is we don't know exactly which of your several statutory provisions it violated, but if it violated one of them, I don't understand.\nAnd if he's correct... maybe he misrepresents the law.\nHe tells us, as a matter of State law, if he asked for the wrong lesser-included instruction, but there is a correct one, the judge has a duty to give the correct instruction.\nThat's what... what the counsel has told us.\nAnd if that's right, I don't understand why he wasn't entitled to some lesser-included offense instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2212.315, 2220.406, 2223.173, 2231.551, 2233.797], "stop_times": [2220.406, 2223.173, 2231.551, 2233.797, 2238.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2212.315}, "reply_to": "23548__1_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_074", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--I... I believe what he was addressing was language within a particular statute, meaning a lesser-included offense of... of murder or how you styled it, whether it be depraved heart murder or... or felony murder, first degree murder.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2238.693], "stop_times": [2250.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2238.693}, "reply_to": "23548__1_073", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_075", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "So it's... it's your view he must ask for the correct lesser-included offense instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2250.294], "stop_times": [2253.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2250.294}, "reply_to": "23548__1_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_076", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Yes, sir.\nAnd... and there again, I'd like for the Court to... to understand my statement that we should construe this on what... how the Federal law... how you... how the Federal courts construe it, not use Mississippi's lesser standard, but let's... let's construe it on whether or not, first, it is a true lesser-included offense because that's... that's what the Federal standard is, and that's what we followed in Nebraska.\nAnd secondly, if it's a true lesser-included offense, we have to use the analysis of the Federal courts which says that it has to use the strict elements test.\nWell, murder would not be a lesser-included offense under Federal law because under the Mississippi capital murder statute can be with or without deliberate design.\nTherefore, there is no deliberate design.\nIt would not be a lesser-included offense of murder.\nManslaughter would not be a lesser-included offense under that same elements test because it requires the additional element of sudden provocation or heat of passion.\nSo I would submit to the Court, if we apply what's fair under Federal law, what the floor is under Federal law, we should use the Federal analysis and not Mississippi--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2253.349, 2254.297, 2272.79, 2282.449, 2294.709, 2296.856, 2298.963, 2310.313], "stop_times": [2254.297, 2272.79, 2282.449, 2294.709, 2296.856, 2298.963, 2310.313, 2319.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2253.349}, "reply_to": "23548__1_075", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_077", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "But is sudden provocation or heat of passion part of the prosecution's burden or a part of his... one of the... is it a matter of defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2319.33], "stop_times": [2326.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2319.33}, "reply_to": "23548__1_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_078", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--It would be a matter of the defense raising sudden provocation.\nAnd I don't believe that they... they certainly didn't put on anything about culpable negligence.\nFor example, maybe he was spinning the gun in his hand for culpable negligence.\nThey didn't put on anything about deliberate design because he didn't want to testify.\nHis defense was alibi and so he didn't take the stand and say, I intended to kill this person, therefore, give me the murder instruction.\nHe's got to put on evidence to support it, and I don't believe he put on sufficient evidence for either of those.\nAnd... and I was the district attorney who tried this case, so factually I... I remember the... the... my argument was that we couldn't have proved murder if we had wanted to because there was no premeditation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2326.167, 2330.292, 2335.122, 2338.26, 2341.316, 2348.004, 2353.038], "stop_times": [2330.292, 2335.122, 2338.26, 2341.316, 2348.004, 2353.038, 2365.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2326.167}, "reply_to": "23548__1_077", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_079", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--May I go back to the heat of passion point?\nYou say he did not put on evidence, but wasn't there evidence in the record through a State's witness that at least would have supported a heat of passion argument, the evidence being that he went up to the car, no gun was apparent, something happened.\nEvidence shows that he was sprayed with mace, and at that point, he pulls out a gun and shoots.\nThat, I suppose, is evidence of heat of passion.\nCouldn't he have asked for a heat of passion instruction even though he did not put on the heat of passion evidence himself?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2365.837, 2368.725, 2387.218, 2393.329, 2396.051], "stop_times": [2368.725, 2387.218, 2393.329, 2396.051, 2403.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.837}, "reply_to": "23548__1_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_080", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "He could have asked for a heat of passion instruction, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2403.193], "stop_times": [2406.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2403.193}, "reply_to": "23548__1_079", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_081", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Okay, but he did not do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2406.703], "stop_times": [2407.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2406.703}, "reply_to": "23548__1_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_082", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--but he did not do so.\nYes, sir.\nThat... those facts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2407.651, 2408.273, 2408.439], "stop_times": [2408.273, 2408.439, 2409.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2407.651}, "reply_to": "23548__1_081", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_083", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Wait.\nYou're... you're... I don't... you're calling the heat of passion an element of... of the crime of manslaughter?\nIt's not an element of the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2409.099, 2409.265, 2415.952], "stop_times": [2409.265, 2415.952, 2417.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2409.099}, "reply_to": "23548__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__1_084", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--It's sudden provocation, yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2417.151], "stop_times": [2419.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2417.151}, "reply_to": "23548__1_083", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_085", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Suppose you walk up and... and you blow somebody away.\nYou can't... there's no heat of passion.\nThere's no sudden provocation.\nYou just walk up and blow them away.\nAnd you're telling me that that's not a crime because you can't... you can't prove heat of passion?\nYou can't prove one of the other elements of manslaughter?\nThat can't be right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2419.956, 2423.3, 2426.438, 2428.562, 2430.525, 2435.976, 2437.85], "stop_times": [2423.3, 2426.438, 2428.562, 2430.525, 2435.976, 2437.85, 2439.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.956}, "reply_to": "23548__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__1_086", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "No, sir.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2439.236, 2439.896], "stop_times": [2439.896, 2440.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2439.236}, "reply_to": "23548__1_085", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_087", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Why isn't it enough that you killed somebody?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2440.889], "stop_times": [2442.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2440.889}, "reply_to": "23548__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__1_088", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--If... if--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2442.413], "stop_times": [2443.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2442.413}, "reply_to": "23548__1_087", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_089", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "You killed somebody.\nYou didn't plan to kill to somebody, so it's not murder.\nOkay.\nBut you killed somebody.\nSurely, there must be some crime in... in Mississippi that... that covers that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2443.899, 2444.725, 2447.615, 2448.069, 2448.979], "stop_times": [2444.725, 2447.615, 2448.069, 2448.979, 2453.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2443.899}, "reply_to": "23548__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__1_090", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Yes, sir.\nYou--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2453.187, 2454.18], "stop_times": [2454.18, 2454.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2453.187}, "reply_to": "23548__1_089", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_091", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "What is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2454.552], "stop_times": [2455.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2454.552}, "reply_to": "23548__1_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__1_092", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--charge murder and... and the prosecution--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2455.128], "stop_times": [2457.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2455.128}, "reply_to": "23548__1_091", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_093", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "No.\nIt's not murder.\nIt wasn't... you know, he didn't... I didn't walk up to the... to the car intending to kill him.\nAs you say, you couldn't have indicted for murder.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2457.069, 2457.357, 2457.979, 2462.27], "stop_times": [2457.357, 2457.979, 2462.27, 2464.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2457.069}, "reply_to": "23548__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__1_094", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Likely, the State would... would have... have... if those were the facts and that's all the facts that we had, then the State would likely have charged murder and asked for a lesser-included offense instruction for manslaughter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2464.954], "stop_times": [2476.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2464.954}, "reply_to": "23548__1_093", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_095", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Manslaughter being defined as killing without deliberation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2476.926], "stop_times": [2480.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2476.926}, "reply_to": "23548__1_094", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_096", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2480.391], "stop_times": [2481.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2480.391}, "reply_to": "23548__1_095", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_097", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Okay.\nThat's what he--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2481.217, 2481.756], "stop_times": [2481.756, 2482.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2481.217}, "reply_to": "23548__1_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_098", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "There... there is a... you say there... there are what?\nNine different manslaughter, did you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2482.786, 2486.213], "stop_times": [2486.213, 2487.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2482.786}, "reply_to": "23548__1_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__1_099", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Twelve different manslaughter--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2487.699], "stop_times": [2488.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2487.699}, "reply_to": "23548__1_098", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_100", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Twelve different, and one of them is simply killing somebody simpliciter, without any provocation.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2488.813, 2495.501], "stop_times": [2495.501, 2496.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2488.813}, "reply_to": "23548__1_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__1_101", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Yes, sir, without.\nBut he requested the culpable negligent manslaughter instruction, and there was no evidence of culpable negligent manslaughter.\nIt's a separate section in our code now.\nThere are 12 different sections.\nIt's not like we have one statute that lists all of those.\nAnd... and some of them are... are arcane.\nAnd I think it's unfair to ask a trial court judge to correct every request for an instruction and... and... he... at trial, if you read--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2496.244, 2497.154, 2504.6, 2506.646, 2508.011, 2511.393, 2513.584], "stop_times": [2497.154, 2504.6, 2506.646, 2508.011, 2511.393, 2513.584, 2523.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2496.244}, "reply_to": "23548__1_100", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_102", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Well, let... let me ask... ask you this.\nKnowing what we know now, we have the record, we have the benefit of hindsight, we know the evidence, in your view now what would have been the closest lesser-included offense for which an instruction might have been sought?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2523.282, 2525.305], "stop_times": [2525.305, 2539.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2523.282}, "reply_to": "23548__1_101", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23548__1_103", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--There are two possibilities that were not requested.\nOne is our felony... felony murder.\nFelony murder is... is the killing of... that occurs without occurring with one of the seven offenses that we have listed, murder, rape, and so forth, committing another crime.\nOr heat of passion manslaughter.\nAnd I would submit to the Court that... that they never requested anything about the felony murder and they never requested the heat of passion manslaughter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2539.257, 2545.367, 2548.795, 2559.28, 2562.003], "stop_times": [2545.367, 2548.795, 2559.28, 2562.003, 2573.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2539.257}, "reply_to": "23548__1_102", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_104", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "May I ask this question just to help me sort of... what are the... as a matter of State law, what are the elements of the offense for which he was convicted?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2573.027], "stop_times": [2579.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.027}, "reply_to": "23548__1_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_105", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Elements of the offense are that he... that he... a killing occurred with or without intent and that it was in the commission of... of a crime, robbery.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2579.714], "stop_times": [2593.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2579.714}, "reply_to": "23548__1_104", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_106", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Those are the two elements.\nAnd so that if you take out with... in the commission of another crime and just left the... the other part of it, would that also be an offense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2593.543, 2593.726], "stop_times": [2593.726, 2601.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.543}, "reply_to": "23548__1_105", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_107", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "With or without under Mississippi law--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2601.428], "stop_times": [2606.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2601.428}, "reply_to": "23548__1_106", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_108", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "In other words, you say... you say the offenses are killing somebody with or without the intent to do so--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2606.795], "stop_times": [2610.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2606.795}, "reply_to": "23548__1_107", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_109", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2610.882], "stop_times": [2611.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2610.882}, "reply_to": "23548__1_108", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_110", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--and in the course of an attempted felony.\nSay you failed to prove the attempted felony and you proved the remainder of the... the other elements.\nIs he guilty of anything in... under Mississippi--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2611.254, 2613.195, 2618.768], "stop_times": [2613.195, 2618.768, 2621.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.254}, "reply_to": "23548__1_109", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_111", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "It... if you... if you prove the intent--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2621.369], "stop_times": [2624.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2621.369}, "reply_to": "23548__1_110", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_112", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--And if he is, why isn't it a lesser-included offense is my next question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2624.879], "stop_times": [2626.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2624.879}, "reply_to": "23548__1_111", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_113", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Yes, sir.\nIf you just take those away and you just have those two elements, with or without, if it's with intent, then it would be classified as murder.\nIf it's without, it could possibly be... without intent, then it could be classified as manslaughter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2626.448, 2626.737, 2634.167], "stop_times": [2626.737, 2634.167, 2640.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2626.448}, "reply_to": "23548__1_112", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_114", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "It seems to me that then there are two lesser-included offenses, and either one would have... he should have gotten an instruction on both.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2640.277], "stop_times": [2646.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2640.277}, "reply_to": "23548__1_113", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_115", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2646.239], "stop_times": [2646.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2646.239}, "reply_to": "23548__1_114", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_116", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "And I don't understand why not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2646.982], "stop_times": [2648.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2646.982}, "reply_to": "23548__1_115", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_117", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Yes, sir, I understand.\nBut there again, if we go back to what the Federal standards are, we're talking about what the United States Constitution requires, and therefore, I would submit to the Court that we should apply what the Federal law is.\nAnd that law is... number one, is it a lesser-included offense?\nUsing the elements test, murder is not a lesser-included offense to capital murder, and the reason being is because capital murder is with or without intent and you add an additional element of murder which requires intent.\nSame goes for manslaughter because you had the additional sudden provocation element.\nSo I would say that if we follow the Federal standard and... and that's... that's the floor, and the floor is it's got to be a lesser-included offense, it... it's not a... a lesser-included offense.\nSo therefore that should answer the question.\nSecondly, under the Federal standard, you have to prove that... that the court... the judge has to decide that the... a reasonable juror would acquit of the greater offense and also convict of the lesser.\nWell, Mississippi law does not require that, but I... I'd submit to the Court that... that after the Beck decision in 1980, our supreme court in the case of In re Jordan... they applied the Federal standard.\nThey required that... when they analyzed Beck, they applied the Federal standard, in other words, the... the part about that you have to acquit.\nYou have to acquit on... on the greater offense.\nAnd they also included the lesser-included offense language in that Beck analysis.\nSo, therefore, had he properly raised the jurisdictional issue... there's nowhere in the record does he cite Beck.\nThere's nowhere in the record that he states facts that would even support Beck.\nSo had he even properly reached that issue and... and cited Beck, I would submit to the Court that the facts don't support it under Mississippi law.\nThe facts don't support it under Federal law.\nAnd it doesn't meet the lesser-included offense standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2648.368, 2649.649, 2660.545, 2663.145, 2674.829, 2679.371, 2689.402, 2690.638, 2705.953, 2717.182, 2725.932, 2728.699, 2734.189, 2740.421, 2744.015, 2757.883, 2760.484], "stop_times": [2649.649, 2660.545, 2663.145, 2674.829, 2679.371, 2689.402, 2690.638, 2705.953, 2717.182, 2725.932, 2728.699, 2734.189, 2740.421, 2744.015, 2757.883, 2760.484, 2763.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2648.368}, "reply_to": "23548__1_116", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_118", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--May... may I ask you?\nI'm unclear on... on lesser-included in Mississippi.\nAnd I'm going to take this step by step.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2763.084, 2763.639, 2767.171], "stop_times": [2763.639, 2767.171, 2769.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2763.084}, "reply_to": "23548__1_117", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_119", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2769.483], "stop_times": [2769.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2769.483}, "reply_to": "23548__1_118", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_120", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "And tell me if I'm right or wrong at each step.\nThe offense that he was charged with... the capital offense that he was charged with was killing with or without intent in the course of committing a crime.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2769.733, 2771.424, 2784.344], "stop_times": [2771.424, 2784.344, 2785.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.733}, "reply_to": "23548__1_119", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_121", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2785.42], "stop_times": [2785.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.42}, "reply_to": "23548__1_120", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_122", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "All right.\nNow, his claim... let's assume he claimed this.\nThere is evidence from... from which you... you could infer that he wasn't committing a crime.\nHe may or may not be right, but let's assume that's his claim, and let's assume the judge says, yes, there's some evidence that would indicate that he wasn't up there robbing at the time he stood next to the car.\nAssume the judge accepts that.\nHe then says, on that assumption, I want a lesser-included offense instruction of simple murder, killing with intent.\nIs that a lesser-included offense under... under capital murder?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2785.913, 2786.451, 2791.614, 2801.562, 2813.079, 2814.769, 2828.144], "stop_times": [2786.451, 2791.614, 2801.562, 2813.079, 2814.769, 2828.144, 2835.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2785.913}, "reply_to": "23548__1_121", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_123", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "There again, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2835.658], "stop_times": [2838.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2835.658}, "reply_to": "23548__1_122", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_124", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Because what he's saying is, I'm asking for an instruction on an offense which is lesser... it does not... it's an offense that doesn't include the course of the crime, but it does include the other elements.\nIt includes killing with intent.\nIsn't that lesser-included on your definition of Mississippi homicide law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2838.054, 2853.119, 2856.751], "stop_times": [2853.119, 2856.751, 2861.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2838.054}, "reply_to": "23548__1_123", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_125", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--No, sir.\nAnd... and I would say that under the Federal standard, clearly it's not a lesser-included offense.\nI would say under the State--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2861.869, 2863.893, 2868.723], "stop_times": [2863.893, 2868.723, 2869.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2861.869}, "reply_to": "23548__1_124", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_126", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Yes.\nI mean, he's got to qualify under the Federal standard.\nHe says, the offense I was charged with was killing with or without intent, plus crime.\nI want an instruction that says nothing about plus crime but simply charges on killing with or without intent.\nIsn't he asking under Federal law for a lesser-included instruction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2869.466, 2869.716, 2871.407, 2877.146, 2886.434], "stop_times": [2869.716, 2871.407, 2877.146, 2886.434, 2890.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2869.466}, "reply_to": "23548__1_125", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_127", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--No, sir.\nHe didn't... first of all, he never--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2890.643, 2893.205], "stop_times": [2893.205, 2896.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2890.643}, "reply_to": "23548__1_126", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_128", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "All right.\nConfine it to killing with intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2896.01, 2896.67], "stop_times": [2896.67, 2898.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2896.01}, "reply_to": "23548__1_127", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_129", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2898.073], "stop_times": [2899.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2898.073}, "reply_to": "23548__1_128", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_130", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Under... under... as I understood... as I understood you to define the capital offense, the State could prove the capital offense by saying he did have intent when he killed and he also happened to be committing a crime.\nAm I wrong about that statement of Mississippi law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2899.354, 2913.305], "stop_times": [2913.305, 2916.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2899.354}, "reply_to": "23548__1_129", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_131", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "I'm sorry, Your Honor.\nI apologize.\nI... I didn't follow you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2916.899, 2919.044, 2919.871], "stop_times": [2919.044, 2919.871, 2920.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2916.899}, "reply_to": "23548__1_130", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_132", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "I thought you said that on the capital offense, the killing could be with or without intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2920.819], "stop_times": [2926.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2920.819}, "reply_to": "23548__1_131", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_133", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2926.846], "stop_times": [2927.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2926.846}, "reply_to": "23548__1_132", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_134", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2927.135], "stop_times": [2927.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2927.135}, "reply_to": "23548__1_133", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_135", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "I think you confuse us by saying that.\nIf you just left that out of your statement, felony murder is killing in the course of a crime.\nDon't say anything about intent.\nIntent is not an element of felony murder.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2927.773, 2928.871, 2933.701, 2935.27, 2937.621], "stop_times": [2928.871, 2933.701, 2935.27, 2937.621, 2938.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2927.773}, "reply_to": "23548__1_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__1_136", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2938.243], "stop_times": [2938.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2938.243}, "reply_to": "23548__1_135", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_137", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "So if you want to get plain murder, you're adding an element.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2938.736], "stop_times": [2942.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2938.736}, "reply_to": "23548__1_136", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__1_138", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2942.617], "stop_times": [2943.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2942.617}, "reply_to": "23548__1_137", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_139", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "It has to be murder with intent, and that's why you say it's not a lesser-included offense because for plain murder, you need intent, and for felony murder, you don't need intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2943.006], "stop_times": [2953.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.006}, "reply_to": "23548__1_138", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__1_140", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Thank you, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2953.968], "stop_times": [2955.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2953.968}, "reply_to": "23548__1_139", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_141", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Isn't that... isn't that your case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2955.166], "stop_times": [2956.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2955.166}, "reply_to": "23548__1_140", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23548__1_142", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2956.159], "stop_times": [2956.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2956.159}, "reply_to": "23548__1_141", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_143", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--So that the Mississippi law for felony murder is killing, pure and simple, plus crime, and simple murder is killing plus intent.\nAnd that plus intent is why it is not lesser-included.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2956.409, 2968.026], "stop_times": [2968.026, 2971.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2956.409}, "reply_to": "23548__1_142", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_144", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Yes, sir, on a felony--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2971.779], "stop_times": [2973.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2971.779}, "reply_to": "23548__1_143", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_145", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Okay.\nI understand you now.\nLet... let me ask you this as a matter of... on... on the second point, as a matter of Mississippi law.\nUnder the charge of capital murder, was there a possibility of sentencing to life or life without parole, as well as the possibility of the death penalty upon conviction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2973.06, 2973.348, 2974.008, 2980.574], "stop_times": [2973.348, 2974.008, 2980.574, 2997.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2973.06}, "reply_to": "23548__1_144", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_146", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Yes, sir, and that's why I would submit to the Court it distinguishes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [2997.664], "stop_times": [3000.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2997.664}, "reply_to": "23548__1_145", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_147", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Okay.\nSo that's the second reason why it would not fall within the... the Beck rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3000.569, 3001.379], "stop_times": [3001.379, 3004.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3000.569}, "reply_to": "23548__1_146", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_148", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Yes, sir.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3004.973], "stop_times": [3005.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3004.973}, "reply_to": "23548__1_147", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_149", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3005.649], "stop_times": [3006.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3005.649}, "reply_to": "23548__1_148", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23548__1_150", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "I'd like to also point out factually that in the... in the... initially in the petition, the... and actually at trial and at the Mississippi Supreme Court, they talked about that the defendant may have been able... may have been out there selling drugs to the defendant.\nI'd submit to the Court that a proper view of the record, if you look at the Mississippi Supreme Court opinion at page 98 and... 97 and 98 and page 40, the defendant in his own brief admits that that was not in evidence.\nIt came from the... from a plea where the... where one of the co-defendants pled, and it never was placed before the jury.\nHere in... in the brief in this particular case, they talk about, well, he... maybe he was borrowing money, the sting question, whether he was borrowing money.\nThat comment came from one of the witnesses named Powell who was merely speculating.\nI don't know what he was talking about a sting, but it could have been that he was going to borrow money or... or rob somebody.\nSo that... that was speculation.\nSo the... the facts just don't support the granting of a lesser-included offense in this particular case.\nI'd also like to ask the Court to... to note that in Hopkins v. Reeves in footnote 7, the... the Court suggests that we don't decide that... that particular case based upon the bifurcation issue alone.\nI would ask that the Court answer that question in this particular case and state that Beck has no application in this particular case because the danger that occurred and the Court was concerned with in Beck is not... doesn't happen here in the Mississippi instance because in Jackson v. State, we had already said that you have a bifurcated hearing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3006.003, 3031.721, 3044.269, 3050.751, 3059.956, 3065.818, 3072.755, 3074.629, 3081.028, 3100.535], "stop_times": [3031.721, 3044.269, 3050.751, 3059.956, 3065.818, 3072.755, 3074.629, 3081.028, 3100.535, 3122.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3006.003}, "reply_to": "23548__1_149", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_151", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Well, but... but it is true that... that there's a difference between becoming eligible for the death penalty, on the one hand, and not being eligible on the other.\nAnd conceivably the Beck concern is triggered when the failure to give a lesser-included offense gives the jury the option of... no other option other than convicting of a capital offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3122.455, 3129.347], "stop_times": [3129.347, 3140.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.455}, "reply_to": "23548__1_150", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_152", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--Justice Stevens, I... I would respectfully disagree.\nWe believe that the... the Beck issue is just with this question.\nYou have a choice of guilt and death penalty or acquittal.\nThis question that they're raising is conviction, not death penalty, or acquittal.\nAnd those are separate issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3140.659, 3146.149, 3154.777, 3160.062, 3165.385], "stop_times": [3146.149, 3154.777, 3160.062, 3165.385, 3167.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3140.659}, "reply_to": "23548__1_151", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_153", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "--an offense for which the death penalty is the punishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3167.575], "stop_times": [3169.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.575}, "reply_to": "23548__1_152", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_154", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Yes, sir, but it doesn't impact the guilt phase, and that was what the problem was, I believe, in Beck, was that... that a jury might not... they don't want to turn him loose because... and they give him a conviction, which automatically carries the death penalty.\nAnd that impacts the jury.\nAnd I understand that.\nThat was a proper decision, but that just didn't happen here in this particular case.\nAnd Mississippi has just distinguished Beck.\nI don't believe that they properly raise this Court's jurisdiction.\nThey never cite Beck.\nThey never raised... they never said due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3169.859, 3182.436, 3184.582, 3185.613, 3189.245, 3191.763, 3195.289, 3197.214], "stop_times": [3182.436, 3184.582, 3185.613, 3189.245, 3191.763, 3195.289, 3197.214, 3199.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3169.859}, "reply_to": "23548__1_153", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_155", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "No, but if the jurors' concern is that you either have to acquit them or... we want to make sure he never walks out of prison again, and the only way to do that is to convict him of a capital offense so the judge can impose the death penalty.\nI don't know why that Beck wouldn't be triggered on those facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3199.443, 3213.022], "stop_times": [3213.022, 3217.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3199.443}, "reply_to": "23548__1_154", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__1_156", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Well, maybe I don't understand the question correctly.\nBut in Beck, you know, the jury wasn't told that the judge would have a separate option of denying the death penalty.\nIn this case, judge in State's... court instruction C-5, the court says you are not to consider the sentence, that you only consider the issue of guilt or innocence of the charge.\nAnd so that's why I say this is not a Beck issue because it doesn't impact the... the jury's determination in the guilt phase.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3217.109, 3220.37, 3227.018, 3237.171], "stop_times": [3220.37, 3227.018, 3237.171, 3244.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3217.109}, "reply_to": "23548__1_155", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_157", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Well, it seems to me that works against you because it takes away from the jury the option of saying, well, we'll convict him of a serious offense, but we'll be sure not to give him a capital offense.\nSo that... it seems to me that that argument then works against you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3244.23, 3253.685], "stop_times": [3253.685, 3256.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3244.23}, "reply_to": "23548__1_156", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23548__1_158", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Well, Justice Kennedy, in Mississippi, we have, there again, that open standard, not the Federal standard.\nAnd we would give him that instruction and give that jury that option if the facts support it, and I respectfully submit to the Court that... that the facts do not support a lesser-included offense under these facts.\nIf the Court has no further questions, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3256.862, 3261.941, 3274.611], "stop_times": [3261.941, 3274.611, 3281.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3256.862}, "reply_to": "23548__1_157", "speaker": "james_m_hood_iii"}
{"id": "23548__1_159", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Thank you, General Hood.\nMr. Mitchell, you have about 4 and a half minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3281.465, 3282.413], "stop_times": [3282.413, 3288.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3281.465}, "reply_to": "23548__1_158", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__2_000", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Justice Stevens, and... and may it please the Court:\nWith regard to the argument that the State makes here that these individuals had ridden around all night with a plan to rob and that, therefore, there were no other... there was no other possibility for the court to consider in... in granting instructions, first, it is our contention that both Mississippi law and due process law requires a judge to instruct a jury on all of the relevant issues in the case, on all the relevant law in the case.\nAnd in Fairchild v. State, that is precisely what the Mississippi court did in saying that a court could not simply conclude, no matter how strong the evidence of attempt to rob or plan to rob, that it could, in effect, direct a verdict and not instruct on lesser-included offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3288.069, 3290.465, 3320.574], "stop_times": [3290.465, 3320.574, 3340.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3288.069}, "reply_to": "23548__1_159", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__2_001", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Well, your... were the two principal lesser-included offenses in... in your view your D-13 and D-18 that are in the appendix?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3340.908], "stop_times": [3348.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3340.908}, "reply_to": "23548__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23548__2_002", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Your Honor, those are the ones that were... were, in fact, raised.\nWe believe that rather than intent the... on the simple murder, that the issue is malice as opposed to intent.\nThe statutory definition, for example, of manslaughter in... in Mississippi statute 97-3... I believe 27 is a killing of a human being without malice and while not in the commission of these felonies.\nNow, it may be that simply a small-town lawyer from... from North Carolina is told don't go to the big city and get stung by some guy coming up to you and saying, you know, I just got off the bus and I need to get some money from you and my kids and my wife are waiting for me in the hotel room.\nBut that happens not only in the big city, it also happens in Mississippi.\nAnd so there was a basis in which a jury could reasonably infer that there was a reason to approach that vehicle other than an attempted robbery.\nAnd the question is, what is a reasonable inference?\nThe Mississippi court here in its opinion said that there was clearly evidence from which a jury could infer robbery.\nWe concede that, but there were also other inferences that this evidence raised, and that evidence, we respectfully submit, mandated a lesser-included offense instruction.\nWe also contend that... that the State has not, heretofore, raised any issue about Beck's continuing vitality, but we respectfully submit that Beck is of continuing vitality.\nJust a... a survey of even habeas corpus cases from the various circuits will show that the circuits are continuing to apply Beck even in States where the statutory sentencing scheme is far different from Beck and there is no preclusive statute involved, as there was in Alabama.\nWe respectfully submit that the language in Beck itself speaks to this issue.\nThe Beck court added, the same reasoning must apply to rules that diminish the reliability of the... the guilt determination, the very point that Justice Kennedy pointed out undercuts Mississippi's argument.\nIt is this diminution of the reliability of the guilt determination that is at issue here.\nIn addition to that, we would respectfully submit that under these circumstances, there was a basis under which a lesser-included offense instruction was mandated because Beck did not apply the Blockburger test.\nIn fact, it did not incorporate Blockburger, did not refer to Mullaney v. Wilbur.\nWhat it did was it said if there is a lesser-included offense, as defined by State law.\nAll of the succeeding cases from this Court have said if there is a lesser-included offense, as defined by State law, conceding that State law is the applicable standard then and not the standard that the State now seeks to impose, which it never raised in... in its brief, which it has never asserted to be the standard.\nBlockburger is certainly not cited in anything that the State has submitted.\nBlockburger is not contended to be the basis, nor could it be.\nThe basis is is there a lesser-included offense under State law, and we contend that that is the basis on which this case should be decided.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3348.915, 3352.137, 3360.394, 3380.206, 3397.563, 3402.293, 3411.868, 3414.363, 3422.065, 3434.409, 3450.384, 3467.474, 3473.252, 3486.255, 3493.481, 3513.087, 3517.379, 3523.285, 3544.052, 3547.971, 3551.482, 3560.148], "stop_times": [3352.137, 3360.394, 3380.206, 3397.563, 3402.293, 3411.868, 3414.363, 3422.065, 3434.409, 3450.384, 3467.474, 3473.252, 3486.255, 3493.481, 3513.087, 3517.379, 3523.285, 3544.052, 3547.971, 3551.482, 3560.148, 3560.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3348.915}, "reply_to": "23548__2_001", "speaker": "ronnie_m_mitchell"}
{"id": "23548__2_003", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3560.891, 3561.346], "stop_times": [3561.346, 3562.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3560.891}, "reply_to": "23548__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23548__2_004", "conversation_id": "23548", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9560", "start_times": [3562.439], "stop_times": [3566.713], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3562.439}, "reply_to": "23548__2_003", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22579__0_000", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "We will now hear argument in Illinois against Caballes.\nGeneral Madigan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [0.0, 5.739], "stop_times": [5.739, 6.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__0_001", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThis Court has made clear on several occasions, including 21 years ago in Place and 4 years ago in Edmond, that a sniff by a drug-detection dog is not a Fourth Amendment search, and if something is neither a search nor a seizure, then it requires no Fourth Amendment justification.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [6.937, 11.107], "stop_times": [11.107, 30.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6.937}, "reply_to": "22579__0_000", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_002", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, we've held that it's certainly not a... a full-blown search.\nIt's not a search in the classic sense, but a Terry stop isn't an arrest in... in the classic sense either.\nWe... we have said that that is a kind of seizure.\nWhy do... I think your... your argument assumes that this for... for purposes of search analogies that something is either a... a full-dress search or it's not a search at all.\nWhy isn't there a... a possibility of... of a kind of middle ground searches just as there is on seizures?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [30.881, 34.884, 41.822, 44.438, 57.713], "stop_times": [34.884, 41.822, 44.438, 57.713, 65.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 30.881}, "reply_to": "22579__0_001", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22579__0_003", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, this Court made clear in Arizona v. Hicks that it did not want to go down the road of creating something known as a quasi-search so that courts and police officers would be in the position of trying to determine whether or not something was a search or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [65.803], "stop_times": [83.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 65.803}, "reply_to": "22579__0_002", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_004", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Oh, I... I can... I can just imagine the problems, but I mean, what... I think what's... what the... what's bothering me about the case is that if we persist in... in saying that... that it's... that it's an either and or question with no question with no possible gradation, then I assume nothing prevents the police from taking the dogs through every municipal garage in the United States and I suppose there's nothing that prevents the police from taking the dogs up to any homeowner's door, ringing the bell, and seeing if the dog gets a sniff of something when the door is opened.\nWe're... we're opening rather a... a large vista for... for dog intrusions, and... and that's what's... that's what's bothering me.\nWhy... why should we... why should we open that vista if there is a possibility of a... of a middle ground that would prevent it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [83.059, 121.985, 130.985], "stop_times": [121.985, 130.985, 137.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 83.059}, "reply_to": "22579__0_003", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22579__0_005", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, I would start with the reality that dog sniffs by their very nature, as this Court recognized in both Place and Edmond, are very unique both in terms of the manner in which the sniff is conducted, as well as the content of... of the information that the sniff reveals, so that a dog sniff is only going to be able to reveal the presence or absence of contraband.\nAnd this Court has recognized that individuals have no privacy interest in the possession of contraband.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [137.672, 165.082], "stop_times": [165.082, 171.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 137.672}, "reply_to": "22579__0_004", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_006", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Does that imply that your answer is yes to the question?\nIf we say, as you urge, a dog sniff is not a search, then the police are free to parade up and down every street in the country with dogs sniffing car trunks.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [171.936, 176.394], "stop_times": [176.394, 190.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 171.936}, "reply_to": "22579__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__0_007", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Yes.\nBecause a sniff is not a search, a police officer would be able to take a narcotics-detection dog down the street with him or her.\nI can tell you that because of the limited resources... and this is a point brought up in the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police amicus brief... that that is not likely to occur.\nIn addition, I can also tell you that in the State of Illinois, the Illinois State police do not train their dogs nor do they use their dogs on people.\nThey only use them on objects.\nBut yes, in answer to both of your questions, because a dog sniff does not constitute a search, dogs could be used to walk down streets.\nThey could, hypothetically, be used in parking lots, and at times they are used in parking lots.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [190.633, 191.627, 198.973, 209.459, 219.035, 220.727, 230.758], "stop_times": [191.627, 198.973, 209.459, 219.035, 220.727, 230.758, 235.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 190.633}, "reply_to": "22579__0_006", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_008", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "But they are used.\nI mean, we don't have to make it up.\nFrom cases we've had here, we know that they're used in places like bus depots to... to sniff luggage that... that passengers have carried through on... on buses.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [235.466, 236.042, 236.868], "stop_times": [236.042, 236.868, 248.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 235.466}, "reply_to": "22579__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__0_009", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Yes, they are.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [248.302], "stop_times": [249.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 248.302}, "reply_to": "22579__0_008", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_010", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "And the republic seems to have survived.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [249.5], "stop_times": [251.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 249.5}, "reply_to": "22579__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__0_011", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [251.275], "stop_times": [252.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 251.275}, "reply_to": "22579__0_010", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_012", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "One could characterize those episodes under the, quote, special needs doctrine.\nI mean, we are exposed to searches at airports that we would not put up with walking up and down an ordinary street.\nSo the dogs at the terminals one expects nowadays.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [252.844, 258.788, 267.212], "stop_times": [258.788, 267.212, 271.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 252.844}, "reply_to": "22579__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__0_013", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "No.\nThese aren't sniffs for... for explosives.\nThese are sniffs for drugs and... and these... these are not buses that are coming in from France.\nThey're coming in from one American city to another.\nAnd... and there's no more need in... in that case than there was in this case.\nIt was just a good... a good place to find criminals who were carrying unlawful drugs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [271.42, 273.072, 275.218, 280.419, 283.103, 288.138], "stop_times": [273.072, 275.218, 280.419, 283.103, 288.138, 294.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 271.42}, "reply_to": "22579__0_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__0_014", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "In the present case, Mr. Caballes was traveling from Las Vegas, Nevada apparently on his way to Chicago, Illinois.\nHe was pulled over for speeding.\nAnother officer overheard when Master Sergeant Gillette called in to dispatch that he effected--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [294.044, 302.422, 304.197], "stop_times": [302.422, 304.197, 312.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 294.044}, "reply_to": "22579__0_013", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_015", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "May I interrupt, General Madigan?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [312.659], "stop_times": [314.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 312.659}, "reply_to": "22579__0_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__0_016", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--You may.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [314.6], "stop_times": [315.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 314.6}, "reply_to": "22579__0_015", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_017", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "He was pulled over for speeding at 71 miles an hour in a 65 mile an hour zone on I-80.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [315.055, 323.161], "stop_times": [323.161, 323.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 315.055}, "reply_to": "22579__0_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__0_018", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Yes, that is correct, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [323.766], "stop_times": [325.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 323.766}, "reply_to": "22579__0_017", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_019", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Did they know in advance that he was someone to look for?\nBecause I don't imagine you arrest everybody on I-80 that goes 70 miles an hour.\nI've done it many times myself.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [325.003, 327.686, 331.773, 334.085], "stop_times": [327.686, 331.773, 334.085, 335.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 325.003}, "reply_to": "22579__0_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__0_020", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Inadvertently.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [335.405, 337.634], "stop_times": [337.634, 338.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 335.405}, "reply_to": "22579__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__0_021", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "We always like to have you in Illinois.\nObviously, the Illinois State Police have the ability to pull somebody over whether they're going 1 mile over the speed limit or 26 miles over the speed limit, but there is nothing in the record to indicate that they were looking for Mr. Caballes as he was traveling eastbound on I-80 towards Chicago.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [338.339, 342.258], "stop_times": [342.258, 361.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 338.339}, "reply_to": "22579__0_020", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_022", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Does the record tell us what time of day it was?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [361.04], "stop_times": [362.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 361.04}, "reply_to": "22579__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__0_023", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Yes.\nIt was approximately 5:10 p.m.--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [362.859, 363.352], "stop_times": [363.352, 365.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 362.859}, "reply_to": "22579__0_022", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_024", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [365.831], "stop_times": [367.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 365.831}, "reply_to": "22579__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__0_025", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "You... you answered one of the earlier questions about the possible intrusiveness of dogs everywhere by saying, well, you don't have a privacy interest in contraband, but that's never true.\nYou don't have a privacy interest in the murder victim's body, but you still have to have a warrant to go in and get it.\nSo that... that just doesn't work unless I missed something.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [367.606, 379.866, 387.008], "stop_times": [379.866, 387.008, 389.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 367.606}, "reply_to": "22579__0_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22579__0_026", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--You do not have a privacy interest in contraband, as this Court has recognized in the Jacobsen case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [389.237], "stop_times": [395.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 389.237}, "reply_to": "22579__0_025", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_027", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Yes, but you have a privacy interest in your person and in your place, and that's what we're talking about.\nSo that seems to me that that just doesn't help us.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [395.841, 399.556], "stop_times": [399.556, 401.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 395.841}, "reply_to": "22579__0_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22579__0_028", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, there is a distinction that's made in terms of Fourth Amendment protections that are given to homes and people versus cars.\nEver since the Carroll case, it has been recognized that a warrantless search of a car can be done if they found probable cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [401.99, 409.338], "stop_times": [409.338, 418.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 401.99}, "reply_to": "22579__0_027", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_029", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "But that's because of the nature of the place being searched not because of the nature of what you're searching for.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [418.132], "stop_times": [422.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 418.132}, "reply_to": "22579__0_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22579__0_030", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [422.013], "stop_times": [424.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 422.013}, "reply_to": "22579__0_029", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_031", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Not necessarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [424.037], "stop_times": [424.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 424.037}, "reply_to": "22579__0_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__0_032", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "So it just can't be that... so the fact that you don't have a privacy interest in contraband, it doesn't seem to me... I... I don't think you need that argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [424.78], "stop_times": [431.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 424.78}, "reply_to": "22579__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22579__0_033", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I think you should use it.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [431.8, 433.779], "stop_times": [433.779, 434.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 431.8}, "reply_to": "22579__0_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__0_034", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I... I plan on continuing to use it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [434.606], "stop_times": [437.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 434.606}, "reply_to": "22579__0_033", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_035", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Why... why do you... are you sure that Kyllo, you know, the... the imaging case, would have come out the same way if the only thing... the only thing... that the imaging could pick out is not any of the other private activities in the home, but the only thing it could possibly discern is a dead body with a knife through the heart?\nAre you sure the case would have come out the same way?\nI'm not at all sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [437.412, 459.869, 462.554], "stop_times": [459.869, 462.554, 463.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 437.412}, "reply_to": "22579__0_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__0_036", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I would hope the case would come out differently than--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [463.297], "stop_times": [465.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 463.297}, "reply_to": "22579__0_035", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_037", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [465.321], "stop_times": [467.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 465.321}, "reply_to": "22579__0_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__0_038", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Do you have any authority for that other than Justice Scalia's speculation about how this--\n[Laughter]\n--how his Kyllo case might have been written?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [467.262, 470.689, 471.243], "stop_times": [470.689, 471.243, 472.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 467.262}, "reply_to": "22579__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22579__0_039", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--What about a house and... and the use of a dog to sniff around a door access or a house just because the police think, you know, it's possible this is somebody growing marijuana in the basement or something?\nIs that all right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [472.835, 489.719], "stop_times": [489.719, 491.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 472.835}, "reply_to": "22579__0_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__0_040", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--I would argue that, yes, it is all right to walk a dog around a house, but then as Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [491.782], "stop_times": [498.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 491.782}, "reply_to": "22579__0_039", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_041", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "How do you... how do you reconcile that with the heat sensor case then?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [498.098], "stop_times": [502.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 498.098}, "reply_to": "22579__0_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__0_042", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--The thermal imager that was used in the Kyllo case was able to reveal intimate details of the house.\nA dog sniff is only going to reveal the presence or absence of contraband, and because of that, that's where we suddenly get into the tension between Kyllo and Place and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [502.928, 511.267], "stop_times": [511.267, 523.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 502.928}, "reply_to": "22579__0_041", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_043", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "What if the dogs get a little more sophisticated in the future and can also smell a certain kind of perfume, something like that?\nWould then the whole analysis change?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [523.155, 530.009], "stop_times": [530.009, 532.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 523.155}, "reply_to": "22579__0_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__0_044", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Well, then you would end up in a situation as to whether or not an officer had probable cause when a dog, in fact, alerted.\nIf he was alerting to the presence of perfume as opposed to narcotics, there--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [532.322, 540.617], "stop_times": [540.617, 546.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 532.322}, "reply_to": "22579__0_043", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_045", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "And how would you know whether the... the dog... I don't think the dog alerts, as I'm alerting, for one reason or another.\nHe just alerts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [546.069, 552.506], "stop_times": [552.506, 553.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 546.069}, "reply_to": "22579__0_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__0_046", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Well, they're very well trained dogs.\nIn fact, in the State of Illinois, the dogs and their handlers go through 320 hours of training, and they're specifically trained to only alert to narcotics.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [553.871, 556.1], "stop_times": [556.1, 566.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 553.871}, "reply_to": "22579__0_045", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_047", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I just learned this morning that some very well trained dogs that are trained to alert for explosives will also alert for certain kinds of rubber in a tire.\nThey didn't realize that.\nAnd I think it's entirely possible that dogs would... there will be false alerts by... by dogs because it's triggered by something that... that is not really anticipated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [566.335, 575.334, 576.532], "stop_times": [575.334, 576.532, 586.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 566.335}, "reply_to": "22579__0_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__0_048", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "One of the things that does take place during the training of these narcotics-detection dogs is to make sure that they are not alerting to things that are not narcotics or... I don't know exactly how the explosive training is conducted because we don't train our dogs in Illinois for explosives, but they purposely train them on narcotics not to alert to plastic wrap that is frequently the container used for narcotics, not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [586.397], "stop_times": [612.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 586.397}, "reply_to": "22579__0_047", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_049", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "So you would agree the analysis would be different if there could be an innocent cause of the alert as well as the contraband being the cause of the alert.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [612.032], "stop_times": [619.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 612.032}, "reply_to": "22579__0_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__0_050", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--It depends.\nThe analysis would be different if the dog was known to or had been trained to actually alert to the non-contraband.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [619.545, 621.941], "stop_times": [621.941, 630.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 619.545}, "reply_to": "22579__0_049", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_051", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Or if that happened a large percentage of the time.\nI mean, surely you'd concede that the search is unreasonable if, for every... every one time, you... you make somebody open his bag because the dog actually smells narcotics, 99 times you make somebody open his bag because he has apples in it.\nI mean, wouldn't that go to the reasonableness of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [630.979, 634.695, 654.014], "stop_times": [634.695, 654.014, 656.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 630.979}, "reply_to": "22579__0_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__0_052", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, it would actually go to whether or not that dog provided... that dog's alert provided probable cause to conduct a search.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [656.986], "stop_times": [664.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 656.986}, "reply_to": "22579__0_051", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_053", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, do we... we don't have the probable cause question before us, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [664.954], "stop_times": [667.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 664.954}, "reply_to": "22579__0_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22579__0_054", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "You do not have the probable cause question before you.\nThis dog was determined to be reliable by the trial court and the Illinois Appellate Court, and it was not part of the Illinois Supreme Court's decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [667.433, 670.527], "stop_times": [670.527, 680.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 667.433}, "reply_to": "22579__0_053", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_055", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "What again in your view is the best distinction from Kyllo?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [680.186], "stop_times": [684.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 680.186}, "reply_to": "22579__0_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__0_056", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Two things.\nOne, the thermal imager used in Kyllo was able to reveal intimate details that individuals--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [684.067, 685.842], "stop_times": [685.842, 692.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 684.067}, "reply_to": "22579__0_055", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_057", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Like what?\nI thought it was just heat?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [692.158, 692.901], "stop_times": [692.901, 694.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 692.158}, "reply_to": "22579__0_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__0_058", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [694.015], "stop_times": [694.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 694.015}, "reply_to": "22579__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__0_059", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--There was some disagreement on the Court about exactly what it revealed, but in terms of intimate details, it then allowed somebody--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [694.759], "stop_times": [702.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 694.759}, "reply_to": "22579__0_058", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_060", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Excuse me.\nWhat details?\nIt is a device that measures heat.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [702.561, 702.894, 704.047], "stop_times": [702.894, 704.047, 706.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 702.561}, "reply_to": "22579__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__0_061", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Because it could measure heat, it could also potentially determine when somebody was taking a bath, taking a sauna, and doing other intimate things in the house.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [706.998], "stop_times": [717.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 706.998}, "reply_to": "22579__0_060", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_062", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I think there was a reference to my lady's bath in the opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [717.505], "stop_times": [721.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 717.505}, "reply_to": "22579__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__0_063", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "A nice turn of phrase, as I recall.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [721.47, 723.616], "stop_times": [723.616, 724.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 721.47}, "reply_to": "22579__0_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__0_064", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "What was... and what was the second?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [724.109], "stop_times": [726.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 724.109}, "reply_to": "22579__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__0_065", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "The second one would be the distinction between houses and cars and the protections that houses are given under the Fourth Amendment, which are far greater than the protections that people have in their cars.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [726.504], "stop_times": [736.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 726.504}, "reply_to": "22579__0_064", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_066", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, so you think if this were a house, that the Kyllo case would apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [736.741], "stop_times": [739.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 736.741}, "reply_to": "22579__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22579__0_067", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "If this were a house in the situation, it would certainly bring out the tension between Kyllo and Place--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [739.22], "stop_times": [746.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 739.22}, "reply_to": "22579__0_066", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_068", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Wasn't there... didn't Kyllo... wasn't what... what the Court was worried about in Kyllo not just the relatively crude heat imaging that existed in the case before it, but the prospect of more and more sophisticated heat imaging which... which we had evidence was already in development that would enable you to see people moving around a room?\nI thought the case referred to that.\nNow, are we going to have more and more... what's going to happen with dogs?\nI... I can't imagine that... that this thing is going anywhere other than smelling narcotics and smelling bombs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [746.855, 770.344, 771.747, 776.371], "stop_times": [770.344, 771.747, 776.371, 784.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 746.855}, "reply_to": "22579__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__0_069", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, but you would argue that the same rationale should apply if, instead of using dogs, you had some sophisticated device that would buzz or ring a bell or something whenever the odor of... of narcotics was present, wouldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [784.107], "stop_times": [798.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 784.107}, "reply_to": "22579__0_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__0_070", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--I would argue that.\nSo if there was an ability to create a... a mechanical dog, for instance, we would again say that the use of a mechanical dog sniff would not be a search and therefore would not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [798.662, 800.065], "stop_times": [800.065, 813.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 798.662}, "reply_to": "22579__0_069", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_071", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "There's nothing magical about the fact that it's an animal rather than a sophisticated device.\nIt has better detection capacity than a human being does.\nThat's the only difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [813.894, 818.519, 822.196], "stop_times": [818.519, 822.196, 823.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.894}, "reply_to": "22579__0_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__0_072", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--You are correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [823.143], "stop_times": [824.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 823.143}, "reply_to": "22579__0_071", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_073", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "In... in discussing the... the answer to the... the Kyllo issue, you... you place an emphasis on the protection given to a house.\nWould you go back to Justice O'Connor's question and my earlier example?\nIs it still your answer that the police can walk dogs around the foundation of the house or take a dog to the front door and ring the bell and see what it... what it sniffs when the door is opened--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [824.342, 834.084, 837.632], "stop_times": [834.084, 837.632, 849.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 824.342}, "reply_to": "22579__0_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22579__0_074", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [849.81], "stop_times": [851.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 849.81}, "reply_to": "22579__0_073", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_075", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--without there being a search and hence no Fourth Amendment concern?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [851.091], "stop_times": [854.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 851.091}, "reply_to": "22579__0_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22579__0_076", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Yes, Justice Souter, I would say that that is possible because the sniff itself is not a search and it only reveals the presence or absence of contraband, which is something that the individual does not have privacy expectations--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [854.928], "stop_times": [871.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 854.928}, "reply_to": "22579__0_075", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_077", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Okay.\nBut then... then the... then there is no significance in the house.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [871.275, 871.608], "stop_times": [871.608, 874.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 871.275}, "reply_to": "22579__0_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22579__0_078", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--There is potentially significance in the house because the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [874.497], "stop_times": [880.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 874.497}, "reply_to": "22579__0_077", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_079", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, when does... when does it occur?\nI mean, if... if... first you say the... the house is... is a matter of significance for Kyllo analysis.\nWe're trying to draw a distinction, if there is one, between Kyllo and this, and you say they can go to the house.\nThey can sniff the foundations.\nThey can go to the front door, et cetera.\nI don't see that the house, in fact, is functioning as a distinction at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [880.274, 881.183, 888.697, 894.52, 896.006, 897.946], "stop_times": [881.183, 888.697, 894.52, 896.006, 897.946, 901.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 880.274}, "reply_to": "22579__0_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22579__0_080", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--This Court's precedents have shown us that in fact Fourth Amendment protections are higher in the home than they are in the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [901.95], "stop_times": [911.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 901.95}, "reply_to": "22579__0_079", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_081", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Oh, I realize that, but it seems to me your basic argument, if I understand it, is there is simply no search here, and because there is no search here, it doesn't matter whether you're dealing with a house or a parking lot or a car on the road.\nNo search is no search.\nSo for purposes of... if I... I want to understand your case, and as I understand it, for purposes of your case, there is no significance in the house because there doesn't have to be.\nThe question doesn't arise because there's no search.\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [911.693, 923.498, 925.067, 934.272, 936.584], "stop_times": [923.498, 925.067, 934.272, 936.584, 937.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 911.693}, "reply_to": "22579__0_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22579__0_082", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Justice Souter, that is absolutely correct.\nA search, as far as we are concerned... and I believe it's based on the precedents of this Court... is a sniff is not a search, and therefore it requires no Fourth Amendment justification.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [937.327, 940.011], "stop_times": [940.011, 952.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 937.327}, "reply_to": "22579__0_081", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_083", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "You said there's no disturbance of one's privacy and so that distinguishes the dog sniff from some other governmental intrusions.\nBut dogs can be frightening, humiliating.\nIt seems to me that there is some association with the idea that I have a right to be let alone by my government and having a large dog circle my car.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [952.727, 965.563, 973.903], "stop_times": [965.563, 973.903, 987.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 952.727}, "reply_to": "22579__0_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__0_084", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "There are in this country millions of dogs, many of the types of dogs that are used by narcotics detection teams, such as Labrador retrievers and shepherds, are identical to the pets that people own.\nWe encounter them in the parks, on the streets, and I would contend that an officer cannot be in the position of making a determination as to whether or not the individual that he encounters is going to be frightened by the dog.\nMr. Justice Stevens, if I may, I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [987.732, 1004.861, 1021.208], "stop_times": [1004.861, 1021.208, 1025.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 987.732}, "reply_to": "22579__0_083", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_085", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Yes, you may save your time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1025.173], "stop_times": [1025.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1025.173}, "reply_to": "22579__0_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__0_086", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1025.545], "stop_times": [1025.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1025.545}, "reply_to": "22579__0_085", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__0_087", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Mr. Wray.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1025.999], "stop_times": [1034.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1025.999}, "reply_to": "22579__0_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__1_000", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThere's no dispute that respondent here was lawfully stopped based on probable cause.\nThere's also no dispute that the entire stop took less than 9 minutes.\nThe question is whether a second officer's use of a drug dog to sniff outside of that car during those 9 minutes required some separate Fourth Amendment justification.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1034.461, 1037.598, 1042.8, 1046.516], "stop_times": [1037.598, 1042.8, 1046.516, 1056.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1034.461}, "reply_to": "22579__0_087", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_001", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Do you agree with... with General Madigan that it doesn't make any difference whether the... the dog is a... is a mechanical instrument or not?\nDo you agree it makes no difference?\nI thought that one of the... one of the points in... in the imaging case was that this was a new technology which didn't exist and that although the ordinary rules in 1791 was that there was no search unless... you know, unless you enter the house or unless you... you physically intrude upon the person's... at least the person's clothes, we made an exception to that rule because of this new technology that enabled you to find out things without having to intrude into the home or into the person.\nNow, but... but this is not a new technology.\nThis is a dog and... and they had that ability in 1791 just as they had it today.\nAnd the rule that when there's no intrusion, there's no search... there's no reason to depart from that rule with respect to a dog although there would be with respect to some sophisticated new technology that would enable you to find out all sorts of things.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1056.918, 1067.981, 1069.838, 1109.674, 1113.306, 1120.736], "stop_times": [1067.981, 1069.838, 1109.674, 1113.306, 1120.736, 1136.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1056.918}, "reply_to": "22579__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__1_002", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1136.257], "stop_times": [1137.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1136.257}, "reply_to": "22579__1_001", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_003", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "It seems to me you shouldn't... you shouldn't assume that... that the fact that this is a canine makes no difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1137.993], "stop_times": [1145.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1137.993}, "reply_to": "22579__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__1_004", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Are you going to rely on the fact that dogs were trained to do this sort of thing back in the 18th century?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1145.773], "stop_times": [1151.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1145.773}, "reply_to": "22579__1_003", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__1_005", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I'm going to rely on... on three distinctions between this case and Kyllo, Justice Stevens.\nThe first is that the three points that the Court looked at in Kyllo were: one, as has already been referenced, the fact that it's a home, the most sacred place under the Fourth Amendment; second, that it revealed certain intimate details; and third, that that was a technology--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1151.534, 1156.652], "stop_times": [1156.652, 1173.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1151.534}, "reply_to": "22579__1_004", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_006", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "It was potentially revealed.\nIt did not actually reveal any details.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1173.249, 1174.939], "stop_times": [1174.939, 1177.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1173.249}, "reply_to": "22579__1_005", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__1_007", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--As... as General Madigan referenced, there is obviously some disagreement within the Court on that issue, but the... the fact was that the technology in Kyllo revealed information about heat in the house which could be thought to reveal intimate details about the house.\nThe third point in Kyllo, which I think Justice Scalia is referring to, is that that was technology that was not in general public use.\nDogs have been used by law enforcement across the country since Place and before to sniff everything from--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1177.418, 1193.143, 1199.914], "stop_times": [1193.143, 1199.914, 1207.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1177.418}, "reply_to": "22579__1_006", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_008", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "But not in 1790.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1207.139], "stop_times": [1208.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1207.139}, "reply_to": "22579__1_007", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__1_009", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1208.132], "stop_times": [1210.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1208.132}, "reply_to": "22579__1_008", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_010", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Did you come here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1210.937], "stop_times": [1211.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1210.937}, "reply_to": "22579__1_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22579__1_011", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "You don't know that, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1211.597], "stop_times": [1212.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1211.597}, "reply_to": "22579__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__1_012", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Did you come here having researched all about dogs in 1790?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1212.219, 1215.645], "stop_times": [1215.645, 1216.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1212.219}, "reply_to": "22579__1_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22579__1_013", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, I cannot, I regret to say, tell you what dogs were doing in 1790.\nI can tell you... and this is maybe a factual thing that might be of interest to the Court... that the dogs who train... who are trained to alert to detect things... it's not that they are sniffing things that all dogs can't already smell.\nIt's rather that they are trained to let the handler know that they've smelt whatever it is they've been trained to smell.\nSo the smells that are coming out of Respondent Caballes' car are exposed to every dog.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1216.221, 1221.256, 1234.797, 1240.454], "stop_times": [1221.256, 1234.797, 1240.454, 1245.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1216.221}, "reply_to": "22579__1_012", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_014", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "But do you really think this would be a different case if the officer had a device that did exactly what the dog... dog did?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1245.905], "stop_times": [1250.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1245.905}, "reply_to": "22579__1_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__1_015", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "We... our position would still be, Justice Stevens, that as long as the device only revealed, as this does--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1250.985], "stop_times": [1257.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1250.985}, "reply_to": "22579__1_014", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_016", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I would think you'd take--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1257.551], "stop_times": [1258.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1257.551}, "reply_to": "22579__1_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__1_017", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--the absence or presence of contraband, it would still be constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1258.294], "stop_times": [1260.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1258.294}, "reply_to": "22579__1_016", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_018", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Why do you rely on the... in... in distinguishing Kyllo, why do you rely on the house if there's no search?\nWhy do you have to rely on the fact that there was a house involved there?\nYou... you listed that as one of your three distinctions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1260.978, 1266.839, 1270.637], "stop_times": [1266.839, 1270.637, 1273.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1260.978}, "reply_to": "22579__1_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22579__1_019", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "We don't believe we have to rely on it, Justice Souter.\nWe do believe that there were three things that were important in Kyllo.\nThe fact that it was a home was one of those things.\nAgain, the... the fact of a home, the fact that it was technology not in general public use, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1273.155, 1275.095, 1279.365, 1282.071], "stop_times": [1275.095, 1279.365, 1282.071, 1287.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1273.155}, "reply_to": "22579__1_018", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_020", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "But that didn't go to whether it was a search or seizure.\nI think it goes to whether it was an unreasonable search or seizure.\nDon't you think so?\nThat what... what might be unreasonable with respect to a home would not be unreasonable with respect to a suitcase?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1287.356, 1289.835, 1293.3, 1293.838], "stop_times": [1289.835, 1293.3, 1293.838, 1300.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1287.356}, "reply_to": "22579__1_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__1_021", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Yes, Justice Scalia, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1300.154], "stop_times": [1302.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1300.154}, "reply_to": "22579__1_020", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_022", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "But... but your... is... is it... I understand it to be your position that there simply is no search here.\nPeriod.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1302.671, 1307.79], "stop_times": [1307.79, 1308.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1302.671}, "reply_to": "22579__1_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22579__1_023", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "That is correct, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1308.244], "stop_times": [1309.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1308.244}, "reply_to": "22579__1_022", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_024", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Because it's a dog sniff.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1309.83], "stop_times": [1310.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1309.83}, "reply_to": "22579__1_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22579__1_025", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "We would... we would submit this is not a search because, as this Court recognized in both Place and Edmond... and the Jacobsen case is also significant because the Court said that the reason this is not a search, there using the dog sniff by analogy, is because it compromises no legitimate privacy interest.\nThe language of the Court in Place is significant because it says that we are aware of no other investigative procedure that is so limited in both the manner in which the information is obtained and in the content of the information revealed.\nThat language goes not only to why it's not a Fourth Amendment search but why the use of the dog sniff during a probable cause traffic stop here, where it doesn't prolong the duration, does not transform an otherwise lawful seizure into an unlawful one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1310.906, 1328.943, 1343.433], "stop_times": [1328.943, 1343.433, 1359.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1310.906}, "reply_to": "22579__1_024", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_026", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "All right.\nDo you... do you think it's... it's reasonable to say that if the police take dogs simply onto private property to sniff the foundations of houses, if they take dogs to the front door and ring the bell so that they hope the door will open, that there is... there is no compromise of a privacy interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1359.697, 1360.113], "stop_times": [1360.113, 1378.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1359.697}, "reply_to": "22579__1_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22579__1_027", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, there would be a question as to whether the officer, the human officer, that is, could be on private property... I take it from your hypothetical, Justice Souter... in the first place.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1378.151, 1387.827], "stop_times": [1387.827, 1388.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1378.151}, "reply_to": "22579__1_026", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_028", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, I mean, the Fourth Amendment analysis after Katz doesn't... doesn't depend on trespass, and... and you have said up to this point that there is no search.\nAnd then you have quite rightly said that we have had as a consideration in our minds analytically whether it's fair to say that what the police were doing involved any compromise of a privacy interest.\nSo I'm assuming... I'm assuming that the police can at least get to the foundation with a dog and they can certainly walk up to the front door and ring the bell.\nAnd if they do that with a dog, for the purpose of letting the dog sniff and alert, if there's anything to alert to, is it fair to say that there is no compromise of the privacy interests of the people who own the house?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1388.47, 1397.675, 1411.217, 1420.133], "stop_times": [1397.675, 1411.217, 1420.133, 1431.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.47}, "reply_to": "22579__1_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22579__1_029", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Our position would be... the answer to that question is yes.\nThe Court does not have to resolve that issue to decide this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1431.362, 1435.281], "stop_times": [1435.281, 1438.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1431.362}, "reply_to": "22579__1_028", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_030", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Of course, we could separate the home from the... from what happened here and still validate the search here if we held that it was a search, but was a reasonable one since all you find is that the person was carrying contraband.\nIt's the only thing that's disclosed.\nWhereas, if you... if you did the same thing with... with regard to a house, which is a more sacrosanct part of one's privacy, it might be an unreasonable search.\nWe... we could reach that result if we wanted to, couldn't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1438.809, 1455.799, 1457.49, 1467.233], "stop_times": [1455.799, 1457.49, 1467.233, 1469.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1438.809}, "reply_to": "22579__1_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__1_031", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I think you could, Justice Scalia.\nIt's important to distinguish--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1469.75, 1471.858], "stop_times": [1471.858, 1473.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1469.75}, "reply_to": "22579__1_030", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_032", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "On the other hand, if it were a drug-selling neighborhood or around a park where drugs are frequently sold, would it be legitimate in your view for the police to take drug-sniffing dogs and walk around the public street where cars are parked around that known drug-selling area and see if they could sniff out some contraband in the cars?\nIs that okay?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1473.094, 1498.319], "stop_times": [1498.319, 1498.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1473.094}, "reply_to": "22579__1_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__1_033", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--We believe it would be okay, Justice O'Connor.\nIt would be important not to use the dogs in a way to constitute a new seizure because in that case, you're not talking--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1498.979, 1501.329], "stop_times": [1501.329, 1508.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1498.979}, "reply_to": "22579__1_032", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_034", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I'm... I'm assuming parked cars.\nYou haven't interrupted anybody.\nNobody is in the car, parked on a public street.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1508.471, 1510.207, 1512.269], "stop_times": [1510.207, 1512.269, 1515.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1508.471}, "reply_to": "22579__1_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__1_035", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--In that instance, we believe that would be acceptable under the Fourth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1515.037], "stop_times": [1520.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1515.037}, "reply_to": "22579__1_034", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_036", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "So you... you give no significance to the fact that this dog sniff was in the course of a lawful stop where the citizen's rights had already been curtailed to a significant extent?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1520.155], "stop_times": [1532.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.155}, "reply_to": "22579__1_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22579__1_037", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "We believe, Justice Kennedy, that the... that that context here makes this an even easier case under the Fourth Amendment, that is, the dog sniff not being a search compromising no legitimate privacy interests during the course of a lawful probable cause stop, which we know from Atwater... the officer could have simply placed the woman under full custodial arrest and taken her down to jail... was not an activity that transformed the seizure into an unlawful one.\nThe Illinois Supreme Court's concern and where we think they got off track was that they were concerned that the use of the dog sniff during this 9-minute traffic stop was that it transformed it... it used the language that it transformed the sniff into a drug investigation.\nWe would submit that the Fourth Amendment is about the reasonableness of searches and seizures and not about what the scope of the government's investigation is.\nAnd in that sense, the court got off track.\nThese... this is a... this is a means that law enforcement has been using properly in reliance on this Court's decision in Place, reinforced just 4 years ago in Edmond, for more than 21 years to detect everything from drugs to bombs to smuggled... we have beagles in the airports that smuggle produce that's being smuggled in.\nDogs are used all over the country with great effectiveness in law enforcement, and the... we... that is a... a technique that we want to encourage law enforcement to pursue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1532.165, 1560.195, 1576.376, 1584.261, 1587.233, 1608.864], "stop_times": [1560.195, 1576.376, 1584.261, 1587.233, 1608.864, 1620.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1532.165}, "reply_to": "22579__1_036", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_038", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Are there... are there any manuals for law enforcement officers with respect to the time and place of using dogs, or it's just open season?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1620.215], "stop_times": [1633.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1620.215}, "reply_to": "22579__1_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__1_039", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, there is extensive training of law enforcement to use dogs.\nIt's a multi-week program that requires--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1633.097, 1638.791], "stop_times": [1638.791, 1641.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1633.097}, "reply_to": "22579__1_038", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_040", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I don't mean the training to make the dog alert properly.\nHow the police will use them, when, under what circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1641.27, 1644.614], "stop_times": [1644.614, 1649.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1641.27}, "reply_to": "22579__1_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__1_041", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, each agency has different policies about when they use dogs and what purpose they're trained for.\nIn this case, as you heard, they're being used in the context of highway interdiction, and so they're trained to sniff around vehicles specifically.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1649.609, 1656.957], "stop_times": [1656.957, 1664.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1649.609}, "reply_to": "22579__1_040", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_042", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Wray.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1664.637], "stop_times": [1666.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1664.637}, "reply_to": "22579__1_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__1_043", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1666.761], "stop_times": [1667.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1666.761}, "reply_to": "22579__1_042", "speaker": "christopher_a_wray"}
{"id": "22579__1_044", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Mr. Meczyk.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1667.321], "stop_times": [1672.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1667.321}, "reply_to": "22579__1_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__2_000", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThe State does not offer any Fourth Amendment justification whatsoever in regards to... in this case.\nIt argues instead that there... there was no need for any justification, and that is incorrect for two reasons.\nThe dog sniff in this case invaded a Fourth Amendment interest of Mr. Caballes in the context of a routine traffic search.\nThe sniff in this case was, in fact, a search.\nAlbeit it was a limited intrusion, it was still a search nonetheless.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1672.893, 1675.661, 1682.924, 1690.066, 1700.84, 1704.184], "stop_times": [1675.661, 1682.924, 1690.066, 1700.84, 1704.184, 1710.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1672.893}, "reply_to": "22579__1_044", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_001", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Why... why do you say that?\nI mean, is... is anything that I observe a search?\nI mean, suppose I... I'm a policeman and... and I'm looking out for, I don't know, people with a nervous tic because I think that that might be somebody who's about to commit a crime or has committed a crime.\nHave I searched that person because I... I observe something external?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1710.788, 1712.357, 1719.622, 1731.76], "stop_times": [1712.357, 1719.622, 1731.76, 1737.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1710.788}, "reply_to": "22579__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_002", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Any observation I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1737.621], "stop_times": [1741.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1737.621}, "reply_to": "22579__2_001", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_003", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Is there no difference between an investigation and a search?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1741.519], "stop_times": [1744.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.519}, "reply_to": "22579__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_004", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--There is in this case... see if I understand you correctly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1744.187], "stop_times": [1749.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1744.187}, "reply_to": "22579__2_003", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_005", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "No.\nIt seems to me your brief and... and your statement here both seem to assume that there's a search whenever the police investigate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1749.881, 1751.079], "stop_times": [1751.079, 1758.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1749.881}, "reply_to": "22579__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_006", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1758.221], "stop_times": [1758.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1758.221}, "reply_to": "22579__2_005", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_007", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "But that's not so.\nThey... one can investigate without searching.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1758.964, 1759.874], "stop_times": [1759.874, 1762.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1758.964}, "reply_to": "22579__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_008", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Well, to... see if I understand your question correctly.\nIf you're looking with someone with that nervous tic, that would be something in open view or plain view.\nThat's not the type of investigation I'm talking about.\nThere is in fact, most respectfully, an investigation technique here.\nThere's an investigation measure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1762.307, 1764.62, 1770.026, 1772.894, 1777.002], "stop_times": [1764.62, 1770.026, 1772.894, 1777.002, 1778.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1762.307}, "reply_to": "22579__2_007", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_009", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Yes, but that isn't the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1778.821], "stop_times": [1779.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1778.821}, "reply_to": "22579__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__2_010", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "What about a policeman who smells marijuana coming out of a car or a residence.\nHe's walking down the street, public street, and he smells marijuana.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1779.276, 1783.074], "stop_times": [1783.074, 1785.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1779.276}, "reply_to": "22579__2_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22579__2_011", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "The only way I can analogize that, Justice Kennedy, is that it... that is akin to a plain smell or plain view.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1785.841], "stop_times": [1792.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1785.841}, "reply_to": "22579__2_010", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_012", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--All right.\nSo once you say that, you realize that there are billions and billions of searches that go on every day that the police don't have to justify at all.\nThey just look around.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1792.983, 1793.477, 1801.073], "stop_times": [1793.477, 1801.073, 1802.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1792.983}, "reply_to": "22579__2_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__2_013", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1802.493], "stop_times": [1803.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1802.493}, "reply_to": "22579__2_012", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_014", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Okay?\nThere are billions of them.\nSo the real question is do they have to give a justification for this.\nAnd the argument that they don't is simply that it's not in the person's house.\nWhen you go out in a public place, even in your car, you might run into people or animals with sharp noses.\nAnd a lot of them can detect marijuana.\nAnd you know, maybe it's a Limburger cheese.\nI don't know.\n[Laughter]\nBut people are sniffing things that they don't sniff through windows into your house, but they do get odors in your car on the street.\nSo this is the kind of search.\nYes, it's a search, but one that the police don't have to justify.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1803.402, 1803.735, 1804.888, 1807.943, 1813.023, 1819.627, 1822.599, 1825.283, 1826.065, 1826.974, 1833.29, 1835.436], "stop_times": [1803.735, 1804.888, 1807.943, 1813.023, 1819.627, 1822.599, 1825.283, 1826.065, 1826.974, 1833.29, 1835.436, 1839.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.402}, "reply_to": "22579__2_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__2_015", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--But this is with a specific investigative tool.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1839.977], "stop_times": [1843.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1839.977}, "reply_to": "22579__2_014", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_016", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, it's a specific investigative tool when I put on my glasses to look through a window.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1843.321], "stop_times": [1848.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1843.321}, "reply_to": "22579__2_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__2_017", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1848.688], "stop_times": [1849.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1848.688}, "reply_to": "22579__2_016", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_018", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I don't see why it has to... why that matters if in fact all... if you go into a car, a police car, and you have... drive through the neighborhood and look around, you are using a specific investigative tool, the police car, to look around and find out what's going on.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1849.431], "stop_times": [1869.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1849.431}, "reply_to": "22579__2_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__2_019", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--This is a far more... most respectfully, this is a far more sophisticated investigative tool.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1869.427], "stop_times": [1875.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1869.427}, "reply_to": "22579__2_018", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_020", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "What I'm trying to get to is in my own mind it's not a question of the tools.\nIt's a question of the expectation of privacy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1875.522, 1878.744], "stop_times": [1878.744, 1881.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1875.522}, "reply_to": "22579__2_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__2_021", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Then maybe I can see if I could answer your question.\nMr. Caballes in this case indeed had an expectation of privacy.\nWhen he was asked by the police officer in this case if he can consent to the search, he said no.\nHe did not want that law enforcement officer looking in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1881.921, 1885.719, 1890.011, 1897.07], "stop_times": [1885.719, 1890.011, 1897.07, 1900.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1881.921}, "reply_to": "22579__2_020", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_022", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "But that never--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1900.497], "stop_times": [1901.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1900.497}, "reply_to": "22579__2_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22579__2_023", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Yes, but both Place and Edmond, opinions from this Court, said sniffs are not searches.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1901.695], "stop_times": [1907.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1901.695}, "reply_to": "22579__2_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__2_024", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1907.063], "stop_times": [1907.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1907.063}, "reply_to": "22579__2_023", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_025", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Do you want us to reverse that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1907.639], "stop_times": [1908.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1907.639}, "reply_to": "22579__2_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__2_026", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, I do not... I do not want you to reverse Place.\nPlace, no pun intended--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1908.837, 1913.378], "stop_times": [1913.378, 1914.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1908.837}, "reply_to": "22579__2_025", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_027", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, and Edmond also said it's not a search.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1914.576], "stop_times": [1917.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1914.576}, "reply_to": "22579__2_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__2_028", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Well, there were--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1917.631], "stop_times": [1918.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1917.631}, "reply_to": "22579__2_027", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_029", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "It was the stop of the cars in that case that caused the result.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1918.54], "stop_times": [1923.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1918.54}, "reply_to": "22579__2_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__2_030", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--The way I understand Place it was contextually limited.\nIn Place, the whole purpose of the seizure, the taking of the luggage, was to submit it to a drug-detection sniff.\nThat is the opinion authored by Your Honor, that specifically stated... I'm not going to say took for granted, but it specifically stated that the... the context... and that's what we have to look at Place... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1923.248, 1927.622, 1935.22], "stop_times": [1927.622, 1935.22, 1945.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1923.248}, "reply_to": "22579__2_029", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_031", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, fine.\nWe had a context there where we supported it, but in the process said the sniff, the dog sniff, was not a search.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1945.501, 1945.806], "stop_times": [1945.806, 1951.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.501}, "reply_to": "22579__2_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__2_032", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Well, I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1951.733], "stop_times": [1952.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1951.733}, "reply_to": "22579__2_031", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_033", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "So you want us to say something else here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1952.659], "stop_times": [1954.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1952.659}, "reply_to": "22579__2_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__2_034", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Well, I think that first in... in that case, in Place, the... the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1954.705], "stop_times": [1958.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1954.705}, "reply_to": "22579__2_033", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_035", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "The context here was a legitimate traffic stop.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1958.67], "stop_times": [1961.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1958.67}, "reply_to": "22579__2_034", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__2_036", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--But it was... unlike Place, the legitimate traffic stop here was completely unrelated to the purpose of the dog sniff.\nThere was an absolute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1961.187, 1969.36], "stop_times": [1969.36, 1970.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1961.187}, "reply_to": "22579__2_035", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_037", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "The dog sniff is not a search.\nWhat difference does it make?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1970.846, 1972.583], "stop_times": [1972.583, 1973.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1970.846}, "reply_to": "22579__2_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__2_038", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Well, again, I would again respectfully assert that the dog sniff is a search and the way Place was decided, first, the decision had to be made, in the context of... of that case, what was worse.\nWhat were they going to do with the luggage?\nWere they going to open the luggage first?\nSo, of course, the Court had to decide in that case that it wasn't that kind of a... a search.\nIt wasn't as egregious a search as actually opening the luggage.\nThen you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [1973.985, 1985.79, 1987.731, 1989.505, 1996.443, 1999.786], "stop_times": [1985.79, 1987.731, 1989.505, 1996.443, 1999.786, 2000.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1973.985}, "reply_to": "22579__2_037", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_039", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "This... the trunk of the car didn't have to be opened here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2000.529], "stop_times": [2003.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.529}, "reply_to": "22579__2_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__2_040", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2003.213], "stop_times": [2004.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2003.213}, "reply_to": "22579__2_039", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_041", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "The trunk of the vehicle did not have to be opened here.\nYou're talking about a dog sniffing on the exterior of the vehicle that was legitimately stopped for a traffic violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2004.494, 2007.838], "stop_times": [2007.838, 2015.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2004.494}, "reply_to": "22579__2_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__2_042", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Again, in this context, unlike in Place, there was absolutely no relationship between the... the dog sniff and the dog sniff of Caballes' trunk and the sniff of the luggage that was placed at LaGuardia Airport in Place.\nThere's a great distinction.\nMoreover--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2015.64, 2029.302, 2030.417], "stop_times": [2029.302, 2030.417, 2031.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.64}, "reply_to": "22579__2_041", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_043", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Suppose a policeman follows me around.\nHe just... just follows me around, observing with his... with plain eyes.\nNow, is that a search?\nDoes he need probable cause to do that?\nNow, he's wasting his time and he's wasting public money and maybe he should get fired for doing it, if he has no reason to follow me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2031.365, 2034.503, 2040.819, 2041.274, 2044.163], "stop_times": [2034.503, 2040.819, 2041.274, 2044.163, 2051.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2031.365}, "reply_to": "22579__2_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_044", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--It's not a search.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2051.222], "stop_times": [2052.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2051.222}, "reply_to": "22579__2_043", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_045", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "And maybe... maybe I'd have a harassment action against him if he does it, you know, blatantly.\nBut is that a search?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2052.13, 2059.19], "stop_times": [2059.19, 2060.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.13}, "reply_to": "22579__2_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_046", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "It is not a search.\nIf he follows you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2060.304, 2060.759], "stop_times": [2060.759, 2061.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2060.304}, "reply_to": "22579__2_045", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_047", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Okay.\nSo... so the mere fact that one is in investigating something doesn't make it a search.\nWhat does make it a search?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2061.685, 2062.161, 2066.498], "stop_times": [2062.161, 2066.498, 2067.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.685}, "reply_to": "22579__2_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_048", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2067.696], "stop_times": [2068.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2067.696}, "reply_to": "22579__2_047", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_049", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "The fact that you find out something?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2068.438], "stop_times": [2070.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2068.438}, "reply_to": "22579__2_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_050", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--I think here the most distinctive point here is that Caballes had already been stopped unlike the hypothetical that you just presented to me.\nCaballes was already stopped for one... for probable cause.\nThere's no question about that.\nBut then now the police launch into a wholly unrelated investigation that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2070.175, 2077.355, 2080.411, 2081.525], "stop_times": [2077.355, 2080.411, 2081.525, 2088.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2070.175}, "reply_to": "22579__2_049", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_051", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "You think it would be better if he hadn't been stopped?\nIf... if they just... just randomly walked up to somebody who was going through a toll booth and had the dog sniff the car, you think that would be a better case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2088.212, 2090.32], "stop_times": [2090.32, 2101.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2088.212}, "reply_to": "22579__2_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_052", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2101.959], "stop_times": [2103.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2101.959}, "reply_to": "22579__2_051", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_053", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--for allowing it than... than yours?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2103.323], "stop_times": [2104.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2103.323}, "reply_to": "22579__2_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_054", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Even in that case, even in a hypothetical where they used the dog for a toll booth, I have a problem with that.\nThat to me is a search.\nIt's different than... I would assert it's different than if they walked... one of the hypotheticals that the Justices asked my adversary in this case, when they asked, well, what if they walked the dog instead around a... parked cars or parked cars at a stadium?\nIt depends for what purpose they want to walk those parked... that dog around those parked cars.\nMy assertion is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2104.742, 2110.01, 2111.141, 2125.159, 2130.194], "stop_times": [2110.01, 2111.141, 2125.159, 2130.194, 2131.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2104.742}, "reply_to": "22579__2_053", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_055", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, they said it's to find out if there's any contraband.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2131.392], "stop_times": [2134.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2131.392}, "reply_to": "22579__2_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__2_056", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2134.614], "stop_times": [2135.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2134.614}, "reply_to": "22579__2_055", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_057", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "The answer was they are at liberty... the police are at liberty to use dogs to find contraband.\nAnd your... Illinois I think was very candid with the Court in saying we have taken from your decisions that a dog sniff is not a search.\nSo anything else is a matter of police policy.\nIt had nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2135.85, 2146.874, 2158.141, 2161.856], "stop_times": [2146.874, 2158.141, 2161.856, 2163.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2135.85}, "reply_to": "22579__2_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__2_058", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, I... I strongly differ.\nI have to look at the purpose that they are going to use the dog for.\nThis Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2163.714, 2166.853, 2169.825], "stop_times": [2166.853, 2169.825, 2170.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2163.714}, "reply_to": "22579__2_057", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_059", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, does it matter if, for instance, in today's world on Capitol Hill we're concerned about terrorist attacks.\nWhat if the dog is trained to alert to explosives?\nNow, can the police just decide they're going to sniff any car that's parked on Capitol Hill?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2170.318, 2177.377, 2181.797], "stop_times": [2177.377, 2181.797, 2189.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.318}, "reply_to": "22579__2_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__2_060", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, it depends on the purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2189.144], "stop_times": [2191.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2189.144}, "reply_to": "22579__2_059", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_061", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Yes or no, in your view.\nThe purpose is to disclose potential explosives in a parked vehicle.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2191.085, 2192.821], "stop_times": [2192.821, 2198.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2191.085}, "reply_to": "22579__2_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__2_062", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "The answer is yes.\nI have no problem whatsoever.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2198.698, 2199.918], "stop_times": [2199.918, 2201.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2198.698}, "reply_to": "22579__2_061", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_063", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Wherever it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2201.404], "stop_times": [2202.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2201.404}, "reply_to": "22579__2_062", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22579__2_064", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Wherever it is because I look at it as a public safety exception.\nAnd this Court in the Edmond case specifically condemned a general search... a general crime... let me use the exact words.\nGeneral interest in crime control, to quote the Edmond case.\nAnd that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2202.109, 2205.574, 2216.615, 2223.49], "stop_times": [2205.574, 2216.615, 2223.49, 2224.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2202.109}, "reply_to": "22579__2_063", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_065", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I still want to go back to my question because I think you may have an answer to it and I want to focus you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2224.317], "stop_times": [2229.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2224.317}, "reply_to": "22579__2_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__2_066", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--I'm struggling, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2229.025], "stop_times": [2229.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2229.025}, "reply_to": "22579__2_065", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_067", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--I want to focus you on the question.\nI think what you're doing, which is a reasonable thing to do, but it isn't my approach, look to the English definition of search.\nI say forget that.\nLet's look to the Fourth Amendment because there are a whole range of searches that don't even fall within the Fourth Amendment in the sense that we don't need a justification.\nAnd I take Place as saying that dog sniffs is one of those, whether it does or doesn't use the word English search.\nSo I want to know why it is that this dog search is one of the ones that's a Fourth Amendment search, i.e., one of the ones that requires a justification in terms of what the Fourth Amendment is about, privacy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2229.768, 2231.087, 2238.313, 2240.004, 2249.375, 2256.062], "stop_times": [2231.087, 2238.313, 2240.004, 2249.375, 2256.062, 2272.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2229.768}, "reply_to": "22579__2_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__2_068", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "It invades a public... I'm sorry.\nIt invades a private space that in this particular case the respondent Caballes had a privacy interest in, that he wanted to exclude the whole world from going inside his trunk.\nThat's the difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2272.78, 2275.587, 2290.53], "stop_times": [2275.587, 2290.53, 2292.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.78}, "reply_to": "22579__2_067", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_069", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Yes, but you don't respond to one point in Place, if I remember correctly.\nIt must be a legitimate expectation of privacy, and if the only thing the dog can detect is something illegitimate, how can you say there's an invasion of a legitimate expectation in privacy?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2292.016, 2295.527], "stop_times": [2295.527, 2307.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2292.016}, "reply_to": "22579__2_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__2_070", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, it is... it's true that one does not have an expectation of privacy in contraband, but by the same token, I have an expectation or Mr. Caballes had an expectation of... of privacy of what's inside that closed trunk, his car.\nThe Carroll doctrine is still good law.\nWe still apply the Fourth Amendment in cars.\nIt's true that the home is sacrosanct, but just because it's a home, it's not a talisman where... where the Fourth Amendment no longer applies.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2307.044, 2325.742, 2328.054, 2331.026], "stop_times": [2325.742, 2328.054, 2331.026, 2338.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2307.044}, "reply_to": "22579__2_069", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_071", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "There was something you said in... in your brief that I thought was unclear.\nSo may I ask you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2338.745, 2343.453], "stop_times": [2343.453, 2346.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2338.745}, "reply_to": "22579__2_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__2_072", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2346.63], "stop_times": [2347.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2346.63}, "reply_to": "22579__2_071", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_073", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--if Officer Gillette, the one who did the arrest for speeding, had a dog in the back of his car, instead of having the second officer come with the dog, would it have been permissible?\nI thought you had conceded that it would be a different situation if the dog was already there when the car stopped.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2347.373, 2363.803], "stop_times": [2363.803, 2370.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2347.373}, "reply_to": "22579__2_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__2_074", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "First of all, Justice Ginsburg, my recollection is that Trooper Gillette, who was the officer who stopped Caballes, did not have a... a dog in the car.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2370.036], "stop_times": [2382.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2370.036}, "reply_to": "22579__2_073", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_075", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "No, he didn't, but I'm asking you to imagine that he did.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2382.296], "stop_times": [2385.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.296}, "reply_to": "22579__2_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__2_076", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I see.\nIf he had a dog in the car and the dog just happened to have alerted without his cuing the dog or walking the dog... and I'll answer that in a moment too... that would be pure serendipity.\nThat might happen.\nIf... if the dog just happened to have alerted.\nBut if the troopers deliberately drove the car close by... and in reality, that's not what happens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2385.722, 2386.111, 2399.636, 2400.417, 2403.389], "stop_times": [2386.111, 2399.636, 2400.417, 2403.389, 2410.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2385.722}, "reply_to": "22579__2_075", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_077", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "No.\nI would like to take this scenario as it is except that when the officer gets out of the car, his dog comes with him.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2410.902, 2411.068], "stop_times": [2411.068, 2418.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2410.902}, "reply_to": "22579__2_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__2_078", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2418.294], "stop_times": [2420.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2418.294}, "reply_to": "22579__2_077", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_079", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "This is very... make no other changes except that Gillette has the dog and Gillette with the dog go to Mr. Caballes' car.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2420.595], "stop_times": [2430.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2420.595}, "reply_to": "22579__2_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__2_080", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "My understanding of the way this works, Justice Ginsburg, is that he just couldn't go up to the car without... and the dog would alert.\nMy understanding of the way these dogs are trained is that they specifically... that the officer has to walk the dog around the car, the vehicle, first of all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2430.133, 2438.594], "stop_times": [2438.594, 2448.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2430.133}, "reply_to": "22579__2_079", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_081", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "He does that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2448.253], "stop_times": [2448.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2448.253}, "reply_to": "22579__2_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_082", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "He does that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2448.83], "stop_times": [2449.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2448.83}, "reply_to": "22579__2_081", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_083", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Yes, in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2449.452], "stop_times": [2450.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2449.452}, "reply_to": "22579__2_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_084", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "He does that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2450.4], "stop_times": [2451.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2450.4}, "reply_to": "22579__2_083", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_085", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2451.31], "stop_times": [2451.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.31}, "reply_to": "22579__2_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_086", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "To cue the dog.\nIn other words, tell him it's not playtime anymore, that he has to work.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2451.803, 2452.629], "stop_times": [2452.629, 2455.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2451.803}, "reply_to": "22579__2_085", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_087", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2455.868], "stop_times": [2456.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.868}, "reply_to": "22579__2_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_088", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "To trigger something in the... in the canine brain.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2456.172], "stop_times": [2458.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2456.172}, "reply_to": "22579__2_087", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_089", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2458.113], "stop_times": [2458.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2458.113}, "reply_to": "22579__2_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_090", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "But you... I'm--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2458.568], "stop_times": [2459.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2458.568}, "reply_to": "22579__2_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__2_091", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Would it be bad?\nWould it be bad if that's what he did?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2459.561, 2459.894], "stop_times": [2459.894, 2461.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.561}, "reply_to": "22579__2_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_092", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "It wouldn't be bad that's what... well, yes.\nIn this case it's very bad because it's a search.\nThere's no question.\nI'm not coming off of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2461.63, 2463.859, 2466.21, 2467.036], "stop_times": [2463.859, 2466.21, 2467.036, 2468.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2461.63}, "reply_to": "22579__2_091", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_093", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--But I'm... I'm trying to understand what you meant in your brief when you said if the dog had been in Gillette's car when Gillette stopped Caballes, the situation would have been different.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2468.029], "stop_times": [2484.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2468.029}, "reply_to": "22579__2_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__2_094", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I... I think what I meant there... there would have been... it would have been purely happenstance, almost like plain view.\nIt would have been... without him even cuing the dog or starting to walk the dog around, my answer to that Justice Ginsburg is that that would have been all right.\nExcept now that... the more I think about it, I'm not so sure that it would be all right.\nAnd my answer to... and the reason for that is I think in that case the officer, if he could do such a thing and the dog would alert, would be exploiting the situation, would just be taking the dog and walking him around the car and seeing that the dog alerted.\nSo in other words, there... there would be, I think, an exploitation of... of the... of the traffic stop.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2484.126, 2492.549, 2501.382, 2506.296, 2520.125], "stop_times": [2492.549, 2501.382, 2506.296, 2520.125, 2525.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2484.126}, "reply_to": "22579__2_093", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_095", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "So then it really makes no difference whether it was Gillette who had the dog in his car or whether the dispatcher called another officer who had the dog.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2525.121], "stop_times": [2535.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2525.121}, "reply_to": "22579__2_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__2_096", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2535.152], "stop_times": [2536.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2535.152}, "reply_to": "22579__2_095", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_097", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "It doesn't... so you're retracting that.\nYou, I think, were asked but I'm... I'm not sure you fully answered.\nSuppose the police, as Atwater would allow, arrested, made a full arrest of Caballes, and then they impound his car.\nIn the place where they put it, couldn't they have a dog go around the car there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2536.228, 2539.572, 2545.183, 2557.776], "stop_times": [2539.572, 2545.183, 2557.776, 2566.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2536.228}, "reply_to": "22579__2_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__2_098", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Yes.\nI... if we had an Atwater situation... in this case there wasn't an Atwater situation because there was first a warning given.\nYou're correct.\nThere was a warning given.\nI'm sorry.\nThe officer Gillette told Caballes he was going to give him a warning.\nSo unlike the Knowles--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2566.526, 2568.383, 2578.414, 2579.363, 2581.22, 2582.129, 2584.936], "stop_times": [2568.383, 2578.414, 2579.363, 2581.22, 2582.129, 2584.936, 2586.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.526}, "reply_to": "22579__2_097", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_099", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "But he could have.\nHe could have.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2586.422, 2587.044, 2587.991], "stop_times": [2587.044, 2587.991, 2588.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2586.422}, "reply_to": "22579__2_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__2_100", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--He could have, but he didn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2588.446], "stop_times": [2589.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2588.446}, "reply_to": "22579__2_099", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_101", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--is... is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2589.189], "stop_times": [2589.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.189}, "reply_to": "22579__2_100", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__2_102", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "He didn't.\nInstead, he chose to treat this as more of a Knowles situation.\nThis case is... is on all fours, no pun intended, like Knowles.\nIn other words, in the... in Knowles v. Iowa, the Court... a case of this... I'm sorry.\nLet me untwist my tongue.\nIn Knowles v. Iowa, you had a... you had a traffic stop and after the traffic stop, there was a statute that said unrelated to the traffic stop, you can go in and search.\nAnd this is the same thing.\nThis officer here Gillette treated Caballes as the officer in Knowles in... treated Mr. Knowles in Iowa.\nIt's the exact same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2589.932, 2591.584, 2596.785, 2601.244, 2606.529, 2607.476, 2617.219, 2619.737, 2627.555], "stop_times": [2591.584, 2596.785, 2601.244, 2606.529, 2607.476, 2617.219, 2619.737, 2627.555, 2628.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2589.932}, "reply_to": "22579__2_101", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_103", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "No, but the... the difficulty that I have with that argument is take the... take the case of... of the arrestable offense in which it is undoubtedly the case that although the police don't normally arrest, they... they can.\nYour... if I understand your argument, you're saying if they, in fact, do arrest, they may then take the dog around the car, and indeed, I presume you would agree, they could make an inventory search because they've got to protect themselves against claims that they lost property and so on.\nSo there's no question that in that case, as... as you have argued it, they could make a full-blown search and... and certainly can use the dog.\nBut if they choose not to arrest on the highway, they can't.\nMy problem is how can you say that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in case number two if you admit that the police can search in case number one.\nHow does that affect the reasonable expectation of privacy?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2628.67, 2640.709, 2658.292, 2667.951, 2671.666, 2683.183], "stop_times": [2640.709, 2658.292, 2667.951, 2671.666, 2683.183, 2687.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.67}, "reply_to": "22579__2_102", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22579__2_104", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "To me, once a person is told that he is not going to be under arrest, it changes the whole complexion of the case.\nI think it's a completely different... a completely different scenario.\nWe don't have an arrest.\nIt doesn't matter.\nAtwater--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2687.642, 2695.898, 2699.985, 2701.721, 2702.668], "stop_times": [2695.898, 2699.985, 2701.721, 2702.668, 2703.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2687.642}, "reply_to": "22579__2_103", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_105", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Could the officer change his mind?\nI mean, he... he did say I'm just going to give you a citation, and then he said, mind if I search your car.\nThis is before the... the dog showed up.\nAnd suppose the person who had been speeding said, yes, I mind.\nDon't search my car.\nAnd then the police said, well, in that case I'm going to arrest you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2703.595, 2704.793, 2711.275, 2713.959, 2719.903, 2721.1], "stop_times": [2704.793, 2711.275, 2713.959, 2719.903, 2721.1, 2725.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2703.595}, "reply_to": "22579__2_104", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__2_106", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--It's a difficult question, but I have to look at what... I think reasonableness is judged.\nAgain, I'm going to remember what the... those cases taught.\nI think what Knowles taught, that reasonableness is judged by what the police actually do as opposed to what they might have done.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2725.476, 2734.309, 2738.396], "stop_times": [2734.309, 2738.396, 2747.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2725.476}, "reply_to": "22579__2_105", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_107", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Mr. Meczyk, I assume that your answer to whether it's lawful to have a... a dog at a bus depot just to sniff the bags of people who were coming off, without stopping them, but just... just to have the dogs there, that's unlawful.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2747.312], "stop_times": [2769.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.312}, "reply_to": "22579__2_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_108", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "It depends--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2769.482], "stop_times": [2773.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2769.482}, "reply_to": "22579__2_107", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_109", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "For narcotics, not for bombs, not for... just... just for narcotics.\nThe police think, you know, a lot of narcotics goes on interstate buses.\nWe're going to put a dog in the bus depot.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2773.03, 2776.374, 2780.915], "stop_times": [2776.374, 2780.915, 2782.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2773.03}, "reply_to": "22579__2_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_110", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--It's a little less problematic to me, Justice Scalia, than the type of stop I'm talking about here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2782.873], "stop_times": [2789.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2782.873}, "reply_to": "22579__2_109", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_111", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2789.089], "stop_times": [2789.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2789.089}, "reply_to": "22579__2_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_112", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "It's a little less problematic.\nOne, because it's a public place and I... I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2789.56, 2791.501], "stop_times": [2791.501, 2795.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2789.56}, "reply_to": "22579__2_111", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_113", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, so is the road, for Pete's sake.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2795.504], "stop_times": [2796.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2795.504}, "reply_to": "22579__2_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_114", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--I know, but... but here I think there's a lesser expectation of privacy.\nWell, I don't even want to go that far.\nI... I have to answer your question.\nI think that submitting the dogs without any... submitting the luggage without any reasonable articulable suspicion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2796.785, 2800.666, 2802.441, 2803.844], "stop_times": [2800.666, 2802.441, 2803.844, 2811.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2796.785}, "reply_to": "22579__2_113", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_115", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2811.357], "stop_times": [2811.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.357}, "reply_to": "22579__2_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_116", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--unlike the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2811.812], "stop_times": [2812.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2811.812}, "reply_to": "22579__2_115", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_117", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2812.639], "stop_times": [2813.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2812.639}, "reply_to": "22579__2_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_118", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--unlike the case in... in Place, that that to me is still a search.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2813.132, 2817.18], "stop_times": [2817.18, 2817.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2813.132}, "reply_to": "22579__2_117", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_119", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Okay.\nThat's... that's what I think you should say.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2817.552, 2817.885], "stop_times": [2817.885, 2819.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2817.552}, "reply_to": "22579__2_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_120", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--And I am saying it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2819.288], "stop_times": [2820.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2819.288}, "reply_to": "22579__2_119", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_121", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Yes, but that isn't... I take it you don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2820.031], "stop_times": [2822.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2820.031}, "reply_to": "22579__2_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__2_122", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Sorry it took me so long.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2822.798], "stop_times": [2823.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2822.798}, "reply_to": "22579__2_121", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_123", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Is there anything wrong with the policeman himself taking a sniff?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2823.624], "stop_times": [2828.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2823.624}, "reply_to": "22579__2_122", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__2_124", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "It goes back to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2828.082], "stop_times": [2830.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2828.082}, "reply_to": "22579__2_123", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_125", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "It's the great Limburger cheese robbery.\n[Laughter]\nHe stopped the car and he walks around.\nAnything wrong with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2830.106, 2831.925, 2832.501, 2834.73], "stop_times": [2831.925, 2832.501, 2834.73, 2836.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2830.106}, "reply_to": "22579__2_124", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__2_126", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--There's nothing wrong if he can detect Limburger cheese.\nThat to me is like plain smell.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2836.422, 2839.105], "stop_times": [2839.105, 2840.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2836.422}, "reply_to": "22579__2_125", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_127", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2840.675], "stop_times": [2841.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2840.675}, "reply_to": "22579__2_126", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__2_128", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "As awful as that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2841.213], "stop_times": [2842.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2841.213}, "reply_to": "22579__2_127", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_129", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "So plain--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2842.122], "stop_times": [2842.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2842.122}, "reply_to": "22579__2_128", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__2_130", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--As awful as it might be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2842.699], "stop_times": [2843.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2842.699}, "reply_to": "22579__2_129", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_131", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--All right.\nSo... so what you're saying is... and this must tie back to reasonable expectation of privacy.\nAll right?\nBecause it's okay for the policeman to do it, and it's okay for dogs to do it in the bus station, and it's okay to use a dog not in the bus station with a car if in fact you actually are going to put him under arrest, although here you had probable cause to do so, I take it.\nAnd now you have to draw a pretty fine line.\nBut it's not okay where it's not the bus station, but it is the car and in fact the dog is doing the sniffing... and there are a lot of dogs around that can sniff... and you did have probable cause but you didn't say it.\nAnd in face of Justice O'Connor's case which said that... you see.\nWell, I mean, this is... this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2843.814, 2844.185, 2849.924, 2850.584, 2868.128, 2870.646, 2884.188, 2889.76], "stop_times": [2844.185, 2849.924, 2850.584, 2868.128, 2870.646, 2884.188, 2889.76, 2890.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2843.814}, "reply_to": "22579__2_130", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__2_132", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--I guess you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2890.753], "stop_times": [2891.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2890.753}, "reply_to": "22579__2_131", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_133", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--I mean, I'm not saying you couldn't draw that line, but I'm saying it's pretty tough I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2891.329], "stop_times": [2895.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2891.329}, "reply_to": "22579__2_132", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__2_134", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--I guess you're telling me I'm... I'm the underdog in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2895.21], "stop_times": [2897.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2895.21}, "reply_to": "22579__2_133", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_135", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Well, I don't know.\n[Laughter]\nI'm right?\nAm I... I mean, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2897.523, 2898.182, 2899.009, 2900.595], "stop_times": [2898.182, 2899.009, 2900.595, 2901.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2897.523}, "reply_to": "22579__2_134", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__2_136", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "It is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2901.71], "stop_times": [2902.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2901.71}, "reply_to": "22579__2_135", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_137", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--And you're going to draw the... well, I don't want you to repeat yourself necessarily.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2902.081], "stop_times": [2904.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2902.081}, "reply_to": "22579__2_136", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22579__2_138", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--No.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2904.31, 2904.476], "stop_times": [2904.476, 2904.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2904.31}, "reply_to": "22579__2_137", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_139", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "But you had already drawn the line at a different place than Justice Breyer suggested because in response to Justice Scalia, you said if it... if it were going into the bus terminal just to sniff for narcotics, unlike explosives, it would be an impermissible search.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2904.809], "stop_times": [2923.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2904.809}, "reply_to": "22579__2_138", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__2_140", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--Yes, correct, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2923.302], "stop_times": [2923.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2923.302}, "reply_to": "22579__2_139", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_141", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "That would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2923.924], "stop_times": [2924.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2923.924}, "reply_to": "22579__2_140", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22579__2_142", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--That is correct, Justice Ginsburg.\nWhat makes this particular so--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2924.417, 2925.614], "stop_times": [2925.614, 2927.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2924.417}, "reply_to": "22579__2_141", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_143", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "But... but is... why... why don't you simply say, look... have a very simple line.\nIf they can arrest, they can sniff.\nIf they can't arrest, they can't sniff without individualized suspicion going to drugs or whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2927.35, 2931.353, 2932.923], "stop_times": [2931.353, 2932.923, 2938.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2927.35}, "reply_to": "22579__2_142", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22579__2_144", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--I would agree with that if I use an... if... if you're referring to an Atwater type scenario.\nIf they have probable... if they decide to arrest, even though it's on a minor traffic case, such as Atwater, which was a seat belt, as long as it's... if... if it's minor and if the officer elects to choose to do a full-blown arrest, then all the consequences that follow from that arrest are... it's going to happen.\nExcuse me.\nIt's going to happen.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2938.617, 2944.561, 2963.675, 2963.963], "stop_times": [2944.561, 2963.675, 2963.963, 2964.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2938.617}, "reply_to": "22579__2_143", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_145", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "But what... what is the answer to the reasonable expectation to privacy question in that case?\nIsn't your expectation of privacy identical, whatever it may be, or isn't the reasonable expectation of privacy identical, whatever that may be, without regard to the discretionary decision of the officer to arrest or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2964.624, 2970.279], "stop_times": [2970.279, 2985.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.624}, "reply_to": "22579__2_144", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22579__2_146", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I... I think that when the officer does a full-blown arrest, as was envisioned in Atwater, you know that you... the person knows that he or she does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2985.429], "stop_times": [2998.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2985.429}, "reply_to": "22579__2_145", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_147", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "But you're saying that the... the reasonable expectation of privacy depends upon the officer's discretionary judgment whether or not to arrest.\nIsn't that what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [2998.227, 3004.709], "stop_times": [3004.709, 3006.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2998.227}, "reply_to": "22579__2_146", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22579__2_148", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Essentially yes, because I think that the officer takes a physical action.\nIt's just more than words.\nIt's also his deeds.\nI think in Atwater, unlike Knowles... in Atwater, in that case, I think the... the officer did make an election, and there was a full-blown or a full-fledged arrest.\nAnd I think there your... your reasonable expectation to privacy does, in fact, go out the window.\nBut this is so different.\nThis was just a warning.\nPeriod.\nIt was nothing worse than a warning.\nWhat makes this stop so pernicious is that it takes place in front of the whole world and is accusatory.\nIt is profoundly embarrassing, and it is humiliating to everyone on the street.\nSo if a person is stopped and the officer just decides to stop you for a minor traffic offense, that's the worst part about this case.\nJust a minor traffic offense, really a frivolous offense, basically what any law-abiding citizen would happen to... it could happen to anyone.\nAnd as this Court has said, even in Whren, there are so many multiple technical violations of... of... technical violations--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [3006.855, 3010.942, 3012.595, 3013.709, 3024.499, 3029.806, 3031.375, 3033.521, 3033.976, 3036.288, 3044.173, 3050.777, 3059.201, 3067.29], "stop_times": [3010.942, 3012.595, 3013.709, 3024.499, 3029.806, 3031.375, 3033.521, 3033.976, 3036.288, 3044.173, 3050.777, 3059.201, 3067.29, 3074.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3006.855}, "reply_to": "22579__2_147", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_149", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "I mean, I think it's worse if... if you're subjected to it without having committed any violation at all.\nEvery time I travel abroad and come back into the country, customs officers have dogs and... and they parade the dogs through... through the baggage terminal.\nDo... do I feel offended by that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [3074.926, 3082.811, 3096.353], "stop_times": [3082.811, 3096.353, 3100.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3074.926}, "reply_to": "22579__2_148", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_150", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--No, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [3100.272], "stop_times": [3101.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3100.272}, "reply_to": "22579__2_149", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_151", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "This isn't a public safety matter.\nThey're... they're not smelling for bombs.\nThey're... they're smelling for contraband.\nAnd according to you, that is bad.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [3101.098, 3102.75, 3104.813, 3107.208], "stop_times": [3102.75, 3104.813, 3107.208, 3109.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3101.098}, "reply_to": "22579__2_150", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_152", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "--That... in that situation, when you enter the country... and this Court has said many times again... it's a border search.\nThere's nothing that I can argue against the border search.\nIt's the... or the functional equivalent of the border.\nThat is a border search.\nI bring luggage to the airport, in today's world I have a lesser expectation of privacy.\nIf I know I'm traveling abroad and coming into the United States, that's different.\nThat's different in an airport.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [3109.437, 3115.549, 3117.695, 3120.045, 3121.41, 3125.868, 3129.705], "stop_times": [3115.549, 3117.695, 3120.045, 3121.41, 3125.868, 3129.705, 3130.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3109.437}, "reply_to": "22579__2_151", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_153", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Okay.\nA bus station is different, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [3130.82, 3131.646], "stop_times": [3131.646, 3133.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3130.82}, "reply_to": "22579__2_152", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22579__2_154", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "A bus station here inside the United States is different I think.\nI... I look at your airport hypothetical as being... as dealing with a border.\nIf it's not at a border and I use your hypothetical, it's at O'Hare Airport or Reagan International Airport and they bring a dog up to sniff for drugs at the carousel, that to me is a search.\nIt's like... I think you said in one opinion once if it... you used the duck analogy, well, if it walks like a duck or quacks like a duck.\nHere it's still a search.\nIt walks like a... a dog and it acts like a dog, but its specific function is in fact to search out in public and humiliate people.\nIf there are any further questions.\nI respectfully ask this honorable Court to affirm the wise judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [3133.132, 3136.354, 3140.812, 3151.253, 3158.19, 3160.42, 3169.336, 3173.794, 3179.572], "stop_times": [3136.354, 3140.812, 3151.253, 3158.19, 3160.42, 3169.336, 3173.794, 3179.572, 3180.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3133.132}, "reply_to": "22579__2_153", "speaker": "ralph_e_meczyk"}
{"id": "22579__2_155", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Meczyk.\nGeneral Madigan, you have I think about 3 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [3180.026, 3181.346], "stop_times": [3181.346, 3185.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3180.026}, "reply_to": "22579__2_154", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__3_000", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens.\nLet me make three brief points.\nNumber one, Justice Ginsburg asked a question about something that was in the respondent's brief, whether or not it made a difference if a dog was with Master Sergeant Gillette when he initiated the stop or if the dog was later brought, as was the case here, by Trooper Graham.\nReally what Mr. Caballes is arguing for here is an inadvertence requirement which this Court very clearly held in Horton, there is no such requirement of inadvertence.\nAnd so a law officer, if they are at a lawful vantage point, do have the ability to detect incriminating facts.\nThat is not something that has to occur inadvertently.\nIt can happen intentionally.\nSecond, Justice Scalia asked a question about plain view, and similar to plain view, a dog sniff does not effect an incremental search or seizure.\nAnd therefore, similar to plain view, a dog sniff does not require Fourth Amendment justification.\nAnd let me finally acknowledge something that Justice Souter brought up, which is whether or not, by walking a dog around a house, you in fact would have a search.\nLet me... now, that is certainly a closer case than whether walking a dog around a car constitutes a search, which we say is not.\nBut ultimately you would reach a similar result because the principle is not going to extend to cars in the same manner in... in Kyllo as the thermal imager did.\nFinally, if there are no further questions, we would ask that the judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [3185.887, 3188.034, 3190.634, 3212.061, 3225.451, 3234.352, 3237.696, 3239.182, 3250.449, 3257.508, 3271.625, 3279.593, 3293.339], "stop_times": [3188.034, 3190.634, 3212.061, 3225.451, 3234.352, 3237.696, 3239.182, 3250.449, 3257.508, 3271.625, 3279.593, 3293.339, 3300.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3185.887}, "reply_to": "22579__2_155", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "22579__3_001", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Thank you, General Madigan.\nThe... the case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [3300.565, 3302.09], "stop_times": [3302.09, 3303.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3300.565}, "reply_to": "22579__3_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22579__3_002", "conversation_id": "22579", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-923", "start_times": [3303.742], "stop_times": [3304.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3303.742}, "reply_to": "22579__3_001", "speaker": "lisa_madigan"}
{"id": "23079__0_000", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "We'll hear argument in Jackson against the Birmingham Board of Education.\nMr. Dellinger.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [0.0, 7.968], "stop_times": [7.968, 43.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23079__0_001", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nUnder the decision below, title IX stands alone as the only major civil rights statute that would permit retaliation against those who complain that the law is being violated.\nThere are at least a half a dozen anti-discrimination laws that do not contain a separate retaliation provision, and every one of them has been found to prohibit retaliation as one kind of discrimination.\nThere's a reason for that.\nAnti-discrimination laws simply can't be effective if threats of retaliation are allowed to chill those who would seek to bring their institutions into compliance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [43.839, 46.894, 58.7, 70.96, 72.408], "stop_times": [46.894, 58.7, 70.96, 72.408, 81.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 43.839}, "reply_to": "23079__0_000", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_002", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Of course, the question is whether... that... that may be true, but there would be an administrative remedy.\nThe question here is a private cause of action for damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [81.734, 86.73], "stop_times": [86.73, 89.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 81.734}, "reply_to": "23079__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23079__0_003", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "That is true, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [89.248], "stop_times": [91.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 89.248}, "reply_to": "23079__0_002", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_004", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Even... even assuming the... the validity of your premise, you still have another step.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [91.356], "stop_times": [95.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 91.356}, "reply_to": "23079__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23079__0_005", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "I understand that other step, and I think that was largely resolved in Cannon v. the City of Chicago, a decision which this Court upheld a right of action to enforce title IX, even though there was also administrative remedies available and which was validated by Congress, as this Court... every member of this Court recognized in... in Sandoval.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [95.73], "stop_times": [117.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 95.73}, "reply_to": "23079__0_004", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_006", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Yes, but I thought... I thought that Cannon... we've... we've allowed Cannon to stay on the books, but I thought we have sworn off the kind of creation of... of implied remedies that Cannon exemplifies.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [117.483], "stop_times": [131.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 117.483}, "reply_to": "23079__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__0_007", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "In this case, there is no doubt that the two established principles together that are settled support this cause of action.\nThe first is that there is a cause of action to enforce title IX.\nThat's Cannon through Congress, through Sandoval, through... your opinion in Sandoval acknowledges that Cannon is solid law and, the second point, that the statute itself is violated.\nTitle IX is violated by retaliatory action against Coach Jackson.\nHe's... and... and this is an important part of title IX because, particularly here, people like Coach Jackson need to come forward because students are often minors.\nThey're not in the best position to know the budgets.\nIt is people like Coach Jackson who make it work, and indeed, I think what is recognized about the... about the cause of action for retaliation is that it is very important to enable people to bring their institutions into compliance without resorting to litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [131.989, 141.898, 146.34, 158.517, 165.038, 174.697, 177.277], "stop_times": [141.898, 146.34, 158.517, 165.038, 174.697, 177.277, 193.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 131.989}, "reply_to": "23079__0_006", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_008", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "It's very... it's very useful, I'm sure, but it... it could be very disruptive also, I am sure.\nIf I were... if I were a coach, one of the first things... especially a coach of a women's team in high school, one of the first things I would do would be to complain about not... not getting enough facilities.\nThis would make it a lot more difficult to fire me whether... whether I'm a lousy coach or not.\nYou... you would have to think twice before you fire me because I would have a retaliation claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [193.356, 198.269, 211.272, 218.498], "stop_times": [198.269, 211.272, 218.498, 223.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 193.356}, "reply_to": "23079__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__0_009", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Justice Scalia, the burden, of course, is on the plaintiff to demonstrate causation.\nAnd you should take great comfort from the fact, the Court can take great comfort from the fact that retaliation has been established as a violation of all of the major civil rights statutes, going back to 30 years to title VI--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [223.782, 230.265], "stop_times": [230.265, 244.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 223.782}, "reply_to": "23079__0_008", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_010", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Some of them specifically provide for retaliation, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [244.687], "stop_times": [247.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 244.687}, "reply_to": "23079__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__0_011", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [247.848], "stop_times": [248.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 247.848}, "reply_to": "23079__0_010", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_012", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Why do they do that if, as you assert, the mere word discrimination embraces it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [248.674], "stop_times": [254.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.674}, "reply_to": "23079__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__0_013", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well, Congress has taken a different approach.\nIn some cases, there would be a textual problem.\nTitle VII, for example, speaks of discrimination based on such individual's race or national origin.\nTitle... and... and therefore, it might need a specific retaliation provision.\nTitle IX speaks upon... about discrimination on the basis of sex.\nAnd here I think to... to allay your concern about the coach, we have had... title IX's retaliation provision has been the established law.\nIt was the law at the time Congress... it was understood, at the time Congress enacted title IX, that the identical wording of title VI had been construed by the administrative agency to include a cause of action for retaliation.\nCongress enacted title IX against the background of the Sullivan decision, which had recognized that discrimination can include retaliation.\nSo that it comes as no surprise that every court of appeals that has addressed this issue has found that there's retaliation under title IX.\nIn over 30 years, there... at most we can find 140 reported cases in the Federal system where there is a claim for retaliation under title IX, and under title IX and all of the other discrimination provisions, courts have found it perfectly satisfactory to work out the causation requirements and... in... in dealing with retaliation cases.\nNow, here, what the respondent did is they discharged the coach who was seeking equal treatment for girls.\nWhen it singled Coach Jackson out for adverse treatment, it was discriminating, and when it did so, because he was seeking equal treatment for girls, it was discriminating on the basis of sex.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [254.164, 255.983, 258.994, 266.524, 271.048, 275.962, 286.941, 302.833, 311.089, 319.634, 344.32, 349.977], "stop_times": [255.983, 258.994, 266.524, 271.048, 275.962, 286.941, 302.833, 311.089, 319.634, 344.32, 349.977, 361.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 254.164}, "reply_to": "23079__0_012", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_014", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Do you think that it... it is a reasonable description of what happened... he was fired for complaining about his girls' team not getting enough facilities... that he was, on the basis of sex, excluded from participation in, denied benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under an education program?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [361.494], "stop_times": [384.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 361.494}, "reply_to": "23079__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__0_015", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [384.816], "stop_times": [385.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 384.816}, "reply_to": "23079__0_014", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_016", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Do you think that... that remotely describes what happened to this coach?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [385.438], "stop_times": [388.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 385.438}, "reply_to": "23079__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__0_017", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Absolutely.\nFirst of all, the... the court of appeals correctly says... in the petition appendix at 3a, the court of appeals says we assume for the purposes of this appeal that the board retaliated against Jackson for complaining about perceived title IX violations.\nBut for the discrimination on the basis of sex, he would not have complained, and he not... had he not made a complaint about sex discrimination, he wouldn't have lost his position.\nHe is denied the benefit of coaching in the program.\nHe's denied the ability to participate in this federally funded program as a coach, and he is discriminated against by being singled out for retaliation.\nAnd this is not a case in which... that has concern... I mean, Justice Kennedy raised the question about this being a funding case, and I understand the special sensitivity that the Court has about rules that are based upon spending requirements where you want to be sure that States understand what they're agreeing to when they accept the Federal funds.\nThis is not a case in which it could not have been anticipated when those funds were accepted.\nAt that time, at the time these funds were accepted, which would have been about 1999 or 2000, title IX's ban on sex discrimination was itself, of course, universally known.\nRetaliation was understood to be part and parcel of that.\nWe had had 30 years where both the Department of Education and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [388.0, 388.372, 404.141, 414.256, 417.145, 425.03, 446.04, 453.182, 462.925, 465.914], "stop_times": [388.372, 404.141, 414.256, 417.145, 425.03, 446.04, 453.182, 462.925, 465.914, 469.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 388.0}, "reply_to": "23079__0_016", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_018", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "But... but that's again the question of the substantive scope of the provision, and that's different from whether there was a congressional intent to create a private cause of action for this sort of violation.\nAnd was it... Virginia Bankshares and so forth tells us that this is not the heyday of prior cause of actions anymore.\nYou have to show that there's a congressional intent in the Spending Clause to create a private cause of action for damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [469.608, 483.087, 490.146], "stop_times": [483.087, 490.146, 495.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.608}, "reply_to": "23079__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23079__0_019", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--I think the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [495.969], "stop_times": [498.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 495.969}, "reply_to": "23079__0_018", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_020", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "And that's... that's quite separate from--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [498.281], "stop_times": [499.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 498.281}, "reply_to": "23079__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23079__0_021", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Yes.\nI... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [499.024, 499.767], "stop_times": [499.767, 501.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 499.024}, "reply_to": "23079__0_020", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_022", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--from this... from the question of substantive liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [501.132], "stop_times": [502.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 501.132}, "reply_to": "23079__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23079__0_023", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--I understand that.\nHere, first of all, when Congress acted, unlike the earlier time when it passed title VI, when Congress passed title IX, it was a background in the law from Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park that... that retaliation was considered a part of discrimination.\nThe title VI regulations were themselves well known based on identical language, virtually verbatim language.\nIt provided for retaliation.\nAnd moreover, this Court has recently as the Davis case, Franklin and Davis, and in the North Haven case has found that employment discrimination, sexual harassment by teachers and peer-on-peer sexual harassment all come within title IX and have, therefore, agreed that Cannon v. the City of... v. the University of Chicago creates that cause of action.\nNow, this case is actually a lot easier than Davis, even taking into account the concerns that... that you and other Justices expressed there, because this is not a case where liability is being imposed, you know, for the acts of third parties like students over whom you may have limited control.\nThis is deliberately undertaken actions by the responsible officials acting intentionally.\nIt's not a novel concept the way one could argue that peer-on-peer sexual harassment was as a part of discrimination.\nBut it's been accepted for more than 30 years by the responsible Federal agency.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [502.413, 503.983, 519.336, 526.645, 528.707, 553.228, 571.599, 578.408, 586.21], "stop_times": [503.983, 519.336, 526.645, 528.707, 553.228, 571.599, 578.408, 586.21, 590.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 502.413}, "reply_to": "23079__0_022", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_024", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Yes, but it's separate enough from discrimination that in other statutes, although Congress does create a cause of action for discrimination, it goes out of its way to create a separate cause of action for retaliation.\nIt's sufficiently separate, and if it is that sufficiently separate, it doesn't seem to me that you could clearly say that... that when the State signed on to receiving Federal funds under title IX, they should have known that this door to litigation was being opened to them.\nYes, litigation for... for discrimination against... against female athletes, but not... not discrimination suits alleging retaliation.\nThat's a whole, new area.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [590.834, 606.438, 625.962, 638.389], "stop_times": [606.438, 625.962, 638.389, 640.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 590.834}, "reply_to": "23079__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__0_025", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Justice Scalia, with... with all due respect, I don't think there's any way, when the district accepted these funds, that they could have reasonably relied on the assumption that they would be free to retaliate against people who tried to comply--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [640.413], "stop_times": [653.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 640.413}, "reply_to": "23079__0_024", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_026", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well, but there was... there was... let's go back to this for just a moment... an administrative remedy available for retaliation expressly under the regs?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [653.211], "stop_times": [662.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.211}, "reply_to": "23079__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__0_027", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [662.499], "stop_times": [663.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.499}, "reply_to": "23079__0_026", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_028", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "And did this petitioner seek an administrative remedy at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [663.902], "stop_times": [669.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 663.902}, "reply_to": "23079__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__0_029", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "He did not seek an administrative remedy.\nHe went through the school system itself at every level.\nHe went through five different levels, following the chain of command.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [669.641, 672.242, 675.502], "stop_times": [672.242, 675.502, 678.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 669.641}, "reply_to": "23079__0_028", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_030", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "What would the administrative remedy have allowed here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [678.186], "stop_times": [681.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 678.186}, "reply_to": "23079__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__0_031", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [681.696], "stop_times": [682.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 681.696}, "reply_to": "23079__0_030", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_032", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--had it been sought?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [682.522], "stop_times": [683.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.522}, "reply_to": "23079__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__0_033", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Here, as in Franklin, as in Davis, as in Cannon v. the University of Chicago, as in every one of this Court's title IX cases, indeed, as in all of its title VI cases involving Federal funds with race, you can call this to attention of the office of civil rights of the relevant agency and they can begin an inquiry.\nUltimately they have the authority of the draconian sanction of cutting off the funds to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [683.265, 702.296], "stop_times": [702.296, 707.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 683.265}, "reply_to": "23079__0_032", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_034", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Do they have any other sanction?\nBecause the notion of an administrative remedy ordinarily would be a remedy for the individual who's complaining.\nBut as I understand it, this administrative process, this detailed administrative process, leads only to one sanction, the one you have described as draconian.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [707.785, 709.437, 718.725], "stop_times": [709.437, 718.725, 730.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.785}, "reply_to": "23079__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__0_035", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [730.159], "stop_times": [732.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 730.159}, "reply_to": "23079__0_034", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_036", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "So that's it.\nIt would not have permitted a restoration of the job to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [732.017, 732.472], "stop_times": [732.472, 738.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 732.017}, "reply_to": "23079__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__0_037", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [738.871], "stop_times": [739.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 738.871}, "reply_to": "23079__0_036", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_038", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [739.326], "stop_times": [740.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 739.326}, "reply_to": "23079__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__0_039", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "That is not part of the... the administrative process is only about institutional funding, which is why the Court has consistently upheld the right to bring these actions for what are violations of the statute itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [740.235], "stop_times": [752.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 740.235}, "reply_to": "23079__0_038", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_040", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well, if we don't accept... let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that... that we're having trouble accepting the... the analysis that it is a violation of the statute in the statute's own terms.\nYou then made the argument that, in fact, you should recognize retaliation as a claim because in the context of... of school students and so on, if you don't allow retaliation, the teachers are not going to blow the whistle, and if the teachers blow the whistle, the statute is going to be a dead letter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [752.124, 762.526], "stop_times": [762.526, 784.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 752.124}, "reply_to": "23079__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23079__0_041", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [784.446], "stop_times": [785.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 784.446}, "reply_to": "23079__0_040", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_042", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "So... so the... the argument is you... you should recognize this as a necessity.\nThat, it seems to me, still goes back to Justice O'Connor's question.\nWhy do we have to recognize a private cause of action as opposed to the government allowing an administrative remedy?\nAnd I thought you were leading up to saying the administrative remedy simply isn't effective because it's so draconian that, in fact, they don't impose it, or for some other reason.\nSo my question is, is there an argument to say that the administrative remedy simply is not good enough to preclude... to... to deter retaliation and that's why you've got to have a private cause of action?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [785.932, 789.813, 795.015, 804.387, 814.911], "stop_times": [789.813, 795.015, 804.387, 814.911, 831.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 785.932}, "reply_to": "23079__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23079__0_043", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--That... that is absolutely right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [831.34], "stop_times": [832.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 831.34}, "reply_to": "23079__0_042", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_044", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "What's... what are the facts?\nWhat's the empirical evidence for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [832.992, 834.107], "stop_times": [834.107, 835.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 832.992}, "reply_to": "23079__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23079__0_045", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [835.964], "stop_times": [836.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 835.964}, "reply_to": "23079__0_044", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_046", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Do you know if administrative sanctions have been imposed under title IX against schools?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [836.42], "stop_times": [843.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 836.42}, "reply_to": "23079__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__0_047", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Well, I'm sure there have been some instances in which there have been administrative sanctions under title IX.\nAnd I don't... I do not have figures on those, Justice O'Connor.\nBut let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [843.395, 848.801, 851.857], "stop_times": [848.801, 851.857, 852.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 843.395}, "reply_to": "23079__0_046", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_048", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Have funds--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [852.85], "stop_times": [853.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 852.85}, "reply_to": "23079__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__0_049", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--let me suggest--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [853.472], "stop_times": [853.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 853.472}, "reply_to": "23079__0_048", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_050", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--have funds... Mr. Dellinger, have funds ever been withdrawn from any school because of a violation of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [853.965], "stop_times": [859.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 853.965}, "reply_to": "23079__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__0_051", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Not to my knowledge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [859.332], "stop_times": [860.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 859.332}, "reply_to": "23079__0_050", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_052", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--title IX?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [860.325], "stop_times": [860.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.325}, "reply_to": "23079__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__0_053", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "But I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [860.901], "stop_times": [861.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 860.901}, "reply_to": "23079__0_052", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_054", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "That could be because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [861.356], "stop_times": [862.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 861.356}, "reply_to": "23079__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__0_055", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--I actually have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [862.471], "stop_times": [863.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 862.471}, "reply_to": "23079__0_054", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_056", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--the sanction is so draconian that nobody in his right mind is not going to rehire the coach.\nOf course, they're going to rehire.\nI... I find it hard to believe why a draconian sanction is ineffective.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [863.464, 867.179, 868.21], "stop_times": [867.179, 868.21, 872.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 863.464}, "reply_to": "23079__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__0_057", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Well, if it's never... I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [872.552], "stop_times": [873.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 872.552}, "reply_to": "23079__0_056", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_058", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "It seems to me it's... it's overwhelmingly effective.\nYou tell the school you either rehire the coach or we're cutting off your money.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [873.461, 876.062], "stop_times": [876.062, 879.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 873.461}, "reply_to": "23079__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__0_059", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [879.694], "stop_times": [880.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 879.694}, "reply_to": "23079__0_058", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_060", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Is it hard to decide what they're going to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [880.77], "stop_times": [882.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 880.77}, "reply_to": "23079__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__0_061", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--I do have an answer, first, for Justice Ginsburg's question from Ms. Greenberger.\nThe sanction has never been imposed under title IX of cutting off funds.\nAnd it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [882.378, 887.124, 890.923], "stop_times": [887.124, 890.923, 891.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 882.378}, "reply_to": "23079__0_060", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_062", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "And I can't imagine anyone who would want such a sanction.\nIt doesn't help--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [891.378, 894.6], "stop_times": [894.6, 896.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.378}, "reply_to": "23079__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__0_063", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--That is certainly not what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [896.169], "stop_times": [896.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 896.169}, "reply_to": "23079__0_062", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_064", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--the girls on the team.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [896.912], "stop_times": [897.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 896.912}, "reply_to": "23079__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__0_065", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Coach... Coach Jackson would have sought, and... and because that process is not one that's responsive to the individual case... if you're down in Birmingham, Alabama, the idea that there is some office that has control over Federal funds that's never imposed a sanction, the fact of the matter is... and it's the reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [897.534], "stop_times": [914.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 897.534}, "reply_to": "23079__0_064", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_066", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well, you're saying the coach cares more about it than the Government does?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [914.828], "stop_times": [917.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 914.828}, "reply_to": "23079__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23079__0_067", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--That may well be the case, absolutely.\nAnd Coach Jackson--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [917.429, 921.144], "stop_times": [921.144, 921.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 917.429}, "reply_to": "23079__0_066", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_068", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well, if... if the Government is charged with... with just spending the funds and doesn't think that this is worth its time, why should there be a private cause of action--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [921.887], "stop_times": [930.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 921.887}, "reply_to": "23079__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23079__0_069", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [930.598], "stop_times": [931.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 930.598}, "reply_to": "23079__0_068", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_070", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--when... when a private cause of action is harder for us to imply than it... than it is to an administrative remedy?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [931.341], "stop_times": [937.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.341}, "reply_to": "23079__0_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23079__0_071", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Because in this case people like Coach Jackson... it's hard enough for Coach Jackson to come forward.\nIf he's not able to... if he's not protected and able to come forward, if retaliation is possible, then you can't expect the... the teenagers themselves to carry this burden.\nAnd in fact, it's the reason this Court recognizes a private cause of action in Franklin and in Davis and in Cannon itself, that you're not going to protect the whistle blower and they're not going to be able to come forward.\nAnd it's not just whistle blowers, Justice Kennedy.\nIt's people that want to make their institutions comply and when those efforts at compliance result in penalties against them.\nIt has not led to an excessive amount of litigation, but it has been very effective in giving people comfort to know that they can't be retaliated against.\nAnd... and I... I understand the... going to the necessity, but I do think I'm very comfortable with the statute because it is a form of discrimination on the basis of sex.\nIt is part and parcel.\nThe history of discrimination, on which title VI drew, was that firing people from their jobs is what you did when they complained about discrimination, when they tried to vote, when they tried to enroll their students in schools, and it is part and parcel of that discrimination.\nAnd it is discrimination against Coach Jackson for his actions on behalf of sex.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [937.285, 943.435, 956.15, 968.864, 970.556, 978.541, 988.722, 998.67, 1000.361, 1018.361, 1024.675], "stop_times": [943.435, 956.15, 968.864, 970.556, 978.541, 988.722, 998.67, 1000.361, 1018.361, 1024.675, 1024.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 937.285}, "reply_to": "23079__0_070", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_072", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1024.925], "stop_times": [1025.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1024.925}, "reply_to": "23079__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__0_073", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "I'll reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1025.502], "stop_times": [1026.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1025.502}, "reply_to": "23079__0_072", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__0_074", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Mr. Gornstein, do you have any light to shed on the extent to which administrative sanctions have ever been imposed against schools and... and the feasibility of going that route?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1026.867], "stop_times": [1045.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1026.867}, "reply_to": "23079__0_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__1_000", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Administrative sanction has never been imposed under title IX.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1045.935], "stop_times": [1050.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1045.935}, "reply_to": "23079__0_074", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_001", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "They have been under title VI?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1050.105], "stop_times": [1051.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1050.105}, "reply_to": "23079__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23079__1_002", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "There has been one case in which an administrative sanction was imposed under title VI, Justice Kennedy.\nIt... the agency does have some flexibility to attempt to get voluntary resolutions that are short of the sanction, the final sanction, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1051.674, 1057.453], "stop_times": [1057.453, 1070.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1051.674}, "reply_to": "23079__1_001", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_003", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Do you take the position that what occurred here can amount to a direct violation of the statute as discrimination?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1070.993], "stop_times": [1081.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1070.993}, "reply_to": "23079__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__1_004", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--We do, Justice... Justice O'Connor.\nI'm sorry.\nRetaliation against a person because that person has complained about sex discrimination under title IX is itself discrimination within the meaning of title IX.\nAnd that conclusion flows from four considerations, beginning with the Court's decision critically in Sullivan because in that case, the Court held that a person subjected to retaliation because he complained about racial discrimination against his lessee could sue under section 1982's prohibition, which only prohibits racial discrimination.\nAgainst the backdrop of that decision in Sullivan, Congress would have understood its prohibition against sex discrimination to afford comparable protection against retaliation.\nSo a person who is subjected--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1081.48, 1084.081, 1084.574, 1096.462, 1120.694, 1133.864], "stop_times": [1084.081, 1084.574, 1096.462, 1120.694, 1133.864, 1136.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1081.48}, "reply_to": "23079__1_003", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_005", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Why would Congress then in some statutes expressly cover retaliation and in others not?\nI mean, that's a little odd, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1136.093, 1141.788], "stop_times": [1141.788, 1143.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1136.093}, "reply_to": "23079__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__1_006", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--It is, Justice O'Connor, but the explanation for that for... in title VII, for example, is that the core prohibitions in title VII refer to discrimination based on such individual's race, sex, or national origin, and that such individual's language rules out the kind of retaliation claim we are talking about here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1143.607], "stop_times": [1166.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1143.607}, "reply_to": "23079__1_005", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_007", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Oh, it rules out this one, but it doesn't rule out the main... look it, this is a weird kind of retaliation claim.\nUsually the retaliation claim is the person who has been discriminated against complains about the discrimination, and for that complaint, the person who was discriminated against is demoted or not promoted, or whatever.\nThat's... that's the classic retaliation claim.\nAnd that classic claim is surely covered by... on the basis of that person's sex.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1166.763, 1172.336, 1185.339, 1187.856], "stop_times": [1172.336, 1185.339, 1187.856, 1194.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1166.763}, "reply_to": "23079__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__1_008", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "If... if it's based on the fact that the... that the person is complaining about sex discrimination and not on the sex of the complainer, it's exactly the same theory of discrimination that we have here, Justice Scalia.\nAnd that theory of discrimination was recognized in the Sullivan decision.\nDiscrimination occurs when there is retaliation against a person because he's complaining about racial discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1194.051, 1207.813, 1212.748], "stop_times": [1207.813, 1212.748, 1220.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1194.051}, "reply_to": "23079__1_007", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_009", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "What was the date of the Sullivan case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1220.429], "stop_times": [1222.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1220.429}, "reply_to": "23079__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__1_010", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "It was 3 years before Congress enacted section... I think it was '68... '69.\nI'm sorry.\n'69.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1222.286, 1227.449, 1228.109], "stop_times": [1227.449, 1228.109, 1228.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1222.286}, "reply_to": "23079__1_009", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_011", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "'69.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1228.973], "stop_times": [1229.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1228.973}, "reply_to": "23079__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__1_012", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "It was '69, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1229.428], "stop_times": [1231.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1229.428}, "reply_to": "23079__1_011", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_013", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "And... and you think that we take the same approach to implied causes of action today that we took in 1969?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1231.164], "stop_times": [1238.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1231.164}, "reply_to": "23079__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__1_014", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "You do not, Justice Scalia, when you are starting afresh, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1238.427], "stop_times": [1242.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1238.427}, "reply_to": "23079__1_013", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_015", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "And we certainly did not with a Spending Clause case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1242.697], "stop_times": [1244.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1242.697}, "reply_to": "23079__1_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23079__1_016", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--That's true, Justice Kennedy.\nBut to answer Justice Scalia's question, first, you operate in the legal context in which Congress was operating at the time, and Congress would have understood... and this Court has twice relied on the Sullivan decision in interpreting title IX, once in deciding that there was a private right of action and once in deciding that the private right of action included a claim for damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1244.454, 1246.19], "stop_times": [1246.19, 1270.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1244.454}, "reply_to": "23079__1_015", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_017", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "I don't know what case it is, but one of our cases, the argument was precisely made that the statute before us had been enacted by Congress before we had set our face against implied causes of action, and therefore, we should interpret that statute the way we used to in 1969, and we rejected that argument.\nWe said that our new rule, as to when you find implied causes of action, will be applied to all statutes, whether they were enacted by a Congress that... that thought we would go skipping along forever as we did in 1969 or... or not.\nAnd... and that's what you're asking us to do here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1270.505, 1292.88, 1306.748], "stop_times": [1292.88, 1306.748, 1309.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1270.505}, "reply_to": "23079__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__1_018", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1309.143], "stop_times": [1309.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1309.143}, "reply_to": "23079__1_017", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_019", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Just because Congress in... in the... at the time this statute was enacted believed in the existence of a Supreme Court that would readily find implied causes of action, we... we have to do that for all these old statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1309.393], "stop_times": [1323.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1309.393}, "reply_to": "23079__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__1_020", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Let... let me talk about the cases that I think the principle that you're talking about emerges from.\nOne is the Central Bank case, and what you were asked to do there was to add the words, aiders and abetters, to the statute.\nWe're not asking you to add words to this statute.\nWe're asking you to interpret the words that are there--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1323.882, 1328.135, 1335.028, 1338.455], "stop_times": [1328.135, 1335.028, 1338.455, 1341.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1323.882}, "reply_to": "23079__1_019", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_021", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "But what about Virginia--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1341.881], "stop_times": [1342.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1341.881}, "reply_to": "23079__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23079__1_022", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--in light of the relevant context.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1342.503], "stop_times": [1343.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1342.503}, "reply_to": "23079__1_021", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_023", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--What about Virginia Bankshares?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1343.579], "stop_times": [1344.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1343.579}, "reply_to": "23079__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23079__1_024", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "I'm... I'm not sure about Virginia Bankshares, but I don't think it... it states a principle.\nThe other case that I was thinking about, Justice Kennedy, is the... is the Sandoval case.\nAnd again, there somebody was asking you to afford a private right of action for something that the statute did not itself prohibit.\nAnd what we are saying here is, interpret this statute in light of the legal context that Congress had it, which is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1344.155, 1350.388, 1355.839, 1363.558], "stop_times": [1350.388, 1355.839, 1363.558, 1371.897], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1344.155}, "reply_to": "23079__1_023", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_025", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well, it... it's arguable except that Mr. Jackson was not discriminated against because of his gender.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1371.897], "stop_times": [1380.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1371.897}, "reply_to": "23079__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__1_026", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--That's correct.\nBut this statute does not require discrimination because of such individual's sex.\nIt require--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1380.692, 1381.928, 1389.524], "stop_times": [1381.928, 1389.524, 1390.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1380.692}, "reply_to": "23079__1_025", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_027", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--exactly like title VII, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1390.062], "stop_times": [1392.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1390.062}, "reply_to": "23079__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__1_028", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--It's... it's written exactly not like title VII, Justice O'Connor, and it's written far more like section 1982, which was at issue at Sullivan, which doesn't have a such individual's limitation.\nAnd in... and section 1982 was interpreted to mean discrimination on the basis of race in depriving people of interests of property violates that statute and affords a private right of action of the victim of retaliation.\nAnd so too here.\nAnd a person who is victimized by retaliation because that person has been subjected before... because he complained about sex discrimination is a victim of discrimination within the meaning of this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1392.17, 1405.089, 1420.134, 1421.603], "stop_times": [1405.089, 1420.134, 1421.603, 1436.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1392.17}, "reply_to": "23079__1_027", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_029", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "And that's where you hang.\nYou... you really think Congress, when it enacted title IX, paid close attention and said... instead of saying no person in the United States shall on the basis of that person's sex be excluded from participation, you think somebody had... had suggested that language, and they said, oh, no, no, no, that would make it too narrow.\nWe have to take out that person's.\nI... I don't... it doesn't strike me as a... as an obvious import of not including the word that person's sex.\nIt's a very natural way to write it: no person in the United States shall on the basis of sex.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1436.956, 1437.782, 1453.264, 1455.782, 1465.207], "stop_times": [1437.782, 1453.264, 1455.782, 1465.207, 1469.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1436.956}, "reply_to": "23079__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__1_030", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "But this is... it opens it up to this interpretation, and then you have to look at all the relevant considerations.\nInserting the words, such individual's, would foreclose that kind of retaliation claim, and it's not here.\nAnd so it's... then you have to look at all the other relevant considerations, including Sullivan, including the fact that this is of vital importance to promoting the purposes of the act, including the fact that the agencies responsible for enforcing this provision have both interpreted... the key agencies have interpreted it to encompass protection against retaliation, and including the fact that there's absolutely no legitimate interest that a... a recipient has in retaliating against somebody simply because he's filed a title IX sex discrimination complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1469.444, 1475.305, 1481.538], "stop_times": [1475.305, 1481.538, 1514.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1469.444}, "reply_to": "23079__1_029", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_031", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Mr. Gornstein, what implication would there be, if we took the view of the circuit here, for Federal employment?\nTitle VII does have a discrete retaliation provision, but it doesn't with respect to Federal employees, if I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1514.315, 1522.117], "stop_times": [1522.117, 1530.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1514.315}, "reply_to": "23079__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__1_032", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "That's correct.\nIn... it... we... we have taken the position that there is, based on a textual argument within the Federal sector provision, a basis for finding a retaliation prohibition over and above the use of discrimination.\nWe have not taken that position with respect to the... to some other statutes.\nSo we do think this is a statute-by-statute analysis and that you just can't adopt an automatic principle that because there's an anti-discrimination provision, it automatically always picks up retaliation protection.\nYou have to look at it on a statute-by-statute basis.\nAnd here, though, all the relevant considerations, including Sullivan, including the need for this kind of protection to further the purposes of the statute, including the agencies' interpretation of this statute which, by the way, does provide fair notice that this was prohibited, included in... I think I wanted to get back to Justice Kennedy's question about the Spending Clause.\nWhat the Spending Clause does not require is that it specifically refer to retaliation any more than it required that it specifically refer to peer-on-peer harassment.\nWhat it does require, though, is fair notice, and that fair notice is supplied by the Sullivan decision, this Court's cases saying that Sullivan is an important backdrop principle against which title IX was enacted, and finally the regulations themselves, which specifically forbid retaliation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1530.457, 1531.776, 1549.238, 1553.863, 1568.352, 1571.24, 1596.875, 1607.855], "stop_times": [1531.776, 1549.238, 1553.863, 1568.352, 1571.24, 1596.875, 1607.855, 1626.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1530.457}, "reply_to": "23079__1_031", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_033", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Are punitive damages available under title IX?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1626.968], "stop_times": [1629.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1626.968}, "reply_to": "23079__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__1_034", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "I'm sorry.\nPunitive damages would not be available against a municipality or against a... but it could be available against some other private recipients.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1629.403, 1631.427], "stop_times": [1631.427, 1642.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1629.403}, "reply_to": "23079__1_033", "speaker": "irving_l_gornstein"}
{"id": "23079__1_035", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Gornstein.\nMr. Thomas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1642.151, 1643.892], "stop_times": [1643.892, 1646.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1642.151}, "reply_to": "23079__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23079__2_000", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Justice Stevens, may it please the Court:\nJustice O'Connor, I would like to respond to the question that you raised immediately.\nI can't think of any school board lawyer who is called by his superintendent and told that I had a letter from OCR and they want to know why you aren't doing this and that who would not be in that superintendent's office that moment because when OCR comes in, they canvas everything.\nI mean, and as a part of negotiating and their investigative teams, they're lay people.\nThey're not lawyers.\nThey come in demanding, and what they prepare for compliance, I can't even begin to articulate how overreaching it is.\nAnd so I say I wanted you to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1646.493, 1650.291, 1655.575, 1677.7, 1683.273, 1684.099, 1693.016], "stop_times": [1650.291, 1655.575, 1677.7, 1683.273, 1684.099, 1693.016, 1695.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1646.493}, "reply_to": "23079__1_035", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_001", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "How often has OCR come to the school district in question under title IX?\nThere are many statutes that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1695.207, 1701.439], "stop_times": [1701.439, 1702.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1695.207}, "reply_to": "23079__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_002", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--And I would want to suggest--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1702.675], "stop_times": [1704.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1702.675}, "reply_to": "23079__2_001", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_003", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--OCR administers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1704.494], "stop_times": [1704.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1704.494}, "reply_to": "23079__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_004", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--In 1996, we had a conclusion of an OCR title IX investigation because it dealt with boys' football as it related to related sports offered for girls.\nSo we... we know about OCR, and they're in Atlanta.\nThey are about 167 miles away and when... and when they come, they come, Your Honors.\nIf I may, I'd like to get right now to what I had raised as the issue here, and that's whether or not an implied private right of action under title IX for retaliation for petitioner who himself says that he's not a victim of discrimination, but merely an advocate.\nHe's an advocate of gender equity, and we say no.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1704.987, 1719.559, 1723.524, 1728.847, 1749.547], "stop_times": [1719.559, 1723.524, 1728.847, 1749.547, 1755.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1704.987}, "reply_to": "23079__2_003", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_005", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "How does he differ... how does he differ from the renter in Sullivan who was complaining about the refusal to sell or lease property to African Americans?\nHe wanted to lease his property, and as a result, he was thrown out of the club.\nAnd this Court said he could maintain that suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1755.22, 1768.577, 1775.432], "stop_times": [1768.577, 1775.432, 1779.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1755.22}, "reply_to": "23079__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_006", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I offer this one observation.\nUnder 1982, there is not a corollary administrative remedy.\nSo in the Sullivan situation, the only advocate available at that time was the owner of the home.\nAnd... but I would comment that as he continued in his litigation, he continued to advocate.\nUnder title IX, as we have discussed, for the advocate is the phone call, the toll-free call to OCR and express your concerns and your issues about what's happening.\nAnd we find significance in that because the ultimate benefit is for the designated class, which would be the basketball team.\nIn a private lawsuit filed by Mr. Jackson, the damage award goes directly to him.\nIf he's successful in getting injunctive relief, it goes only to him.\nIn other words, school board, you can't retaliate or you're enjoined from retaliating against him in the future, but nothing from that Federal court would go to benefit the girls' basketball team.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1779.352, 1783.15, 1789.3, 1796.896, 1802.553, 1816.67, 1825.587, 1833.405, 1839.992], "stop_times": [1783.15, 1789.3, 1796.896, 1802.553, 1816.67, 1825.587, 1833.405, 1839.992, 1851.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1779.352}, "reply_to": "23079__2_005", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_007", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well, what... what do you make of the... the point that Mr. Dellinger stressed and others have stressed that, in fact, there is no administrative remedy in the real world?\nIt's... it's... there... there have never... there has never been an instance in which funds have been withheld.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1851.965, 1860.881], "stop_times": [1860.881, 1867.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.965}, "reply_to": "23079__2_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23079__2_008", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well, again, Justice Souter, no, the funds have not been terminated.\nBut I can only share with you my experiences with dealing with these people.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1867.773, 1875.286], "stop_times": [1875.286, 1880.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1867.773}, "reply_to": "23079__2_007", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_009", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "May I ask you with respect to that, is OCR so different from other agencies that have to pick and choose because they simply don't have the resources to enforce?\nNow, how often does OCR, in fact, go in and investigate?\nHow many times do they say, well, it's low priority for us, girls' soccer or girls' basketball, and we have bigger fish to fry?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1880.283, 1894.605, 1902.491], "stop_times": [1894.605, 1902.491, 1912.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1880.283}, "reply_to": "23079__2_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_010", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, the only thing that I can say is that on my watch, the number one priority is to keep OCR out.\nSo... so therefore--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1912.438, 1920.817], "stop_times": [1920.817, 1922.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1912.438}, "reply_to": "23079__2_009", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_011", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "But that wasn't my question.\nMy question is of the universe of complaints that are made under title IX, how many does OCR actually follow up, or isn't it strapped for resources so that it can't, however much it may want to, come in the way you described?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1922.841, 1923.751], "stop_times": [1923.751, 1941.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.841}, "reply_to": "23079__2_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_012", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, that was something that was recognized in Cannon.\nI... I think that was cited in several of the footnotes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1941.145, 1944.76], "stop_times": [1944.76, 1947.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1941.145}, "reply_to": "23079__2_011", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_013", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "And that was the very reason for recognizing a private right of action because the... the requirement, the anti-discrimination requirement, would be a dead letter if you didn't have people who could enforce it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1947.528], "stop_times": [1960.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1947.528}, "reply_to": "23079__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_014", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "But... but again, stay mindful.\nGeraldine Cannon, though, she said, I did not get admission to the... the med school because of my sex, and she is clearly within the proviso of no discrimination on the basis of sex.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1960.281, 1961.563, 1974.482], "stop_times": [1961.563, 1974.482, 1975.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1960.281}, "reply_to": "23079__2_013", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_015", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Yes, but the... the argument that's being raised is whether we're talking about the person who is listed in the statute as the primary beneficiary of the anti-discrimination statute or whether we're talking about the teacher who blows the whistle and so on... the... the argument is unless you allow this teacher or this whistle blower to... to bring the private action, your statute is a dead letter, that the... that if... if... once you recognize a private action, you've either got to recognize this kind of private action or you can forget the whole thing.\nThat's the argument, and... and so simply to say, well, they're not within the... the primary ambit of benefit of the statute is... is not to the point of the argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [1975.513, 2010.436], "stop_times": [2010.436, 2019.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.513}, "reply_to": "23079__2_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23079__2_016", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Justice Souter, let me offer this in two ways.\nOne, it's not realistic.\nIn... in other words, when... when you have a scenario about the private cause of action, teachers aren't... I mean, these parents and... and the... and especially in Birmingham, we have an athletic director at the school.\nWe have a director of athletics for the whole school system.\nAnd so that... that's not realistic, I mean, because at the end of the day, the administration is very conscientious about all of its programs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2019.148, 2022.985, 2025.092, 2043.297, 2046.574], "stop_times": [2022.985, 2025.092, 2043.297, 2046.574, 2059.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2019.148}, "reply_to": "23079__2_015", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_017", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well, that's... to say trust me is... is not an answer.\nCannon is one thing, a woman in her 30's.\nA sixth-grader who is told she can't play on a team because there's none for girls is hardly similarly situated and the law won't be enforced as to her unless you have someone who is best positioned to know what is going on, who is the coach.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2059.188, 2063.646, 2067.279], "stop_times": [2063.646, 2067.279, 2085.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2059.188}, "reply_to": "23079__2_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_018", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "But, Justice Ginsburg, we get back to the point who really benefits because... and especially in this scenario, if the advocate sues and receives the monetary damages, that goes to the advocate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2085.112], "stop_times": [2097.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2085.112}, "reply_to": "23079__2_017", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_019", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "The... the point is if you say to the school, you cannot retaliate against someone because a complaint has been made, that's a powerful incentive for the school not to retaliate against someone and to do something about the discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2097.167], "stop_times": [2114.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2097.167}, "reply_to": "23079__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_020", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well, but again, though, Justice Ginsburg, the other side of that would be when under the spending legislation, the school board had a right to know what the terms and conditions of the financial assistance would be, and I respectfully submit to you that there was nowhere on the landscape that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2114.545], "stop_times": [2136.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2114.545}, "reply_to": "23079__2_019", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_021", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Why wasn't it in the regulations of the agency spelled out rather clearly... the... the agency that says, Congress has told us to implement this statute, here are our regulations and our regulations are you don't retaliate?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2136.715], "stop_times": [2150.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2136.715}, "reply_to": "23079__2_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_022", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--But that's a part of the complaint and investigatory process.\nNow, Justice Ginsburg--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2150.954, 2155.002], "stop_times": [2155.002, 2156.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2150.954}, "reply_to": "23079__2_021", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_023", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "The regulations didn't say anything about a private cause of action, did it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2156.367], "stop_times": [2158.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.367}, "reply_to": "23079__2_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__2_024", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--No, it did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2158.679], "stop_times": [2159.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2158.679}, "reply_to": "23079__2_023", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_025", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "And the statute didn't say anything about a private cause of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2159.0], "stop_times": [2161.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2159.0}, "reply_to": "23079__2_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__2_026", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "It's not on the face.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2161.562], "stop_times": [2162.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2161.562}, "reply_to": "23079__2_025", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_027", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "But the regulation did tell the school not to retaliate in effect.\nTell me, does the record disclose what happened to the petitioner, Jackson?\nWhat... what has been the result of all this?\nDoes the record tell us that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2162.344, 2167.545, 2173.118, 2175.43], "stop_times": [2167.545, 2173.118, 2175.43, 2178.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.344}, "reply_to": "23079__2_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__2_028", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "No, it does not, Justice O'Connor.\nAnd... and again, it's on a motion to dismiss, and obviously, once it was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2178.774, 2179.85], "stop_times": [2179.85, 2185.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2178.774}, "reply_to": "23079__2_027", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_029", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Does it tell us that he was removed as coach?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2185.916], "stop_times": [2189.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2185.916}, "reply_to": "23079__2_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__2_030", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2189.26], "stop_times": [2189.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2189.26}, "reply_to": "23079__2_029", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_031", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Does the record tell us that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2189.632], "stop_times": [2190.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2189.632}, "reply_to": "23079__2_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__2_032", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "It... it does say that he was relieved.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2190.458], "stop_times": [2191.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2190.458}, "reply_to": "23079__2_031", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_033", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Can I ask you a legal question, nothing to do with, you know, practicalities?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2191.573], "stop_times": [2195.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2191.573}, "reply_to": "23079__2_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23079__2_034", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2195.826], "stop_times": [2196.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2195.826}, "reply_to": "23079__2_033", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_035", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "But suppose you go back to the very old, bad days of the 1950's in the South, the '60's.\nThey pass some civil rights legislation.\nA lot of legislation was passed in the '60's.\nNow, under that civil rights legislation, imagine an individual had been kept out of a restaurant or he'd been treated physically badly, not because of his race.\nHe was white, but he was associating with people who were black.\nAnd they both go into the restaurant and they both are refused service.\nMaybe they're beaten up.\nI mean, both of them.\nNow, can the white individual bring a lawsuit under the... the civil rights statute?\nI've always thought the answer to that question is, of course, he can.\nWould you... do you think it's the contrary answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2196.319, 2201.975, 2204.287, 2207.919, 2220.84, 2224.926, 2230.128, 2231.037, 2232.068, 2238.263, 2242.349], "stop_times": [2201.975, 2204.287, 2207.919, 2220.84, 2224.926, 2230.128, 2231.037, 2232.068, 2238.263, 2242.349, 2246.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2196.319}, "reply_to": "23079__2_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23079__2_036", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Justice Breyer, in that context--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2246.846], "stop_times": [2250.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2246.846}, "reply_to": "23079__2_035", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_037", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2250.727], "stop_times": [2251.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2250.727}, "reply_to": "23079__2_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23079__2_038", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--I... I would say yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2251.016], "stop_times": [2251.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2251.016}, "reply_to": "23079__2_037", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_039", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Yes, of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2251.759], "stop_times": [2252.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2251.759}, "reply_to": "23079__2_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23079__2_040", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "But again--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2252.297], "stop_times": [2252.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2252.297}, "reply_to": "23079__2_039", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_041", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "So therefore--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2252.669], "stop_times": [2253.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2252.669}, "reply_to": "23079__2_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23079__2_042", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Is this a civil rights statute that provides for a private cause of action?\nI... I want to know what the hypothetical is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2253.206, 2256.261], "stop_times": [2256.261, 2258.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2253.206}, "reply_to": "23079__2_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__2_043", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--I'd... I'd like to... I'm thinking of various civil rights statutes which make it unlawful to describe... to... to discriminate.\nAnd now, I agree with you on that answer.\nThe white person could bring a lawsuit on the basis of someone else's race because he's being discriminated against not because of his own race, but because he's being... he's associated with people who are being discriminated against.\nI agree with your answer.\nAnd so my question is if that's so and if we have a long history here of the words, on the basis of sex, including retaliation not on the basis of my sex, but retaliation on the basis of someone else's sex... that's what I've complained of... why isn't this the same thing And to get out my whole question... there are two parts... why isn't this the same thing?\nAnd the second part is, because I think it is the same thing... the second part is once it is included in 1981... in... is it 1681(a)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2258.285, 2267.74, 2270.75, 2287.84, 2289.037, 2318.304], "stop_times": [2267.74, 2270.75, 2287.84, 2289.037, 2318.304, 2331.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2258.285}, "reply_to": "23079__2_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23079__2_044", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2331.102], "stop_times": [2331.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2331.102}, "reply_to": "23079__2_043", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_045", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Once we include this in 1681(a), that's the end of this case because Sandoval then supports the other side.\nIt doesn't support you.\nAll right.\nThat's my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2331.762, 2341.421, 2343.196, 2344.31], "stop_times": [2341.421, 2343.196, 2344.31, 2345.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2331.762}, "reply_to": "23079__2_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23079__2_046", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Justice Breyer, don't we have to consider at some point in time what the congressional intent was?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2345.303], "stop_times": [2352.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2345.303}, "reply_to": "23079__2_045", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_047", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2352.65], "stop_times": [2354.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2352.65}, "reply_to": "23079__2_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23079__2_048", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "And again... and I submit to you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2354.136], "stop_times": [2355.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2354.136}, "reply_to": "23079__2_047", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_049", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "So you... you go ahead.\nI'm doing it purely as a matter of logic.\nI'm saying the old civil rights cases make clear it doesn't have to be on the basis of your own race.\nHistory makes clear that retaliation on the basis of someone else's race does fit within... or gender does fit within 1681, and then that's the end of the case.\nSo I would like your response to that logic.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2355.251, 2356.077, 2358.556, 2364.333, 2377.708], "stop_times": [2356.077, 2358.556, 2364.333, 2377.708, 2380.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2355.251}, "reply_to": "23079__2_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23079__2_050", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--And I would want to submit to you interveningly you have had the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.\nSo everybody now has access to Congress.\nThe whole spectrum of American society is in Congress.\nSo if Congress is being well represented, when it passes the law in 1972, as it did here, it had a different perspective on it.\nGoing back to 1969, some things were foreclosed to some of the citizens of the United States.\nSo, obviously, the scenario of someone advocating, like in Sullivan, would make sense.\nBut I submit to you respectfully, that's not the case now.\nOver there in Congress is where this debate needs to be, and on the face of this statute, it's not there.\nRetaliation is not there.\nIf I may, though, Justice Breyer, let me also add as a practical consideration--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2380.142, 2386.048, 2389.802, 2393.889, 2405.117, 2411.433, 2416.141, 2419.402, 2426.089, 2427.287], "stop_times": [2386.048, 2389.802, 2393.889, 2405.117, 2411.433, 2416.141, 2419.402, 2426.089, 2427.287, 2431.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.142}, "reply_to": "23079__2_049", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_051", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Of course, you say it's not there, but the agencies interpreting the statute thought it was there.\nIsn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2431.867, 2435.544], "stop_times": [2435.544, 2437.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2431.867}, "reply_to": "23079__2_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23079__2_052", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--But... but that's an... an investigatory... the administrative enforcement scenario.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2437.523], "stop_times": [2441.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2437.523}, "reply_to": "23079__2_051", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_053", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "But it's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2441.693], "stop_times": [2442.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2441.693}, "reply_to": "23079__2_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_054", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "No, but their reading of the statute was that the word discrimination included a retaliation claim.\nThat's the kind of regulations they drafted on the basis of their understanding of what Congress intended by using the word... the words in this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2442.519, 2447.97], "stop_times": [2447.97, 2457.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2442.519}, "reply_to": "23079__2_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23079__2_055", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "But don't we go... Justice Stevens, don't we go back to Sandoval?\nCan you in a regulation do more than what the statute requires?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2457.608, 2460.48], "stop_times": [2460.48, 2463.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2457.608}, "reply_to": "23079__2_054", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_056", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "You cannot use the regulation that goes beyond the meaning of the statute.\nThat's what that holds.\nBut a regulation interpreting what the statute itself provides is in a different ball park.\nAnd that's what I understand these regulations to have done, to say what the agencies thought the statute itself meant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2463.824, 2466.674, 2467.622, 2473.112], "stop_times": [2466.674, 2467.622, 2473.112, 2480.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2463.824}, "reply_to": "23079__2_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23079__2_057", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "But... but again, that's retaliation after someone has filed a complaint with the appropriate office.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2480.421], "stop_times": [2487.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2480.421}, "reply_to": "23079__2_056", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_058", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well... I mean, Sandoval is very clear.\nIt's a very clear opinion in my view.\nVery clear.\nAnd the key language I thought is, the language statutes that focus on the person regulated rather than individuals protected create no implication of an intent to confer the private right.\nSo they're looking at disparate impact and disparate impact, according to the majority... I was in the dissent... did not intend to protect the person discriminated against, but was a way of regulating people so they wouldn't intentionally discriminate.\nI can understand that.\nBut I apply the same... I didn't agree with it, but I can understand it.\nThe... the... I apply the same reasoning here.\nThe reasoning here is that this retaliation thing is not trying to protect university behavior one whit more than the whole underlying thing is trying to protect university behavior.\nThis is about victims.\nRetaliation and being fired is about victims.\nAnd so given Sandoval, then we have the history, we have the language, and we have that sentence from Sandoval.\nAnd all that suggests... it goes into 1681(a), in which case Sandoval says, a private right of action, given Cannon, would be inferred.\nNow, what's... what's... that's how... I'm tracing out the logic of the thing.\nSo I want to see what you say.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2487.479, 2490.823, 2492.885, 2494.016, 2505.971, 2522.857, 2524.564, 2528.362, 2530.863, 2542.176, 2543.866, 2547.581, 2557.036, 2568.925, 2573.838], "stop_times": [2490.823, 2492.885, 2494.016, 2505.971, 2522.857, 2524.564, 2528.362, 2530.863, 2542.176, 2543.866, 2547.581, 2557.036, 2568.925, 2573.838, 2575.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2487.479}, "reply_to": "23079__2_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23079__2_059", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well, Justice Breyer, on the face of the statute, I just can't get there.\nI apologize for that, respectfully, but... but I can't.\nAnd Justice O'Connor, as a follow-up, interestingly enough, in a case on all fours in 1995, Holt v. Lewis, the United States District Dourt for the Northern District of Birmingham... for the Northern District of Alabama made very clear that an implied private right of action was not cognizable under title IX, and that the regulation was not a basis to follow it.\nAnd... and I submit to you on that basis, that in Birmingham, at the very least, because the case was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit and this Court denied cert in 1997, so anyone who would go--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2575.49, 2581.656, 2586.264, 2610.784], "stop_times": [2581.656, 2586.264, 2610.784, 2625.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2575.49}, "reply_to": "23079__2_058", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_060", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "We... we can't... you don't base your argument on giving some legal effect to denial of certiorari--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2625.728], "stop_times": [2632.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2625.728}, "reply_to": "23079__2_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__2_061", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--No, no, I don't, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2632.415], "stop_times": [2634.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2632.415}, "reply_to": "23079__2_060", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_062", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2634.067], "stop_times": [2634.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2634.067}, "reply_to": "23079__2_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__2_063", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "But... but to say... I was trying to emphasize was the notice and the mind set of the board when it accepted these Federal funds.\nIt had no way of anticipating that retaliation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2634.605, 2642.285], "stop_times": [2642.285, 2645.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2634.605}, "reply_to": "23079__2_062", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_064", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "It had never anticipated a private right of action, even though it read the Cannon opinion, which was written some 20 years ago?\nMaybe more than that.\nI don't remember.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2645.507, 2650.996, 2652.482], "stop_times": [2650.996, 2652.482, 2653.059], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2645.507}, "reply_to": "23079__2_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23079__2_065", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Justice Cannon, your opinion there is going to be around for a long time.\nThe scholars are going to have to debate it for years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2653.059, 2658.798], "stop_times": [2658.798, 2661.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2653.059}, "reply_to": "23079__2_064", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_066", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "There were some later cases that cast a good deal of doubt on whether we would apply Cannon anymore.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2661.111], "stop_times": [2667.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2661.111}, "reply_to": "23079__2_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__2_067", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "But Congress itself has adopted the rule set forth in Cannon.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2667.427], "stop_times": [2670.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2667.427}, "reply_to": "23079__2_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23079__2_068", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "But... but if I may, but then Justice Rehnquist cautioned very clearly that the Court... in his concurring opinion, that the Court in the future should be extremely reluctant to imply a cause of action absent such specificity on the part of the legislative branch.\nAnd that just speaks volumes to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2670.937, 2686.912], "stop_times": [2686.912, 2689.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2670.937}, "reply_to": "23079__2_067", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_069", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--It said in this statute we do, having in mind that title VI would be interpreted in the identical way--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2689.43], "stop_times": [2699.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2689.43}, "reply_to": "23079__2_068", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_070", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Yes, ma'am.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2699.09], "stop_times": [2699.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2699.09}, "reply_to": "23079__2_069", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_071", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--title VII... VI proscribing race discrimination in all Federal programs.\nSo it said these statutes aimed at race discrimination, sex discrimination do have a... a private right of action, and that was the holding of this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2699.628, 2705.943], "stop_times": [2705.943, 2717.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2699.628}, "reply_to": "23079__2_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_072", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Yes, ma'am.\nWell, but... but again, it goes... goes back to... but would that include retaliation?\nAnd... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2717.749, 2718.575, 2724.353], "stop_times": [2718.575, 2724.353, 2726.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2717.749}, "reply_to": "23079__2_071", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_073", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well, it seems to me that if you're talking about the sixth grade soccer team, realistically the only one who is going to know anything... enough and be brave enough to complain will be the teacher.\nAnd if you cut the teacher out, then forget it.\nYou have nice words on paper and they'll never be enforced.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2726.582, 2739.957, 2742.557], "stop_times": [2739.957, 2742.557, 2745.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2726.582}, "reply_to": "23079__2_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_074", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--But, Justice Ginsburg, that teacher could easily, if they don't get a positive response from the administration, they can call OCR.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2745.258], "stop_times": [2752.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2745.258}, "reply_to": "23079__2_073", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_075", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "And OCR says, as it usually does, we're too busy.\nSorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2752.754, 2756.364], "stop_times": [2756.364, 2756.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2752.754}, "reply_to": "23079__2_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_076", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "No.\nThey... no--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2756.819, 2757.107], "stop_times": [2757.107, 2757.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2756.819}, "reply_to": "23079__2_075", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_077", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Congress didn't give us enough money to do the job.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2757.645], "stop_times": [2759.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2757.645}, "reply_to": "23079__2_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_078", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Do we know that?\nI mean, do we have any idea how effective the enforcement of OCR is?\nJust because they haven't cut off funds--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2759.874, 2762.641, 2767.221], "stop_times": [2762.641, 2767.221, 2769.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2759.874}, "reply_to": "23079__2_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__2_079", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2769.7], "stop_times": [2769.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2769.7}, "reply_to": "23079__2_078", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_080", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--they may well not have cut off funds because anybody who gets a directive from them will hop to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2769.7], "stop_times": [2775.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.7}, "reply_to": "23079__2_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__2_081", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Justice Scalia, that's exactly it.\nI mean, I have firsthand knowledge that when they call, we're supposed to jump.\nIt's no doubt about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2775.644, 2778.411, 2783.712], "stop_times": [2778.411, 2783.712, 2784.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2775.644}, "reply_to": "23079__2_080", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_082", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "And do they call more than infrequently?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2784.522], "stop_times": [2789.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2784.522}, "reply_to": "23079__2_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__2_083", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "All the time.\nAnd... and the other side of that coin--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2789.557, 2790.877], "stop_times": [2790.877, 2793.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2789.557}, "reply_to": "23079__2_082", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_084", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "This is your personal testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2793.728], "stop_times": [2795.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2793.728}, "reply_to": "23079__2_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_085", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Yes, ma'am.\nYes, it is.\n[Laughter]\nAnd... and Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2795.13, 2795.79, 2796.45, 2796.904], "stop_times": [2795.79, 2796.45, 2796.904, 2797.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2795.13}, "reply_to": "23079__2_084", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_086", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "There is... there is much testimony on the other side that says we call and call and they don't come.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2797.73], "stop_times": [2804.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2797.73}, "reply_to": "23079__2_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_087", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Well, I've been in educational law now almost 27 years, representing both teachers and school boards.\nSo I have firsthand knowledge. I mean... and I've experienced it both at the secondary level and higher ed.\nI mean, when they come in, they come in.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2804.146, 2809.414, 2811.394], "stop_times": [2809.414, 2811.394, 2818.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2804.146}, "reply_to": "23079__2_086", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_088", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "How many title IX complaints in your... in your experience?\nYou mentioned one.\nIs there any other?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2818.619, 2822.789, 2823.865], "stop_times": [2822.789, 2823.865, 2824.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2818.619}, "reply_to": "23079__2_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_089", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Two.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2824.98], "stop_times": [2825.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2824.98}, "reply_to": "23079__2_088", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_090", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Two?\nIn how many years?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2825.351, 2825.889], "stop_times": [2825.889, 2826.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2825.351}, "reply_to": "23079__2_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_091", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "In 26.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2826.716], "stop_times": [2828.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2826.716}, "reply_to": "23079__2_090", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_092", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Two in 20-something years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2828.535], "stop_times": [2830.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2828.535}, "reply_to": "23079__2_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__2_093", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Yes, ma'am.\nBut they're all memorable.\n[Laughter]\nThey're all... thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2830.393, 2830.847, 2832.788, 2835.222], "stop_times": [2830.847, 2832.788, 2835.222, 2835.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2830.393}, "reply_to": "23079__2_092", "speaker": "kenneth_l_thomas"}
{"id": "23079__2_094", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Thomas.\nMr. Newsom.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2835.965, 2837.08], "stop_times": [2837.08, 2839.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2835.965}, "reply_to": "23079__2_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23079__3_000", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nI'd like to address, if I may, several concerns that have been raised during the... the preceding arguments.\nOne is to clarify some things about the scope of the administrative remedy.\nThe other side, with respect, wants you to think that without the implied right of action for damages and fees, whistle blowers are left out in the cold.\nThat is not true.\nThe administrative remedy... it's not just about funding termination.\n34 C.F.R. 106.3 says that the OCR may use any remedy that it deems necessary.\nThe OCR, as we say in our brief, has itself touted its flexible approach to enforcement which includes, among other things, as this Court noted in Gebser, citing back to its earlier... pardon me... decision in North Haven, individualized relief in appropriate circumstances.\nSo the point, as Senator Bayh himself noted on the floor of the Senate, is that it is the threat of... of funding termination.\nSo while the OCR is wielding the club of funding termination, they can extract or leverage individualized relief in appropriate cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2839.764, 2844.472, 2850.91, 2853.965, 2861.191, 2861.934, 2866.02, 2873.738, 2889.919, 2896.318], "stop_times": [2844.472, 2850.91, 2853.965, 2861.191, 2861.934, 2866.02, 2873.738, 2889.919, 2896.318, 2903.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2839.764}, "reply_to": "23079__2_094", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_001", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Do we... do we have any... any empirical evidence as to... as to what they have thus leveraged?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2903.005], "stop_times": [2907.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2903.005}, "reply_to": "23079__3_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23079__3_002", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "None that I am aware of, Your... Your Honor, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2907.835], "stop_times": [2911.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2907.835}, "reply_to": "23079__3_001", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_003", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "The... the other side says, look, dead letter.\nWhat do we know about such life as there may be in the letter?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2911.344, 2913.369], "stop_times": [2913.369, 2919.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2911.344}, "reply_to": "23079__3_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23079__3_004", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Well... well, I will, I assume, perhaps foolishly, defer to the Solicitor General's office to tell you what... what the DOJ has and hasn't done.\nWhat I can tell you is that... that the DOJ manual that the other side cites throughout its briefs expressly encourages agencies, when enforcing these... these things, to leverage even damage awards on behalf of individual claimants.\nSo I can tell you that, as a matter of policy, this is far from a dead letter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2919.146, 2927.031, 2942.18], "stop_times": [2927.031, 2942.18, 2945.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2919.146}, "reply_to": "23079__3_003", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_005", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "You... you don't concede the point that it is the role of this Court to determine whether agencies are inefficient or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2945.69], "stop_times": [2953.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2945.69}, "reply_to": "23079__3_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__3_006", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Of course not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2953.947], "stop_times": [2954.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2953.947}, "reply_to": "23079__3_005", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_007", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--and if they are inefficient to... to raise up private attorneys general to... to fill the void?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2954.669], "stop_times": [2963.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2954.669}, "reply_to": "23079__3_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__3_008", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Of course not, Justice Scalia, and... and the Court knows very well from my brief that our position is that when you're talking about implied rights of action, this Court has made clear, in the cases leading up to Sandoval, culminating in Sandoval, that these sorts of policy considerations really are not relevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2963.235], "stop_times": [2975.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2963.235}, "reply_to": "23079__3_007", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_009", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "All right.\nIf they're not relevant, do you think that the regulation which provides... do you think it's unlawful?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2975.867, 2976.133], "stop_times": [2976.133, 2982.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2975.867}, "reply_to": "23079__3_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23079__3_010", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "We do not contest the validity of the regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2982.433], "stop_times": [2985.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2982.433}, "reply_to": "23079__3_009", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_011", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Okay.\nIf you don't contest the validity of it and you think it's lawful, do you think it's doing something other than interpreting 1681(a)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2985.505, 2985.777], "stop_times": [2985.777, 2992.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2985.505}, "reply_to": "23079__3_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23079__3_012", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2992.919], "stop_times": [2993.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2992.919}, "reply_to": "23079__3_011", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_013", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "What... what is it doing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2993.828], "stop_times": [2994.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2993.828}, "reply_to": "23079__3_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23079__3_014", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "It... section 100.7(e), the regulation upon which Jackson chiefly relies, we readily concede is a valid, effectuating 902 regulation, but all... all it does by its text... and its structure makes clear all it does... is to govern the internal processes of official OCR investigations.\nIt does not go further than that.\nThis Court in Sandoval was very clear that it was... that it was only authoritative interpretations of a statute's terms that can be enforced pursuant to that statute's implied right of action.\nAnother point I want to make about the administrative remedy.\nJustice Ginsburg asked whether funds had ever been withdrawn, and even there, again, if the answer is no, the point is not whether funds have been withdrawn, but that as Senator Bayh himself noted, that the threat of funds is where the heavy lifting is done in administrative enforcement.\nAnother point about administrative enforcement is whether or not there are sufficient resources.\nThat, obviously, was a valid concern in Cannon, given presumably the inordinate number of complaints about core, traditional discrimination.\nBut as the other side has made clear in its briefing in this case, at page 26 of the petitioner's brief... and then there's a brief filed on behalf of the Southern Poverty Law Center that spins this out in some detail... there just aren't many of these retaliation claims out there, either in the... either... either in the judicial system or at OCR.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [2994.571, 3012.238, 3014.096, 3024.005, 3026.439, 3041.217, 3046.584, 3055.706], "stop_times": [3012.238, 3014.096, 3024.005, 3026.439, 3041.217, 3046.584, 3055.706, 3074.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2994.571}, "reply_to": "23079__3_013", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_015", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Why is that, do you think?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3074.16], "stop_times": [3075.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3074.16}, "reply_to": "23079__3_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__3_016", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well, my... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3075.934], "stop_times": [3078.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3075.934}, "reply_to": "23079__3_015", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_017", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Is it because no remedy is available, or is it because there are just very few instances giving rise to such?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3078.33], "stop_times": [3086.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3078.33}, "reply_to": "23079__3_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__3_018", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well, I think in all likelihood, it is the latter.\nCertainly I would think that the Court would presume... would not presume ill of local school districts and... and even State universities, but would presume that they are complying with, if not clearly articulated law, certainly good public policy.\nThe second point is that what the... the absence of private actions for retaliation shows is that title IX's remedial apparatus is kicking along just fine without the implied right of action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3086.625, 3089.142, 3102.767], "stop_times": [3089.142, 3102.767, 3114.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3086.625}, "reply_to": "23079__3_017", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_019", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Do we decide this case on the assumption that there was retaliation here by virtue of a complaint of violation of title IX?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3114.034], "stop_times": [3123.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3114.034}, "reply_to": "23079__3_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__3_020", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Certainly, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3123.033], "stop_times": [3124.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3123.033}, "reply_to": "23079__3_019", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_021", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "We should decide it on that assumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3124.437], "stop_times": [3126.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3124.437}, "reply_to": "23079__3_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23079__3_022", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--You have to take as true, of course, the facts as pledged in the... as pleaded in the complaint.\nAnother point I'd like to make briefly is about the comparison to title VII.\nThe other side wants you to look very closely at title VII when you're... whether it's on the basis of sex or on the basis of such individual's sex, but they want you to ignore title VII and the fact that it very clearly and expressly deals with retaliation in a separate subsection, a separate provision.\nAnd I didn't... I'll have to confess I didn't hear much during the first argument.\nI had my head in my own book, but what I did hear is Justice Souter referring to the... the... an instance in which Congress has a choice of two models for... for constructing a statute, and it chooses one over the other, and isn't it a reasonable inference to allow Congress to make that choice.\nThat's what happened here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3126.173, 3130.381, 3135.006, 3151.436, 3155.068, 3170.877], "stop_times": [3130.381, 3135.006, 3151.436, 3155.068, 3170.877, 3171.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3126.173}, "reply_to": "23079__3_021", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_023", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Like the choice it made in 1982, very spare statute.\nWhen Congress got to title IX, it knew about Sullivan and so it... this... this statute in its breadth and its simplicity bears a striking resemblance to the old pattern in 1981 and 1982 and 1983.\nSo if you say to me, look at the closest model, it would be that and not the more detailed civil rights legislation that came in '64 and '65.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3171.87, 3176.244, 3197.998], "stop_times": [3176.244, 3197.998, 3209.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3171.87}, "reply_to": "23079__3_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__3_024", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Well, if... if I could answer in two parts.\nFirst, to say that I think what was going on in 1964 in the Civil Rights Act, obviously, you have Congress in title VII addressing itself both to discrimination and to retaliation separately; in title VI, passed as part of the same piece of legislation, addressing itself solely to discrimination.\nAnd to use Justice Souter's analogy, in '72 Congress takes the title VI model and not the title VII model.\nNow, to get to your question specifically, I think, about Sullivan is at the heart of your question, Sullivan... I think there are a number of problems with the other side's reliance on Sullivan.\nFirst, with all due respect to this Court, Sullivan itself is pretty opaque.\nIt certainly does not announce with flashing lights a principle that every anti-discrimination provision necessarily entails a subsidiary or corollary--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3209.848, 3211.994, 3226.316, 3232.178, 3241.094, 3245.818], "stop_times": [3211.994, 3226.316, 3232.178, 3241.094, 3245.818, 3254.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3209.848}, "reply_to": "23079__3_023", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_025", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "It says if you're thrown out of the club because you champion the rights of a black man, you have a right to sue under this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3254.074], "stop_times": [3261.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3254.074}, "reply_to": "23079__3_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__3_026", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Even if I were to grant your assumption of clarity in Sullivan, which Justice Harlan, I presume, would not agree with... he was left sort of scratching his head trying to figure out what the Court was trying to do.\nBut even granting your assumption, if 1982 can be construed that way, that... that construction does not necessarily carry over to every anti-discrimination provision.\n1982, of course, uses different language to begin with and, more importantly, is... is passed under Congress' power under the Thirteenth Amendment, which is the broadest conceivable--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3261.588, 3272.279, 3281.112], "stop_times": [3272.279, 3281.112, 3291.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3261.588}, "reply_to": "23079__3_025", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_027", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Yes, but it did construe the word discrimination, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3291.681], "stop_times": [3294.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3291.681}, "reply_to": "23079__3_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23079__3_028", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--No, sir.\nDiscrimination is not even in... is not even in title... rather, in 1982.\nSo the language is very different--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3294.587, 3295.025, 3299.111], "stop_times": [3295.025, 3299.111, 3300.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3294.587}, "reply_to": "23079__3_027", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_029", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "On account of race is in it.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3300.969, 3303.403], "stop_times": [3303.403, 3304.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3300.969}, "reply_to": "23079__3_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__3_030", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--I'll have to confess I don't... it does say something like every person shall have the same right as... dot, dot, dot, as white persons.\nBut so the... the language frankly is pretty different, and the more fundamental point I'm trying to make is that even if that's true for... for that statute passed under that constitutional power, here we are talking, as Justice Kennedy made clear at the very outset of the argument about a Spending Clause statute, where it is required that conditions on the acceptance of Federal funds be express, and it is not clear to me where the Birmingham Board would have gotten its clear notice in this case.\nIf you can imagine--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3304.23, 3312.941, 3336.097], "stop_times": [3312.941, 3336.097, 3336.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3304.23}, "reply_to": "23079__3_029", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_031", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "It seems to me they would get it when Congress says, and here's the statute, very spare, and agency, you get up guidelines, that any responsible school board would say, well, we've got only one sentence in the statute.\nWe better look at the regulations to find out what's required.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3336.719, 3349.722], "stop_times": [3349.722, 3352.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3336.719}, "reply_to": "23079__3_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__3_032", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--I agree, and... and if... and if the Birmingham Board, which I trust it did, looked to the regulation here, what it would have found is a regulation not that clarifies the substantive scope of title IX, but instead that... that manages the internal operating procedures for official agency investigations.\nSo to be sure, the Birmingham Board was on notice that it could not retaliate in... in the business of an official OCR investigation, and if it did, it would be subject to administrative enforcement, but it was... it was not on notice either of the fact that there was a generic anti-retaliation prohibition, much less the fact that if it violated any such nonexistent--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3352.815, 3367.555], "stop_times": [3367.555, 3389.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3352.815}, "reply_to": "23079__3_031", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_033", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "But it's... we're not talking about the procedure, I mean, what procedural moves.\nWhat must you do to comply?\nAnd it has in there you don't retaliate.\nSo you mean that a board could responsibly take the position, well, the... the regulations tell us we don't retaliate, but when we're not faced with any agency breathing down our neck, all we have is a teacher in front of us, then we can retaliate?\nI mean, they must have known the statute meant don't retaliate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3389.103, 3394.676, 3397.109, 3399.877, 3417.71], "stop_times": [3394.676, 3397.109, 3399.877, 3417.71, 3420.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3389.103}, "reply_to": "23079__3_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__3_034", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--And... and with respect, I think there is a difference, particularly given the clear notice requirements that this Court has... has used in Spending Clause cases between retaliation in the context of an OCR investigation and retaliation generally, but... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3420.886], "stop_times": [3434.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3420.886}, "reply_to": "23079__3_033", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_035", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "I... I really don't get that.\nIf the rule is don't retaliate and if we investigate, that's one of the things we're going... that's going to be on our checklist.\nBut the substantive rule is don't retaliate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3434.444, 3435.066, 3443.982], "stop_times": [3435.066, 3443.982, 3446.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3434.444}, "reply_to": "23079__3_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23079__3_036", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Justice Stevens, may I respond?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3446.787], "stop_times": [3447.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3446.787}, "reply_to": "23079__3_035", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_037", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3447.985], "stop_times": [3448.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3447.985}, "reply_to": "23079__3_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23079__3_038", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Even granting your assumption, Justice Ginsburg, what is painfully not clear is that the... is that the Birmingham Board would be subject to... to a private right of action for damages and fees even in... in the event that there were some generally applicable anti-retaliation provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3448.562], "stop_times": [3465.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3448.562}, "reply_to": "23079__3_037", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_039", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Newsom.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3465.446], "stop_times": [3466.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3465.446}, "reply_to": "23079__3_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23079__3_040", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3466.811], "stop_times": [3467.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3466.811}, "reply_to": "23079__3_039", "speaker": "kevin_c_newsom"}
{"id": "23079__3_041", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Mr. Dellinger, you have about 3 and a half minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3467.304], "stop_times": [3471.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3467.304}, "reply_to": "23079__3_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23079__4_000", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "I should make it clear that we're not asking this Court to create or infer a new cause of action.\nWe're asking the Court to interpret the cause of action that the Court itself recognized in Cannon v. the University of Chicago, that was validated by Congress.\nIt was reaffirmed in the Court's opinion in Sandoval.\nAnd when you look at the scope of that... of that prohibition, that cause of action, why would it not extend to retaliation?\nThe idea that you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3471.185, 3479.154, 3488.935, 3492.567, 3500.99], "stop_times": [3479.154, 3488.935, 3492.567, 3500.99, 3501.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3471.185}, "reply_to": "23079__3_041", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__4_001", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Other statutes do it separately.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3501.649], "stop_times": [3504.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3501.649}, "reply_to": "23079__4_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__4_002", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3504.25], "stop_times": [3505.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3504.25}, "reply_to": "23079__4_001", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__4_003", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Other statutes don't view the one as... as being incorporated in the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3505.159], "stop_times": [3509.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3505.159}, "reply_to": "23079__4_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__4_004", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "The practice of Congress has not been consistent on incorporating express provisions sometimes because of language differences, but there are half a dozen major statutes that the courts of appeal have consistently assumed included retaliation as part of discrimination.\nSection 1981, section 1982, title VI, 1982 as determined by this Court, parts of the Rehabilitation Act have all been construed that way.\nAnd why would they not?\nThe notion that you have to admit Geraldine Cannon to the University of Chicago medical school, you can't discriminate against her on the basis of sex, but then you could turn around and expel her for complaining about your admissions policy makes no sense.\nIn this case, relying upon the vagaries of what any administration might do about enforcement is not necessarily what Congress wanted, and that was this Court's decision in Cannon.\nAnd it's reaffirmed it frankly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3509.989, 3527.367, 3537.398, 3538.308, 3551.227, 3562.762], "stop_times": [3527.367, 3537.398, 3538.308, 3551.227, 3562.762, 3564.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3509.989}, "reply_to": "23079__4_003", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__4_005", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "There are no vagaries in private enforcement.\nPrivate attorneys general always act in the interest of the whole polity.\nThere are no vagaries there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3564.127, 3565.984, 3569.821], "stop_times": [3565.984, 3569.821, 3571.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3564.127}, "reply_to": "23079__4_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23079__4_006", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "--Well, in this case, it has been known to effectuate anti-discrimination laws in order to bring them about by allowing people to step forward.\nThe last point they make is that even if there's a cause of action, and even if the cause of action covers retaliation, it cannot be brought by Coach Jackson because he's not also the victim of the underlying discrimination.\nThat makes no sense in law or in logic.\nIf the captain of the boys' basketball team joins with the captain of the girls' basketball team in a supportive way to say, they're just not treating girls' basketball equally and fairly, and they're both suspended from their teams or dropped from the honor society in retaliation, it makes no sense.\nEither they both have... they've both been discriminated against on the basis of sex because they're trying to rectify sex discrimination or neither is.\nAnd in this case, it's going to be critically important that this valuable statute, which has meant so much for athletic and academic opportunities for women, to have people like Coach Jackson able to be confident that they've got a right that they can enforce that will allow them to come forward within the school itself and try to rectify these anomalies in and under title IX.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3571.678, 3583.446, 3595.827, 3599.171, 3616.139, 3626.17, 3651.062], "stop_times": [3583.446, 3595.827, 3599.171, 3616.139, 3626.17, 3651.062, 3651.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3571.678}, "reply_to": "23079__4_005", "speaker": "walter_e_dellinger_iii"}
{"id": "23079__4_007", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Dellinger.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3651.45, 3653.658], "stop_times": [3653.658, 3654.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3651.45}, "reply_to": "23079__4_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23079__4_008", "conversation_id": "23079", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow morning at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1672", "start_times": [3654.401], "stop_times": [3658.738], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3654.401}, "reply_to": "23079__4_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22622__0_000", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "We'll hear argument next in No. 03-674, Keyse Jama v. the INS.\nMr. Keyes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [0.0, 10.653], "stop_times": [10.653, 53.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22622__0_001", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Eighth Circuit's decision that petitioner, a citizen and a national of Somalia, can be deported to Somalia should be reversed.\nThe applicable removal statute requires acceptance from the country of which the alien is a subject, national, or citizen.\nThat statute is 8 U.S.C. 1231 (b)(2)(D) as in David, which we have referred to as step two.\nThe Eighth Circuit acknowledged that acceptance is required for such a removal.\nThe parties agree that Somalia has no functioning government that can give acceptance in this case, as that term is used in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [53.915, 57.425, 67.54, 76.206, 84.751, 90.945], "stop_times": [57.425, 67.54, 76.206, 84.751, 90.945, 101.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 53.915}, "reply_to": "22622__0_000", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_002", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Mr. Keyes, we're not talking about removability here, are we, I mean, in the sense that a dispute over whether he could be removed?\nIt's just a question of where he can be removed to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [101.514, 108.944], "stop_times": [108.944, 111.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 101.514}, "reply_to": "22622__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22622__0_003", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nThe circuit court ruled, however, that petitioner could be deported to Somalia because the statute provides that if the alien is not removed to his country of citizenship, then he can be removed to a list of additional countries in the next step of the statute, 1231(b)(2)(E), including the country of birth.\nThe circuit court erred in that ruling for the following reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [111.09, 111.833, 137.179], "stop_times": [111.833, 137.179, 142.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 111.09}, "reply_to": "22622__0_002", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_004", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "May I ask you preliminarily, Mr. Keyes?\nThe Government takes the position that this statute, whatever it means, was intended to... with the... with the nation abroad in view, that the idea was not to insult our... our neighbors in the world community, so to recognize that they have the prerogative to say yes or no to somebody being sent there, being removed there, but that the statute was not intended to confer any benefit on the removable alien.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [142.009, 146.013], "stop_times": [146.013, 190.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 142.009}, "reply_to": "22622__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22622__0_005", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Your Honor, the... the statute, as structured, sets forth... Congress has set forth order with respect to the deportation process, has set forth, for example, the order in which countries should be chosen, the identity of those countries that should be chosen.\nThe... the statute is... does get at order in the deportation process, and if an alien is being removed to... in a situation where there is no government to receive the alien, where the alien is simply being expelled from the United States, the risk arises that the alien will bounce back to the United States, will simply be in international traffic with no country to receive the alien, and there's nothing in the statute which would indicate that the interest of Congress in ordering the removal process is limited simply... limited simply to a concern about the sovereignty of nations of the other country.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [190.224, 207.852], "stop_times": [207.852, 254.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 190.224}, "reply_to": "22622__0_004", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_006", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "But you need more than that, don't you?\nAre you saying there's no interest... indication that Congress was concerned with other than the subject that it was talking about?\nBut... but you need something affirmative to say that a statute confirms a right on a private individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [254.125, 256.065, 266.264], "stop_times": [256.065, 266.264, 272.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 254.125}, "reply_to": "22622__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22622__0_007", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, the... the... we are not contending that the... the statute invests a right on the individual.\nWhat we are contending is that the statute was... as expressed in the statute has this acceptance requirement that would apply to the removal process.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [272.246, 282.072], "stop_times": [282.072, 292.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 272.246}, "reply_to": "22622__0_006", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_008", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Well, but it is possible to read the statute, particularly part (E), the first series of subsections of it, as the Eighth Circuit did.\nThat is a possible reading of the statute and to find there is not, indeed, an acceptance requirement under many of those little subsections.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [292.103, 304.902], "stop_times": [304.902, 313.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 292.103}, "reply_to": "22622__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22622__0_009", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Your Honor, I would... I would suggest that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [313.28], "stop_times": [315.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 313.28}, "reply_to": "22622__0_008", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_010", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Or I should say clauses perhaps.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [315.443], "stop_times": [317.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 315.443}, "reply_to": "22622__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22622__0_011", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Yes, yes.\nI would... I would suggest that to... to give it that reading, one has to limit the view to the first six clauses.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [317.384, 317.922], "stop_times": [317.922, 328.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 317.384}, "reply_to": "22622__0_010", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_012", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [328.612], "stop_times": [329.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 328.612}, "reply_to": "22622__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22622__0_013", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "However, the... I would suggest that that would... that would take subparagraph (E) out of... out of its context, and there are several very important... there's important--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [329.067], "stop_times": [341.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 329.067}, "reply_to": "22622__0_012", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_014", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Well, I... I'm not sure that's right.\nWhen I read the statute as a whole and went through all the possibilities there and got to (E), it read as though, at the end of the day, Congress did want to provide some place of removal for people in the absence of acceptance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [341.222, 342.603], "stop_times": [342.603, 361.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 341.222}, "reply_to": "22622__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22622__0_015", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Your Honor, I would... I would suggest that that... that is... that's not the case for the following reasons, that first of all, the way (E) begins, it says, if an alien is not removed to a country under the previous subparagraphs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [361.534], "stop_times": [375.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 361.534}, "reply_to": "22622__0_014", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_016", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [375.196], "stop_times": [375.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 375.196}, "reply_to": "22622__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22622__0_017", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "The first priority is... before that is country of subject, nationality, or citizenship where there is an acceptance requirement.\nIn moving to (E)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [375.773, 383.825], "stop_times": [383.825, 385.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 375.773}, "reply_to": "22622__0_016", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_018", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Well, obviously Congress prefers to have a country act with acceptance.\nThat... that's understandable, but what (E) appeared, to me at least, to be was if all those things had been exhausted, we're going to still allow removal under little subclause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (vi).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [385.477, 390.391], "stop_times": [390.391, 410.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 385.477}, "reply_to": "22622__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22622__0_019", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Your Honor, the... the... what (E) does is that it doesn't change the removal process.\nIt just adds for the... for the executive branch, it adds additional countries, other countries, that they can remove to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [410.248, 416.192], "stop_times": [416.192, 425.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 410.248}, "reply_to": "22622__0_018", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_020", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Well, but it doesn't begin that way.\nIt doesn't begin if an alien cannot be removed to a country under the previous subparagraphs.\nIt says, if an alien is not removed to a country under the previous subparagraphs.\nAnd whether he is or not is subject to the discretion of the Attorney General.\nNone of those sentences or paragraphs requires removal to those countries.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [425.564, 426.8, 433.116, 438.855, 443.313], "stop_times": [426.8, 433.116, 438.855, 443.313, 447.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 425.564}, "reply_to": "22622__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__0_021", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [447.771], "stop_times": [448.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 447.771}, "reply_to": "22622__0_020", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_022", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "So when it says if he is not, then the... the Attorney General has these additional options.\nI mean, you... you'd have a stronger argument if it... if it read cannot be removed, but it doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [448.764, 455.18], "stop_times": [455.18, 459.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 448.764}, "reply_to": "22622__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__0_023", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Your Honor, the... the... when it says, if an alien is not removed to a country under the previous subparagraphs, that... that is moving to give the Attorney General additional countries to remove to.\nIt doesn't change the process.\nLook, for example... I think we get further guidance on that point by looking at clause (vii) which is obviously a part of... of this subparagraph (E), which ends with the words, another country whose government will accept the alien into that country.\nAnother country whose government will accept the alien into that country.\nWhat that... what that does is that it gives us... it references back to the first six clauses and reflects the fact that the acceptance requirement is always present.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [459.826, 474.398, 475.801, 493.8, 497.515], "stop_times": [474.398, 475.801, 493.8, 497.515, 510.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 459.826}, "reply_to": "22622__0_022", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_024", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Of course, well, I mean, that clause could... could be read either way.\nAnother country whose government will accept the alien is one way to read it, and another way to read it is another country whose government will accept the alien.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [510.89, 513.861], "stop_times": [513.861, 525.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 510.89}, "reply_to": "22622__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__0_025", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "It is... it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [525.835], "stop_times": [526.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 525.835}, "reply_to": "22622__0_024", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_026", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "And that's... that's the... that's the ambiguity there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [526.828], "stop_times": [528.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 526.828}, "reply_to": "22622__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__0_027", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--It... it does depend upon the emphasis that you give, but I would suggest that if we are going to... if we are going to read (E) to mean that what the Congress intended was that you're going to have an acceptance requirement for removal under (D), step two, the subject, nation, or citizenship country, but then we're going to move to (E) and we're going to give you a list of other countries that are presumably less... or have a less closer connection to the alien than in (D).\nAnd with respect to those countries, those ones that are just in clauses (i) through (vi), we're not going to have any acceptance requirement.\nBut then we're going to put it back in in clause (vii) if... when you have to go then to some other country to get acceptance.\nI would suggest that that is not a... a sensible reading of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [528.89, 563.07, 570.955, 578.841], "stop_times": [563.07, 570.955, 578.841, 583.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 528.89}, "reply_to": "22622__0_026", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_028", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Do you know why?\nDid you come across anything that explained why there was a change in language in that clause (vii) between the 1952 version and the present one?\nThe '52 one said, to any country which is willing to accept such alien into its territory, and then (vii) said, another country whose government will accept the alien.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [583.875, 584.618, 593.7], "stop_times": [584.618, 593.7, 604.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 583.875}, "reply_to": "22622__0_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__0_029", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--I... I... we didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [604.12], "stop_times": [605.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 604.12}, "reply_to": "22622__0_028", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_030", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Do we know... is there anything?\nIs that an accident, a drafting... just simply drafting style or something or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [605.029, 605.856], "stop_times": [605.856, 609.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 605.029}, "reply_to": "22622__0_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__0_031", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--It... it... we didn't find anything that explained why.\nI would... I would suggest that it reinforces my point and that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [609.793, 613.408], "stop_times": [613.408, 619.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.793}, "reply_to": "22622__0_030", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_032", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Yes, it does.\nIt helps you quite a lot that it says government, but it doesn't... at the same time it doesn't... it... it doesn't help you in respect to whether (vii) applies to the first six.\nIt does help you in respect to if you win that point, that's it because there's no government.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [619.89, 620.14, 629.8], "stop_times": [620.14, 629.8, 635.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 619.89}, "reply_to": "22622__0_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__0_033", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--That's... that... that is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [635.744], "stop_times": [639.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 635.744}, "reply_to": "22622__0_032", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_034", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Otherwise, you could argue--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [639.088], "stop_times": [639.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 639.088}, "reply_to": "22622__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__0_035", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "That is correct.\nThe... the... we... we did in the... there is in one of the amicus briefs that those... that gives the legislative history, there is a reference to the major report of the Judiciary Committee in connection with the '96 legislation, which says that this whole section of the... of the INA is being... is restating the... the previous law.\nSo... so that's what... that's what we have.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [639.171, 640.081, 663.115], "stop_times": [640.081, 663.115, 665.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.171}, "reply_to": "22622__0_034", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_036", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "One... one argument in... at least in my view, that would certainly help you in your reading of (E) is the interpretation that you put on (D).\nAnd... and you and Justice Scalia, I... I think, have two very different interpretations of what (D) requires.\nYou're saying that... that (D) does, in fact, require a... a... the... the country... if... if the Attorney General designates the... the country of citizenship, that there is a requirement in (D) that the... that the country accept.\nWhereas, his earlier question that... that spoke of... of... and the issue under (E) is whether an alien is or is not removed as opposed to can or cannot be removed.\nHis earlier question indicates the... the possible reading that there is no acceptance requirement in (D).\nAnd as I understand the Government's argument, it is... it is this, that (D) requires the Attorney General to turn to the country of... of citizenship, but if the country of citizenship does not accept or does not respond, it is not the... the consequence is not that the Attorney General cannot deport to that country, but simply that he is no longer required to, that it is an act of discretion.\nWhat is... what is your answer to that argument, that there is no absolute acceptance requirement, merely an acceptance requirement to maintain the Attorney General's obligation to return him to that country?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [665.837, 674.093, 680.698, 695.187, 707.242, 714.134, 741.134], "stop_times": [674.093, 680.698, 695.187, 707.242, 714.134, 741.134, 754.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 665.837}, "reply_to": "22622__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22622__0_037", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Two reasons, Your Honor.\nFirst of all, it's the language of (D).\nIt says, remove to subject, national, or citizenship country unless the government of the country does not affirmatively inform about acceptance or... or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [754.137, 755.085, 757.564], "stop_times": [755.085, 757.564, 767.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 754.137}, "reply_to": "22622__0_036", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_038", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Well, it says the Attorney General shall remove unless.\nAnd their argument is if... if you don't get the condition satisfied, i.e., acceptance, there's no longer a mandate, i.e., shall.\nIt simply leaves it open, a matter of discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [767.966, 770.771, 779.976], "stop_times": [770.771, 779.976, 783.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 767.966}, "reply_to": "22622__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22622__0_039", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--And... and I would... I would suggest that the... the consequence of the unless language should be that unless this happens, don't do it.\nBut... but... so that would be my... my suggested reading of the language.\nBut the second reason, going to the structure of the statute, which I think reinforces that and... and is important, is that if it had been... if it had been Congress' intent that if the Government couldn't remove to the country of citizenship because it couldn't get acceptance, that it could then move to step (E) and remove anyway to overcome that acceptance, Congress would not have gone about writing the statute the way that it did.\nThe way that it wrote the statute is that it provided in (E) for other countries that the... that the Attorney... Attorney General could remove to, and every one of those countries can be a different country than the country of citizenship by their definition.\nIt would... it would have been a very strange way for the... the Congress to have given the Attorney General the discretion to remove anyway, to make it contingent upon one of those countries in clauses (i) through (vi) to happen to be the same country as the country of subject, nationality, or citizenship.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [783.609, 794.549, 798.924, 826.788, 844.909], "stop_times": [794.549, 798.924, 826.788, 844.909, 866.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 783.609}, "reply_to": "22622__0_038", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_040", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "What I think is very strange is the... is... is for you to read back up to all the other clauses, (i) through (vi), the phrase, whose government will accept the alien.\nI mean, if... if acceptance is a condition for all of those preceding things, my goodness, that's certainly not the way to make it clear, to tag it onto (vi) instead of putting it in the introduction or in a clause that comes after (i) through (vii) and goes out to the margin after that.\nYou... you want us to read back to (i) through (vi) whose government will accept the alien.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [866.064, 879.71, 898.657], "stop_times": [879.71, 898.657, 903.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.064}, "reply_to": "22622__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__0_041", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "The... the... I think that the... the best way to approach the statute... and I think it... it can... it can shed light on... on your question... is that if we start with the premise that what removal is is the transfer of the alien from the Government of the United States to the government of the country of removal.\nAnd that is what removal is.\nSo if we start with that premise, then it makes absolute sense here that there wouldn't be at each place where the... the statute identifies a... a country, where the statute would have to say... make a specific reference to the acceptance requirement.\nMy point about reading the statute that way, in terms of its general condition, is that it explains how throughout the statute you would have the... the reference to acceptance in the context in which it appears, but you wouldn't have to repeat it every place where you... where you referenced a country of removal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [903.487, 925.035, 927.143, 942.58], "stop_times": [925.035, 927.143, 942.58, 960.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.487}, "reply_to": "22622__0_040", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_042", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "So... so, as you read... as you read this statute, the United States can never send somebody back to a country that doesn't want them.\nIs that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [960.496, 971.354], "stop_times": [971.354, 971.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 960.496}, "reply_to": "22622__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__0_043", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "It would... in... in this removal process, it does require acceptance from the country of removal.\nNow... now, they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [971.93, 981.468], "stop_times": [981.468, 982.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 971.93}, "reply_to": "22622__0_042", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_044", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Why... why would... why would Congress ever want to impose that categorical requirement?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [982.461], "stop_times": [987.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 982.461}, "reply_to": "22622__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__0_045", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--The... the reason why it... it would fit in with the... with the statute is that Congress has in this statute has expressed an interest in the orderly process of deportation.\nIf... if it... let's take two examples, Your Honor.\nIf the... if the country of removal refuses, does not want to have... will... will not take the alien back... there is a government and they refuse... then the... the reason why it makes sense to have this acceptance requirement is that in all deportations, it will make it less likely that the deportee is going to be bounced around in international traffic and come back to the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [987.662, 1000.665, 1004.009], "stop_times": [1000.665, 1004.009, 1029.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 987.662}, "reply_to": "22622__0_044", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_046", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Can the... can the alien challenge a decision by the Attorney General that, yes, a certain country has accepted him?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1029.394], "stop_times": [1038.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1029.394}, "reply_to": "22622__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22622__0_047", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "The... I... I... if there is a... if there was a wholly unreasonable claim by the Government that there was acceptance, they... not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1038.682], "stop_times": [1059.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1038.682}, "reply_to": "22622__0_046", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_048", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "So... so the alien can litigate that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1059.837], "stop_times": [1062.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1059.837}, "reply_to": "22622__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22622__0_049", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--I think that the alien can if the... if the Government were to take a position... let's say in... in... in a... in... in this case the Government agrees, admits that there is no acceptance.\nBut let's say that the Government took the position to say that we can... we can call anything acceptance and we can... we can ship you out of the United States with a wholly unreasonable definition of acceptance.\nThen the alien should in that circumstance be able to have access to the courts to be able to challenge that... that decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1062.171, 1075.712, 1094.138], "stop_times": [1075.712, 1094.138, 1102.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1062.171}, "reply_to": "22622__0_048", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_050", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "It seems rather strange to me.\nIf you take him to the airport, he either gets off the plane or he doesn't.\nI don't see why you litigate that.\nYou know whether they'll accept him or not when you... when you deliver him.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1102.766, 1103.016, 1106.11, 1107.474], "stop_times": [1103.016, 1106.11, 1107.474, 1111.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1102.766}, "reply_to": "22622__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22622__0_051", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Well, you... you should know that because that is the... the acceptance is the willing receipt of the... of the alien by the country of removal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1111.394], "stop_times": [1120.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1111.394}, "reply_to": "22622__0_050", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_052", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--What happened in China?\nI mean, what... this all comes from the '52 act, and it was a big issue then that we didn't recognize communist China and they would take people to the border.\nHow... how did that work?\nWere there... were there instances under the '52 act where they just would take somebody to Macau or something and push him across the border, or what... what happened?\nHow did it work?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1120.765, 1121.963, 1131.001, 1132.077, 1140.911], "stop_times": [1121.963, 1131.001, 1132.077, 1140.911, 1141.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1120.765}, "reply_to": "22622__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__0_053", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "The... the instances we know about come from the... from the Tom Man case, which was decided by the Second Circuit in 1958.\nAnd in that case, what the Government wanted to do was to take the alien to the border of the... of communist China and to see whether or not they could get him across the border.\nAnd in the... and... and in construing this... this very provision in the language that it was in in 1952, Judge Learned Hand for the... for the court said that... that acceptance was required under step three for each of the subparts and that that would violate the statute.\nWe know of other instances, Your Honor, to answer the question, in terms of procedures where in... in the 1950's, '60's, that the... what the Government would do would be to take the... remove the alien to Hong Kong and then there were situations where the Hong Kong authorities may or may not send that alien on to... on to China.\nBut there was... there has always been... every opinion from the... from the time this statute went into effect in 1952, up until the Eighth Circuit's decision in Jama, has said that what this statute means at each of its steps is that acceptance is required.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1141.904, 1149.622, 1161.595, 1184.712, 1206.92], "stop_times": [1149.622, 1161.595, 1184.712, 1206.92, 1224.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1141.904}, "reply_to": "22622__0_052", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_054", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Now, are there instances where we have deported people to places that they said, no, we won't take him, and we have anyway?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1224.957], "stop_times": [1233.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.957}, "reply_to": "22622__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__0_055", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "We don't... we don't know of any, and the... and the Government has... has not cited--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1233.048], "stop_times": [1237.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1233.048}, "reply_to": "22622__0_054", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_056", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Okay. Then another--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1237.772], "stop_times": [1238.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1237.772}, "reply_to": "22622__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__0_057", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "And you say there can't be any under this law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1238.31], "stop_times": [1239.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1238.31}, "reply_to": "22622__0_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__0_058", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--We say there can't be.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1239.88], "stop_times": [1241.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1239.88}, "reply_to": "22622__0_057", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_059", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "So that if some state opens its prisons and puts its criminals on a boat and sends them to the United States, as has happened in the past, your interpretation of this statute is that Congress has forbidden the President from shipping these criminals back where they came from, so long as the country that expelled them doesn't want these criminals back.\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1241.161, 1264.361], "stop_times": [1264.361, 1264.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1241.161}, "reply_to": "22622__0_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__0_060", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1264.899], "stop_times": [1265.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1264.899}, "reply_to": "22622__0_059", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_061", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--What... what are you saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1265.892], "stop_times": [1267.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1265.892}, "reply_to": "22622__0_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__0_062", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "The reason for that is that this statute deals with the removal of aliens who have been through removal proceedings.\nIn that situation, presumably what would happen is that those... those aliens would be excluded.\nThey would be subject to... probably to expedited removal under a different statute.\nWe're dealing here with aliens who have been admitted into the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1267.007, 1273.588, 1279.971, 1285.461], "stop_times": [1273.588, 1279.971, 1285.461, 1290.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1267.007}, "reply_to": "22622__0_061", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_063", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Is the statute so limited?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1290.578], "stop_times": [1292.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.578}, "reply_to": "22622__0_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22622__0_064", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "It... it... yes, it does.\nThe... the statute does.\nIt starts in... in (2), 1231(b)(2)(B), other aliens, and (1) is arriving aliens who are in removal proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1292.231, 1295.242, 1298.009], "stop_times": [1295.242, 1298.009, 1311.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1292.231}, "reply_to": "22622__0_063", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_065", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "The United States has turned boats back.\nThe most notorious case was in World War... before World War II--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1311.839, 1317.162], "stop_times": [1317.162, 1321.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1311.839}, "reply_to": "22622__0_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22622__0_066", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1321.21], "stop_times": [1321.703], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1321.21}, "reply_to": "22622__0_065", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_067", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--before we entered World War II.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1321.703], "stop_times": [1323.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1321.703}, "reply_to": "22622__0_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22622__0_068", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "It... it has.\nAnd... and given the fact that this statute was originally passed in 1952, in 1952 there was a... we know from the legislative history, there was enormous concern about the fact that the... the communist countries would not receive back their citizens.\nSo the concern was that we had communist agents or aliens in the United States and we couldn't deport them.\nWhat Congress did in this statute was that... in 1952 is that it... it didn't change the acceptance requirement, but what it did do was it expanded the list of countries to which the Government could deport.\nThose are the countries we now have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1323.106, 1324.925, 1345.276, 1352.928, 1368.226], "stop_times": [1324.925, 1345.276, 1352.928, 1368.226, 1370.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1323.106}, "reply_to": "22622__0_067", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_069", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--But what's bothering me partly in this case is it's being argued on the ground that this is like a country that says we don't want him.\nIn fact, this is a country that hasn't said we don't want him.\nIt's a country that hasn't said anything.\nIt's not a country perhaps.\nAnd... and that's what... really the issue is whether or not a place without a government is a place where you can send him at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1370.083, 1376.688, 1379.948, 1382.056, 1384.201], "stop_times": [1376.688, 1379.948, 1382.056, 1384.201, 1391.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1370.083}, "reply_to": "22622__0_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__0_070", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1391.177], "stop_times": [1391.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1391.177}, "reply_to": "22622__0_069", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_071", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "And... and maybe this is all evidentiary when they changed the word... add the word government, that the word country throughout is simply assuming a place that has an organized government.\nIs there... is that so?\nIs there anything you want to say about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1391.716, 1402.24, 1403.976], "stop_times": [1402.24, 1403.976, 1405.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1391.716}, "reply_to": "22622__0_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__0_072", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "There is.\nYes, it... it does mean... that is a separate reason why the... under... under (E) the petitioner cannot be removed to Somalia because there is... it's not a country as that should be properly defined in the statute.\nAnd... and let me give you, I think, a good history on that.\nThe Board of Immigration Appeals itself in... in 1985 in the Linnas case, specifically addressing in (E) the term country, said that to be a country under this statute, there had to be two things: a territory and there had to be a functioning government that exercised sovereignty over its people.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1405.583, 1406.038, 1424.342, 1428.7], "stop_times": [1406.038, 1424.342, 1428.7, 1452.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1405.583}, "reply_to": "22622__0_071", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_073", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "All right.\nNow, the word country probably appears in the immigration statute in the context of deportation since the first statute that provided it.\nSo have you done any work on that?\nI... I hate to sort of have to look that up for the first time, but the... the... is there any work that you can report in respect to that word country?\nThere never under that... the easiest thing for you would be if... if this word country... there never has been under a statute that used the word country a deportation to a place that had no organized government.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1452.849, 1453.22, 1460.529, 1463.28, 1473.161], "stop_times": [1453.22, 1460.529, 1463.28, 1473.161, 1485.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1452.849}, "reply_to": "22622__0_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__0_074", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1485.792], "stop_times": [1486.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1485.792}, "reply_to": "22622__0_073", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_075", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "If you could affirm that that's so, then that would be very strong for you.\nBut maybe that isn't so.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1486.701, 1490.25], "stop_times": [1490.25, 1491.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1486.701}, "reply_to": "22622__0_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__0_076", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--I... I don't... I don't know if... if that is so.\nI can point to and we have pointed to in... in the briefs to a whole series of cases.\nI... I mentioned the BIA decision, but there's a whole series of cases in the... in the 1950's, 1960's which said that country had to have a functioning government.\nI'll... I'll give you one... one good example and that is the Ying case where... where the court, circuit court, said that it was dealing with whether Hong Kong could be a... a country.\nAnd it said Hong Kong can be because it has the following characteristics.\nIt has a legislative body.\nIt has... it has all the characteristics of a political organization.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1491.326, 1494.708, 1499.704, 1512.641, 1523.937, 1527.773, 1530.085], "stop_times": [1494.708, 1499.704, 1512.641, 1523.937, 1527.773, 1530.085, 1534.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1491.326}, "reply_to": "22622__0_075", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_077", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "I thought the Government said you... you didn't raise this question below, that you didn't argue that Somalia wasn't a country.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1534.626], "stop_times": [1541.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1534.626}, "reply_to": "22622__0_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22622__0_078", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Your Honor, it... it... this is... this is not a new claim or a new issue.\nIt is an argument on the issue that is presented, which is whether petitioner can be removed to the country of birth under (E) when there is no functioning government that can either object or accept him.\nAnd since there is no country, he can't be.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1541.852, 1545.772, 1559.435], "stop_times": [1545.772, 1559.435, 1562.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1541.852}, "reply_to": "22622__0_077", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_079", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Well, but that doesn't seem to be the question you actually presented in your petition for certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1562.202], "stop_times": [1567.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1562.202}, "reply_to": "22622__0_078", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22622__0_080", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I would... I would quote the... the Government's phrasing of the question in... in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1567.32], "stop_times": [1575.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1567.32}, "reply_to": "22622__0_079", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_081", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Well, but you're... you're bound by the question that you presented, and it is whether the Attorney General can remove an alien to one of the countries designated in the statute without obtaining that country's acceptance of the alien prior to removal.\nNow that doesn't say anything about the absence of a government.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1575.66, 1590.066], "stop_times": [1590.066, 1593.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1575.66}, "reply_to": "22622__0_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22622__0_082", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Your Honor, it... it doesn't specifically say--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1593.493], "stop_times": [1597.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1593.493}, "reply_to": "22622__0_081", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_083", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "It doesn't say specifically or generally.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1597.124], "stop_times": [1599.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1597.124}, "reply_to": "22622__0_082", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22622__0_084", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--It... it... what I would say is that the... that if you go... if there is no government in that country, then there can be no acceptance.\nSo we must refer back to that.\nI would also cite the fact, Your Honor, that this issue was specifically addressed by the... by both parties in the district court.\nIt... and the... in the dissenting opinion in the Eighth Circuit, the... the dissent specifically raised this as... as a matter in terms of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1599.354, 1611.985, 1613.471, 1622.965], "stop_times": [1611.985, 1613.471, 1622.965, 1634.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1599.354}, "reply_to": "22622__0_083", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_085", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Was it addressed by the majority opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1634.937], "stop_times": [1636.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1634.937}, "reply_to": "22622__0_084", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22622__0_086", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--It was not addressed by the majority opinion, no, Your Honor.\nI would... I would... if there are no further questions at this time, I'd like to save the rest of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1636.523, 1638.652], "stop_times": [1638.652, 1644.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1636.523}, "reply_to": "22622__0_085", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__0_087", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Very well, Mr. Keyes.\nMr. Stewart, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1644.613, 1646.415], "stop_times": [1646.415, 1647.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.613}, "reply_to": "22622__0_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22622__1_000", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe plain language of 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(2)(E)(iv) authorizes removal of an alien to his country of birth, and it is undisputed that petitioner was born in Somalia.\nBy its terms the statutory authorization is not conditioned on acceptance by the receiving country's government.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1647.568, 1653.224, 1662.512], "stop_times": [1653.224, 1662.512, 1668.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1647.568}, "reply_to": "22622__0_087", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_001", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Why... why did you narrow the question presented in your brief if you're willing to take that... that much more categorical position and much more important position for the Government?\nWhen... the... the question presented, as you describe it in your brief, is whether immigration officials may remove petitioner to his country of birth when that country lacks a functioning central government that is able either to accept or object to petitioner's... that's a much narrower question--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1668.745, 1679.436], "stop_times": [1679.436, 1695.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1668.745}, "reply_to": "22622__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_002", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1695.661], "stop_times": [1696.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1695.661}, "reply_to": "22622__1_001", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_003", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--than... than the one presented by petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1696.116], "stop_times": [1698.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1696.116}, "reply_to": "22622__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_004", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--We... we narrowed it in that way because we feel that that's the only question that is squarely before this Court.\nThat is, the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1698.156, 1704.206], "stop_times": [1704.206, 1704.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1698.156}, "reply_to": "22622__1_003", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_005", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "That's all you want us to decide?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1704.744], "stop_times": [1706.064], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1704.744}, "reply_to": "22622__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_006", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Well, we've also indicated that the... the logical thrust of most of our arguments is to the effect that an individual could be removed to an otherwise permissible country, notwithstanding the lack of acceptance of a functioning central government.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1706.064], "stop_times": [1720.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1706.064}, "reply_to": "22622__1_005", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_007", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Well, I... I don't think it's the logical thrust necessarily, and if we... if we did it the way your question presented suggests, we're deciding this case only for people who are going to be deported to Somalia or... what other areas of the world have no functioning government?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1720.636], "stop_times": [1733.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1720.636}, "reply_to": "22622__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_008", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Somalia is the only one, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1733.889], "stop_times": [1735.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1733.889}, "reply_to": "22622__1_007", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_009", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "That's... I wouldn't have voted to take the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1735.497], "stop_times": [1738.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1735.497}, "reply_to": "22622__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_010", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "So it's much narrower.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1738.348], "stop_times": [1738.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1738.348}, "reply_to": "22622__1_009", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__1_011", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Well, obviously we... we opposed the certiorari petition.\nSo we're not contending that the practical importance of the question is such that it would necessarily justify the Court's expenditure of its resources.\nThere was a square circuit conflict--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1738.585, 1741.691, 1749.865], "stop_times": [1741.691, 1749.865, 1751.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1738.585}, "reply_to": "22622__1_010", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_012", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Yes, but it... it's very odd when the petitioner's question was broader and turned on whether there was acceptance or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1751.434], "stop_times": [1758.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1751.434}, "reply_to": "22622__1_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22622__1_013", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Well, I think our... the reason... one of the reasons we framed the question as we did is that petitioner's last argument in the brief was, as we read it, to the effect that whatever the text of the statute might say, there has been an established understanding over the decades that removal is not permitted in the absence of acceptance by the receiving country's government.\nAnd part of the point we wanted to make is we don't think an understanding of that sort could trump the test... the text.\nBut even if the Court decided that the established understanding was so pervasive that an extratextual limitation on removal authority should be read in, the understanding could be thought to exist only in cases where there was a functioning central government that resisted the alien's return.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1758.088, 1780.058, 1786.645], "stop_times": [1780.058, 1786.645, 1802.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1758.088}, "reply_to": "22622__1_012", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_014", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "As I... as I understand it, following up a bit on Justice Scalia, the question presented is whether he can remove an alien to one of the countries designated without obtaining that country's acceptance.\nOkay?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1802.992, 1814.238], "stop_times": [1814.238, 1814.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1802.992}, "reply_to": "22622__1_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__1_015", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Without--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1814.759], "stop_times": [1815.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1814.759}, "reply_to": "22622__1_014", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_016", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Now, one possible... prior... of the alien prior to removal.\nThat's... I'm just reading it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1815.381, 1818.724], "stop_times": [1818.724, 1819.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1815.381}, "reply_to": "22622__1_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__1_017", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Although--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1819.467], "stop_times": [1820.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1819.467}, "reply_to": "22622__1_016", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_018", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--from their cert petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1820.786], "stop_times": [1822.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1820.786}, "reply_to": "22622__1_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__1_019", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--I do... I think you left out one word that is... is crucial, that is, his position necessarily turns on the proposition that we have to get acceptance not simply from the country, but from the government of that country.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1822.189], "stop_times": [1833.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1822.189}, "reply_to": "22622__1_018", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_020", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "But what the cert petition says, without obtaining that country's acceptance of the alien.\nNow, I grant you it's sort of a hidden argument there, but it's mentioned or whatever.\nIs... one reason the answer to that question is no is because where that country does not have a functioning government, it is not a country within the meaning of country as used in this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1833.706, 1838.536, 1843.82], "stop_times": [1838.536, 1843.82, 1862.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1833.706}, "reply_to": "22622__1_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__1_021", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "I mean, we would submit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1862.479], "stop_times": [1863.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.479}, "reply_to": "22622__1_020", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_022", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Now, that's... that's an answer no to the question presented for a very narrow reason that does not get us involved in anything other than Somalia.\nIs there... I mean, maybe we shouldn't reach it because it wasn't argued all that much, but it seemed to me just another argument being advanced in favor of their position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1863.239, 1873.792], "stop_times": [1873.792, 1882.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1863.239}, "reply_to": "22622__1_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__1_023", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Well, first, we would... we would submit that the question presented presupposes that Somalia is a country.\nBut leaving that question aside, I think there are a lot of good reasons that even if the Court felt this issue was properly before it, it should hold that Somalia is a country.\nIf you go to the Department of State web site, Somalia is listed as an independent state.\nIt continues to be a member state in the United Nations, notwithstanding the absence of a functioning central government.\nIf Somalia were not regarded as a country or a state, by reason of the absence of a government, then presumably all people who were formerly Somali nationals would now be rendered stateless, and that's a result that international law generally--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1882.475, 1887.371, 1896.0, 1900.745, 1907.061], "stop_times": [1887.371, 1896.0, 1900.745, 1907.061, 1919.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1882.475}, "reply_to": "22622__1_022", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_024", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "So you're not saying you can dump people in Antarctica or possibly send them to the moon.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1919.693], "stop_times": [1923.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1919.693}, "reply_to": "22622__1_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__1_025", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--We're saying that... we're saying, first, that Antarctica and Somalia are countries.\nIt's exceedingly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1923.758, 1927.949], "stop_times": [1927.949, 1928.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1923.758}, "reply_to": "22622__1_024", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_026", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Antarctica is a country?\nSo we could take all these people, send them to Antarctica.\nThey'll live with the penguins?\nIs--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1928.609, 1930.074, 1932.636, 1933.629], "stop_times": [1930.074, 1932.636, 1933.629, 1933.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1928.609}, "reply_to": "22622__1_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__1_027", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--It's extremely unlikely that... that the... the text of a statute could ever be satisfied because the permitted removal countries are countries such as the country in which--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1933.934], "stop_times": [1943.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1933.934}, "reply_to": "22622__1_026", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_028", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "If they were born there--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1943.759], "stop_times": [1944.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.759}, "reply_to": "22622__1_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_029", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1944.215], "stop_times": [1945.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1944.215}, "reply_to": "22622__1_028", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_030", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--raised by penguins, send them--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1945.291, 1946.943], "stop_times": [1946.943, 1947.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.291}, "reply_to": "22622__1_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_031", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "So in any event, we... we think that Somalia is a country.\nIt continues to be regarded as such, notwithstanding the current lack of existence of a functioning central government.\nThere is a portion of Somaliland... of Somalia known as Somaliland that has set up its own government and characterizes itself as a separate country, but the United States Government has not recognized that claim, nor has any other country.\nSo Somalia for these purposes remains intact.\nI'd like to focus again on the text of the relevant statutory provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1947.686, 1953.137, 1960.817, 1975.018, 1978.361], "stop_times": [1953.137, 1960.817, 1975.018, 1978.361, 1981.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1947.686}, "reply_to": "22622__1_030", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_032", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Before you do so, could you tell me what was the outcome in that Southern District of Texas case which relied on this decision, the Eighth Circuit's decision here, to send someone to Ethiopia without consent?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1981.788], "stop_times": [1999.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1981.788}, "reply_to": "22622__1_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22622__1_033", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "I don't know what ultimately happened to the alien.\nAs the case is described in the amicus brief, the alien was flown to Ethiopia.\nHe was refused at the border, and then he was flown back.\nAnd I think that would be consistent with our representation that we have not historically attempted to repatriate aliens over the objection of a functioning central government.\nThat is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [1999.538, 2001.934, 2006.104, 2008.993, 2017.621], "stop_times": [2001.934, 2006.104, 2008.993, 2017.621, 2018.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1999.538}, "reply_to": "22622__1_032", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_034", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Is... is there anything to it other than the practical objection that when you get the person there, the country won't accept him, so we sent him... be left with you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2018.159], "stop_times": [2028.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2018.159}, "reply_to": "22622__1_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22622__1_035", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--I think it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2028.456], "stop_times": [2028.933], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2028.456}, "reply_to": "22622__1_034", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_036", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--unless we dump him in the sea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2028.933], "stop_times": [2029.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2028.933}, "reply_to": "22622__1_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22622__1_037", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--it's a measure of inconvenience if he's flown there and back, but we would say that even if the Court held that the statute requires acceptance by the receiving country's government, it would not be necessary for us to obtain a prior assurance of acceptance.\nRather, it would still be a permissible option for us to fly the alien to the border, and if the people there, having been told who he is, let in him, we would say that falls--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2029.638, 2042.574], "stop_times": [2042.574, 2051.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2029.638}, "reply_to": "22622__1_036", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_038", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "You don't fly him to the border.\nYou fly him to an airport which usually isn't on the border.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2051.679, 2053.536], "stop_times": [2053.536, 2056.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2051.679}, "reply_to": "22622__1_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22622__1_039", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--I'm... I'm sorry.\nFly him to the port of entry at which he would be presented to the... the immigration or customs officials in the relevant foreign country, and if they acceded to his entry, having been apprised of who he was, we would say that constitutes acceptance by the receiving country's government.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2056.507, 2057.168], "stop_times": [2057.168, 2072.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2056.507}, "reply_to": "22622__1_038", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_040", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--But that... they can win on that one because it doesn't say anything about prior in (vii).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2072.772], "stop_times": [2077.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2072.772}, "reply_to": "22622__1_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__1_041", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Right.\nI mean, here... here the barrier... in a sense, the barrier is not so much acceptance.\nThat is, as a practical matter, in order to accomplish removal of an alien to Somalia, we're going to put him on a plane.\nHe is going to be flown at an airport in Somalia, and there will be people at the airport with guns presumably who exercise de facto control over who gets in and who is not allowed to deplane.\nAnd if those people are not willing to let Mr. Jama into the country, he'll be flown back and we won't be able to accomplish repatriation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2077.496, 2078.139, 2082.476, 2089.368, 2100.968], "stop_times": [2078.139, 2082.476, 2089.368, 2100.968, 2107.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2077.496}, "reply_to": "22622__1_040", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_042", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Whether they are... whether they are a government or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2107.589], "stop_times": [2109.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2107.589}, "reply_to": "22622__1_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_043", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "The... the barrier... the potential barrier is not that there won't be acceptance, that there... but that there won't be acceptance--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2109.818], "stop_times": [2115.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2109.818}, "reply_to": "22622__1_042", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_044", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "People with guns. Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2115.019], "stop_times": [2115.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2115.019}, "reply_to": "22622__1_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_045", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--there won't be acceptance by people that we would regard as the government of Somalia.\nAnd... and I think there is a significant point here in terms of the foreign relations of the United States.\nThat is, if the reconciliation process goes as we hope and conditions in Somalia become more stable, the... the people who purport to exercise governmental authority gain control over the... the territory and the consent of the population, at a certain point the State Department will have to make a decision, have things progressed far enough that we can characterize this as the government of Somalia.\nAnd that determination shouldn't be skewed by a judicial ruling that until the State Department makes that determination, repatriation of aliens to that country will be prohibited.\nIf I could turn to the... the text of the statute, the provision on which we rely, of course, is... is subsection (E)(iv) and that's at page 4 of the Government's brief, and it's headed additional removal countries.\nIt says, if an alien is not removed to a country under the previous subparagraphs of this paragraph, the Attorney General... now the Secretary of Homeland Security... shall remove the alien to any of the following countries.\nAnd Roman (iv) is the country in which the alien was born.\nBy its terms, that gives unqualified approval to removal to the country of birth.\nNeither the introductory language nor subsection... or clause (iv) itself conditions that authorization on acceptance by the receiving country's government.\nAnd it's also--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2115.069, 2120.436, 2125.266, 2151.439, 2161.387, 2173.398, 2184.915, 2189.084, 2195.567, 2204.938], "stop_times": [2120.436, 2125.266, 2151.439, 2161.387, 2173.398, 2184.915, 2189.084, 2195.567, 2204.938, 2206.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2115.069}, "reply_to": "22622__1_044", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_046", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Mr. Stewart, may I interrupt you?\nOh, I'm... may I interrupt you and ask... ask this question?\nYou're right.\nTextually there's... there's nothing in (iv) that... that has the condition of... of prior approval.\nThe argument... one argument is made is that because of the substantial overlap of... of the subsections in (E) with the country of... of nationality or citizenship in (D), that if you do not recognize a... a requirement of acceptance for the (E) categories, basically you're going to do an end run around (D).\nThe Government's answer to that argument, as I understand it, as... as I tried to... to put it in a question to your... your friend, is that there is no absolute requirement of acceptance in (D).\nThere is simply a... a... the Attorney General's mandate to send the person to a... a country of citizenship is... is subject to that.\nBut if the country will not accept, the Attorney General still has discretion to send him to that country.\nThere is one answer to that that your brother did not get into, and I... I want to raise it.\nAs I understand it, the House report for the... what was it... the '96 act, the current statute anyway.\nThe House report indicated that there was no intent to change the substance of the provisions dealt with from what they had been under the prior statute.\nAnd under the prior statute, which is set out on... on page 1a of the petitioner's brief, it seems to me that it is very clear that there was an absolute requirement of acceptance for the Attorney General to act under the predecessor language to what is now subsection (D).\nIf you look down to within the... the three lines from the... from the bottom of... of page 1a, which refers to that, there... there seems to be a clear condition: if such country is willing to accept him into its territory.\nNow, if I'm reading the old law right and the House report does reflect or should be taken by us in interpretation to reflect the intent of Congress, then don't we have to say that the Attorney General's authority, not merely mandate, but authority, under (D) requires acceptance?\nAnd therefore, if we take your view, we would, in effect, allow an end run around a condition indeed because the Attorney General could simply say, okay, I'm going to go to little (iv) under (E).\nI'm going to find the country of the birth.\nI don't have to get acceptance.\nIt happens to be the same country as citizenship.\nBut... but in he goes, or at least up to the border he goes.\nWhat's your answer to that argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2206.014, 2207.25, 2213.854, 2214.847, 2219.055, 2246.071, 2258.891, 2269.665, 2277.095, 2282.834, 2290.099, 2301.782, 2322.958, 2338.412, 2361.43, 2378.232, 2380.089, 2381.492, 2383.971, 2387.453], "stop_times": [2207.25, 2213.854, 2214.847, 2219.055, 2246.071, 2258.891, 2269.665, 2277.095, 2282.834, 2290.099, 2301.782, 2322.958, 2338.412, 2361.43, 2378.232, 2380.089, 2381.492, 2383.971, 2387.453, 2388.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2206.014}, "reply_to": "22622__1_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22622__1_047", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Well, let me... let me turn the Court first to page 3 of the Government's brief that has the text of current subsection (D), and I think that maybe that will help me to explain it best because the way we would formulate our interpretation of subsection (D) is very slightly different from the way that... that you characterized it earlier.\nSubsection (D) says: if an alien is not removed to a country designated under subparagraph (A)(i), the Attorney General shall remove the alien to a country of which the alien is a subject, national, or citizen unless the government of the country fails to give its consent.\nAnd our interpretation of the purpose of subsection (D) is it expresses a strong preference for removal to the country of nationality, assuming that no designation has been made.\nBut Congress recognized that to make that an absolute requirement, even in circumstances where there was no acceptance, would embroil the executive branch into foreign policy confrontations because essentially even when the executive branch officials believed it would be an unwarranted affront to foreign states to try to remove in the face of foreign resistance, the statute, without the exception, would be telling the Attorney General you have to do that.\nAnd so Congress, understandably, enacted an... an exception to that requirement, and it says if there is no acceptance, the Attorney General doesn't have to remove.\nNow, we would... we would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2388.923, 2404.321, 2419.637, 2430.904, 2456.539, 2465.993], "stop_times": [2404.321, 2419.637, 2430.904, 2456.539, 2465.993, 2467.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2388.923}, "reply_to": "22622__1_046", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_048", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "So if... if there is acceptance, he does have to remove.\nIf there is no acceptance, he has discretion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2467.729, 2470.33], "stop_times": [2470.33, 2472.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2467.729}, "reply_to": "22622__1_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22622__1_049", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--We... we would say he has discretion, but he... but he has--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2472.559], "stop_times": [2475.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2472.559}, "reply_to": "22622__1_048", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_050", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "That doesn't make... can I interrupt here?\nI want to ask the question I started before.\nThat doesn't make any sense.\nIf you read this as a mandatory requirement, the Attorney General shall do it, and if you assume an existing government... now, you narrowed the question.\nSo I'm not talking about the question.\nIf there's an existing government, he cannot command the other government to accept the alien.\nThe general practice among nations was they would not... the other nation has an obligation to accept people back.\nBut if they won't do it, we can't force them to take the person back.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2475.41, 2476.274, 2478.093, 2480.001, 2488.174, 2490.032, 2494.945, 2502.664], "stop_times": [2476.274, 2478.093, 2480.001, 2488.174, 2490.032, 2494.945, 2502.664, 2505.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.41}, "reply_to": "22622__1_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22622__1_051", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--I... I agree that that is generally the international practice.\nNow, I would... I would not categorically promise--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2505.614, 2508.98], "stop_times": [2508.98, 2511.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2505.614}, "reply_to": "22622__1_050", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_052", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "How... how could... say you send a person back to Great Britain and they say we're not going to take him.\nHow are you... what... what can... what could the Attorney General possibly do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2511.542, 2515.85], "stop_times": [2515.85, 2519.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2511.542}, "reply_to": "22622__1_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22622__1_053", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--I think as a practical matter in that context, it would be impossible.\nBut to take another hypothetical situation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2519.261, 2521.777], "stop_times": [2521.777, 2523.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2519.261}, "reply_to": "22622__1_052", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_054", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "So the word shall cannot mean shall because he... he cannot in every case do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2523.635], "stop_times": [2528.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2523.635}, "reply_to": "22622__1_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22622__1_055", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Well, it says he shall do it unless--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2528.177], "stop_times": [2530.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2528.177}, "reply_to": "22622__1_054", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_056", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Unless there's acceptance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2530.528], "stop_times": [2532.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2530.528}, "reply_to": "22622__1_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22622__1_057", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Right.\nUnless there's acceptance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2532.468, 2532.634], "stop_times": [2532.634, 2533.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2532.468}, "reply_to": "22622__1_056", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_058", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "I guess you could say that he shall do everything he possibly can, but his mandate to do that evaporates if there's no acceptance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2533.749], "stop_times": [2542.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2533.749}, "reply_to": "22622__1_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22622__1_059", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2542.665], "stop_times": [2543.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2542.665}, "reply_to": "22622__1_058", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_060", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Wait a minute.\nWe're... we're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2543.137, 2543.491], "stop_times": [2543.491, 2544.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2543.137}, "reply_to": "22622__1_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_061", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Put the two questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2544.03], "stop_times": [2545.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2544.03}, "reply_to": "22622__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__1_062", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--We're going too far.\nIt doesn't just say if they refuse to accept.\nIf they don't respond within 30 days.\nSo it may well be that you... that you can proceed to (E) with respect to a... a country that simply has not responded.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2545.682, 2545.888, 2548.45, 2551.089], "stop_times": [2545.888, 2548.45, 2551.089, 2560.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2545.682}, "reply_to": "22622__1_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_063", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "That... that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2560.393], "stop_times": [2561.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2560.393}, "reply_to": "22622__1_062", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_064", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "It has an inefficient ministry of state, and... and the guy arrives.\nThey say, oh, we're... we're delighted to have this fellow back.\nOur response got lost in the mail or something.\nThere's no... no reason you can't proceed to (E) just because of the existence of (D).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2561.136, 2566.875, 2569.475, 2572.16], "stop_times": [2566.875, 2569.475, 2572.16, 2576.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2561.136}, "reply_to": "22622__1_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_065", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--That... that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2576.634], "stop_times": [2577.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2576.634}, "reply_to": "22622__1_064", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_066", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--But now, putting those three questions together, it seemed to me what you're saying it is possible to read the statute the way you're saying.\nIt is also possible to read the statute the opposite.\nAnd the brief that I found very helpful on this was this Ali Ali brief where everything is set out really quite parallel.\nYou get every version of the statute right in front of you.\nAnd as I read that, it... you look at the '52 version... and I think it's clearer on this point, and it's against you insofar as it's clearer.\nBut then, in addition, you have four circuit courts of appeals, including a decision by Learned Hand, all of whom say that Justice Souter's suggestion there is what the statute means, and there's nothing to the contrary.\nAnd then after that, Congress reenacts those same statutes with all the little bits and I think some unclarifying changes in language, but they write in the report, we don't mean any substantive change by this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2577.277, 2585.535, 2589.993, 2597.795, 2599.94, 2609.228, 2624.644], "stop_times": [2585.535, 2589.993, 2597.795, 2599.94, 2609.228, 2624.644, 2639.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.277}, "reply_to": "22622__1_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__1_067", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "I think the House wrote that in the report.\nRight?\nWas that in the Senate report?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2639.777, 2641.346, 2641.922], "stop_times": [2641.346, 2641.922, 2643.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2639.777}, "reply_to": "22622__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_068", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "I don't remember.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2643.036], "stop_times": [2643.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2643.036}, "reply_to": "22622__1_067", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_069", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Did the President know about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2643.862], "stop_times": [2644.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2643.862}, "reply_to": "22622__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_070", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "It... it was the House report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2644.771], "stop_times": [2645.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2644.771}, "reply_to": "22622__1_069", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22622__1_071", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Some people actually read those reports and feel they are a clue to what Congress is trying to get at.\nAnd here, if that is a clue, the clue says that there is to be no substantive change from a provision that was unanimously interpreted by four circuits, including Learned Hand, to be with the other side on this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2645.409, 2653.127], "stop_times": [2653.127, 2668.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2645.409}, "reply_to": "22622__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__1_072", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Well, first--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2668.92], "stop_times": [2669.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2668.92}, "reply_to": "22622__1_071", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_073", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "So I'm interested--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2669.308], "stop_times": [2670.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.308}, "reply_to": "22622__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__1_074", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Well, first, there were only two court of appeals decisions that we've been pointed to in which the attempt remove an alien was actually thwarted on the basis that there had been a no acceptance by the receiving country's government.\nSecond, Learned Hand was unquestionably a distinguished judge, but if he had been infallible, then presumably he would have been on this Court.\n[Laughter]\nAnd I think... I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2670.118, 2680.809, 2689.065, 2689.354], "stop_times": [2680.809, 2689.065, 2689.354, 2690.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2670.118}, "reply_to": "22622__1_073", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_075", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--That is an amazing non sequitur.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2690.719], "stop_times": [2693.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2690.719}, "reply_to": "22622__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22622__1_076", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Good point.\nGood point.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2693.524, 2693.978, 2694.433], "stop_times": [2693.978, 2694.433, 2694.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2693.524}, "reply_to": "22622__1_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_077", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "If you believe that, Mr. Stewart--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2694.804], "stop_times": [2697.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2694.804}, "reply_to": "22622__1_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22622__1_078", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--And I think... and I think... but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2697.859], "stop_times": [2698.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2697.859}, "reply_to": "22622__1_077", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_079", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "You... you mean if he had been on this Court, he would have been infallible.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2698.935, 2701.99], "stop_times": [2701.99, 2702.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2698.935}, "reply_to": "22622__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_080", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Exactly, exactly, exactly, exactly.\nThe... the point is for this Court to treat as any lower court opinion as an authoritative statement of what the law means or meant would be an inversion of our judicial--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2702.279, 2704.137], "stop_times": [2704.137, 2714.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2702.279}, "reply_to": "22622__1_079", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_081", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Okay.\nLet's... let's erase Learned Hand--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2714.994, 2715.366], "stop_times": [2715.366, 2716.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2714.994}, "reply_to": "22622__1_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22622__1_082", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Let me just... let me get an answer to my question.\nIn your... under your reading of the statute, the mandatory... it imposes a mandatory duty on the Attorney General which he may not be able to perform because he may not be able to repatriate the alien unless the other country will accept him.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2716.852, 2718.255], "stop_times": [2718.255, 2734.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2716.852}, "reply_to": "22622__1_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22622__1_083", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--No.\nOur... our point is that the statute would have raised that concern if the exception were not there.\nThat is, if the statute said in terms if there is no removal to the country designated, the Attorney General shall remove the alien to his country of citizenship or nationality and didn't include an exception, then the Attorney General would be placed in a situation, at least potentially, where he was forced... he felt himself forced by law to attempt repatriation even though he knew that the government of that country didn't accept the alien's return.\nAnd it was to prevent that sort of foreign policy confrontation that the exception was written in.\nThe exception was, by its terms, an exception to a mandate.\nIt was not intended to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2734.025, 2734.125, 2738.816, 2763.131, 2767.794, 2771.592], "stop_times": [2734.125, 2738.816, 2763.131, 2767.794, 2771.592, 2772.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2734.025}, "reply_to": "22622__1_082", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_084", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Well, then it's an exception to subparagraph (iv).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2772.957], "stop_times": [2774.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2772.957}, "reply_to": "22622__1_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22622__1_085", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--It's an exception to subparagraph (iv)... to subparagraph--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2774.526], "stop_times": [2777.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2774.526}, "reply_to": "22622__1_084", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_086", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "So you are reading the language in subparagraph (vii) as a... an exception to subparagraph (iv).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2777.293], "stop_times": [2782.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2777.293}, "reply_to": "22622__1_085", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22622__1_087", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--No.\nI'm reading the language of subsection (D).\nI'm... I'm not at (E).\nI'm at subsection (D).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2782.328, 2782.783, 2785.55, 2786.786], "stop_times": [2782.783, 2785.55, 2786.786, 2788.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2782.328}, "reply_to": "22622__1_086", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_088", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "I'm at (E).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2788.151], "stop_times": [2788.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2788.151}, "reply_to": "22622__1_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22622__1_089", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2788.727], "stop_times": [2788.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2788.727}, "reply_to": "22622__1_088", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_090", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "And I'm saying if you read (E) your way, subsection (iv) is a mandatory command to the Attorney General that he may not be able to carry out unless he can comply with subsection (vii).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2788.977], "stop_times": [2799.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2788.977}, "reply_to": "22622__1_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22622__1_091", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "We're not saying that subsection (E)(iv) is a mandate that the Attorney General or the Secretary must remove to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2799.667], "stop_times": [2807.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2799.667}, "reply_to": "22622__1_090", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_092", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "It says shall remove.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2807.303], "stop_times": [2808.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2807.303}, "reply_to": "22622__1_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22622__1_093", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--It says shall remove to one of the following countries, but it clearly is not intended to be a mandate because the introductory--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2808.501], "stop_times": [2813.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2808.501}, "reply_to": "22622__1_092", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_094", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "He can choose one of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2813.99], "stop_times": [2814.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2813.99}, "reply_to": "22622__1_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22622__1_095", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--the introductory... he doesn't have to choose one because the introductory language of Roman (vii) says, if impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible to remove the alien, dot, dot, dot.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2814.695], "stop_times": [2824.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2814.695}, "reply_to": "22622__1_094", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_096", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2824.976], "stop_times": [2825.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2824.976}, "reply_to": "22622__1_095", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22622__1_097", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "So it specifically contemplates the possibility that situations may arise in which it will not be practicable, possible, or advisable to remove the alien to any of the foregoing countries.\nAnd certainly one--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2825.431, 2836.122], "stop_times": [2836.122, 2836.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2825.431}, "reply_to": "22622__1_096", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_098", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "And wouldn't it always be impossible if... if the... if the other country will not accept the alien?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2836.744], "stop_times": [2840.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.744}, "reply_to": "22622__1_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22622__1_099", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--I think... I mean, to... to give a slight variance on the hypothetical that Justice Scalia posed, if a future--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2840.952], "stop_times": [2845.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2840.952}, "reply_to": "22622__1_098", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_100", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "I'd rather have an answer to my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2845.493], "stop_times": [2847.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2845.493}, "reply_to": "22622__1_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22622__1_101", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--I think it would not always be impossible.\nIf, for instance, a future president of Mexico embarked on an aggressive program of encouraging aliens... encouraging Mexican nationals to leave that country illegally, and then the Mexican government refused to take them back, I think it would at least be possible.\nIt would be an option the President would want to consider to repatriate those people over the objection of the Mexican government.\nAnd if the President were attempting to negotiate a satisfactory resolution to that very hypothetical crisis, we wouldn't want him to be hamstrung by a statutory barrier to his doing that.\nSo it makes perfect sense to say, on the one hand, if there is no acceptance by the receiving country's government, the Secretary will never be required to remove to that country because that would enmesh the executive branch in an international confrontation against its will.\nIt's not at all inconsistent to say, nevertheless, if the Secretary believes that repatriation without acceptance can be done, consistent with the foreign relations objectives of the... the United States Government, it's a statutory option.\nAs a practical matter--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2847.279, 2848.344, 2862.007, 2868.156, 2879.551, 2894.245, 2907.348], "stop_times": [2848.344, 2862.007, 2868.156, 2879.551, 2894.245, 2907.348, 2907.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2847.279}, "reply_to": "22622__1_100", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_102", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--May... may I go back to, let's say, the... the nub, the narrow nub of... of my earlier question, and that is this.\nThe predecessor language to what is now subsection (D), as I read it, clearly required the approval of the country if there was to be a removal to the country, a repatriation to the country.\nThe House report says we don't intend to make any change in the substantive law.\nIf we accept the House report, then we've... we're going to say that the proper reading of (D) is not your reading, but the reading that says the Attorney General cannot act under (D) unless there is, in fact, an... an acceptance by the country.\nAnd if that is true, then your reading of Roman (iv) in (E) allows you to make an end run around that condition, and that would be a good reason for interpreting all of (E) to require agreement and acceptance by the country.\nWhat is your response to that narrow argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2907.991, 2914.9, 2930.654, 2938.661, 2958.973, 2976.063], "stop_times": [2914.9, 2930.654, 2938.661, 2958.973, 2976.063, 2979.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2907.991}, "reply_to": "22622__1_101", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22622__1_103", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--I guess we'd have two responses.\nThe first is we would not agree with the view that the predecessor language would forbid removal to the country of nationality absent acceptance because what the statute said was that if the government of the relevant foreign country doesn't accept or doesn't advise the Attorney General of what its stance is, then about five or six lines down on page 2a, it says, then such deportation shall be directed by the Attorney General within his discretion and without necessarily giving any priority or preference because of their order as herein set forth either... and then there's the same series of countries, and one of those is the country in which the alien was born.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [2979.035, 2980.15], "stop_times": [2980.15, 3016.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2979.035}, "reply_to": "22622__1_102", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_104", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "So you're saying that the predecessor language can be read the same way, you say, (D) can be read now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [3016.846], "stop_times": [3022.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3016.846}, "reply_to": "22622__1_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22622__1_105", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [3022.313], "stop_times": [3022.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3022.313}, "reply_to": "22622__1_104", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_106", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [3022.519], "stop_times": [3023.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3022.519}, "reply_to": "22622__1_105", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22622__1_107", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "I guess the other point we would make is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [3023.057], "stop_times": [3023.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3023.057}, "reply_to": "22622__1_106", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_108", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Then you... you think Judge Reavley, who was sitting on the Ninth Circuit at the time and dissented in the Ali Ali case, that he was dead wrong when he said the prior statute did condition willing acceptance for all countries to which aliens could be deported.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [3023.966], "stop_times": [3044.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3023.966}, "reply_to": "22622__1_107", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22622__1_109", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Yes.\nWe would... we would disagree with that statement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [3044.317, 3044.855], "stop_times": [3044.855, 3046.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3044.317}, "reply_to": "22622__1_108", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_110", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "He thinks... his dissent turns on a difference between the current statute and the prior statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [3046.236], "stop_times": [3050.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3046.236}, "reply_to": "22622__1_109", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22622__1_111", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Yes.\nWe would disagree that that was the appropriate result under the prior statute.\nThe... the other thing we would say about this point is that if we are otherwise correct about subsection (E)(iv), that is, if as a general matter, subsection (E)(iv) says an alien may be removed to the country of his birth whether or not there was acceptance, then it would make no sense to say but you can't do it if that is also his country of current nationality or citizenship because removal to the country of... the current... the country of current nationality or citizenship is a preferred country of removal.\nThat's so not only the... under the statutory scheme, but it's also the country that under international law has an obligation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [3050.944, 3051.116, 3054.121, 3083.759], "stop_times": [3051.116, 3054.121, 3083.759, 3090.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3050.944}, "reply_to": "22622__1_110", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_112", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "I haven't followed you.\nWould you say... make that argument again?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [3090.325, 3090.984], "stop_times": [3090.984, 3093.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3090.325}, "reply_to": "22622__1_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_113", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "--Well, I think petitioner's reliance on subsection (D) is to the effect that however you would otherwise read subsection (E), subsection (D) deals specifically with removal to the country of nationality or citizenship, and if you don't meet the prerequisites for removal to that country under (D), then you can't do an end run by resorting to (E).\nAnd I'm saying if that works at all, it could work only when (E) is invoked to authorize removal to the country of current nationality or citizenship.\nIt... (D) couldn't have any negative implications if we were attempting to remove somebody to Somalia because he was born there even though he was currently a national or citizen of a different country.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [3093.585, 3115.338, 3123.966], "stop_times": [3115.338, 3123.966, 3134.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3093.585}, "reply_to": "22622__1_112", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_114", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "That's... that's not one of the choices under (E).\nIt doesn't... (i) through (vii) don't include the state of nationality.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [3134.907, 3137.358], "stop_times": [3137.358, 3141.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3134.907}, "reply_to": "22622__1_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22622__1_115", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "They... they don't include that, but as a practical matter, I think the state of nationality is... is always or virtually always going to be covered because they include country of birth, country from which the alien departed to enter the United States, country in which he previously resided, country of... that's under the sovereignty of... that exercises sovereignty over the country in which he was born.\nOne reason for... possible reason for parsing it the way Congress did in (E) is that sometimes the reason that a foreign government doesn't give acceptance may be that the foreign government disputes our contention that this individual is a national of its country, and in order to avoid a recapitulation of that dispute at the subsection (E) stage, Congress might, at least, have though (E) is going to turn on objective factors, factors that are unlikely to be the subject of dispute, and not on the potentially contested question of what country is the... the alien's current country of nationality.\nThe... the other thing I'd like to say about the... the two policy justifications that petitioner has given.\nThe one is that this... his reading of the statute is necessary in order to prevent the... this Government from being entangled in foreign confrontations.\nAnd... and our view is that the executive branch is well equipped to prevent that from happening.\nThat is, so long as the statute doesn't require us to attempt repatriation over the objection of another foreign government, the executive branch is... can and will exercise discretion to attempt that course of action only when we believe that it's consonant with the foreign policy goals of the... the United States.\nThe other policy objection to our reading that petitioner advances is that places without functioning central governments are likely to be dangerous and that Congress would have wanted to prohibit removal to an... a country where the alien would face hardships.\nAnd we don't attempt to minimize the potential for hardship if an alien is removed to Somalia, but there is a network of Federal statutory provisions that specifically address the question of resistance to removal based on the potential for harm in the receiving country.\nAnd if petitioner can't qualify under any of those, then it's unlikely that Congress would have intended the absence of a functioning central government to serve as a sort of prophylactic or surrogate for dangerous... dangerousness.\nAnd it's worth noting in that respect that the Secretary of Homeland Security currently administers the temporary protected status program which covers Somalia.\nIt contains broad protections for removal of aliens there, but petitioner is ineligible for relief under that provision because of his criminal conviction.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [3141.51, 3160.003, 3195.026, 3200.615, 3210.153, 3215.088, 3232.344, 3247.039, 3263.636, 3275.274, 3284.085, 3293.85], "stop_times": [3160.003, 3195.026, 3200.615, 3210.153, 3215.088, 3232.344, 3247.039, 3263.636, 3275.274, 3284.085, 3293.85, 3295.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3141.51}, "reply_to": "22622__1_114", "speaker": "malcolm_l_stewart"}
{"id": "22622__1_116", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Stewart.\nMr. Keyes, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [3295.048, 3296.822], "stop_times": [3296.822, 3299.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3295.048}, "reply_to": "22622__1_115", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22622__2_000", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "I would like to respond by pointing out that on the... on the point that Justice Souter raised with respect to the language of the statute prior to 1996, my... my brother counsel did not quote the most important part of the statute that was in effect at that time.\nIt's set forth on... on 6a of the brief for petitioner.\nAnd the critical part says, thereupon deportation of such alien shall be directed to any country of which such alien is a subject, national, or citizen if such country is willing to accept him into its territory.\nThat same language did not just appear in the statute just prior to 1996.\nThat was the language that was in the statute in 1952 when it was first passed, and that can be found on page 1a to 1b of... of our brief.\nI would also like to point out that we can... in terms of... of interpreting this statute, it's also helpful to look at other statutes that were passed in 1996, specifically in the alien terrorist statute where the Government is... gets to remove someone who's been classified as an alien... alien terrorist.\nThat statute, which is 8 U.S.C. 1537(b), starting on page 8a of our brief, says specifically that an alien terrorist shall be removed to a country whose government is willing to accept that alien.\nI would submit that this, if in fact, Congress is going to have... if we're going to have this removal requirement applies clearly to alien terrorists, then certainly this demonstrates that this has... this requirement has always been part of that statute.\nAnd in 1996 Congress had before it those consistent interpretations.\nCongress also had before it in 1996 the fact that tens of thousands of aliens could not be deported over the years to countries that would not accept them.\nAnd in 1996, it restated the statute, having those facts and also the consistent judicial history which interpreted the statute to always require acceptance.\nAs a result of that, we could apply the principle that there was no watchdog barking in the night.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [3299.051, 3323.079, 3330.137, 3344.171, 3349.084, 3362.625, 3383.142, 3397.92, 3416.374, 3420.666, 3430.697, 3442.131, 3448.037], "stop_times": [3323.079, 3330.137, 3344.171, 3349.084, 3362.625, 3383.142, 3397.92, 3416.374, 3420.666, 3430.697, 3442.131, 3448.037, 3450.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3299.051}, "reply_to": "22622__1_116", "speaker": "jeffrey_j_keyes"}
{"id": "22622__2_001", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Keyes.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [3450.016, 3451.047], "stop_times": [3451.047, 3452.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3450.016}, "reply_to": "22622__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22622__2_002", "conversation_id": "22622", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-674", "start_times": [3452.245], "stop_times": [3456.87], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3452.245}, "reply_to": "22622__2_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21471__0_000", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "We will now hear argument in Veneman against the Livestock Marketing Association.\nMr. Kneedler.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [0.0, 6.449], "stop_times": [6.449, 7.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__0_001", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nCongress enacted the Beef Promotion and Research Act in 1985 in the midst of a serious depression in the beef industry.\nThe beef industry found itself unable to respond to that situation through the promotion of its products.\nCongress responded to that situation by establishing a government program of promotion, research, and consumer information.\nIn the Beef Act, Congress prescribed a central message for advertising under the Act, Congress established a government body, the Beef Board, to administer and implement the program, and it placed the program under the control of a Cabinet officer, the Secretary of Agriculture.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [7.743, 10.837, 18.016, 23.696, 31.787], "stop_times": [10.837, 18.016, 23.696, 31.787, 48.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7.743}, "reply_to": "21471__0_000", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_002", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Mr. Kneedler, will you tell us how this case differs, if it does, from what was before the Court in United Foods?\nWhat meaningful distinctions do you find?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [48.364, 56.477], "stop_times": [56.477, 59.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 48.364}, "reply_to": "21471__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__0_003", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, the important distinction is that the two grounds that... on which we are defending the statute here were not addressed in United Foods.\nIn particular, the government speech argument, that what I've just said goes to, that the Court specifically did not address because it had not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [59.436, 68.584], "stop_times": [68.584, 76.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 59.436}, "reply_to": "21471__0_002", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_004", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "We've never addressed that in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [76.807], "stop_times": [78.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 76.807}, "reply_to": "21471__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__0_005", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--In none of these cases, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [78.691], "stop_times": [80.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 78.691}, "reply_to": "21471__0_004", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_006", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--in these cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [80.332], "stop_times": [80.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 80.332}, "reply_to": "21471__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__0_007", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [80.97], "stop_times": [81.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 80.97}, "reply_to": "21471__0_006", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_008", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--have we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [81.302], "stop_times": [81.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 81.302}, "reply_to": "21471__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__0_009", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "The Court has not.\nAnd we think that that is... the critical point about this... about this case and these programs, these are government... these are programs of government speech.\nAs I said, Congress, itself, prescribed the central message.\nCongress established the government board, all of whose members are appointed by the Secretary, to administer it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [81.755, 82.935, 91.692, 94.65], "stop_times": [82.935, 91.692, 94.65, 100.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 81.755}, "reply_to": "21471__0_008", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_010", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Does it remain government speech even if you don't say, \"This is your government speaking\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [100.468], "stop_times": [105.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 100.468}, "reply_to": "21471__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__0_011", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "It--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [105.84], "stop_times": [106.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 105.84}, "reply_to": "21471__0_010", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_012", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "If you say, you know, \"America's cattlemen are speaking\", is it government speech?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [106.166], "stop_times": [111.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 106.166}, "reply_to": "21471__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__0_013", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--It does... for purposes of this Court's government speech doctrine, it does.\nAnd I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [111.862, 116.016], "stop_times": [116.016, 116.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 111.862}, "reply_to": "21471__0_012", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_014", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Why is that?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [116.452, 116.952], "stop_times": [116.952, 117.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 116.452}, "reply_to": "21471__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__0_015", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--And the Court... the Court's decision in Rust, I think, is the best illustration of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [117.427], "stop_times": [120.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 117.427}, "reply_to": "21471__0_014", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_016", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Yeah, but Rust did not... Rust was not a case in which the doctor was saying,\n\"This is my personal opinion, not the government's. \"\nAnd here, as Justice Scalia pointed out, there is an affirmative effort to say,\n\"This is... this is paid for by. \"\nwhatever it's called, the cattlemen's group or the beef group, which affirmatively indicates that it's not government speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [120.721, 125.716, 128.675, 134.217, 136.037], "stop_times": [125.716, 128.675, 134.217, 136.037, 143.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 120.721}, "reply_to": "21471__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__0_017", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, it... all those statements say... and there are advertisements in the record that say that the advertising is funded by America's beef producers, which is, of course, accurate, because they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [143.341], "stop_times": [152.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 143.341}, "reply_to": "21471__0_016", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_018", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, it's accurate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [152.312], "stop_times": [152.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 152.312}, "reply_to": "21471__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__0_019", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--they pay for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [152.939], "stop_times": [153.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 152.939}, "reply_to": "21471__0_018", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_020", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--but it also contains the implication that who... he who pays is the person whose speech is being broadcasted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [153.319], "stop_times": [159.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 153.319}, "reply_to": "21471__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__0_021", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, but, again, in Rust, the doctor who spoke... I think the patient who went to see the doctor for counseling would have... would have assumed or believed that the doctor was... in the immediate encounter, that the doctor was speaking, and yet the Court, in its subsequent cases, has regarded Rust as a situation of government speech.\nBut the important point about what you've just asked is that any concerns about the tag line in the advertising does not go to the constitutionality of the statute or the beef order.\nNeither the Act nor the order requires that in the advertising.\nAnd if the Court was to perceive that as a problem, the right remedy would not be to invalidate the Act, but to, instead, provide that there should be some different identification--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [159.337, 180.056, 190.962, 194.748], "stop_times": [180.056, 190.962, 194.748, 204.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 159.337}, "reply_to": "21471__0_020", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_022", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Yeah, but some people--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [204.775], "stop_times": [205.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 204.775}, "reply_to": "21471__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__0_023", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--on the advertising, itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [205.661], "stop_times": [206.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 205.661}, "reply_to": "21471__0_022", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_024", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--may be more resistant to an... to an ad that says,\n\"Your government wants to eat... wants you to eat more meat. \"\nthan they are to an ad which say,\n\"The meat producers would like you to eat more meat. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [206.099, 210.384, 212.992, 215.438], "stop_times": [210.384, 212.992, 215.438, 217.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 206.099}, "reply_to": "21471__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__0_025", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, I... and I think in Rust, some people would have been resistant to the idea that your government wants you to engage in family planning, but what the... what the Court said about Rust was that the government had established a program with a central message about counseling.\nThat was then carried out by private individuals.\nHere, this case is much stronger than Rust.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [217.402, 231.137, 234.217], "stop_times": [231.137, 234.217, 236.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 217.402}, "reply_to": "21471__0_024", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_026", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, but if you... if you say the Act can be... say, because this is just an as-applied challenge, you're asking us to assume that we can put on a label that's not true,\n\"This message is brought to you by your friendly Department of Agriculture. \"\nThat isn't accurate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [236.044, 245.363, 247.883], "stop_times": [245.363, 247.883, 250.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.044}, "reply_to": "21471__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__0_027", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, it would be accurate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [250.089], "stop_times": [252.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 250.089}, "reply_to": "21471__0_026", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_028", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "And you're having us save the statute by just putting a label on it that isn't accurate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [252.13], "stop_times": [255.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 252.13}, "reply_to": "21471__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__0_029", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, they're... I'm sure that a label could be devised that would... that would be accurate.\nThe... first of all, they are approved... specifically approved by the Department of Agriculture.\nThe... certainly, the Act and regulations provide that the Secretary must approve every contract, every project for advertising.\nAnd, beyond that, the USDA approves all advertising, all copy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [255.47, 260.91, 266.322, 273.523], "stop_times": [260.91, 266.322, 273.523, 279.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 255.47}, "reply_to": "21471__0_028", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_030", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But, Mr. Kneedler--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [279.923], "stop_times": [281.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 279.923}, "reply_to": "21471__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__0_031", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--that is actually to be used, so there is specific approval by the Secretary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [281.308], "stop_times": [284.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 281.308}, "reply_to": "21471__0_030", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_032", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--But there is... there's another tape put out by the government, on meat, and that... what is the government speech?\nUsually, the government has a position, and is presenting it.\nHere, we have America beef producers has a label on... \"Eat meat\".\nBut if you went to the Surgeon General, probably that message would be \"Eat meat moderately\".\nSo what is the government speech?\nI don't know another case involving a claim of government speech where the message that you are saying is the government's is not the message that the government is putting out when it's dealing with its concern for public health.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [284.417, 294.816, 298.139, 304.048, 311.78, 315.288], "stop_times": [294.816, 298.139, 304.048, 311.78, 315.288, 335.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 284.417}, "reply_to": "21471__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__0_033", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, the government, in the concern... in situations where it may be concerned about public health, doesn't say, \"Don't eat meat\".\nIt... there may be nutritional standards.\nAnd USDA does have nutritional standards that it advises people to adhere to.\nBut what the government is doing here is facilitating a situation, facilitating promotion of a commodity.\nThere is a structural defect in a market like... a market for a fungible commodity, and I think it's important to understand what Congress was responding to here.\nWhen you have a fungible commodity, when you have a lot of small producers, no one of those producers has an incentive to advertise--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [335.214, 340.709, 345.216, 350.309, 357.746, 368.928], "stop_times": [340.709, 345.216, 350.309, 357.746, 368.928, 380.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.214}, "reply_to": "21471__0_032", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_034", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Mr. Kneedler, is meat fungible?\nOr... I think there are some steak houses that might disagree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [380.749, 382.948], "stop_times": [382.948, 386.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 380.749}, "reply_to": "21471__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__0_035", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, there are... there are... there are, to be sure, different cuts of meat, but the... but the basic--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [386.146], "stop_times": [390.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 386.146}, "reply_to": "21471__0_034", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_036", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "I mean, even quality of meat within the... some is tougher than others.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [390.882], "stop_times": [393.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 390.882}, "reply_to": "21471__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__0_037", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [393.531], "stop_times": [394.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 393.531}, "reply_to": "21471__0_036", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_038", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "It's not like milk or wheat.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [394.2], "stop_times": [396.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 394.2}, "reply_to": "21471__0_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__0_039", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--But Congress could reasonably determine, under this statute, that there are... that there are... that beef has many things in common, that it is a generic problem... or generic food or generic commodity, and the industry--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [396.256], "stop_times": [410.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 396.256}, "reply_to": "21471__0_038", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_040", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "At some level, it certainly is, I suppose.\nBut, just as in wheat or corn, there are different brands and different qualities.\nBut I suppose it's still fungible, in a broad sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [410.52, 413.321, 417.482], "stop_times": [413.321, 417.482, 420.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 410.52}, "reply_to": "21471__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__0_041", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--It is fungible in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [420.832], "stop_times": [421.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 420.832}, "reply_to": "21471__0_040", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_042", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "May I ask you whether, in deciding the government's speech doctrine, is it the Secretary's formal right to control, as set out in the statute, that we look to, or do we look to the Secretary's actual record of oversight--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [421.616], "stop_times": [438.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 421.616}, "reply_to": "21471__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__0_043", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--We think the... we think the formal legal control is sufficient.\nAnd it... the Secretary has the responsibility to approve... under the statute... to approve budgets, to approve contracts, and to approve projects.\nAnd USDA does, in fact, go beyond that and determine whether particular advertisements will be... will be issued.\nBut we think it's only necessary to look what the statute requires.\nBut the testimony in this case shows that, in any event, USDA is extensively involved in the development of the advertising under this statute, by extensive consultations with the Operating Committee and the Beef Board in the development of the project.\nSo there... this is an integrated effort within the Department of Agriculture.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [438.418, 442.769, 453.278, 460.255, 463.006, 477.489], "stop_times": [442.769, 453.278, 460.255, 463.006, 477.489, 481.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 438.418}, "reply_to": "21471__0_042", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_044", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Is it at all possible to do here what has been done in the union cases, where... I mean, it's pretty hard for me to believe that there aren't... that meat... that cattle growers don't, by and large, like beef.\nI mean, maybe they have a ideological objection to people eating beef, but I doubt it.\nThey probably object to some content.\nSo can you segregate that?\nI mean, in the union cases, the bar cases, they try to segregate where there really is an ideological objection from the cases where really all that the objector wants is not to pay the money.\nAnd so they work out a system.\nYou know, you pay so much for your dues anyway, you just don't pay that pro rata amount, where you really have an ideological objection.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [481.607, 494.612, 500.729, 503.477, 505.923, 516.707, 519.489], "stop_times": [494.612, 500.729, 503.477, 505.923, 516.707, 519.489, 526.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 481.607}, "reply_to": "21471__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__0_045", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [526.369], "stop_times": [527.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 526.369}, "reply_to": "21471__0_044", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_046", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Is it possible to work that out?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [527.914], "stop_times": [528.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 527.914}, "reply_to": "21471__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__0_047", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--What has... what has been proposed by the... by the Respondents in this case, of course, is to make it voluntary, so that people--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [528.853], "stop_times": [535.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 528.853}, "reply_to": "21471__0_046", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_048", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Yeah, but, I mean, if you make it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [535.772], "stop_times": [536.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 535.772}, "reply_to": "21471__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__0_049", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--can opt out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [536.438], "stop_times": [536.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 536.438}, "reply_to": "21471__0_048", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_050", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--totally voluntary, what you're going to discover is, all of a sudden, the beef people, rather than write a check, will say,\n\"Oh, you know, I make... I raise cattle, but I don't think people should eat beef. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [536.787, 542.394], "stop_times": [542.394, 545.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 536.787}, "reply_to": "21471__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__0_051", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [545.683], "stop_times": [546.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.683}, "reply_to": "21471__0_050", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_052", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "That saves them the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [546.922], "stop_times": [548.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 546.922}, "reply_to": "21471__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__0_053", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [548.173], "stop_times": [549.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 548.173}, "reply_to": "21471__0_052", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_054", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "And I tend to doubt that that's their view.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [549.01], "stop_times": [551.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.01}, "reply_to": "21471__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__0_055", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [551.402], "stop_times": [552.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 551.402}, "reply_to": "21471__0_054", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_056", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Some may view... object to certain content.\nSo I'm asking if it's feasible to work out--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [552.023, 554.012], "stop_times": [554.012, 555.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 552.023}, "reply_to": "21471__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__0_057", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I think it... I think it would not be feasible.\nIt would... it would enmesh the Department in difficult judgements and time-consuming--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [555.835, 557.97], "stop_times": [557.97, 562.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 555.835}, "reply_to": "21471__0_056", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_058", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "It would be... in the union cases, it's hard enough.\nIt's a... the good-of-the-order exception is the way it works in the union.\nAnd in the bar thing, I think it would be hard to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [562.575, 565.606, 569.995], "stop_times": [565.606, 569.995, 572.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 562.575}, "reply_to": "21471__0_057", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__0_059", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Absolutely.\nAnd the Court made a similar point in Southworth, where it specifically declined to impose, on the university, a requirement to make judgements that would enable people to opt out in particular cases.\nAnd we think that the problem here would be even greater.\nBut they would be particularly great under Respondents' proposal that individuals who don't want to pay, without even having to express an objection, because the whole system would collapse.\nThis is a classic collective-action, free-rider problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [572.486, 573.98, 585.076, 588.255, 597.717], "stop_times": [573.98, 585.076, 588.255, 597.717, 601.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 572.486}, "reply_to": "21471__0_058", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_060", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Mr. Kneedler--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [601.055], "stop_times": [601.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 601.055}, "reply_to": "21471__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__0_061", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "What the numbers--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [601.832], "stop_times": [602.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 601.832}, "reply_to": "21471__0_060", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_062", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--can I come back to Rust versus Sullivan?\nYou say that that was a government speech case?\nI had not recollected it as a government speech case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [602.183, 605.71, 611.465], "stop_times": [605.71, 611.465, 614.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 602.183}, "reply_to": "21471__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__0_063", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--This Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [614.56], "stop_times": [615.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 614.56}, "reply_to": "21471__0_062", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_064", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "This is government subsidizing speech by private organizations, and it chose to subsidize one type of speech, but not another.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [615.373], "stop_times": [627.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 615.373}, "reply_to": "21471__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__0_065", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Yeah--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [627.605], "stop_times": [628.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 627.605}, "reply_to": "21471__0_064", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_066", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Did we say, in the opinion, that this was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [628.296], "stop_times": [629.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 628.296}, "reply_to": "21471__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__0_067", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Not in Rust, but in the Court's subsequent cases, Rosenberger, Southworth... in particular, in Velazquez... this Court said that Rust has come to be understood by the Court as a government speech case, because the government prescribed a message, and it's government speech whether or not the government speaks for itself or enlists others to transmit the message.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [629.884], "stop_times": [649.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.884}, "reply_to": "21471__0_066", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_068", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, for the precise purpose at issue here, I think it makes a lot of difference.\nYou can fund private people for some things, and not fund them for others, and it doesn't make whatever they say government speech.\nI think that's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [649.608, 653.88, 662.047], "stop_times": [653.88, 662.047, 662.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 649.608}, "reply_to": "21471__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__0_069", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [662.631], "stop_times": [663.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.631}, "reply_to": "21471__0_068", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_070", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I think that's a really--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [663.593], "stop_times": [664.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 663.593}, "reply_to": "21471__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__0_071", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--but there's really no--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [664.321], "stop_times": [664.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 664.321}, "reply_to": "21471__0_070", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_072", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--strong proposition, that whenever you're subsidizing any private enterprise, the speech of that private enterprise becomes public speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [664.937], "stop_times": [671.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 664.937}, "reply_to": "21471__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__0_073", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--There's really no need to get to that point here, because the Beef Board, which is the entity that does the speaking, is, I think, unquestionably a government body.\nIt's established by special statute under the Lebron test.\nAll of its members are appointed by the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [671.898, 682.494, 686.887], "stop_times": [682.494, 686.887, 688.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 671.898}, "reply_to": "21471__0_072", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_074", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "That's fine.\nBut what you were using Rust for was to establish the proposition that in order to be government speech, it... you don't have to... you don't have to say, \"This is the government speaking\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [688.573, 689.223], "stop_times": [689.223, 702.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 688.573}, "reply_to": "21471__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__0_075", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [702.437], "stop_times": [705.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 702.437}, "reply_to": "21471__0_074", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_076", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "And Rust doesn't stand for that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [705.643], "stop_times": [706.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.643}, "reply_to": "21471__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__0_077", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--what... I think, as this Court has come to explain Rust, as being issues of government speech... but, as I say, there is no need... there is no need for the Court to get to that situation.\nAnd the fact that the government is the one in control of the speech here critically distinguished... distinguishes this case from cases like Keller and Abood.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [706.604, 717.272], "stop_times": [717.272, 727.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 706.604}, "reply_to": "21471__0_076", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_078", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--This is a question perhaps more for the Respondent than for you, but I would like your comment on it.\nSuppose the statute were changed and there was a dollar-a-head assessment on beef, and it just went into the general funds of the United States Treasury, and then they used part of that money... they had more money for beef advertising, and the government did the advertising.\nWhat would the Respondents say about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [727.143, 732.882, 746.073], "stop_times": [732.882, 746.073, 752.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 727.143}, "reply_to": "21471__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__0_079", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "I think... I think they would say that that... that there's something different about general taxes and excise taxes or focus taxes.\nBut I don't think there's any basis in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [752.101, 759.972], "stop_times": [759.972, 763.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.101}, "reply_to": "21471__0_078", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_080", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But why can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [763.239], "stop_times": [763.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 763.239}, "reply_to": "21471__0_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__0_081", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--in history or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [763.604], "stop_times": [764.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 763.604}, "reply_to": "21471__0_080", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_082", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--why can't you just do that?\nOr is your answer to me,\n\"Well, then, it's just formalism, and you might as well rule for me now? \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [764.012, 765.053, 767.405], "stop_times": [765.053, 767.405, 769.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 764.012}, "reply_to": "21471__0_081", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__0_083", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I'm sorry, do... maybe I misunderstood your question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [769.941], "stop_times": [772.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 769.941}, "reply_to": "21471__0_082", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_084", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Why can't the government--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [772.515], "stop_times": [773.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 772.515}, "reply_to": "21471__0_083", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__0_085", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Were you asking why focus--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [773.252], "stop_times": [773.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 773.252}, "reply_to": "21471__0_084", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_086", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--why can't the government adopt my solution?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [773.837], "stop_times": [775.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 773.837}, "reply_to": "21471__0_085", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__0_087", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, I... and maybe I misunderstood.\nWas it... was it paying for it out of general taxes or taking this money and putting into the focus--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [775.136, 776.997], "stop_times": [776.997, 782.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 775.136}, "reply_to": "21471__0_086", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_088", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "It's put into the general fund of the... of the Treasury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [782.714], "stop_times": [785.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 782.714}, "reply_to": "21471__0_087", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__0_089", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I... they may say that that's the same thing, but I... they were drawing a distinction between paying for it out of general funds... income tax or something... that we all would pay for.\nThey say that's the solution, rather than having the industry, that benefits from the advertising, pay for it.\nNot only does the industry benefit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [785.202, 796.264, 803.964], "stop_times": [796.264, 803.964, 805.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 785.202}, "reply_to": "21471__0_088", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_090", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But then you'd come within the protections of Frothingham versus Mellon, and Massachusetts versus Mellon, if you did it that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [805.728], "stop_times": [812.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.728}, "reply_to": "21471__0_089", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__0_091", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Yes, there would be standing objection... objections at that point, but we think, in terms of the merits of the argument, the notion that a person would have a First Amendment objection to paying an excise tax because of the uses to which the excise taxes are being put is really extraordinary and finds no basis in cases like Abood and Keller, which have to do with private association... an association with private speech--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [812.633], "stop_times": [836.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 812.633}, "reply_to": "21471__0_090", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_092", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But then you could--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [836.823], "stop_times": [837.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 836.823}, "reply_to": "21471__0_091", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__0_093", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--no government speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [837.206], "stop_times": [837.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 837.206}, "reply_to": "21471__0_092", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_094", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--probably restructure this Act to get to the result you want.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [837.82], "stop_times": [839.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 837.82}, "reply_to": "21471__0_093", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__0_095", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Yes.\nIf that... but the funds that are raised are public monies.\nThey don't go in... they're not deposited in the Treasury.\nBut in the Joint Appendix, there is a reproduced... an AMS, Agricultural Marketing Service, circular that explains how these public monies... and calls them \"public monies\"... are to be disposed of.\nAnd it describes the Beef Board, this governmental body that receives the money, as being the custodian for the Agricultural Marketing Service and handling these monies.\nAnd Congress and the Secretary have imposed strict limitations on how those funds can be deposited.\nSo whether they go into the general Treasury or whether they're handled in this way is really a matter of fiscal and revenue and internal governmental policy that I don't think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [839.849, 840.419, 845.479, 848.409, 862.218, 871.022, 876.116], "stop_times": [840.419, 845.479, 848.409, 862.218, 871.022, 876.116, 884.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 839.849}, "reply_to": "21471__0_094", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_096", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Mr. Kneedler, this theory is one that wasn't brought up at all in Wileman, if I remember correctly.\nAnd in United Foods, it was brought up too late, so the government... so the Court didn't entertain it.\nThe argument that you're making today, I take it, would necessarily displace United Foods has having any kind of a continuing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [884.601, 894.076, 899.891], "stop_times": [894.076, 899.891, 911.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 884.601}, "reply_to": "21471__0_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__0_097", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Yes, because the government did not reach the government speech... or the Court did not reach the government speech argument in United Foods.\nAnd, in fact, United Foods is back, on remand.\nThat was a reversal of summary judgement for the government.\nIt's back, on remand, and is being stayed, pending the outcome of this case on government speech.\nSo there would not be an inconsistent result in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [911.247, 918.352, 920.672, 923.461, 928.523], "stop_times": [918.352, 920.672, 923.461, 928.523, 932.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 911.247}, "reply_to": "21471__0_096", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_098", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "You wouldn't want to treat beef and mushrooms inconsistently.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [932.853, 935.812], "stop_times": [935.812, 936.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 932.853}, "reply_to": "21471__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__0_099", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [936.561], "stop_times": [937.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 936.561}, "reply_to": "21471__0_098", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_100", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--But there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [937.38], "stop_times": [938.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 937.38}, "reply_to": "21471__0_099", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__0_101", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [938.914], "stop_times": [939.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 938.914}, "reply_to": "21471__0_100", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_102", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--the public perception of these ads... it says, \"Eat meat\"... it's quite different from saying,\n\"Your government wants you to buy meat. \"\nAnd the United States isn't saying that.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [939.385, 946.886, 951.229, 953.764], "stop_times": [946.886, 951.229, 953.764, 954.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 939.385}, "reply_to": "21471__0_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__0_103", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--But what the... what the United States is doing is responding to this classic collective-action problem by establishing a government program to meet the situation where the industry, itself, will... is unable to conduct the advertising because of... because of, what I said, the fungibility of the product--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [954.156], "stop_times": [972.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 954.156}, "reply_to": "21471__0_102", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_104", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--But then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [972.796], "stop_times": [973.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 972.796}, "reply_to": "21471__0_103", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__0_105", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--and all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [973.071], "stop_times": [973.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 973.071}, "reply_to": "21471__0_104", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_106", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--isn't it more realistic to describe this as the government facilitating the private speech of the many people in this industry who don't have a big budget to advertise on--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [973.261], "stop_times": [988.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 973.261}, "reply_to": "21471__0_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__0_107", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [988.26], "stop_times": [988.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 988.26}, "reply_to": "21471__0_106", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_108", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--on their own?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [988.685], "stop_times": [988.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 988.685}, "reply_to": "21471__0_107", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__0_109", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--doctrinally, it is government speech.\nIt has the... it has the benefit of enabling the promotion that would have happened in the industry, but for the collective-action problem to occur.\nBut it is government speech under this Court's decision.\nIf I may--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [988.912, 991.135, 999.419, 1002.046], "stop_times": [991.135, 999.419, 1002.046, 1002.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 988.912}, "reply_to": "21471__0_108", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_110", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Do you want to save your time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1002.511], "stop_times": [1003.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1002.511}, "reply_to": "21471__0_109", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__0_111", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Please.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1003.136], "stop_times": [1003.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1003.136}, "reply_to": "21471__0_110", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__0_112", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Mr. Garre.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1003.56], "stop_times": [1011.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1003.56}, "reply_to": "21471__0_111", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__1_000", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThe First Amendment does not prevent the government from speaking out in order to revise and expand the market for the nation's most important agricultural product.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1011.054, 1017.117], "stop_times": [1017.117, 1026.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1011.054}, "reply_to": "21471__0_112", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_001", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "If we can just continue on government speech, because that's where--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1026.694], "stop_times": [1029.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1026.694}, "reply_to": "21471__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__1_002", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1029.536], "stop_times": [1029.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1029.536}, "reply_to": "21471__1_001", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_003", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--where we left off.\nIt seems to me there is something offensive about making a particular portion of the public pay for something that the government says.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1029.751, 1030.704], "stop_times": [1030.704, 1038.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1029.751}, "reply_to": "21471__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__1_004", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Justice Kennedy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1038.942], "stop_times": [1040.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1038.942}, "reply_to": "21471__1_003", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_005", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "It ought to be out of the general fund.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1040.079], "stop_times": [1041.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1040.079}, "reply_to": "21471__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__1_006", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, the assessments in this case are imposed on a class of people who sell particular commodity... cattle.\nIn that respect, they're no different than the types of assessments the Federal Government has been imposing for centuries on the sale of commodities, from the first tax the Federal Government imposed on whiskey to the excise taxes on gasoline producers today.\nAnd Respondents concede you could do this out of general tax revenues.\nThey concede that you could have a government speech program funded by excises on certain commodities, like cigarettes or alcohol.\nThere is no basis under the First Amendment to carve out a different rule in the case of beef.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1041.55, 1048.656, 1062.77, 1066.251, 1073.501], "stop_times": [1048.656, 1062.77, 1066.251, 1073.501, 1078.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1041.55}, "reply_to": "21471__1_005", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_007", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "What I'm saying, it seems to me that the government speech doesn't seem to me to advance your argument very much, because it has problems of its own.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1078.092], "stop_times": [1087.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1078.092}, "reply_to": "21471__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__1_008", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, we agree with the government speech doctrine, although we also think that the Court can uphold the statute under the intermediate-scrutiny analysis.\nIt makes perfect sense for the government to be speaking out in order to correct a market problem that Congress identified in the midst of a two-decade-long depression in the beef industry.\nTake the BSE incident last year.\nBSE imposes a potentially catastrophic and overnight impact on the beef industry.\nIn response to that threat, because of the beef checkoff program, the government was able to respond immediately with the funds necessary to respond on a national scale, not only through promotion... and this is an important part in which this case is different from United Food... only about half of every checkoff dollar goes to promoting beef through commercial advertising, like the\n\"Beef, it's what's for dinner. \"\ncampaign.\nThe rest of that dollar goes to things like producing information to consumers about the safety of U.S. meat, the... addressing the health concerns imposed by BSE and other potential diseases, like E. coli; going to open up foreign markets so that we can export beef... beef exports have risen dramatically under this program... and going for things like research in order to identify an early-detection system for BSE.\nIn United Foods, this Court emphasized, at least three times throughout its opinion, that the only aspect of the program that was... the dollar was being collected for was commercial advertising.\nAnd, Justice Stevens, I think you emphasized that in your concurrence, as well.\nAnd this program is much more--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1087.157, 1095.997, 1105.915, 1108.069, 1113.704, 1133.818, 1134.799, 1135.41, 1157.467, 1166.836, 1170.342], "stop_times": [1095.997, 1105.915, 1108.069, 1113.704, 1133.818, 1134.799, 1135.41, 1157.467, 1166.836, 1170.342, 1172.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1087.157}, "reply_to": "21471__1_007", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_009", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Yeah, but, I mean, that... the part that's good can't save the whole thing, any more than in the... in the union case, the fact that some... the union dues could be used for some permissible purposes, saved the dues that were being used for impermissible purposes.\nYou--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1172.684, 1190.21], "stop_times": [1190.21, 1190.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1172.684}, "reply_to": "21471__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__1_010", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, the union--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1190.597], "stop_times": [1191.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1190.597}, "reply_to": "21471__1_009", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_011", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--You don't want to just save half of this program, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1191.247], "stop_times": [1193.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1191.247}, "reply_to": "21471__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__1_012", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, certainly saving half is better than scuttling the whole--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1193.475], "stop_times": [1196.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1193.475}, "reply_to": "21471__1_011", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_013", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Oh, all right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1196.528], "stop_times": [1196.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1196.528}, "reply_to": "21471__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__1_014", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--thing, Justice Scalia.\nBut the union case is... the speech that was... that this Court held could not be funded... and, after all, in those cases, the message was controlled by a non-government entity, the union or the state bar.\nBut there, you're talking about political and ideological speech.\nHere, we're talking about beef production... producing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1196.859, 1197.355, 1208.32, 1211.331], "stop_times": [1197.355, 1208.32, 1211.331, 1213.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1196.859}, "reply_to": "21471__1_013", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_015", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, what's the objection to, whenever you have an ad, you put a little thing in the corner, and it says,\n\"This advertisement is paid for by the beef industry under a regulation, X-23, of the Department of Agriculture? \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1213.956, 1218.092], "stop_times": [1218.092, 1227.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1213.956}, "reply_to": "21471__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__1_016", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Justice Breyer, the program would do that if this Court held it was necessary--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1227.447], "stop_times": [1232.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1227.447}, "reply_to": "21471__1_015", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_017", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "And it wouldn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1232.395], "stop_times": [1232.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1232.395}, "reply_to": "21471__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__1_018", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--under the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1232.701], "stop_times": [1233.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1232.701}, "reply_to": "21471__1_017", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_019", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--tough, would it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1233.08], "stop_times": [1233.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1233.08}, "reply_to": "21471__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__1_020", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1233.731], "stop_times": [1234.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1233.731}, "reply_to": "21471__1_019", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_021", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "All you'd have to do is have a little thing... and it would just say,\n\"USDA requires this, under the program. \"\nand then the whole problem goes away.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1234.407, 1236.52, 1239.02], "stop_times": [1236.52, 1239.02, 1240.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1234.407}, "reply_to": "21471__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__1_022", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--That's correct.\nBut let me make a few additional--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1240.252, 1241.068], "stop_times": [1241.068, 1242.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1240.252}, "reply_to": "21471__1_021", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_023", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1242.199], "stop_times": [1242.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1242.199}, "reply_to": "21471__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__1_024", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--points.\nFirst, as Mr. Kneedler emphasized, nothing in the statute, the regulation, requires the ad to say that they're funded by America's beef--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1242.822, 1243.249], "stop_times": [1243.249, 1250.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1242.822}, "reply_to": "21471__1_023", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_025", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, I... we realize that.\nI mean, we're getting into it because there's at least a potential constitutional problem here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1250.567, 1252.231], "stop_times": [1252.231, 1256.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1250.567}, "reply_to": "21471__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__1_026", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--And let me make another--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1256.697], "stop_times": [1257.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1256.697}, "reply_to": "21471__1_025", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_027", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "As you respond to Justice Breyer's question, would you go the step further and say, Why isn't one possible solution to this difficulty we're having about government speech a requirement that if you want to justify it as government speech, you put in the advertisement,\n\"This is the government's position, paid for by the beef producers? \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1257.832, 1273.932], "stop_times": [1273.932, 1278.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1257.832}, "reply_to": "21471__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__1_028", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--The government isn't hiding from--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1278.982], "stop_times": [1281.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1278.982}, "reply_to": "21471__1_027", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_029", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "No--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1281.858], "stop_times": [1282.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1281.858}, "reply_to": "21471__1_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__1_030", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--the messages in its pro-beef ads.\nIt... Justice Souter, the government could do that, but it's not hiding from this message.\nWe think that if the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1282.485, 1283.617, 1288.248], "stop_times": [1283.617, 1288.248, 1289.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1282.485}, "reply_to": "21471__1_029", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_031", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--In fact, there was an indication in the brief that the government had taken the position that if the government came out front and said,\n\"Hey, we're urging you to eat more meat. \"\nthat, in fact, it would be very unsuccessful in doing it.\nIt seems to want to hide the ball here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1289.767, 1298.913, 1301.917, 1304.547], "stop_times": [1298.913, 1301.917, 1304.547, 1306.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1289.767}, "reply_to": "21471__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__1_032", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, the government does do that, Justice Souter.\nLast year, during the height of BSE crisis, the President, from his ranch in Texas, urged Americans to eat more beef and told Americans that beef was safe.\nThat's the same message that went out, supervised by the United States Department of Agriculture, through the Beef Board, to communicate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1306.888, 1310.008, 1317.497], "stop_times": [1310.008, 1317.497, 1324.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1306.888}, "reply_to": "21471__1_031", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_033", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Did he--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1324.356], "stop_times": [1324.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1324.356}, "reply_to": "21471__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__1_034", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--message.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1324.793], "stop_times": [1325.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1324.793}, "reply_to": "21471__1_033", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_035", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--And who paid for that?\nDid beef people pay for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1325.423, 1327.082], "stop_times": [1327.082, 1328.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1325.423}, "reply_to": "21471__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__1_036", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "The President's message was paid through general tax dollars.\nThe message under this program is paid through the assessment.\nIt's the same message.\nThe message under the Beef Board is carefully controlled and supervised by the United States Department of Agriculture.\nIf I could make a point--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1328.396, 1332.262, 1335.805, 1336.903, 1341.851], "stop_times": [1332.262, 1335.805, 1336.903, 1341.851, 1343.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1328.396}, "reply_to": "21471__1_035", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_037", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, let's be honest about it.\nLet's be totally accurate.\nIt's not going to say, \"The government believes this\".\nThe government may not believe it.\nWhat it says is,\n\"This message is brought to you by the Beef Association under the... under a program requiring contributions to advertising of the Department of Agriculture. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1343.061, 1344.341, 1345.727, 1348.226, 1350.126, 1351.355], "stop_times": [1344.341, 1345.727, 1348.226, 1350.126, 1351.355, 1363.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1343.061}, "reply_to": "21471__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__1_038", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--And--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1363.491], "stop_times": [1364.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1363.491}, "reply_to": "21471__1_037", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_039", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Nobody will even know what that means, but it has the--\n[Laughter]\n--it has--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1364.09, 1366.746, 1367.184], "stop_times": [1366.746, 1367.184, 1367.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1364.09}, "reply_to": "21471__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__1_040", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, that's good.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1367.609], "stop_times": [1367.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1367.609}, "reply_to": "21471__1_039", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_041", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--it has the virtue of being totally accurate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1367.929], "stop_times": [1369.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1367.929}, "reply_to": "21471__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__1_042", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "That's right.\nEvery single ad that we're aware of, has the beef check, which is the sign that the beef... or the reasonable observer would know that this is a statute passed by Congress containing a message that Americans should eat more beef, that beef is nutritious, that's disseminated under a program that's carefully supervised and controlled by the Secretary of Agriculture.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1369.559, 1370.471], "stop_times": [1370.471, 1388.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1369.559}, "reply_to": "21471__1_041", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_043", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "The important thing is, you have no objection to doing that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1388.643], "stop_times": [1391.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.643}, "reply_to": "21471__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__1_044", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "We would not, but we also think... and if the Court made that clear in this case, it wouldn't be a basis for invalidating the statute; it might be a basis for sending it back or an as-applied challenge.\nImportantly, we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1391.256, 1400.128], "stop_times": [1400.128, 1401.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1391.256}, "reply_to": "21471__1_043", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_045", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But what it... what it would... what it would be a basis for, at least within the confines of this argument, would be a basis for your government speech claim in the sense that you wouldn't be basing a government speech claim on what is really a misrepresentation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1401.932], "stop_times": [1420.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1401.932}, "reply_to": "21471__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__1_046", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--It... we don't think it's a misrepresentation.\nThe speech is funded by America's beef producers.\nThe Respondents in this case, the centerpiece of their First Amendment argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1420.408, 1422.965, 1424.995], "stop_times": [1422.965, 1424.995, 1428.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1420.408}, "reply_to": "21471__1_045", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_047", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "No, including those who don't want to fund it and who don't agree with the message.\nI mean, the problem here is that by making that representation, you indicate that this is the message of the people who are paying for it.\nAnd some of the people who are paying for it do not wish to convey that message.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1428.318, 1431.51, 1440.621], "stop_times": [1431.51, 1440.621, 1444.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.318}, "reply_to": "21471__1_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__1_048", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--We--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1444.94], "stop_times": [1445.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1444.94}, "reply_to": "21471__1_047", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_049", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "That's the misrepresentation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1445.276], "stop_times": [1446.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1445.276}, "reply_to": "21471__1_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__1_050", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--With respect, we would disagree.\nThere's no reason to believe that a reasonable observer would think that just because an ad says it's funded by the nation's beef producers, every single one of the 850,000 individual cattle producers in this country agrees with every single--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1446.125, 1447.617], "stop_times": [1447.617, 1460.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1446.125}, "reply_to": "21471__1_049", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_051", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But what they would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1460.233], "stop_times": [1461.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1460.233}, "reply_to": "21471__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__1_052", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--of the message.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1461.18], "stop_times": [1461.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1461.18}, "reply_to": "21471__1_051", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_053", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--what they would, I think, assume is that, in the name, the beef producers do, in fact, agree with this, and this is their message.\nWhat they would not assume from it is that it is what you and Mr. Kneedler are claiming, the speech of the Government of the United States.\nThey certainly wouldn't infer that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1461.578, 1469.859, 1478.838], "stop_times": [1469.859, 1478.838, 1480.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1461.578}, "reply_to": "21471__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__1_054", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "We think it's fair to assume, as the Court would under the establishment clause, that they're familiar with the act of Congress that makes it... this message, as well as the program.\nA critical point on this attribution argument is that it's not supported by any single piece of evidence that Respondents, themselves, have put into the record in this case.\nTheir First Amendment objection is to the content of the ad.\nThere's not a single piece of evidence in the record purporting to make this attribution argument that the public would attribute to the ads to them.\nIt's not in the complaint in this case, it's not in their own affidavits, it's not in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1480.514, 1487.083, 1496.034, 1499.623, 1507.435], "stop_times": [1487.083, 1496.034, 1499.623, 1507.435, 1511.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1480.514}, "reply_to": "21471__1_053", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_055", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, maybe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1511.27], "stop_times": [1511.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1511.27}, "reply_to": "21471__1_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__1_056", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1511.678], "stop_times": [1511.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1511.678}, "reply_to": "21471__1_055", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_057", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--maybe it's not because they didn't know you were going to be defending on the basis of government speech.\nThat's what's getting us into this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1511.896, 1515.706], "stop_times": [1515.706, 1517.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1511.896}, "reply_to": "21471__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__1_058", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, I highly doubt that, Justice Souter, because the First Amendment claim was added in response to the United Foods case, and this case was developed, from the outset, on a government speech theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1517.185], "stop_times": [1526.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1517.185}, "reply_to": "21471__1_057", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_059", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Which wasn't a government speech case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1526.957], "stop_times": [1528.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1526.957}, "reply_to": "21471__1_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__1_060", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But it... the case was tried under the First Amendment, under a government speech argument.\nBut... so the fact that Respondents didn't put--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1528.312, 1533.092], "stop_times": [1533.092, 1535.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1528.312}, "reply_to": "21471__1_059", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_061", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "This case, not United Foods.\nBecause United Foods, the Court said it... it was not legitimately before us.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1535.287, 1536.558], "stop_times": [1536.558, 1541.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1535.287}, "reply_to": "21471__1_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__1_062", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--That's correct.\nBut my point is that the First Amendment case proceeded after United Foods.\nThe government's central argument in the trial was government speech.\nThe one time attribution came up... and this is at pages 46 and 47 of the trial record... Respondents' own witness testified that the public was not likely to attribute the message of the pro-beef ad to its organization of beef producers.\nSo if the Court finds that attribution is a constitutional concern, it's no basis to bring down the act of Congress on the record in this case.\nThe... I want to emphasize, if I could, that the program in this case has been effective.\nThe record establishes that the beef checkoff has had a statistically significant impact on increasing consumer demand for beef and an increase in prices.\nThat's contained in the expert testimony of Professor Ward, at pages 100 and 173.\nThe record also shows that for every checkoff dollar spent on the program, there's more than a 5.67 rate of return back to the beef producers in the form of increased prices for cattle.\nThe Beef Board's 2003 report suggests... finds that the price of a fed steer increased by more than $200 in the past few years.\nThis program has worked.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1541.775, 1542.653, 1545.807, 1548.497, 1563.101, 1571.188, 1576.319, 1585.746, 1590.897, 1601.156, 1609.588, 1611.599], "stop_times": [1542.653, 1545.807, 1548.497, 1563.101, 1571.188, 1576.319, 1585.746, 1590.897, 1601.156, 1609.588, 1611.599, 1613.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1541.775}, "reply_to": "21471__1_061", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21471__1_063", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Tribe?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1613.368, 1613.916], "stop_times": [1613.916, 1618.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.368}, "reply_to": "21471__1_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_000", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nAs I was listening to some of the questions about whether it would solve the problem to be more candid and say, \"This is your government speaking\", I thought I would begin with that question, rather than with an overview of government speech.\nYou'll recall Wooley v. Maynard, of course, in which the State of New Hampshire, without sensing the irony of its position, said,\n\"We'll put you in jail if you do not say, \"Live Free or Die\" on-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1618.207, 1622.597, 1638.358, 1647.425], "stop_times": [1622.597, 1638.358, 1647.425, 1651.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1618.207}, "reply_to": "21471__1_063", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_001", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But that was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1651.117], "stop_times": [1651.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1651.117}, "reply_to": "21471__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__2_002", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--\"your license plates\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1651.527], "stop_times": [1651.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1651.527}, "reply_to": "21471__2_001", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_003", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--that was an individual attribution.\nYou, yourself, had--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1651.872, 1654.093], "stop_times": [1654.093, 1656.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1651.872}, "reply_to": "21471__2_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__2_004", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1656.099], "stop_times": [1656.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1656.099}, "reply_to": "21471__2_003", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_005", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--had to carry this message.\nNow, here you want us to think of some cowboy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1656.47, 1657.326], "stop_times": [1657.326, 1660.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1656.47}, "reply_to": "21471__2_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__2_006", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1660.173], "stop_times": [1660.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1660.173}, "reply_to": "21471__2_005", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_007", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--going into the bar, and he gets jeered by all his friends because he likes beef.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1660.453], "stop_times": [1663.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.453}, "reply_to": "21471__2_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__2_008", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, Justice Kennedy, my--\n[Laughter]\n--my point... my point was going to be that a footnote on the license plate saying, \"This is New Hampshire speaking\", would not have helped.\nBut one of the central holdings, as I understood it, of United Foods, independent of government speech, was that although there is a difference between having to say something yourself, having to put it on your car, and having to pay for it, that difference does not go to the existence of a First Amendment speech objection... not an association objection, but a speech objection.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1663.631, 1664.792, 1665.052, 1673.975], "stop_times": [1664.792, 1665.052, 1673.975, 1699.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1663.631}, "reply_to": "21471__2_007", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_009", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Let's first address the question you said... you said you were going to address, whether in order to be government speech, within the meaning of our cases, it has to be identified as such.\nIs that really true?\nI mean, you know, in World War II, Bob Hope would appear in movie theaters and say, you know, \"Buy war bonds\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1699.442, 1708.411, 1709.978], "stop_times": [1708.411, 1709.978, 1718.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1699.442}, "reply_to": "21471__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__2_010", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Yeah, I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1718.727], "stop_times": [1719.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1718.727}, "reply_to": "21471__2_009", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_011", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "\"This is Bob Hope. \"\n\"You people ought to go out now-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1719.83, 1720.657], "stop_times": [1720.657, 1722.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1719.83}, "reply_to": "21471__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__2_012", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I think, although it's an interesting digression about whether the government is being candid, the objection here has nothing to do with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1722.612], "stop_times": [1731.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1722.612}, "reply_to": "21471__2_011", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_013", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Okay, so it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1731.784], "stop_times": [1732.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.784}, "reply_to": "21471__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__2_014", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But being the government--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1732.84], "stop_times": [1733.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1732.84}, "reply_to": "21471__2_013", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_015", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--it is not essential--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1733.856], "stop_times": [1734.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1733.856}, "reply_to": "21471__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__2_016", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--It may be.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1734.481], "stop_times": [1735.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1734.481}, "reply_to": "21471__2_015", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_017", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--that government might... in order to be government speech, the government does not have to identify itself as the speaker.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1735.127], "stop_times": [1740.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1735.127}, "reply_to": "21471__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__2_018", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1740.447], "stop_times": [1741.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1740.447}, "reply_to": "21471__2_017", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_019", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Yes or no?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1741.826], "stop_times": [1742.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.826}, "reply_to": "21471__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__2_020", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I think the answer is yes, it must identify itself, but it doesn't help, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1742.41], "stop_times": [1747.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1742.41}, "reply_to": "21471__2_019", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_021", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, it doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1747.865], "stop_times": [1748.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1747.865}, "reply_to": "21471__2_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_022", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--the government--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1748.353], "stop_times": [1749.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1748.353}, "reply_to": "21471__2_021", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_023", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--we understand that you have a First Amendment claim, which you're going to have even if we say, \"This is not government speech\".\nI think the whole point here is to decide whether this is even--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1749.138, 1756.408], "stop_times": [1756.408, 1759.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1749.138}, "reply_to": "21471__2_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_024", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--No, no, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1759.654], "stop_times": [1760.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1759.654}, "reply_to": "21471__2_023", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_025", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--an issue that should be disposed of on any grounds other than candor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1760.651], "stop_times": [1763.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1760.651}, "reply_to": "21471__2_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_026", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Justice Souter, I think that we're getting off track by assuming that it helps for it to be government speech.\nMy point is that a central theme of this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1763.777, 1771.398], "stop_times": [1771.398, 1774.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1763.777}, "reply_to": "21471__2_025", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_027", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, just indulge us.\nI mean, some of us think it makes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1774.605, 1775.278], "stop_times": [1775.278, 1776.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.605}, "reply_to": "21471__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__2_028", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1776.403], "stop_times": [1776.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1776.403}, "reply_to": "21471__2_027", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_029", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--a difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1776.624], "stop_times": [1776.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1776.624}, "reply_to": "21471__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__2_030", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1776.903], "stop_times": [1777.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1776.903}, "reply_to": "21471__2_029", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_031", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--and I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1777.371], "stop_times": [1779.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.371}, "reply_to": "21471__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__2_032", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--but let me ask you whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1779.016], "stop_times": [1779.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1779.016}, "reply_to": "21471__2_031", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_033", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I would like to know whether it is essential to its character as government speech that the government's say, \"This your government speaking\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1779.793], "stop_times": [1788.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1779.793}, "reply_to": "21471__2_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__2_034", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--It depends on the purpose for which you are acting whether it's government speech.\nIn Rust v. Sullivan, even though I think you're certainly right, Justice Scalia, that in that opinion it wasn't called government speech, in order to rationalize it, in Rosenberger and Velazquez, it was so described.\nBut the question there wasn't,\n\"Can people be made to support it? \"\nThe question, rather, was,\n\"Can the government insist on staying within the terms of its grants and saying you can't talk about abortion? \"\nWhen the question is,\n\"Can the government force you to support it. \"\nthe \"it\", if it's government speech, doesn't help.\nThe First Amendment makes it a harder case for them, not easier.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1788.541, 1792.422, 1804.817, 1806.948, 1808.751, 1810.66, 1817.463, 1819.091, 1821.952, 1826.361], "stop_times": [1792.422, 1804.817, 1806.948, 1808.751, 1810.66, 1817.463, 1819.091, 1821.952, 1826.361, 1830.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1788.541}, "reply_to": "21471__2_033", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_035", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "It does it all the time in general taxes.\nEvery--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1830.743, 1832.989], "stop_times": [1832.989, 1833.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1830.743}, "reply_to": "21471__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__2_036", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1833.604], "stop_times": [1833.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1833.604}, "reply_to": "21471__2_035", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_037", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--time we pay general taxes, we're supporting government speech--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1833.896], "stop_times": [1836.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1833.896}, "reply_to": "21471__2_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__2_038", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Of course.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1836.175], "stop_times": [1836.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1836.175}, "reply_to": "21471__2_037", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_039", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--we may not agree with.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1836.748], "stop_times": [1837.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1836.748}, "reply_to": "21471__2_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__2_040", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But the Court has said there is a fundamental difference between being singled out, as in Wooley, to have a licence plate, as in Pruneyard, to have someone on your premises.\nIn Pruneyard, the Court said that one of the reasons it's okay to require someone to allow a private speaker onto the premises is that he was not required to support a government slogan.\nWhen it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1837.202, 1849.918, 1863.998], "stop_times": [1849.918, 1863.998, 1864.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1837.202}, "reply_to": "21471__2_039", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_041", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Yeah, but there it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1864.542], "stop_times": [1865.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1864.542}, "reply_to": "21471__2_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_042", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--government speech--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1865.547], "stop_times": [1865.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1865.547}, "reply_to": "21471__2_041", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_043", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--there it is your car, your property.\nThat's not this.\nThis is a generic ad on behalf of beef.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1865.868, 1869.367, 1870.927], "stop_times": [1869.367, 1870.927, 1874.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1865.868}, "reply_to": "21471__2_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_044", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--That was true of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1874.182], "stop_times": [1874.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.182}, "reply_to": "21471__2_043", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_045", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "I think there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1874.874], "stop_times": [1876.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1874.874}, "reply_to": "21471__2_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_046", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--that was true of United Foods.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1876.009], "stop_times": [1876.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1876.009}, "reply_to": "21471__2_045", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_047", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--there's a world of difference between this and having something put on your license plate or in your--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1876.269], "stop_times": [1881.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.269}, "reply_to": "21471__2_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_048", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Justice O'Connor, I would be much more offended by having to put it in my license plate.\nBut if I were raising cattle, and I were told, as they were told in this case,\n\"cattle equals beef; that's all it's worth, and that's why we won't let you, in these ads... we won't let the ads, that you have to pay for, increase the demands for cattle; only beef-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1881.924, 1886.209, 1893.32], "stop_times": [1886.209, 1893.32, 1905.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1881.924}, "reply_to": "21471__2_047", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_049", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, I don't even understand your argument.\nWould you still be here if the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1905.42, 1908.019], "stop_times": [1908.019, 1910.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1905.42}, "reply_to": "21471__2_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_050", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I haven't made it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1910.647], "stop_times": [1910.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1910.647}, "reply_to": "21471__2_049", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_051", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, you're trying.\n[Laughter]\nWould you still be here if there were distinctions made on behalf of free-range beef or, you know, \"Our cattle\"--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1910.966, 1911.805, 1912.429], "stop_times": [1911.805, 1912.429, 1922.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1910.966}, "reply_to": "21471__2_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_052", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Oh, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1922.326], "stop_times": [1922.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1922.326}, "reply_to": "21471__2_051", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_053", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--\"never had a\"--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1922.833], "stop_times": [1923.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.833}, "reply_to": "21471__2_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_054", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "The most important distinction--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1923.473], "stop_times": [1925.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1923.473}, "reply_to": "21471__2_053", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_055", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--\"medicine\" or something like that?\nWould you still be here if those distinctions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1925.904, 1927.686], "stop_times": [1927.686, 1930.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1925.904}, "reply_to": "21471__2_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_056", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, if it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1930.633], "stop_times": [1931.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1930.633}, "reply_to": "21471__2_055", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_057", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--had been made?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1931.04], "stop_times": [1931.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1931.04}, "reply_to": "21471__2_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_058", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--wasn't generic... there's no way for them to have an ad for every imaginable different kind of cattle in one set of advertisements.\nI just think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1931.504, 1942.837], "stop_times": [1942.837, 1943.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1931.504}, "reply_to": "21471__2_057", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_059", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, I'm just--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1943.197], "stop_times": [1943.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.197}, "reply_to": "21471__2_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_060", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--it's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1943.513], "stop_times": [1943.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.513}, "reply_to": "21471__2_059", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_061", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--asking you if, theoretically, some attention had been paid to the different kinds of producers--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1943.817], "stop_times": [1952.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.817}, "reply_to": "21471__2_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_062", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1952.324], "stop_times": [1952.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1952.324}, "reply_to": "21471__2_061", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_063", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--would you still be objecting?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1952.594], "stop_times": [1954.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1952.594}, "reply_to": "21471__2_062", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_064", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "We would object, fundamentally, if they did not emphasize American beef.\nThat was our first objection.\nThey said that they don't want to emphasize American beef, because, in cross-examination, the officer of the Beef Board said,\n\"Consumers might actually have a preference for American beef. \"\n\"That would be irrational. \"\n\"We don't want that. \"\nAnd so all of those cattle ranchers can say that,\n\"We're proud of it being American. \"\nThey can't get that in there.\nAnd the other principal thing is that they don't think of themselves as selling sides of beef.\nSome of them are selling dairy cattle, some of them are selling... even if it's going to, in the end, be in the slaughterhouse... we all die someday... their fundamental belief is that these are animals, and they're to be cared for.\nAnd the reason that that makes a difference... the reason that it makes a difference is, they can't even advertise... try to make live cattle more attractive to buy... is that the collective-action problem, if that were relevant here... I think that was really resolved by United Foods... but the collective-action problem is really created, not solved, by what they're doing.\nBecause the structure of the market is that there are a few concentrated meat-packers.\nSomething like four slaughter 80 percent of the... of the cattle in the United States.\nThey have the bargaining power.\nAnd in the record, their support for the findings of the District Court, that when the demand for beef goes up through these generic ads saying, \"Eat beef\"... although they certainly don't say,\n\"Your government says you should eat beef, beef, beef. \"\n--but when the demand for beef goes up, the profit is pocketed by the meat processor, the meat packer, the restaurant, the supermarket.\nAnd these guys still end up taking their cattle to market, and often having to pay a dollar checkoff, even though they can't even get the price of the... of the cattle back.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [1954.25, 1959.48, 1960.778, 1970.509, 1973.977, 1974.997, 1976.006, 1980.552, 1982.212, 1983.742, 1990.583, 2003.391, 2026.63, 2031.778, 2038.821, 2040.767, 2053.251, 2056.4, 2068.973, 2081.136], "stop_times": [1959.48, 1960.778, 1970.509, 1973.977, 1974.997, 1976.006, 1980.552, 1982.212, 1983.742, 1990.583, 2003.391, 2026.63, 2031.778, 2038.821, 2040.767, 2053.251, 2056.4, 2068.973, 2081.136, 2082.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1954.25}, "reply_to": "21471__2_063", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_065", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But would it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2082.022], "stop_times": [2082.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2082.022}, "reply_to": "21471__2_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_066", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--the free rides are now taken by the people who don't pay--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2082.877], "stop_times": [2085.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2082.877}, "reply_to": "21471__2_065", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_067", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--seems to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2085.605], "stop_times": [2086.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.605}, "reply_to": "21471__2_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_068", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--don't pay anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2086.431], "stop_times": [2087.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2086.431}, "reply_to": "21471__2_067", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_069", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I understand that a person could have an ideological objection to the content of the ad.\nBut the ad, itself, is an effort by government, in this area, to regulate a commercial matter, not a license plate that says, \"Free Speech, or Die\", or \"Freedom\"--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2087.748, 2094.181], "stop_times": [2094.181, 2106.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2087.748}, "reply_to": "21471__2_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_070", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--But it regulates speech, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2106.511], "stop_times": [2107.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2106.511}, "reply_to": "21471__2_069", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_071", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Yeah, I know.\nRight now I'm asking--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2107.187, 2107.523], "stop_times": [2107.523, 2108.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2107.187}, "reply_to": "21471__2_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_072", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "They don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2108.15], "stop_times": [2108.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2108.15}, "reply_to": "21471__2_071", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_073", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, my question is, Does it make a difference for the point of distinguishing, or not distinguishing, 99 percent of the way it's carried out, has to do with simple advertising, commercial advertising, the regulation of a commercial matter, commerce--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2108.522], "stop_times": [2138.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2108.522}, "reply_to": "21471__2_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_074", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2138.048], "stop_times": [2138.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2138.048}, "reply_to": "21471__2_073", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_075", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--does that make a difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2138.389], "stop_times": [2139.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2138.389}, "reply_to": "21471__2_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_076", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "I think it makes an emotional difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2139.338], "stop_times": [2140.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2139.338}, "reply_to": "21471__2_075", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_077", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But no legal difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2140.758], "stop_times": [2143.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2140.758}, "reply_to": "21471__2_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_078", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Not in the context of forcing people to pay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2143.022], "stop_times": [2146.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2143.022}, "reply_to": "21471__2_077", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_079", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "So, in other words--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2146.047], "stop_times": [2147.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2146.047}, "reply_to": "21471__2_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_080", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "It makes a difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2147.313], "stop_times": [2147.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2147.313}, "reply_to": "21471__2_079", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_081", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--in other words, a program that is a regulatory program regulating commerce, we should no longer think of that, though we tend to think of it as quite different in the way we approach the First Amendment... we no longer, in your view, should?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2147.909], "stop_times": [2162.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2147.909}, "reply_to": "21471__2_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_082", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--No, no.\nI think, certainly if we are regulating economic transactions and only dealing with speech in a purely ancillary way... that is, we're regulating sale, transaction--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2162.808, 2163.339], "stop_times": [2163.339, 2175.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2162.808}, "reply_to": "21471__2_081", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_083", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "We regulate advertising.\nWe regulate commercial advertising.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2175.478, 2177.348], "stop_times": [2177.348, 2179.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2175.478}, "reply_to": "21471__2_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_084", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Right, but the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2179.848], "stop_times": [2180.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2179.848}, "reply_to": "21471__2_083", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_085", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "The Federal Trade Commission--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2180.434], "stop_times": [2181.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.434}, "reply_to": "21471__2_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_086", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--network--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2181.471], "stop_times": [2181.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2181.471}, "reply_to": "21471__2_085", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_087", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2181.839], "stop_times": [2182.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2181.839}, "reply_to": "21471__2_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_088", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--didn't you say that just the fact that you call it commercial speech only means that when you are regulating problems of a transactional kind... deception, overbearing... then the fact that it's commercial speech makes a big difference.\nBut you can't just generically say that because something doesn't fit your idea of what's ideological... I mean, to these ranchers, the ideology--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2182.1, 2197.791], "stop_times": [2197.791, 2207.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2182.1}, "reply_to": "21471__2_087", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_089", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "I didn't say--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2207.208], "stop_times": [2207.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2207.208}, "reply_to": "21471__2_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_090", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--is different--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2207.553], "stop_times": [2208.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2207.553}, "reply_to": "21471__2_089", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_091", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I didn't say they had a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2208.049], "stop_times": [2209.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2208.049}, "reply_to": "21471__2_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_092", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--But whose--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2209.574], "stop_times": [2210.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2209.574}, "reply_to": "21471__2_091", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_093", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--commercial objection.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2210.062], "stop_times": [2210.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2210.062}, "reply_to": "21471__2_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_094", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--whose line... whose line between ideology and commerce will--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2210.726], "stop_times": [2216.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2210.726}, "reply_to": "21471__2_093", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_095", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "I am asking.\nIn analyzing the program, there are some things for it, and there are some things against it.\nAnd in trying to make that weighing, I do think it's different, because the basis of the program is commercial regulation.\nAnd so I want to be certain, in your view, that's either correct or incorrect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2216.286, 2217.321, 2222.241, 2230.895], "stop_times": [2217.321, 2222.241, 2230.895, 2236.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2216.286}, "reply_to": "21471__2_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_096", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I think it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2236.428], "stop_times": [2236.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2236.428}, "reply_to": "21471__2_095", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_097", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "If it's incorrect, I want to know why.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2236.921], "stop_times": [2238.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.921}, "reply_to": "21471__2_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_098", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, I think it's... if one were just weighing and didn't have a structured set of principles on the balance in favor of it, I think, you're right, we can't... they're not trying to induce ideological conformity.\nThis is not a case where they're trying to enforce what Justice Jackson calls \"the unanimity of the graveyard\".\nIt is a case where the spirit of the government is in the right place.\nThe government is trying to facilitate collective speech when--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2238.241, 2251.98, 2259.521, 2264.401], "stop_times": [2251.98, 2259.521, 2264.401, 2269.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2238.241}, "reply_to": "21471__2_097", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_099", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But does it make a difference?\nIf it makes a difference, then the lens that I look at this through is called our... whatever the second-tier commercial speech lends.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2269.101, 2270.748], "stop_times": [2270.748, 2278.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.101}, "reply_to": "21471__2_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_100", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2278.402], "stop_times": [2279.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2278.402}, "reply_to": "21471__2_099", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_101", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Have you looked at--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2279.146], "stop_times": [2279.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.146}, "reply_to": "21471__2_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_102", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--That doesn't follow.\nI don't think that follows.\nIt follows that if you were... if you were writing on a clean slate and were trying to create a wholly new doctrine, one of the things you would look at, I suppose, is that this is not a program designed to create ideological conformity in America.\nAt least the spirit of the program is not that.\nBut the road to hell is often paved with good intentions, and the means, in this case, that was chosen, was not to have the government spend some more money telling people,\n\"Beef isn't all as bad for you as you think. \"\nThe remedy that they are choosing is to pick a group of ranchers and say to them,\n\"You are the ones who are going to pay, and you are going to pay for-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2279.632, 2280.281, 2281.503, 2299.051, 2302.312, 2315.781, 2318.786, 2324.695], "stop_times": [2280.281, 2281.503, 2299.051, 2302.312, 2315.781, 2318.786, 2324.695, 2328.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2279.632}, "reply_to": "21471__2_101", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_103", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Mr. Tribe, would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2328.783], "stop_times": [2329.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2328.783}, "reply_to": "21471__2_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_104", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "\"# ads that are in your name. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2329.879], "stop_times": [2330.848], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2329.879}, "reply_to": "21471__2_103", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_105", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--would you comment on the argument that... what will this do to compelling cigarette manufacturers to finance the advertisements against smoking?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2330.848], "stop_times": [2339.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.848}, "reply_to": "21471__2_104", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_106", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, by \"advertisements against smoking\", Justice Stevens, if you mean,\n\"Here are the things that will kill you in cigarettes. \"\nthe kind of thing that's on the package now, it seems to me that it is constitutional, under even cases like Zauderer, to say that whoever sells a product or a service--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2339.448, 2344.287, 2348.569], "stop_times": [2344.287, 2348.569, 2362.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.448}, "reply_to": "21471__2_105", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_107", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "They have to give warning.\nBut why is the... why is the cigarette analogy different from this case?\nWhat is your answer to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2362.872, 2363.65, 2367.117], "stop_times": [2363.65, 2367.117, 2368.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2362.872}, "reply_to": "21471__2_106", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_108", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, it seems to me that no one suggests that the cigarette companies are supporting the ads in California.\nCalifornia is doing exactly what the Surgeon General does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2368.555, 2377.598], "stop_times": [2377.598, 2381.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.555}, "reply_to": "21471__2_107", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_109", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, it's odd that you can be compelled to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2381.388], "stop_times": [2384.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2381.388}, "reply_to": "21471__2_108", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__2_110", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Say negative things--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2384.104], "stop_times": [2385.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2384.104}, "reply_to": "21471__2_109", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_111", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--engage in speech that you don't agree with.\nNow you're saying that the more--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2385.877, 2387.509], "stop_times": [2387.509, 2389.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2385.877}, "reply_to": "21471__2_110", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__2_112", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2389.55], "stop_times": [2389.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2389.55}, "reply_to": "21471__2_111", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_113", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--disagreeable it is to you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2389.926], "stop_times": [2390.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2389.926}, "reply_to": "21471__2_112", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__2_114", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2390.713], "stop_times": [2390.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2390.713}, "reply_to": "21471__2_113", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_115", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--the more legitimate it is.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2390.992, 2391.992], "stop_times": [2391.992, 2392.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2390.992}, "reply_to": "21471__2_114", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__2_116", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I think if you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2392.483], "stop_times": [2393.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2392.483}, "reply_to": "21471__2_115", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_117", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--a very strange argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2393.136], "stop_times": [2394.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2393.136}, "reply_to": "21471__2_116", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__2_118", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, it may be strange, but I think that there have been stranger things.\nThe reason that it's true is that if you go around doing things that might endanger people, it's entirely justifiable for the state, as part of its non-speech effort to protect people--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2394.218, 2397.898], "stop_times": [2397.898, 2410.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2394.218}, "reply_to": "21471__2_117", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_119", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, do you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2410.855], "stop_times": [2412.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2410.855}, "reply_to": "21471__2_118", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_120", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--from harm, to make you give warnings--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2412.052], "stop_times": [2413.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2412.052}, "reply_to": "21471__2_119", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_121", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--do you accept the fact that the government can charge taxes on the sale of cigarettes and compel... and use that money to tell people that they're dangerous?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2413.041], "stop_times": [2426.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2413.041}, "reply_to": "21471__2_120", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_122", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, I think that's a much harder case than this, to be honest with you.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2426.838, 2430.64], "stop_times": [2430.64, 2431.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2426.838}, "reply_to": "21471__2_121", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_123", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "We do, however.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2431.16], "stop_times": [2432.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2431.16}, "reply_to": "21471__2_122", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_124", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, California does that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2432.485], "stop_times": [2433.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2432.485}, "reply_to": "21471__2_123", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_125", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Is that part of what's going on?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2433.726], "stop_times": [2434.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.726}, "reply_to": "21471__2_124", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_126", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "In California, it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2434.562], "stop_times": [2435.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2434.562}, "reply_to": "21471__2_125", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_127", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "So what you're arguing here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2435.589], "stop_times": [2437.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2435.589}, "reply_to": "21471__2_126", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_128", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2437.051], "stop_times": [2437.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2437.051}, "reply_to": "21471__2_127", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_129", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--is going to have rather a drastic effect on--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2437.298], "stop_times": [2439.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2437.298}, "reply_to": "21471__2_128", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_130", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, I think the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2439.713], "stop_times": [2440.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2439.713}, "reply_to": "21471__2_129", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_131", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--what's going on.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2440.29], "stop_times": [2440.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2440.29}, "reply_to": "21471__2_130", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_132", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--drastic effect would be the other way, wouldn't it?\nIf this Court were to hold, despite United Foods, that it is permissible to force people to support speech they don't agree with, as long as that speech doesn't fit our sense of what's ideological, that cuts to roll back Keller and Lehnert and Abood.\nIt's not a small part of the constitutional landscape that would be unearthed.\nWhereas, think about what is the marginal effect of saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2440.837, 2442.225, 2463.797, 2469.755], "stop_times": [2442.225, 2463.797, 2469.755, 2475.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2440.837}, "reply_to": "21471__2_131", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_133", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Wait, I don't... I had not understood you to be arguing, Professor Tribe, that this would be unlawful, even if the money were raised in the fashion that it is, just from the... just from the cattlemen.\nAnd the government's own program used that money to say,\n\"Your government thinks it's... wants you to know that beef is thoroughly safe. \"\n\"We've done studies. \"\n\"Beef is good for you. \"\n\"You should eat more beef. \"\nI thought you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2475.185, 2491.356, 2498.057, 2502.139, 2504.386, 2506.056, 2507.675], "stop_times": [2491.356, 2498.057, 2502.139, 2504.386, 2506.056, 2507.675, 2508.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.185}, "reply_to": "21471__2_132", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__2_134", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--No, I do think that would be permissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2508.379], "stop_times": [2510.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2508.379}, "reply_to": "21471__2_133", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_135", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--That would be permissible?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2510.255], "stop_times": [2511.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2510.255}, "reply_to": "21471__2_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21471__2_136", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Because, I mean, technically, it would solve only the association problem.\nThey're not associated with the message.\nThey're still forced to support it, but not in any sense different from general taxpayers.\nAnd because that's the case, and because it would be an odd formalism to say that it makes a difference whether we segregate that money or not, it seems to me it would follow that if the government is willing to pay the political cost of having the speech be perhaps less persuasive because of... people discount what the government says and of having to get an appropriation from the taxpayers... I mean, taxpayers are smart enough to know--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2511.436, 2517.855, 2519.397, 2524.102], "stop_times": [2517.855, 2519.397, 2524.102, 2549.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2511.436}, "reply_to": "21471__2_135", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_137", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "No, not that.\nThe same program, but you just have a little tag on the ad.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2549.314, 2549.887], "stop_times": [2549.887, 2554.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2549.314}, "reply_to": "21471__2_136", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21471__2_138", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Like the lockbox?\nI mean, every... I think the taxpayers know that money is fungible.\nWell, in this case, you mean if you had the program, not from general revenue, but you simply said, on the ad,\n\"This is actually part of a government program? \"\nI don't think that solves any problem, other than deception.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2554.301, 2555.338, 2559.987, 2568.828, 2572.007], "stop_times": [2555.338, 2559.987, 2568.828, 2572.007, 2575.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2554.301}, "reply_to": "21471__2_137", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_139", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "What's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2575.507], "stop_times": [2576.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2575.507}, "reply_to": "21471__2_138", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_140", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Deception is the... my constitutional argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2576.394], "stop_times": [2578.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2576.394}, "reply_to": "21471__2_139", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_141", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--what's the difference between the checkoff and the excise tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2578.292], "stop_times": [2580.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2578.292}, "reply_to": "21471__2_140", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_142", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, the checkoff in this case is, it's money that goes to a group, which, though it is organized by the government, purports to represent--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2580.982], "stop_times": [2594.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2580.982}, "reply_to": "21471__2_141", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_143", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "So the answer is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2594.114], "stop_times": [2595.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.114}, "reply_to": "21471__2_142", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_144", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--the way it structured--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2595.611], "stop_times": [2595.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2595.611}, "reply_to": "21471__2_143", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_145", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--where--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2595.967], "stop_times": [2596.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2595.967}, "reply_to": "21471__2_144", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_146", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--these people.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2596.263], "stop_times": [2596.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2596.263}, "reply_to": "21471__2_145", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_147", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--where the money goes and who pays out the money for the ad, that's the difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2596.542], "stop_times": [2600.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2596.542}, "reply_to": "21471__2_146", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_148", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, the difference is the whole structure.\nKeep in mind--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2600.492, 2602.14], "stop_times": [2602.14, 2602.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2600.492}, "reply_to": "21471__2_147", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_149", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, isn't that the... isn't that the essential difference between the structure in this case and the structure in the case in which the government comes out, saying,\n\"This is your government, saying, \"Don't smoke\". \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2602.939, 2610.152], "stop_times": [2610.152, 2612.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.939}, "reply_to": "21471__2_148", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_150", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Yes, one... the difference is that in one case, we've got Congress, we've got the executive, we have one--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2612.073], "stop_times": [2616.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.073}, "reply_to": "21471__2_149", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_151", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2616.729], "stop_times": [2616.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2616.729}, "reply_to": "21471__2_150", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_152", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--person, one vote.\nHere, we have a million--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2616.899, 2617.664], "stop_times": [2617.664, 2619.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2616.899}, "reply_to": "21471__2_151", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_153", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I know, but take all that out of it... take all that out of it, and what is your answer to Justice Stevens and Justice Souter?\nThat is, look, like this, you have an organization, the Federal Trade Commission, say, or that the FDA says, on the one hand, (a) broccoli industry,\n\"Fruits and vegetables are good for you; crib death device. \"\nBuy anti-crib-death devices;\n\"Buy car seats for your children. \"\nor, \"Don't smoke\"; or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2619.186, 2624.406, 2636.002, 2640.458, 2643.086, 2645.294], "stop_times": [2624.406, 2636.002, 2640.458, 2643.086, 2645.294, 2648.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2619.186}, "reply_to": "21471__2_152", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_154", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2648.954], "stop_times": [2649.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2648.954}, "reply_to": "21471__2_153", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_155", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "\"# Don't buy a crib without a crib-death device-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2649.83], "stop_times": [2652.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2649.83}, "reply_to": "21471__2_154", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_156", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I mean, I think it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2652.505], "stop_times": [2653.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2652.505}, "reply_to": "21471__2_155", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_157", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "\"# or a car without a car seat. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2653.079], "stop_times": [2654.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2653.079}, "reply_to": "21471__2_156", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_158", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2654.004], "stop_times": [2654.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2654.004}, "reply_to": "21471__2_157", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_159", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "See?\nOne's negative and one's positive.\nAnd everything else is the same.\nThen how do you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2654.216, 2654.784, 2657.086, 2658.986], "stop_times": [2654.784, 2657.086, 2658.986, 2659.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2654.216}, "reply_to": "21471__2_158", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_160", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Whether it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2659.646], "stop_times": [2660.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2659.646}, "reply_to": "21471__2_159", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_161", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--what's the difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2660.051], "stop_times": [2660.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2660.051}, "reply_to": "21471__2_160", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_162", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--negative--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2660.273], "stop_times": [2660.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2660.273}, "reply_to": "21471__2_161", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_163", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2660.498], "stop_times": [2660.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2660.498}, "reply_to": "21471__2_162", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_164", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--or positive, it's the government--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2660.66], "stop_times": [2662.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2660.66}, "reply_to": "21471__2_163", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_165", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Okay, maybe it doesn't matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2662.11], "stop_times": [2663.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2662.11}, "reply_to": "21471__2_164", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_166", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, no, it matters, in this sense.\nWhen the government puts out a message and puts its credibility behind the message, likely to have to balance... it's going to say,\n\"A little broccoli, but a little steak. \"\n\"Don't risk crib death\"--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2663.205, 2664.654, 2672.935, 2675.515], "stop_times": [2664.654, 2672.935, 2675.515, 2679.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2663.205}, "reply_to": "21471__2_165", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_167", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But I'm not interested... I got that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2679.032], "stop_times": [2680.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2679.032}, "reply_to": "21471__2_166", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_168", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2680.91], "stop_times": [2681.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2680.91}, "reply_to": "21471__2_167", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_169", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "I'm not dismissing it.\nI understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2681.295, 2681.995], "stop_times": [2681.995, 2682.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.295}, "reply_to": "21471__2_168", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_170", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2682.874], "stop_times": [2683.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2682.874}, "reply_to": "21471__2_169", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_171", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But I'm not sure--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2683.535], "stop_times": [2684.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2683.535}, "reply_to": "21471__2_170", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_172", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "So I'm not understanding what your question is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2684.301], "stop_times": [2685.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2684.301}, "reply_to": "21471__2_171", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_173", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, my question is, Is it implied in what you're argued that it would be equally unconstitutional, in the same way, to tell the cigarette industry to advertise, \"Don't smoke\", or to tell the automobile industry to advertise,\n\"Buy car seats for your children. \"\nor to tell the crib industry to advertise,\n\"Be sure you have an anti-crib-death device? \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2685.627, 2703.142, 2705.3, 2708.665], "stop_times": [2703.142, 2705.3, 2708.665, 2711.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2685.627}, "reply_to": "21471__2_172", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_174", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2711.482], "stop_times": [2712.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2711.482}, "reply_to": "21471__2_173", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_175", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "And all that, assuming the financing is the same as here, everything else the same, is it implicit in your argument that they're all equally unlawful?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2712.083], "stop_times": [2722.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2712.083}, "reply_to": "21471__2_174", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_176", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--No.\nMy argument is that you can require the seller of any commodity to include warnings.\nIt does not necessarily follow that you can say to an industry,\n\"You're bad guys. \"\n\"We want you to put on an advertising campaign, and the campaign has to have these characteristics. \"\nForcing them to advocate that people not buy their products, I think, is not the same thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2722.349, 2723.809, 2728.692, 2732.626, 2734.099, 2739.797], "stop_times": [2723.809, 2728.692, 2732.626, 2734.099, 2739.797, 2745.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2722.349}, "reply_to": "21471__2_175", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_177", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Mr. Tribe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2745.908], "stop_times": [2746.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2745.908}, "reply_to": "21471__2_176", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__2_178", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--as forcing them to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2746.614], "stop_times": [2747.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2746.614}, "reply_to": "21471__2_177", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_179", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I thought--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2747.346], "stop_times": [2747.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.346}, "reply_to": "21471__2_178", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__2_180", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--that it will be addictive or that it will cause cancer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2747.68], "stop_times": [2750.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2747.68}, "reply_to": "21471__2_179", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_181", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But you're saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2750.31], "stop_times": [2750.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2750.31}, "reply_to": "21471__2_180", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_182", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I thought--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2750.913], "stop_times": [2751.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2750.913}, "reply_to": "21471__2_181", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__2_183", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I want to be sure I... that I understood your answer.\nYou can compel them to make warnings.\nCan you compel them to pay for warnings that are just industry-specific, in saying, \"This is dangerous\"--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2751.346, 2752.933, 2755.151], "stop_times": [2752.933, 2755.151, 2761.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2751.346}, "reply_to": "21471__2_182", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_184", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "I think so, because I can't see any difference between saying that... you put on the package,\n\"The Surgeon General has determined that smoking will cause cancer. \"\nand saying,\n\"We're going to put on television-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2761.647, 2768.087, 2771.935, 2773.151], "stop_times": [2768.087, 2771.935, 2773.151, 2774.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2761.647}, "reply_to": "21471__2_183", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_185", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--But it seems--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2774.67], "stop_times": [2775.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2774.67}, "reply_to": "21471__2_184", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_186", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--\"the Surgeon General\"--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2775.323], "stop_times": [2775.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2775.323}, "reply_to": "21471__2_185", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_187", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--almost ironic, to me, to say that you have a greater power to tell the whole industry to publish something they don't want to publish than you do to let them--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2775.948], "stop_times": [2783.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2775.948}, "reply_to": "21471__2_186", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_188", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--But that... Justice Stevens, what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2783.731], "stop_times": [2786.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2783.731}, "reply_to": "21471__2_187", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_189", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--pay for what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2786.415], "stop_times": [2786.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.415}, "reply_to": "21471__2_188", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_190", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--what is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2786.828], "stop_times": [2787.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2786.828}, "reply_to": "21471__2_189", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_191", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--90 percent of them want to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2787.383], "stop_times": [2787.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.383}, "reply_to": "21471__2_190", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_192", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--what is the difference between telling them that... I mean, there may be a critical difference between the point of sale and a generic ad... that is, the power to regulate the transaction to make sure it's safe, including the power to include on the package certain warnings.\nThe moment you step back from that and say that,\n\"Because you're in a dangerous business, you have to publish general warnings to the public. \"\nmaybe that's where the line has to be drawn, because I agree that it would be rather bizarre--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2787.86, 2804.573, 2807.914, 2812.969], "stop_times": [2804.573, 2807.914, 2812.969, 2817.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2787.86}, "reply_to": "21471__2_191", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_193", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Are you limiting your point to putting information on the package, or are you saying they could... could California compel a cigarette... companies to contribute to a large fund which is just used to by newspaper advertising describing the dangers of smoking?\nCould they do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2817.96, 2832.832], "stop_times": [2832.832, 2833.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2817.96}, "reply_to": "21471__2_192", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_194", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, I think that the rationale for that would be far stronger than this.\nThe state's power to protect people, in terms of life and health, includes the power to compel--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2833.375, 2837.763], "stop_times": [2837.763, 2846.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2833.375}, "reply_to": "21471__2_193", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_195", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But supposing there are disagreements.\nWe were... you were talking about cigarettes.\nBut supposing there's a legitimate disagreement between the industry position and the government position--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2846.409, 2849.65, 2850.85], "stop_times": [2849.65, 2850.85, 2856.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2846.409}, "reply_to": "21471__2_194", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_196", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2856.286], "stop_times": [2856.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2856.286}, "reply_to": "21471__2_195", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_197", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--could the government, nevertheless, insist on the industry financing advertising advocating the government's position?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2856.434], "stop_times": [2862.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2856.434}, "reply_to": "21471__2_196", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_198", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, not advocating; reporting what the government position is.\nI mean, the... when the cigarette company says on the package,\n\"The Surgeon General has found this stuff is deadly. \"\nthey're not quite saying,\n\"We agree with the Surgeon General. \"\nThey've... making them fund or support statements that do not reflect their own beliefs, as though it were--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2862.34, 2865.217, 2868.439, 2871.589, 2873.117, 2874.532], "stop_times": [2865.217, 2868.439, 2871.589, 2873.117, 2874.532, 2882.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2862.34}, "reply_to": "21471__2_197", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_199", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "So, in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2882.958], "stop_times": [2884.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2882.958}, "reply_to": "21471__2_198", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__2_200", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--is impermissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2884.725], "stop_times": [2884.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2884.725}, "reply_to": "21471__2_199", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_201", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I take it, it would be okay if the beef producers had to use a dollar a head to put,\n\"Eating too much beef is dangerous to your health. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2884.999, 2889.495], "stop_times": [2889.495, 2891.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2884.999}, "reply_to": "21471__2_200", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__2_202", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well, if they had... well, they're not beef producers.\nI mean, I am troubled by... they're... these are cattle.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2891.505, 2895.086], "stop_times": [2895.086, 2897.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2891.505}, "reply_to": "21471__2_201", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_203", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "All right, cattle, then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2897.384], "stop_times": [2898.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2897.384}, "reply_to": "21471__2_202", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__2_204", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "All right?\nAnd then... and then they're trying, ultimately, to brand us as though we are slicing these things up and selling them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2898.48, 2898.629], "stop_times": [2898.629, 2906.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2898.48}, "reply_to": "21471__2_203", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_205", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--But what's the answer to my question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2906.654], "stop_times": [2908.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2906.654}, "reply_to": "21471__2_204", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__2_206", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "If the question is, Can retail grocers be required to put on the beef packages they sell,\n\"The government has determined that the cholesterol content is dangerous if you have more than X. \"\nI see no reason why that would be harder--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2908.944, 2917.424, 2924.544], "stop_times": [2917.424, 2924.544, 2927.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2908.944}, "reply_to": "21471__2_205", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_207", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "In other words--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2927.638], "stop_times": [2928.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2927.638}, "reply_to": "21471__2_206", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_208", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--to defend than the cigarette package.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2928.115], "stop_times": [2929.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2928.115}, "reply_to": "21471__2_207", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_209", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I think the question, or at least the version I have of it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2929.405], "stop_times": [2932.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2929.405}, "reply_to": "21471__2_208", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_210", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2932.005], "stop_times": [2932.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2932.005}, "reply_to": "21471__2_209", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_211", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--is, we have this case, exactly, and the only difference is, instead of getting these people to eat... say, \"Eat beef\", what they say do is, they get people together and say, \"Don't eat too much beef\".\nI put--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2932.169, 2944.749], "stop_times": [2944.749, 2945.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2932.169}, "reply_to": "21471__2_210", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_212", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2945.274], "stop_times": [2945.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2945.274}, "reply_to": "21471__2_211", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_213", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--\"too much\", because that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2945.456], "stop_times": [2946.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2945.456}, "reply_to": "21471__2_212", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_214", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2946.273], "stop_times": [2946.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2946.273}, "reply_to": "21471__2_213", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_215", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--makes it more realistic.\nAll right, now, does it suddenly become constitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2946.445, 2947.061], "stop_times": [2947.061, 2950.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2946.445}, "reply_to": "21471__2_214", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21471__2_216", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "The program is facially unconstitutional.\nIt is the structure that says to all these people,\n\"You've got to put money into this elaborate structure, which purports to represent you. \"\n--that is, the... they have all this stuff saying that the Beef Board is related to the industry as board of directors, the shareholders...\n\"These people, who purport to represent you, will, under the aegis of the government, put out statements at various times. \"\nThat's facially unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2950.32, 2952.673, 2955.821, 2962.051, 2972.056, 2978.268], "stop_times": [2952.673, 2955.821, 2962.051, 2972.056, 2978.268, 2979.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2950.32}, "reply_to": "21471__2_215", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_217", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "All right.\nConsider this theory.\nThe Congress passes an excise tax.\nIt happens to be a dollar head, on the cattle, just like this so-called \"checkoff\".\nAnd the government uses the excise tax revenue to finance advertising, saying... maybe saying, \"Eat more beef\", maybe advertising, saying, \"Don't eat quite so much\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [2979.803, 2980.135, 2982.111, 2985.451, 2992.186], "stop_times": [2980.135, 2982.111, 2985.451, 2992.186, 3004.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2979.803}, "reply_to": "21471__2_216", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_218", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Or maybe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3004.833], "stop_times": [3005.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3004.833}, "reply_to": "21471__2_217", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_219", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "First Amendment problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3005.598], "stop_times": [3006.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3005.598}, "reply_to": "21471__2_218", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_220", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--talking about the war in Iraq.\nNo, I think that once your taxes enter the general fund, the pretense that it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3006.781, 3007.603], "stop_times": [3007.603, 3015.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3006.781}, "reply_to": "21471__2_219", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_221", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Including excise.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3015.283], "stop_times": [3016.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3015.283}, "reply_to": "21471__2_220", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_222", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, I don't think excise taxes are segregated in any way that makes... that makes it harder--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3016.485], "stop_times": [3022.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3016.485}, "reply_to": "21471__2_221", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_223", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "No, I just want to know what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3022.21], "stop_times": [3022.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3022.21}, "reply_to": "21471__2_222", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_224", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--than Social Security.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3022.716], "stop_times": [3023.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3022.716}, "reply_to": "21471__2_223", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_225", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--your position is.\nI just want to know what your position is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3023.29, 3023.461], "stop_times": [3023.461, 3025.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3023.29}, "reply_to": "21471__2_224", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_226", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "My position is that once the revenue is part of the government's general fund, the government's subject to doctrines that I don't think are First Amendment doctrines about government propaganda... there may be limits on the government's ability--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3025.021], "stop_times": [3039.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3025.021}, "reply_to": "21471__2_225", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_227", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Okay, then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3039.32], "stop_times": [3039.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3039.32}, "reply_to": "21471__2_226", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_228", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--to defend it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3039.706], "stop_times": [3040.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3039.706}, "reply_to": "21471__2_227", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_229", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--He's just going back to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3040.132], "stop_times": [3040.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3040.132}, "reply_to": "21471__2_228", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__2_230", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Subject to that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3040.542], "stop_times": [3040.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3040.542}, "reply_to": "21471__2_229", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_231", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Okay, then it does not have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3040.999], "stop_times": [3041.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3040.999}, "reply_to": "21471__2_230", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_232", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--it's not a First Amendment problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3041.248], "stop_times": [3041.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3041.248}, "reply_to": "21471__2_231", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_233", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--it's not a First Amendment problem.\nIt does not have the objection that you're raising.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3041.912, 3042.598], "stop_times": [3042.598, 3044.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3041.912}, "reply_to": "21471__2_232", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_234", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3044.267], "stop_times": [3044.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3044.267}, "reply_to": "21471__2_233", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_235", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3044.672], "stop_times": [3045.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3044.672}, "reply_to": "21471__2_234", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_236", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Is that... is that an answer to the question that Justice Kennedy urged in the opening argument?\nThat is, It's the same dollar a head, except you call it an excise tax instead of a... whatever this is called.\nThe same thing, but to say it's a tax.\nAnd you're not... this is not general revenues that you collect from everybody and spend--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3045.397, 3051.818, 3063.308, 3066.048], "stop_times": [3051.818, 3063.308, 3066.048, 3072.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3045.397}, "reply_to": "21471__2_235", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__2_237", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "If the structure is they take the money from you and put it in this elaborate machinery which comes out with statements you're forced to support, the statements that don't have behind them the accountability checks of the Federal Government, which has to answer to taxpayers and answer to the public for the stuff it puts out... that is... if that's what it is, it doesn't matter what you call it, it remains unconstitutional.\nIt remains unconstitutional because these individuals are forced in a way that taxpayers are not... forced to be part of a system in which, even if you have footnotes saying,\n\"This is pursuant to the government. \"\na system in which they will be generally understood in just the way Justice Breyer said,\n\"Well, you know, we assume-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3072.508, 3100.24, 3114.097, 3115.705, 3122.027], "stop_times": [3100.24, 3114.097, 3115.705, 3122.027, 3122.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3072.508}, "reply_to": "21471__2_236", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_238", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--But suppose--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3122.863], "stop_times": [3124.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.863}, "reply_to": "21471__2_237", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__2_239", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--that these people--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3124.027], "stop_times": [3124.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3124.027}, "reply_to": "21471__2_238", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_240", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--we don't have that?\nI mean, could then... could the government fix this problem this way, saying,\n\"We're going to get the same bucks, but we are going... and we're going to have the same kinds of ads, but they're going to be labeled, U.S. Department of Agriculture> [\"]. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3124.26, 3124.928, 3128.458], "stop_times": [3124.928, 3128.458, 3138.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3124.26}, "reply_to": "21471__2_239", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__2_241", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--And we're going to eliminate the cattlemen's Beef Board and all of these things--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3138.54], "stop_times": [3141.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3138.54}, "reply_to": "21471__2_240", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_242", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3141.756], "stop_times": [3142.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3141.756}, "reply_to": "21471__2_241", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__2_243", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--that are supposed to represent you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3142.168], "stop_times": [3142.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3142.168}, "reply_to": "21471__2_242", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_244", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But we are... but where this money is coming from to pay this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3142.775], "stop_times": [3147.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3142.775}, "reply_to": "21471__2_243", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21471__2_245", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I would be happy to represent the cattlemen in that circumstance, saying,\n\"You still have not an associational right, but a right not to be singled out to support government speech. \"\nBut it would be a different and more difficult claim.\nOne.\nTwo, this Court doesn't have before it the possibility of rewriting all of this.\nThree, there was a severability provision in an earlier version of the law suggesting that maybe if you could lop something off, it would be okay.\nBut that was eliminated in the current law.\nAnd, finally, any attempts to analogize this to the cases like Lehnert and Keller, in terms of remedy, that maybe we can create some scheme where only the objectionable part is returned, is fundamentally incoherent, because what is objectionable here is homogenizing all of these people into some one message, and putting it out through this elaborate structure that purports to represent them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3147.484, 3150.663, 3156.788, 3159.633, 3160.563, 3165.594, 3174.583, 3177.174], "stop_times": [3150.663, 3156.788, 3159.633, 3160.563, 3165.594, 3174.583, 3177.174, 3203.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3147.484}, "reply_to": "21471__2_244", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_246", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "May I go back to one of your reasons, which was that they are being singled out to pay for this?\nThey're being singled out to pay for it in the excise tax situation.\nDo you come to different answers, depending whether it's excise tax or singled out without excise tax, based, essentially, on the ground that there is a point beyond which we simply cannot look behind the expenditure of tax revenue?\nIs that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3203.78, 3209.617, 3213.954, 3227.723], "stop_times": [3209.617, 3213.954, 3227.723, 3228.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3203.78}, "reply_to": "21471__2_245", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_247", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "I think that there's a point beyond which, for institutional reasons, it would be very problematic for Courts to say that you could trace the dollars into the treasury and those institutional reasons would be, I think, an instance of under-enforcement of a constitutional norm, because the underlying constitutional principle that you ought not to be able, by some gimmick, to get some people to support speech they don't believe in, that would be there.\nBut the difficulty of having this Court enforce that principle, I think, would be very real.\nBut no such difficulty, I think, is presented in a case like this one, because if this case came out their way because of government speech, of course, United Foods would be obliterated, but a good deal more would be obliterated, because the theory would have to be that because it's not on your license plate, because you don't have to carry it, you're only supporting it, then that's all the difference in the world.\nBecause, otherwise, its being government speech would make it worse.\nBut if it's all the difference in the world whether you have to carry or utter it, or merely support it, then all of the decisions of this Court carefully protecting the rights of dissenters in every imaginable kind of organization, from the powerful overriding theory that collective-action problems mean that we've really got to get more speech over here than you are willing, yourselves, to engage in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3228.554, 3254.295, 3259.408, 3282.584, 3285.332], "stop_times": [3254.295, 3259.408, 3282.584, 3285.332, 3313.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3228.554}, "reply_to": "21471__2_246", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_248", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Yes, but on the other hand--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3313.038], "stop_times": [3313.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3313.038}, "reply_to": "21471__2_247", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_249", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--you'd be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3313.746], "stop_times": [3314.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3313.746}, "reply_to": "21471__2_248", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_250", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--you're running into the problem that the taxpayer can be compelled to pay taxes to support activities that he doesn't support at all.\nThat's the other--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3314.555, 3321.091], "stop_times": [3321.091, 3322.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3314.555}, "reply_to": "21471__2_249", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_251", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Well, we do that all the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3322.736], "stop_times": [3323.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3322.736}, "reply_to": "21471__2_250", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_252", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--the other extreme.\nI know we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3323.471, 3324.12], "stop_times": [3324.12, 3324.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3323.471}, "reply_to": "21471__2_251", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_253", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "We do that all--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3324.496], "stop_times": [3324.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3324.496}, "reply_to": "21471__2_252", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_254", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--do it all the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3324.91], "stop_times": [3325.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3324.91}, "reply_to": "21471__2_253", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_255", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3325.414], "stop_times": [3325.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3325.414}, "reply_to": "21471__2_254", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_256", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "And when are we crossing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3325.675], "stop_times": [3326.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3325.675}, "reply_to": "21471__2_255", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_257", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "That's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3326.459], "stop_times": [3326.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3326.459}, "reply_to": "21471__2_256", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_258", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--the line?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3326.835], "stop_times": [3327.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3326.835}, "reply_to": "21471__2_257", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_259", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--that's why we have elections, in part.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3327.046], "stop_times": [3328.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3327.046}, "reply_to": "21471__2_258", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_260", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3328.147], "stop_times": [3328.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3328.147}, "reply_to": "21471__2_259", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_261", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Right?\nWe have elections, in part, because the only way... there's no way to protect every individual's right to have the government's collective policy suit his or her fancy.\nI mean, that way--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3328.542, 3328.752, 3338.747], "stop_times": [3328.752, 3338.747, 3341.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3328.542}, "reply_to": "21471__2_260", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_262", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3341.037], "stop_times": [3341.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3341.037}, "reply_to": "21471__2_261", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_263", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--would allow complete chaos.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3341.414], "stop_times": [3342.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3341.414}, "reply_to": "21471__2_262", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_264", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--inconsistent with the basic principle on which you rely, that the individual should not be compelled to support speech--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3342.2], "stop_times": [3347.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3342.2}, "reply_to": "21471__2_263", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_265", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3347.32], "stop_times": [3348.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3347.32}, "reply_to": "21471__2_264", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_266", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--with which he disagrees.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3348.05], "stop_times": [3348.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3348.05}, "reply_to": "21471__2_265", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_267", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--to support... supporting speech is somewhat different from supporting activities that you don't agree with.\nI mean, the First Amendment makes a fundamental difference in that respect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3348.384, 3354.08], "stop_times": [3354.08, 3357.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3348.384}, "reply_to": "21471__2_266", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_268", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3357.256], "stop_times": [3359.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3357.256}, "reply_to": "21471__2_267", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_269", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "If there were--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3359.054], "stop_times": [3359.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3359.054}, "reply_to": "21471__2_268", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_270", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--isn't that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3359.427], "stop_times": [3360.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3359.427}, "reply_to": "21471__2_269", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_271", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3360.53], "stop_times": [3360.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3360.53}, "reply_to": "21471__2_270", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_272", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Don't you go back to the answer you gave me?\nSure, when taxes are involved, there may be an under-inclusive enforcement of certain individual rights, but they have to be under-enforced, because, otherwise, you simply cannot administer a tax structure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3360.717, 3363.893], "stop_times": [3363.893, 3375.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3360.717}, "reply_to": "21471__2_271", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21471__2_273", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Or any structure.\nI mean, Bowen v. Roy... I mean, there's a sympathetic case of the man who did not want Little Bird of the Snow to be given a Social Security number.\nBut we could, when we, interactive with the government, say to him,\n\"You... we can't make you give the number to get the food for your little daughter. \"\nbut if one person says,\n\"I don't want numbers in your computers. \"\nand the other says,\n\"I don't want letters, I want only numbers. \"\nthe fact that every individual who has a potential claim on a collective choice could pull in a different direction means we can't run a system that way.\nBut no such problem is presented in cases like this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3375.953, 3376.972, 3384.142, 3388.114, 3393.09, 3396.215, 3398.712, 3399.311, 3402.576, 3412.641], "stop_times": [3376.972, 3384.142, 3388.114, 3393.09, 3396.215, 3398.712, 3399.311, 3402.576, 3412.641, 3415.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3375.953}, "reply_to": "21471__2_272", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_274", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Tribe.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3415.822], "stop_times": [3417.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3415.822}, "reply_to": "21471__2_273", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__2_275", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3417.199], "stop_times": [3417.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3417.199}, "reply_to": "21471__2_274", "speaker": "laurence_h_tribe"}
{"id": "21471__2_276", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "I think we understand your position.\nThank you.\nMr. Kneedler, you have about three... three or four minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3417.691, 3418.704, 3419.478], "stop_times": [3418.704, 3419.478, 3425.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3417.691}, "reply_to": "21471__2_275", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21471__3_000", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens.\nMr. Tribe has conceded that if this program were financed by a system of excise taxes that went into the general Treasury, and Congress then paid... provided the exact same amount of money to produce the exact same ads, that there would be no constitutional problem.\nAnd, in our view, the First Amendment simply does not regulate the details of government fundraising, the details of government accounting, and the details of government bookkeeping in that manner.\nThe First Amendment is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3425.585, 3428.345, 3444.647, 3455.295], "stop_times": [3428.345, 3444.647, 3455.295, 3456.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3425.585}, "reply_to": "21471__2_276", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__3_001", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "But that goes back to Frothingham and Mellon, and Massachusetts versus Mellon, and United States versus Butler, where we could trace the amount.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3456.76], "stop_times": [3463.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3456.76}, "reply_to": "21471__3_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__3_002", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Right, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3463.66], "stop_times": [3464.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3463.66}, "reply_to": "21471__3_001", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__3_003", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "It's old stuff.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3464.485], "stop_times": [3465.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3464.485}, "reply_to": "21471__3_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21471__3_004", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "--Right, and the Court... the Court superceded those decisions in cases like Carmichael Coal and Storaasli Company and cases like that, where the Court said excise taxes can be imposed.\nAs long as there is a public welfare justification, they can be spent.\nAnd it would be an odd result to have the First Amendment drive the way the government arranges a system like this.\nAfter all... and Professor Tribe said it would be different if the cattlemen's Beef Board were gotten rid of.\nIt actually... the principal point here is the Secretary controls the speech.\nWhatever the cattlemen's Beef Board does... and that is a government entity... the Secretary controls the speech.\nSo that... this is not some jury-rigged system; this is a system of governmental control.\nCongress has prescribed the message, and the Secretary carries it out.\nIt's important to recall that many federal excise taxes go into dedicated trust funds... for highways, for other functions like that.\nAnd out of that dedicated trust fund, there may be money expended on highway safety.\nSo the fact that it's dedicated really should not matter.\nAnd this case is completely different from cases like Keller.\nIn Keller, the state bar was not appointed by the... by the government, there was no governmental supervision of what it did, and the government certainly did not approve the messages in favor of nuclear freezes, et cetera.\nThis is different in all the critical ways that make this a program of government speech.\nAnd, as Justice O'Connor pointed out, to strike down this program would have drastic consequences.\nThere are many, many agricultural promotion programs like this.\nThere are 13 at the national level.\nThis program has been in existence since 1988.\nOne billion dollars has been collected, and promotions have been conducted under it.\nThese promotional programs go back to the '50s, and even... and even earlier.\nAnd there are many programs on the state levels, as the amicus brief filed by the states in this case shows.\nThis Court would be striking down a lot to hold that this commonsense way of approaching things is unconstitutional.\nIt's also important to recognize that the ultimate beneficiary of the advertising is the consumer.\nYes, it affects the industry, but it's the consumer.\nAnd the very first finding that Congress made in the Beef Act is, beef and beef products are basic foods that are a valuable part of the human diet.\nWhen the... when the... because of the collective-action problem in this industry, that it cannot organize to advertise, that basic message is not getting to consumers.\nSo this... the justifications for this, to the extent one thinks of it in terms of the commercial speech, it is squarely within the ultimate purposes of the commerce speech doctrine, which is to correctly market failure with respect to advertising in order to get information to consumers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3465.096, 3477.701, 3484.207, 3490.966, 3495.465, 3499.966, 3504.905, 3509.385, 3515.226, 3524.181, 3528.676, 3532.184, 3535.527, 3547.885, 3553.141, 3559.135, 3563.046, 3564.712, 3567.805, 3571.926, 3575.997, 3581.475, 3588.205, 3592.845, 3596.024, 3603.785, 3613.765], "stop_times": [3477.701, 3484.207, 3490.966, 3495.465, 3499.966, 3504.905, 3509.385, 3515.226, 3524.181, 3528.676, 3532.184, 3535.527, 3547.885, 3553.141, 3559.135, 3563.046, 3564.712, 3567.805, 3571.926, 3575.997, 3581.475, 3588.205, 3592.845, 3596.024, 3603.785, 3613.765, 3630.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3465.096}, "reply_to": "21471__3_003", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "21471__3_005", "conversation_id": "21471", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Kneedler.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1164", "start_times": [3630.584, 3632.745], "stop_times": [3632.745, 3633.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3630.584}, "reply_to": "21471__3_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__0_000", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "We'll hear argument in Johnson against California.\nMr. Deixler.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [0.0, 4.42], "stop_times": [4.42, 5.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__0_001", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThis case presents the issue of whether the California Department of Corrections, unlike every other State in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, may continue its more than 28-year, unexamined practice of routine, blanket racial segregation of its prisoners.\nThe unitary practice in question here was applied more than 350,000 times last year, not just to the 40,000 new prisoners entering the California system, but to all 72,000 returning parolees and hundreds of thousands of transfer prisoners such as the petitioner in this case, Garrison Johnson, a petitioner who had been housed for more than 15 years in the California prison system.\nThis unexamined, routine practice effectively erected whites only, blacks only, Hispanics only signs over the portals of the California prison system, and it is a practice which is routed in racial stereotype and the belief that all persons of a race think alike and act alike.\nCalifornia's needless and dangerous policy fails both the strict scrutiny test, which the Ninth Circuit should have applied, and the Turner deference standard, which the Ninth Circuit wrongly applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [5.573, 9.371, 27.287, 55.772, 76.123], "stop_times": [9.371, 27.287, 55.772, 76.123, 89.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 5.573}, "reply_to": "22500__0_000", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_002", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Is California the only State, to your knowledge, to apply this procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [89.331], "stop_times": [97.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 89.331}, "reply_to": "22500__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22500__0_003", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor, it is.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [97.504, 99.65], "stop_times": [99.65, 101.962], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 97.504}, "reply_to": "22500__0_002", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_004", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "The... the statistics showed that there were... I'm sorry.\nI don't have it right at my fingerprints... fingertips... only about 200,000 processing incidents a year, 200,000 people a year to be processed.\nI take it that includes some people that are being transferred?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [101.962, 105.184, 118.392], "stop_times": [105.184, 118.392, 121.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 101.962}, "reply_to": "22500__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22500__0_005", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Yes, correct, Your Honor.\nIn... in the circumstances in this case, Petitioner Johnson, for example, during his 15 years, had been transferred on five separate occasions, and the circumstances which he experienced are not unusual within the California prison system.\nIndeed, an outside-the-record fact: within the last 3 weeks, he's been informed that he's to be transferred yet again within the California prison system to another facility called Corcoran.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [121.448, 122.767, 137.545], "stop_times": [122.767, 137.545, 147.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 121.448}, "reply_to": "22500__0_004", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_006", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "May... may I put aside for a moment the question of the strength of your argument in transfer situations and simply go to the circumstances of the original receipt of the prisoner for the first time into the prison system?\nWhat do the other States... you say California is the only one that... that makes this racial assignment like this.\nWhat do the other States do to guard against an... an explosive team-up in... in double-celled prisoners when... when they're taking them in for the first time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [147.099, 161.201, 170.982], "stop_times": [161.201, 170.982, 184.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 147.099}, "reply_to": "22500__0_005", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__0_007", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "The circumstances in other States, which we've been able to identify, include a range of... of circumstances, which include... as is available in California under the penal code section, which requires the delivery of a presentence report, together with a commitment order, is analysis on a particularized circumstance basis of the individuals who are coming into the prison and making a... an estimate as to what may occur.\nOther States use a random assignment circumstance, and giving no consideration whatever to race.\nAnd a third group of States apparently consider race as part of an overall or holistic bit of analysis with regard to trying to equalize the prison populations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [184.978, 210.363, 217.05], "stop_times": [210.363, 217.05, 228.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 184.978}, "reply_to": "22500__0_006", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_008", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Do you know if there are in these other States the same incidents of racial riots or racial killings or racial attacks?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [228.196], "stop_times": [238.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 228.196}, "reply_to": "22500__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__0_009", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, the best empirical evidence which exists that we're familiar with was reported in the Trulson study, which the dissenters in the Ninth Circuit petition for rehearing en banc relied upon and which the amici have filed with this Court.\nAnd in that circumstance, it suggests, over a 10-year study in Texas, that only 5 percent of all of the interracial... of... of all of the incidents of violence in... in the Texas prison system were what was described by Professor Trulson as having racial motivations.\nAnd of that 5 percent, only one-quarter, or about 1.2 percent, were interracial circumstances where there had been interracial cellmates involved in the racial violence.\nAnd that seems to be, as far as anyone has been able to produce in this case in any part of the record, the best empirical data which might respond to your question, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [238.764, 251.973, 269.024, 281.861], "stop_times": [251.973, 269.024, 281.861, 289.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 238.764}, "reply_to": "22500__0_008", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_010", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Were there any incidents in California's prisons of same cellmates of different races having episodes of violence?\nOr... this is an old policy.\nSo were there incidents like that that led to the development of the policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [289.868, 308.982, 312.985], "stop_times": [308.982, 312.985, 320.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 289.868}, "reply_to": "22500__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__0_011", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, one of the interesting things about the record in this case is that the State of California has been unable to identify a single incident of a... of interracial violence between cellmates.\nThe record is bereft of that kind of information.\nRather, they've spoken of information about violence which occurs in more--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [320.787, 333.586, 336.845], "stop_times": [333.586, 336.845, 341.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 320.787}, "reply_to": "22500__0_010", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_012", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, they say that that proves that their policy is very effective.\nI mean, that's--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [341.509, 343.821, 345.019], "stop_times": [343.821, 345.019, 345.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 341.509}, "reply_to": "22500__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__0_013", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--I think the... I think the record suggests, as at least in the testimony of Mr. Johnson, that it is a de facto segregation system which exists after the 60-day period and outside the transfer 60-day period, and so it would be hard for the State of California to provide... to provide that data.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [345.557], "stop_times": [362.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 345.557}, "reply_to": "22500__0_012", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_014", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Suppose you were to prevail in this case and a court were to enter a decree forbidding this practice.\nA month later, there is an incident in which one prisoner is seriously injured in a... in a prison cell because of the interracial assignment policy.\nWould that be grounds for rethinking the decree?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [362.852, 370.488, 382.626], "stop_times": [370.488, 382.626, 386.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 362.852}, "reply_to": "22500__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22500__0_015", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, Justice Kennedy, it seems to me that under the Court's strict scrutiny analysis, which in my judgment should have applied here, and under the particularized circumstance test announced in the Lee case in the concurrence, that a circumstance involving a single prisoner in a single prison cell on one occasion ought not to give rise to a systematic change in... in a policy which is rooted in racial stereotype.\nWith regard to those prisoners involved in that particular circumstance, of course, some period of... of segregation would be appropriate as a means of controlling and ensuring that there's not going to be some kind of wholesale racial violence.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [386.424, 413.917, 428.323], "stop_times": [413.917, 428.323, 428.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 386.424}, "reply_to": "22500__0_014", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_016", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "What is... what is sacrosanct about the... about the constitutional right not to be subjected to racial stereotype?\nThere are a lot of other constitutional rights that people in prison give up.\nThat's one of the consequences of committing a crime and being sent to prison, the most fundamental constitutional right, the right to... to walk around and... and not be seized.\nWhy... why is it that this... this one constitutional right cannot yield to what prison authorities believe is... is a useful, not necessarily essential, but a useful means of... of maintaining order in prison?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [428.489, 435.465, 440.545, 454.208], "stop_times": [435.465, 440.545, 454.208, 472.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 428.489}, "reply_to": "22500__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__0_017", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Well, Justice Scalia, the fundamental teachings on the Fourteenth Amendment of this Court demonstrate that race is different, that the government use of race is presumed to be unlawful--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [472.534], "stop_times": [483.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 472.534}, "reply_to": "22500__0_016", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_018", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Oh, it's... it's different from First Amendment rights?\nPrisoners can't hold news conferences.\nI mean, there are all sorts of very important constitutional rights that I think are no more important than the Equal Protection Clause which prisoners yield when they're in prison.\nNow, do we subject the taking away of all of these rights to strict scrutiny when the prison authorities do it?\nI don't think so.\nI think we say if it's... if it's the judgment of the... of the prison authorities, we... we generally defer to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [483.102, 485.62, 488.016, 497.797, 504.856, 505.577], "stop_times": [485.62, 488.016, 497.797, 504.856, 505.577, 511.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 483.102}, "reply_to": "22500__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__0_019", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Yes.\nThe Turner standard certainly reflects a consideration by this Court that deference is appropriate with regard to rights which are inconsistent with incarceration.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [511.338, 511.915], "stop_times": [511.915, 521.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 511.338}, "reply_to": "22500__0_018", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_020", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, even First Amendment rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [521.203], "stop_times": [523.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 521.203}, "reply_to": "22500__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22500__0_021", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Even First Amendment rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [523.309], "stop_times": [524.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 523.309}, "reply_to": "22500__0_020", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_022", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Isn't that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [524.174], "stop_times": [524.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 524.174}, "reply_to": "22500__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22500__0_023", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [524.547], "stop_times": [525.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 524.547}, "reply_to": "22500__0_022", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_024", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Which is a terribly important set of rights for individuals, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [525.456], "stop_times": [531.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 525.456}, "reply_to": "22500__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22500__0_025", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Yes.\nThe First Amendment rights are very important.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [531.112, 531.855], "stop_times": [531.855, 533.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 531.112}, "reply_to": "22500__0_024", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_026", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [533.341], "stop_times": [533.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 533.341}, "reply_to": "22500__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22500__0_027", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "However, in the context of incarceration, a sacrifice of the right to assembly, the right to correspond in certain circumstances, to contact visits are things which are well within the ambit of what a prison needs to control.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [533.713], "stop_times": [546.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 533.713}, "reply_to": "22500__0_026", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_028", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "No, I don't think so.\nI... why would holding a news conference disrupt a prison?\nIt wouldn't.\nYou say it's too much trouble.\nWe don't want news conferences in prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [546.51, 547.048, 551.051, 551.59, 553.569], "stop_times": [547.048, 551.051, 551.59, 553.569, 555.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 546.51}, "reply_to": "22500__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__0_029", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "And in... and in the circumstances that the Court's test has been announced in Turner, that's certainly within the ambit of a right which the prison authorities might properly exercise.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [555.509], "stop_times": [564.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 555.509}, "reply_to": "22500__0_028", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_030", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "And why is this not one?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [564.714], "stop_times": [566.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 564.714}, "reply_to": "22500__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__0_031", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, because this Court decided--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [566.284], "stop_times": [567.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 566.284}, "reply_to": "22500__0_030", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_032", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Because it... it is no... there is no doubt that there are racial gangs in prison, the Aryan Brotherhood and... and Hispanic gangs and... and black gangs.\nThere's no doubt that that exists.\nIs it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [567.936, 577.141, 578.71], "stop_times": [577.141, 578.71, 579.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 567.936}, "reply_to": "22500__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__0_033", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--There's no doubt... Justice Scalia, there's no doubt that there are racial gangs in prison, but this policy of California is directed not to the gang aspect of it but to the race aspect.\nThe record is clear that there's a near 0 percent chance that any black person could be housed with any white person, that any white person could be housed with any Hispanic person, without reference to the gang question.\nAnd this is a transfer policy which recurs and recurs, five times in the case of... of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [579.37, 589.69, 601.744], "stop_times": [589.69, 601.744, 606.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 579.37}, "reply_to": "22500__0_032", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_034", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Mr. Deixler, do you think you lose if we apply Turner?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [606.658], "stop_times": [609.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 606.658}, "reply_to": "22500__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__0_035", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nWe believe that even under Turner--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [609.63, 610.995], "stop_times": [610.995, 613.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.63}, "reply_to": "22500__0_034", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_036", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, why isn't that the right approach to the case then if that's the... we don't have to meddle with the rules governing the... the conduct of prisons, if you can prevail under that theory?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [613.428], "stop_times": [623.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 613.428}, "reply_to": "22500__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__0_037", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--We would... we would be pleased to... to prevail under... under Turner, Justice Stevens.\nIt seems that consistent with the Court's teachings under the Fourteenth Amendment and the most recent considerations by the Court of equal protection and strict scrutiny, that the use of race by California in this context should trigger a strict scrutiny analysis, should lead to an analysis of whether there has been narrow tailoring.\nBut under the Turner test, we believe properly applied, the petitioner should prevail as well.\nUnder the Turner test, it seems that at least two of the four elements which are announced in Turner couldn't possibly be met here.\nThe first one is it seems to be no... there is no reasonable relationship between the government regulation which is at issue and the announced policy.\nThe notion that one can determine by race alone a violent propensity seems irrational, unreasonable, and contrary to the only empirical evidence which exists, the Trulson study.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [623.709, 628.743, 648.351, 654.378, 660.861, 669.239], "stop_times": [628.743, 648.351, 654.378, 660.861, 669.239, 681.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 623.709}, "reply_to": "22500__0_036", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_038", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Suppose you have a population in which 50 percent of all the members of a particular race are a member of a... of a gang, a gang such as we've read about in... in the record, Bloods, Crips, et cetera.\n50 percent are members of the gang.\nWould that allow you to segregate?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [681.499, 694.464, 696.731], "stop_times": [694.464, 696.731, 699.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 681.499}, "reply_to": "22500__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22500__0_039", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "No, I don't think such a statistic--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [699.126], "stop_times": [701.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.126}, "reply_to": "22500__0_038", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_040", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Is... is that because you don't equate race gangs with race animosity?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [701.456], "stop_times": [707.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 701.456}, "reply_to": "22500__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22500__0_041", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Well, in fact, in part that's correct, Justice Kennedy.\nThe... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [707.029, 711.198], "stop_times": [711.198, 712.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 707.029}, "reply_to": "22500__0_040", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_042", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "And... because it does seem to me that part of your submission, or at least an inference that I drew, was that race-based gangs do not constitute race-based threats.\nAm I right in saying that that's your submission?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [712.479, 726.696], "stop_times": [726.696, 729.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.479}, "reply_to": "22500__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22500__0_043", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Without more, Justice Kennedy, that inference cannot be drawn, and I'll give the Court the example of the Crips and the Bloods--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [729.774], "stop_times": [737.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 729.774}, "reply_to": "22500__0_042", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_044", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "You mean the inference that the... which inference?\nThat they are or are not a threat?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [737.287, 738.568], "stop_times": [738.568, 740.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 737.287}, "reply_to": "22500__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22500__0_045", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--That they are not to the extent that, Justice Kennedy, you're asking whether it is an interracial threat.\nIt is... it is undoubtedly true, taking the example of the Crips and the Bloods, that they are intraracial threats, and indeed prison policy directed towards separating Crips and Bloods because of the... of the intraracial problem is certainly one which would be something that the... the prison system should address.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [740.138, 744.679], "stop_times": [744.679, 763.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 740.138}, "reply_to": "22500__0_044", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_046", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--assume that a gang poses an interracial threat?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [763.765], "stop_times": [770.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 763.765}, "reply_to": "22500__0_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22500__0_047", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "The... there's no evidence which has been produced in this record which would suggest that the policy can be tied from skin color to gang membership and from gang membership to interracial violence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [770.602], "stop_times": [787.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 770.602}, "reply_to": "22500__0_046", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_048", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "I... I asked... I asked about gang membership.\nCan gang membership be equated with an interracial threat in any significant number of... of gangs?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [787.442, 789.011], "stop_times": [789.011, 796.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 787.442}, "reply_to": "22500__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22500__0_049", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Not in the record of this case, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [796.896], "stop_times": [798.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 796.896}, "reply_to": "22500__0_048", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_050", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--I don't... you... you don't need it in the record.\nYou... you know what the Aryan Brotherhood is.\nIt... it is a white group that is hostile to blacks in particular, and you know what the Bloods are.\nIt is a black group that... that is hostile to whites.\nAnd... and does it take any more than common sense to know that if you put a tattooed member of one group in with a tattooed member of the other group, the likelihood of violence in that cell is going to be greater?\nAnd is any more than that needed for... for the... for the prison not to cell them together?\nWould you acknowledge that at least if the... not just on the basis that one is white and one is black, but if the prison knows that... that one is a member of the Aryan Brotherhood and the other is a member of the Bloods, the prison can refuse to... to assign them to the same cell?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [798.382, 799.951, 802.43, 809.239, 812.211, 823.895, 830.787], "stop_times": [799.951, 802.43, 809.239, 812.211, 823.895, 830.787, 845.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 798.382}, "reply_to": "22500__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__0_051", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [845.155], "stop_times": [845.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 845.155}, "reply_to": "22500__0_050", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_052", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [845.565], "stop_times": [846.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 845.565}, "reply_to": "22500__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__0_053", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "What is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [846.269], "stop_times": [847.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 846.269}, "reply_to": "22500__0_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22500__0_054", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "All right.\nNow... now suppose... I didn't mean to intrude on Justice Breyer, but just following this question, suppose that 50 percent of all the inmate population in a particular small prison is a member of one of these gangs.\nThen could you segregate on account of race?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [847.384, 847.756, 859.539], "stop_times": [847.756, 859.539, 861.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 847.384}, "reply_to": "22500__0_053", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22500__0_055", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "I think on race alone, the prison system would run afoul of the Constitution in making that determination.\nIf it... if race were analyzed in the context of gang membership, as part of an overall analysis of proclivity to violence based upon a series of facts existing in that prison, particularized circumstances, as suggested in the Lee case, I think that would be a proper analysis and constitutional.\nIt's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [861.668, 870.418, 887.47], "stop_times": [870.418, 887.47, 887.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 861.668}, "reply_to": "22500__0_054", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_056", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, would it be a proper analysis simply to... to separate or not based on gang membership?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [887.963], "stop_times": [894.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 887.963}, "reply_to": "22500__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__0_057", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Yes, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [894.24], "stop_times": [895.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 894.24}, "reply_to": "22500__0_056", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_058", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "No.\nYour answer to Justice Scalia stands on that.\nSo you would not be making an argument that gang membership is merely a surrogate for race in that case if that were the policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [895.355, 895.605, 898.289], "stop_times": [895.605, 898.289, 906.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 895.355}, "reply_to": "22500__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__0_059", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Yes.\nIn that particular case, gang membership is not a surrogate for race.\nIn the California policy, race is a surrogate for gang membership.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [906.008, 906.462, 908.813], "stop_times": [906.462, 908.813, 912.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 906.008}, "reply_to": "22500__0_058", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_060", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [912.073], "stop_times": [912.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 912.073}, "reply_to": "22500__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__0_061", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "I'd like to reserve the balance of my--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [912.611], "stop_times": [914.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 912.611}, "reply_to": "22500__0_060", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_062", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "May I... may I ask just one question?\nI understand the... your position that Turner is enough to cover to this, but you're going-in position was that race is different, even different than the First Amendment.\nAnd you gave one other example, the Eighth Amendment.\nIt may be convenient, make things easier for the administration of a prison if prisoners are tortured every now and then to keep them in line, but obviously, the Eighth Amendment prevails over that.\nIs there anything else that you say is... is so fundamental that we don't do it, like torture?\nAnd... and you say race segregation belongs in that category.\nAnything else?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [914.468, 915.377, 928.397, 932.467, 947.988, 955.873, 960.786], "stop_times": [915.377, 928.397, 932.467, 947.988, 955.873, 960.786, 961.241], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 914.468}, "reply_to": "22500__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__0_063", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Yes.\nWell, in this Court's opinion in the McKune case under a Fifth Amendment analysis, it was found that that didn't... it was not analyzed under a Turner standard.\nAnd even in the Harper case, before the determination of the liberty right being taken under the Turner standard, the Court relied upon procedural due process rights which were exercised in... in the State of Washington with regard to... to the prisoner.\nI'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [961.241, 961.529, 968.754, 984.542], "stop_times": [961.529, 968.754, 984.542, 986.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 961.241}, "reply_to": "22500__0_062", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__0_064", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Mr. Clement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [986.587], "stop_times": [992.987], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 986.587}, "reply_to": "22500__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__1_000", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThis case presents the Court with an opportunity to reaffirm that all government policies based on race are subject to strict scrutiny.\nThe deference generally owed to the sound judgment of prison officials does not require this Court to modify its repeated statements that all government action based on race should be subject to strict scrutiny.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [992.987, 1000.789, 1010.077], "stop_times": [1000.789, 1010.077, 1022.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 992.987}, "reply_to": "22500__0_064", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_001", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "We say the same about the First Amendment, don't we?\nAll government actions restricting speech are subject to strict scrutiny.\nRight?\nAnd yet, we allow that to occur in prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1022.708, 1024.156, 1028.734, 1029.728], "stop_times": [1024.156, 1028.734, 1029.728, 1031.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1022.708}, "reply_to": "22500__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__1_002", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, I think that this Court has recognized in a variety of contexts, including when they have... when justices have made reference to prison policies, that all government actions based on race are subject to strict scrutiny.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1031.874], "stop_times": [1043.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1031.874}, "reply_to": "22500__1_001", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_003", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Unlike the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1043.512], "stop_times": [1044.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1043.512}, "reply_to": "22500__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__1_004", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "The First Amendment obviously has been subjected, at least when you're talking about things other than outgoing prisoner mail, to be subjected to the Turner analysis, but no... this Court has never suggested that the Turner analysis applies to race.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1044.422], "stop_times": [1059.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1044.422}, "reply_to": "22500__1_003", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_005", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Mr. Clement, will you tell us how the Government would come out applying the Turner analysis in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1059.077], "stop_times": [1064.363], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1059.077}, "reply_to": "22500__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__1_006", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Absolutely, Justice Stevens.\nI think if the Turner analysis is correctly applied in this case, this policy does not even survive Turner analysis.\nI would suggest it's very analogous to the marriage policy that the Court struck down in Turner applying the Turner analysis because there the State identified a concern with inmate marriages and particularly with inmate-to-inmate marriages, and yet they adopted a policy that prohibited all inmate marriages.\nHere there's a concern that's expressed with newly arriving inmates, about whom California says it knows very little.\nYet, it applies its policies to transferring inmates, as well as to returning parolees.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1064.363, 1066.22, 1072.823, 1089.997, 1096.806], "stop_times": [1066.22, 1072.823, 1089.997, 1096.806, 1102.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1064.363}, "reply_to": "22500__1_005", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_007", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "And why should we decide the constitutional question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1102.257], "stop_times": [1104.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1102.257}, "reply_to": "22500__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__1_008", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, I think either one of those would be a constitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1104.487], "stop_times": [1107.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1104.487}, "reply_to": "22500__1_007", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_009", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1107.914], "stop_times": [1108.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1107.914}, "reply_to": "22500__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__1_010", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--holding of this Court, and I think either under Turner or under strict scrutiny, it's still equally a constitutional holding.\nAnd I think it would send an improper message to suggest that there's some element of government decision-making that is somehow exempt from strict scrutiny.\nI think in a variety of contexts, this Court, where it generally reviews a government action deferentially... take, for example, jury selection, peremptory challenges.\nTake, for example, military policy.\nTake, for example, congressional districting.\nThose are all government policies this Court generally refuse... reviews under a highly deferential standard.\nYet, nonetheless, when it comes to government policies based on race, this Court applies strict scrutiny.\nAnd in that sense, I think the racial districting cases provide a very good example because there, generally, as the Vieth case from last term illustrates, this Court is very reluctant to do any review of the districting lines that are drawn.\nYet, when race is identified as being the cause for the lines being drawn, as in Miller against Johnson, this Court emphasizes that strict scrutiny applies.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1108.164, 1114.518, 1123.806, 1134.292, 1136.438, 1138.667, 1144.944, 1151.548, 1165.416], "stop_times": [1114.518, 1123.806, 1134.292, 1136.438, 1138.667, 1144.944, 1151.548, 1165.416, 1174.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1108.164}, "reply_to": "22500__1_009", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_011", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Is... is there an argument to be made that the reason we make that emphasis and... and an argument for you in this case that there is somehow a greater fragility to... to the effective standards to prevent racial classification than there is to the possibility of enforcing speech rights and so on?\nIs there something to worry about here more than in the case of... of enumerated rights that... that gets the Turner analysis?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1174.954, 1196.047], "stop_times": [1196.047, 1204.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1174.954}, "reply_to": "22500__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__1_012", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, I think that's part of it, Justice Souter.\nI think one thing is that particularly because of the history of this country and the use of... of race by governments, including in prisons, there is a concern that all government uses of race must be subjected to very heightened scrutiny.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1204.88, 1207.109], "stop_times": [1207.109, 1222.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1204.88}, "reply_to": "22500__1_011", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_013", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Yes, but there's a pretty frightening history about speech restriction too.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1222.259], "stop_times": [1225.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1222.259}, "reply_to": "22500__1_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__1_014", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, again, I think, though, that there is almost a uniquely pernicious history involving race in this country, and I think, again, it is completely wrong to suggest that somehow prisons were exempt from that history.\nTo the contrary.\nThroughout the Nation before Brown against Board of Education, it was common for prisons to be segregated on the basis of race.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1225.231, 1238.113, 1239.227], "stop_times": [1238.113, 1239.227, 1245.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1225.231}, "reply_to": "22500__1_013", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_015", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--This is not a permanent segregation in these California prisons.\nIt's just temporary, isn't it?\nHow long does it last?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1245.831, 1249.463, 1250.866], "stop_times": [1249.463, 1250.866, 1251.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1245.831}, "reply_to": "22500__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__1_016", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "It lasts 60 days, is the best evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1251.692], "stop_times": [1253.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1251.692}, "reply_to": "22500__1_015", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_017", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Until... until they... they have assurance that... that the individuals are... are not members of a gang and likely to, in... in their view, commit racial violence if... if co-celled with another prisoner.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1253.921], "stop_times": [1268.0], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1253.921}, "reply_to": "22500__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__1_018", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "With respect, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1268.0], "stop_times": [1268.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1268.0}, "reply_to": "22500__1_017", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_019", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "If it were permanent, your argument about this, you know, this is a long tradition of our prisons.\nWe... we keep the blacks and the whites separate.\nThat... that's not what they're doing in California.\nIt's a temporary... it's a temporary measure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1268.948, 1273.035, 1274.975, 1277.826], "stop_times": [1273.035, 1274.975, 1277.826, 1279.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1268.948}, "reply_to": "22500__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__1_020", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--With respect, Justice Scalia, in Lee against Washington, this Court upheld the integration not just of the Alabama prisons, but the Alabama jails, and the evidence before the Court there... and this is clear from the three-judge opinion... is that the average stay in the Birmingham city jail was 7 to 15 days.\nNonetheless, this Court said that 7 to 15 days of racial segregation was too much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1279.805, 1297.805], "stop_times": [1297.805, 1303.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1279.805}, "reply_to": "22500__1_019", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_021", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Okay, but we didn't announce a standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1303.582], "stop_times": [1305.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1303.582}, "reply_to": "22500__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__1_022", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "That was for the whole stay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1305.068], "stop_times": [1305.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1305.068}, "reply_to": "22500__1_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__1_023", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, that's true, Justice Souter.\nI mean, I think if you look at Brown against Board of Education itself and you look at the various per curiam opinions that this Court issued in the wake of Brown v. Board, I don't think any of those decisions have a hallmark of being elaborate about the standard of review that the Court has applied.\nNonetheless--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1305.334, 1307.752, 1322.158], "stop_times": [1307.752, 1322.158, 1322.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1305.334}, "reply_to": "22500__1_022", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_024", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "What does 7... what does 7 to 15 days have to do with anything?\nIt was for the whole stay that they were segregated.\nThe stay may have been short, but the fact that during their entire period they were segregated showed that there was no other purpose to this thing except to keep the races separate.\nWhereas, here, they are kept separate for... for the time which the California prison believes it needs in order to assure that there won't be violence, and once that assurance is given, the races are... are mixed.\nThat's a totally different situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1322.613, 1325.313, 1327.981, 1336.98, 1348.414], "stop_times": [1325.313, 1327.981, 1336.98, 1348.414, 1350.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.613}, "reply_to": "22500__1_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__1_025", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--With respect, Justice Scalia, I disagree.\nThe entire time these prisoners are kept at the reception center, which is a separate part of the facility where the incoming inmates go, that entire time they are segregated on the basis of race.\nNow, the Bureau of Prisons, for example, has a similar entry section in its various prisons.\nIt's called the admissions and orientations process, and there, using the presentence reports that are provided for by California law, the Federal officials evaluate prisoners and their risk levels and have no need to segregate those prisoners on the basis of race.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1350.022, 1352.146, 1362.82, 1367.816], "stop_times": [1352.146, 1362.82, 1367.816, 1382.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1350.022}, "reply_to": "22500__1_024", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_026", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "One of... one of California's response said, well, the Feds have mostly income tax evaders, maybe some drug dealers, but the State prisoners are the real tough guys, the real violent criminals.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1382.882, 1395.021], "stop_times": [1395.021, 1395.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1382.882}, "reply_to": "22500__1_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__1_027", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "They have a high class of felons in the Federal prison basically.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1395.325], "stop_times": [1398.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1395.325}, "reply_to": "22500__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__1_028", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "With respect, Your Honors, that misdescribes the... the population of the Federal prisons.\nPart of where I think they get off on the wrong step is they do their analysis only on the offense of conviction.\nBut a lot of the individuals in the Federal prisons are, say, for example, convicted felons who are convicted for felony in possession.\nAnd the underlying felony that led them to be, say, a 924(c) defendant was a violent felony.\nAnd so we... there are also agreements by which the Bureau of Prisoners, on request from States, will house the State's most violent criminals.\nSo I think that's an unfair description of what the Bureau of Prisons policy... or population looks like.\nAnd I think the fact that the Bureau of Prisons and virtually every other State that's looked at this issue has found a mechanism to deal with the problem of incoming inmates without resorting to race is a powerful indication that this kind of use of race is unnecessary.\nAnd the problem with applying Turner, rather than strict scrutiny, I think is well illustrated by this case and this policy.\nThis is a policy that is expressly acknowledged to take race into account, and it is nowhere written down.\nIf you pull the Department of Correction manual for the California prison system, there's a 94-page chapter on the classification of inmates.\nYet, this policy doesn't appear there.\nIt's an unwritten policy.\nJustice Ginsburg, you asked, well, was this policy introduced in response to specific incidents of violence in a cell.\nThe answer to that is unknowable because nobody even knows how long this policy has been in place.\nThe official responsible for administering it acknowledged it's been in place for 25 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1398.176, 1403.021, 1408.95, 1417.123, 1423.439, 1431.695, 1437.944, 1454.397, 1461.417, 1467.65, 1475.656, 1477.514, 1479.0, 1485.566, 1491.055], "stop_times": [1403.021, 1408.95, 1417.123, 1423.439, 1431.695, 1437.944, 1454.397, 1461.417, 1467.65, 1475.656, 1477.514, 1479.0, 1485.566, 1491.055, 1495.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1398.176}, "reply_to": "22500__1_027", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_029", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Why... why does that affect the Turner analysis?\nI'm sorry.\nI don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1495.901, 1498.447, 1499.023], "stop_times": [1498.447, 1499.023, 1500.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1495.901}, "reply_to": "22500__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22500__1_030", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "What I'm suggesting, Justice O'Connor, is what the... the application of Turner to this policy allowed.\nIt's to allow an unwritten policy where... of uncertain origins--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1500.137, 1506.166], "stop_times": [1506.166, 1510.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1500.137}, "reply_to": "22500__1_029", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_031", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "I thought you told us earlier it wouldn't survive Turner.\nI... I don't understand your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1510.419, 1513.929], "stop_times": [1513.929, 1516.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1510.419}, "reply_to": "22500__1_030", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22500__1_032", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Well, it wouldn't survive a proper analysis under Turner.\nThat is correct.\nBut the... the court of appeals here, applying its version of Turner, upheld this policy.\nAnd I think one way of looking at the choice between Turner and strict scrutiny is whether there is a greater threat that frequent judicial approvals of prisons' use of race will have the effect of diluting the strict scrutiny rigor or whether frequent disapprovals of prisons' use of race will have the effect of undermining the Turner deference.\nAnd the concern of the Federal Government is exactly that, that by having race policies evaluated under Turner, there will be a necessary temptation to bump up the Turner analysis in a way that strikes down racial policies.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1516.819, 1520.284, 1521.11, 1526.328, 1546.002], "stop_times": [1520.284, 1521.11, 1526.328, 1546.002, 1558.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1516.819}, "reply_to": "22500__1_031", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_033", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "You're concerned about evaluating prison race policies.\nAre there any other prison policies in the country that adopt a racial test like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1558.633, 1561.688], "stop_times": [1561.688, 1566.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1558.633}, "reply_to": "22500__1_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__1_034", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, I think... I think California... it's... it's best described as California is one of at most a couple of States that have a comparable cell-based policy of segregation.\nAnd so I think it really is kind of the outlier in terms of that analysis.\nNow, there may be situations... and we think strict scrutiny can account for them... where States want to take race into account in particularized circumstances.\nAnd I think testing those under strict scrutiny is the proper mode of analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1566.724, 1577.376, 1581.463, 1589.531], "stop_times": [1577.376, 1581.463, 1589.531, 1594.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1566.724}, "reply_to": "22500__1_033", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_035", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Your--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1594.344], "stop_times": [1594.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1594.344}, "reply_to": "22500__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22500__1_036", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Clement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1594.837], "stop_times": [1596.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1594.837}, "reply_to": "22500__1_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__1_037", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1596.861], "stop_times": [1597.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1596.861}, "reply_to": "22500__1_036", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22500__1_038", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Mr.... Ms. Grunder.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1597.975], "stop_times": [1601.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1597.975}, "reply_to": "22500__1_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__2_000", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nTurner's unitary deferential standard of review balances inmates' rights with the exceptionally dangerous and difficult job of running a prison.\nThe Turner standard applies here because the need for prison deference doesn't change with the nature of the right asserted.\nCalifornia is Ground Zero for raced-based prison and street gangs.\nThe Aryan Brotherhood, the Black Guerilla Family, the Mexican Mafia, and the Nuestra Familia--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1601.524, 1605.49, 1613.867, 1620.926, 1626.211], "stop_times": [1605.49, 1613.867, 1620.926, 1626.211, 1632.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1601.524}, "reply_to": "22500__1_038", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_001", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Is there any evidence in the record that the initial placing of two inmates in the same cell has ever had... has ever produced a racial incident?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1632.072], "stop_times": [1643.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1632.072}, "reply_to": "22500__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__2_002", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--In the reception center, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1643.551], "stop_times": [1645.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1643.551}, "reply_to": "22500__2_001", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_003", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Pardon me?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1645.075], "stop_times": [1645.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1645.075}, "reply_to": "22500__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__2_004", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "In the reception centers?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1645.818], "stop_times": [1646.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1645.818}, "reply_to": "22500__2_003", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_005", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1646.727], "stop_times": [1647.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1646.727}, "reply_to": "22500__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__2_006", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "No, because the... the inmates are not interracially housed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1647.554], "stop_times": [1652.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1647.554}, "reply_to": "22500__2_005", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_007", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "You've never tried it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1652.877], "stop_times": [1653.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1652.877}, "reply_to": "22500__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__2_008", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "There's nothing in the record, Your Honor.\nThe policy has been in effect for a considerable length of time, and... and during that time, they have not interracially housed inmates in the same cell.\nI think it's important to remember here that the policy only applies in the reception center areas and in the cells.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1653.332, 1655.932, 1665.303], "stop_times": [1655.932, 1665.303, 1673.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1653.332}, "reply_to": "22500__2_007", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_009", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "But it applies in the reception center area for someone who has been transferred as well as the... an initial incarceration.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1673.561], "stop_times": [1679.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1673.561}, "reply_to": "22500__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__2_010", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "It's a very shortened period for a transferee.\nIt's only 14 days under the California regulations, and it only applies if they are put in a cell.\nIf there is someone who is eligible to be housed in a dormitory, that is, somebody who has been convicted of a less violent offense or they have more information about, then the dormitories are fully integrated, as well as every other aspect of the reception center.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1679.505, 1682.106, 1687.929], "stop_times": [1682.106, 1687.929, 1702.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1679.505}, "reply_to": "22500__2_009", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_011", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "But... I'm sorry.\nEven in the case of... of housing in cells, what's the justification for it?\nThe argument is... excuse me... on the initial intake, we don't know enough about them.\nWell, on... on the transfer, you've had plenty of time to know about them.\nWhy is it justifiable even for 14 days on... on the transfer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1702.705, 1704.357, 1709.104, 1713.645, 1718.287], "stop_times": [1704.357, 1709.104, 1713.645, 1718.287, 1722.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1702.705}, "reply_to": "22500__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__2_012", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "That's what I don't understand too.\nThat... that's really what most troubles me about this case.\nWhy... why do you do this to the transferees at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1722.374, 1723.76, 1726.482], "stop_times": [1723.76, 1726.482, 1729.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.374}, "reply_to": "22500__2_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__2_013", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "There's a... there's a couple of reasons, Your Honors.\nFirst of all, as much as you may know about the transferring individual, you may not know the information about their prospective cellmate at the transfer institution because they may be somebody who's a newly received cellmate, somebody who is going through a reception center process themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1729.537, 1731.578], "stop_times": [1731.578, 1749.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1729.537}, "reply_to": "22500__2_012", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_014", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, unless you house them with the cellmate, what are you going to learn from segregating them for 14 days?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1749.145], "stop_times": [1755.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1749.145}, "reply_to": "22500__2_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__2_015", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "What happens when they arrive at the receiving institution is there needs to be time for a record review.\nThe records do not arrive at the exact same time as the inmates.\nAnd so they convene a classification committee and at which point they review the records.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1755.915, 1761.405, 1765.658], "stop_times": [1761.405, 1765.658, 1769.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1755.915}, "reply_to": "22500__2_014", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_016", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, if we have a choice between segregating by race and speeding up the delivery of records, isn't it constitutionally preferable to get the records delivered on time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1769.744], "stop_times": [1778.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1769.744}, "reply_to": "22500__2_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__2_017", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "The records need to stay with the inmate at the old prison until the inmate leaves on the bus for the new prison because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1778.661], "stop_times": [1786.258], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1778.661}, "reply_to": "22500__2_016", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_018", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Why?\nDon't you have xeroxes?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1786.258, 1786.508, 1787.91], "stop_times": [1786.508, 1787.91, 1788.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.258}, "reply_to": "22500__2_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__2_019", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Well, in the case of California, there's over 165,000 inmates.\nIn Mr. Johnson's case, his records probably are many, many banker's boxes full of records.\nSo that's the type of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1788.366, 1793.317, 1799.611], "stop_times": [1793.317, 1799.611, 1801.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1788.366}, "reply_to": "22500__2_018", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_020", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "When... when... there's a transferee from prison A to prison B and he goes to the reception center.\nDoes that transferee get housed with other transferees or is he also housed, from time to time or often, with new entrants into the system?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1801.84, 1811.128], "stop_times": [1811.128, 1821.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1801.84}, "reply_to": "22500__2_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22500__2_021", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--He may be housed with new entrants into the system and that... that's the reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1821.697], "stop_times": [1825.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1821.697}, "reply_to": "22500__2_020", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_022", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "So... so as to one-half of the people in that... in that instance, you don't know what the other inmate's record is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1825.412], "stop_times": [1832.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1825.412}, "reply_to": "22500__2_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22500__2_023", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.\nAnd I would like to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1832.804, 1834.04], "stop_times": [1834.04, 1835.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1832.804}, "reply_to": "22500__2_022", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_024", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "You could house transferees only with other transferees, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1835.322], "stop_times": [1838.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1835.322}, "reply_to": "22500__2_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__2_025", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1838.787], "stop_times": [1839.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1838.787}, "reply_to": "22500__2_024", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_026", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Is that... is that too hard to figure out?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1839.696], "stop_times": [1841.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1839.696}, "reply_to": "22500__2_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__2_027", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--That's possible, Your Honor.\nThat currently is not the practice, but that is possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1841.388, 1842.503], "stop_times": [1842.503, 1844.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1841.388}, "reply_to": "22500__2_026", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_028", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Ms. Grunder, is this policy a... an unwritten policy of California?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1844.898], "stop_times": [1850.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1844.898}, "reply_to": "22500__2_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22500__2_029", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "It is... yes, it is a practice.\nI wouldn't characterize it a policy.\nIt's a practice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1850.926, 1852.617, 1854.391], "stop_times": [1852.617, 1854.391, 1855.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1850.926}, "reply_to": "22500__2_028", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_030", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "An admitted practice but not written.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1855.096], "stop_times": [1856.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1855.096}, "reply_to": "22500__2_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22500__2_031", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1856.954], "stop_times": [1858.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1856.954}, "reply_to": "22500__2_030", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_032", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "And is... does any other State have such a policy, written or otherwise?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1858.151], "stop_times": [1864.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1858.151}, "reply_to": "22500__2_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22500__2_033", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Yes, they do, Your Honor, and I would like to address that.\nThe two largest States of inmate population, California and Texas, together comprise about 300,000 inmates, which is about 20 percent of the total inmate prison population in the United States, including the Bureau of Prisons.\nThose two States have a similar policy.\nIn addition, Oklahoma--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1864.755, 1866.946, 1882.467, 1885.561], "stop_times": [1866.946, 1882.467, 1885.561, 1887.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1864.755}, "reply_to": "22500__2_032", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_034", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "What is the Texas' policy?\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1887.047, 1888.328], "stop_times": [1888.328, 1888.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1887.047}, "reply_to": "22500__2_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22500__2_035", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Yes, I believe it is, Your Honor.\nWhen Texas was subjected to the integration decree, the one area of the prison that was not part of the decree that they did not require them to integrate was the area that is the equivalent of our reception center.\nThere... there in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1888.699, 1891.588, 1905.789], "stop_times": [1891.588, 1905.789, 1906.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1888.699}, "reply_to": "22500__2_034", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_036", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Is in the briefs?\nI don't remember it from the briefs.\nDid... did you discuss this in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1906.411, 1907.608, 1908.844], "stop_times": [1907.608, 1908.844, 1910.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1906.411}, "reply_to": "22500__2_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__2_037", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, it is in the briefs.\nIt's... it has to do with the Trulson study, and the Trulson study indicated that the intake diagnostic centers of Texas were not required to be integrated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1910.413, 1912.066], "stop_times": [1912.066, 1922.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1910.413}, "reply_to": "22500__2_036", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_038", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "All right.\nIf we... if we exclude Texas and California, on your recording, we've still got 80 percent of the... the prison population in the United States, and apparently neither the Federal prisons nor any State does... apart from Texas, has this policy.\nWhy... I mean, how do you account for the fact that there doesn't seem to be any evidence that... that they are having explosive incidents involving new members based upon racial animosity?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1922.402, 1924.26, 1937.8], "stop_times": [1924.26, 1937.8, 1949.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1922.402}, "reply_to": "22500__2_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__2_039", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Your Honor, actually there's another State, Oklahoma, which has a very similar policy that says that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1949.789], "stop_times": [1957.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1949.789}, "reply_to": "22500__2_038", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_040", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Okay.\nWe've still got 47 States left.\n[Laughter]\nHow... how do you explain the fact that... and... and some of them don't have your racial problems.\nThere's no question about it.\nI come from one that does not.\nBut some do.\nAnd... and how do you explain the fact that there is no sort of confirmatory record of what happens when you don't follow your policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1957.325, 1957.591, 1958.977, 1959.349, 1963.974, 1965.005, 1966.407, 1967.522], "stop_times": [1957.591, 1958.977, 1959.349, 1963.974, 1965.005, 1966.407, 1967.522, 1976.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1957.325}, "reply_to": "22500__2_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__2_041", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Well, I think the answer is that they don't have the same problems that California has.\nCalifornia has the most prison gangs, the... they are race-based.\nIt's an extraordinarily difficult situation.\nAnd even the Bureau of Prisons takes race into account when it balances its prisons and that's in the United States' brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1976.977, 1982.838, 1988.494, 1990.556], "stop_times": [1982.838, 1988.494, 1990.556, 1996.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1976.977}, "reply_to": "22500__2_040", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_042", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "May I go back to Texas?\nBecause one of the pieces of information that was featured by the other side was this study in Texas that showed a decline in interracial violence when there was an increase in racial integration.\nSo that empirical study showed just the opposite, that when you integrate, you get less violence than when you separate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [1996.5, 1997.986, 2013.84], "stop_times": [1997.986, 2013.84, 2022.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.5}, "reply_to": "22500__2_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_043", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe Trulson study, however, only looked at inmates after they had left the reception center, only looked at inmates in... in the integrated settings of the prison, equivalent to the areas that California integrates.\nSo we don't dispute that once you have enough individualized information about an inmate, then you can house them according to an individualized information.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2022.385, 2023.704, 2035.017], "stop_times": [2023.704, 2035.017, 2044.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2022.385}, "reply_to": "22500__2_042", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_044", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "On the individualized, there was something that I didn't grasp.\nYou say we don't know anything about these people, so we have to have that 60-day period to find out about them.\nThe presentence report we're told accompanies the conviction, the prisoner's conviction.\nSo the presentence report will have a fair amount of information about the offender, will it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2044.676, 2046.905, 2054.047, 2066.306], "stop_times": [2046.905, 2054.047, 2066.306, 2073.654], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.676}, "reply_to": "22500__2_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_045", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "It would have a fair amount of information.\nHowever, in California, the presentence report does not always accompany the inmate and frequently does not.\nIt follows some period of time later from the county.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2073.654, 2076.588, 2081.621], "stop_times": [2076.588, 2081.621, 2083.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2073.654}, "reply_to": "22500__2_044", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_046", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "But again, that's the kind of administrative problem that would seem easily fixable.\nI thought the... the rule or the regulation was that the presentence report is supposed to accompany the conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2083.851, 2088.309], "stop_times": [2088.309, 2094.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2083.851}, "reply_to": "22500__2_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_047", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "But the fact of the matter is, Your Honor, the counties aren't preparing the presentences... presentence reports in a timely fashion, and... and they're not sending them--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2094.708], "stop_times": [2102.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2094.708}, "reply_to": "22500__2_046", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_048", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, maybe something should be done about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2102.677], "stop_times": [2104.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2102.677}, "reply_to": "22500__2_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_049", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Yes, with the counties, perhaps.\nBut another issue with the presentence report is it doesn't deal with in-prison behavior, and that's what the prison officials need a... need time to take a look at, is how the inmate is going to react once they get in the prison environment, which is a wholly different environment than a jail environment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2104.739, 2106.104], "stop_times": [2106.104, 2122.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2104.739}, "reply_to": "22500__2_048", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_050", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "May I ask what's probably a stupid question?\nWe're concerned, I suppose, about say, a black prisoner who's just coming into prison for the first time and you hope he won't join one of the black gangs.\nSo wouldn't the safest thing to do for the first 20 days is to put him with a cellmate who's not black?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2122.861, 2125.256, 2134.256], "stop_times": [2125.256, 2134.256, 2139.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.861}, "reply_to": "22500__2_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__2_051", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "No, Your Honor, because in prison the animosity between the gangs is purely race-based, and that inmate may be subjected--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2139.457], "stop_times": [2148.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2139.457}, "reply_to": "22500__2_050", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_052", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Between the gangs.\nBut I'm assuming a new prisoner who you have no information about.\nDo you presume he's a member of a gang or presume he's somebody who may not be a member of a gang?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2148.307, 2148.723, 2152.105], "stop_times": [2148.723, 2152.105, 2156.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.307}, "reply_to": "22500__2_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__2_053", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--There's not a presumption that the person is a member of the gang.\nBut there is a presumption--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2156.48, 2159.414], "stop_times": [2159.414, 2160.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2156.48}, "reply_to": "22500__2_052", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_054", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, if he's not a member of the gang, isn't the danger that he'll become affiliated with the gang increased by insisting on putting him with the same race as... as he is?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2160.567], "stop_times": [2170.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2160.567}, "reply_to": "22500__2_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__2_055", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--That may be, but there is also a danger that if he is housed interracially and subjected to gang pressures on the yard, that he will then be in a situation to go back to his cell, when the door is closed and the lights are out, and commit violent acts upon his cellmate at... because of pressures that he's receiving from members of his own race.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2170.681], "stop_times": [2191.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2170.681}, "reply_to": "22500__2_054", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_056", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Of course, you... you have never... no evidence that that's ever happened because you've never tried it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2191.775], "stop_times": [2195.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2191.775}, "reply_to": "22500__2_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__2_057", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "In the reception centers, no.\nThe... it has been a policy of not cross-racially housing the inmates in the cells only.\nThat's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2195.219, 2197.885, 2204.035], "stop_times": [2197.885, 2204.035, 2205.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2195.219}, "reply_to": "22500__2_056", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_058", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "You... you said a second ago that there's a significant difference between the conditions in the jails and the conditions in... in the prisons.\nIs that significant difference the... the organization of... of racially based gangs in the prisons as distinct from the jails?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2205.233, 2211.549], "stop_times": [2211.549, 2220.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2205.233}, "reply_to": "22500__2_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__2_059", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Yes, I think that's true.\nAnd there's also a difference I think in the attitude of... of the inmates when they're in... in a state of flux in a jail as opposed to when they arrive to serve their many years-long sentence, in the case of Mr. Johnson, 37 years to life.\nAnd then I think the reality sets in and... and things do change.\nPrison is very different.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2220.26, 2221.291, 2233.468, 2237.35], "stop_times": [2221.291, 2233.468, 2237.35, 2238.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2220.26}, "reply_to": "22500__2_058", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_060", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Apart from the gang situation, is there reason to think that their minds change in the sense of inclining them to interracial violence simply because they say, gee, I'm in for a long time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2238.958], "stop_times": [2252.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2238.958}, "reply_to": "22500__2_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__2_061", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Yes, I... I believe it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2252.333], "stop_times": [2253.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2252.333}, "reply_to": "22500__2_060", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_062", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "And do we have any evidence to that effect?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2253.797], "stop_times": [2255.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2253.797}, "reply_to": "22500__2_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__2_063", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, the reality in prison is that people are pressured to join gangs and to... you either hang with your own or you don't and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2255.555], "stop_times": [2262.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2255.555}, "reply_to": "22500__2_062", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_064", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "But that... I mean, that goes back to the gang membership situation.\nIt seems to me that's your strongest argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2262.364, 2265.048], "stop_times": [2265.048, 2266.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.364}, "reply_to": "22500__2_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__2_065", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Yes, it's true.\nBut even for members... people who are not actually members of the gang are subjected to the gang pressures.\nFor instance, if... if there was going to be a fight, a planned fight, that was going to break out on a yard, members of a prison gang would tell members of... of their same race that once the fight breaks out, you better be with us because if you're not, we'll deal with you later.\nAnd that's even for people who aren't gang members.\nSo the racial pressures in prison are very, very severe.\nSomething--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2266.988, 2268.187, 2273.776, 2287.793, 2290.682, 2293.822], "stop_times": [2268.187, 2273.776, 2287.793, 2290.682, 2293.822, 2295.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2266.988}, "reply_to": "22500__2_064", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_066", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "But it still seems to me that a new inmate is more likely to be subjected to that pressure with the... his cellmates than with somebody out in the yard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2295.967], "stop_times": [2304.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2295.967}, "reply_to": "22500__2_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__2_067", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--And he may well be, Your Honor, but what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2304.223], "stop_times": [2306.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2304.223}, "reply_to": "22500__2_066", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_068", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "And it seems to me insurance against him joining a racial gang is cell... cell him with somebody who's not of the same race.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2306.907], "stop_times": [2313.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2306.907}, "reply_to": "22500__2_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__2_069", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--But you... but to do that would be to invite danger to the... to the other inmate.\nThe... the level of interracial violence in prison is high, and that can't be disregarded.\nAnd if we weren't here today--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2313.594, 2319.001, 2323.625], "stop_times": [2319.001, 2323.625, 2325.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2313.594}, "reply_to": "22500__2_068", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_070", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "How does it compare to intraracial violence?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2325.111], "stop_times": [2327.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.111}, "reply_to": "22500__2_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_071", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--There hasn't, as... as we've talked about, been a problem with interracial violence in the cells because they're not housed that way.\nThere are problems with--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2327.629, 2335.802], "stop_times": [2335.802, 2337.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2327.629}, "reply_to": "22500__2_070", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_072", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2337.826], "stop_times": [2338.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.826}, "reply_to": "22500__2_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_073", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--In general.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2338.159], "stop_times": [2338.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2338.159}, "reply_to": "22500__2_072", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_074", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--overall.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2338.819], "stop_times": [2339.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2338.819}, "reply_to": "22500__2_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_075", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "There are some problems with intraracial violence, but they're generally more founded in personal relations as opposed to a race-based... you know, some other sort of animosity.\nThe same sort of reasons that people have fights on the outside--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2339.85, 2350.624], "stop_times": [2350.624, 2355.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.85}, "reply_to": "22500__2_074", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_076", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "But there... is there any figures on the prison population as a whole, the incidents of interracial violence as opposed to intraracial violence?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2355.453], "stop_times": [2364.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2355.453}, "reply_to": "22500__2_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_077", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nIn this case there's... it's not in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2364.824, 2365.567], "stop_times": [2365.567, 2367.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2364.824}, "reply_to": "22500__2_076", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_078", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "And do we know... does this record tell us what happens after the 60 days?\nTo what extent where there are double cells, does the same race policy, although not formally adopted, continue?\nAfter the 60 days, what is the incidence of different race double-celling and same race double-celling?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2367.136, 2375.105, 2388.125], "stop_times": [2375.105, 2388.125, 2398.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2367.136}, "reply_to": "22500__2_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_079", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "What we do have in the record, Your Honor, is that the policy and the practice does not apply after the 60 days.\nInmates are allowed to request a cell together and can choose their own cellmates so long as the other cellmate agrees.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2398.799, 2405.237], "stop_times": [2405.237, 2411.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2398.799}, "reply_to": "22500__2_078", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_080", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "So we just don't have any information whether this line between the 60 days is imaginary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2411.264], "stop_times": [2421.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2411.264}, "reply_to": "22500__2_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_081", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "We do, Your Honor.\nThe... it is not... it does not happen outside of the reception center cell practice.\nOnce they get to their permanent housing assignment, they may choose their own cellmates.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2421.971, 2423.774, 2430.5], "stop_times": [2423.774, 2430.5, 2434.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2421.971}, "reply_to": "22500__2_080", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_082", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "When... when they do choose that, do you respect a choice to cell with... with another member of... of the... of... do you respect the choice when two members of a gang want to cell together?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2434.67], "stop_times": [2450.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2434.67}, "reply_to": "22500__2_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__2_083", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Two members of the same gang?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2450.44], "stop_times": [2452.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2450.44}, "reply_to": "22500__2_082", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_084", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Same gang.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2452.092], "stop_times": [2452.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2452.092}, "reply_to": "22500__2_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__2_085", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "It... it would depend on if they are... what level of gang membership they are.\nCalifornia has a very complex system for what... doing what they call validating gang membership.\nIf they are a validated gang member, generally they are sent to a special prison, and yes, they are housed with members of their own gangs in a very high security setting.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2452.381, 2458.203, 2464.065], "stop_times": [2458.203, 2464.065, 2473.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2452.381}, "reply_to": "22500__2_084", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_086", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Do you... do you have a... do you have any record of... of requests by different... members of different gangs to cell together?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2473.557], "stop_times": [2481.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2473.557}, "reply_to": "22500__2_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__2_087", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "We don't have any record of that, but I... I can tell you that if members of opposing gangs were to request a cell together, first of all, they would both have to agree, which would be highly unlikely, and there... it would probably be viewed with a bit of suspicion as to what was going on.\nBut maybe if... if they had disavowed their gang membership and... and these particular people could get along, it would certainly be considered.\nThe... the object, once they get to the permanent housing, is cellmate compatibility.\nSo there are a lot of things that are looked at.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2481.981, 2498.738, 2505.508, 2510.338], "stop_times": [2498.738, 2505.508, 2510.338, 2512.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2481.981}, "reply_to": "22500__2_086", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_088", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Ms. Grunder, do you agree with opposing counsel that even if evaluated under the Turner rule, properly applied, that California's policy would not survive?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2512.278], "stop_times": [2529.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2512.278}, "reply_to": "22500__2_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22500__2_089", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "I do not agree with counsel.\nI believe that the Ninth Circuit did properly apply the Turner standard in this case and that California would pass and does pass the Turner test in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2529.452, 2532.507], "stop_times": [2532.507, 2542.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2529.452}, "reply_to": "22500__2_088", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_090", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "It wouldn't... it wouldn't pass if... would it, if we do not accept your argument that California cannot efficiently get records sent along with inmates so that, at the time at least of transfers, the prisons are in a position to know what they're getting?\nIf we... if we say, look, we're not going to accept the argument from administrative efficiency, then you can't survive Turner, can you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2542.084, 2560.038], "stop_times": [2560.038, 2566.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2542.084}, "reply_to": "22500__2_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__2_091", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, it may be more than just administrative efficiency because every prison is different and there are different gang pressures at each prison.\nAnd I think it's important for the prison to be allowed an opportunity to bring that transferred inmate in and look at them and how they're going to fit into that prison and have a chance to evaluate their records.\nIt's true that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2566.992, 2574.777, 2586.295], "stop_times": [2574.777, 2586.295, 2587.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.992}, "reply_to": "22500__2_090", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_092", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2587.371], "stop_times": [2587.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2587.371}, "reply_to": "22500__2_091", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__2_093", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2587.993], "stop_times": [2589.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2587.993}, "reply_to": "22500__2_092", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_094", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--No. I don't want to cut your argument short, but here's what's bothering me.\nI... I can see there's a possible plausibility in what you're saying, but in fact is that the reason?\nIs there any evidence in the record to the effect that that is necessary in transfer situations?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2589.108, 2591.337, 2598.562], "stop_times": [2591.337, 2598.562, 2605.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2589.108}, "reply_to": "22500__2_093", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__2_095", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "The officials have deemed that that is an appropriate policy.\nI think the record is a bit scant in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2605.083, 2610.079], "stop_times": [2610.079, 2611.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2605.083}, "reply_to": "22500__2_094", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_096", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Okay.\nLook, if... if we accept that officials have deemed it, we will not have many arguments in... in this Court.\nI mean, they will be over before they start.\nI... I mean, we've got to have something more than simply the decision under attack.\nIs there anything more in this case in... with respect to the transferee situation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2611.46, 2611.831, 2618.131, 2620.482, 2626.387], "stop_times": [2611.831, 2618.131, 2620.482, 2626.387, 2631.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.46}, "reply_to": "22500__2_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22500__2_097", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Not with respect to the transferees, Your Honor, and it's true that the transfer policy certainly is more in jeopardy under the Turner standard.\nBut the... the overall policy of considering race when there is a... a lack of information certainly would pass the Turner standard and should pass the Turner standard as it was properly applied by the Ninth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2631.522, 2639.679], "stop_times": [2639.679, 2650.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2631.522}, "reply_to": "22500__2_096", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_098", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "You said that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2650.946], "stop_times": [2653.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2650.946}, "reply_to": "22500__2_097", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_099", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "May I ask just one other question about the... the purpose you're trying to achieve?\nIs it to protect the two inmates who are first celled together from fighting with one another, or is it to avoid the danger that one of them will somehow start a riot later on in... in the general prison population?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2653.713, 2657.633], "stop_times": [2657.633, 2670.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2653.713}, "reply_to": "22500__2_098", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__2_100", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "It's multi-fold, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2670.637], "stop_times": [2672.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2670.637}, "reply_to": "22500__2_099", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_101", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "It's what?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2672.017], "stop_times": [2673.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2672.017}, "reply_to": "22500__2_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__2_102", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "It's multi-fold.\nThe purpose is multi-fold.\nFirst, yes, it is to protect the inmate from... from having harm done to him in the cell, which is a very difficult area to protect.\nIt's a small area and not easily visible into the... into the cell directly.\nAlso, that's where they sleep, so at some point the lights will be out.\nSo it's a very difficult situation.\nAlso, they're afraid... and this is in the record from the testimony of the officials... that there will be a ripple effect and that interracial violence, if they were to cell them together, would spill out onto the yards and create the exact ripple effect that Turner... is one of the considerations in the Turner test.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2673.237, 2674.23, 2675.466, 2682.98, 2688.802, 2692.063, 2693.837], "stop_times": [2674.23, 2675.466, 2682.98, 2688.802, 2692.063, 2693.837, 2711.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2673.237}, "reply_to": "22500__2_101", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_103", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--There was something--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2711.52], "stop_times": [2713.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2711.52}, "reply_to": "22500__2_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_104", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "May I ask... excuse me.\nGo ahead.\nI want to ask one other question.\nYou... you mentioned the Texas system and you discussed it in your brief.\nIs that correct?\nI didn't find it in your discussion as to the Texas case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2713.733, 2714.188, 2714.559, 2716.212, 2719.677, 2720.792], "stop_times": [2714.188, 2714.559, 2716.212, 2719.677, 2720.792, 2724.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2713.733}, "reply_to": "22500__2_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__2_105", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Where is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2724.507], "stop_times": [2725.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2724.507}, "reply_to": "22500__2_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__2_106", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Yes, Your Honors, at page 41 of the brief.\nIt would be the... the second paragraph where they examine double-celling only after initial screening.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2725.583, 2730.08], "stop_times": [2730.08, 2736.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2725.583}, "reply_to": "22500__2_105", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_107", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2736.662], "stop_times": [2739.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2736.662}, "reply_to": "22500__2_106", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__2_108", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "And also note 13 of the Trulson study indicates that it did not apply in Texas' equivalent of California's reception centers.\nThe Turner standard is the appropriate standard here because it does give the prison officials--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2739.263, 2747.808], "stop_times": [2747.808, 2757.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2739.263}, "reply_to": "22500__2_107", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_109", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Let... let me ask--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2757.346], "stop_times": [2758.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2757.346}, "reply_to": "22500__2_108", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_110", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2758.089], "stop_times": [2758.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2758.089}, "reply_to": "22500__2_109", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_111", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--about that standard at least as the Ninth Circuit applied it.\nThey said that you presume the practice constitutional and the challenger has the burden to show that if there were no segregation by race, that violence would not increase.\nNow, how does someone go about proving that negative?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2758.682, 2761.82, 2781.882], "stop_times": [2761.82, 2781.882, 2786.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2758.682}, "reply_to": "22500__2_110", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_112", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, in this case the inmate put forth no experts of any kind.\nThere was an opportunity for the inmate to rebut the evidence put forth by the prison officials, and... and there was no evidence submitted.\nSo in this case he didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2786.34, 2795.545, 2802.4], "stop_times": [2795.545, 2802.4, 2805.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2786.34}, "reply_to": "22500__2_111", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_113", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "But how would an inmate who was objecting to this racial segregation go about proving such a case?\nYou said one would have to rely on experts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2805.743, 2815.979], "stop_times": [2815.979, 2820.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2805.743}, "reply_to": "22500__2_112", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_114", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--That would be one way, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2820.354], "stop_times": [2822.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2820.354}, "reply_to": "22500__2_113", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_115", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "And so one could put in that Texas study, but you said that wouldn't be good enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2822.583], "stop_times": [2829.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2822.583}, "reply_to": "22500__2_114", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_116", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, the Texas study doesn't... doesn't apply to the initial intake process.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2829.437], "stop_times": [2834.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2829.437}, "reply_to": "22500__2_115", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_117", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "So you... you... supposing an inmate who would have to call a bevy of experts that he has no wherewithal to... to pay for... I mean, you are essentially saying an inmate cannot challenge this policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2834.433], "stop_times": [2853.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2834.433}, "reply_to": "22500__2_116", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_118", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nActually this policy was applied in a California case after the Johnson case was decided in California to strike down a race-based prison policy.\nSo there... there certainly are instances when the inmate could--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2853.752, 2855.981, 2866.095], "stop_times": [2855.981, 2866.095, 2869.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2853.752}, "reply_to": "22500__2_117", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_119", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Well, I asked how would an inmate prove this, and you said you would need experts.\nSo for experts, you need money to pay experts.\nHow does an inmate do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2869.606, 2875.095, 2878.438], "stop_times": [2875.095, 2878.438, 2881.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2869.606}, "reply_to": "22500__2_118", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22500__2_120", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Well, the same way the inmate would do it in any other litigation that is brought by an inmate.\nThe burden is on a litigant to prove their case, and it doesn't change because that litigant is in prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2881.327, 2885.869], "stop_times": [2885.869, 2895.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2881.327}, "reply_to": "22500__2_119", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_121", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Now, why... why should you use the Turner standard?\nThe Turner standard says to the prison, you can do this as long as you have a modestly good reason.\nStrict scrutiny says you have to have a very good reason.\nWith free speech, of course, people understand prisons are different.\nOf course, people's speech rights will be controlled and it won't hurt the rest of society.\nWith racial discrimination, as you heard your opponents argue, it's a terrible symbol, a symbol that we would tolerate without the best of reasons discrimination, invidious discrimination, based on race, which is divisive to the whole society.\nNow, that they say is a very good reason for not applying the Turner standard but, rather, applying strict scrutiny, which gives you freedom to discriminate on this basis if you can prove you really have to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2895.734, 2899.986, 2905.726, 2909.191, 2913.667, 2918.934, 2935.858], "stop_times": [2899.986, 2905.726, 2909.191, 2913.667, 2918.934, 2935.858, 2949.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2895.734}, "reply_to": "22500__2_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22500__2_122", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Unlike in a non-prison setting, there aren't other rights to be balanced.\nIn the prison setting, not only are you balancing the inmate's right to be free from discrimination, but you're balancing the... the rights of all inmates to be free from harm, and as well as the prison officials' duty to protect them from harm.\nAnd that is what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2949.604, 2956.663, 2969.56], "stop_times": [2956.663, 2969.56, 2971.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2949.604}, "reply_to": "22500__2_121", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_123", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "That... that same argument could have made in... in arguing about racial segregation in the schools and... and in the military and everything else.\nThat's... that's not an acceptable answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2971.152, 2978.954], "stop_times": [2978.954, 2981.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2971.152}, "reply_to": "22500__2_122", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22500__2_124", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Well, there's... there's no... the prison officials here have an affirmative duty to protect the other inmates under the Eighth Amendment, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2981.638], "stop_times": [2988.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2981.638}, "reply_to": "22500__2_123", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_125", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Do you accept that this is invidious discrimination on the basis of race?\nWhat... what... why... why do you think it's invidious?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2988.779, 2992.123], "stop_times": [2992.123, 2994.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2988.779}, "reply_to": "22500__2_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__2_126", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--We don't think it's invidious, Your Honor.\nAs a matter of fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2994.352, 2996.088], "stop_times": [2996.088, 2996.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2994.352}, "reply_to": "22500__2_125", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_127", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "It's not affirmative action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2996.831], "stop_times": [2998.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2996.831}, "reply_to": "22500__2_126", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22500__2_128", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--This is not affirmative action, no.\nIt is not invidious, Justice Scalia.\nIt is simply one consideration of race to control violence in prison, and as the Bureau of Prisons uses in... in its prisons, they in the United States' brief say that they consider race to maintain racial balance in their prisons for the purpose of diversity.\nCalifornia also considers race in maintaining racial balance in its prisons, not primarily for the purpose of diversity, but for prison safety to make sure that no one group takes over a prison, thus putting members of another group in a vulnerable situation.\nThere are many circumstances when... when race should be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [2998.112, 3002.487, 3006.369, 3021.889, 3037.205], "stop_times": [3002.487, 3006.369, 3021.889, 3037.205, 3041.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2998.112}, "reply_to": "22500__2_127", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_129", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Is that... is that invidious?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [3041.579], "stop_times": [3043.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3041.579}, "reply_to": "22500__2_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__2_130", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--No, it is not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [3043.149], "stop_times": [3045.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3043.149}, "reply_to": "22500__2_129", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_131", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Is it affirmative action?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [3045.34], "stop_times": [3046.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3045.34}, "reply_to": "22500__2_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__2_132", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "No.\nThere are many instances in which race needs to be considered on a day-to-day basis in prison.\nFor instance, when the prisoners line up to go to the exercise yard, if 10 white prisoners line up first and the 11th prisoner in line is an African American, it would be extraordinarily ill-advised to release those prisoners in the manner in which they have lined up to go to yard.\nIt would require some reshuffling and maybe even some shifting of prisoners from yard to yard based on their race because to do that would put the minority member at extreme risk.\nTurner is the appropriate test here because courts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [3046.038, 3046.864, 3055.326, 3071.551, 3083.273], "stop_times": [3046.864, 3055.326, 3071.551, 3083.273, 3087.981], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3046.038}, "reply_to": "22500__2_131", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_133", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "I... I... this may... may be important to me for understanding your argument.\nI... I didn't quite understand the hypothetical.\nYou... you want him to keep the place in line or it's dangerous for him to keep the place in line?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [3087.981, 3091.946, 3093.554], "stop_times": [3091.946, 3093.554, 3098.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3087.981}, "reply_to": "22500__2_132", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22500__2_134", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--It would be dangerous for the officer to release the inmates onto the yard in the manner that they had self-arrayed because then you would put 10 members or more of one group on the yard and then introduce another member to the yard who was not a member of that group, and that would be very dangerous for the... the sole person on the yard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [3098.467], "stop_times": [3118.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3098.467}, "reply_to": "22500__2_133", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_135", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "And do... do other prison systems adopt similar policies to try to keep the races mixed generally in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [3118.817], "stop_times": [3127.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3118.817}, "reply_to": "22500__2_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__2_136", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Yes, they do, Your Honor.\nAs I pointed out, Bureau of Prisons being one.\nAs a matter of fact, the U.S. Department of Justice's National Corrections Institute statistics... and this is not a part of the record... indicate that 96 percent of all States separate prisoners based on disruptive group or gang orientation.\nSo California is not alone in that.\nIt's a... it's done to prevent violence to other prisoners.\nIn sum, Turner is the only test that provides the flexibility that prison officials need to safely manage their prisons and protect inmates from harm.\nThe Court should apply it here and affirm the lower court.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [3127.157, 3128.271, 3131.077, 3147.303, 3149.615, 3153.163, 3161.542, 3164.68], "stop_times": [3128.271, 3131.077, 3147.303, 3149.615, 3153.163, 3161.542, 3164.68, 3165.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3127.157}, "reply_to": "22500__2_135", "speaker": "frances_t_grunder"}
{"id": "22500__2_137", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Grunder.\nMr. Deixler, you have about 3 and a half minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [3165.423, 3168.108], "stop_times": [3168.108, 3172.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3165.423}, "reply_to": "22500__2_136", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__3_000", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "The... the hypotheticals presented by the State of California, when applied in the context of this case, demonstrate the danger of this position of segregation.\nThe petitioner in this case is not a gang member.\nHe's been in the California prison system since 1987 and before.\nWhen he reported to the inmate reception center at Chino in 1987, he had already three presentence reports which are reflected in... in the record of this... of this case at the joint exhibit 259.\nHe's been transferred five times since then... since then.\nThere's no record of his having had interracial violence ever during the time that he was in prison.\nAnd it is his view, as articulated in his deposition at page 109 of the joint appendix, that he is put into peril because he is an African American who is unable to cross race lines and unable to reach out for support in a heavily racialized setting for other persons who are not African Americans and who are not gang members.\nSo he's been marginalized and treated, based upon his race, in a de jure way when he's transferred for the 60-day period.\nAnd incidentally, the reference to a 14-day period is not borne out by the record.\nThe regulation in the State of California specifically provides that this organization or evaluation group has to convene within 14 days, but not have to reach a decision with regard to transfer characterization and classification in 14 days.\nBut... but the petitioner in this case, because he's black and has no opportunity to cell initially with a white person or a Hispanic person, is then confined to being in this small group of African Americans who are not gang members and who are unable to have an affinity group in which they will feel safe within the California prison system.\nThe California--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [3172.11, 3183.256, 3186.145, 3190.399, 3207.489, 3211.204, 3216.61, 3239.811, 3246.62, 3250.706, 3265.529, 3287.115], "stop_times": [3183.256, 3186.145, 3190.399, 3207.489, 3211.204, 3216.61, 3239.811, 3246.62, 3250.706, 3265.529, 3287.115, 3289.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3172.11}, "reply_to": "22500__2_137", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__3_001", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "The same thing would happen to a white.\nIt's not because he's black.\nI mean, this... right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [3292.399, 3289.51, 3290.559], "stop_times": [3289.51, 3290.559, 3293.475], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3292.399}, "reply_to": "22500__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__3_002", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--Yes.\nA white--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [3293.475, 3293.747], "stop_times": [3293.747, 3293.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3293.475}, "reply_to": "22500__3_001", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__3_003", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "He'd be able to make the same argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [3293.913], "stop_times": [3294.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3293.913}, "reply_to": "22500__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22500__3_004", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "--A white who, for reasons of safety, wished to house with an African American, would be denied that opportunity under California's policy, and the same with an Hispanic who felt it safer for him to house with a black.\nHe could not cross racial lines based upon the evidence in this case, Justice Scalia.\nThat's correct.\nAnd the danger which is created in my judgment by a reliance upon a Turner standard in this circumstance is that all that needs to be done is a little bit more of tinkering with the idea of the equivalence between race and gang which cannot exist in this record.\nAnd were that to happen, we will create a circumstance where the very arguments rejected in Lee, indeed the very argument advanced by the State of California in this case, will once again be raised time and again, and we will be faced with a circumstance not too far down the slippery slope where, for convenience or for other reasons or for purely invidious reasons, States will be able to return to an era of segregation.\nThis Court's history has demonstrated a commitment to march the country away from the road of segregation, and there should be no turning back.\nThis is a case in which the Ninth Circuit has erred.\nThe judgment of the Ninth Circuit should be reversed.\nThe Court should determine that strict scrutiny should apply, and it should determine that Petitioner Johnson's equal protection rights were violated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [3294.739, 3304.649, 3308.009, 3308.857, 3326.13, 3353.522, 3364.585, 3368.754, 3371.561], "stop_times": [3304.649, 3308.009, 3308.857, 3326.13, 3353.522, 3364.585, 3368.754, 3371.561, 3380.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3294.739}, "reply_to": "22500__3_003", "speaker": "bert_h_deixler"}
{"id": "22500__3_005", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Deixler.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [3380.56, 3382.789], "stop_times": [3382.789, 3383.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3380.56}, "reply_to": "22500__3_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22500__3_006", "conversation_id": "22500", "text": "The Honorable Court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-636", "start_times": [3383.798], "stop_times": [3388.899], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3383.798}, "reply_to": "22500__3_005", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22591__0_000", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 04-6964, Jay Shawn Johnson v. California.\nMr. Bedrick.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [0.0, 11.647], "stop_times": [11.647, 69.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22591__0_001", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI would like to address three points.\nOne, the correct prima facie standard under Batson is whether there's sufficient evidence to permit a judge to draw a reasonable inference of discrimination.\nTwo, the challenger's own reasons must be disclosed in order for the Batson process to work and to prevent discrimination.\nThree, it is improper for a third party to speculate at the prima facie stage as to a challenger's possible reason because what needs to be evaluated is the challenger's own reason and own credibility and own demeanor, and not someone else's guess as a reason.\nThe correct prima facie test is a permissive inference test where there is sufficient evidence to allow a judge to draw a reasonable inference of discrimination.\nThat's equivalent to the test where a judge decides whether there's sufficient evidence to pass a case to the jury, although I'd like to add one small proviso to that, which is in case of doubt, the benefit should go in the direction of obtaining the reason because the goals of Batson cannot properly be enforced unless the reason for the challenge... the challenge is stated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [69.118, 72.558, 74.462, 83.684, 91.966, 109.529, 120.142], "stop_times": [72.558, 74.462, 83.684, 91.966, 109.529, 120.142, 148.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 69.118}, "reply_to": "22591__0_000", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_002", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Well, that's not very--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [148.366], "stop_times": [149.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 148.366}, "reply_to": "22591__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_003", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "That's a very low standard in the first place, and why should it be watered down more?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [149.171], "stop_times": [154.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 149.171}, "reply_to": "22591__0_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22591__0_004", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I'm... I'm not suggesting it be watered down, Your Honor.\nI'm just suggesting in case of a tie, in case the judge finds the question is in equipoise, then there should... the benefit should go to the... obtaining the reason and therefore obtaining a... a ruling on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [154.638, 157.24], "stop_times": [157.24, 170.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 154.638}, "reply_to": "22591__0_003", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_005", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Is the test for going to the jury the same as the test for whether or not discovery can proceed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [170.045], "stop_times": [175.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 170.045}, "reply_to": "22591__0_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__0_006", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe test for going to the jury is actually higher.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [175.692, 177.169], "stop_times": [177.169, 179.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 175.692}, "reply_to": "22591__0_005", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_007", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Well, I'm... I'm surprised you set the bar that high.\nIf we're going to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [179.26, 182.135], "stop_times": [182.135, 183.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 179.26}, "reply_to": "22591__0_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__0_008", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I guess I had the benefit of the argument before the Court last year and the benefit of further reflection, and I think that allowing the case to go to the jury is a good standard except for my proviso that if it was close and the... was in equipoise, then the benefit ought to go to obtaining the reason because it is a discovery-type request.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [183.602], "stop_times": [204.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 183.602}, "reply_to": "22591__0_007", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_009", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Well, I was just admiring your... your proposal in that at least it relied on something that the lower courts are used to applying.\nI mean, I guess, is there enough to go to the jury?\nMy goodness, it's a standard test.\nBut you've suddenly destroyed it all by saying it isn't quite that because, you know, if it's... if it's really close, the tie goes to the plaintiff, which is an unusual way for the tie to go.\nThe tie usually goes to the other side.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [204.882, 213.671, 215.607, 217.154, 228.679], "stop_times": [213.671, 215.607, 217.154, 228.679, 231.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 204.882}, "reply_to": "22591__0_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_010", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "The tie goes here to... the standard would be fine with... with or without the benefit of a tie.\nI would be happy with the standard either way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [231.297, 236.817], "stop_times": [236.817, 238.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 231.297}, "reply_to": "22591__0_009", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_011", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Well, what's the standard under title VII when we talk about that, when we talk about enough evidence to shift the burden of proof?\nIs that something less?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [238.497, 247.616], "stop_times": [247.616, 249.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 238.497}, "reply_to": "22591__0_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22591__0_012", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "The standard under title VII is something less, Your Honor, because under title VII, under McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff has to prove four factors, that the plaintiff was a member of a protected group, protected minority group; that the plaintiff was qualified for a job and applied; that the plaintiff was rejected; and that the position stayed open.\nThose four--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [249.467, 269.104], "stop_times": [269.104, 270.037], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 249.467}, "reply_to": "22591__0_011", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_013", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Well, in... in Batson, I guess the opinion for the Court suggested that it was basing it on the title VII cases, the McDonnell Douglas formula.\nIs that right or not?\nOr have we gone beyond that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [270.037, 280.954, 282.073], "stop_times": [280.954, 282.073, 283.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 270.037}, "reply_to": "22591__0_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22591__0_014", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--It's a parallel... it's based on McDonnell Douglas in the sense that... that there's a parallel step of prima facie case, shifting the burden of production.\nThe defendant or respondent comes up with an answer, and then eventually the trier of fact decides whether or not the... the plaintiff or the moving party has been persuasive.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [283.263, 292.137], "stop_times": [292.137, 303.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 283.263}, "reply_to": "22591__0_013", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_015", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "What... what happens if he doesn't come up with an answer in... in this case?\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [303.828, 307.528], "stop_times": [307.528, 307.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 303.828}, "reply_to": "22591__0_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_016", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "We have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [307.934], "stop_times": [308.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 307.934}, "reply_to": "22591__0_015", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_017", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--what happens if the prosecutor just says, gee, I... you know... or the... the prosecutor has died?\nYou know, it comes up later in... in a habeas action.\nThe prosecutor is dead.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [308.462, 313.566, 316.137], "stop_times": [313.566, 316.137, 318.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 308.462}, "reply_to": "22591__0_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_018", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--That's about four questions, Your Honor.\nIf I can take them one at a time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [318.03, 319.555], "stop_times": [319.555, 320.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 318.03}, "reply_to": "22591__0_017", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_019", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "No.\nIt... it's one hypothesis.\nThere is no answer filed by the State as to what the real reason was.\nWhat happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [320.521, 320.894, 322.169, 327.113], "stop_times": [320.894, 322.169, 327.113, 327.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 320.521}, "reply_to": "22591__0_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_020", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "The trial... if the State refuses, wilfully refuses to present an answer, the trial court could and most likely will, draw an inference from that intentional refusal and hold that inference against the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [327.736], "stop_times": [342.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 327.736}, "reply_to": "22591__0_019", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_021", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Are you going to say that if... if there's no answer, then the challenge is presumed to be correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [342.151], "stop_times": [347.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 342.151}, "reply_to": "22591__0_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__0_022", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "No, I'm not saying that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [347.98], "stop_times": [350.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 347.98}, "reply_to": "22591__0_021", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_023", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "All right.\nSo the trial judge can... can overrule the challenge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [350.087, 350.423], "stop_times": [350.423, 353.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 350.087}, "reply_to": "22591__0_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__0_024", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes.\nThe... if... if there is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [353.607, 354.482], "stop_times": [354.482, 355.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 353.607}, "reply_to": "22591__0_023", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_025", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "It seems to me that's quite different from the standard that requires it go to the jury.\nYou send a case to a jury if there's evidence from which the jury could find for the plaintiff.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [355.949, 359.431], "stop_times": [359.431, 368.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 355.949}, "reply_to": "22591__0_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__0_026", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [368.785], "stop_times": [369.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 368.785}, "reply_to": "22591__0_025", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_027", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "And that's... it... it seems to me that's a... that's much more rigorous than the standard that you've proposed in... in your brief, and that... and that other courts use in the Batson case.\nThe Batson inquiry, as... as I understand it, is... is simply that, an inquiry.\nThere's a basis to ask the prosecutor the reason.\nThat's all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [369.197, 380.242, 385.9, 390.374], "stop_times": [380.242, 385.9, 390.374, 390.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 369.197}, "reply_to": "22591__0_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__0_028", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Very much so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [390.774], "stop_times": [393.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 390.774}, "reply_to": "22591__0_027", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_029", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "And... and that's quite different than sending a case to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [393.056], "stop_times": [395.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 393.056}, "reply_to": "22591__0_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__0_030", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "The... the standard for... I believe the standard we're asking... that's... that's why I said the standard of sending the case to the jury but with the benefit of a doubt going to the... obtaining the reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [395.066], "stop_times": [411.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 395.066}, "reply_to": "22591__0_029", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_031", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "May I... may I go back to your answer to the... the question whether in the absence of an answer, there is a presumption of a Batson violation, and you said, no, there isn't a presumption--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [411.226], "stop_times": [423.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 411.226}, "reply_to": "22591__0_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__0_032", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [423.076], "stop_times": [423.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 423.076}, "reply_to": "22591__0_031", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_033", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--where the court has still ultimately got to decide it?\nWhat sorts of things could the court consider when it ultimately decides?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [423.396, 425.338], "stop_times": [425.338, 431.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 423.396}, "reply_to": "22591__0_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__0_034", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "At step one, whether or not there's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [431.124], "stop_times": [434.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 431.124}, "reply_to": "22591__0_033", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_035", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "At step three.\nWe've... we've gotten to step three.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [434.526, 434.831], "stop_times": [434.831, 436.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 434.526}, "reply_to": "22591__0_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__0_036", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [436.915], "stop_times": [437.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 436.915}, "reply_to": "22591__0_035", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_037", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Step one, whatever the standard is, it has been met.\nStep two, silence.\nWe get to step three.\nWhat does the court consider at step three?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [437.204, 440.383, 442.09, 443.748], "stop_times": [440.383, 442.09, 443.748, 445.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 437.204}, "reply_to": "22591__0_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__0_038", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "The court considers the plaintiff's showing of a prima... the... the objector's showing a prima facie case.\nThe court considers the answer given by the challenger.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [445.903, 453.605], "stop_times": [453.605, 457.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 445.903}, "reply_to": "22591__0_037", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_039", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Which is zero.\nWhich is silence.\nThere is no answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [457.306, 457.812, 459.107], "stop_times": [457.812, 459.107, 459.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 457.306}, "reply_to": "22591__0_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__0_040", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "If... if... I'm sorry, Your Honor.\nI misunderstood.\nI didn't realize it was a silence issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [459.886, 462.809, 463.358], "stop_times": [462.809, 463.358, 464.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 459.886}, "reply_to": "22591__0_039", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_041", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [464.818], "stop_times": [464.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 464.818}, "reply_to": "22591__0_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__0_042", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "If there's a prima facie case and if the prosecutor or the challenger wilfully refuses to answer, the trial judge is entitled to draw an inference from that refusal to answer and I believe most likely would draw the inference that there's something wrong here and therefore would find a prima facie case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [464.936], "stop_times": [481.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 464.936}, "reply_to": "22591__0_041", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_043", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "All right.\nBut what I'm getting at is let's assume he doesn't draw that inference.\nUltimately at step three, he says, no.\nI am going to reject the challenge.\nI do not think that the burden of persuasion has been met.\nWhat... what considerations might lead him to do that, assuming that step one has been satisfied?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [481.495, 481.473, 485.447, 489.133, 490.338, 495.41], "stop_times": [481.473, 485.447, 489.133, 490.338, 495.41, 502.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 481.495}, "reply_to": "22591__0_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__0_044", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I do not know, Your Honor, because we have never seen a situation in which a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [502.663], "stop_times": [506.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 502.663}, "reply_to": "22591__0_043", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_045", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "All right.\nLet me--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [506.614, 507.094], "stop_times": [507.094, 507.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 506.614}, "reply_to": "22591__0_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__0_046", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--prosecutor has refused to answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [507.671], "stop_times": [509.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.671}, "reply_to": "22591__0_045", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_047", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Let me suggest this.\nWouldn't... wouldn't he almost necessarily have to consider at step three those reasons that the prosecutor has not given, but which he thinks might be good reasons for the challenge which do not raise Batson discrimination?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [509.01, 510.279], "stop_times": [510.279, 530.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 509.01}, "reply_to": "22591__0_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__0_048", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "We have argued in our brief that it's not correct for the trial judge to speculate as to the prosecutor's possible reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [530.704], "stop_times": [538.006], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 530.704}, "reply_to": "22591__0_047", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_049", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Right.\nThat's what I'm... that's what I'm getting at.\nAnd... and what I'm troubled by is I... I take your... I understand your point, that it's not appropriate for him to speculate and supply an answer at stage two.\nBut if stage one... at stage one, the objector has satisfied the test and at stage three, the... the court may, nonetheless, reject the challenge, I don't know what he would be rejecting the challenge for unless it is on the basis of this kind of, as you put it, speculation about what the reasons might be.\nSo help me out there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [538.006, 538.257, 539.776, 549.962, 579.627], "stop_times": [538.257, 539.776, 549.962, 579.627, 581.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.006}, "reply_to": "22591__0_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__0_050", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I... I agree, Your Honor.\nI don't know what the basis would be either if a prima facie case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [581.061, 582.0], "stop_times": [582.0, 584.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 581.061}, "reply_to": "22591__0_049", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_051", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Then why don't you have to say at that stage, if there is silence on the part of the government, he's got to find the violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [584.688], "stop_times": [592.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 584.688}, "reply_to": "22591__0_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__0_052", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--I... I... the only words that would differ would be got to.\nI would say he'd be most likely to if there were--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [592.39, 602.699], "stop_times": [602.699, 606.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 592.39}, "reply_to": "22591__0_051", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_053", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "But if he doesn't have to, he's got to have some reason for doing it.\nThis is not a matter of whim.\nAnd if he's got to have a reason and his reasons may not legitimately be those speculations on what might be a legitimate basis for the challenge, but which were never raised by the State, and you can't think of any other reasons... and I admit I can't right now... then it seems to me that he would pretty... it would... it would follow that... that he would be required to... to uphold the challenge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [606.218, 610.009, 611.801], "stop_times": [610.009, 611.801, 638.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 606.218}, "reply_to": "22591__0_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__0_054", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--I believe that it... it would require... that he would ultimately uphold the challenge but on the basis of drawing an inference from the refusal to answer, and those two... adding two and two together, adding the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [638.084], "stop_times": [648.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 638.084}, "reply_to": "22591__0_053", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_055", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "No, but... but the refusal to answer... I just... you know, it happened so long ago, Your Honor.\nI had a lot of other... I... you know.\nBut it comes up later, and he says I just don't remember why I challenged this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [648.553, 651.63, 653.742], "stop_times": [651.63, 653.742, 657.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 648.553}, "reply_to": "22591__0_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_056", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Alright, in the case of don't remember, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [657.405], "stop_times": [659.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 657.405}, "reply_to": "22591__0_055", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_057", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Don't remember.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [659.404], "stop_times": [659.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.404}, "reply_to": "22591__0_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_058", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Batson has been the law for 18 or 19 years.\nIn California, we've had Wheeler for 25 years.\nAny competent prosecutor who was challenging minority jurors and was faced with a Batson motion would make notes of some kind and keep a record of some kind.\nIf he did not do that, he would not be acting competently and the trial court would be entitled to draw an inference from that claim, refusing to remember.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [659.532, 662.182, 664.465, 675.019], "stop_times": [662.182, 664.465, 675.019, 683.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 659.532}, "reply_to": "22591__0_057", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_059", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Mr. Bedrick, in your brief you were very, it seemed, uncomfortable about addressing this question.\nYou said it's just like you go through the same litany as title VII, that is, the plaintiff meets a burden which is in title VII very easy to meet--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [683.243, 692.79], "stop_times": [692.79, 703.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 683.243}, "reply_to": "22591__0_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22591__0_060", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [703.968], "stop_times": [704.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 703.968}, "reply_to": "22591__0_059", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_061", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--stage one.\nThen the defendant has to come up with a nondiscriminatory reason, and then you find out if that was pretext.\nYou kept saying in your brief what you said a moment ago that you have never seen a case.\nYou said it never happens.\nIt never happens that the prosecutor stands silent.\nSo this is a hypothetical, academic question.\nBut I think you're being pressed to say, well, suppose it does happen, and I take it that your answer is in that case the person who's raising the Batson challenge wins.\nBut you're... you're not willing to say certainly.\nI mean, you seem to say... well, why are you uncertain?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [704.219, 705.387, 713.898, 721.097, 722.222, 725.715, 729.028, 745.635, 750.159], "stop_times": [705.387, 713.898, 721.097, 722.222, 725.715, 729.028, 745.635, 750.159, 755.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 704.219}, "reply_to": "22591__0_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22591__0_062", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "The... the title VII test and the Batson test are parallel, but not identical.\nAnd in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [755.988, 761.433], "stop_times": [761.433, 763.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 755.988}, "reply_to": "22591__0_061", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_063", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "But suppose you had in a title VII case the employer says, I'm not going to give you a nondiscriminatory reason.\nYou... you've gone through the McDonnell Douglas.\nThe plaintiff has shown those four things.\nThe employer says, I'm not going to give you any reason.\nThen what happens?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [763.459, 769.33, 773.212, 775.51, 780.961], "stop_times": [769.33, 773.212, 775.51, 780.961, 784.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 763.459}, "reply_to": "22591__0_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22591__0_064", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--The trial... the trial court would find for the plaintiff because under the title VII formula, which this Court has established in the McDonnell Douglas/Furnco line of cases, the finding of a prima facie case entitles the plaintiff to a presumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [784.373], "stop_times": [803.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 784.373}, "reply_to": "22591__0_063", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_065", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Well, that's because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [803.707], "stop_times": [805.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 803.707}, "reply_to": "22591__0_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_066", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "And it's bursting the bubble--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [805.525], "stop_times": [806.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 805.525}, "reply_to": "22591__0_065", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_067", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Wow.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [806.549], "stop_times": [806.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.549}, "reply_to": "22591__0_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_068", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--slightly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [806.708], "stop_times": [807.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 806.708}, "reply_to": "22591__0_067", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_069", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I... I don't think we've ever said that.\nI thought we've... we've said to the contrary, that the ultimate question is always, did the plaintiff show by a preponderance that... that the reason was discrimination.\nThat's what I thought our... our cases say, not... not automatically to punish the employer for not giving a reason, he loses, which is what you want to do here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [807.146, 809.433, 821.796], "stop_times": [809.433, 821.796, 830.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 807.146}, "reply_to": "22591__0_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_070", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--The employer will always give a reason and the challenger will always give a reason because of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [830.889], "stop_times": [837.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 830.889}, "reply_to": "22591__0_069", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_071", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "What happens in a title VII case if, in fact, we meet just what Justice Ginsburg said?\nCan you have a jury trial?\nImagine a situation, jury.\nOkay?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [837.913, 843.807, 845.155, 846.884], "stop_times": [843.807, 845.155, 846.884, 847.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 837.913}, "reply_to": "22591__0_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22591__0_072", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [847.439], "stop_times": [847.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 847.439}, "reply_to": "22591__0_071", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_073", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "The plaintiff gets up and establishes the four points.\nDefense.\nThe defense rests.\nNow, does the judge send it to the jury, or does the judge direct a verdict for the plaintiff?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [847.902, 850.665, 851.855, 853.177], "stop_times": [850.665, 851.855, 853.177, 860.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 847.902}, "reply_to": "22591__0_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22591__0_074", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I believe in the title VII context the judge would direct the verdict for the plaintiff.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [860.158], "stop_times": [865.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 860.158}, "reply_to": "22591__0_073", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_075", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Unusual.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [865.336, 867.64], "stop_times": [867.64, 868.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 865.336}, "reply_to": "22591__0_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22591__0_076", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "And... and it seems to me the... your... there's some difficulty in... in trying to equate Batson challenges and... and title VII, and that's because your beginning point is that you base... you... you require too much of the prima facie case.\nIt... it seems to me all that's required under Batson is reason to inquire.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [868.114, 882.065], "stop_times": [882.065, 886.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.114}, "reply_to": "22591__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__0_077", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [886.738], "stop_times": [887.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 886.738}, "reply_to": "22591__0_076", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_078", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "And that's... that's a special use of the term prima facie.\nNow, if... if we want to be consistent with the use of the word... of the term, prima facie, from Batson to title VII, then it seems to me this inquiry is necessary.\nBut... and you're the one that puts it in motion by setting this rather high threshold that is the same as to go to a jury.\nI disagree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [887.313, 891.377, 904.497, 910.225], "stop_times": [891.377, 904.497, 910.225, 911.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 887.313}, "reply_to": "22591__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__0_079", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "May I suggest you might have put the high threshold because it's a threshold that judges are familiar with and can use, whereas reason to inquire would be a fine test for when a judge is permitted to demand a response but it cannot possibly be a test for when a judge is required to demand a... what does... what does reason to inquire mean?\nIs that a... is that a standard that... that can be applied in law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [911.376, 934.175], "stop_times": [934.175, 938.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 911.376}, "reply_to": "22591__0_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_080", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I accept the suggestion from the Court that the standard could also be reason to inquire.\nWe would be... we would be happy with that standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [938.181, 943.188], "stop_times": [943.188, 946.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 938.181}, "reply_to": "22591__0_079", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_081", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "What does it mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [946.456], "stop_times": [946.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 946.456}, "reply_to": "22591__0_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_082", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "And the Batson procedure would work.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [946.794], "stop_times": [947.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 946.794}, "reply_to": "22591__0_081", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_083", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "What does it mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [947.828], "stop_times": [948.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 947.828}, "reply_to": "22591__0_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_084", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "It means when there is the purpose of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [948.937], "stop_times": [951.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 948.937}, "reply_to": "22591__0_083", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_085", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Any suspicion whatever.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [951.795], "stop_times": [953.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 951.795}, "reply_to": "22591__0_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_086", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Pardon me, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [953.086], "stop_times": [954.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 953.086}, "reply_to": "22591__0_085", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_087", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Any suspicion... he strikes one black from the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [954.883], "stop_times": [957.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 954.883}, "reply_to": "22591__0_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_088", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "No, not any suspicion whatsoever.\nIt's a higher standard--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [957.268, 959.161], "stop_times": [959.161, 960.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 957.268}, "reply_to": "22591__0_087", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_089", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "It has to be reason to inquire.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [960.158], "stop_times": [961.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 960.158}, "reply_to": "22591__0_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_090", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--It has to be reason to inquire.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [961.747], "stop_times": [963.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 961.747}, "reply_to": "22591__0_089", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_091", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "What's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [963.074], "stop_times": [962.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 963.074}, "reply_to": "22591__0_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_092", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "It would vary depending on the circumstances.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [962.941, 965.746], "stop_times": [965.746, 966.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 962.941}, "reply_to": "22591__0_091", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_093", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "And... and is that like permitting discovery to go forward?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [966.082], "stop_times": [968.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 966.082}, "reply_to": "22591__0_092", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__0_094", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--That's essentially what step one of Batson is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [968.38], "stop_times": [972.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 968.38}, "reply_to": "22591__0_093", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_095", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "And... and is that standard less than going to a jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [972.167], "stop_times": [973.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 972.167}, "reply_to": "22591__0_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__0_096", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [973.58], "stop_times": [975.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 973.58}, "reply_to": "22591__0_095", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_097", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "All right.\nSo that... that's... I recognize that it's been difficult for us to find an analog.\nIt may be that Batson is sui generis.\nIt may not be.\nIf we're going to talk about what judges are familiar with, then it's prima facie case and it's title VII.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [975.356, 976.63, 980.887, 982.716, 983.783], "stop_times": [976.63, 980.887, 982.716, 983.783, 988.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 975.356}, "reply_to": "22591__0_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__0_098", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "But title VII doesn't quite work because the... the prima... the definition for prima facie case in title VII is different, and it's easier.\nIf we were to put in the... they're... they're parallel tests.\nThey're not identical.\nIf we were to import the title VII prima facie case in a Batson, it will be satisfied every time there was a challenge to a minority juror because under any... every such situation, there would be a minority juror who was qualified and passed for cause who was rejected and the seat would be open.\nThat would be... that's a... that's even a lower standard than we are--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [988.332, 999.472, 1001.569, 1002.454, 1020.993], "stop_times": [999.472, 1001.569, 1002.454, 1020.993, 1025.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 988.332}, "reply_to": "22591__0_097", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_099", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Then are you saying, look, judge... imagine you had a jury on this question.\nIf the defendant has made out enough of a case that you would send it to the jury, then go to step two and ask the questions as to why.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1025.605, 1029.819], "stop_times": [1029.819, 1042.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1025.605}, "reply_to": "22591__0_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22591__0_100", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, that's my position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1042.576], "stop_times": [1043.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1042.576}, "reply_to": "22591__0_099", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_101", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "That's it.\nFine.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1043.739, 1044.209], "stop_times": [1044.209, 1045.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1043.739}, "reply_to": "22591__0_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22591__0_102", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Could... could I take that a step further?\nWould this... would this be a... a fair summary of... of your position on all the steps?\nStep one, there must be enough that would justify sending the question to the jury if it were a jury question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1045.301, 1047.066, 1052.667], "stop_times": [1047.066, 1052.667, 1061.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1045.301}, "reply_to": "22591__0_101", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__0_103", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1061.77], "stop_times": [1062.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1061.77}, "reply_to": "22591__0_102", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_104", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Number two, if there is silence at stage two or in Justice Scalia's example, the prosecutor just can't remember, and we then go to stage three, your position is as follows.\nAt stage three, number one, there is enough... there is enough evidence on the record from which the judge can find a Batson violation.\nNumber two, there is a state of the evidence from which he is not required to find a Batson violation.\nSometimes, maybe most times, the prosecutor's silence will be a reason to find a Batson violation, in addition to those that were stated at stage one.\nAnd finally, theoretically... theoretically even with the prosecutor's silence, the evidence at stage one, sufficient as it might be to get to the jury, will not be persuasive.\nAnd there may be outlying cases in which, even with prosecutorial silence, the court will say I don't see the Batson violation shown here.\nIs that a fair statement of your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1062.816, 1078.341, 1089.008, 1098.501, 1113.381, 1130.213, 1142.027], "stop_times": [1078.341, 1089.008, 1098.501, 1113.381, 1130.213, 1142.027, 1143.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1062.816}, "reply_to": "22591__0_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__0_105", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1143.861], "stop_times": [1144.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1143.861}, "reply_to": "22591__0_104", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_106", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1144.56], "stop_times": [1145.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1144.56}, "reply_to": "22591__0_105", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__0_107", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "An example... the only example that I can think... the only practical example that I can think of, however, where a trial court is likely not to draw a strong negative inference from the prosecutor's failure to answer is in the situation suggested where it reviews it... reviewed it on appeal and the prosecutor died.\nUnder those circumstances, the... maybe there... there may be notes in the file, but if there aren't notes in the file, the prosecutor's failure to answer is beyond his control.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1145.05, 1164.4], "stop_times": [1164.4, 1175.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1145.05}, "reply_to": "22591__0_106", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_108", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I... I take it in your view the California standard is more strict than the title VII standard for prima facie case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1175.812], "stop_times": [1183.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1175.812}, "reply_to": "22591__0_107", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__0_109", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, in my view it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1183.845], "stop_times": [1185.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1183.845}, "reply_to": "22591__0_108", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_110", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Well, the California court at least appears to say it's the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1185.247], "stop_times": [1192.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1185.247}, "reply_to": "22591__0_109", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22591__0_111", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "The... I believe the California court has misread title VII practice in several ways.\nI believe it has... it misread what is produced at the... it has misread what the plaintiff's burden is to produce a prima facie case.\nAnd under title VII, the plaintiff's burden is merely, as I stated, to show that a member of a protected group qualified, applied, rejected, position open.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1192.352, 1199.551, 1209.333], "stop_times": [1199.551, 1209.333, 1219.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1192.352}, "reply_to": "22591__0_110", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_112", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "And do we say that that equates to a standard of more likely than not or do we not say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1219.594], "stop_times": [1225.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1219.594}, "reply_to": "22591__0_111", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__0_113", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "The... those facts under title VII must be proved more likely than not.\nAnd from that, under the title VII McDonnell Douglas formula--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1225.391, 1230.597], "stop_times": [1230.597, 1234.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1225.391}, "reply_to": "22591__0_112", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_114", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Is... is step one of title VII more likely than not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1234.693], "stop_times": [1237.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1234.693}, "reply_to": "22591__0_113", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__0_115", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1237.598], "stop_times": [1238.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1237.598}, "reply_to": "22591__0_114", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_116", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Well, I don't see how that's much different from what California is doing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1238.591], "stop_times": [1242.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1238.591}, "reply_to": "22591__0_115", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__0_117", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I thought step one was evidence from which it could be found more likely than not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1242.5], "stop_times": [1248.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1242.5}, "reply_to": "22591__0_116", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__0_118", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1248.44], "stop_times": [1251.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1248.44}, "reply_to": "22591__0_117", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_119", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "He doesn't have to prove more likely than not at stage one, as I understand your position.\nHe has to put in enough evidence from which a fact finder could find more likely than not if he accepts all the evidence as true and so on.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1251.113, 1255.736], "stop_times": [1255.736, 1263.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1251.113}, "reply_to": "22591__0_118", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__0_120", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, under... under Batson.\nThe tests are not identical.\nHere... I'm sort of stumbling over my tongue a bit in trying to point out that the tests are parallel but they are not identical.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1263.854, 1266.851, 1268.371], "stop_times": [1266.851, 1268.371, 1276.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1263.854}, "reply_to": "22591__0_119", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_121", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Can I ask you a question about the other part of your case, which is that the judge cannot consider in... in step one anything except the... except the... the racial strikes and... and nothing else and cannot even speculate as to what causes might have produced the strikes?\nThat seems to me rather extreme.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1276.263, 1296.753], "stop_times": [1296.753, 1299.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1276.263}, "reply_to": "22591__0_120", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_122", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "It is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1299.083], "stop_times": [1299.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1299.083}, "reply_to": "22591__0_121", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_123", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "How can you possibly decide whether it... a reasonable juror could find this?\nLet's assume that all three of the... of the minority, three blacks are stricken by the prosecution.\nThe judge, the district judge, knows that everyone of them is... is a... a defendant's lawyer, every single one.\nHe has to blot that out of his mind?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1299.557, 1304.895, 1311.567, 1321.156], "stop_times": [1304.895, 1311.567, 1321.156, 1323.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1299.557}, "reply_to": "22591__0_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_124", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Your Honor, that's a... in that example, which I respectfully submit would be rather extreme and unusual, the trial judge should still not speculate.\nThe reason why the trial judge should not speculate is shown by the facts of this case.\nWith regard to juror Sara Edwards, the trial judge speculated on two possibly reasons.\nOne possibly reason was that she had a relative who had been arrested for a serious crime 35 years ago, and the second reason that he speculated was that she had... was... did not know whether she could be fair in the case of a death of a child.\nAs to the second reason, that would show... if any bias, that would show pro-prosecution bias.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1323.199, 1332.713, 1337.097, 1344.276, 1360.728], "stop_times": [1332.713, 1337.097, 1344.276, 1360.728, 1367.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1323.199}, "reply_to": "22591__0_123", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_125", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "But once... once you have the lenient test that you've established, why isn't it enough to say even with that... even with that speculation, a reasonable juror could find?\nOnce you have that lenient test, I don't know why you have to exclude the speculation.\nI mean, there... what if all three of the blacks... it's a case in which the... the visual evidence is significant and all three of the blacks are blind and... and you tell me the judge has to say, oh, no, it... it can't be that... that reason that they were stricken.\nThat doesn't make any sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1367.033, 1377.901, 1382.088, 1396.579], "stop_times": [1377.901, 1382.088, 1396.579, 1397.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1367.033}, "reply_to": "22591__0_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_126", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "In presenting a test... in presenting a test or significant formula, every once in a while there will be a case where this test is slightly over-inclusive.\nAnd Your Honor has given an example of that.\nBut if that's the case, the trial judge will say, you know, I bet I know what the answer is.\nMr. Prosecutor, what's the answer?\nThe prosecutor gives the answer.\nThe trial judge says, yes, I find that credible.\nMotion denied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1397.907, 1407.586, 1409.254, 1414.06, 1415.825, 1417.03, 1419.184], "stop_times": [1407.586, 1409.254, 1414.06, 1415.825, 1417.03, 1419.184, 1420.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1397.907}, "reply_to": "22591__0_125", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_127", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes, but one of the things, it seems to me, you're all overlooking is that if it's as obvious as they're all blind, those would be challenges for cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1420.107], "stop_times": [1427.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1420.107}, "reply_to": "22591__0_126", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22591__0_128", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Very much so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1427.238], "stop_times": [1428.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1427.238}, "reply_to": "22591__0_127", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_129", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "We're talking about challenges where there are no... no obvious basis for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1428.081], "stop_times": [1431.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.081}, "reply_to": "22591__0_128", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22591__0_130", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Well, in practice, Mr. Bedrick, is it always worked out like this kind of a minuet?\nFirst we have step one and step two.\nIsn't a lot of it just at a bench conference?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1431.899, 1439.43, 1442.549], "stop_times": [1439.43, 1442.549, 1446.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1431.899}, "reply_to": "22591__0_129", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22591__0_131", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes.\nThe minuet may... may... will be most likely at a bench conference.\nIn this case the two motions were discussed.\nOne was discussed during a jury recess.\nThe other was discussed the next morning before the jury was assembled.\nSo it may be a minuet, but it's a... I'm not sure who the... there's a 1-minute waltz.\nSo it is more like a 1-minute waltz than a full minuet.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1446.08, 1446.886, 1450.144, 1453.958, 1457.222, 1461.248, 1466.079], "stop_times": [1446.886, 1450.144, 1453.958, 1457.222, 1461.248, 1466.079, 1468.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1446.08}, "reply_to": "22591__0_130", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_132", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Why do we need the same... the same rules for State and Federal courts?\nYou have here the California Supreme Court.\nWhy do they have to use the same... the same minuet that the Federal courts do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1468.271, 1472.474, 1475.193], "stop_times": [1472.474, 1475.193, 1479.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1468.271}, "reply_to": "22591__0_131", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_133", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Because under Batson and then under Purkett v. Elem and under Hernandez v. New York, this Court has declared that Batson is a rule of Federal constitutional law, that the purpose of Batson is to protect the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the jurors to equal protection and not being perempted for racial reasons.\nIn--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1479.466, 1499.642], "stop_times": [1499.642, 1500.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1479.466}, "reply_to": "22591__0_132", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_134", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes, but... but State courts have different rules of evidence.\nThey have different rules of procedure, and we allow Federal cases to be determined under those State rules of evidence and State rules of procedure so long as they provide due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1500.031, 1502.367], "stop_times": [1502.367, 1513.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.031}, "reply_to": "22591__0_133", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_135", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--The California--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1513.123], "stop_times": [1514.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1513.123}, "reply_to": "22591__0_134", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_136", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Why can't... why can't the Batson question similarly be decided but decided under State rules of procedure?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1514.233], "stop_times": [1519.107], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1514.233}, "reply_to": "22591__0_135", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_137", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--The California Supreme Court made no claim to be deciding this case under State rules of procedure.\nIt asserted repeatedly that in this case that it was deciding this question under its understanding of Federal law, under its understanding of the Batson line of cases, and that it was interpreting Federal law and nothing more.\nMy opponent argues that there should be a State law question, but that's a different position than taken by the State supreme court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1519.107, 1524.227, 1538.45], "stop_times": [1524.227, 1538.45, 1545.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1519.107}, "reply_to": "22591__0_136", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_138", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "So you would have no objection to our limiting our opinion, saying, you know, reversing and remanding and saying this is not Federal law.\nIt's not what we would do in Federal court.\nOf course, the California Supreme Court is free to have some different system.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1545.127, 1552.07, 1553.787], "stop_times": [1552.07, 1553.787, 1558.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.127}, "reply_to": "22591__0_137", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_139", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I would respectfully disagree, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1558.309], "stop_times": [1560.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1558.309}, "reply_to": "22591__0_138", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_140", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "No, you don't want us to do that, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1560.015], "stop_times": [1561.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1560.015}, "reply_to": "22591__0_139", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__0_141", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI respectfully disagree.\nThis is... I believe this is a question of Federal constitutional law that needs to be applied everywhere.\nThis is a rule followed in 12... all 12 Federal district... circuits and in 48 of the 50 States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1561.162, 1562.03, 1562.682, 1567.961], "stop_times": [1562.03, 1562.682, 1567.961, 1575.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1561.162}, "reply_to": "22591__0_140", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_142", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Isn't it sometimes even when you're not involved with a constitutional question, if you have a Federal claim in a State court... Byrd against Blue Ridge is one example... the Federal procedure... that the State procedure needs to be modified so it's in sync with the Federal?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1575.652], "stop_times": [1595.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1575.652}, "reply_to": "22591__0_141", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22591__0_143", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I agree, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1595.385], "stop_times": [1596.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1595.385}, "reply_to": "22591__0_142", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_144", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "That was a question of what kind of questions go to juries.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1596.586], "stop_times": [1600.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1596.586}, "reply_to": "22591__0_143", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22591__0_145", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1600.159], "stop_times": [1600.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1600.159}, "reply_to": "22591__0_144", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_146", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "The State said ordinarily we don't give this kind of question to the jury, but we're dealing with a Federal claim, and the Federal procedure trumps.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1600.767], "stop_times": [1609.258], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1600.767}, "reply_to": "22591__0_145", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22591__0_147", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes.\nYes, Your Honor.\nIf the Court has no more questions, may I reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1609.258, 1610.036, 1610.82], "stop_times": [1610.036, 1610.82, 1613.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1609.258}, "reply_to": "22591__0_146", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__0_148", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Very well, Mr. Bedrick.\nMr. Schalit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1613.817, 1615.353], "stop_times": [1615.353, 1619.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.817}, "reply_to": "22591__0_147", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22591__1_000", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nPetitioner's position would require this Court to abandon Batson's requirement for a shifting burden of production or to announce a new rule of constitutional evidence that burdens of production shift based on improbable inferences.\nThe standard recognized by the State is consistent with Batson.\nBatson provided for a shifting burden of production and it directed the courts to look to this Court's title VII cases to see how that process operates.\nIn title VII--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1619.769, 1622.649, 1636.852, 1641.129, 1651.263], "stop_times": [1622.649, 1636.852, 1641.129, 1651.263, 1654.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1619.769}, "reply_to": "22591__0_148", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_001", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Well, do... do you agree that the California standard is more rigorous than the standard applied by the Federal courts and by most State courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1654.191], "stop_times": [1664.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1654.191}, "reply_to": "22591__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__1_002", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nCalifornia's standard is consistent with Batson.\nNow, there are very, very few courts that have actually considered the precise question presented here.\nCalifornia does not stand alone its analysis of this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1664.014, 1665.225, 1668.472, 1673.587], "stop_times": [1665.225, 1668.472, 1673.587, 1677.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1664.014}, "reply_to": "22591__1_001", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_003", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Do you think the California rule is the same as the Federal rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1677.533], "stop_times": [1680.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1677.533}, "reply_to": "22591__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__1_004", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--I think the Federal rule has been stated in many different ways.\nThe Federal rule has been stated by lower courts in many different ways.\nIt is certainly the same as or consistent with the Federal rule as announced by Batson, which is the only question that matters because in Batson--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1680.556, 1683.777, 1688.016], "stop_times": [1683.777, 1688.016, 1696.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1680.556}, "reply_to": "22591__1_003", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_005", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Well, what about Hanson, and is it Purkett v. Elem?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1696.171], "stop_times": [1699.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1696.171}, "reply_to": "22591__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__1_006", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nIn... in Purkett and in... I don't know whether it was Hernandez... I may have misheard you... the Court reiterated the three-step process.\nAll of those cases, however, rely on the existence of a step one with a shifting burden of production before reasons must be given and they must be given when step one is met.\nThe objecting party must make a prima facie case.\nThat does not happen until he has shown that it is more likely than not that there is discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1699.909, 1701.04, 1709.616, 1720.687, 1725.066], "stop_times": [1701.04, 1709.616, 1720.687, 1725.066, 1730.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1699.909}, "reply_to": "22591__1_005", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_007", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "But that's in... in the title VII context, certainly you don't have to show more likely than not to get past the initial threshold.\nAll you have to do is to make four showings that... that Federal courts have recognized are rather easily made.\nSo the real show doesn't come until the pretext stage.\nBut it's not that you have to show anything by a preponderance of the evidence, that... you don't have to show discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence under title VII.\nYou just have to show four things from which someone may but not must infer discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1730.906, 1738.975, 1747.443, 1751.758, 1762.856], "stop_times": [1738.975, 1747.443, 1751.758, 1762.856, 1770.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1730.906}, "reply_to": "22591__1_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22591__1_008", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Your Honor, in the title VII circumstance, you are correct.\nThe ultimate, ultimate finding is, of course, made after the employer responds if the employer chooses to respond in light of all of the evidence.\nThe employer may not respond, for example, if the employer does not believe those four elements have been established or the jury would find them to be established.\nHowever, if those four elements are established in the minds of the jury by a preponderance of the evidence, according to this Court in St. Mary's Honor Center and in... in Burdine or Burdine, the obligation is on the fact finder at that point to find for the employee if there's no response at step two because a presumption is established.\nAnd Furnco expressly states that there is a presumption because the prima facie case if established makes it more likely than not that there was discrimination.\nThe prima facie case in the run of the... run of the cases we know the reason that those four facts are true is that there was discrimination in the face of silence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1770.025, 1773.849, 1781.561, 1788.75, 1812.787, 1824.002], "stop_times": [1773.849, 1781.561, 1788.75, 1812.787, 1824.002, 1834.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1770.025}, "reply_to": "22591__1_007", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_009", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I thought all it did was shift the burden of production to the defendant.\nIt doesn't... the showing at stage one doesn't involve the burden of persuasion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1834.407, 1840.875], "stop_times": [1840.875, 1846.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1834.407}, "reply_to": "22591__1_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22591__1_010", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nIt... it shifts the burden of production, but the reason it does so is that, in the language of Wigmore, the employee, or in a title VII case, the objecting party, has gone further.\nThe... that party has not simply removed the obligation to present evidence from which one can infer a fact.\nBut he has gone further and presented sufficient evidence to entitle that party to prevail in the face of his opponent's silence.\nAnd Justice Powell, writing the opinion in Batson, clearly referred to the Court's title VII cases, including the opinion that he wrote for the Court in Burdine, which in the footnote expressly stated that the McDonnell Douglas presumption does not adopt the prima facie case in the sense of merely allowing the jury to make a finding.\nIt stated that... adopted the prima facie case with a shifting burden of production, and that is one with a presumption that entitles the party to prevail.\nThe same is true--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1846.219, 1847.654, 1859.052, 1866.928, 1875.237, 1898.452, 1907.226], "stop_times": [1847.654, 1859.052, 1866.928, 1875.237, 1898.452, 1907.226, 1909.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1846.219}, "reply_to": "22591__1_009", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_011", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I mean, you... you can say that its words say that, but what it does doesn't say that.\nI mean, to establish a prima facie case, all you have to show is that... that you were qualified for the job, you're a member of a minority, and you weren't hired, and somebody who's not a member of a minority was hired.\nDo you think that's enough to show that it's more likely than not that race was the basis and that's... you know, that's how those cases pan out?\nThat's enough for a prima facie case.\nIs that enough to say it's more likely than not that race was the reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1909.79, 1915.058, 1928.733, 1936.221, 1937.969], "stop_times": [1915.058, 1928.733, 1936.221, 1937.969, 1941.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1909.79}, "reply_to": "22591__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__1_012", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--It is enough to say that when unexplained, when there's no response from the employer, yes.\nThe jury is instructed that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1941.676, 1947.281], "stop_times": [1947.281, 1948.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1941.676}, "reply_to": "22591__1_011", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_013", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Really?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1948.609], "stop_times": [1949.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1948.609}, "reply_to": "22591__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__1_014", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--That--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1949.074], "stop_times": [1950.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1949.074}, "reply_to": "22591__1_013", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_015", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Do you really believe that?\nI mean, in... in a large... you know, large... large operation, you... you're a minority.\nYou apply for a job.\nYou're qualified for it.\nYou aren't hired, but somebody who's not a minority is hired.\nThat alone, without any other information, is enough to enable somebody to find that it is more likely than not that... that race was the reason?\nMy goodness.\nI... I don't think that's an accurate description.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1950.241, 1950.946, 1956.828, 1957.746, 1958.546, 1963.244, 1972.581, 1973.121], "stop_times": [1950.946, 1956.828, 1957.746, 1958.546, 1963.244, 1972.581, 1973.121, 1975.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1950.241}, "reply_to": "22591__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__1_016", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Well, that is... Your Honor, sorry.\nThat was my reading of... of St. Mary's when... and Burdine when a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1975.568, 1977.596], "stop_times": [1977.596, 1980.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1975.568}, "reply_to": "22591__1_015", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_017", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Hicks does say that.\nI think you're right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1980.519, 1982.311], "stop_times": [1982.311, 1983.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.519}, "reply_to": "22591__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22591__1_018", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "It does say it.\nI'm just saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1983.153, 1983.84], "stop_times": [1983.84, 1984.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1983.153}, "reply_to": "22591__1_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__1_019", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "All right.\nBut suppose that... but Wigmore says that the words, prima facie case, can be used either to describe the Hicks situation, which is the plaintiff produces the four elements.\nThe defendant sits silent, and the judge says, directed verdict for plaintiff.\nThat's what Hicks seems to say.\nAnd Wigmore says the words, prima facie case, can mean that.\nBut then he says the words, prima facie case, can also mean a different thing, and the different thing is what the judge says then is, jury, you may find for the plaintiff, not you have to.\nAnd so I guess our question is which of the two meanings shall we take here.\nAnd my question to be... to you is, why not the second?\nAfter all, the whole point of Batson is in suspicious circumstances to explore matters further, and once you get to the point where you're willing to tell a jury, jury, you may, you have suspicious circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [1984.602, 1985.717, 1999.588, 2005.023, 2006.773, 2011.023, 2025.62, 2031.854, 2036.463], "stop_times": [1985.717, 1999.588, 2005.023, 2006.773, 2011.023, 2025.62, 2031.854, 2036.463, 2054.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1984.602}, "reply_to": "22591__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22591__1_020", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, in the title VII case, I believe that what happens is that the case does go to the jury.\nIt is not a directed verdict.\nIt is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2054.793, 2062.399, 2063.38], "stop_times": [2062.399, 2063.38, 2064.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.793}, "reply_to": "22591__1_019", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_021", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Well, if it's not a directed verdict, then a fortiori, then every analogy works against you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2064.11], "stop_times": [2071.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2064.11}, "reply_to": "22591__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22591__1_022", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nTo be... let me... let me be perhaps slightly more precise.\nIt is not a directed verdict.\nIt is a requirement for the court to instruct the jury to make a finding if... if in fact it finds all the four elements to be true.\nThat is still a jury question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2071.699, 2072.152, 2074.466, 2075.931, 2083.996], "stop_times": [2072.152, 2074.466, 2075.931, 2083.996, 2085.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2071.699}, "reply_to": "22591__1_021", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_023", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "No.\nAssuming the four--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2085.158, 2085.399], "stop_times": [2085.399, 2087.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.158}, "reply_to": "22591__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22591__1_024", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2087.025], "stop_times": [2087.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2087.025}, "reply_to": "22591__1_023", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_025", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--elements, directed verdict.\nIf you're right--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2087.152, 2088.902], "stop_times": [2088.902, 2090.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2087.152}, "reply_to": "22591__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22591__1_026", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2090.257], "stop_times": [2090.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2090.257}, "reply_to": "22591__1_025", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_027", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--about that, which is what Hicks says--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2090.492], "stop_times": [2092.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2090.492}, "reply_to": "22591__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22591__1_028", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2092.672], "stop_times": [2092.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2092.672}, "reply_to": "22591__1_027", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_029", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--we have a choice, a fork in the road.\nTake it.\nAll right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2092.876, 2096.135, 2096.684], "stop_times": [2096.135, 2096.684, 2097.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2092.876}, "reply_to": "22591__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22591__1_030", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2097.143], "stop_times": [2097.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2097.143}, "reply_to": "22591__1_029", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_031", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Which fork?\nAnd I put the reason why.\nYour opponents will argue, it seems plausibly, take the second fork because we have the suspicious circumstance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2097.719, 2098.594, 2101.218], "stop_times": [2098.594, 2101.218, 2111.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2097.719}, "reply_to": "22591__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22591__1_032", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Because that would upset the balance that... that Batson has drawn.\nSuspicious circumstance was the same type of problem confronted in Rosales-Lopez and Ristaino.\nThe Court adopted a possibility of a racial bias test for the purpose of inquiring of jurors on voir dire as to whether there's discrimination for use in a Federal system as a rule of criminal process and supervision over the Federal courts.\nIt refused to apply that test, which is akin to the test adopted by the Ninth Circuit and advocated by petitioner, in Ristaino because it recognized that we should not adopt a divisive assumption that everything turns on race.\nIt would be a very simple matter to inquire of jurors on voir dire about their racial biases on a mere possibility.\nThe same argument about let us simply inquire and find out could be applied.\nAfter all, these--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2111.291, 2115.35, 2121.264, 2136.437, 2149.925, 2157.819, 2161.674], "stop_times": [2115.35, 2121.264, 2136.437, 2149.925, 2157.819, 2161.674, 2162.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2111.291}, "reply_to": "22591__1_031", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_033", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "On step one, I take it it's not enough to simply say, look, the person challenged is a member of a minority group.\nWhat more must be shown?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2162.469, 2173.604], "stop_times": [2173.604, 2175.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.469}, "reply_to": "22591__1_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22591__1_034", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nI would agree that that is simply not enough.\nAnd Batson demonstrates that that is not enough because in Batson there were four blacks challenged, all four blacks in a case involving a black defendant.\nYou must show under the totality of the circumstances at Batson... as Batson says, that there's discrimination, and that includes circumstances that may refute the case because, as Batson says, the statements of the prosecutor and questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2175.855, 2176.756, 2178.382, 2186.723], "stop_times": [2176.756, 2178.382, 2186.723, 2202.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2175.855}, "reply_to": "22591__1_033", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_035", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "But I'm talking about step one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2202.83], "stop_times": [2204.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2202.83}, "reply_to": "22591__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22591__1_036", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Yes, and this is step one, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2204.595], "stop_times": [2205.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2204.595}, "reply_to": "22591__1_035", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_037", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "This is all step one?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2205.858], "stop_times": [2207.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2205.858}, "reply_to": "22591__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22591__1_038", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "This is all step one.\nBatson, at page 97, states that a prosecutor's questions and statements on voir dire in exercising the challenges may support or refute an... an inference of discrimination.\nThe party who is making the claim is in the best position, any party who wants to be in, in terms of making a claim to a fact finder.\nHe has the fact finder before him.\nThat fact finder has witnessed the same thing as the party.\nThey are all professionals and skilled in this area.\nAnd if that single juror was struck because of race, the party can say that it was the same race as the defendant if that may be a fact.\nIt may be that that... there's no apparent explanation because, let's say, it was a... another prosecutor who has struck--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2207.256, 2207.922, 2220.093, 2226.791, 2228.999, 2232.029, 2234.503, 2243.527], "stop_times": [2207.922, 2220.093, 2226.791, 2228.999, 2232.029, 2234.503, 2243.527, 2253.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2207.256}, "reply_to": "22591__1_037", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_039", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Why... why is the defense attorney in a better position to explain the... the motives of the prosecutor than the prosecutor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2253.319], "stop_times": [2259.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2253.319}, "reply_to": "22591__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__1_040", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2259.131], "stop_times": [2259.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2259.131}, "reply_to": "22591__1_039", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_041", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I don't understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2259.717], "stop_times": [2260.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2259.717}, "reply_to": "22591__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__1_042", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Not to explain the motives, Your Honor, but to confront the totality of the circumstances that are present in that courtroom that Batson requires that party to confront.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2260.234], "stop_times": [2269.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2260.234}, "reply_to": "22591__1_041", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_043", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "The question is what motivated the prosecutor.\nCorrect?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2269.514, 2272.426], "stop_times": [2272.426, 2272.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.514}, "reply_to": "22591__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__1_044", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2272.789], "stop_times": [2273.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2272.789}, "reply_to": "22591__1_043", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_045", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "It's hard for me to see how the... the defense counsel is in a better position than the prosecutor to show that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2273.285], "stop_times": [2279.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2273.285}, "reply_to": "22591__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__1_046", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "He's in a better... he is in the position to meet his obligation under Batson to explain why, given--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2279.194], "stop_times": [2285.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2279.194}, "reply_to": "22591__1_045", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_047", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--The question is not what motivated the prosecutor unless and until the step one showing can be made.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2285.417], "stop_times": [2292.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2285.417}, "reply_to": "22591__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__1_048", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, and thank you.\nThat is a more--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2292.57, 2294.025], "stop_times": [2294.025, 2295.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2292.57}, "reply_to": "22591__1_047", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_049", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "But, of course, you can afford to be very rigorous at step two because your threshold at step one is high.\nThe threshold is... if the threshold at step one is... is easier to cross, then we could be more rigorous at... at step two.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2295.028, 2301.561], "stop_times": [2301.561, 2312.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2295.028}, "reply_to": "22591__1_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__1_050", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Step two does not have any persuasiveness component to it.\nThere is no rigorousness to it in my mind.\nIt is merely a statement of a race-neutral reason or reasons.\nIt is not the time to persuade, and we know that from Purkett.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2312.046, 2317.363, 2319.548, 2323.421], "stop_times": [2317.363, 2319.548, 2323.421, 2325.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2312.046}, "reply_to": "22591__1_049", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_051", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "And here there was no reason given.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2325.901], "stop_times": [2328.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.901}, "reply_to": "22591__1_050", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22591__1_052", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Here, because there was no prima facie case, Your Honor, yes, there was no reason given.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2328.108], "stop_times": [2330.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2328.108}, "reply_to": "22591__1_051", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_053", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "So why shouldn't this operate as so many things do in... in an unfolding proceeding?\nIf someone stands silent... and we're not involved with a Fifth Amendment privilege... there's an inference... an adverse inference.\nWorse, take a... a discovery and one plaintiff asks for discovery from... from the... the defendant, and the defendant says, sorry, I'm not going to give you what you want.\nWhat is the consequence of that if the defendant, being presented with a opportunity or a requirement to give a reason or to produce something, says, I won't?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2330.661, 2337.494, 2347.995, 2364.267], "stop_times": [2337.494, 2347.995, 2364.267, 2377.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.661}, "reply_to": "22591__1_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22591__1_054", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "There may be an adverse inference that would be drawn from that.\nThere might be issue preclusion.\nThere might be a termination sanction.\nThere's a range, as I understand civil procedure, of... of options that are available.\nIn this context, of course, petitioner asserts that there could be an adverse inference drawn from silence.\nHowever, if the standard is, as he proposes, that there is simply a mere inference from which discrimination can be detected, the silence of the striking party may have no informative content.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2377.948, 2382.694, 2383.947, 2385.451, 2389.552, 2395.866], "stop_times": [2382.694, 2383.947, 2385.451, 2389.552, 2395.866, 2411.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2377.948}, "reply_to": "22591__1_053", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_055", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "But one of them, if we're going to continue with that analogy to someone who says I won't make discovery, is not just an inference but that you take what the opposing party says to be true on that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2411.321], "stop_times": [2425.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2411.321}, "reply_to": "22591__1_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22591__1_056", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThere... there could be issue preclusion.\nI assume that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2425.641, 2427.182, 2429.465], "stop_times": [2427.182, 2429.465, 2431.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2425.641}, "reply_to": "22591__1_055", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_057", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "This is not... not issue preclusion.\nI mean, this is... that is... the defendant who stands silent is going to lose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2431.076, 2433.358], "stop_times": [2433.358, 2440.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2431.076}, "reply_to": "22591__1_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22591__1_058", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Yes, but in... in this circumstance, the... the striking party's silence is one... when the test is set at the inference level not at the more likely than not level, the... the test is one... I'm sorry... not the test, but the... the silence is one of strategic judgment.\nLet me balance the risk of having the adverse inference drawn against me against the risk of disclosing my trial strategy or my voir dire strategy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2440.109, 2455.821], "stop_times": [2455.821, 2464.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2440.109}, "reply_to": "22591__1_057", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_059", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I must confess I'm a little puzzled about the discussion of the trial strategy because is it not correct that whenever the judge thinks step one has been met, the prosecutor always answers the question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2464.167], "stop_times": [2474.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.167}, "reply_to": "22591__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22591__1_060", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "He doesn't always answer the question because it is understood that, having shown at step one it is more likely than not that there's discrimination, silence at step two will result in an adverse finding.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2474.865, 2488.625], "stop_times": [2488.625, 2489.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2474.865}, "reply_to": "22591__1_059", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_061", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Well... well, whatever it is, he... generally they are not silent when the judge says I think step one has been met.\nI want to be sure understand California's position on one point.\nIs it your view in... in California that the judge must decide himself that it is more likely than not that... that discrimination is present before you proceed to step two?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2489.532, 2494.534, 2497.974], "stop_times": [2494.534, 2497.974, 2509.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2489.532}, "reply_to": "22591__1_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22591__1_062", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2509.995], "stop_times": [2511.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.995}, "reply_to": "22591__1_061", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_063", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Now, that is not the test in an ordinary tort case in California, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2511.878], "stop_times": [2515.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2511.878}, "reply_to": "22591__1_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22591__1_064", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "In a case of... of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2515.92], "stop_times": [2518.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2515.92}, "reply_to": "22591__1_063", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_065", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "In an ordinary tort case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2518.432], "stop_times": [2519.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2518.432}, "reply_to": "22591__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22591__1_066", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2519.509], "stop_times": [2519.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2519.509}, "reply_to": "22591__1_065", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_067", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--if the judge, at the end of the plaintiff's case, says I'm not sure what the answer is, but there is enough evidence here to submit to the jury, so I'm going to overrule the motion for judgment... judgment at the end of the case.\nNow, that's a different test than you say is appropriate under Batson, is it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2519.839, 2530.948], "stop_times": [2530.948, 2534.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2519.839}, "reply_to": "22591__1_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22591__1_068", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, because in that circumstance in deciding--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2534.777], "stop_times": [2537.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2534.777}, "reply_to": "22591__1_067", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_069", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "So you... so you have two... in California you have two definitions of a prima facie case, one for Batson and one for all normal tort litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2537.577], "stop_times": [2544.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2537.577}, "reply_to": "22591__1_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22591__1_070", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--In California, we like every other jurisdiction, as far as I know, probably has two definitions, just as this Court does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2544.755], "stop_times": [2552.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2544.755}, "reply_to": "22591__1_069", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_071", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "And is it not true that the definition that your opponent asks for is the same definition that would apply in tort litigation in California and in most States of the country?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2552.61], "stop_times": [2561.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2552.61}, "reply_to": "22591__1_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22591__1_072", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes.\nThat is my understanding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2561.921, 2562.06], "stop_times": [2562.06, 2562.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2561.921}, "reply_to": "22591__1_071", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_073", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "So you're asking for a special rule for California's application of Batson.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2562.86], "stop_times": [2566.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2562.86}, "reply_to": "22591__1_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22591__1_074", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "No, Your Honor, because in that circumstance--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2566.972], "stop_times": [2568.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2566.972}, "reply_to": "22591__1_073", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_075", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "It sounds like you are in that it's a tougher standard than normal.\nHere you had a situation, did you not, where there were three black prospective jurors and the prosecutor struck all three?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2568.423, 2572.577], "stop_times": [2572.577, 2583.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2568.423}, "reply_to": "22591__1_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22591__1_076", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2583.819], "stop_times": [2584.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2583.819}, "reply_to": "22591__1_075", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_077", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "And could that present enough evidence that the fact finder, if it were referred to the fact finder, could find a Batson violation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2584.885], "stop_times": [2597.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2584.885}, "reply_to": "22591__1_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22591__1_078", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nA fact finder could make a... a conclusion from that, but the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2597.63, 2599.071], "stop_times": [2599.071, 2602.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2597.63}, "reply_to": "22591__1_077", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_079", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "So why is that not enough to satisfy the standard to require the prosecutor to give an answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2602.196], "stop_times": [2611.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.196}, "reply_to": "22591__1_078", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22591__1_080", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Because, for example, the appellate perspective as to whether a fact finder could make that conclusion, could any rational finder of facts draw that conclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2611.934], "stop_times": [2619.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2611.934}, "reply_to": "22591__1_079", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_081", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Is it because the judge could imagine reasons that the prosecutor might have had?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2619.581], "stop_times": [2626.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2619.581}, "reply_to": "22591__1_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22591__1_082", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "It is not a question of... of imagining reasons, Your Honor.\nIt is a question of the judge bringing his or her observation to what has occurred in the courtroom, and to return to the example--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2626.348, 2629.26], "stop_times": [2629.26, 2635.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2626.348}, "reply_to": "22591__1_081", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_083", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Would your answer here be exactly the same if there had been 12 African American prospective jurors and all 12 were struck?\nDoes that make a difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2635.584, 2645.766], "stop_times": [2645.766, 2647.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2635.584}, "reply_to": "22591__1_082", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22591__1_084", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Yes, it might in that the... the inference would be probably... it would be much stronger the greater number you have.\nBut, for example, those 12 could theoretically all still be defense attorneys.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2647.787, 2654.586], "stop_times": [2654.586, 2659.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2647.787}, "reply_to": "22591__1_083", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_085", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "But... but your test is... is that the judge under California law is required to find that there's a strong likelihood or a reasonable likelihood, but he must do that without hearing the prosecutor's reasons.\nThat's your position.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2659.626, 2671.157, 2672.405], "stop_times": [2671.157, 2672.405, 2672.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2659.626}, "reply_to": "22591__1_084", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__1_086", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nStep one, because you do not hear reasons until, under JEB, you've gone past step one and get the reasons at step two.\nUnder Batson, you do, however, consider information that may refute the inference.\nBatson tells the judge to do that and to consider the totality of the circumstance.\nAnd Justice Stevens's observation about the difference between the two tests is true, but in the... in the circumstance in which the question is whether it goes to the jury to avoid, for example, non-suit, that is because there is a fact finder for the case to go to separate from the judge, and that fact finder does not have to make an intermediate determination.\nHere the court has--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2672.778, 2673.284, 2678.883, 2683.699, 2687.421, 2708.882], "stop_times": [2673.284, 2678.883, 2683.699, 2687.421, 2708.882, 2710.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2672.778}, "reply_to": "22591__1_085", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_087", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes, but it would be the same rule if it was a bench trial.\nThe judge could say to him... say, I think you may have enough but I'm not 100 percent sure yet.\nI'd like to hear the defense... hear the rest of the case.\nHe doesn't... it does not really... the... the definition of a prima facie case does not depend on whether it's a jury trial or a bench trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2710.253, 2712.935, 2718.097, 2720.641], "stop_times": [2712.935, 2718.097, 2720.641, 2727.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2710.253}, "reply_to": "22591__1_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22591__1_088", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--But it does also turn, Your Honor, in part on the nature of the interest at issue, and the particular process that the Court set up in Batson to create an order... order... system of proof and to allow the proper balance to be struck between the importance of peremptory challenges and their use in selecting a fair and unbiased jury and the interest in assuring that there has not been a constitutional violation, much for the same reason that in Ristaino we do not inquire on mere possibility.\nThere are countervailing interests.\nIn Ristaino there has to be much more than a mere possibility.\nIn Batson, the Court sought to move away from the difficult-to-establish standard of Swain to something that would be more flexible yet still maintain the State's interest in having a peremptory challenge system.\nYour Honors, California does not stand alone in its interpretation of this test.\nAs I mentioned earlier, there are very few States that have considered this issue.\nConnecticut, Maryland have done what this Court said it... they should do, what all courts should do and look at the title VII cases.\nCalifornia has done that.\nIt has not announced a standard that is inconsistent with Batson.\nIt has announced a standard that follows from this Court's direction in Batson.\nIt has required a shifting burden of production which does not occur until there has been either a presumption or a strong mass of evidence, to use Wigmore's term.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2727.611, 2757.364, 2758.938, 2762.592, 2776.442, 2789.145, 2792.446, 2800.531, 2801.869, 2806.279, 2809.703], "stop_times": [2757.364, 2758.938, 2762.592, 2776.442, 2789.145, 2792.446, 2800.531, 2801.869, 2806.279, 2809.703, 2820.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2727.611}, "reply_to": "22591__1_087", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_089", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Do you think that the... the steps in this case have to be determined by what we do in title VII, that whatever we do here should be... should be, must be the same as what we do in title VII?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2820.53], "stop_times": [2834.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2820.53}, "reply_to": "22591__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__1_090", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I think it provides a close analogy.\nIt is not... it is not a perfect fit, no, Your Honor.\nBut it does... but the Court very carefully directed parties and courts to look to title VII for understanding of the operation of the proof rules.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2834.13, 2835.666, 2838.001], "stop_times": [2835.666, 2838.001, 2846.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2834.13}, "reply_to": "22591__1_089", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_091", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Well, but perhaps only for... for the operation of, you know, what the various steps are.\nYou have to go step one first, step two next, and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2846.411, 2853.114], "stop_times": [2853.114, 2856.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2846.411}, "reply_to": "22591__1_090", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__1_092", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I believe the phrasing was that it's explained the operation of prima facie burden of proof rules, and that's the footnote on page 94, sort of the operation of the burden of proof rules that is at issue here.\nAnd the burden of proof and burden of production rules--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2856.763, 2868.902], "stop_times": [2868.902, 2871.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2856.763}, "reply_to": "22591__1_091", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_093", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "A lot of people don't read footnotes.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2871.366, 2872.838], "stop_times": [2872.838, 2874.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2871.366}, "reply_to": "22591__1_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__1_094", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, California's Supreme Court did.\nConnecticut did.\n[Laughter]\nAnd given the... given the... an occasion to do so, I think that's the appropriate path to take.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2874.853, 2877.963, 2878.731, 2879.621], "stop_times": [2877.963, 2878.731, 2879.621, 2885.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2874.853}, "reply_to": "22591__1_093", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_095", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Could I... I just confirm my understanding of how the jury selection process in California works?\nAll the for-cause challenges are... are made and ruled upon.\nThen there are 12 jurors in the box, and then you make the peremptory challenge juror by juror.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2885.653, 2891.178, 2896.938, 2902.137], "stop_times": [2891.178, 2896.938, 2902.137, 2902.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.653}, "reply_to": "22591__1_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__1_096", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThere may be more jurors that have been subject to voir dire if a six pack is used, but challenges are only made to those in the box when the box is full, there's a complement of jurors.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2902.601, 2904.142], "stop_times": [2904.142, 2915.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2902.601}, "reply_to": "22591__1_095", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_097", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "After the for-cause challenges have been--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2915.746], "stop_times": [2917.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2915.746}, "reply_to": "22591__1_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__1_098", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2917.907], "stop_times": [2918.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2917.907}, "reply_to": "22591__1_097", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_099", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Then you exhaust it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2918.36], "stop_times": [2918.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2918.36}, "reply_to": "22591__1_098", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22591__1_100", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nAnd, of course, in California like elsewhere, peremptories are used sometimes to remedy a failure to properly grant a challenge for cause.\nYour Honors, California's system maintains a proper balance between protection interests and the State's and parties' interests in using a venerable tool for selecting a fair and unbiased juror.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2918.861, 2919.506, 2926.892], "stop_times": [2919.506, 2926.892, 2938.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2918.861}, "reply_to": "22591__1_099", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_101", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "May... may I just--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2938.103], "stop_times": [2939.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2938.103}, "reply_to": "22591__1_100", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22591__1_102", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Oh, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2939.921], "stop_times": [2940.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2939.921}, "reply_to": "22591__1_101", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_103", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--ask you to clarify one thing?\nI... I take it from what you've said, although I didn't understand it from your brief, that California doesn't have any different standard, that they are following the same standard that would be applicable in Federal court on a Batson challenge.\nOr did I misunderstand you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2940.545, 2942.641, 2958.678], "stop_times": [2942.641, 2958.678, 2961.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2940.545}, "reply_to": "22591__1_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22591__1_104", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "California is following the standard that we believe Batson has identified.\nNow, there are certainly Federal courts, such as the Ninth Circuit, that disagree with that.\nAnd so all Federal courts do not do what California believes Batson allows to be done.\nThe Ninth Circuit has concluded that California's standard is contrary to and an unreasonable application of Batson.\nThat's Wade v. Terhune, 202 F. 3rd.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2961.003, 2969.525, 2973.398, 2978.939, 2985.909], "stop_times": [2969.525, 2973.398, 2978.939, 2985.909, 2989.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2961.003}, "reply_to": "22591__1_103", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_105", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "So you're not arguing that States have flexibility to apply Batson according to different procedural rules.\nYou're arguing that the Ninth Circuit is wrong about what the Federal standard is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [2989.514, 2999.62], "stop_times": [2999.62, 3006.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2989.514}, "reply_to": "22591__1_104", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22591__1_106", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "We're arguing, first, the Ninth Circuit is wrong and that California's rule is consistent with Batson.\nNow, as to whether other rules may apply, Batson has a footnote stating that it was not going to attempt to instruct courts on how to apply its process.\nThat might leave room for other States to come up with alternate systems of proof.\nWhat is important here is that California's system is consistent, and as the respondent, we are not seeking to require all States to do something.\nRather, as the respondent, it is sufficient that California's process is acceptable just as California's process was acceptable in Smith v. Robbins for handling cases in which there are no nonfrivolous appeals on issues.\nA variety of standards perhaps could be tolerated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3006.201, 3013.641, 3024.665, 3030.809, 3040.504, 3054.786], "stop_times": [3013.641, 3024.665, 3030.809, 3040.504, 3054.786, 3056.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3006.201}, "reply_to": "22591__1_105", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_107", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Mr. Schalit, can you give me some reason why I should care a whole lot about this?\nWhat's the big deal?\nI mean, so what if we adopt a very minimal standard.\nSo what.\nIt just means you have a bench conference and the... and the judge asks, you know... you know, you struck three... three blacks.\nIt, you know, looks suspicious to me.\nI'm not sure it's more likely than not.\nI'm not sure it's even enough to go to a jury, but it looks suspicious to me.\nWhy just... how come you... you struck all three blacks that were in the venire?\nWhat is such a big deal about adopting a very... a very low standard?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3056.791, 3061.511, 3062.983, 3068.215, 3069.394, 3074.796, 3076.578, 3078.236, 3081.601, 3085.457], "stop_times": [3061.511, 3062.983, 3068.215, 3069.394, 3074.796, 3076.578, 3078.236, 3081.601, 3085.457, 3089.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3056.791}, "reply_to": "22591__1_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__1_108", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Because it intrudes on other interests that our State--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3089.265], "stop_times": [3093.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3089.265}, "reply_to": "22591__1_107", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_109", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3093.228], "stop_times": [3093.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.228}, "reply_to": "22591__1_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__1_110", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--It intrudes on--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3093.585], "stop_times": [3094.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3093.585}, "reply_to": "22591__1_109", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_111", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Like... like what?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3094.416], "stop_times": [3095.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3094.416}, "reply_to": "22591__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__1_112", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--I believe it intrudes on the parties' interest and work product and opinion work product and attorney-client privilege and perhaps even the defendant's Sixth... Sixth Amendment right because it may require divulgence of those types of confidences.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3095.221], "stop_times": [3110.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3095.221}, "reply_to": "22591__1_111", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_113", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "So the State has an interest in exercising peremptories.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3110.153], "stop_times": [3115.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.153}, "reply_to": "22591__1_112", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22591__1_114", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor, yes.\nUsing peremptory challenges to select a fair and unbiased jury is very important to the State.\nHaving confidence that the juries are fair and unbiased is important because it allows parties to accept the results of verdicts as being a product of a fair and just system.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3115.807, 3116.937, 3121.673], "stop_times": [3116.937, 3121.673, 3132.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3115.807}, "reply_to": "22591__1_113", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_115", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Well, I agree.\nOf course, the State has a... has an interest in... in exercising peremptories.\nBut... but why is it important that whether the State is doing it in a biased fashion be decided up front at step one instead of having the parties come to the judge and say, you know, why did you do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3132.772, 3133.155, 3138.13], "stop_times": [3133.155, 3138.13, 3151.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3132.772}, "reply_to": "22591__1_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__1_116", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3151.997], "stop_times": [3152.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3151.997}, "reply_to": "22591__1_115", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_117", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "That's what I can't understand, why that is so important to the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3152.984], "stop_times": [3156.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3152.984}, "reply_to": "22591__1_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__1_118", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Because the... the challenges essentially cease being peremptory and become quasi-challenges for cause.\nThe State has an interest in maintaining the system as a peremptory challenge system and in maintaining Sixth Amendment privileges and work product.\nAnd it has--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3156.578, 3163.282, 3171.346], "stop_times": [3163.282, 3171.346, 3172.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3156.578}, "reply_to": "22591__1_117", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_119", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "But it still could be... I mean, you're not taking away the peremptory.\nYou're saying the... the prosecutor can give a reason and the judge says, okay, that passes.\nIt wouldn't pass for a challenge for cause, but as a peremptory, it's okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3172.338, 3176.011, 3182.586], "stop_times": [3176.011, 3182.586, 3187.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3172.338}, "reply_to": "22591__1_118", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22591__1_120", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Well, the challenge does cease being peremptory because the Equal Protection Clause has overturned the State statute that provides that challenges... peremptory challenges are challenges for which no reason need be given.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3187.483], "stop_times": [3199.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3187.483}, "reply_to": "22591__1_119", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_121", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "But Batson overruled that.\nI mean, those days are gone.\nTell California to stop worrying about that.\n[Laughter]\nYou cannot make peremptory challenges for any reason anymore.\nYou can't do it for any reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3199.434, 3200.89, 3202.063, 3204.453, 3204.81, 3209.94], "stop_times": [3200.89, 3202.063, 3204.453, 3204.81, 3209.94, 3212.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3199.434}, "reply_to": "22591__1_120", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__1_122", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Absolutely not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3212.383], "stop_times": [3213.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3212.383}, "reply_to": "22591__1_121", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_123", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "So they're gone.\nNow, once you acknowledge they're gone, what's the big deal about... about having the parties come up to the judge and just explain to the judge, we didn't do it for a racial reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3213.406, 3213.994], "stop_times": [3213.994, 3222.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3213.406}, "reply_to": "22591__1_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__1_124", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Because Batson could have chosen to adopt a Connecticut-style strict objection system.\nIt did not do that.\nThe Court has made a judgment about the nature of peremptories as peremptories as still being important.\nPreserving that interest in using those and not disclosing trial strategy is important.\nHaving... avoiding the risk that a party may respond with unarticulable reasons that erroneously won't be believed is important.\nWe do not want to chill the exercise of challenges for those reasons that are not based on discriminatory reasons but are unarticulable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3222.612, 3229.78, 3231.236, 3237.007, 3241.966, 3251.89], "stop_times": [3229.78, 3231.236, 3237.007, 3241.966, 3251.89, 3259.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3222.612}, "reply_to": "22591__1_123", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_125", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Of course, in avoiding that chill, you're in effect saying the prosecutor is entitled to one or two free discriminatory challenges.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3259.891], "stop_times": [3266.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3259.891}, "reply_to": "22591__1_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22591__1_126", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Well, certainly there... there is a somewhat different consequence in... in the standard as articulated by petitioner in that the striking party does get perhaps a freebie.\nAnd California doesn't accept that.\nWe've recognized that in State supreme court cases there are no substantial free challenges.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3266.6, 3275.314, 3276.465], "stop_times": [3275.314, 3276.465, 3280.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3266.6}, "reply_to": "22591__1_125", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_127", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "The dog is entitled to one bite.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3280.397], "stop_times": [3281.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3280.397}, "reply_to": "22591__1_126", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__1_128", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I'm sorry, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3281.97], "stop_times": [3283.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3281.97}, "reply_to": "22591__1_127", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_129", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "I say, the dog is entitled to one bite.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3283.351], "stop_times": [3286.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3283.351}, "reply_to": "22591__1_128", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22591__1_130", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Oh.\n[Laughter]\nHopefully not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3286.098, 3286.647, 3287.5], "stop_times": [3286.647, 3287.5, 3288.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3286.098}, "reply_to": "22591__1_129", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_131", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "It's a New Hampshire rule.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3288.711, 3290.044], "stop_times": [3290.044, 3293.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3288.711}, "reply_to": "22591__1_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22591__1_132", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "--Thank you, Your Honors.\nUnless there are any further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3293.686, 3295.553], "stop_times": [3295.553, 3296.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3293.686}, "reply_to": "22591__1_131", "speaker": "seth_k_schalit"}
{"id": "22591__1_133", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Schalit.\nMr. Bedrick, you have 4 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3296.997, 3298.123], "stop_times": [3298.123, 3301.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3296.997}, "reply_to": "22591__1_132", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22591__2_000", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Here the prosecutor perempted all three black jurors and left a black defendant to be tried by an all-white jury in a racially tinged case.\nThese facts indisputably present an inference of discrimination.\nThe... my opponent suggests that silence may be a strategic decision.\nBut we have yet to locate any... any case where any prosecutor anywhere in a situation remotely like this has chosen silence as the proper strategy.\nThe purpose of Batson is... is to elicit reasons from the prosecutor and then for the trial court to evaluate those reasons and determine whether or not, looking at the... all the circumstances and the prosecutor's credibility and the type of case, whether or not their challenge is race-based.\nReasons are crucial.\nIn the appendix to our opening brief, we examined 84 cases in the last couple years where discrimination was found in violation of Batson.\nIn virtually all of these cases, the decision turned on the evaluation of the articulated reason.\nIn some of those, the articulated reason was unsupported by the record.\nFrom that, there was an inference and a finding of discrimination.\nIn others of those, the articulated reason applied to many white jurors who were not challenged.\nAll those facts existed here.\nThe goals of Batson, which are admirable and important, which should apply in all 50 States, not just in 48, require... need the reasons to be elicited because Batson won't work unless reasons are known and examined and ruled on on the merits and a record is made.\nWe'd ask this Court to bring California into the mainstream and ask that reasons be called for in California under the same standard that they're called for everywhere else.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3301.562, 3314.528, 3318.543, 3325.509, 3336.036, 3355.242, 3356.848, 3364.837, 3371.328, 3376.41, 3379.989, 3386.191, 3388.672, 3407.823], "stop_times": [3314.528, 3318.543, 3325.509, 3336.036, 3355.242, 3356.848, 3364.837, 3371.328, 3376.41, 3379.989, 3386.191, 3388.672, 3407.823, 3417.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3301.562}, "reply_to": "22591__1_133", "speaker": "stephen_b_bedrick"}
{"id": "22591__2_001", "conversation_id": "22591", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Schalit.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-6964", "start_times": [3417.317, 3419.092], "stop_times": [3419.092, 3420.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3417.317}, "reply_to": "22591__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22727__0_000", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "We'll now hear argument in Johnson against the United States.\nMr. Reichman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [0.0, 5.504], "stop_times": [5.504, 6.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22727__0_001", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nOn occasion a prior conviction that's used to enhance a Federal sentence turns out to have been obtained in violation of the Constitution.\nThis Court addressed the procedure for handling those challenges in Custis and Daniels.\nThose cases determined that, in most circumstances, the facts that would show the prior conviction is unconstitutional do not support a claim either at sentencing or under section 2255.\nThis is the key phrase in this case: facts supporting the claim.\nIt's the key part of the fourth trigger in the 2255 statute of limitations.\nIn this case, the State court vacatur is the fact supporting the claim for three reasons.\nFirst, as expressed, Daniels made clear that the underlying facts, those facts that you use for the challenge to the prior conviction, do not support a claim under 2255, leaving the vacatur as the operative fact.\nSecond, the plain meaning of the word fact encompasses a vacatur just like courts often refer to convictions as historical facts.\nAnd third, there's no reason to dispense with the plain language of the statute to serve policy ends.\nThe policies animating both AEDPA and section 2255 are served by the rule advanced by petitioner.\nAnd moreover, petitioner's rule will be a lot more straightforward in application.\nLet me--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [6.715, 11.867, 19.179, 24.15, 35.75, 39.003, 43.723, 50.358, 64.491, 73.638, 79.814, 86.406, 92.283], "stop_times": [11.867, 19.179, 24.15, 35.75, 39.003, 43.723, 50.358, 64.491, 73.638, 79.814, 86.406, 92.283, 93.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6.715}, "reply_to": "22727__0_000", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_002", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "One little complication here.\nUnder 2255, even if that applies in this situation, it does establish a 1-year statute of limitations.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [93.355, 96.566, 107.595], "stop_times": [96.566, 107.595, 108.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 93.355}, "reply_to": "22727__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22727__0_003", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [108.182], "stop_times": [109.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 108.182}, "reply_to": "22727__0_002", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_004", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "And subsection (4) of that section says: the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.\nNow, is that a requirement that the defendant seek State relief on a timely basis?\nCan the defendant just wait indefinitely before going back to the State and seeking a vacatur?\nOr does that due diligence requirement apply to the efforts to get State action?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [109.014, 123.456, 133.126, 141.702], "stop_times": [123.456, 133.126, 141.702, 150.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 109.014}, "reply_to": "22727__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22727__0_005", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, there... there are several levels to the response.\nLet me work through them.\nThe first is that the petitioner's position relies on a straightforward reading of the statute, and we think that the due diligence requirement is satisfied when the vacatur is discovered through the exercise of due diligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [150.06, 153.729, 154.775], "stop_times": [153.729, 154.775, 168.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 150.06}, "reply_to": "22727__0_004", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_006", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, but you're not being responsive to my question.\nHere the defendant did go back to the State courts and got this... the earlier convictions vacated.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [168.743, 170.642, 178.098], "stop_times": [170.642, 178.098, 178.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 168.743}, "reply_to": "22727__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22727__0_007", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [178.53], "stop_times": [179.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 178.53}, "reply_to": "22727__0_006", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_008", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "But I asked you, is there any requirement that the defendant act promptly in going back to the State to get the vacaturs?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [179.293], "stop_times": [186.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 179.293}, "reply_to": "22727__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22727__0_009", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "There's no requirement in... in the fourth trigger.\nHowever--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [186.743, 189.17], "stop_times": [189.17, 189.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 186.743}, "reply_to": "22727__0_008", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_010", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, except that the statute itself speaks of diligence.\nNow, can the... suppose he's been given a very long Federal sentence and part of that is the result of prior State convictions.\nAnd suppose he waits 10 years before going back to the State to seek to overturn those earlier State convictions.\nIs there no requirement that he act promptly?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [189.767, 194.077, 205.239, 215.074], "stop_times": [194.077, 205.239, 215.074, 218.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 189.767}, "reply_to": "22727__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22727__0_011", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--The requirement is not found in the fourth trigger.\nThe requirement is found in the State statutes of limitations.\nAnd to elaborate on the footnotes in our brief, we have found that there are approximately--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [218.375, 221.629, 224.194], "stop_times": [221.629, 224.194, 229.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 218.375}, "reply_to": "22727__0_010", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_012", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, but the Federal statute says... it puts a burden of diligence on the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [229.384], "stop_times": [236.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 229.384}, "reply_to": "22727__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22727__0_013", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Reading the plain language, we think that burden of diligence applies to discovering the vacatur.\nIf you... if a vacatur is a fact... and I think the Government has all but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [236.76, 242.488], "stop_times": [242.488, 246.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 236.76}, "reply_to": "22727__0_012", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_014", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "How... how could one not discover the vacatur?\nHere's my problem.\nI... I frankly don't think the text of... of (4), part (4), really fits comfortably with either your interpretation or the Government's.\nIt says the date on which the facts supporting the claim could have been discovered through the exercise of diligence.\nWell, as you point out in your brief, the fact supporting the claim here is simply the elimination of the prior conviction, the vacatur of the prior conviction.\nThat's the fact supporting the claim, not the facts which led to the vacatur, but it's the vacatur.\nSo that makes the Government's case a little uncomfortable.\nBut it seems to me you have to acknowledge that your case is pretty uncomfortable when you... when you talk about discovering the fact of the... of the vacatur.\nI mean, it's a matter of public record.\nHow does one discover a... a public record?\nHow... how could you need due diligence to discover a public record?\nI mean, it seems to me it's... it's automatically... isn't the vacatur always served on the... on the person whose conviction is vacated?\nIsn't it always that person who seeks the vacation?\nSo what sense does it make to talk about his discovering that particular fact?\nIt seems to me it makes no sense.\nSo you're left with... with two competing interpretations, both of which have some textual problems.\nI'm inclined to think you take the one that makes sense, given the purpose of the statute, and the purpose of the statute, as Justice O'Connor has suggested, is to make people bring up their claims promptly.\nAnd... and that purpose would... would be served by the Government's rule and not by yours.\nYou say unless the State has some statute of limitation, this... this Federal requirement of due diligence goes begging.\nWhat's... what's your response to that?\nYou really think... especially about the discover.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [246.558, 248.595, 250.361, 264.025, 272.751, 283.071, 290.159, 293.641, 303.977, 306.841, 310.132, 315.321, 326.095, 330.063, 335.621, 337.023, 342.981, 355.466, 360.629, 367.429, 369.861], "stop_times": [248.595, 250.361, 264.025, 272.751, 283.071, 290.159, 293.641, 303.977, 306.841, 310.132, 315.321, 326.095, 330.063, 335.621, 337.023, 342.981, 355.466, 360.629, 367.429, 369.861, 372.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 246.558}, "reply_to": "22727__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22727__0_015", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--I do and here's why, first, starting with the language before I turn to the policy side of your question.\nOn the language, paragraph (4), the fourth trigger, is broad language that was meant to cover a variety of circumstances, things from ineffective assistance of counsel, to Brady violations, to vacaturs.\nI'll grant you that if Congress only intended the vacatur situation to be covered by paragraph (4), we might wonder why they chose those particular words, but we know they didn't intend this one circumstance.\nI think the Government's position as to discover boils down to this.\nBecause the answer to the question, when could the vacatur have been discovered through reasonable diligence, is easy, the answer must be wrong.\nAnd we don't believe that to be the case.\nWe think that you can easily ask when could the vacatur have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [372.65, 379.034, 390.058, 402.053, 405.691, 413.072, 415.083], "stop_times": [379.034, 390.058, 402.053, 405.691, 413.072, 415.083, 420.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 372.65}, "reply_to": "22727__0_014", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_016", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "And when it could have been discovered I guess if he had taken due diligence and gone and made the motion within a year, at least, of his having been convicted in the Federal court.\nI mean, I don't see how you can have it both ways.\nYou want us to read that phrase very broadly to include under the word facts something like a vacatur, and then it sounds to me you're being very literal and linguistic when you say that due diligence to find the facts shouldn't mean what I would take it as ordinarily meaning, that... that you have to, when you had a chance, go back and generate this fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [420.31, 432.55, 436.379], "stop_times": [432.55, 436.379, 461.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 420.31}, "reply_to": "22727__0_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22727__0_017", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [461.702], "stop_times": [463.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 461.702}, "reply_to": "22727__0_016", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_018", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "I don't see how you can do both, in other words.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [463.974], "stop_times": [466.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 463.974}, "reply_to": "22727__0_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22727__0_019", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--I think we can.\nI think both the interpretations of each of those contested words are strict interpretations right within the plain meaning.\nAnd our case can boil down to asking whether there's something wrong with my English language when I say, on what day could the vacatur have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.\nIt's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [466.177, 467.281, 476.39, 486.956], "stop_times": [467.281, 476.39, 486.956, 487.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 466.177}, "reply_to": "22727__0_018", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_020", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "On the pure English language, it's not exactly a fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [487.484], "stop_times": [490.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 487.484}, "reply_to": "22727__0_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22727__0_021", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [490.599], "stop_times": [491.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 490.599}, "reply_to": "22727__0_020", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_022", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "I mean, it's a legal determination.\nWe usually separate law from fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [491.522, 494.157], "stop_times": [494.157, 496.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 491.522}, "reply_to": "22727__0_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22727__0_023", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--And... and as we point out in our brief, there's nothing... in this context in particular, a vacatur is like a conviction.\nIt's a fact, you know, that is... is commonly referred to by the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [496.242, 503.565], "stop_times": [503.565, 507.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 496.242}, "reply_to": "22727__0_022", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_024", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, just so that I understand your argument then, going back to Justice O'Connor's question, if you get a long sentence, can you sit there for 10 years, then initiate the process to get the earlier conviction vacated and then say, as soon as it is, with due diligence I'm here at the courthouse because, although I waited 10 years, I have brought my 2255 as soon as I learned that my earlier sentence had been vacated?\nYour answer to that question, I take it, is yes, he satisfies the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [507.794, 535.032], "stop_times": [535.032, 539.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 507.794}, "reply_to": "22727__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__0_025", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "He satisfies the statute, but I need to point out something that I think is critical to understanding this question.\nAt the end of the day, we're talking about at most six States where this might be at issue.\nThe rest of them either have laches or statutes of limitations.\nAnd these are small States.\nWe're talking about a rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [539.058, 544.434, 549.992, 552.962, 554.029], "stop_times": [544.434, 549.992, 552.962, 554.029, 555.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 539.058}, "reply_to": "22727__0_024", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_026", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Okay, but in... in six States, I would have thought that, A, the due diligence language, together with the general obvious policy of AEDPA, to get this over with, would have made it very difficult to conclude that he can sit there without doing anything for 10 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [555.096], "stop_times": [574.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 555.096}, "reply_to": "22727__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__0_027", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [574.92], "stop_times": [576.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 574.92}, "reply_to": "22727__0_026", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_028", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Maybe it's only in six States, but six States count.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [576.307], "stop_times": [579.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 576.307}, "reply_to": "22727__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__0_029", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--They do count.\nBut it ties into the response... the second part of Justice Scalia's question is, isn't finality served?\nIsn't that what AEDPA is all about?\nWe don't believe that the Government's rule that they propose will serve finality in the vast majority of cases because in the vast majority of cases, you're talking about claims that will have no merit in State court.\nBut because it's very difficult to complete the State court habeas process before the 1 year in the first paragraph, these petitioners will file placeholder petitions in Federal court and have them held while they finish their State court review.\nSo what you're doing is you're talking about these six States, maybe 10 guys a year, you're going to cause, as the Brackett court on remand said, thousands of placeholder petitions to be filed, and you're needlessly extending all of those cases so that you cut off the rights for maybe 10 people who happen to be in these States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [579.47, 581.592, 586.798, 588.622, 602.75, 617.198], "stop_times": [581.592, 586.798, 588.622, 602.75, 617.198, 633.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 579.47}, "reply_to": "22727__0_028", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_030", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "All right.\nHere's... here's a simple way of looking at it.\nThe minute that you're convicted and you are subject to the enhanced sentence based on a prior conviction, the obligation of due diligence begins.\nYou can't sit there for 10 years.\nThat's the point at which you've got to file your petition so that you can come into court with reasonable promptness, if not by the sentencing hearing itself, as soon afterwards as the State process allows you.\nThat would be a simple due diligence point.\nIt wouldn't involve placeholder petitions, and it would get things concluded with reasonable promptness.\nWhy isn't that a way of... of applying the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [633.081, 633.22, 635.273, 648.105, 650.847, 663.625, 667.06, 673.113], "stop_times": [633.22, 635.273, 648.105, 650.847, 663.625, 667.06, 673.113, 676.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 633.081}, "reply_to": "22727__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__0_031", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Because if you were going to be strict about it... and... and I'm not sure I understand all of the parameters of the hypothetical... in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [676.655], "stop_times": [684.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 676.655}, "reply_to": "22727__0_030", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_032", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Easy.\nThe minute he's convicted, the State has charged him and... and... or his... by some charging document has made clear that there is going to be an invocation of a prior conviction for an enhanced sentence.\nAs soon as he is convicted of the later offense in which that sentencing possibility has been raised, he has an obligation to go into the State court and start the process of... of getting his earlier conviction vacated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [712.661, 684.789, 698.885], "stop_times": [684.789, 698.885, 713.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 712.661}, "reply_to": "22727__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__0_033", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--If Mr. Johnson had done that in this case, he still would have missed the 1-year statute of limitations.\nIf Mr. Gadsen had done that in the Fourth Circuit case by Judge Wilkinson, he still would have missed the 1-year statute of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [713.311, 718.399], "stop_times": [718.399, 725.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 713.311}, "reply_to": "22727__0_032", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_034", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "But he would have acted with due diligence and he would have had as... I suppose, a very powerful argument, which... which the Government apparently would accept, for... for tolling.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [725.605], "stop_times": [736.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 725.605}, "reply_to": "22727__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__0_035", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "For equitable tolling?\nWell, I don't know that the Government would accept equitable tolling.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [736.079, 737.653], "stop_times": [737.653, 741.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 736.079}, "reply_to": "22727__0_034", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_036", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, as I understood Justice Souter's question, it is the alternate that the Government said.\nThe Government puts forward two arguments, and its alternate argument sounds to me just like what Justice Souter put to you, that is, he has to move diligently to challenge those underlying convictions, that he cannot challenge in Federal court because of... was it... Curtis and Daniels.\nWhy isn't that an... an accommodation of what we know was the concern of the Federal court... of the... of the Congress that people act diligently?\nIt happens that 2255 wasn't framed with Curtis and Daniels in mind.\nThere isn't any indication that the drafters of 2255 were aware of this peculiar situation where you can't make the challenge in Federal court, you must go back to the State forum.\nBut we do know they were concerned with diligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [741.183, 748.394, 770.826, 784.319, 791.519, 802.89], "stop_times": [748.394, 770.826, 784.319, 791.519, 802.89, 807.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 741.183}, "reply_to": "22727__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22727__0_037", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, AEDPA was enacted after Custis was decided and I think we presume that the Congress was aware of the precedent, but the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [807.05], "stop_times": [817.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 807.05}, "reply_to": "22727__0_036", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_038", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Now, wasn't... didn't Mr. Johnson here wait a couple of years after the Federal sentencing before he tried to go back to the State courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [817.093], "stop_times": [826.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 817.093}, "reply_to": "22727__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22727__0_039", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Yes, he did.\nThe... the... our answer--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [826.954, 827.952], "stop_times": [827.952, 831.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 826.954}, "reply_to": "22727__0_038", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_040", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "I'm not sure that was a diligent sort of a... an effort.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [831.238], "stop_times": [834.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 831.238}, "reply_to": "22727__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22727__0_041", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--We believe it was diligent within the... the fourth trigger because, again, we rely on the plain language.\nAnd the... the fall-back position, to address your question and Justice Souter's question, is that we don't believe... we believe this is engrafting a whole different statutory scheme on top of the one that we have.\nThe fall-back position of the Government is to say, all right, let's interpret the statute or rewrite it to say that we're going to trigger the date on when the vacatur could have been obtained, not when it could have been discovered.\nAnd to do that, what they're saying is, well, let's give him a year from the time of the Federal sentencing.\nSo... or... or maybe even earlier, dating back to the time of the original conviction in State court.\nSo they add that 1-year statute of limitations.\nThen they say then we'll add a provision that tolls during the pendency of State habeas, and then we'll add another 1-year statute of limitations on top of that after the vacatur is obtained.\nSo we end up with... instead of the plain language, we have two 1-year statutes of limitations with a tolling provision in between, the type of tolling provision that is, by the way, in section 2244.\nWe believe that petitioner's interpretation, although the answer is not difficult, it... it is the correct answer.\nOn what date did the... could the vacatur have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence?\nAnd the answer I think was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [834.315, 840.208, 852.523, 864.619, 871.067, 875.851, 877.67, 888.134, 898.076, 907.196, 913.313], "stop_times": [840.208, 852.523, 864.619, 871.067, 875.851, 877.67, 888.134, 898.076, 907.196, 913.313, 915.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 834.315}, "reply_to": "22727__0_040", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_042", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "But then you... you have to concede that you are watering down almost to nothing any due diligence requirement because on your reading of the statute, there isn't... there isn't any such requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [915.228], "stop_times": [927.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 915.228}, "reply_to": "22727__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22727__0_043", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Well, we think that that is... I'll... I'll say that there's no... we don't believe that there is a requirement in the Federal statute, in agreement with... with your statement, to exercise diligence and seeking the vacatur.\nBut we believe that that is a necessary consequence of the administrative decision that this Court made in Custis and Daniels to send these back to the State court.\nIt... it could have been the case that these were all challenged at sentencing, and in fact, I think that was the prevailing practice before Custis, that they were challenged at sentencing.\nBut Custis and then followed on by Daniels made a different decision, and I think a good one.\nIt made the decision to wrap these challenges back to the State and that inevitably will result in delays as it works it way through the State.\nThe rationale for the Court's decision makes perfect sense when you apply it to this context.\nOne of the key concerns, it seems to me, that the Court had was that if you allow these Federal challenges that are outside the State statute of limitations, then it's very possible the State is not going to have the records necessary to defend it because they wouldn't be expected to keep records outside of their statute of limitations.\nAnd that's simply not the case here because these challenges, under the petitioner's rule, would be within the State statutes of limitations, and as this Court recognized in Daniels, the States have a powerful interest in defending their convictions and that powerful interest, it seems to me, would lead them to preserve the records necessary to maintain their convictions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [927.521, 940.812, 948.743, 958.657, 963.121, 970.721, 974.897, 992.321], "stop_times": [940.812, 948.743, 958.657, 963.121, 970.721, 974.897, 992.321, 1010.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 927.521}, "reply_to": "22727__0_042", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_044", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Do you make the argument or is it implicit in your argument... maybe you don't have this concern... that if you imply a Federal due diligence standard on your duty to vacate the State conviction, that it's just too burdensome on the petitioner who has to begin fighting the vacatur battle at the same time that he has only 1 year to complete his habeas with reference to the other challenges to his conviction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1010.785], "stop_times": [1040.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1010.785}, "reply_to": "22727__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22727__0_045", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "That is not something that we've argued in the briefs.\nIt... it, no doubt, is true especially when you're talking about a pro se petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1040.135, 1044.049], "stop_times": [1044.049, 1047.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1040.135}, "reply_to": "22727__0_044", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_046", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "May I ask?\nYou mentioned... I just want to be sure I understand your point... that there are only six States that are really affected by this rule.\nIs that because all the other States have State limitations periods that require the prisoner to act promptly?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1047.873, 1050.908, 1055.943], "stop_times": [1050.908, 1055.943, 1062.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1047.873}, "reply_to": "22727__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22727__0_047", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Limitations period by statute or they have a laches principle that would limit the ability.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1062.247], "stop_times": [1068.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1062.247}, "reply_to": "22727__0_046", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_048", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "So that the... the hypothetical of the prisoner waiting 10 years to challenge the State conviction can only arise in a few States.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1068.972, 1077.409], "stop_times": [1077.409, 1078.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1068.972}, "reply_to": "22727__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22727__0_049", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "That's right, and from what I can tell from the Department of Justice statistics, there are even fewer number of convictions in those States, and best I can back-of-the-envelope it, we're talking about maybe I think less than 10 people per year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1078.225], "stop_times": [1089.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1078.225}, "reply_to": "22727__0_048", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_050", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "In those... in those six States or those few States--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1089.943], "stop_times": [1094.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1089.943}, "reply_to": "22727__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22727__0_051", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1094.103], "stop_times": [1094.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1094.103}, "reply_to": "22727__0_050", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_052", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--have those States all made clear they'd say we will never apply laches, or is it just the case that there have never... there's never been an instance where the laches issue was presented to them?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1094.653], "stop_times": [1104.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1094.653}, "reply_to": "22727__0_051", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22727__0_053", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "The latter is more accurate.\nI'm... I'm... I was trying not to overreach, but I went with the cases that States that were clear that laches would apply either by statute or by case law.\nAnd why this becomes particularly important to me is because we think the petitioner's rule serves the ends of the Federal court overall, especially when you're talking about finality because it seems to be the tail wagging the dog, in a way, to have a rule that cuts off the possibility of the 10-year scenario for these few cases and then causes thousands of placeholder petitions to be filed and managed.\nAnd it has been pointed, you know, average non-merits dismissal, we're talking about roughly 260 days.\nIt's a burden on the court that's unnecessary, particularly to bring it back, when we think that in light of Custis and Daniels, the plain language takes us all the way there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1104.205, 1106.354, 1115.069, 1139.106, 1144.797], "stop_times": [1106.354, 1115.069, 1139.106, 1144.797, 1154.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.205}, "reply_to": "22727__0_052", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_054", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "I know... I know--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1154.957], "stop_times": [1156.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1154.957}, "reply_to": "22727__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22727__0_055", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "But do you have any explanation of why your client waited so long?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1156.045], "stop_times": [1158.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1156.045}, "reply_to": "22727__0_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22727__0_056", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "The record doesn't reveal except that he is pro se.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1158.365], "stop_times": [1162.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1158.365}, "reply_to": "22727__0_055", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_057", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Pro se.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1162.461], "stop_times": [1162.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.461}, "reply_to": "22727__0_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22727__0_058", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1162.909], "stop_times": [1163.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1162.909}, "reply_to": "22727__0_057", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_059", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Even... that was the question I was going to ask.\nWith respect to... he came into Federal court and he said... a little... like 3 days too late to move to extend the time to file the 2255.\nThat motion was denied.\nThat motion was made in April of '97, and then he doesn't file for State habeas to get rid of those prior convictions until February of '98.\nIs... is there any indication of why, when the Federal court says we're not going to extend your time, he waits so long to go to the State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1163.704, 1166.547, 1177.544, 1180.104, 1193.571], "stop_times": [1166.547, 1177.544, 1180.104, 1193.571, 1203.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1163.704}, "reply_to": "22727__0_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22727__0_060", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "There's... I'm aware of the facts, but there's none in the record other than the fact that he's pro se and has limited education.\nI want to point out one thing that... that I think is important perhaps, if... if the Court were to go a way of equitable tolling, which as I've said, I don't believe is appropriate.\nBut you mentioned that it was 3 days too late that he filed.\nLooking back at the record, I... I don't think that's accurate.\nIt shows that it was received by the court on April 25th, 1997, which is 1 day after the grace period under AEDPA which... it expired on April 24th, 1997.\nWell, he did it by mail, and under the mailbox rule, that would have been a timely motion to the extent that we are concerned with equitable tolling and... and permitting the placeholder petition of that kind.\nBut again, this... this difficulty in managing the process is familiar to the court because it... it's what happens when you have these pro se petitioners.\nThe important thing in this case, we believe, the core concern is with the plain language of the statute.\nBecause Daniels in substance said, the underlying facts to a State court vacatur do not support a claim, we believe that you have to read section 2255, paragraph (4) to say that, okay, then the operative fact is a vacatur.\nAnd this case... it's a very real concern because without the prior convictions that were later vacated, Mr. Johnson would have a roughly 7-year sentence.\nThose prior convictions that were vacated... and we all can conclude now were unconstitutional... added 8 more years on his sentence.\nHe's serving more time on the enhancements than he was on the underlying sentence.\nAnd of course, the sentencing scheme depends on reliability of the information used for purposes of sentencing, and that's why Congress chose to enact the fourth paragraph and the statute of limitations so that there would be an opportunity to correct unreliable information when it came to light and it was discovered.\nIf there are no further questions, I would reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1203.32, 1212.403, 1220.691, 1224.264, 1226.947, 1238.942, 1250.296, 1260.659, 1269.454, 1285.102, 1295.555, 1302.99, 1307.188, 1323.753], "stop_times": [1212.403, 1220.691, 1224.264, 1226.947, 1238.942, 1250.296, 1260.659, 1269.454, 1285.102, 1295.555, 1302.99, 1307.188, 1323.753, 1327.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1203.32}, "reply_to": "22727__0_059", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__0_061", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "You may.\nThank you.\nMr. Himmelfarb.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1327.246, 1327.918, 1328.468], "stop_times": [1327.918, 1328.468, 1332.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1327.246}, "reply_to": "22727__0_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22727__1_000", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nPetitioner's State court habeas corpus petition, which challenged his guilty plea on a ground available at the time of the plea, was filed nearly 9 years after the plea was entered and nearly 2 years after a subsequent Federal conviction became final.\nPetitioner, nevertheless, contends that the challenge to his Federal sentence was timely under AEDPA's 1-year statute of limitations because it was filed within a year of the date on which his State conviction was vacated.\nThat interpretation, which enables a defendant to extend the limitation period for challenging his Federal conviction by delaying a challenge to his State conviction, is fundamentally at odds with the statutory text, the statutory purpose, and the overall statutory scheme.\nTo begin with the statutory scheme, under clause (1) of AEDPA's limitation provision, the presumptive rule is that a defendant wishing to... to collaterally challenge a Federal conviction has a year from the date on which the conviction becomes final.\nClauses (2), (3)... (2), (3), and (4) create exceptions to that general rule when a prisoner is unable to comply with the rule in clause (1) for reasons beyond his control.\nThe fundamental flaw in petitioner's interpretation is that it would excuse compliance with the presumptive rule in clause (1) for a reason that is not beyond his control, a failure to exercise diligence in challenging his State conviction.\nPetitioner's interpretation is also inconsistent with the statutory purpose of the limitation provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1332.655, 1337.759, 1353.94, 1366.858, 1385.802, 1401.898, 1413.834, 1428.207], "stop_times": [1337.759, 1353.94, 1366.858, 1385.802, 1401.898, 1413.834, 1428.207, 1434.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1332.655}, "reply_to": "22727__0_061", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_001", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, are you saying that (4) is inapplicable?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1434.528], "stop_times": [1436.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1434.528}, "reply_to": "22727__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22727__1_002", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "No, Justice Kennedy.\nWe agree that (4) is applicable in a case like this.\nIt's just that our position is that petitioner's interpretation of it is wrong.\nWe offer two alternative interpretations of how paragraph 6(4) would apply in a case like this.\nBefore I get to them, I'd like to respond to a question that you asked when petitioner's counsel was standing up here, and that had to do with the difficulty of getting everything that needed to be done done in the space of a year.\nIt's critical to keep in mind that in the typical case of this type, the factual basis for the State claim is going to available at the time of the State guilty plea or trial, which in almost every case is going to be years before the Federal conviction becomes final.\nAnd since the limitation provision under AEDPA runs from the latest of the four dates, in a typical case a defendant is going to have many years to seek the vacatur of a State conviction and he'll have up until a year after his Federal conviction becomes final to challenge it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1436.165, 1438.512, 1441.466, 1445.381, 1452.506, 1467.605, 1485.52], "stop_times": [1438.512, 1441.466, 1445.381, 1452.506, 1467.605, 1485.52, 1502.4], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1436.165}, "reply_to": "22727__1_001", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_003", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "But do you agree with your opponent that most States have their own limitations period that will reduce the number of cases in which there can be inordinate delay?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1502.4], "stop_times": [1509.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1502.4}, "reply_to": "22727__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22727__1_004", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Some States do have statutes of limitations.\nMany don't.\nMassachusetts is a prime example.\nIt doesn't.\nMany of the cases of this type that come through the Federal courts arise based on a... a vacated Massachusetts conviction.\nMy understanding is that perhaps as many as half the States don't have limitation provisions in non-capital cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1509.211, 1512.23, 1513.36, 1516.411, 1517.291, 1527.792], "stop_times": [1512.23, 1513.36, 1516.411, 1517.291, 1527.792, 1536.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1509.211}, "reply_to": "22727__1_003", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_005", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "But he says some of them have doctrines of laches that would kick in.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1536.272], "stop_times": [1538.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1536.272}, "reply_to": "22727__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22727__1_006", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "I think that's... that... that may well be true, Justice Stevens, but laches is a much more... a... a case-by-case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1538.811], "stop_times": [1545.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1538.811}, "reply_to": "22727__1_005", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_007", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "It... it does seem to me that the State has a greater interest than the Federal Government does in the finality of its own convictions, and so the State would be the primary guardian of preventing dilatory tactics, it would seem to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1545.728], "stop_times": [1559.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.728}, "reply_to": "22727__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22727__1_008", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--The... the State does have an interest.\nThe problem is that when there's a delay in filing a challenge to a State conviction, one of two things can be happen... can happen, and the cases bear this out.\nOne is that you have a State prosecutor who is perfectly diligent and wants to defend the conviction but, because of the lapse of time, can't because the requisite records aren't available.\nThe other thing you see in some of these cases is that because the State sentence has been served by the time it's challenged in cases of this type, the State prosecutor doesn't have the same kind of incentive--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1559.2, 1561.056, 1569.654, 1580.608], "stop_times": [1561.056, 1569.654, 1580.608, 1591.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1559.2}, "reply_to": "22727__1_007", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_009", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, as to your first--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1591.734], "stop_times": [1592.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1591.734}, "reply_to": "22727__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22727__1_010", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "I was going to say that.\nWhat... what... excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1592.476, 1592.828], "stop_times": [1592.828, 1594.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1592.476}, "reply_to": "22727__1_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22727__1_011", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--as to your first... as to your first instance, if there's lack of diligence, then there's laches.\nIf the records are destroyed, somebody sits on their rights and the records are destroyed, then you have an obvious defense of laches.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1594.535, 1598.439], "stop_times": [1598.439, 1604.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1594.535}, "reply_to": "22727__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22727__1_012", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--The... the important point, Justice Kennedy, is the limitation provision at issue here has to do with the finality of Federal convictions.\nCongress was concerned that challenges to Federal convictions would not be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1604.647, 1613.596], "stop_times": [1613.596, 1617.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1604.647}, "reply_to": "22727__1_011", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_013", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, we're... yes, I... I recognize that that's going to be the ultimate issue, but your point was, oh, well, the State is powerless because the prosecutor might not have the records.\nThe States have laches provisions precisely for that circumstance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1617.532, 1626.909], "stop_times": [1626.909, 1633.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.532}, "reply_to": "22727__1_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22727__1_014", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, we're not saying that States are powerless, and there are many cases, probably the majority of them, where States do diligently defend their own convictions in cases of this type.\nUnfortunately, the reported cases show that there are many cases where either they're not able to or they're unwilling to because the State sentence has long since been served.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1633.944, 1644.621], "stop_times": [1644.621, 1654.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1633.944}, "reply_to": "22727__1_013", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_015", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Mr. Himmelfarb--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1654.605], "stop_times": [1656.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1654.605}, "reply_to": "22727__1_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__1_016", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, in this case now, the petitioner did obtain a vacatur of the two State convictions.\nIsn't that so?\nDon't we accept that as a fact in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1656.84, 1665.437, 1666.461], "stop_times": [1665.437, 1666.461, 1671.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1656.84}, "reply_to": "22727__1_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22727__1_017", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Yes, Justice O'Connor.\nHe actually obtained vacatur of seven prior State convictions, only one of which was relevant to the career offender sentence that he received in the Federal case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1671.213, 1672.088], "stop_times": [1672.088, 1682.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1671.213}, "reply_to": "22727__1_016", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_018", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "But he did succeed.\nAnd then we have to look at whether the petitioner has complied with section 2255 of AEDPA.\nAnd so we look to subpart (4), do we not, in this case to answer that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1682.222, 1683.448, 1692.846], "stop_times": [1683.448, 1692.846, 1699.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.222}, "reply_to": "22727__1_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22727__1_019", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, in a case of this type, you would have to look to both subpart (1) and subpart (4) and determine which one gives him more time, and whichever one gives him more time is the one that applies.\nWe think that 6(1) applies because under 6(4) he waited far too long to challenge his State conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1699.731, 1712.104], "stop_times": [1712.104, 1719.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1699.731}, "reply_to": "22727__1_018", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_020", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, that's possible, but you also question whether the vacatur can be a fact under subsection (4).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1719.528], "stop_times": [1731.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1719.528}, "reply_to": "22727__1_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22727__1_021", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "We don't really, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1731.806], "stop_times": [1734.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1731.806}, "reply_to": "22727__1_020", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_022", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1734.169], "stop_times": [1734.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1734.169}, "reply_to": "22727__1_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22727__1_023", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "I think the lower court placed some weight on that idea.\nWe don't dispute that if a conviction is a fact, the vacatur can be as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1734.281, 1739.47], "stop_times": [1739.47, 1743.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1734.281}, "reply_to": "22727__1_022", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_024", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Okay.\nYou think that the... the vacatur here could be a fact, but then you say that even so, the petitioner didn't go back to State court diligently and on a timely basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1743.604, 1743.823], "stop_times": [1743.823, 1755.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.604}, "reply_to": "22727__1_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22727__1_025", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "That's exactly right.\nThe textual language we rely on is not fact or facts supporting the claim, but rather could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1755.935, 1756.549], "stop_times": [1756.549, 1765.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1755.935}, "reply_to": "22727__1_024", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_026", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "And you say he was not diligent in challenging those convictions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1765.147], "stop_times": [1768.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1765.147}, "reply_to": "22727__1_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22727__1_027", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "That's... that's absolutely our position, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1768.817], "stop_times": [1770.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1768.817}, "reply_to": "22727__1_026", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_028", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1770.955], "stop_times": [1771.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1770.955}, "reply_to": "22727__1_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__1_029", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "But that's... go on.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1771.531], "stop_times": [1772.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1771.531}, "reply_to": "22727__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22727__1_030", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Would... would you comment on... on one difficulty I have with what, I take it, is your preferred position of measuring due diligence from... as I understand it, from the... the date at which the State conviction became final?\nMost of these... I think it is fair to say that most of the State convictions, like most convictions in... in general, are going to rest on... on guilty pleas.\nIt just is not realistic to assume that Congress assumed a due diligence system which was going to require a State defendant immediately to start a collateral attack on a guilty plea.\nI mean, if... if there... if there were reasons for the collateral attack that seemed strong and worthwhile, he wouldn't have been entering the guilty plea.\nAnd it seems to me that if we're going to measure due diligence from the date of conviction, most convictions resting on pleas, as a practical matter under your system, a conviction that rests on a plea is never going to be subject to a timely challenge for purposes of applying 2255.\nIs... is that a fair comment, or have I... have I missed something?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1772.667, 1785.579, 1796.63, 1814.358, 1824.417, 1845.937], "stop_times": [1785.579, 1796.63, 1814.358, 1824.417, 1845.937, 1850.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1772.667}, "reply_to": "22727__1_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__1_031", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "No.\nWe... we disagree, Justice Souter.\nAnd if I could, I'd like to say a little bit about the... the proposal you made when petitioner's counsel was up here about when the diligence could be measured from.\nAnd I think your suggestion was that it could be measured from the time of the Federal conviction or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1850.39, 1851.398, 1854.923, 1866.502], "stop_times": [1851.398, 1854.923, 1866.502, 1871.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1850.39}, "reply_to": "22727__1_030", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_032", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1871.158], "stop_times": [1871.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1871.158}, "reply_to": "22727__1_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__1_033", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--perhaps the time that Federal charges are brought because at that time, that's when the defendant has the incentive to... to challenge the State conviction.\nWe obviously prefer that interpretation to the one offered by petitioner.\nWe think the two that we offer are better than that one for a couple of reasons.\nThe first is that we think that our two--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1871.547, 1879.739, 1885.654, 1890.998], "stop_times": [1879.739, 1885.654, 1890.998, 1894.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1871.547}, "reply_to": "22727__1_032", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_034", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, would you comment specifically on your preferred position which starts at the very... as I understand it, starts at the earliest date, which would be the date of the State conviction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1894.465], "stop_times": [1901.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1894.465}, "reply_to": "22727__1_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__1_035", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--That's right.\nWe think that's consistent with the text because the diligence has to be connected in some way to the facts supporting the claim, and we think you could take the view that in a case of this type, particularly given the diligence requirement, the facts supporting the claim either means the facts supporting the State claim or it means the vacatur of the State conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1901.937, 1902.625], "stop_times": [1902.625, 1926.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1901.937}, "reply_to": "22727__1_034", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_036", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Yes, but isn't it... I guess my problem is isn't... isn't it a sense... isn't your argument for a sense of diligence which is really other-wordly?\nAt the moment the defendant's conviction based upon his plea becomes final, it simply is unrealistic to expect that any defendant would have an incentive to attack that conviction.\nAnd... and the result, it seems to me, of... of your position, your preferred position, is if... if diligence is measured from that moment, that no defendant will ever be diligent because no defendant will ever have an incentive at that point to be diligent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1926.433, 1933.569, 1948.513], "stop_times": [1933.569, 1948.513, 1966.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1926.433}, "reply_to": "22727__1_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__1_037", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, Justice Souter, the... we think that there's a... a textual problem with the interpretation you're offering because it doesn't tie diligence to facts supporting a claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1966.823], "stop_times": [1975.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1966.823}, "reply_to": "22727__1_036", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_038", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, how about the one you're offering?\nBefore you tell me why mine is bad, tell me why yours does not suffer the... the... at least I think, the objection that I've... I've raised?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1975.783, 1975.917], "stop_times": [1975.917, 1983.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.783}, "reply_to": "22727__1_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__1_039", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Because it avoids the problem that you could have a Federal conviction long after, years or a decade or a more after, the State conviction.\nAnd on... on your view, you would not be... the... the petitioner would not be required to challenge a State conviction for a decade or more until after--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [1983.522, 1992.925], "stop_times": [1992.925, 2001.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1983.522}, "reply_to": "22727__1_038", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_040", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "That's... that's right.\nBut why is the requirement on your reading to challenge it promptly after it is entered in these plea situations, not a just totally unrealistic requirement that will never be met and will result in a consequence that all State convictions, resting upon pleas, will be, in effect, insulated from later collateral attack when... under... for purpose of 2255?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2001.661, 2001.923], "stop_times": [2001.923, 2031.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2001.661}, "reply_to": "22727__1_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__1_041", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Justice Souter, an argument along those lines was actually raised in Daniels itself and rejected by the Court.\nAnd essentially what the Court said is that whatever the incentives may be at the time of the State conviction, the remedies are available, the procedures are available.\nAnd if a defendant does not avail himself of those remedies and procedures, at a minimum he will know that so long as his State conviction remains on the books, if he goes out and commits another crime, he runs a risk that he will be subject to an enhanced sentence based on the fact that he's committed the prior crime.\nWe think the same--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2031.485, 2039.245, 2050.302, 2069.112], "stop_times": [2039.245, 2050.302, 2069.112, 2069.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2031.485}, "reply_to": "22727__1_040", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_042", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "So you say we're all stuck with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2069.918], "stop_times": [2071.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2069.918}, "reply_to": "22727__1_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__1_043", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2071.592], "stop_times": [2074.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2071.592}, "reply_to": "22727__1_042", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_044", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "You don't mind, but... if... if you think... if you think there's anything to my objection, you're in effect saying, too late.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2074.216], "stop_times": [2080.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2074.216}, "reply_to": "22727__1_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__1_045", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--I think that the arguments against your objection weigh in favor of our interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2080.472], "stop_times": [2088.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2080.472}, "reply_to": "22727__1_044", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_046", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, I'm not sure I agree with your argument, but I suppose one answer to Justice Souter is that you get the longer of (1) or (4), so that you would always get at least 1 year.\nIf the... if the State conviction was 10 years prior to the Federal conviction and he waited and did nothing, I take it, he still has 1 year because he gets the longer of the two provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2088.744, 2099.998], "stop_times": [2099.998, 2110.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2088.744}, "reply_to": "22727__1_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22727__1_047", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "That's right, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2110.436], "stop_times": [2111.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2110.436}, "reply_to": "22727__1_046", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_048", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "It is right?\nBecause I thought that Justice Souter provided that, but you don't because if you're relegated to (4)... let's say it becomes final quickly.\nIf you're relegated to (4), what you're saying is the date on which the facts supporting the claim could have been discovered, if this is a conviction that took place 10 years earlier, you are saying the date on which those facts could have been discovered was 9 years earlier or whenever he could have brought it... brought the claim in the... in the State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2111.385, 2112.34, 2121.358], "stop_times": [2112.34, 2121.358, 2141.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.385}, "reply_to": "22727__1_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22727__1_049", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "That's right.\nUnder--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2141.982, 2142.478], "stop_times": [2142.478, 2142.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2141.982}, "reply_to": "22727__1_048", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_050", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "So, therefore, it is not true that he always has that year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2142.66], "stop_times": [2145.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2142.66}, "reply_to": "22727__1_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22727__1_051", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--No.\nUnder paragraph 6(4), what you say is absolutely correct, as we see things.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2145.849, 2146.846], "stop_times": [2146.846, 2151.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2145.849}, "reply_to": "22727__1_050", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_052", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2151.422], "stop_times": [2151.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2151.422}, "reply_to": "22727__1_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22727__1_053", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "But the... the limitation period under AEDPA runs from the latest of the four dates--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2151.774], "stop_times": [2156.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2151.774}, "reply_to": "22727__1_052", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_054", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "But if the date of judgment became final prior to the running of (4), then he would not have a year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2156.724], "stop_times": [2164.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.724}, "reply_to": "22727__1_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22727__1_055", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2164.425], "stop_times": [2166.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2164.425}, "reply_to": "22727__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22727__1_056", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "All right.\nNow, my question actually is the... aside from Justice Souter's practical point, it seemed to me that the language here is different from Daniels and different in the other cases.\nThe language is the date on which facts supporting the claim or claims presented could have been discovered.\nAnd facts supporting the claim prior to there being a claim are not facts supporting the claim.\nAnd therefore, it seems as if it would run no later than the moment when he presents the Federal claim.\nNo earlier than that could it run.\nSo you have a year from the time that you present the Federal claim.\nAt that point, all those facts that could have been discovered earlier, now he has a year to call them to the attention of the court.\nAnd of course, for reasons that you point out, this is certainly a fact that could have been discovered earlier.\nHe could have brought his motion long before.\nSo what's wrong with that?\nIt combines the practical reason that Justice Souter mentioned with the language of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2166.046, 2166.574, 2178.862, 2187.662, 2197.956, 2207.065, 2209.657, 2216.345, 2224.948, 2231.588, 2234.174, 2236.793], "stop_times": [2166.574, 2178.862, 2187.662, 2197.956, 2207.065, 2209.657, 2216.345, 2224.948, 2231.588, 2234.174, 2236.793, 2246.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2166.046}, "reply_to": "22727__1_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22727__1_057", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Let me comment on the language, if I could.\nIf one were to read the phrase, facts supporting the claim, completely in isolation, keeping in mind only Daniels, but ignoring the broader statutory context and the statutory purpose, it might well be the case that the better reading is that the facts supporting the claim is the vacatur of the State conviction not the factual basis for the State claim.\nBut if you take into account the broader statutory context and statutory purpose, in particular if you take into account the due diligence requirement, we think the better reading is that facts supporting the claim, in the context of this limitation provision, is the factual basis for the State claim.\nIt is true--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2246.094, 2248.921, 2269.967, 2286.538], "stop_times": [2248.921, 2269.967, 2286.538, 2287.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2246.094}, "reply_to": "22727__1_056", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_058", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "But I... I thought that you conceded at the outset that the facts supporting the claim is the vacatur.\nI... I thought that you opened up with that.\nAnd it... it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2287.162, 2293.535, 2295.823], "stop_times": [2293.535, 2295.823, 2297.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.162}, "reply_to": "22727__1_057", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22727__1_059", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--No, Justice Kennedy.\nWhat I was agreeing to was the idea that a vacatur of a conviction is a fact because in the lower court decision, there seems to be some reliance on the idea that that's not a fact at all.\nBut in responding to Justice Breyer's question--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2297.396, 2298.538, 2312.052], "stop_times": [2298.538, 2312.052, 2314.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2297.396}, "reply_to": "22727__1_058", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_060", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Well, the minute... the minute that you... you say that, it... it seems to me that you have to accept the petitioner's argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2314.746], "stop_times": [2319.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2314.746}, "reply_to": "22727__1_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22727__1_061", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--I don't think so, Justice Kennedy, and here's why.\nIt is a true in a case of this type that the facts supporting the claim... excuse me... the factual basis for the State claim is not the facts supporting the Federal claim in a direct or proximate or immediate or sufficient sense.\nIt is the facts supporting the Federal claim in an indirect, a but for, a once removed, or a necessary sense.\nIf a defendant has served his State sentence, he's been sentenced to an enhanced Federal sentence and he wants to challenge his Federal sentence and he's armed with a factual predicate for a State claim, so long as he takes the intermediate step of going into Federal court and obtaining a vacatur of the conviction, he can challenge his Federal sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2319.946, 2322.362, 2338.431, 2346.677], "stop_times": [2322.362, 2338.431, 2346.677, 2366.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2319.946}, "reply_to": "22727__1_060", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_062", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "I'm certainly not taking... advocating the... the defendant's position.\nI'm advocating the position as follows.\nSuppose it were not a vacatur.\nSuppose it were a DNA test, and suppose it were a fact that the DNA test identified a different perpetrator of a long-gone State crime and it was definite.\nNow, if no one thought of running that DNA test, although they should have, until 4 years after the Federal conviction, he's out of luck.\nHe has 1 year from the Federal conviction, and that 1 year he has to, during that year, do everything, including bringing facts into being, such as the result of the DNA test, that he had not previously done.\nAnd that's consistent with the language.\nIt avoids Justice Souter's practical problem, and it does not impose an unreasonable burden on the Government, I wouldn't think, because he has just a year from conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2366.0, 2370.699, 2373.888, 2376.144, 2388.901, 2404.261, 2423.477, 2426.469], "stop_times": [2370.699, 2373.888, 2376.144, 2388.901, 2404.261, 2423.477, 2426.469, 2439.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2366.0}, "reply_to": "22727__1_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22727__1_063", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Justice Breyer, under our view, the hypothetical you just gave would be one where a timely 2255 motion could be filed.\nIf the DNA evidence were discoverable in the exercise of due diligence only more than a year after the Federal conviction became final such that the defendant would not be within paragraph 6(1), he would be able to file a timely 2255 motion under paragraph 6(4) if, within a year from the date that the DNA evidence was discoverable through the exercise of due diligence, he filed his State motion to get his State conviction vacated, and allowing tolling of the period while the State motion is pending, then filed his Federal motion within that same 1-year period, he would be able to file a timely 2255 motion.\nThat's under our primary interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2439.04, 2450.507, 2490.213], "stop_times": [2450.507, 2490.213, 2492.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2439.04}, "reply_to": "22727__1_062", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_064", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "From your answer, I take it then you would agree with Judge Black in the Eleventh Circuit that equitable tolling would apply.\nHe goes to State court within the year after his Federal conviction becomes final.\nThe State court is sitting on it for 2 years.\nThe limitation, I take it from what you said, would be tolled during that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2492.741, 2501.504, 2509.499, 2512.672], "stop_times": [2501.504, 2509.499, 2512.672, 2517.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2492.741}, "reply_to": "22727__1_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22727__1_065", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "That's right, Justice Ginsburg.\nUnder our primary interpretation, there would be tolling during the 1-year period of the time while the motion, the State motion, is pending in State court.\nOur alternative interpretation doesn't depend on tolling because it doesn't begin to run until the vacatur of the State conviction could have been obtained.\nSo it's just the... the time while the State motion is pending is just excluded from the calculation as a matter of course under our second interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2517.787, 2519.617, 2529.83, 2538.849], "stop_times": [2519.617, 2529.83, 2538.849, 2547.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2517.787}, "reply_to": "22727__1_064", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_066", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "May... may I ask you sort of a general background question?\nAs I understand your basic position, if the defendant lets things sit for too long, he loses the right to challenge the State conviction.\nOn the... and... and what's... what's at stake is an enhancement based on the... on the prior conviction.\nIs there ever a time when the Federal Government loses the right to use a very old conviction for enhancement purposes?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2547.228, 2549.569, 2557.927, 2563.767], "stop_times": [2549.569, 2557.927, 2563.767, 2570.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2547.228}, "reply_to": "22727__1_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22727__1_067", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, under... under the guidelines, depending upon the... the length of the prison term, I think very old convictions are not counted at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2570.471], "stop_times": [2583.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2570.471}, "reply_to": "22727__1_066", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_068", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2583.58], "stop_times": [2584.476], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2583.58}, "reply_to": "22727__1_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22727__1_069", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Yes.\nSo... so the length of time from the date of the State conviction to the time of the Federal sentencing can have a bearing upon what sentence he's going--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2584.476, 2584.956], "stop_times": [2584.956, 2594.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2584.476}, "reply_to": "22727__1_068", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_070", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Whether he gets the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2594.375], "stop_times": [2594.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.375}, "reply_to": "22727__1_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22727__1_071", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Is that also true under the Armed Career Criminal Act cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2594.78], "stop_times": [2597.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.78}, "reply_to": "22727__1_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__1_072", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--I... I don't believe it is, Justice Souter.\nI don't think there's any kind of time limitation there the way there is in the guidelines.\nThe... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2597.751, 2599.671, 2603.164], "stop_times": [2599.671, 2603.164, 2605.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2597.751}, "reply_to": "22727__1_071", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_073", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "I'm not sure which way that cuts.\nIn a... in a sense, if that set of old convictions is out of the way, then you won't be troubled by the loss of records problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2605.394, 2608.194], "stop_times": [2608.194, 2617.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2605.394}, "reply_to": "22727__1_072", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22727__1_074", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Well, that... I think that's actually a critical point, Justice Kennedy, because our view is that a... a State defendant should be required to challenge his State conviction at the earliest possible opportunity, and in most cases that will be soon after his conviction in State court because that will be the time when he knows about the basis for his State claim.\nIf he does that, by the time he gets to the Federal sentencing, you're not going to have the issue in this case because all will agree that that vacated State conviction can't be counted towards his Federal sentence.\nSo that's one of the virtues of the interpretation we offer.\nIt avoids this circumstance entirely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2617.388, 2639.191, 2652.78, 2656.738], "stop_times": [2639.191, 2652.78, 2656.738, 2659.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2617.388}, "reply_to": "22727__1_073", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_075", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "But you're not... you're not insisting on that super diligence because you say, well, in every case he has at least a year to begin to try to undo the State conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2659.389], "stop_times": [2669.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2659.389}, "reply_to": "22727__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22727__1_076", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "That... that's right, Justice Ginsburg.\nWe agree with that.\nThe... the purpose of AEDPA's limitation provision, to use this Court's language in Duncan v. Walker, is to reduce the potential for delay on the road to finality by restricting the time that a prospective habeas petitioner has in which to seek habeas review.\nWe think petitioner's interpretation is inconsistent with that purpose not only because it permits a delay in challenging the State conviction and, as a consequence, in challenging the Federal sentence, but because it encourages it.\nAs I mentioned before, the longer a prisoner waits to challenge his State conviction, other things being the same, the greater the likelihood of success either because the necessary records that the State would need to defend the judgment are unavailable or because the State prosecutor has less of an incentive to defend it than he might have while the sentence was still being served.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2669.821, 2672.253, 2674.578, 2692.285, 2707.213], "stop_times": [2672.253, 2674.578, 2692.285, 2707.213, 2729.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2669.821}, "reply_to": "22727__1_075", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_077", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Recently I... I lost my luggage.\nI had to go to the lost and found at the airline, and the lady said has my plane landed yet.\n[Laughter]\nI was kind of stopped by that question.\nIt seems to me this case is something like that.\nI mean, this is just not a question the... the defendant asks until the Federal conviction arrives, which I... which I suppose that argues for your 1-year--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2729.085, 2731.101, 2735.229, 2736.899, 2741.464, 2745.139], "stop_times": [2731.101, 2735.229, 2736.899, 2741.464, 2745.139, 2758.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2729.085}, "reply_to": "22727__1_076", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22727__1_078", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, our--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2758.269], "stop_times": [2760.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2758.269}, "reply_to": "22727__1_077", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_079", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--position, but it just seems to me that the purpose of this doesn't begin to run until he's been sentenced.\nAnd then he has to go through all the... the questioning as... as to whether or not his prior conviction is... can be set aside, and he has to go to State court to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2760.296, 2766.467], "stop_times": [2766.467, 2777.032], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2760.296}, "reply_to": "22727__1_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22727__1_080", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Well, the... the important point is that... we think is that petitioner's interpretation doesn't work because it gives a defendant an indefinite period to challenge his State conviction, and the only diligence that's required under his interpretation is that you have to exercise diligence in seeing whether the motion to vacate your State conviction was granted whenever it was filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2777.032], "stop_times": [2803.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2777.032}, "reply_to": "22727__1_079", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_081", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, that may be but that also may be what it says.\nI... I don't follow your interpretation of what is the meaning of facts supporting the claim or claims.\nI mean, once you say that the facts supporting the claim is the vacatur of the... of the State conviction, I mean, it seems that's the end of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2803.635, 2808.813, 2816.579], "stop_times": [2808.813, 2816.579, 2826.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.635}, "reply_to": "22727__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22727__1_082", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2826.829], "stop_times": [2827.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2826.829}, "reply_to": "22727__1_081", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_083", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "And... and as for due diligence, yes, it doesn't seem to make much sense in that context, but as pointed out by your friend on the other side, it makes sense in all other contexts and... and you don't expect the language to be applicable all the time.\nSo what's wrong with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2827.256, 2845.48], "stop_times": [2845.48, 2846.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2827.256}, "reply_to": "22727__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22727__1_084", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--What's wrong with it is that we think it's not only inconsistent with the basic principle embodied in AEDPA's statute of limitations, we think it's inconsistent with the very idea of a statute of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2846.488], "stop_times": [2858.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2846.488}, "reply_to": "22727__1_083", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_085", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "It may well be, but that's how they wrote it.\nI'm talking about the word facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2858.558, 2859.848], "stop_times": [2859.848, 2861.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2858.558}, "reply_to": "22727__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22727__1_086", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2861.731], "stop_times": [2862.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2861.731}, "reply_to": "22727__1_085", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_087", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "How can this be a fact supporting the... you... you want us to say a fact supporting the conviction includes the facts that lead up to the facts supporting the conviction or... or supporting the claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2862.638], "stop_times": [2874.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2862.638}, "reply_to": "22727__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22727__1_088", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Justice Scalia, if the Court rejects our view that the facts supporting the claim under paragraph 6(4) as the factual basis for the State claim, we think it should still reject petitioner's interpretation and should adopt our alternative interpretation which is not subject to that objection because our alternative interpretation assumes that the facts supporting the claim is the vacatur of the State conviction.\nBut in light of the due diligence requirement at the end of paragraph 6(4), the question is when could that vacatur have been obtained and thus discovered through the exercise of due diligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2874.835, 2898.766], "stop_times": [2898.766, 2912.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2874.835}, "reply_to": "22727__1_087", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_089", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "In other words, you're saying due diligence applies to an extraneous fact when you could, in the simple sense, discover it.\nIt applies to a generated fact when you could have generated it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2912.835, 2918.367], "stop_times": [2918.367, 2922.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2912.835}, "reply_to": "22727__1_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22727__1_090", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "That's absolutely our position, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2922.393], "stop_times": [2924.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2922.393}, "reply_to": "22727__1_089", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_091", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--May I ask sort of a broad question?\nAm I correct in assuming that this really isn't the most important case we ever heard because it only affects a handful of enhancements that don't really affect the basic conviction or sentence; and secondly, that it's clear that the... from both the text of the statute and whatever we know about the legislative history, that it's a problem Congress never even thought about?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2924.495, 2926.521], "stop_times": [2926.521, 2947.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2924.495}, "reply_to": "22727__1_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22727__1_092", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "As to your first question, Justice Stevens, one... one would think that this is a little bit of an unusual situation and you don't see too many cases where it arises.\nPerhaps surprisingly, though, there are quite a few reported decisions where this arises.\nThere is a 2 to 1 circuit split on this question.\nThere are some district courts from other circuits that have weighed in.\nI believe there may be three or four certiorari petitions pending in this Court from the Eleventh Circuit that raise the same question.\nAs to whether Congress ever considered this situation, I'm not aware of anything in the legislative history that is an affirmative indication that it did.\nIt could well be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2947.204, 2957.524, 2963.017, 2965.764, 2968.415, 2976.943, 2985.897], "stop_times": [2957.524, 2963.017, 2965.764, 2968.415, 2976.943, 2985.897, 2987.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2947.204}, "reply_to": "22727__1_091", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_093", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "And certainly they would have phrased the statute one way or the other more clearly.\nThey could have done that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2987.716, 2990.276], "stop_times": [2990.276, 2991.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2987.716}, "reply_to": "22727__1_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22727__1_094", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--That could well be, but of course, it wouldn't be the... the first time the Court confronted a situation where there's a statutory text and there's a set of facts that Congress didn't necessarily consider when it was writing the text.\nSo we think our... either our primary or our fall-back position is preferable to petitioner's interpretation for the fundamental reason that his interpretation does not require diligence.\nIt enables the defendant to extend the limitation period through his own actions, and we think it's simply foreign to the whole notion of statutes of limitations to say that the limitation period can be determined by actions that are within the prisoner's control.\nThe court of appeals--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [2991.226, 3002.292, 3015.855, 3032.751], "stop_times": [3002.292, 3015.855, 3032.751, 3034.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2991.226}, "reply_to": "22727__1_093", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_095", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "You certainly... wouldn't you be making the opposite argument if it were a DNA test?\nIf it were a DNA test, you would certainly be arguing that even though the results didn't come into existence until 32 years after his Federal conviction, that he could have discovered it 38 years before because he could have asked that the test then be performed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [3034.634, 3038.698], "stop_times": [3038.698, 3058.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3034.634}, "reply_to": "22727__1_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22727__1_096", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Well, Justice Breyer, the question of whether a fact supporting a claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence is a very fact-specific question which--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [3058.047], "stop_times": [3066.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3058.047}, "reply_to": "22727__1_095", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_097", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "All right.\nThen... then once you admit that, you're going to have to find a difference between this and the DNA test, or your position here, if adopted, will catch you out there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [3066.943, 3067.333], "stop_times": [3067.333, 3076.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3066.943}, "reply_to": "22727__1_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22727__1_098", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--No.\nWe don't think so because we think that the analysis should be the same for this case as it is for your typical case involving a statute of limitations with a discovery rule.\nThe question is on the facts of this case, when could the factual basis of the claim been discovered given the totality of the information available to the plaintiff through the exercise of due diligence.\nSo we think it's precisely the same situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [3076.362, 3077.071, 3087.946, 3099.578], "stop_times": [3077.071, 3087.946, 3099.578, 3102.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3076.362}, "reply_to": "22727__1_097", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_099", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "But you're still asking us... I mean, even... even in your fall-back position... your... your principal position asks us to... to play games with the... with the word facts, and your fall-back position asks us to play games with the word discovered.\nYou want us to read discovered to mean either discovered or obtained, which discovered just doesn't mean obtained.\nIt just doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [3102.485, 3117.861, 3125.701], "stop_times": [3117.861, 3125.701, 3126.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3102.485}, "reply_to": "22727__1_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22727__1_100", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Well, you're right, Justice Scalia.\nThe fall-back position presumes the correctness of petitioner's interpretation of facts supporting the claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [3126.255, 3128.277], "stop_times": [3128.277, 3134.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3126.255}, "reply_to": "22727__1_099", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "22727__1_101", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Himmelfarb.\nMr. Reichman, you have, I think, 8 minutes left.\nI'm not... I'm sure you don't really need all 8.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [3134.09, 3136.719, 3141.455], "stop_times": [3136.719, 3141.455, 3143.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3134.09}, "reply_to": "22727__1_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22727__2_000", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "I hope not.\nThe Government's position boils down to this.\nThey're advocating for the statute they want, not the statute they have.\nThis statute says the fact that could have been discovered with exercise of due diligence.\nAnd once... as this Court... several Justices have recognized once you admit that the vacatur is a fact, the Government's entire argument unravels because what the Government would have... this Court holds... is that the facts supporting the claim is exactly what it held it couldn't be in Daniels.\nThe... underlying the Government's argument is, I think, a principle that... that does not make sense.\nIt's that the State can't be trusted to handle the challenges to prior convictions.\nI think that is not only against experience.\nIt also cuts against this Court's decisions, in particular, about Daniels.\nIt talked about the State having a strong interest in maintaining its convictions.\nThe idea about AEDPA and finality I think is also important.\nTo answer your question, Justice Stevens, no, this is not the most important case this Court has ever heard.\nAnd I think that that ties into an important point.\nTo use my rough numbers, we're talking about at this point with the six States, less than 10 guys that might be in this 10-year scenario per year.\nI think probably the number is more like three people per year.\nAnd if the Brackett court, the court on the front lines down there in the district court, the First Circuit is right, we're talking about the results of the Government's rule to be that thousands of placeholder petitions will be filed so that petitioners don't lose their rights to challenge their Federal sentence based on the vacatur of their prior sentences.\nAnd when... when I think about what serves the ends of the statute and finality overall, I think that to prolong all these other cases, these thousands of cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [3143.573, 3145.519, 3152.207, 3155.706, 3161.631, 3178.847, 3187.983, 3193.866, 3197.301, 3201.813, 3206.608, 3213.717, 3220.293, 3223.269, 3231.963, 3234.592, 3253.253], "stop_times": [3145.519, 3152.207, 3155.706, 3161.631, 3178.847, 3187.983, 3193.866, 3197.301, 3201.813, 3206.608, 3213.717, 3220.293, 3223.269, 3231.963, 3234.592, 3253.253, 3264.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3143.573}, "reply_to": "22727__1_101", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__2_001", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Why would you need the placeholder if the rule were, as Judge Black said it should be, that if you go to the State court within the 1 year after your Federal conviction becomes final, then the time that you are in the State court the statute will be tolled?\nIf that's the rule, then you don't need any placeholder filings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [3264.005, 3284.613], "stop_times": [3284.613, 3289.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3264.005}, "reply_to": "22727__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22727__2_002", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "--Two responses to that.\nFirst, if that is the rule, I'm not sure I read the Eleventh Circuit to be so crisp on it that you definitely get tolling.\nI think it was a case-by-case determination.\nAnd anytime you're in a soft... what I call soft equitable tolling situation where you don't know for sure, that's going to lead to placeholder petitions.\nAlternatively, if we're talking about a rule that's a hard equitable tolling rule, that is, there is tolling every time there's the pendency of the State petition, well, it seems to me that we are adding a provision very expressly to the statute that doesn't exist.\n2244 has exactly that tolling provision, and that is not in this... in the 2255 provision.\nAnd this Court would be adding it, and we don't think that is appropriate.\nAt the end of the day, there's been a question about doesn't a tie go to the Government in this case because of finality.\nThat is, if both interpretations are equally plausible, because of finality, doesn't it go to the Government?\nOf course, you've heard me contest we don't think it's a tie.\nWe also don't think finality cuts in the favor of the Government.\nBut even assuming we have a tie, we think that... that should... the tie goes to the petitioner because this statute is recognized in Clay as in derogation of common law, and statutes and derogation of common law are to be strictly construed.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [3289.035, 3291.307, 3297.201, 3299.014, 3305.873, 3320.123, 3328.07, 3332.257, 3338.284, 3343.729, 3346.252, 3349.831, 3362.46], "stop_times": [3291.307, 3297.201, 3299.014, 3305.873, 3320.123, 3328.07, 3332.257, 3338.284, 3343.729, 3346.252, 3349.831, 3362.46, 3363.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3289.035}, "reply_to": "22727__2_001", "speaker": "courtland_l_reichman"}
{"id": "22727__2_003", "conversation_id": "22727", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Reichman.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9685", "start_times": [3363.879, 3365.292], "stop_times": [3365.292, 3366.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3363.879}, "reply_to": "22727__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__0_000", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 105 Original, Kansas v. Colorado.\nMr. Draper.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [0.0, 6.399], "stop_times": [6.399, 7.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23608__0_001", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, thank you, and may it please the Court:\nKansas would like to address three issues today.\n50 years of success of the Court's river master on the Delaware River and 16 years of success of the Court's river master on the Pecos River demonstrate the wisdom of appointing a river master under appropriate circumstances on a river like the Arkansas River, which is the subject of this case.\nSecondly, the Court should affirm the neutral principle that prejudgment interest accrues on all damages owing at the time interest begins to run.\nAnd third, a 1-year compliance period would be consistent with the Court's prior rulings in this case and would preserve an essential right of Kansas and its farmers under this... this compact that would otherwise be lost under the master's recommendation of a 10-year accounting period.\nWith respect to this accounting period, I would note that in both prior opinions in this case, this Court has relied on the annual results of the Hydrologic-Institutional Model, which is the standard for compact compliance in this case.\nIn the first opinion in 1995, this Court distinguished between monthly and... and seasonal use of the model, deciding that monthly use was too frequent, but that seasonal reliance on the model for determining useability under article IV-D of the compact was reasonable.\nWhen the case was back here in 2001, this Court reviewed the calculation of damages, which was done on a yearly basis.\nAs you can imagine, the factors that go into calculation of damages vary from year to year, and so it is crucial whether the depletions calculated by the H-I Model, as it's called, are accurate, sufficiently accurate, and reasonable to rely upon on an annual basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [7.43, 12.593, 16.14, 35.294, 44.748, 63.407, 80.208, 100.27, 110.03], "stop_times": [12.593, 16.14, 35.294, 44.748, 63.407, 80.208, 100.27, 110.03, 129.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7.43}, "reply_to": "23608__0_000", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_002", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Mr. Draper, correct me if I'm wrong.\nI... I looked at these papers a while ago.\nI thought they did it on a 10-year basis and they just moved it up each year, using a different 10 years to calculate the... the relevant amounts in the 10th year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [129.332, 131.106, 132.964], "stop_times": [131.106, 132.964, 142.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 129.332}, "reply_to": "23608__0_001", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__0_003", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.\nIt is a moving accumulation of 10 years of results.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [142.13, 143.738], "stop_times": [143.738, 147.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 142.13}, "reply_to": "23608__0_002", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_004", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "So they do use 10 years of figures to determine what the relevant year's water would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [147.824], "stop_times": [153.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 147.824}, "reply_to": "23608__0_003", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__0_005", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nIn other words, the... the annual determination includes the most current year for which there is data and the previous 9 years, adds all those up, nets out the pluses and minuses, and that determines whether in the year in question there is compliance with the compact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [153.359, 155.421], "stop_times": [155.421, 172.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 153.359}, "reply_to": "23608__0_004", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_006", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "This will begin in 2007, as I recall.\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [172.966, 176.514], "stop_times": [176.514, 177.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 172.966}, "reply_to": "23608__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_007", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "That is the special master's proposal, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [177.257], "stop_times": [179.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 177.257}, "reply_to": "23608__0_006", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_008", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--And what I don't understand is even... even if we agree with you that it should be done annually, why... why wouldn't you propose that it be done annually using the previous 7 years' experience that we now have and then, you know, ultimately by 2007, we can use the previous 10 years?\nI... I don't understand why we have to do it year by year and forego even 7 years' benefit of... of this methodology.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [179.858, 200.541], "stop_times": [200.541, 210.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 179.858}, "reply_to": "23608__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_009", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Your Honor, I couldn't agree with you more in the sense that we should begin now with the accounting so that you look each year at the results of this standard, which has been approved by the Court, for compact compliance in that year only, and if... if you accumulate it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [210.777], "stop_times": [227.124], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 210.777}, "reply_to": "23608__0_008", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_010", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "No.\nThat... that's... I said just the opposite.\nI said I... I don't know why we should begin looking for this... at this year only using this methodology.\nWhy shouldn't we average this methodology over the previous 7 years?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [227.124, 227.495, 228.2, 235.463], "stop_times": [227.495, 228.2, 235.463, 239.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 227.124}, "reply_to": "23608__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_011", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--Your Honor, averages will tend to smooth out the results and will hide the effects during dry years, which is when the farmers in Kansas, who are the beneficiaries that Kansas intended to benefit... and both parties realize that.\nThey need this water--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [239.634, 258.581], "stop_times": [258.581, 259.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.634}, "reply_to": "23608__0_010", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_012", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "But your method... your method will over-emphasize the dry years.\nSo either way you have a... a imperfect situation.\nIn your case, year by year, and in a dry year, Colorado perhaps must over-compensate, and if you have, say, 3 dry years in a row, then it's going to be... work out to Colorado's disadvantage.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [259.946, 263.744, 268.862], "stop_times": [263.744, 268.862, 289.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 259.946}, "reply_to": "23608__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23608__0_013", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--Your Honor, I believe the... the result is the... is the opposite.\nIf I may explain.\nThe model, the... the Hydrologic-Institutional Model, has been made as unbiased as possible.\nThe one aspect in which we have identified a bias is that it favors Colorado during dry years.\nIt tends to underestimate the depletions that would have to be replaced by Colorado.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [289.417, 294.247, 295.611, 303.618, 310.222], "stop_times": [294.247, 295.611, 303.618, 310.222, 314.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.417}, "reply_to": "23608__0_012", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_014", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "That's the method that you're attacking, but if you were to do it year by year, wouldn't it be just the reverse?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [314.642], "stop_times": [321.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 314.642}, "reply_to": "23608__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23608__0_015", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "We don't believe that aspect of the model would be any different if we're doing it year by year.\nWe'd simply be taking the results that are calculated each year under either approach and use those in that year so that if you have a dry year, you are... are calculating in that year whether there is compliance and staying as close as possible to the true intent of the compact, which is to provide water when the farmers need it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [321.534, 326.94], "stop_times": [326.94, 349.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 321.534}, "reply_to": "23608__0_014", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_016", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Do you... do you dispute what... what the master found here, that the methodology is more accurate on a 10-year average than it is year by year?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [349.482], "stop_times": [362.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 349.482}, "reply_to": "23608__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_017", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe longer the period of time you take, the more the accumulated results of the model will match the measured--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [362.978, 365.29], "stop_times": [365.29, 373.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 362.978}, "reply_to": "23608__0_016", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_018", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "The actual year-by-year results.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [373.752, 377.467], "stop_times": [377.467, 377.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 373.752}, "reply_to": "23608__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_019", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--Yes, and I should point out that it's impossible to know what the right answer is.\nYou can... you can measure the flows and the diversions in the river and compare that to one of the runs of this model, but it's the difference between the two runs, one representing the compact condition, which is supposed to be met, and the other representing the situation with the wells operating.\nAnd it's the difference between those two whose accuracy is in question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [377.783, 383.866, 402.525], "stop_times": [383.866, 402.525, 407.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 377.783}, "reply_to": "23608__0_018", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_020", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Yes, but I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [407.272], "stop_times": [408.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.272}, "reply_to": "23608__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_021", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "And no one knows what that is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [408.387], "stop_times": [408.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 408.387}, "reply_to": "23608__0_020", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_022", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--I understand that... that the master concluded that even as to a particular year, the model will be more accurate if you use the average from the previous 10 years than if you just applied the model to a single year, that even as to the real results for that single year, the model will be more accurate if you use a 10-year average.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [408.924], "stop_times": [433.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 408.924}, "reply_to": "23608__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_023", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Your Honor, I don't understand it that way.\nIf you use 10 years, you are adding to the most recent year results 9 years of pluses and minuses that's going to, in most case, mask what happened during that next previous year.\nYou will be looking at a 10-year accumulation of ups and downs and not analyzing what happened in... in the year in question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [433.527, 436.128, 449.214], "stop_times": [436.128, 449.214, 459.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 433.527}, "reply_to": "23608__0_022", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_024", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Is part or all of the objectives of both the... the decree and the 10-year model to conserve subsurface reservoirs?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [459.451], "stop_times": [471.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 459.451}, "reply_to": "23608__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23608__0_025", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Not... not directly, Your Honor.\nIt... it does preserve that reservoir in fact because depletion of that reservoir affects the stream flows, and it's the stream flows that are compacted here and that have up to now--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [471.672, 476.169], "stop_times": [476.169, 489.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.672}, "reply_to": "23608__0_024", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_026", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Well, then... well, then why isn't... if... if that's so, why isn't it that Colorado shouldn't get credit for the wet years in... in... on an average?\nYou're concerned about the dry years.\nIt seems to me that Colorado should be given some credit for the wet years when the subterranean reservoirs are... are replenished.\nOr am I wrong... am I wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [489.505, 498.626, 500.939, 509.689], "stop_times": [498.626, 500.939, 509.689, 511.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 489.505}, "reply_to": "23608__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23608__0_027", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--I think in general, Your Honor, you are... are correct.\nThe question about there are over-deliveries by Colorado, I believe is what you're addressing, is there... is there a way to give Colorado credit for that.\nAnd there is a way.\nThere is a... a... an account in John Martin Reservoir, which is 60 miles above the State line, for those deliveries.\nWhen they are delivered there, if there is more delivered than is actually needed in that year to achieve compact compliance, that can be retained there and, except for a small effect of evaporation, is available to offset depletions in the following year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [511.713, 514.147, 524.466, 525.188, 534.209], "stop_times": [514.147, 524.466, 525.188, 534.209, 548.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 511.713}, "reply_to": "23608__0_026", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_028", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "I... I thought that the compact specifically provided there shall be no allowance or accumulation of credits or debits for or against either State.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [548.698], "stop_times": [559.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 548.698}, "reply_to": "23608__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_029", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [559.268], "stop_times": [561.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 559.268}, "reply_to": "23608__0_028", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_030", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Well, how does that comport with what you just said?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [561.618], "stop_times": [564.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 561.618}, "reply_to": "23608__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_031", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Under those circumstances, the water that would be delivered to this offset account in John Martin Reservoir is not a credit that's accounted under the compact for that year.\nSo it would not enter into the compact accounting for that year.\nIt would not constitute a... a credit, but it would be available as a practical matter to be used as a credit in the next year for current depletions.\nSo there would be no carryover in compact accounting.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [564.674, 579.534, 584.076, 593.076], "stop_times": [579.534, 584.076, 593.076, 595.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 564.674}, "reply_to": "23608__0_030", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_032", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "I don't... I don't understand that statement.\nYou say it would be available to be used as a credit in a subsequent year.\nDo you really mean it would be used as a credit, or do you mean it would simply be there to be used?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [595.593, 599.885, 604.798], "stop_times": [599.885, 604.798, 609.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.593}, "reply_to": "23608__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23608__0_033", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "I think your formulation, Your Honor, is... is more correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [609.339], "stop_times": [613.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.339}, "reply_to": "23608__0_032", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_034", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [613.593], "stop_times": [613.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 613.593}, "reply_to": "23608__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23608__0_035", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "It would be there to be used, and it would not be a credit for accounting purposes.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [613.965, 618.301], "stop_times": [618.301, 618.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 613.965}, "reply_to": "23608__0_034", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_036", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Well, if it's not a credit for accounting purposes, then they're going to owe you just as much the next year even though... even though you had more water the previous year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [618.794], "stop_times": [629.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 618.794}, "reply_to": "23608__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_037", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "This is under the assumption, Your Honor, that they have already met their obligations in the current year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [629.734], "stop_times": [634.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.734}, "reply_to": "23608__0_036", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_038", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [634.564], "stop_times": [635.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.564}, "reply_to": "23608__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_039", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "And it will be available as a practical matter to meet their obligations in a subsequent year and be accounted in that subsequent year.\nI would point out that this is very important for Kansas farmers that the... the water be received when it is supposed to be delivered under the compact.\nIf water is... is not delivered, as required, in one year, it cannot be recouped in a following year, certainly not 10 years later, as would be possible under the special master--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [635.407, 643.769, 659.456], "stop_times": [643.769, 659.456, 671.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 635.407}, "reply_to": "23608__0_038", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_040", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Well, then why are you using a 10-year model at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [671.239], "stop_times": [672.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.239}, "reply_to": "23608__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23608__0_041", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--It's not a 10--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [672.831], "stop_times": [674.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 672.831}, "reply_to": "23608__0_040", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_042", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "It seems to me what you're... what you're saying is forget the 10 years.\nJust do it every year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [674.129, 676.629], "stop_times": [676.629, 677.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 674.129}, "reply_to": "23608__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23608__0_043", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--That's what we are saying, Your Honor.\nAnd the model is inherently a yearly model.\nIt calculates actually results on a monthly basis, and we have used it... and the Court has relied upon it... on a yearly basis up to now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [677.455, 679.313, 683.605], "stop_times": [679.313, 683.605, 691.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 677.455}, "reply_to": "23608__0_042", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_044", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Why don't you do it on a monthly basis?\nIndeed, why don't you do it on a daily basis?\nI mean, the master found that this model really works if you... if you stretch it out over 10 years.\nYou say 1 year.\nWhy don't you do it month by month?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [691.573, 693.515, 695.66, 701.688, 703.917], "stop_times": [693.515, 695.66, 701.688, 703.917, 707.382], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 691.573}, "reply_to": "23608__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_045", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Well, it... it could be done that way, and in fact, Your Honor, Colorado uses parts of this same model in its own administration of groundwater pumping, the same groundwater pumping for purposes of protecting Colorado surface water users, and it requires replacement of water on a monthly basis.\nSo it is... it is possible.\nBut we believe with the yearly accumulation that... that we have relied upon so far in this case and that the Court has relied upon specifically for damages, that that is an appropriate accounting period for this particular purpose.\nAnd that is... that is our proposal.\nThe proposal of Colorado is no, let's wait 10 years before... and... and accumulate it with the other 9 years before we require any replacement.\nI would point out that the H-I Model, the Hydrologic-Institutional Model, is the best tool available for this purpose.\nIt was endorsed by Colorado after the Court's first opinion in this case when it... the Court approved using the model on a seasonal basis for the seasonal accounting of useability.\nAt that time, Colorado gave up its own model in favor of the Hydrologic-Institutional Model, and as you can see from the master's report, there have been several significant improvements in the model since that time.\nI would also point out the correspondence... the close correspondence that exists between this case and the Pecos River litigation in the 1980's.\nThere you had a compact that like this compact did not specify any specific quantity of water in the compact itself, but indicated that there was to be no depletions beyond the depletions that were occurring at the time of the compact with a few small amendments that I could... I could mention.\nBut the basic similarity of the compacts is that the status quo at the time of the compact was maintained.\nThere was an inflow/outflow relationship that needed to be observed and was required to be observed by the compact.\nIt was expressed explicitly in the Pecos River compact by a reference to an inflow/outflow method.\nIn this case, it was expressed implicitly in article IV-D of the compact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [707.382, 725.298, 728.642, 746.103, 747.894, 761.253, 770.541, 781.936, 796.713, 808.602, 833.41, 841.173, 848.065, 853.351], "stop_times": [725.298, 728.642, 746.103, 747.894, 761.253, 770.541, 781.936, 796.713, 808.602, 833.41, 841.173, 848.065, 853.351, 860.038], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 707.382}, "reply_to": "23608__0_044", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_046", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "The master found that the role of the river master in the Pecos case was quite different than the role of the river master you want to have appointed here.\nHe found that the role of the river master in the Pecos cases was really ministerial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [860.038, 870.662], "stop_times": [870.662, 876.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.038}, "reply_to": "23608__0_045", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23608__0_047", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Your Honor, we do not agree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [876.135], "stop_times": [878.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 876.135}, "reply_to": "23608__0_046", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_048", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "You don't agree with what?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [878.735], "stop_times": [880.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 878.735}, "reply_to": "23608__0_047", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23608__0_049", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "With the description of the Pecos River master as being... as having only ministerial duties, and I can explain why.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [880.554], "stop_times": [891.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 880.554}, "reply_to": "23608__0_048", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_050", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Please do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [891.45], "stop_times": [892.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.45}, "reply_to": "23608__0_049", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23608__0_051", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Yes.\nif... if you refer to the appendix of our... our blue brief, on page A-22, you will see that the opening section of the Pecos River master's manual sets out the inflow/outflow relationship that is to be observed in complying with that compact.\nThis is the form of an equation.\nYou can see y equals and a... and a number there.\nIn... in our case, we have the... the Hydrologic-Institutional Model, which benefits from several decades of increased sophistication in hydrologic analysis to do the same job.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [892.359, 892.565, 925.963, 927.57, 930.626], "stop_times": [892.565, 925.963, 927.57, 930.626, 942.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 892.359}, "reply_to": "23608__0_050", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_052", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "The Pecos master can simply apply this formula, can he not, and get the results that the compact requires?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [942.309], "stop_times": [950.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 942.309}, "reply_to": "23608__0_051", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23608__0_053", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "He... he is to apply the formula, Your Honor, but there's a great deal of judgment, professional, expert judgment that needs to be exercised in order to apply it.\nFor example, you have to separate flood flows from base flows.\nWhen you look at the... at the results of a... of a gauge on a river, you can see how much water was in the river at particular times, but this has to be separated into two different kinds of flows that are treated differently under this compact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [950.567, 961.424, 966.253], "stop_times": [961.424, 966.253, 980.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 950.567}, "reply_to": "23608__0_052", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_054", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Well, one of the reasons I'm curious is that I believe the Pecos master is an engineer.\nHe's not a lawyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [980.493, 986.808], "stop_times": [986.808, 987.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 980.493}, "reply_to": "23608__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23608__0_055", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [987.718], "stop_times": [988.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 987.718}, "reply_to": "23608__0_054", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_056", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "He's also the cheapest master we've ever had.\n[Laughter]\nBut it seems to me that the master you want appointed has got to be a lawyer and make legal decisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [988.627, 990.69, 991.328], "stop_times": [990.69, 991.328, 999.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 988.627}, "reply_to": "23608__0_055", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23608__0_057", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Your Honor, I don't believe so.\nI think our master would be just as cheap.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [999.03, 1000.516, 1002.29], "stop_times": [1000.516, 1002.29, 1002.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 999.03}, "reply_to": "23608__0_056", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_058", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "What's the difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1002.662], "stop_times": [1004.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1002.662}, "reply_to": "23608__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23608__0_059", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "No.\nThe question was what about the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1004.891, 1005.157], "stop_times": [1005.157, 1005.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1004.891}, "reply_to": "23608__0_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23608__0_060", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "What... what relation do you or... yes... working relation do you anticipate, if... if the river master is appointed, between the river master and the commission?\nDoes he go first to the commission and try to get agreement or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1005.884, 1018.144], "stop_times": [1018.144, 1020.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1005.884}, "reply_to": "23608__0_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23608__0_061", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Your Honor, no, he would not formally interact with the commission, just as the Pecos River master does not formally interact with the Pecos River commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1020.949], "stop_times": [1036.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1020.949}, "reply_to": "23608__0_060", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_062", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--Well, what can... what can the river master do that the... that the commission or authority can't do?\nI... is the difference between the two of them... call it a jurisdictional difference... nil, but there is process difference in the sense that the river master could say do this or don't do that, whereas your... your fear is that the authority is simply going to be deadlocked because everything has to be done unanimously?\nIs it a process difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1036.265, 1040.64, 1057.608], "stop_times": [1040.64, 1057.608, 1058.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1036.265}, "reply_to": "23608__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23608__0_063", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "It is a process difference, Your Honor.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1058.844, 1060.869], "stop_times": [1060.869, 1061.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1058.844}, "reply_to": "23608__0_062", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_064", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "But for that, you wouldn't be asking for a river master then.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1061.407], "stop_times": [1064.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1061.407}, "reply_to": "23608__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23608__0_065", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--Well, if there were an authoritative way, such as a river master, by which the annual recurring exercise of judgment could be accomplished, we would not need the river master.\nBut I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1064.956, 1080.271], "stop_times": [1080.271, 1081.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1064.956}, "reply_to": "23608__0_064", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_066", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "But aren't you bypassing what Congress set up?\nYou have this interstate compact and this commission, which you're saying, well, it's ineffective because it has to... there are three from each State and it has to do everything unanimously.\nBut what about the commission's authority to call in an... an arbitrator when they are deadlocked?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1081.181, 1084.069, 1094.677], "stop_times": [1084.069, 1094.677, 1101.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1081.181}, "reply_to": "23608__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23608__0_067", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--That decision also requires unanimity, Your Honor, and in the one case I'm aware of, Kansas' suggestion of doing an arbitration was rejected by Colorado.\nIt's... but it's... it takes unanimity to do anything under that compact administration, including the arbitration option.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1101.243, 1113.215], "stop_times": [1113.215, 1122.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1101.243}, "reply_to": "23608__0_066", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_068", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "But you're saying Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1122.669], "stop_times": [1123.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1122.669}, "reply_to": "23608__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23608__0_069", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Mr. Draper, could I ask you what is a matter of procedure?\nWhat is your understanding of... of how one would go about challenging the river master's decision if one disagreed with it?\nDo you go to the special master?\nDo you come direct to this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1123.412, 1125.064, 1131.685, 1133.238], "stop_times": [1125.064, 1131.685, 1133.238, 1134.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1123.412}, "reply_to": "23608__0_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__0_070", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Your Honor, we have suggested that it be set up just as you have set up the Pecos River master.\nIn other words, if there were an objection to the determination, the yearly determination, of the river master, it would be reviewable by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1134.558, 1140.396], "stop_times": [1140.396, 1149.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1134.558}, "reply_to": "23608__0_069", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_071", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Directly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1149.297], "stop_times": [1150.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1149.297}, "reply_to": "23608__0_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__0_072", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Directly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1150.161], "stop_times": [1150.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1150.161}, "reply_to": "23608__0_071", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_073", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--And the special master would be out.\nThe special master would be out of the picture, as you describe it.\nYou... the special master would be finished.\nThe river master would take over.\nHas there ever been... has this Court ever appointed a river master when the special master did not recommend it?\nAnd as I understand both Delaware and the Pecos River case, the special master recommended the appointment of a river master.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1150.716, 1152.102, 1156.438, 1158.334, 1159.92, 1170.018], "stop_times": [1152.102, 1156.438, 1158.334, 1159.92, 1170.018, 1178.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1150.716}, "reply_to": "23608__0_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23608__0_074", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Your Honor, I believe in both of those cases, the... the special master was recommending the appointment of a river master, but I would point out that in setting out the criteria for appointing a river master, the Court did not refer to that factor as... as being part of the consideration.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1178.851], "stop_times": [1202.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1178.851}, "reply_to": "23608__0_073", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_075", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "As I understand the system you propose, the river master's decision would be appealable to us, and we would review it de novo.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1202.052, 1212.538], "stop_times": [1212.538, 1213.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1202.052}, "reply_to": "23608__0_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_076", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "We're suggesting the same scope of review as on the Pecos, which is clearly erroneous.\nThis, however, is something that the Court could decide to do differently than the Pecos, but the clearly erroneous standard comports with the... the way master recommendations are handled in the district court under rule 53.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1213.048, 1219.53], "stop_times": [1219.53, 1235.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1213.048}, "reply_to": "23608__0_075", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_077", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "I'm very loathe to deprive either of the States of their... their right to have this Court decide matters between them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1235.877], "stop_times": [1247.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1235.877}, "reply_to": "23608__0_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_078", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Your Honor, this would not deprive either State of that right.\nAnd in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1247.188, 1252.595], "stop_times": [1252.595, 1253.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1247.188}, "reply_to": "23608__0_077", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_079", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Well, it would if they can only come here and... and overturn the river master if he's clearly erroneous.\nThat's a... that's a very high standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1253.588, 1259.754], "stop_times": [1259.754, 1263.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1253.588}, "reply_to": "23608__0_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_080", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--Well, there... as I say, the Court... the Court may set the review threshold as it sees fit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1263.098], "stop_times": [1272.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1263.098}, "reply_to": "23608__0_079", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_081", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "I... I had thought that your proposal was de novo review.\nThis is... this is new to me, that... that you want it clearly erroneous.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1272.657, 1275.812], "stop_times": [1275.812, 1279.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1272.657}, "reply_to": "23608__0_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_082", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Your Honor, I would... I would say that we have... we have mentioned the clearly erroneous review standard because it was in the Pecos framework.\nIt is not essential to our proposal.\nA de novo review would be perfectly fine with the State of Kansas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1279.511, 1291.605, 1293.834], "stop_times": [1291.605, 1293.834, 1297.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1279.511}, "reply_to": "23608__0_081", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_083", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--Suppose the commission decided to appoint an arbitrator.\nWould the special... pardon me.\nWould the river master then proceed independently and we'd have two different recommendations?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1297.428, 1300.15, 1302.09], "stop_times": [1300.15, 1302.09, 1307.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.428}, "reply_to": "23608__0_082", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23608__0_084", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "As under the Pecos, Your Honor, if the... if the compact administration, as it's called in the... in the Arkansas Basin, is able to come to a resolution of an issue, then that would... that would take care of that issue.\nIt would be... not be necessary to have the river master address that, and it would be an agreement of the States because it would either be an agreement because they had literally agreed before the... or in the form of the Arkansas River Compact Administration or that they had agreed to binding arbitration and had settled it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1307.459, 1323.555], "stop_times": [1323.555, 1342.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1307.459}, "reply_to": "23608__0_083", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_085", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Well, then it would seem to me, procedurally at least, the river master would have if not the legal, at least the practical obligation to refer things first to the commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1342.752], "stop_times": [1353.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1342.752}, "reply_to": "23608__0_084", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23608__0_086", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Your Honor, the referral of matters to the commission is why we're here in the first place.\nIt cannot act without unanimity.\nThe State of Colorado, the State in possession of this resource, can veto each and every action of the compact administration.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1353.277, 1360.047, 1363.269], "stop_times": [1360.047, 1363.269, 1371.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1353.277}, "reply_to": "23608__0_085", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_087", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "That was the deal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1371.98], "stop_times": [1372.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1371.98}, "reply_to": "23608__0_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_088", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Your... yes.\nYour State agreed to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1372.435, 1372.99], "stop_times": [1372.99, 1374.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1372.435}, "reply_to": "23608__0_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23608__0_089", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "That was the deal they came to.\nWhy should we kick it over?\nThey came to that arrangement, and it was approved by Congress, and now you come back and tell us, oh, this is too cumbersome.\nYou should... you should appoint this river master to do an end run around it.\nI... I... it doesn't seem to me to be fair.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1374.004, 1374.543, 1376.788, 1383.171, 1386.924], "stop_times": [1374.543, 1376.788, 1383.171, 1386.924, 1389.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1374.004}, "reply_to": "23608__0_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__0_090", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Your Honor, I don't believe that this is an end run any more than the enforcement of the compact is an end run around the administrative body that is set up in many of these compacts.\nThose are keep-in-touch type bodies.\nIf they can agree on things, they are very useful, and the Arkansas River Compact Administration has been useful in areas where there can be agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1389.048, 1399.556, 1402.24], "stop_times": [1399.556, 1402.24, 1410.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1389.048}, "reply_to": "23608__0_089", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_091", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "No, but you... you agree that this is the... the authority here is more than a keep-in-touch group.\nYour problem with it is... is not that you need something more than keep in touch, but that when you ask them to do something more than keep in touch, the other State has a veto.\nAnd... and that simply gets you to Justice Scalia's objection.\nThat's the deal you made.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1410.291, 1415.903, 1426.843, 1431.301], "stop_times": [1415.903, 1426.843, 1431.301, 1432.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1410.291}, "reply_to": "23608__0_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23608__0_092", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "That is the... that is the nub of our argument against reliance on the Arkansas River Compact Administration, that you can't look at it to settle differences about the implementation of this Court's decree.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1432.871], "stop_times": [1447.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1432.871}, "reply_to": "23608__0_091", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_093", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "What did the special--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1447.11], "stop_times": [1448.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1447.11}, "reply_to": "23608__0_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23608__0_094", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "That is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1448.225], "stop_times": [1448.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1448.225}, "reply_to": "23608__0_093", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_095", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--What did the special master mean when he said he recognized the unanimous vote problem, but he said, but the climate may be changing?\nThe compact administration under the chairmanship of the United States representative may again be seen as the best way to administer their compact and settle issues.\nWhat was he talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1448.491, 1458.999, 1470.023], "stop_times": [1458.999, 1470.023, 1471.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1448.491}, "reply_to": "23608__0_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23608__0_096", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--Your Honor, I think he was talking about the hope that he has that the States could work more cooperatively now, despite the fact that it was on this river between these two States that this Court was first asked to resolve interstate river disputes between States in 1901, and we are here today still in dispute over this river.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1471.22], "stop_times": [1498.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1471.22}, "reply_to": "23608__0_095", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_097", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "So there was nothing tangible behind his--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1498.546], "stop_times": [1501.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1498.546}, "reply_to": "23608__0_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23608__0_098", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Nothing tangible, Your Honor.\nWe... perhaps he was thinking of the settlement that we have achieved on the Republican River.\nThat case started, was accepted by this Court.\nAfter rulings by this Court, it became possible to settle that case.\nIt has now been settled.\nAnd the States involved in that litigation were Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado.\nIt was possible in that... in that context.\nIt has proven impossible in this context.\nAnd we can expect disputes to go on, as they have over the last century, if we do not have an impartial expert authority to resolve disputes between States that are going to come up every year.\nEvery year there are questions.\nHow do you take the data this year and put it into the H-I Model?\nWhile many of those issues have been settled, because different forms of replacement and other different circumstances arise, you have those every year.\nAnd if you follow the lead that the Pecos River cases of this Court give us, there is also the possibility to address the improvement of the tool for implementing the agreement of the States, and that is improving the Hydrologic-Institutional Model on occasion, as we have seen the master do over the course of this litigation.\nThat is allowed under the Pecos River Decree, and we submit that it should be allowed under this decree as well.\nAnd that is when the master would be exercising the most judgment in our opinion.\nI would conclude by saying that a... a river master is needed on the Arkansas to deal impartially and expertly with annual questions that must be resolved to implement the H-I Model, and that a 1-year compliance period will implement the intentions of the drafters of the compact and the needs of Kansas farmers and is consistent with the yearly reliance that this Court has already placed on the H-I Model.\nI'll reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal if there are no further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1501.063, 1503.914, 1510.351, 1513.49, 1518.403, 1519.146, 1524.841, 1528.351, 1530.868, 1546.389, 1548.246, 1553.448, 1563.357, 1590.145, 1598.03, 1602.738, 1634.893], "stop_times": [1503.914, 1510.351, 1513.49, 1518.403, 1519.146, 1524.841, 1528.351, 1530.868, 1546.389, 1548.246, 1553.448, 1563.357, 1590.145, 1598.03, 1602.738, 1634.893, 1638.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1501.063}, "reply_to": "23608__0_097", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__0_099", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Very well, Mr. Draper.\nMr. Robbins, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1638.691, 1639.08], "stop_times": [1639.08, 1641.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1638.691}, "reply_to": "23608__0_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23608__1_000", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI think I will begin by discussing the river master since that's where Mr. Draper left off.\nI want to make it clear, first of all, that I disagree with the assertion that the Pecos River Compact and the Arkansas River Compact are similar in the way they operate.\nThe Pecos River Compact did, in fact, specifically state that it was... it intended to hold the level of... of depletion of the system by man's development to the 1947 condition.\nThe Arkansas River Compact, to the contrary, begins the... the limitation clause by saying it is not intended to impede or prevent future beneficial development of the Arkansas Basin, provided that the waters of the Arkansas River are not materially depleted in useable quantity for existing use for the uses.\nSo the... the Arkansas compact contemplated that there would be a... a more flexible effort at using the water of the river by water users in both States, protecting the existing uses in both States from that future development.\nNow, this... this Court has appointed a river master in two circumstances.\nIn both circumstances, as pointed out by Justice Ginsburg, the... the special master recommended that because of the specific circumstances of the case, that in fact a river master was appropriate.\nThat was on the Delaware River and the Pecos River.\nIn all other cases that deal with this issue where requests have been made by... by States without river... without a special master's recommendation, the Court has declined to appoint a river master.\nThere's a very good reason, I think, behind that.\nColorado alone is the party denying interstate compacts in two equitable apportionment decrees.\nIf every time a State is dissatisfied with its neighbor, is dissatisfied with how a compact operates, it is able to come to this Court and say, please appoint a river master, we're just having trouble with our neighbor, you'll become the water management... the super water management agency for the country.\nYou have river masters if you... it's totally up to... to your discretion.\nBut if you were to follow this line of thinking, you end up supervising water distribution across the west and part of the east.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1641.375, 1645.917, 1651.983, 1661.992, 1673.492, 1694.048, 1710.106, 1715.763, 1729.63, 1731.96, 1744.182, 1747.154, 1753.674, 1772.622, 1776.875], "stop_times": [1645.917, 1651.983, 1661.992, 1673.492, 1694.048, 1710.106, 1715.763, 1729.63, 1731.96, 1744.182, 1747.154, 1753.674, 1772.622, 1776.875, 1784.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1641.375}, "reply_to": "23608__0_099", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_001", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Well, the disputes are going to come up here eventually anyway if the States are intransigent.\nUltimately it will be a dispute about the application of the compact and it will come back here anyway, won't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1784.222, 1788.847], "stop_times": [1788.847, 1795.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.222}, "reply_to": "23608__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__1_002", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Justice Scalia, that is absolutely correct, but the difference is where compacts have mechanisms within them that are designed to work out these differences, I think it is in the Court's interest... and Colorado's position is and the special master's position was it was in the Court's interest... to refer these matters back to those compact administrations.\nYou--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1795.656, 1816.256], "stop_times": [1816.256, 1816.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1795.656}, "reply_to": "23608__1_001", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_003", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Counsel, do you think it's any more likely today than in the past that the two States will be able to work out their continued disagreements?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1816.999], "stop_times": [1825.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1816.999}, "reply_to": "23608__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23608__1_004", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, I agree completely with the special master.\nThe State of Colorado has proposed, as referred to in his ruling, that binding arbitration be used and has committed itself to participate in that.\nTo the extent there... there have been past conflicts, Colorado has said let's get them behind us.\nLet's return to the compact, congressionally sanctioned method for resolving our differences, and let's proceed down the road.\nWe will--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1825.877, 1828.888, 1838.259, 1845.029, 1853.202], "stop_times": [1828.888, 1838.259, 1845.029, 1853.202, 1853.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1825.877}, "reply_to": "23608__1_003", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_005", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "But... but Colorado still has the veto in any given case on whether an arbitrator will be appointed.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1853.657, 1858.486], "stop_times": [1858.486, 1858.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1853.657}, "reply_to": "23608__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23608__1_006", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--That is... under the compact, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1858.941], "stop_times": [1861.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1858.941}, "reply_to": "23608__1_005", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_007", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Yes, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1861.253], "stop_times": [1861.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1861.253}, "reply_to": "23608__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23608__1_008", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "And so... but... but Colorado has made a... a very clear commitment to the special master and does so to this Court that if arbitration is proposed, Colorado would participate.\nWe do not as a State find it very acceptable to spend the time, money, and effort to litigate these issues.\nAfter all, we have farmers.\nKansas has farmers.\nWe need to get back to getting the water equitably resolved through the compact mechanism.\nThat is our proposal.\nIt was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1861.542, 1873.309, 1881.111, 1883.627, 1884.947, 1890.282, 1891.563], "stop_times": [1873.309, 1881.111, 1883.627, 1884.947, 1890.282, 1891.563, 1891.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1861.542}, "reply_to": "23608__1_007", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_009", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "So is it right then that... let's imagine the special river master's name is Mr. Smith, and unlike me, he knows about this stuff.\nAnd he then... you... Kansas wants Mr. Smith to decide a certain number of issues.\nCall them issues on page 1, whatever they are.\nAnd as far as you're concerned, your client would say I'm happy to have Mr. Smith.\nJust don't call him a river master.\nCall him an arbitrator.\nSo you're saying that when Kansas says they would do it except there's a problem of getting unanimity, you say the only problem is that you won't agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1891.934, 1899.653, 1907.909, 1911.709, 1916.743, 1918.767, 1919.715], "stop_times": [1899.653, 1907.909, 1911.709, 1916.743, 1918.767, 1919.715, 1928.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1891.934}, "reply_to": "23608__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23608__1_010", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--At the present time, that's the posture--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1928.177], "stop_times": [1930.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1928.177}, "reply_to": "23608__1_009", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_011", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Now, they're the obstacle to unanimity.\nSo the keys are in their own pocket if they want Mr. Smith.\nThat's your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1930.739, 1932.264, 1934.947], "stop_times": [1932.264, 1934.947, 1935.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1930.739}, "reply_to": "23608__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23608__1_012", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--Our view is if they want to arbitrate pursuant to the compact, the keys are in their... in their pocket.\nWe do not believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1935.607, 1942.306], "stop_times": [1942.306, 1943.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1935.607}, "reply_to": "23608__1_011", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_013", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "So the problem can't be one of unanimity because your side agrees.\nI mean, you heard what he said.\nSo I'm... I'm trying to see--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1943.659, 1947.496, 1949.52], "stop_times": [1947.496, 1949.52, 1950.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.659}, "reply_to": "23608__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23608__1_014", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--Our side agrees, Your... Justice Breyer, with... with the concept that this matter should be returned to the compact administration to resolve the differences in that forum.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1950.635], "stop_times": [1962.03], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1950.635}, "reply_to": "23608__1_013", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_015", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--And... and in that forum, you will agree to binding arbitration.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1962.03], "stop_times": [1964.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1962.03}, "reply_to": "23608__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23608__1_016", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "In that forum, we will agree to binding arbitration.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1964.509], "stop_times": [1966.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1964.509}, "reply_to": "23608__1_015", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_017", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Binding arbitration will... will mercifully keep this stuff off of our desk, won't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1966.488], "stop_times": [1972.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1966.488}, "reply_to": "23608__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__1_018", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Yes, it will.\n[Laughter]\nI want... I want to make it very clear to the Court that the State of Colorado, different than the situation in the Pecos River, acted very aggressively to ensure that it promptly came into compliance with the... with the determination that in fact depletions were occurring, impermissible depletions were occurring to the Arkansas River.\nWithin 2 years, the State of Colorado's legislature had passed the appropriate legislation.\nThe State engineer had passed rules and regulations, implemented them, and enforced them.\nThe State had authorized millions of dollars in loans for the acquisition of replacement water, and... and the State of Colorado... your... your ruling was in 1995.\nBy 1997, it appears that the State of Colorado was in compliance with the compact.\nThat is a significant and very difficult effort on the part of the legislature, the Governor, the attorney general, and the State engineer.\nWe do not believe that this is anything like the Pecos River.\nYour master in this case has not said to you these parties are... are torn, will not get together, and you need to have a master, a river master, appointed.\nIn this instance, the State of Colorado took the exact opposite approach.\nThey did everything they could to reduce the pumping of the wells sufficiently to allow Colorado to meet the terms of the compact, and that is an important fact you need to glean from the special master's report.\nNow, the... the other... the only other point I want to make on this is that the... the... it's... it's very important, in deciding whether or not a river master is the appropriate course of action to determine... and I... I mentioned this earlier... whether or not the Court wants to be in a supervisory position.\nI happen to agree that the States are entitled to seek redress of their concerns before this Court, and as you said in... in Oklahoma v. New Mexico, you have a serious obligation to adjudicate disputes between the States where there are actual and existing controversies.\nAnd... and the fact that you would have a river master would not eliminate the potential for those controversies.\nIn our view, the only way that you can get this matter off of your plate and into the position that Congress recognized and... and directed is to follow the special master's recommendation number 12.\nI'd now like to turn, if I may, to the issue of the accuracy of the model.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [1972.061, 1972.516, 1973.342, 1994.807, 2000.379, 2005.088, 2015.119, 2019.615, 2026.303, 2029.98, 2039.678, 2043.847, 2057.016, 2081.538, 2098.999, 2105.231, 2118.03], "stop_times": [1972.516, 1973.342, 1994.807, 2000.379, 2005.088, 2015.119, 2019.615, 2026.303, 2029.98, 2039.678, 2043.847, 2057.016, 2081.538, 2098.999, 2105.231, 2118.03, 2124.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 1972.061}, "reply_to": "23608__1_017", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_019", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "May I ask you a question, because you may not bother to talk about it otherwise, about punitive damages?\nYour opponent didn't seem to think it very important, but I have this question.\nIs it your view that the other State waived its claim to the punitive damages from 1985 back either by not arguing it today or by submitting the different set of figures at the time the... the issue was before the master the last time around?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2124.467, 2130.494, 2134.126], "stop_times": [2130.494, 2134.126, 2150.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2124.467}, "reply_to": "23608__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__1_020", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Justice Stevens, in response to your question, we believe that in fact the issue of prejudgment interest, or punitive damages, is law of the case in this matter.\nThe special master set out a formula by which he proposed how the damages should be calculated.\nKansas argued for actual value of money, a rather rigid theory of compensation, and the special master chose in fact a balancing of the equities approach.\nHe suggested that the appropriate means to calculate those... that prejudgment interest on the... the nominal damages--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2150.285, 2159.761, 2166.449, 2176.108], "stop_times": [2159.761, 2166.449, 2176.108, 2185.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2150.285}, "reply_to": "23608__1_019", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_021", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Did he... did he make that suggestion or did the other... did Kansas make that suggestion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2185.646], "stop_times": [2189.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2185.646}, "reply_to": "23608__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__1_022", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--The special master ruled on how he believed the damages should be calculated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2189.816], "stop_times": [2194.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2189.816}, "reply_to": "23608__1_021", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_023", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "In this time around or in the preceding--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2194.979], "stop_times": [2196.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2194.979}, "reply_to": "23608__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__1_024", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "In the preceding time around.\nAnd what he said was that the damages from 1950 to 1968 should be... should... should receive a inflationary increase to reflect the inflationary tendencies, but that they should not be dealt with under prejudgment interest.\nIn other words, it shouldn't be compounded through prejudgment interest.\nOnly the damages from 1969 forward should be compounded using prejudgment interest.\nKansas did not except to that methodology.\nKansas excepted to the fact that he didn't give them prejudgment interest on the damages from 1950 forward.\nIn the opinion that you authored for the Court, you accepted the master's methodology, and you did one thing and only one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2196.298, 2197.884, 2214.586, 2217.558, 2223.874, 2228.332, 2233.988], "stop_times": [2197.884, 2214.586, 2217.558, 2223.874, 2228.332, 2233.988, 2242.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2196.298}, "reply_to": "23608__1_023", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_025", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--Well, the master's methodology really wasn't at issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2242.04], "stop_times": [2243.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2242.04}, "reply_to": "23608__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__1_026", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "The master's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2243.276], "stop_times": [2245.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2243.276}, "reply_to": "23608__1_025", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_027", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "The only issue before us, as I remember it, was the date from which the prejudgment interest would run.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2245.671], "stop_times": [2250.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.671}, "reply_to": "23608__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__1_028", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2250.706], "stop_times": [2251.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2250.706}, "reply_to": "23608__1_027", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_029", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "That's... that's all that was argued.\nAnd it seemed to me that if it had been a fixed sum rather than an... a changing amount as years went by, that clearly we would have... the interest would have run on the existing liability.\nBut it's an unusual case because the damages are changing as time goes by.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2251.161, 2252.525, 2263.893], "stop_times": [2252.525, 2263.893, 2268.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2251.161}, "reply_to": "23608__1_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__1_030", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--It is and I agree with you, Justice Stevens.\nIt is an unusual case.\nBut the... the critical element here is that the master was looking for an equitable way to arrive at a damage sum.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2268.334, 2271.018, 2272.42], "stop_times": [2271.018, 2272.42, 2279.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2268.334}, "reply_to": "23608__1_029", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_031", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Well, except that, as I read his report, he was simply interpreting our opinion, best he could, on the second go-round.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2279.768], "stop_times": [2286.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2279.768}, "reply_to": "23608__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23608__1_032", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "This... this go-round?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2286.455], "stop_times": [2288.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2286.455}, "reply_to": "23608__1_031", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_033", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2288.23], "stop_times": [2288.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2288.23}, "reply_to": "23608__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23608__1_034", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "That's correct, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2288.684], "stop_times": [2289.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2288.684}, "reply_to": "23608__1_033", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_035", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "And... and I think that's what's before us here.\nIt... it seems to me that your best argument for no interest post '85 on the pre-'85 damages is to say, well, it's uncertain, it's hard to compute, but that doesn't quite work because this Court... and of course, the special master... allowed damages... the interest on post-'85 damages even though those are equally difficult to compute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2289.965, 2292.194], "stop_times": [2292.194, 2318.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2289.965}, "reply_to": "23608__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23608__1_036", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "It isn't the... if I may, Justice Kennedy, it isn't the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2318.656], "stop_times": [2323.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2318.656}, "reply_to": "23608__1_035", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_037", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "So I'm... I'm saying it seems to me that's your best argument, but there's a flaw in there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2323.214], "stop_times": [2326.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2323.214}, "reply_to": "23608__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23608__1_038", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--I understand.\nThe... but the... in our view the State of Kansas was obligated to take an exception if it disagreed with the methodology used by the special master and adopted in Justice Stevens' opinion by this Court.\nThere was a sum of damage that was calculated by that and reported to the Court: $38 million.\nBy moving the year forward from 1969 to 1985, you automatically then reduce, by some degree, the amount of that damage calculation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2326.252, 2326.708, 2340.204, 2345.738], "stop_times": [2326.708, 2340.204, 2345.738, 2357.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2326.252}, "reply_to": "23608__1_037", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_039", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "No, but did we... your... your view is that we entirely eliminated any interest on that past damage.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2357.377], "stop_times": [2362.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2357.377}, "reply_to": "23608__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__1_040", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Prejudgment--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2362.457], "stop_times": [2364.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2362.457}, "reply_to": "23608__1_039", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_041", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Pre-1985.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2364.724], "stop_times": [2366.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2364.724}, "reply_to": "23608__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__1_042", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--The... the special master's methodology, Justice Stevens, was that the damages in his third report from 1950 to 1968 should not, under a balancing of the equities, bear prejudgment interest at any point in time.\nThey should only be advanced for inflation, which was a proposal Colorado made because Colorado believed that it... the changing a 1950 damage to a... to a 2002, or at that time a 1994, dollar value was only fair and reasonable.\nWe opposed the concept of giving prejudgment interest because it would... it would be... it's as if... if this were a commercial context, we would have been able to identify that there was a damage going on and the theory in your prejudgment cases is we could have put the money in the bank--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2366.293, 2382.807, 2398.699], "stop_times": [2382.807, 2398.699, 2417.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2366.293}, "reply_to": "23608__1_041", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_043", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "But we rejected that as to post-'85 damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2417.563], "stop_times": [2421.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2417.563}, "reply_to": "23608__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23608__1_044", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--You agreed that prejudgment interest, Justice Kennedy, should be applied to post-'85 damages, not to pre-'85 damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2421.733], "stop_times": [2432.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2421.733}, "reply_to": "23608__1_043", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_045", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Well, but our opinion didn't say it was just post-'85 damages.\nOur... our opinion didn't... didn't answer the question, and... and the reason, of course, is we didn't actually think about it because nobody even... nobody argued it at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2432.773, 2434.736], "stop_times": [2434.736, 2444.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2432.773}, "reply_to": "23608__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__1_046", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Our view was that... that... our view is, Justice Stevens, that an exception needed to be taken if the master's methodology was under challenge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2444.19], "stop_times": [2452.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2444.19}, "reply_to": "23608__1_045", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_047", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "So in a way you really are arguing waiver I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2452.569], "stop_times": [2455.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2452.569}, "reply_to": "23608__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__1_048", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "We are arguing law of the case.\nYes, we are.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2455.336, 2457.027], "stop_times": [2457.027, 2457.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2455.336}, "reply_to": "23608__1_047", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_049", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Which is consistent with his failure to argue it today.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2457.582], "stop_times": [2460.349], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2457.582}, "reply_to": "23608__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__1_050", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "That's... that is our position, Your Honor.\nI would like to, if... if I may, move off of prejudgment interest.\nI would like to talk, while I still have a few minutes, a little bit about this model and the 10-year average.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2460.349, 2463.426, 2468.999], "stop_times": [2463.426, 2468.999, 2475.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2460.349}, "reply_to": "23608__1_049", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_051", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Can you give... I'm... I'm not sure I understand the dispute.\nCan you give me in... in... without using up all of your time, a... basically a simple example to illustrate the difference between the two contending methodological positions?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2475.026, 2478.453], "stop_times": [2478.453, 2491.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.026}, "reply_to": "23608__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23608__1_052", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Yes, I can, Justice Souter.\nUnder the... the master's formulation, which is agreed to by Colorado, the damages which occur in each year, 1950 through 1984, are... are computed at... in... as nominal damages in the year in which they occur.\nThey are then expanded by the... by an inflationary formula which allows the dollar in 1950 to be calculated in a 2002 dollar.\nIn 1985 and to the present, any damages that occur are advanced both for inflation, but then they are also awarded a prejudgment interest, which is compounded.\nIn other words, if inflation is 2 or 3 percent through the period on a long-term average, but... but investments are at 6 or 7 percent--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2491.29, 2493.769, 2510.692, 2522.681, 2535.379], "stop_times": [2493.769, 2510.692, 2522.681, 2535.379, 2543.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2491.29}, "reply_to": "23608__1_051", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_053", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "I got you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2543.924], "stop_times": [2544.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2543.924}, "reply_to": "23608__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23608__1_054", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--those damages advance.\nColorado's... Kansas' view is that commencing in... in 1985, all of the damages from 1950 to the present should receive prejudgment interest.\nThe difference then becomes, if you use the master's methodology, the... the current amount of money in 2002 dollars which Colorado would owe Kansas is approximately $29 million.\nIf you use the Kansas methodology... and this is the impact of prejudgment interest... it would be $52 million.\nUnder the original formulation that was presented to the Court, the value under the master's formulation, which did not charge prejudgment interest on the '50 to '68 dollars, both States agreed that that would have been $38 million.\nSo from Colorado's perspective, having succeeded in our... in our exception that the year should be 1985 instead of 1969, we in fact, under the Kansas theory, lose some 20-some-million in the proposition, which we don't believe is what the Court intended.\nLet me... let me turn very quickly to the model, if I may.\nThe... the issue here is not Colorado's obligation to deliver water to... to the river system.\nColorado has both senior surface water rights and the State of Kansas that it has obligations to protect.\nRemember, the compact envisions that this subsequent development can't injure water users in either Kansas or Colorado.\nAs a result, Colorado must ensure that on a monthly basis, water is placed into the river so depletions are... are compensated for in the system as they occur.\nThe problem here is not that process.\nThe problem here is a model that is inaccurate.\nBeginning in your first report, you quoted with favor the special master's comments about this model in dealing with the winter water storage program, which was an issue which you agreed should be dismissed several years ago.\nYou indicated that depletions shown were well within the range of error and it could not be told if it was an impact or an error that the model was describing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2544.462, 2545.289, 2557.67, 2570.302, 2577.527, 2592.965, 2611.419, 2614.679, 2623.801, 2630.571, 2638.744, 2650.883, 2653.894, 2658.146, 2673.213], "stop_times": [2545.289, 2557.67, 2570.302, 2577.527, 2592.965, 2611.419, 2614.679, 2623.801, 2630.571, 2638.744, 2650.883, 2653.894, 2658.146, 2673.213, 2683.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2544.462}, "reply_to": "23608__1_053", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_055", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Counsel, your time is running short.\nThis is very important.\nI think you misunderstood Justice Souter's question.\nHe asked you to give us an example of the Kansas versus Colorado approach as to the 10-year model.\nYou answered him about the interest.\nCould you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2683.782, 2684.813, 2685.845, 2688.528, 2694.761, 2696.597], "stop_times": [2684.813, 2685.845, 2688.528, 2694.761, 2696.597, 2696.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2683.782}, "reply_to": "23608__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23608__1_056", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "I'm so sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2696.99], "stop_times": [2697.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2696.99}, "reply_to": "23608__1_055", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_057", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--could you tell us really--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2697.899], "stop_times": [2699.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2697.899}, "reply_to": "23608__1_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23608__1_058", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2699.757], "stop_times": [2700.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2699.757}, "reply_to": "23608__1_057", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_059", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--Give us an example of the difference between the two.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2700.334], "stop_times": [2703.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2700.334}, "reply_to": "23608__1_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23608__1_060", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Yes.\nThe difference between the two is this.\nWe believe that the model over a long period of time, as it's developer, Mr. Durbin, said, is reasonably accurate.\nWe... we agree with that, and we are willing to use it like that.\nBut that means you have to use... look at it over extended periods of time.\nOur view is that you simply look at the model, which is predicting over-deliveries and under-deliveries, predicting them.\nThey don't have any relationship to what Colorado is really putting into the system.\nThey are predictions.\nAnd in some years where you... where you look back and you know from the gauges the model is over-predicting a significant amount, you... you want to be... and you know in a subsequent year it's going to under-predict, you want to allow that to smooth out so that you are, in fact, getting close to what's really going on.\nIt is not an effort to carry dry-year depletions into wet years or vice versa.\nIt is, in fact, an effort to allow the model's inherent inaccuracies to play out so that you get a more accurate result in each 10th year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2703.018, 2703.556, 2705.247, 2712.101, 2716.271, 2720.646, 2728.281, 2732.368, 2733.771, 2752.718, 2758.995], "stop_times": [2703.556, 2705.247, 2712.101, 2716.271, 2720.646, 2728.281, 2732.368, 2733.771, 2752.718, 2758.995, 2768.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2703.018}, "reply_to": "23608__1_059", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_061", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Why doesn't... why isn't the result that you... of... of your position that you would get a more accurate set of predictions if all you were making was a 10-year calculation, but you will not get a more accurate set of predictions with respect to any one year?\nAnd in fact, it is with respect to any one year that's important under the compact.\nIn other words, they... they plan every year, not every 10 years.\nSo why does a 10-year accuracy help you in solving the practical problem you have on a year-to-year basis?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2768.943, 2787.352, 2792.637, 2796.723], "stop_times": [2787.352, 2792.637, 2796.723, 2803.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2768.943}, "reply_to": "23608__1_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23608__1_062", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "As proposed by the special master, the model is not used every 10 year... or every 10th year.\nIt's used every year.\nIf you're looking at--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2803.411, 2808.862, 2809.81], "stop_times": [2808.862, 2809.81, 2811.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2803.411}, "reply_to": "23608__1_061", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_063", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "I know.\nBut it's used on the basis of 10-year figures which will not be accurate particularly with respect to any given year even though they would be... they would be accurate if you were only interested in a calculation every 10 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2811.091, 2811.379], "stop_times": [2811.379, 2823.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.091}, "reply_to": "23608__1_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23608__1_064", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--You are making--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2823.928], "stop_times": [2825.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2823.928}, "reply_to": "23608__1_063", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_065", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Does it... can... can you... can you get a better prediction on a year-to-year basis is what I'm saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2825.869], "stop_times": [2831.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2825.869}, "reply_to": "23608__1_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23608__1_066", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--You get a better prediction on a year-to-year basis.\nA... a better prediction if you're looking at the model over 10 years versus looking at the model just running it in a given year.\nColorado does not want to be in a position, Justice Souter, where we are accused of violating the compact because there is an inaccuracy in the tool that is being used.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2831.78, 2834.125, 2842.298], "stop_times": [2834.125, 2842.298, 2852.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2831.78}, "reply_to": "23608__1_065", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_067", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Thank you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2852.535], "stop_times": [2852.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2852.535}, "reply_to": "23608__1_066", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23608__1_068", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "It--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2852.907], "stop_times": [2853.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2852.907}, "reply_to": "23608__1_067", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_069", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--Thank you, Mr. Robbins.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2853.278], "stop_times": [2854.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.278}, "reply_to": "23608__1_068", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23608__1_070", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2854.271], "stop_times": [2855.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2854.271}, "reply_to": "23608__1_069", "speaker": "david_w_robbins"}
{"id": "23608__1_071", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Mr. Feldman, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2855.469], "stop_times": [2856.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2855.469}, "reply_to": "23608__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23608__2_000", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIt's the position of the United States that... that we agree with Colorado and with the special master that a river master should not be appointed in this case.\nThe compact between the States of Kansas and Colorado sets up a commission that is responsible for implementing the obligations in that compact, which has to do with Colorado's obligations to deliver a certain amount of water to Kansas.\nThe commission is also charged with investigating violations of the compact, and the compact includes a dispute resolution mechanism of submission to binding arbitration if the... the States agree to that.\nThe... the commission also certainly could use other dispute resolution mechanisms and certainly would have the authority to do if it wanted to.\nThe States have agreed to that.\nCongress has enacted it into law, and this Court should permit the parties to use that mechanism to resolve any disputes that might arise in the future rather than putting a river master in place under the authority of this Court.\nNow, the Court has... itself has frequently stated that consensual resolution of disputes of this sort is preferable to litigation.\nAs the special master pointed out, in the two river basins just north of the Arkansas River, the Republican River and the Platte River, the parties recently, after having a dispute, including these very same two States in one of them, have come to a consensual resolution of the dispute that they had.\nAnd I think that does show, as the special master pointed out, that these... the States can... in fact, the disputes in those cases also had to do with groundwater and the effect of well pumping, among other things.\nAs the special master pointed out, I think that shows that the States can use a consensual mechanism to come to a resolution, and this Court ought to continue its often-stated preference for consensual rather than litigative type of solutions to problems of this sort.\nIf the Court were to appoint a river master in this case, then I think the question would arise in any future case in which you have two States that have conflicting interests with regard to an ongoing activity, as what happened with river compacts, equitable apportionments, and in other areas, whenever there's an inherently conflicting interest, the Court would have an appeal that it should appoint a master to oversee a decree or judgment.\nAnd I think rather than... that... that would be directly contrary to the Court's other statement in the area, which is not only that the Court prefers and that it's far preferable to have consensual resolutions, but also that the Court does not favor appointing agents or functionaries to carry out its decrees.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [2856.129, 2867.44, 2875.781, 2887.958, 2900.218, 2907.11, 2908.884, 2921.971, 2931.191, 2949.258, 2959.205, 2977.41, 2999.247], "stop_times": [2867.44, 2875.781, 2887.958, 2900.218, 2907.11, 2908.884, 2921.971, 2931.191, 2949.258, 2959.205, 2977.41, 2999.247, 3015.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2856.129}, "reply_to": "23608__1_071", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "23608__2_001", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "So I guess we made a mistake with respect to the Pecos River and what was the other one?\nDelaware?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3015.389, 3020.135], "stop_times": [3020.135, 3020.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3015.389}, "reply_to": "23608__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__2_002", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Yes.\nThe Pecos River... I mean, there were a couple of differences, in addition to the ones that Mr. Robbins pointed out.\nOne difference is that not only the special master, but the parties in the Pecos River case... neither party objected to the appointment of a river master or even to the more extraordinary step of clothing the master with authority to make determinations that would be reviewable only under a clearly erroneous standard.\nIn this case, there is a party that objects to it.\nAnd I would... I think there's another difference that's important that the Court ought to keep in mind.\nAt the time the Pecos River master was appointed, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(e), which the Court has said that the Federal rules provide a guide for this Court's original cases, rule 53(e) provided that findings of fact by a master appointed by a district court shall be reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard, and the Court, indeed, used that mechanism for the... it provided that the river master in that case would be reviewed under that standard.\nAs of 2003, rule 53... it's now rule 53(g)... provides that masters appointed by district courts said their findings shall be reviewable only under a de novo standard unless the parties agree otherwise.\nTherefore, at the present time... and again, following the Court's rule 17.2 that says that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be guides... and I think they are a useful guide... the appropriate course here, if the Court were to appoint a river master, would be to appoint one whose findings will be reviewable de novo.\nBut that itself raises problems because if the findings of the river master are reviewable de novo, it's really just a continuation of the current litigation and it doesn't really advance things any.\nThe parties will submit the evidence to the river master.\nHe'll make his determinations, and then they'll come to the Court.\nThat's really more what the special master does at the current time.\nSo I think that under all of those circumstances, both the Court's preference for a consensual resolution of disputes, its disfavoring of appointments of agents to carry out its decrees, the Court's recognition that it's the Court's obligation to decide cases of this sort and it can't... it's not the obligation of other parties to do that, and the commission that Congress has put into place specifically to deal with this kind of problem, and with a specific recognition that there could be disputes and a provision for a dispute resolution, I think that the Court should not appoint a river master in this case.\nAs far as the prejudgment interest issue, it's the position of the United States also that the special master and Colorado are correct, and prejudgment interest should not be awarded.\nI think it's a familiar principle in... to this Court in litigation that if a party... when the time comes to make objections, a party has to make all of its objections if it wants the Court to hear them.\nIn this case, the special master came up with a recommendation in his third report about how to... what should happen with prejudgment interest, under which the early years... the... the amount of the damages in those early years would never be subject to prejudgment interest.\nNow, Kansas objected to that and said we should move the year back to 1950.\nWe should get prejudgment interest on everything back to year one.\nBut they never made the objection that if you... if the Court disagrees with that, which it did, that the method that the master had used to deal with the prejudgment interest as of 1969 was incorrect.\nThat was the time that Kansas should have brought it to the Court and Kansas didn't do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3020.385, 3020.961, 3026.058, 3041.19, 3043.891, 3048.165, 3071.942, 3084.408, 3099.519, 3110.004, 3112.643, 3114.872, 3118.466, 3151.16, 3161.934, 3174.194, 3189.071, 3193.157, 3196.401, 3208.867], "stop_times": [3020.961, 3026.058, 3041.19, 3043.891, 3048.165, 3071.942, 3084.408, 3099.519, 3110.004, 3112.643, 3114.872, 3118.466, 3151.16, 3161.934, 3174.194, 3189.071, 3193.157, 3196.401, 3208.867, 3212.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3020.385}, "reply_to": "23608__2_001", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "23608__2_003", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "So you're arguing they've waived the... your argument is they waived the objection basically.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3212.915], "stop_times": [3216.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3212.915}, "reply_to": "23608__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__2_004", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Yes.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3216.63, 3216.796], "stop_times": [3216.796, 3216.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3216.63}, "reply_to": "23608__2_003", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "23608__2_005", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "I don't think you used the word waiver in your brief, and I don't think that Colorado did either.\nBut I guess that's the essence of your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3216.879, 3220.966], "stop_times": [3220.966, 3222.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3216.879}, "reply_to": "23608__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__2_006", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--I... I actually think it's a combination of two things.\nOn the one hand, what the Court actually said in its opinion was that the special master had awarded damages only insofar as necessary to satisfy the demands of equity, something to that effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3222.702, 3225.674], "stop_times": [3225.674, 3235.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3222.702}, "reply_to": "23608__2_005", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "23608__2_007", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Would you not agree that if it was a one-shot injury, not an ongoing injury, that the normal reading would be the injury... the interest should run on the laws?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3235.045], "stop_times": [3244.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3235.045}, "reply_to": "23608__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__2_008", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "I think in the normal contract case that doesn't have the kinds of equities that this case had, that is the current rule, that prejudgment interest would run.\nBut this kind of case involves damages that go back 50-odd years.\nIt could have been--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3244.044, 3252.756, 3257.048], "stop_times": [3252.756, 3257.048, 3258.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3244.044}, "reply_to": "23608__2_007", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "23608__2_009", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "And it involves continuing, ongoing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3258.163], "stop_times": [3259.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3258.163}, "reply_to": "23608__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23608__2_010", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--And they're... they're ongoing that are different in amount in every year, that it's not merely that Colorado was violating the compact as of 1950, although it probably didn't know it at that time, but that Kansas didn't bring a suit until 1985 and the fact, I think, that Colorado has always agreed to pay... to adjust the damages for inflation.\nSo, in essence, Kansas is getting a portion of what the prejudgment interest would normally cover for those early years.\nI think if all that's put together, I think the Court's conclusion that the master's conclusion was just the amount that equity dictates was correct, and that if Kansas didn't like that, it should--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3259.156, 3278.558, 3283.676], "stop_times": [3278.558, 3283.676, 3295.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3259.156}, "reply_to": "23608__2_009", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "23608__2_011", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Mr. Feldman, the Government takes no position on this 1-year versus 10-year computation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3295.314], "stop_times": [3300.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3295.314}, "reply_to": "23608__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__2_012", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--No, the Government doesn't have a position on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3300.089], "stop_times": [3302.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3300.089}, "reply_to": "23608__2_011", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "23608__2_013", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Too hard for you?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3302.002, 3302.828], "stop_times": [3302.828, 3303.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3302.002}, "reply_to": "23608__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__2_014", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "That issue involves the particularities of this case and the Government doesn't really have a particular interest in how that gets resolved.\nIf there's no further questions, that concludes the argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3303.2, 3311.456], "stop_times": [3311.456, 3316.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3303.2}, "reply_to": "23608__2_013", "speaker": "james_a_feldman"}
{"id": "23608__2_015", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Feldman.\nMr. Draper, you have 2 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3316.453, 3317.689], "stop_times": [3317.689, 3319.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3316.453}, "reply_to": "23608__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23608__3_000", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI want to state that we do not believe that we waived our position on the interest calculation as was just suggested in the... in the last colloquy.\nThe reason that we didn't do that is because we filed an exception last time against every respect in which the special master was not recommending full interest.\nAnd it turned out that the Court chose the... the test that we now have, which is a relatively easy test to apply.\nIt has certain incentives that grow out of it that make sense.\nAnd we believe that we sufficiently excepted to that.\nIf look at our brief from that exception, the one in... in support of our exceptions, in particular... particularly to page 25, footnote 8, we specifically addressed the issue that the... the master was not allowing any interest in that 1950 through 1968 period.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3319.713, 3324.172, 3335.605, 3345.841, 3354.636, 3359.549, 3364.972], "stop_times": [3324.172, 3335.605, 3345.841, 3354.636, 3359.549, 3364.972, 3383.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3319.713}, "reply_to": "23608__2_015", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__3_001", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "You're talking about the brief in the earlier case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3383.076], "stop_times": [3385.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3383.076}, "reply_to": "23608__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23608__3_002", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "In the earlier case, to the third report of the special master.\nI would... also, on the other points that were raised, you need to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3385.184, 3388.443], "stop_times": [3388.443, 3395.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3385.184}, "reply_to": "23608__3_001", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__3_003", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "This is a lot of money involved, and... and you certainly didn't argue it here.\nI don't recall that point being argued.\nAnd with all that money being involved, I would have thought it would have been argued.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3395.336, 3399.451, 3400.909], "stop_times": [3399.451, 3400.909, 3404.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3395.336}, "reply_to": "23608__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23608__3_004", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "--Well, we were... we were arguing the larger issues on interest, but we were asking that interest not be denied to us during that '50 through 1968 period.\nThat was very clear from our briefs, and we specifically singled out that part of it in that footnote.\nSo I don't believe it's appropriate that... to conclude that we have waived that argument.\nAnd I would point out also that the only reason that it was done that way... and the calculations of the parties did... did in connection with that review... is because the special master required it.\nThere is no other reason that we did it.\nWe did not volunteer to do it that way.\nWe did not like doing it that way.\nThe master said that's the way it's going to be in my recommendation.\nHow much would that amount to?\nWe did not agree in any way to that part of the calculation.\nI would also point out that with respect to the amounts involved, that you need to be careful.\nThe amounts cited by Mr. Robbins are not from the same year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3404.253, 3416.596, 3421.337, 3428.113, 3439.441, 3441.776, 3443.8, 3445.286, 3448.463, 3450.942, 3456.937, 3464.893], "stop_times": [3416.596, 3421.337, 3428.113, 3439.441, 3441.776, 3443.8, 3445.286, 3448.463, 3450.942, 3456.937, 3464.893, 3468.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3404.253}, "reply_to": "23608__3_003", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__3_005", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Thank you.\nThank you, Mr. Draper.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3468.115, 3468.337], "stop_times": [3468.337, 3468.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3468.115}, "reply_to": "23608__3_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23608__3_006", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3468.941], "stop_times": [3469.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3468.941}, "reply_to": "23608__3_005", "speaker": "john_b_draper"}
{"id": "23608__3_007", "conversation_id": "23608", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_105-orig", "start_times": [3469.934], "stop_times": [3470.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3469.934}, "reply_to": "23608__3_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21813__0_000", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "We will now hear argument in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London.\nMr. Bullock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [0.0, 7.43], "stop_times": [7.43, 9.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__0_001", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Justice O'Connor, and may it please the Court:\nThis case is about whether there are any limits on government's eminent domain power under the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment.\nEvery home, church or corner store would produce more tax revenue and jobs if it were a Costco, a shopping mall or a private office building.\nBut if that's the justification for the use of eminent domain, then any city can take property anywhere within its borders for any private use that might make more money than what is there now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [9.66, 12.715, 22.17, 34.141], "stop_times": [12.715, 22.17, 34.141, 48.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.66}, "reply_to": "21813__0_000", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_002", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Mr. Bullock, you are leaving out that New London was in a depressed economic condition, so this is distinguished from the case where the state has no particular reason for wanting this, but the critical fact on the city side, at least, is that this was a depressed community and they wanted to build it up, get more jobs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [48.935], "stop_times": [75.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 48.935}, "reply_to": "21813__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21813__0_003", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, Your Honor, it's important to point out in the first place that chapter 132 of the statutory section at issue here applies to every city within the State of Connecticut, not those that are simply depressed.\nAnd there is a fundamental difference between an area like what was at issue in Berman, an area that actually had problems and a city that has certain problems.\nEvery city has problems.\nEvery city would like to have more tax revenue, but that cannot be a justification for taking property--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [75.213, 89.248, 99.817, 101.425], "stop_times": [89.248, 99.817, 101.425, 108.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 75.213}, "reply_to": "21813__0_002", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_004", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "But you concede that on the facts, more than tax revenue was at stake.\nThat is, the community had gone down and down and the town wanted to build it up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [108.362, 112.16], "stop_times": [112.16, 119.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 108.362}, "reply_to": "21813__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21813__0_005", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--It is a desire to try to improve the economy through tax revenue and jobs.\nThat is certainly the case.\nBut that cannot be a justification for the use of eminent domain because if the trickle down effects of economic development are a justification, then there really is no limit on the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [119.136, 125.246, 127.021], "stop_times": [125.246, 127.021, 139.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 119.136}, "reply_to": "21813__0_004", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_006", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "You don't concede, or do you, that elevating a city from a depressed to prosperous is a better justification than elevating a city from prosperous to more prosperous?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [139.653], "stop_times": [156.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.653}, "reply_to": "21813__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__0_007", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--That is not... that is correct, Your Honor.\nWe do not concede that.\nAnd chapter 132 again applies to not so prosperous cities and prosperous cities.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [156.371, 159.51, 161.534], "stop_times": [159.51, 161.534, 167.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 156.371}, "reply_to": "21813__0_006", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_008", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "The line you draw is between blight, which Berman says was a legitmate public use, blighted conditions okay, but depressed conditions, not so that's the line we would draw--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [167.228], "stop_times": [181.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 167.228}, "reply_to": "21813__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21813__0_009", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nWe think that that is a line that this Court has drawn that is area specific that focuses on the conditions in a particular area.\nAnd the condemnations in Berman removed the problematic areas.\nIt removed the blight.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [181.717, 182.626, 190.799, 196.289], "stop_times": [182.626, 190.799, 196.289, 197.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 181.717}, "reply_to": "21813__0_008", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_010", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Oh, but Berman spoke, in the opinion, said that the determination of the legislature about these things is virtually conclusive, that there is only the narrowest, narrowest role for the judiciary.\nWhat kind of standard are you proposing we should get into here to second guess the public use aspect?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [197.571, 213.751], "stop_times": [213.751, 222.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 197.571}, "reply_to": "21813__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__0_011", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Your Honor, it is clear that eminent domain power is broad, but there has to be limits, and that's what we are really talking about here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [222.174], "stop_times": [230.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 222.174}, "reply_to": "21813__0_010", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_012", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, have we ever in any case from this Court said that the limit has been exceeded?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [230.758], "stop_times": [237.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 230.758}, "reply_to": "21813__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__0_013", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "In a few cases from earlier in this century, Your Honor, the Missouri Pacific case, the Thompson versus Consolidated Gas case, but this Court has recognized for over 200 years that there are limits on eminent domain power, that they cannot be used for private takings.\nAnd that has been a consistent strain throughout this Court's jurisprudence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [237.073, 256.103], "stop_times": [256.103, 259.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 237.073}, "reply_to": "21813__0_012", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_014", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Justice Douglas says there that as long as it's an objective within Congress and legislature's legitimate grant of power, they can do it, I mean, as long as there's a... so why does there have to be a limit within that broad limit?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [259.325], "stop_times": [274.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 259.325}, "reply_to": "21813__0_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__0_015", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, the limit is that there cannot be takings for private use.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [274.845], "stop_times": [279.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 274.845}, "reply_to": "21813__0_014", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_016", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Of course, there can't, purely.\nBut there is no taking for private use that you could imagine in reality that wouldn't also have a public benefit of some kind, whether it's increasing jobs or increasing taxes, et cetera.\nThat's a fact of the world.\nAnd so given that fact of the world, that is law, why shouldn't the law say, okay, virtually every taking is all right, as long as there is some public benefit which there always is and it's up to the legislature.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [279.592, 281.904, 291.769, 293.626], "stop_times": [281.904, 291.769, 293.626, 309.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 279.592}, "reply_to": "21813__0_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__0_017", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Your Honor, we think that that cuts way too broadly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [309.785], "stop_times": [313.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 309.785}, "reply_to": "21813__0_016", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_018", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Because?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [313.317], "stop_times": [313.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 313.317}, "reply_to": "21813__0_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__0_019", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Because then every property, every home, every business can then be taken for any private use.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [313.772], "stop_times": [320.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 313.772}, "reply_to": "21813__0_018", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_020", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "No.\nIt could only be taken if there is a public use and there almost always is.\nNow, do you agree with that, or do you not agree with my last empirical statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [320.254, 320.542, 324.834], "stop_times": [320.542, 324.834, 330.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 320.254}, "reply_to": "21813__0_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__0_021", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, again, the eminent domain power is broad, but there has to be limits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [330.118], "stop_times": [336.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 330.118}, "reply_to": "21813__0_020", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_022", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Now, that's, of course, my question.\nThe question is, if you agree with the empirical statement that there almost always is some public benefit attached, then my question is, why must there be a limit within that broad framework?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [336.723, 338.542], "stop_times": [338.542, 350.18], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 336.723}, "reply_to": "21813__0_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__0_023", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I think with public... with just having a simple public benefit, then there really is no distinction between public and private uses.\nAnd that is what we call upon this Court to state, for instance, in the Berman case and in the Midkiff case, which we think are really the outer limits of government's eminent domain--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [350.18, 361.78], "stop_times": [361.78, 373.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 350.18}, "reply_to": "21813__0_022", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_024", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "But do you think those were correctly decided or do you take issue with the decision in those two cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [373.01], "stop_times": [378.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 373.01}, "reply_to": "21813__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__0_025", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--We think that those decisions can be consistent with ruling in favor of Petitioners in this particular case, Your Honor, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [378.006], "stop_times": [387.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 378.006}, "reply_to": "21813__0_024", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_026", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "But you take the position that a city that is suffering from enormous lack of jobs and depression, economic depression, that there is no public use purpose for taking land to enable the creation of jobs?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [387.749], "stop_times": [407.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 387.749}, "reply_to": "21813__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__0_027", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--That is correct, Your Honor.\nWe do not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [407.727, 408.926], "stop_times": [408.926, 409.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 407.727}, "reply_to": "21813__0_026", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_028", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, let's assume that the city instead of taking the property by eminent domain simply used its, its own... some of its own regular tax income to buy up the property, and assembled parcels of land with the purpose of selling them to an industrial developer to raise the tax base and hence ultimately to raise taxes.\nWould you say just within the meaning of general understanding of proper governmental purposes that the city was acting in a way that had no legitimate public purpose?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [409.602, 431.893], "stop_times": [431.893, 443.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 409.602}, "reply_to": "21813__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__0_029", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I think the question goes to whether or not the government could use its police power to acquire property and then sell it to a private developer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [443.782], "stop_times": [453.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 443.782}, "reply_to": "21813__0_028", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_030", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, I'm not interested in the label.\nI'm just saying if the government says we need to increase the tax base because we have a depressed city, so we are going to take some of our tax money now, and we are just going to buy up property that people are willing to sell to us, and we are going to assemble parcels.\nAnd when we get a big enough one, we are going to sell them to a developer for industrial purposes.\nAnd that will, that will raise the tax base.\nIs there anything illegitimate as a purpose for governmental spending in doing that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [453.979, 456.292, 471.524, 479.159, 481.267], "stop_times": [456.292, 471.524, 479.159, 481.267, 488.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 453.979}, "reply_to": "21813__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__0_031", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWe do not believe that that would be... it's not a public use.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [488.447, 489.273], "stop_times": [489.273, 492.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 488.447}, "reply_to": "21813__0_030", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_032", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Why isn't there a public purpose here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [492.701], "stop_times": [493.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 492.701}, "reply_to": "21813__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__0_033", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, Your Honor, because this case affects the eminent domain power, which is regulated by the Fifth Amendment--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [493.239], "stop_times": [500.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 493.239}, "reply_to": "21813__0_032", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_034", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "No, but we are talking about... I mean, I realize that, but I mean, I thought your point was that it was use of eminent domain power for an improper purpose.\nAnd you characterize that purpose as conveying property to private owners.\nWell, in my example, the same thing is going on except that it's not using the eminent domain power.\nIf the purpose in my example is a proper public purpose, why isn't it a proper public purpose when the government does it by eminent domain?\nWhat changes about the purpose?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [500.836, 509.631, 515.674, 522.634, 532.415], "stop_times": [509.631, 515.674, 522.634, 532.415, 534.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 500.836}, "reply_to": "21813__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__0_035", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Your Honor, because of the public use restriction of the Amendment.\nThat's what we really--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [534.151, 538.238], "stop_times": [538.238, 540.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.151}, "reply_to": "21813__0_034", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_036", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Mr. Bullock, do you equate purpose with use?\nAre the two terms the same?\nDoes the public use requirement mean nothing more than that it have a public purpose?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [540.467, 544.182, 546.616], "stop_times": [544.182, 546.616, 554.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 540.467}, "reply_to": "21813__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__0_037", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [554.129], "stop_times": [555.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 554.129}, "reply_to": "21813__0_036", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_038", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "That's your answer to Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [555.904], "stop_times": [558.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 555.904}, "reply_to": "21813__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__0_039", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "But if that is your answer then the slum clearance cases have got to go the other way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [558.133], "stop_times": [565.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 558.133}, "reply_to": "21813__0_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__0_040", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "I'm sorry--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [565.358], "stop_times": [566.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 565.358}, "reply_to": "21813__0_039", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_041", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "If that is your answer, then I suppose the slum clearance cases were wrongly decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [566.389], "stop_times": [572.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 566.389}, "reply_to": "21813__0_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__0_042", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Well, your Honor, this Court did hold in Berman and Midkiff that the police power and eminent domain power are coterminous.\nThat was a holding especially of this Court's opinion in Midkiff.\nAnd there are certain amici that have been filed in this case, amicus briefs filed in this case that have called upon this Court to reexamine that.\nAnd of course, this Court is free to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [572.129, 580.507, 584.472, 591.57], "stop_times": [580.507, 584.472, 591.57, 593.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 572.129}, "reply_to": "21813__0_041", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_043", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "But you are saying we don't have to reexamine it, but I think your adoption of Justice Scalia's approach puts you in a difficult... I think you're moving in the direction of saying we really have got to overrule the prior cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [593.593], "stop_times": [607.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 593.593}, "reply_to": "21813__0_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__0_044", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Your Honor, I think under a... perhaps an original understanding of the takings clause, there was a difference between public use and public domain.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [607.068], "stop_times": [616.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 607.068}, "reply_to": "21813__0_043", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_045", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Just for the moment, what about my question?\nAnd you can get into history, if you want to, and I tend to be interested in that, but my immediate concern is, if you give the answer that you have just given, doesn't it jeopardize the precedent of the slum clearance cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [616.05, 618.113], "stop_times": [618.113, 635.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 616.05}, "reply_to": "21813__0_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__0_046", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Your Honor, I don't think so, because of the caveat in Berman and Midkiff that eminent domain cannot be used for private uses.\nAnd that is what is really at issue here.\nWhat I think is the focus of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [635.946, 645.317, 647.835], "stop_times": [645.317, 647.835, 649.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 635.946}, "reply_to": "21813__0_045", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_047", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "But that's what they were being used for in Berman and... everybody knows that private developers were the beneficiaries in Berman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [649.671], "stop_times": [656.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 649.671}, "reply_to": "21813__0_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__0_048", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Your Honor, I believe the justifications focused upon the removal of the offensive conditions in Berman, that the public purpose, if you want to call it that, was served once the blight was removed, the public purpose was served once the oligopoly was broken up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [656.341], "stop_times": [672.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 656.341}, "reply_to": "21813__0_047", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_049", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "As I understand, you're testing... you want me to make a distinction between blight which is a permissible governmental use, governmental objective and economic revival, which isn't?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [672.605], "stop_times": [685.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.605}, "reply_to": "21813__0_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__0_050", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Under the eminent domain authority, Your Honor, we think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [685.32], "stop_times": [689.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 685.32}, "reply_to": "21813__0_049", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_051", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Is that the line you want me to draw.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [689.324], "stop_times": [691.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 689.324}, "reply_to": "21813__0_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__0_052", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Yes.\nAnd we think that that is a line--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [691.014, 691.386], "stop_times": [691.386, 692.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 691.014}, "reply_to": "21813__0_051", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_053", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, suppose an economist or even the judge might say, well, it's very clear that if this economic depression continues for another five years we are going to have blight.\nBlight is in the eye of the beholder, I know that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [692.312, 703.934], "stop_times": [703.934, 709.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 692.312}, "reply_to": "21813__0_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__0_054", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Exactly.\nAnd I think that that is really one of the dangers of the majority opinion here is that it puts any property up for grabs.\nUnder the blight statutes, they actually have to... governments have to meet a certain objective criteria to satisfy that this is actually a blighted area.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [709.014, 709.757, 717.475], "stop_times": [709.757, 717.475, 726.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 709.014}, "reply_to": "21813__0_053", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_055", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Why isn't it an objective criteria to say that we are going to have economic revival, avoid economic downturns?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [726.763], "stop_times": [733.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 726.763}, "reply_to": "21813__0_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__0_056", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, Your Honor, because, I think... to get back to the decisions in Berman and Midkiff, what this Court I think focused on there is that the public use or the public purpose was direct and immediate.\nIt was served directly by the condemnations and it was immediately served by the removal of the blight and the breaking up of the oligopoly.\nIn economic development condemnations, the only public benefits that come about, if they come about at all, are completely dependent upon private parties actually making a profit.\nAnd that those profits then somehow--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [733.989, 746.825, 753.679, 765.114], "stop_times": [746.825, 753.679, 765.114, 767.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 733.989}, "reply_to": "21813__0_055", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_057", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "That's the same thing that is true in the railroads in the west.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [767.176], "stop_times": [770.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 767.176}, "reply_to": "21813__0_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__0_058", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [770.519], "stop_times": [772.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 770.519}, "reply_to": "21813__0_057", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_059", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Precisely the description you gave applied to the railroads in the west.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [772.005], "stop_times": [776.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 772.005}, "reply_to": "21813__0_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__0_060", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, those were justified under I think the line of cases that held that those were really essential for land assembly for instrumentalities of commerce.\nThey were--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [776.381, 785.919], "stop_times": [785.919, 786.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 776.381}, "reply_to": "21813__0_059", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_061", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "And this seems to be really essential for the purpose of developing industrial property to increase the tax base.\nThe argument is, and I don't know of any reason to doubt it, that doing it seriatim by voluntary acquisition and sale doesn't work.\nSo the rationale for this is essentially the rationale for the railroads, for the public utility line condemnations and so on.\nThere isn't another practical way to do it.\nAnd there is a public benefit at the end, and that ought to qualify it as a public use.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [786.323, 793.804, 803.873, 813.533, 816.505], "stop_times": [793.804, 803.873, 813.533, 816.505, 823.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 786.323}, "reply_to": "21813__0_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__0_062", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Your Honor, there are many ways to do economic development without condemnation.\nIt happens every single day in this country.\nAnd in the states that prohibit the use of eminent domain simply for private business development, those states do make the distinction between blighted areas and simply their communities wanting to take advantage of more tax revenue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [823.087, 829.015, 831.987], "stop_times": [829.015, 831.987, 844.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 823.087}, "reply_to": "21813__0_061", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_063", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Even though in Berman, there was a department store that was not blighted, and it was permissible because the whole area was to be improved to raze that department store, even though it wasn't contributing in any way to blight.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [844.74], "stop_times": [867.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.74}, "reply_to": "21813__0_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21813__0_064", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nBut the Court in Berman held that there were certain properties that even though they might have been nonblighted, it was essential to have those properties in order to remove the blight from the area that was at issue.\nSo there was the ability of government to get certain properties even though they might have been nonblighted.\nHere--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [867.298, 869.344, 884.121, 890.316], "stop_times": [869.344, 884.121, 890.316, 890.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 867.298}, "reply_to": "21813__0_063", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_065", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Mr. Bullock, would you articulate the test that you would propose the Court adopt.\nSome amici and others have argued that we should use the substantially advances test, so called test from regulatory takings.\nWhat tests do you articulate?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [890.787, 896.465, 907.156], "stop_times": [896.465, 907.156, 910.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 890.787}, "reply_to": "21813__0_064", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__0_066", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Well, for our bright line rule, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [910.128], "stop_times": [912.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 910.128}, "reply_to": "21813__0_065", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_067", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [912.728], "stop_times": [913.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 912.728}, "reply_to": "21813__0_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__0_068", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "The test should be that the government cannot take property simply so that the new owners can put it to ordinary private uses of land.\nThat's really the test.\nAnd the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [913.1, 923.836, 925.201], "stop_times": [923.836, 925.201, 925.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 913.1}, "reply_to": "21813__0_067", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_069", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, that's not what's asserted here, of course.\nHere the city says, we are doing this for purposes of enhancing economic development of a very poor city.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [925.656, 928.999], "stop_times": [928.999, 938.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 925.656}, "reply_to": "21813__0_068", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__0_070", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--True, Your Honor, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [938.659], "stop_times": [940.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 938.659}, "reply_to": "21813__0_069", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_071", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "So what do we do with that alleged purpose?\nWhat is your test?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [940.699, 943.2], "stop_times": [943.2, 945.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 940.699}, "reply_to": "21813__0_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__0_072", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Well, the test, Your Honor, for--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [945.058], "stop_times": [947.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 945.058}, "reply_to": "21813__0_071", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_073", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Is it no economic development purpose?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [947.121], "stop_times": [949.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 947.121}, "reply_to": "21813__0_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__0_074", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Yes.\nYes.\nWhen it's only justified in order to gain the secondary benefits from ordinary private uses of land, and the way that businesses always make use of their land to try to make money or to try to make a profit.\nThat's our bright line rule.\nBut for our second test, if this Court accepts that economic development can be a public use, then we advocate a test of reasonably foreseeable uses and minimum standards in order to counter the dangers posed by such private involvement in the use of eminent domain power.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [949.804, 950.836, 951.373, 964.665, 965.947], "stop_times": [950.836, 951.373, 964.665, 965.947, 985.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.804}, "reply_to": "21813__0_073", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_075", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "The latter.\nI mean, I understand the former.\nThat's a big retreat and it comes to me now you're getting to what I think is a possible realm of reason here.\nBut the second part now you said and minimum standards.\nWhat minimum standards?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [985.47, 986.396, 988.321, 996.904, 1001.241], "stop_times": [986.396, 988.321, 996.904, 1001.241, 1002.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 985.47}, "reply_to": "21813__0_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__0_076", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, the dissent in the Connecticut Supreme Court talked a lot about minimum standards that should be in place in order to ensure that public benefits actually come about.\nThose could be such things as a commencement date for the project, a construction schedule, financial eligibility for the developers, there's a number of different things.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1002.727, 1014.632], "stop_times": [1014.632, 1025.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1002.727}, "reply_to": "21813__0_075", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_077", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "No, I mean, are you advocating particular ones?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1025.511], "stop_times": [1027.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1025.511}, "reply_to": "21813__0_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__0_078", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Not particular ones, just the standard actually be in place and we think that the dissent provides some good guide posts for establishing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1027.74], "stop_times": [1034.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1027.74}, "reply_to": "21813__0_077", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_079", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Isn't that in effect changing the test from public use to efficient public use?\nI mean, what's... you know, if I condemn land for a public utility and the public utility turns out to be very inefficient, has the condemnation been invalid?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1034.528, 1042.934], "stop_times": [1042.934, 1056.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1034.528}, "reply_to": "21813__0_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__0_080", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--No.\nYour Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1056.719, 1057.462], "stop_times": [1057.462, 1057.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1056.719}, "reply_to": "21813__0_079", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_081", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Do you want us to sit here and evaluate the prospects of each condemnation one by one?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1057.999], "stop_times": [1065.074], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1057.999}, "reply_to": "21813__0_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__0_082", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "No, Your Honor, what we are advocating for, and utilities of course are justified, have long been justified under a separate line of cases, common carrier regulations.\nBut what we are talking about are certain minimum standards in place at the time of condemnation to try to have some type of reasonable certainty that the public benefits are to come about so we are not talking about ongoing oversight.\nWe are simply talking about minimum standards at the time of the, at the time of the condemnation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1065.074, 1075.339, 1090.321], "stop_times": [1075.339, 1090.321, 1096.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1065.074}, "reply_to": "21813__0_081", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_083", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "I take it there isn't, but maybe there is, there isn't any question in this case that the city was acting in good faith and did... and I presume still does... intend to convey it to developers who will, will actually proceed to develop a project.\nIs there a question about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1096.265, 1114.924], "stop_times": [1114.924, 1116.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1096.265}, "reply_to": "21813__0_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__0_084", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "A question of whether or not the procedure--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1116.494], "stop_times": [1118.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1116.494}, "reply_to": "21813__0_083", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_085", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Yeah, in other words, I can understand perfectly well, why we would want to draw a distinction between the use of the eminent domain power that takes a parcel of property from private person A and simply then reconveys it to private person B without any particular object in mind except that the city likes B, you know, the mayor is a Democrat and B is a Democrat.\nThat kind of thing.\nSo I can understand the need for some distinction between that case and what we've got here.\nThe question is when you say there have to be minimum standards, I guess, is do we have a problem historically or in this case about the good faith of the taking so that we need the minimum standards to make sure that we are not getting into the first example?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1118.268, 1146.792, 1147.701, 1155.874], "stop_times": [1146.792, 1147.701, 1155.874, 1175.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1118.268}, "reply_to": "21813__0_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__0_086", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nAnd there is a number of reasons why there has to be reasonably foreseeable uses--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1175.11, 1176.514], "stop_times": [1176.514, 1180.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1175.11}, "reply_to": "21813__0_085", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_087", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Is there a reason in this case?\nIs there some doubt here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1180.479, 1182.169], "stop_times": [1182.169, 1183.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1180.479}, "reply_to": "21813__0_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__0_088", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Well, it goes to the doubt about whether or not the public benefits will actually come about in this case.\nThe takings here are really for speculative purposes, pure speculative purposes.\nAnd that's where the minimum standards come into play to ensure--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1183.201, 1189.888, 1194.141], "stop_times": [1189.888, 1194.141, 1198.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1183.201}, "reply_to": "21813__0_087", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_089", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "But do you really want courts to be in the business of trying to weigh the evidence to see if the utility will be successful or the hospital will be successful or the road will be well constructed?\nI mean, what kind of a test are you proposing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1198.062, 1210.488], "stop_times": [1210.488, 1212.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1198.062}, "reply_to": "21813__0_088", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__0_090", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Your Honor, our test is limited really to the condemnations that are completely dependent upon the private businesses actually being successful, and that those benefits coming about so it would not affect utilities or anything like that.\nBut at a minimum, this Court should require that the government actually name a use.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1212.634, 1226.669], "stop_times": [1226.669, 1231.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1212.634}, "reply_to": "21813__0_089", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_091", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Does the record tell us anything about how often takings by eminent domain for economic development occur in this country?\nIs it frequent?\nWhat are we dealing with?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1231.97, 1242.538, 1244.213], "stop_times": [1242.538, 1244.213, 1245.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1231.97}, "reply_to": "21813__0_090", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__0_092", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "It is, it is frequent, Your Honor.\nThere's no... we do not know of any study that looks specifically at condemnations for economic development, but after the Michigan court's decision in Poletown, they became commonplace.\nAnd you had properties... business that were being condemned for casinos, other homes that were taken for automobile manufacturers.\nAnd the Michigan Supreme Court saw that as a disaster.\nAnd overturned that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1245.966, 1248.921, 1262.229, 1270.302, 1274.389], "stop_times": [1248.921, 1262.229, 1270.302, 1274.389, 1275.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1245.966}, "reply_to": "21813__0_091", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_093", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "In all of those cases, I think the economic feasibility or economic success test would have been easily met.\nI mean, what you're doing is trying to protect some economic value/But I think it's pretty clear that most economists would say this development wouldn't happen unless there is a foreseeable chance of success.\nLet me ask you this, and it's a little opposite of the particular question presented.\nAre there any writings or scholarship that indicates that when you have property being taken from one private person ultimately to go to another private person, that what we ought to do is to adjust the measure of compensation, so that the owner... the condemnee... can receive some sort of a premium for the development?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1275.875, 1282.851, 1295.954, 1301.305], "stop_times": [1282.851, 1295.954, 1301.305, 1324.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1275.875}, "reply_to": "21813__0_092", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__0_094", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "There may be some scholarship about that.\nThis Court has consistently held that the property owner is simply entitled to just compensation of the appraised value of the property.\nOf course, the property owner--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1324.75, 1328.259, 1336.228], "stop_times": [1328.259, 1336.228, 1337.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1324.75}, "reply_to": "21813__0_093", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_095", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "And you have to prescind the project when you fix the value.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1337.093], "stop_times": [1340.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1337.093}, "reply_to": "21813__0_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__0_096", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1340.52], "stop_times": [1341.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1340.52}, "reply_to": "21813__0_095", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_097", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "You have to prescind the project... you have to... you have to ignore the project when you determine the value.\nThe value is a willing buyer and a willing seller, without reference to the project.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1341.923, 1349.536], "stop_times": [1349.536, 1353.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1341.923}, "reply_to": "21813__0_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__0_098", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Yes, that is right.\nAnd so they simply get the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1353.811, 1355.297], "stop_times": [1355.297, 1356.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1353.811}, "reply_to": "21813__0_097", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_099", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "But what I am asking is if there has been any scholarship to indicate that maybe that compensation measure ought to be adjusted when A is losing property for the economic benefit of B.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1356.29], "stop_times": [1369.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1356.29}, "reply_to": "21813__0_098", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__0_100", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--I believe there has been some scholarship about it, but we think it's vital that there be a public use requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1369.332], "stop_times": [1376.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1369.332}, "reply_to": "21813__0_099", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_101", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Can I ask you about the standard.\nGo back for a second.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1376.019, 1377.384], "stop_times": [1377.384, 1378.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1376.019}, "reply_to": "21813__0_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__0_102", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1378.415], "stop_times": [1378.87], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1378.415}, "reply_to": "21813__0_101", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_103", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "I gather that the Iowa courts have a standard that includes whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the intended public use will take place.\nNow, is that the standard you're advocating?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1378.87, 1389.877], "stop_times": [1389.877, 1392.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1378.87}, "reply_to": "21813__0_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__0_104", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "It's similar to our reasonable foreseeability test that we set forth in our brief that this Court actually talked about in the Vester case as well, and a number of the other state cases that are cited in our brief that establish that there has to be a use for the property and that that use has to be reasonably perceived.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1392.244], "stop_times": [1412.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1392.244}, "reply_to": "21813__0_103", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_105", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Is there a lot of disagreement about this?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1412.239], "stop_times": [1414.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1412.239}, "reply_to": "21813__0_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__0_106", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "No, there's not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1414.097], "stop_times": [1414.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1414.097}, "reply_to": "21813__0_105", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_107", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "I mean, it seems to me you might... whether there is a reasonable assurance that there will in fact be the public use which the state uses as the justification for taking the property.\nIs that going to help you that much?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1414.923, 1425.697], "stop_times": [1425.697, 1430.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1414.923}, "reply_to": "21813__0_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__0_108", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "I think it will provide important minimal standards of protection for--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1430.155], "stop_times": [1434.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1430.155}, "reply_to": "21813__0_107", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_109", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, I mean, I don't see how this Court could get into the business of saying you have to have this by a particular day or you have to have 14 witnesses.\nI mean, we couldn't impose that sort of thing, could we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1434.78, 1443.713], "stop_times": [1443.713, 1446.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1434.78}, "reply_to": "21813__0_108", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__0_110", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Your Honor, I think just the standard needs to be in place.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1446.213], "stop_times": [1449.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1446.213}, "reply_to": "21813__0_109", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_111", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "There needs to be a reasonable assurance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1449.724], "stop_times": [1451.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1449.724}, "reply_to": "21813__0_110", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__0_112", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Exactly.\nOr at the very least, a reasonable foreseeability as well, which is at a minimum that is not even in place in this particular case.\nAnd the majority of state courts that have looked at this, that is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1451.332, 1452.075, 1461.074], "stop_times": [1452.075, 1461.074, 1464.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1451.332}, "reply_to": "21813__0_111", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_113", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, they might well need it here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1464.668], "stop_times": [1466.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1464.668}, "reply_to": "21813__0_112", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__0_114", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Not in this case, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1466.237], "stop_times": [1469.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1466.237}, "reply_to": "21813__0_113", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_115", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "But do you do that area by area?\nI mean, one of the points you made, this is divided into what, seven areas?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1469.33, 1471.931], "stop_times": [1471.931, 1477.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.33}, "reply_to": "21813__0_114", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21813__0_116", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1477.049], "stop_times": [1477.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1477.049}, "reply_to": "21813__0_115", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_117", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "And there's some scheduled to be developed first, you say that your clients lived in parcels that are not likely to be developed soon, if at all.\nSo when making this determination, is development reasonably likely, do you have to do it parcel by parcel or can it be with the whole--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1477.421, 1491.333], "stop_times": [1491.333, 1502.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1477.421}, "reply_to": "21813__0_116", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21813__0_118", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWe believe it should be done where the property is actually being condemned.\nAnd we think that that is the proper--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1502.662, 1503.676, 1509.416], "stop_times": [1503.676, 1509.416, 1511.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1502.662}, "reply_to": "21813__0_117", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_119", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "So it's not the area development but this house, will there be... is it reasonably likely that there will be development in that particular plot.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1511.235], "stop_times": [1522.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1511.235}, "reply_to": "21813__0_118", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21813__0_120", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--In this particular parcel, that is correct, Your Honor, and that has been supported by really just about every condemnation decision--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1522.131], "stop_times": [1528.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1522.131}, "reply_to": "21813__0_119", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_121", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Let me ask you, I'm sorry, I'll make this a quick question.\nWhy do you think it is necessary, given your position, why do you think it's necessary to adopt the test you've just articulated as distinct simply from a good faith requirement.\nSo that if somebody objected and offered to prove bad faith, that would be in effect a defense for the taking?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1528.984, 1532.412, 1546.446], "stop_times": [1532.412, 1546.446, 1553.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1528.984}, "reply_to": "21813__0_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__0_122", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Your Honor, because that does not really provide any protection to property owners.\nThe intent to benefit a private party, and the intent to benefit the public are really one and the same in these types of condemnations.\nAnd we believe it is imperative at a minimum because the condemnations are dependent upon private parties even being successful that there has to be reasonable foreseeable uses.\nAnd also, if this Court so chooses, minimum standards in place to ensure that those benefits actually go to the public.\nI would like to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1553.876, 1558.047, 1566.358, 1577.282, 1584.629], "stop_times": [1558.047, 1566.358, 1577.282, 1584.629, 1586.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1553.876}, "reply_to": "21813__0_121", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__0_123", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Very well.\nMr. Horton.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1586.448, 1586.487], "stop_times": [1586.487, 1587.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1586.448}, "reply_to": "21813__0_122", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__1_000", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Justice O'Connor, and may it please the Court: The principal purpose of the takings clause is to provide for just compensation.\nNow, I want to very briefly state two reasons why you do not want to make a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1587.867, 1607.746], "stop_times": [1607.746, 1613.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1587.867}, "reply_to": "21813__0_123", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_001", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, but it has to be for a valid public use.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1613.319], "stop_times": [1615.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.319}, "reply_to": "21813__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__1_002", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Yes, it does, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1615.837], "stop_times": [1616.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1615.837}, "reply_to": "21813__1_001", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_003", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1616.746], "stop_times": [1617.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.746}, "reply_to": "21813__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__1_004", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "I completely agree with that, but if the primary purpose of the takings clause is not to regulate legislative determinations of that, but it seems to me that what the opposition is asking for is two tests.\nOne for Berman and Midkiff and National Railroad, and another test for Kelo.\nThere is no principle basis for a court to make what is really a value judgment about whether a long term plan to revive an economically depressed city is a public use of a higher or lower rank constitutionally--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1617.284, 1630.576, 1637.551], "stop_times": [1630.576, 1637.551, 1654.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1617.284}, "reply_to": "21813__1_003", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_005", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "But he doesn't... he doesn't, his second test does not adopt that.\nThe second test which he was arguing at the end is just that there has to be a reasonable assurance that the public use, and it could include all those things, will in fact take place.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1654.436, 1657.53], "stop_times": [1657.53, 1667.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1654.436}, "reply_to": "21813__1_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__1_006", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Yes, Justice Breyer.\nAnd I noted his remark because that's actually in concession because that's the test the Connecticut Supreme Court imposed.\nAnd they have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1667.728, 1668.758, 1674.908], "stop_times": [1668.758, 1674.908, 1675.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1667.728}, "reply_to": "21813__1_005", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_007", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "That may be, but what do you think of that test?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1675.53], "stop_times": [1678.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1675.53}, "reply_to": "21813__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__1_008", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--I don't, I don't agree.\nI don't think it's necessary to do that, because if you have that test, you have to say, well, what do I do about, about other areas than this.\nBerman is an excellent example of that, because as Justice Ginsburg said, Mr. Berman's property was not blighted.\nYou needed to take Mr. Berman's property in order for the economic development that was going to occur later on.\nAnd the question is, was it reasonably assured that the economic development... in fact, some of the other side's amicus briefs say that that worked out terribly down there, and all it was was discriminating against the poor and, and poverty stricken people and it didn't accomplish any goal--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1678.213, 1679.245, 1688.449, 1696.251, 1702.855], "stop_times": [1679.245, 1688.449, 1696.251, 1702.855, 1718.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1678.213}, "reply_to": "21813__1_007", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_009", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Mr. Horton, what, what difference does it make that, that New London was in an economic depression?\nWould it not be fully as much, under your theory of a public use, for a city to say, yes, we are not doing badly, but we could do better.\nLet's attract some high tech industry here.\nYou can't possibly draw a line between depressed cities and undepressed cities, can you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1718.709, 1726.178, 1736.375, 1739.431], "stop_times": [1726.178, 1736.375, 1739.431, 1745.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1718.709}, "reply_to": "21813__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_010", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--I would not draw a line.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1745.868], "stop_times": [1748.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1745.868}, "reply_to": "21813__1_009", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_011", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "You wouldn't.\nAnd you wouldn't ask us to do it either.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1748.097, 1748.635], "stop_times": [1748.635, 1750.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1748.097}, "reply_to": "21813__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_012", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "I would not ask... I have a backup argument that you do not need to reach that issue here in light of the facts of this case.\nBut I... to be candid with you, my view is that the test you have is... there is no principle--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1750.288, 1756.621], "stop_times": [1756.621, 1762.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1750.288}, "reply_to": "21813__1_011", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_013", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Any city can do it.\nAnd in the hypothetical that Justice Souter gave earlier where, you know, you couldn't take it from A and give it to B, because B is a good Democrat, you could take it from A and give it to B if B is richer, and would pay higher municipal taxes, couldn't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1762.837, 1763.867], "stop_times": [1763.867, 1784.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1762.837}, "reply_to": "21813__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_014", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nBut I have a caveat on that.\nIf you're talking about one property, you're very likely to have a Willowbrook versus Oleck problem about discrimination, you know, intentional discrimination against somebody else's property.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1784.589, 1785.992, 1787.479], "stop_times": [1785.992, 1787.479, 1797.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1784.589}, "reply_to": "21813__1_013", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_015", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "No.\nI just want to take property from people who are paying less taxes and give it to people who are paying more taxes.\nThat would be a public use, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1797.882, 1798.253, 1803.826], "stop_times": [1798.253, 1803.826, 1805.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1797.882}, "reply_to": "21813__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_016", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "For example, Motel 6 and the city thinks, well, if we had a Ritz-Carlton, we would have higher taxes.\nNow, is that okay?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1805.683, 1812.704], "stop_times": [1812.704, 1813.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1805.683}, "reply_to": "21813__1_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__1_017", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThat would be okay.\nI... because otherwise you're in the position of drawing the line.\nI mean, there is, there is a limit.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1813.364, 1814.311, 1814.971, 1819.763, 1821.453], "stop_times": [1814.311, 1814.971, 1819.763, 1821.453, 1821.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1813.364}, "reply_to": "21813__1_016", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_018", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, if that, if that's so then the occasional statements that we see in the writing that you can't take from A to give to B is just wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1821.992], "stop_times": [1830.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1821.992}, "reply_to": "21813__1_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__1_019", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--No.\nI don't agree with that.\nA good example is... well, there is Missouri Pacific.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1830.37, 1830.825, 1831.484], "stop_times": [1830.825, 1831.484, 1834.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1830.37}, "reply_to": "21813__1_018", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_020", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "You think you can't take from A to give to B, that there is some substance and force to that proposition?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1834.373], "stop_times": [1840.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1834.373}, "reply_to": "21813__1_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__1_021", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "There is some force to it.\nI certainly wouldn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1840.606, 1841.615], "stop_times": [1841.615, 1843.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1840.606}, "reply_to": "21813__1_020", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_022", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Let me qualify it.\nYou can take from A to give to B if B pays more taxes?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1843.101, 1843.578], "stop_times": [1843.578, 1847.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1843.101}, "reply_to": "21813__1_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_023", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--If it's a significant amount.\nObviously, there is a cost--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1847.998, 1850.72], "stop_times": [1850.72, 1851.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1847.998}, "reply_to": "21813__1_022", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_024", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "I'll accept that.\nYou can take from A and give to B if B pays significantly more taxes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1851.851, 1853.404], "stop_times": [1853.404, 1858.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.851}, "reply_to": "21813__1_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_025", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--With that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1858.772], "stop_times": [1859.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1858.772}, "reply_to": "21813__1_024", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_026", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "You accept that as a proposition?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1859.432], "stop_times": [1860.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.432}, "reply_to": "21813__1_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_027", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--I do, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1860.797], "stop_times": [1861.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1860.797}, "reply_to": "21813__1_026", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_028", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "But without the addition, I'd please like an answer to your question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1861.252], "stop_times": [1865.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1861.252}, "reply_to": "21813__1_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__1_029", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1865.877], "stop_times": [1866.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1865.877}, "reply_to": "21813__1_028", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_030", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "There are statements in our cases that say you cannot take from A just to give to B.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1866.536], "stop_times": [1873.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1866.536}, "reply_to": "21813__1_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__1_031", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1873.019], "stop_times": [1873.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1873.019}, "reply_to": "21813__1_030", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_032", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Do you agree that there is substance to that proposition and that that proposition is correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1873.323], "stop_times": [1879.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.323}, "reply_to": "21813__1_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__1_033", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI do.\nAnd to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1879.001, 1879.844, 1880.366], "stop_times": [1879.844, 1880.366, 1881.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1879.001}, "reply_to": "21813__1_032", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_034", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "But isn't that exactly what happened in Berman?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1881.602], "stop_times": [1884.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1881.602}, "reply_to": "21813__1_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__1_035", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Your Honor, in Berman, the... what has--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1884.574], "stop_times": [1889.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1884.574}, "reply_to": "21813__1_034", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_036", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Isn't that exactly what always happens unless it's for a firehouse or a school?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1889.032], "stop_times": [1893.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1889.032}, "reply_to": "21813__1_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__1_037", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Your Honor, my position is that purely taking from one person to give to another that shows no public benefit other than just giving from... taking from one person to another would not be a public use.\nA good example is the Missouri Pacific case.\nThe one case in 200 years of this Court's jurisprudence where you have, in fact, struck such a taking that was not a regulatory taking.\nI would also point out that there are a few cases around the country where it does not include Justice Scalia's hypothetical about additional taxes.\nAn excellent example of that is the case the other side has cited from New Jersey.\nCasino Properties versus Bannon, where the Trump Association just wanted a parking lot that was next door.\nThere was no assembly problem.\nNo problem putting small parcels together.\nThere was no talk in the case about taxes or more taxes or more jobs or anything.\nIt... the trial judge there didn't say it was just for a public purpose... a private purpose, but he said it was overwhelmingly just for the Trump organization's... so, I mean, if you include Justice Scalia's hypothetical about more taxes, then I say that's sufficient, as long as you get over--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1893.574, 1907.608, 1910.664, 1920.24, 1931.18, 1935.184, 1944.472, 1945.753, 1948.476, 1955.163], "stop_times": [1907.608, 1910.664, 1920.24, 1931.18, 1935.184, 1944.472, 1945.753, 1948.476, 1955.163, 1974.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1893.574}, "reply_to": "21813__1_036", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_038", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Is that what the Connecticut Supreme Court that we are reviewing said, you... you are arguing, it seems to me, for something that goes beyond what was adjudicated in this case.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1974.193, 1986.082], "stop_times": [1986.082, 1986.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1974.193}, "reply_to": "21813__1_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21813__1_039", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1986.825], "stop_times": [1987.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1986.825}, "reply_to": "21813__1_038", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_040", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--It was a finding, a finding before to be a fact in the trial court that this development was going to be primarily for the benefit of the citizens of New London, and not for the benefit of Pfizer or the private developer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [1987.28], "stop_times": [2002.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1987.28}, "reply_to": "21813__1_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21813__1_041", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI agree with that and that is why I say my backup position is you don't need to determine whether you go beyond economic depression of a city in this particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2002.762, 2003.998], "stop_times": [2003.998, 2015.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2002.762}, "reply_to": "21813__1_040", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_042", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Is that a factual finding?\nYou consider that a factual finding?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2015.515, 2017.085], "stop_times": [2017.085, 2019.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.515}, "reply_to": "21813__1_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_043", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "I think it's a mixed question of fact and law--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2019.025], "stop_times": [2020.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2019.025}, "reply_to": "21813__1_042", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_044", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, that this is primarily for the benefit of the city of New London, not for the benefit of a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2020.8], "stop_times": [2025.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2020.8}, "reply_to": "21813__1_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_045", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--I consider that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2025.053], "stop_times": [2027.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2025.053}, "reply_to": "21813__1_044", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_046", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--In the eye of the beholder, to whom do you think this does greater benefit to, not a factual finding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2027.033], "stop_times": [2032.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2027.033}, "reply_to": "21813__1_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_047", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "When, when there is no condemnation to acquire property for the direct use of the public, as for a public right of way, or a utility path or something, where it's purely economic development, is there any reason why we shouldn't draw a clear line and say that isn't a public purpose.\nLet them go out and deal with... buy it on the market, on the open market.\nWhat's the matter with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2032.234, 2054.69, 2059.233], "stop_times": [2054.69, 2059.233, 2060.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2032.234}, "reply_to": "21813__1_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__1_048", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Well, for one thing we have in this case, and this comes back to the point about this particular case, is a severe assembly problem.\nWe have 115 properties we are talking about on this 90-acre plot, and there is 32 acres that come from one place, from--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2060.181, 2068.065], "stop_times": [2068.065, 2075.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2060.181}, "reply_to": "21813__1_047", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_049", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, let's look at the specifics here.\nPfizer is already in place.\nThat's happened.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2075.596, 2077.931, 2079.954], "stop_times": [2077.931, 2079.954, 2080.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2075.596}, "reply_to": "21813__1_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__1_050", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2080.864], "stop_times": [2081.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2080.864}, "reply_to": "21813__1_049", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_051", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "So what are these parcels of the people now before us going to be used for?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2081.812], "stop_times": [2089.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2081.812}, "reply_to": "21813__1_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__1_052", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nFirst of all, it's a long range plan.\nIf I could have, if I could have the chart, please, if I may show you Your Honor.\nThe... we are out on a peninsula here, and here is Pfizer down here, which at the time of the taking was almost completed.\nThey moved in a month afterwards.\nUp here is an old state... old fort from the 19th century that the state agreed to turn into a state park as part of an overall plan.\nThe overall plan is this whole thing.\nNow, parcel one is going to be a hotel, is planned for a hotel.\nParcel two was planned--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2089.447, 2090.19, 2092.792, 2098.159, 2107.531, 2108.85, 2121.399, 2123.628, 2128.086], "stop_times": [2090.19, 2092.792, 2098.159, 2107.531, 2108.85, 2121.399, 2123.628, 2128.086, 2129.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2089.447}, "reply_to": "21813__1_051", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_053", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Let's talk about the litigants.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2129.451], "stop_times": [2130.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2129.451}, "reply_to": "21813__1_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__1_054", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2130.77], "stop_times": [2130.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2130.77}, "reply_to": "21813__1_053", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_055", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Before us today.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2130.936], "stop_times": [2132.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2130.936}, "reply_to": "21813__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__1_056", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Yes.\nThat's right.\nThey are in parcel 3 and they are in parcel 4-A.\nNow, the... it's to be developed in phases.\nThe first phase is one and two.\nThe next phase is then three and four, A, and there is also a marina--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2132.051, 2132.134, 2132.589, 2134.901, 2138.078, 2140.102], "stop_times": [2132.134, 2132.589, 2134.901, 2138.078, 2140.102, 2145.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2132.051}, "reply_to": "21813__1_055", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_057", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "What's planned for 3 and 4-A?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2145.592], "stop_times": [2147.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2145.592}, "reply_to": "21813__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__1_058", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--What's planned for 3 is that it's going to be office space.\nAnd the expectation is there is going to be a demand for class A office space, which is the best quality office space in this area by 2010.\nAnd the expectation is that it will attract the sorts of offices that will feed on the Pfizer.\nThey spent $300 million on a site here.\nIn addition, I may point out, this is the Amtrak line going along here.\nThe only way you can get to parcels 1 and 2 is to go right by parcel 3 or go right by parcel 4-A.\nThis is a waste water treatment facility.\nParcel 4-A is for park support or marina support.\nNow, it isn't more definitive, but obviously, one possible use is for parking here because you've got a waste water treatment facility here.\nYou've got the park here.\nYou've got the marina here and you've got the other parcels here.\nIt's not like we are talking, as in Berman, you're talking about something that's in the parcel.\nAnd in Berman, they said it's not for the court to decide where the boundary lines ought to be.\nIt seems to me that's another point, Justice O'Connor.\nIt's not like parcel 3 is already--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2147.904, 2151.991, 2161.212, 2170.112, 2173.251, 2176.716, 2183.115, 2185.594, 2190.341, 2198.059, 2199.273, 2202.434, 2209.371, 2214.24, 2216.43], "stop_times": [2151.991, 2161.212, 2170.112, 2173.251, 2176.716, 2183.115, 2185.594, 2190.341, 2198.059, 2199.273, 2202.434, 2209.371, 2214.24, 2216.43, 2219.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2147.904}, "reply_to": "21813__1_057", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_059", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, can't the courts at least... can't the courts, could the courts... do you object to this, and I'm not advocating it, I want your reaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2219.235], "stop_times": [2225.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2219.235}, "reply_to": "21813__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__1_060", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2225.385], "stop_times": [2226.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2225.385}, "reply_to": "21813__1_059", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_061", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Could the courts, under this clause, at least review what you've just said for reasonableness?\nI mean, look at the reasonableness of a claim that this is for... basically for a public use.\nLook at the reasonableness of the claim that we should do it this way, rather than excusing the people who don't want to sell their houses no matter what and doing it a little bit differently.\nReasonableness is a concept that's already in the Constitution in terms of what the legislature can do, but I'm thinking of the stronger kind of reasonableness review that you might have in an administrative action.\nNow, is, Overton Park, if you want a case.\nIs that a possible kind of review that you might find appropriate here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2226.007, 2234.467, 2242.641, 2253.953, 2265.759, 2269.946], "stop_times": [2234.467, 2242.641, 2253.953, 2265.759, 2269.946, 2278.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2226.007}, "reply_to": "21813__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__1_062", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "No, Your Honor, if what you're defining as reasonableness is being higher than rational basis.\nBecause in that situation, you're applying a higher standard for a taking where we are paying for it than you would be for--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2278.391, 2283.592], "stop_times": [2283.592, 2290.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2278.391}, "reply_to": "21813__1_061", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_063", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, the reason that you would apply a somewhat higher standard is because the rational basis, with tremendous deference, applies to the power of Congress to act in an economic area in the absence of a particular constitutional provision designed to protect a minority from the actions of the majority.\nAnd if you read that public purpose doctrine, a section here as having that in mind, you might want a somewhat higher level of review.\nNow, that's the whole thing spelled out.\nI'm not advocating it.\nBut I am putting it forward to get... to get your reaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2290.855, 2312.942, 2323.921, 2326.521, 2327.924], "stop_times": [2312.942, 2323.921, 2326.521, 2327.924, 2332.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2290.855}, "reply_to": "21813__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__1_064", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Your Honor, that same type of remark could be made about rational basis equal protection review.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2332.177], "stop_times": [2339.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2332.177}, "reply_to": "21813__1_063", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_065", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Oh, and indeed with equal protection, we very often do have a somewhat higher standard of review.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2339.624], "stop_times": [2345.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.624}, "reply_to": "21813__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__1_066", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Ah, yes, Your Honor, but the point here is that you should not have a higher standard of review because we are paying for it.\nIt would be ironic to have a higher test than for example in a regulatory taking or even the same test.\nYou have a test in Nollan and Dolan, for example, which is an exactions case.\nSo that's to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2345.014, 2352.156, 2357.646, 2362.187], "stop_times": [2352.156, 2357.646, 2362.187, 2363.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2345.014}, "reply_to": "21813__1_065", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_067", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Mr. Horton, you're paying for it, but you're also taking property from somebody who doesn't want to sell it.\nDoes that count for nothing?\nYes, you're paying for it, but you're giving the money to somebody who doesn't want the money, who wants to live in the house that she's lived in her whole life.\nThat counts for nothing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2363.384, 2368.874, 2370.36, 2378.905], "stop_times": [2368.874, 2370.36, 2378.905, 2380.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2363.384}, "reply_to": "21813__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_068", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--No, of course not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2380.27], "stop_times": [2382.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.27}, "reply_to": "21813__1_067", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_069", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, then, let me ask... would, would the reasonableness standard, if the project is indeed reasonable, and there is genuine prospect that all of these good things that you're talking about will happen, why wouldn't private money come in to further the project?\nWhy is it necessary to condemn it if it's so reasonable.\nWhy couldn't you, you... now, you say there is a holdout for one part, parcel.\nCouldn't the city fund a private purchase of that parcel?\nSay, you know, we'll make funds available out of our general tax revenue to somebody who wants to come in and put together this system?\nOf course, that person has to buy out property owners, but we'll, we'll give you money to buy them out at high prices.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2382.043, 2405.26, 2408.399, 2412.136, 2418.618, 2427.551], "stop_times": [2405.26, 2408.399, 2412.136, 2418.618, 2427.551, 2435.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.043}, "reply_to": "21813__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_070", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Your Honor, there are some plaintiffs who are not going to sell at any price.\nThey want to stay there.\nYou've got a severe assembly problem in this case and it's not as though you can say, well, go somewhere else.\nYou have a situation where you've got the Pfizer plant that is being built there.\nYou've got the state park that's there.\nYou've got this Naval underseas facility that just came on the market.\nThat's the only place anything is going to work and it's... and it's five to six square miles of town.\nI mean, there is no other place to go.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2435.336, 2440.909, 2442.329, 2448.628, 2453.912, 2456.141, 2460.905, 2466.544], "stop_times": [2440.909, 2442.329, 2448.628, 2453.912, 2456.141, 2460.905, 2466.544, 2467.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2435.336}, "reply_to": "21813__1_069", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_071", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "How much, how much of this was voluntarily sold, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2467.947], "stop_times": [2473.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2467.947}, "reply_to": "21813__1_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21813__1_072", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "The large share of it was, but of course, that's because there is always in the background the possibility of being able to condemn it.\nI mean, that obviously facilitates a lot of voluntary sales.\nAnd if, if this is not... if this is not... let me put it this way.\nI mean, there is going to be a more severe holdout problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2473.52, 2482.248, 2486.234, 2491.89], "stop_times": [2482.248, 2486.234, 2491.89, 2494.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2473.52}, "reply_to": "21813__1_071", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_073", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "That may be.\nNow, that's why I'm back to reasonableness.\nYou see, we are told in the briefs that the people who often might hold out, might be doing so to get more money, but it might also be because they are poor, they are not well connected politically, and their only hope is to go to a court and stop this thing.\nSo you'd give them two weapons.\nWeapon one is you have to pay them.\nThat's correct.\nCompensation.\nAnd weapon two is they can put you to a test of being reasonable.\nThat might be quite a deferential test, so you might have every leg up.\nBut they at least could catch the instances where this is really not reasonable to do to them what you're doing to them that they don't want.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2494.491, 2495.318, 2498.495, 2513.272, 2515.213, 2517.442, 2518.102, 2518.928, 2522.726, 2527.39], "stop_times": [2495.318, 2498.495, 2513.272, 2515.213, 2517.442, 2518.102, 2518.928, 2522.726, 2527.39, 2535.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2494.491}, "reply_to": "21813__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__1_074", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "I have two responses to that, Your Honor.\nFirst of all, that applies to all sorts of takings.\nIf I'm building a road, let me give you an example of the Rindge case that Your Honors decided in the 1920s.\nThat was the road to nowhere.\nIt was a road that went through a farm to the county line.\nAnd the other county had no intention at that point of building a road, but Your Honors said, well, they might get around to it at sometime so it's a good idea to build it now.\nWe had a similar situation in Hartford.\nThere is supposed to be a ring road around Hartford, and the state condemned all this land for a ring road around Hartford.\nWell, one little bit of it was done and then just this, this year, in very low print in the last page of the newspaper, we see about the state getting around to selling the land because they didn't, they didn't do it.\nI mean, this can happen in the railroad case is a good example.\nThe railroad case.\nThe one Your Honors decided.\nIf it's... being a common carrier makes all the difference, then how come the ICC just didn't order the Boston & Maine to fix the railroad?\nYou know.\nWhy?\nYou know, you didn't look to make a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2535.563, 2537.876, 2540.931, 2546.959, 2548.9, 2552.736, 2562.396, 2564.503, 2570.198, 2580.767, 2586.423, 2587.333, 2588.94, 2598.478, 2599.797, 2600.791], "stop_times": [2537.876, 2540.931, 2546.959, 2548.9, 2552.736, 2562.396, 2564.503, 2570.198, 2580.767, 2586.423, 2587.333, 2588.94, 2598.478, 2599.797, 2600.791, 2602.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2535.563}, "reply_to": "21813__1_073", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_075", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Common carriers are subject to state regulation to a degree that private companies are not.\nThey must, they must treat all comers alike.\nI mean, I don't think the public utility cases are at all comparable to condemning land in order to get a new company to move in and pay more taxes.\nI just don't think it's similar.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2602.565, 2607.395, 2610.572, 2620.769], "stop_times": [2607.395, 2610.572, 2620.769, 2622.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.565}, "reply_to": "21813__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_076", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Well, I would like to point out that the... there is a difference, the whole point is about having a test about reasonable assurances about whether something is going to happen and that's where the railroad case makes a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2622.339], "stop_times": [2637.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2622.339}, "reply_to": "21813__1_075", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_077", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "I agree with you on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2637.571], "stop_times": [2638.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2637.571}, "reply_to": "21813__1_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_078", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "That's the only point I was making, Your Honor.\nI didn't mean to go further than that.\nBut coming back to Justice Breyer's point, you made a point about poor people.\nAnd I'd like to point out, unless you're going to overrule Berman, you know, poor people and minorities are more likely to be vulnerable in the blight cases than in this case.\nI mean, this is a good example.\nEconomic development can take place anywhere in town.\nBlight happens in one area of town where the poor and the minorities are likely to live, and in fact, this very case, we have got middle class people.\nThere is no blight that's been alleged in the condemnation papers.\nThe other thing is if you stick to blight, this is the problem you're going to have.\nYou're going to end up making a blight jurisprudence because... because what's going to happen is the cities are going to say, we can only do this by blight, so they are going to have marginal definitions of blight.\nFlorida, for example, says property is blighted if it's vacant.\nIs that blight?\nI mean, you're going to have a big headache in that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2638.436, 2640.294, 2641.287, 2645.223, 2655.98, 2657.195, 2659.491, 2666.671, 2670.636, 2674.517, 2686.612, 2690.327, 2691.979], "stop_times": [2640.294, 2641.287, 2645.223, 2655.98, 2657.195, 2659.491, 2666.671, 2670.636, 2674.517, 2686.612, 2690.327, 2691.979, 2693.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2638.436}, "reply_to": "21813__1_077", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_079", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "No, I'm accepting that you can't make that kind of a distinction.\nThat's where I'm focusing on a test that would possibly apply only where you transfer property from one private person to another, but still wouldn't make those distinctions of blight or not blight.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2693.853, 2698.123], "stop_times": [2698.123, 2710.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2693.853}, "reply_to": "21813__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__1_080", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Yes.\nBut I mean, the other thing is, are you going to make... would the Court make a distinction between a case where the city is doing the developing itself, and another case where the city gives it to a private person.\nI'd like to point out, my client is going to keep the property.\nIt's... it's going to be leased to a developer.\nIt's not going to be sold to the developer.\nSo I mean, if this developer builds a building on this property, and then doesn't comply, they are in big trouble.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2710.821, 2711.314, 2723.015, 2727.084, 2729.397, 2731.105], "stop_times": [2711.314, 2723.015, 2727.084, 2729.397, 2731.105, 2737.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2710.821}, "reply_to": "21813__1_079", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_081", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "It does seem ironic that 100 percent of the premium for the new development goes to the, goes to the developer and to the taxpayers and not to the property owner.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2737.487], "stop_times": [2750.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2737.487}, "reply_to": "21813__1_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__1_082", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, that's an interesting point.\nA question was raised earlier about the other side about whether there should be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2750.324, 2754.055], "stop_times": [2754.055, 2759.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2750.324}, "reply_to": "21813__1_081", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_083", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "The compensation measures.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2759.035], "stop_times": [2760.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2759.035}, "reply_to": "21813__1_082", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__1_084", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--The compensation measures.\nExactly.\nBy the way, the answer to your question is if there is some... if there is some scholarly articles on that, I'm not aware of it either.\nBut I would point out that's something, you know, in terms of social costs and things like that, that is something that this Court might or might not wish to consider in a just compensation case, but I don't think it should affect whether you take the property or not.\nIt seems to me that is... I'm not taking a position on that one way or another, but it seems to me that's... you have to assume in this case that there is going to be just compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2760.149, 2761.098, 2761.47, 2767.951, 2783.101], "stop_times": [2761.098, 2761.47, 2767.951, 2783.101, 2793.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2760.149}, "reply_to": "21813__1_083", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_085", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "On that point, just in Connecticut, if the property owner goes to the jury and receives more than the state offered, does the state also have to pay those attorneys' fees?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2793.686], "stop_times": [2805.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2793.686}, "reply_to": "21813__1_084", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__1_086", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Under... under state law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2805.559], "stop_times": [2807.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2805.559}, "reply_to": "21813__1_085", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_087", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Under Connecticut law, if the property owner is offered $100 but goes to the jury and gets $200, does the property owner have to pay the attorneys' fees or does the state pay the attorneys' fees?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2807.909], "stop_times": [2819.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2807.909}, "reply_to": "21813__1_086", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__1_088", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "The state does not pay attorneys' fees, Your Honor.\nEverybody pays his own attorneys'... and likewise, the other way, if it's lower amount than what was put in than, you know, it's not as though the state gets attorneys' fees back.\nIt works both ways.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2819.221, 2821.634, 2832.967], "stop_times": [2821.634, 2832.967, 2833.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2819.221}, "reply_to": "21813__1_087", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_089", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Mr. Horton, what do you think is the reason that there are not a lot of examples of the sort that I think one of Justice O'Connor's hypotheticals raised, in which the, I don't know, the Econoline Motel gets condemned so that the Ritz can be built, thereby increasing tax revenue and so on, kind of parcel by parcel augmentations to the tax base and so on.\nWhy aren't there a lot of examples like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2833.916, 2861.658], "stop_times": [2861.658, 2863.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2833.916}, "reply_to": "21813__1_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__1_090", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "I think there is two good reasons for it, and that it's a theoretical more than a practical problem.\nFirst of all, you've got all sorts of transaction costs when you, when you go through eminent domain, as opposed to doing things voluntarily.\nSo you are not going to do things... yes, as a practical matter, to take Justice Scalia's earlier example, for one piece of property because of the transaction costs involved.\nI mean, you're never going to make up... unless it's to, you know, to favor the governor's friend or something like that, as you say.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2863.599, 2868.55, 2874.949, 2884.237], "stop_times": [2868.55, 2874.949, 2884.237, 2891.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2863.599}, "reply_to": "21813__1_089", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_091", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "In which case we have a different--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2891.296], "stop_times": [2892.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2891.296}, "reply_to": "21813__1_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__1_092", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "In which case you have a different problem.\nThe Willowbrook versus Oleck test.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2892.616, 2893.98], "stop_times": [2893.98, 2895.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2892.616}, "reply_to": "21813__1_091", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_093", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Okay.\nSo we have transaction costs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2895.754, 2895.959], "stop_times": [2895.959, 2897.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2895.754}, "reply_to": "21813__1_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__1_094", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Transaction costs, but that is a serious problem.\nAnd the other thing, there is the democratic process, Your Honor.\nI mean, especially if the taxpayers are paying for something and you know, they are getting a bad reason or run around about the reason, you know, that's subject to review.\nIt seems to me democracy can make good decisions and... or bad decisions under the Constitution, but the important thing is that when it's paid for, it's not like regulatory takings which are, you know, the taxpayers don't see that until it's too late.\nYou know, in this type of taking, the taxpayers are seeing up front what's going on.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2897.157, 2900.212, 2903.018, 2915.361, 2929.19], "stop_times": [2900.212, 2903.018, 2915.361, 2929.19, 2935.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2897.157}, "reply_to": "21813__1_093", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_095", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "That's true.\nBut now, put yourself in the position of the homeowner.\nI take it, if it's a forced sale, it's at the market value, the individual, let's say it's someone who has lived in his house his whole life.\nHe bought the house for $50,000.\nIt's worth half a million.\nHe has 450,000 profit.\nHe pays 30 percent to the government and the state in taxes, and then he has to live somewhere.\nWell, I mean, what's he supposed to do?\nHe now has probably 350,000 to pay for a house.\nHe gets half a house because that's all he is going to do, all he is going to get for that money after he paid the taxes, or whatever.\nAnd I mean, there are a lot of... and he has to move and so forth.\nSo going back to Justice Kennedy's point, is there some way of assuring that the just compensation actually puts the person in the position he would be in if he didn't have to sell his house?\nOr is he inevitably worse off?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2935.302, 2936.083, 2938.562, 2946.114, 2948.798, 2950.551, 2953.545, 2958.829, 2961.884, 2967.457, 2974.6, 2977.655, 2992.926], "stop_times": [2936.083, 2938.562, 2946.114, 2948.798, 2950.551, 2953.545, 2958.829, 2961.884, 2967.457, 2974.6, 2977.655, 2992.926, 2995.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2935.302}, "reply_to": "21813__1_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__1_096", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, I mean, first of all, the... in Connecticut, fortunately, we have relocation loans which are involved here.\nAnd they are available in this case.\nThere was, it wasn't clear from our brief whether they were loans or not, and it is correct that they are loans.\nThe other side pointed out that that was for all projects in the state.\nThat's not true, you know, I mean, there is $10 million involved in relocation funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [2995.238, 3005.723, 3007.581, 3013.731, 3017.696], "stop_times": [3005.723, 3007.581, 3013.731, 3017.696, 3022.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2995.238}, "reply_to": "21813__1_095", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_097", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--But the loans don't make him whole.\nIsn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3022.526, 3024.755], "stop_times": [3024.755, 3025.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3022.526}, "reply_to": "21813__1_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__1_098", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3025.176], "stop_times": [3025.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3025.176}, "reply_to": "21813__1_097", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_099", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--I mean, what bothered Justice Breyer I guess bothers a lot of us.\nAnd that is, is there a problem of making the homeowner or the property owner whole?\nBut I suppose the answer to that is that goes to the measure of compensation which is not the issue here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3025.869, 3030.244, 3036.393], "stop_times": [3030.244, 3036.393, 3042.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.869}, "reply_to": "21813__1_098", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21813__1_100", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Yes.\nAnd that's, and I had said that earlier.\nBut another point when I was talking about roads is that applies to... that could apply to any type of case.\nIt doesn't just apply to a case like this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3042.149, 3042.337, 3044.938, 3049.479], "stop_times": [3042.337, 3044.938, 3049.479, 3051.215], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3042.149}, "reply_to": "21813__1_099", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_101", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "And that would really overrule a bunch of prior cases and really throw condemnation law into chaos.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3051.215], "stop_times": [3058.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3051.215}, "reply_to": "21813__1_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_102", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Yes.\nAnd Justice Scalia, a question you... or actually it was a comment you had made about public use versus public purpose.\nAnd that would not only overrule... and my opposing counsel said there is a difference between the two.\nAnd when pressed by Justice Souter... and I would point out, that's just overruling cases going back to Berman.\nThat's overruling two decisions by--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3058.479, 3058.967, 3066.448, 3072.513, 3078.996], "stop_times": [3058.967, 3066.448, 3072.513, 3078.996, 3080.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3058.479}, "reply_to": "21813__1_101", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_103", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "What is the remedy?\nLet's repose the problem to which I want to remedy then.\nAnd maybe this isn't the right remedy.\nBut the remedy that they are saying, and I'm really repeating it, is an individual has a house and they want to be really not made a lot worse off, at least not made a lot worse off just so some other people can get a lot more money.\nNow what, what is the right... is there no constitutional protection?\nIf this isn't the right case, what is?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3080.482, 3081.884, 3085.434, 3087.253, 3103.532, 3108.096], "stop_times": [3081.884, 3085.434, 3087.253, 3103.532, 3108.096, 3110.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3080.482}, "reply_to": "21813__1_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21813__1_104", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Well, the right case is in the just compensation concept, but going to your, your point, if this were here as just compensation, I would say in terms of just compensation, in deciding what the fair market value is today, you can certainly take into account the economic plan that's going into effect.\nYou know--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3110.204, 3130.387], "stop_times": [3130.387, 3131.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3110.204}, "reply_to": "21813__1_103", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_105", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Really?\nI thought that that was a fundamental of condemnation law that you can not value the property being taken based on what it's going to be worth after the project.\nThat's just--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3131.13, 3132.866, 3144.855], "stop_times": [3132.866, 3144.855, 3145.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3131.13}, "reply_to": "21813__1_104", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__1_106", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3145.414], "stop_times": [3146.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3145.414}, "reply_to": "21813__1_105", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_107", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Unless Connecticut law is much different from any other state.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3146.174], "stop_times": [3149.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3146.174}, "reply_to": "21813__1_106", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__1_108", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--I may have misspoken on that subject, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3149.334], "stop_times": [3152.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3149.334}, "reply_to": "21813__1_107", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_109", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "But you know, in any case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3152.64], "stop_times": [3155.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3152.64}, "reply_to": "21813__1_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_110", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3155.362], "stop_times": [3155.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3155.362}, "reply_to": "21813__1_109", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_111", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--What this lady wants is not more money.\nNo amount of money is going to satisfy her.\nShe is living in this house, you know, her whole life and she does not want to move.\nShe said I'll move if it's being taken for a public use, but by God, you're just giving it to some other private individual because that individual is going to pay more taxes.\nI... it seems to me that's, that's an objection in principle, and an objection in principle that the public use requirement of the Constitution seems to be addressed to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3155.9, 3158.584, 3161.306, 3165.681, 3174.969], "stop_times": [3158.584, 3161.306, 3165.681, 3174.969, 3186.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3155.9}, "reply_to": "21813__1_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_112", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--But as I say, Your Honor, if public use and public purpose are the same thing, which they are unless you're going to overrule Holmes' decisions from 1905 and 1906.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3186.115], "stop_times": [3196.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3186.115}, "reply_to": "21813__1_111", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_113", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "It wouldn't the first of Holmes' decisions to be overruled.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3196.85], "stop_times": [3200.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3196.85}, "reply_to": "21813__1_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_114", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, I think you'd have to take some substantial chunks of language out of Berman as well, because Justice Douglas spoke very expansively in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3200.027], "stop_times": [3213.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3200.027}, "reply_to": "21813__1_113", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21813__1_115", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Plus I think Holmes was right when he said that to say that the public actually has to use the property is not an appropriate meaning of the phrase, so I would not think you'd want to revisit that case, even if you want to revisit some other of Holmes' decisions.\nBut the... I guess the best answer I have, Justice Breyer, to your question, after I, after I misspoke is simply to go back to the point that the time at which you consider what just compensation is, is in the just compensation proceedings.\nAnd while I misspoke about what the test was, and I apologize for that, certainly this Court can consider if social costs should be taken into account at that time.\nI'm not saying they should.\nI haven't thought that through as can you obviously see by my misanswering the question, but it seems to me because my primary answer is that you don't look at that now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3213.585, 3231.234, 3249.644, 3259.775, 3260.79], "stop_times": [3231.234, 3249.644, 3259.775, 3260.79, 3269.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3213.585}, "reply_to": "21813__1_114", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_116", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, of course, the tax code does have special provisions for involuntary sales and reinvestments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3269.313], "stop_times": [3274.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3269.313}, "reply_to": "21813__1_115", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__1_117", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Yes, it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3274.043], "stop_times": [3274.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3274.043}, "reply_to": "21813__1_116", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_118", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "The tax hypothetical is not quite accurate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3274.536], "stop_times": [3276.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3274.536}, "reply_to": "21813__1_117", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__1_119", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3276.477], "stop_times": [3276.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3276.477}, "reply_to": "21813__1_118", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_120", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Mr. Horton, I'm not proposing that the state has to use the property itself.\nI'm simply proposing that its use not be a private use which has incidental benefits to the state.\nThat is not enough to justify use of the condemnation power.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3276.743, 3282.671, 3290.556], "stop_times": [3282.671, 3290.556, 3295.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3276.743}, "reply_to": "21813__1_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_121", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Well, I don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3295.136], "stop_times": [3296.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3295.136}, "reply_to": "21813__1_120", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_122", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "You can give it to a private entity, you can give it to a railroad, to some public utility.\nBut the use that it's put to by that railroad and public utility is a public use.\nThat's why it's a public utility.\nIt's quite different to say you can give it to a private individual simply because that private individual is going to hire more people and pay more taxes.\nThat, it seems to me, just washes out entirely the distinction between private use and public use.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3296.417, 3301.618, 3306.736, 3308.305, 3316.313], "stop_times": [3301.618, 3306.736, 3308.305, 3316.313, 3321.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3296.417}, "reply_to": "21813__1_121", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21813__1_123", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "--Well, I don't agree, Your Honor, because I think, you know, I think if a person is without a job and if a person is not able to get basic services that they need from the town because the town can't afford it, that's just as important as a trains running on time or eliminating blight.\nAnd Justice Breyer, I thought of another answer to your question that has to do with this case.\nAnd that is even on a higher test, we win because the Connecticut Supreme Court applied a higher test in this case.\nAnd just... I would say that in this case, the essence of federalism is to let various courts make various decisions about what they consider an important public purpose.\nIt may be different in Utah from the way it is in Connecticut, and it's different in Florida, and I don't think this Court should be having a new jurisprudence for this area and having two separate tests, and maybe having a test that even approaches the Nollan Dolan test where you certainly want to discourage people from taking these actions.\nAnd so it seems to me the four words I think that this Court should consider... and I'm not going to tell you the four words since my red light is on.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3321.68, 3338.582, 3342.485, 3349.272, 3364.572, 3385.581, 3396.068], "stop_times": [3338.582, 3342.485, 3349.272, 3364.572, 3385.581, 3396.068, 3396.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3321.68}, "reply_to": "21813__1_122", "speaker": "wesley_w_horton"}
{"id": "21813__1_124", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Mr. Bullock, you have three and a half minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3396.644], "stop_times": [3403.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3396.644}, "reply_to": "21813__1_123", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21813__1_125", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "Mr. Bullock, do you know those four words?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3403.87], "stop_times": [3405.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3403.87}, "reply_to": "21813__1_124", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21813__2_000", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "I wish I did.\nI could respond to it if I... if I actually did.\nYour Honors, first of all, just a couple of matters regarding the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision.\nThe Connecticut Supreme Court did not apply the test that we suggest in our case, they explicitly, the majority explicitly declined to apply heightened scrutiny in this, in this instance.\nI think the key to understanding their argument is the answer to the question of, can you take a Motel 6 and give it to a fancier hotel?\nTheir answer is yes.\nAnd that's what's really at stake here.\nThese condemnations are taking place throughout the country.\nA city in California condemns the 99 cents store in order to give it to Costco.\nNow, were they giving enormous benefits to Costco?\nOf course they were.\nBut they did so because they wanted to get the tax revenue, and that's the problem with these types of condemnations, the desire to help a private party and the desire to help the public are really one and the same.\nThe public only benefits if the private party is successful.\nAll right, the NLDC is a private body.\nIt has a private board of directors, and it is leasing land to a private developer for 99 years at $1 a year.\nThat is private ownership of land.\nAlso, Your Honors, there is no severe assembly problem in this particular case, and in many other development situations.\nThe NLDC and the city have 32 acres that was given to them by the Federal Government for them to do as they wish.\nAnd our homeowners who have lived there a long time and wish to hold on to their properties do not object to that development going on.\nIt is within the rights of the city and the NLDC to do so.\nAlso, Your Honor, the Rindge case that was cited by the Respondents, they actually knew what was going to go on in that, in that case.\nThey knew what the use was going to be.\nAnd finally, Your Honors, the Respondents talk about the effect that this may have upon poor people.\nNot all neighborhoods, not all poor neighborhoods are blighted.\nBut the one thing that all poor neighborhoods share in common is that they don't produce much in the way of tax revenue, so you're going to put poor neighborhoods and working class neighborhoods like the ones that exist in Fort Trumbull in jeopardy if the Court affirms the decision below.\nAnd that's why so many organizations that are concerned about the rights of senior citizens and the rights of minorities and poor folks like legal services corporations have joined in our side to support the property owners in this case.\nIf there is no further questions, Your Honors, I will close.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3405.522, 3409.321, 3412.022, 3420.217, 3431.984, 3440.529, 3442.88, 3444.737, 3447.709, 3453.161, 3456.726, 3458.362, 3470.083, 3474.459, 3478.917, 3489.114, 3491.593, 3498.196, 3505.544, 3513.141, 3517.432, 3526.72, 3528.495, 3536.091, 3541.127, 3558.688, 3571.691, 3575.489], "stop_times": [3409.321, 3412.022, 3420.217, 3431.984, 3440.529, 3442.88, 3444.737, 3447.709, 3453.161, 3456.726, 3458.362, 3470.083, 3474.459, 3478.917, 3489.114, 3491.593, 3498.196, 3505.544, 3513.141, 3517.432, 3526.72, 3528.495, 3536.091, 3541.127, 3558.688, 3571.691, 3575.489, 3577.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3405.522}, "reply_to": "21813__1_125", "speaker": "scott_g_bullock"}
{"id": "21813__2_001", "conversation_id": "21813", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-108", "start_times": [3577.058], "stop_times": [3578.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3577.058}, "reply_to": "21813__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21688__0_000", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "We'll hear argument next in No. 03-377, the Koons Buick Pontiac v. Bradley Nigh.\nMr. Ayer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [0.0, 9.166], "stop_times": [9.166, 53.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21688__0_001", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis is a straightforward case of... of statutory construction in which the words, context, purpose, and history of the statute in question all point to a single meaning that is contrary to the conclusion reached by the court below.\nThe case concerns the Truth in Lending Act's basic statutory damages provision, 1640(a)(2)(A)(i), or little (i) I'll call it here, which since the statute's enactment, has allowed individuals to recover from lenders who violate the act an amount equal to twice the finance charge, but limited to a range of $100 to $1,000.\nThis statutory damage recovery is available under the act without regard to actual injury or intent or fault by the lender.\nIn addition to statutory damages, the act provides for actual damages to be available, administrative agency enforcement, and criminal penalties.\nI want to just talk briefly about the history of the act because I think it's... it's critical to understanding the issue before the Court, and I'll refer to places where we've quoted it in the blue brief.\nAs enacted in 1968... and this provision appears at the bottom of page 5 of our brief up to the top of page 6.\nThe provision I've described was the only statutory damage provision, and it was followed by language that indicated... and I should say it appeared... and this is important... at that time, in section 1640(a)(1) and began right there after the (1).\nAnd the limitation of liability that appears there says the words that liability under this paragraph shall not be less than $100, nor more than $1,000.\nThat section was first amended in 1974, and the amended language appears at the top of page 7 of our brief.\nAnd what happened in 1974 was that this provision... the actual words of the provision were not changed except for one, but it was moved because other things were added to the statute.\nAnd it now became... instead of 1640(a)(1), it became section 1640(a)(2)(A).\nThe only change in the provision, the only word changed was the change from the word paragraph... liability under this paragraph... to the... to the word subparagraph.\nThe next amendment... and then the... the statute after this then stood for nearly 20 years unchanged at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [53.87, 55.689, 67.911, 90.778, 97.549, 106.027, 117.733, 126.528, 146.302, 157.342, 168.593, 180.36, 187.419, 197.738], "stop_times": [55.689, 67.911, 90.778, 97.549, 106.027, 117.733, 126.528, 146.302, 157.342, 168.593, 180.36, 187.419, 197.738, 205.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 53.87}, "reply_to": "21688__0_000", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_002", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Can I interrupt you right there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [205.252], "stop_times": [206.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 205.252}, "reply_to": "21688__0_001", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__0_003", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [206.571], "stop_times": [207.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 206.571}, "reply_to": "21688__0_002", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_004", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "What did the word subparagraph describe in the 1974 statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [207.564], "stop_times": [212.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 207.564}, "reply_to": "21688__0_003", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__0_005", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "It... it described subparagraph (A).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [212.804], "stop_times": [214.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 212.804}, "reply_to": "21688__0_004", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_006", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Subparagraph (A).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [214.745], "stop_times": [216.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 214.745}, "reply_to": "21688__0_005", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__0_007", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [216.314], "stop_times": [216.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 216.314}, "reply_to": "21688__0_006", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_008", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [216.769], "stop_times": [217.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 216.769}, "reply_to": "21688__0_007", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__0_009", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "And I'll explain--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [217.429], "stop_times": [217.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 217.429}, "reply_to": "21688__0_008", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_010", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "That's the small (a), isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [217.967], "stop_times": [218.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.967}, "reply_to": "21688__0_009", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__0_011", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Capital (A).\nCapital (A)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [218.915, 219.658], "stop_times": [219.658, 220.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 218.915}, "reply_to": "21688__0_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21688__0_012", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--That's capital.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [220.567], "stop_times": [220.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 220.567}, "reply_to": "21688__0_011", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_013", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Which had... which had two... two subparts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [220.939], "stop_times": [224.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 220.939}, "reply_to": "21688__0_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__0_014", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Not in '74, Your Honor.\nIn... the next--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [224.095, 225.664], "stop_times": [225.664, 226.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 224.095}, "reply_to": "21688__0_013", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_015", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Oh, I'm sorry.\nOkay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [226.49, 227.15], "stop_times": [227.15, 227.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 226.49}, "reply_to": "21688__0_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__0_016", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--In 1976--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [227.605], "stop_times": [229.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 227.605}, "reply_to": "21688__0_015", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_017", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "After the amendment in '76--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [229.174], "stop_times": [230.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 229.174}, "reply_to": "21688__0_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__0_018", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [230.743], "stop_times": [231.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 230.743}, "reply_to": "21688__0_017", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_019", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--it described the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [231.32], "stop_times": [232.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 231.32}, "reply_to": "21688__0_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__0_020", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Precisely correct.\nAnd what was done in '76 was Congress passed the Consumer Leasing Act, and it added a second, I'll call it, (ii).\nI'm sorry.\nIt added an (i) in front of the original provision, so it was then 1640(a)(2)(A)... capital (A), little (i).\nAnd then in '76, (ii), and the (ii) was a provision not really relevant here except that it's in the middle of what we're talking about.\nIt dealt with leases and had a formula with regard to leases.\nIt is uncontested by any court certainly that from that time forward to 1995, the cap that appeared then at the end of... of little (ii) applied to both sections... I'm sorry... clauses (i) and little (i), and that limitation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [232.146, 232.972, 239.538, 240.076, 247.134, 255.019, 257.786], "stop_times": [232.972, 239.538, 240.076, 247.134, 255.019, 257.786, 277.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 232.146}, "reply_to": "21688__0_019", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_021", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Was it ever challenged or was this just a common assumption?\nWas that ever--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [277.31, 281.48], "stop_times": [281.48, 282.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 277.31}, "reply_to": "21688__0_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21688__0_022", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Well, there are--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [282.24], "stop_times": [282.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 282.24}, "reply_to": "21688__0_021", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_023", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Was that issue litigated?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [282.983], "stop_times": [283.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 282.983}, "reply_to": "21688__0_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21688__0_024", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Your Honor, there are a number of... of cases that applied it presumably to plaintiffs if they thought they had an argument, would have liked to argue they could have gotten more than $1,000, but there... there are a bunch of cases we've cited in our brief that... that show that that was the consistent interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [283.809], "stop_times": [296.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 283.809}, "reply_to": "21688__0_023", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_025", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Let me just be sure.\nYou're going a little fast, and I want to be sure I follow you.\nDuring the period between 1976 and 1995, in your view the term subparagraph still referred to capital (A) and to both subparts of that subparagraph.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [296.979, 298.215, 300.527], "stop_times": [298.215, 300.527, 312.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 296.979}, "reply_to": "21688__0_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__0_026", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Correct, actually clauses, Your Honor, but that's correct, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [312.871], "stop_times": [314.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 312.871}, "reply_to": "21688__0_025", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_027", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [314.895], "stop_times": [315.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 314.895}, "reply_to": "21688__0_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__0_028", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "What then happened in 1995... and this... the actual enactment appears in the blue brief at page 10, footnote 6, and this is also I think important.\nWhat Congress did... and they were in the midst of a series of amendments relating to mortgages that was made necessary... the range of them necessary by a court of appeals decision that created quite a crisis of threatened liability to the mortgage industry.\nIn this respect here... they enacted a lot of other things, but with regard to this provision, as footnote 6 indicates... and it's mostly over on page 10... all they did... they did not even reenact the preexisting provision.\nThey simply said move the or from the middle of that provision to the end and insert the following language, and the following language was the expression of an intent to increase the cap on a class of loans that had actually previously been included in the... in the overarching provision that relates to loans, which is the original one that we're talking about here that deals with twice the finance charge, capped at $1,000.\nThey added the language that essentially says, relating to a credit transaction not under an open end credit plan that is secured by real property, i.e., a mortgage, not less than $200 nor greater than $2,000.\nAnd in that respect, they clearly acted to provide a higher cap with regard to mortgage transactions and to pull those out of the first section and into the last.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [315.388, 326.822, 340.652, 356.338, 381.851, 396.091], "stop_times": [326.822, 340.652, 356.338, 381.851, 396.091, 406.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 315.388}, "reply_to": "21688__0_027", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_029", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, Mr. Ayer, if I just read the statutory language as it appears now, the impression I get is that the language in capital (A), little (ii), except that the liability, just applies to little (ii).\nYou have to rely on kind of a... a word of art in the use of subparagraph to reach a contrary result it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [406.288, 429.899], "stop_times": [429.899, 440.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 406.288}, "reply_to": "21688__0_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21688__0_030", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, Your Honor, we... we have... and... and your reasoning... and I'll... and I'll expand on it slightly.\nThe reasoning of the court below... and it's essentially a syllogism I think, and it's... it's not far from what Your Honor has just said.\nIt is essentially that, well, the reference to subparagraph formerly did refer to subparagraph (A).\nNow Congress has added clause (iii) which... with its own cap.\nSo the limitation to $1,000 clearly cannot apply to clause (iii).\nTherefore, it can no longer apply to all of clause (A).\nTherefore, it must refer to something.\nWhat does it refer to?\nIt has to refer to clause (ii) only.\nAnd the problem with that is essentially threefold, and I'll... I'll go through them quickly and then expand upon them, if I can.\nThe first is that, as... as Your Honor has stated, the word subparagraph... I won't call it a term of art, but it has a very clear, specific meaning in the context of this provision.\nThat's the first point.\nThe second point--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [440.756, 444.843, 450.499, 457.641, 461.933, 465.915, 469.53, 471.509, 472.502, 474.853, 480.963, 492.193, 494.133], "stop_times": [444.843, 450.499, 457.641, 461.933, 465.915, 469.53, 471.509, 472.502, 474.853, 480.963, 492.193, 494.133, 494.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 440.756}, "reply_to": "21688__0_029", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_031", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "May... may I stop you at that point?\nBecause you did introduce this neat drafting, the set of words, section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, and clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [494.876, 496.195], "stop_times": [496.195, 506.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 494.876}, "reply_to": "21688__0_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21688__0_032", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [506.432], "stop_times": [506.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 506.432}, "reply_to": "21688__0_031", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_033", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Had you introduced... have you argued before the Fourth Circuit those drafting manuals?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [506.803], "stop_times": [514.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 506.803}, "reply_to": "21688__0_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21688__0_034", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWe did... we did not.\nAnd let me... let me just explain what... we've been trying to think about how to understand those manuals, and the best... the best idea I've heard from anyone is to refer to them as a sort of a Rosetta stone.\nThey're not really dictionaries.\nThey're not really, I... I wouldn't say, authoritative statements of the way words are always used in Federal statutes because in fact you can find exceptions.\nYou can find mistakes.\nYou can find departures.\nBut they are a tremendous aid in... what... what it tells you is that the folks who are drafting legislation as technicians have in mind a hierarchy of these terms, and they try very hard to use them in a consistent manner, and they have for the last 50 years because we have books that go back to 1954 that do this.\nAnd so the question becomes, with that in mind, when you look at what else you know, does that help you understand what the word means?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [514.977, 515.514, 516.506, 526.288, 528.174, 538.071, 538.92, 539.829, 558.693], "stop_times": [515.514, 516.506, 526.288, 528.174, 538.071, 538.92, 539.829, 558.693, 566.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 514.977}, "reply_to": "21688__0_033", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_035", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "The problem I have, Mr. Ayer, is I don't... I can accept your belief that... that subparagraph refers to all of (A) and yet still agree with the respondent here or with the court below because what... what limits the... the phrase, shall not be less than $100 nor greater than $1,000... what limits it to subpart (2) is not the word subparagraph but rather the fact that it is an exception only to (2).\nThe liability under little... what you've called... what... (ii)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [566.867, 602.328], "stop_times": [602.328, 607.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 566.867}, "reply_to": "21688__0_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__0_036", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [607.445], "stop_times": [608.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 607.445}, "reply_to": "21688__0_035", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_037", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--The liability under (ii) is a liability under this subparagraph, and the exception to little (ii) is only an exception to little (ii).\nSo I can read under this subparagraph to mean perfectly, exactly what you say it means, in the case of an individual action relating to a consumer lease the... the liability would be 25 percent, except that... that is an exception from what we've just said... liability under this subparagraph, which includes (ii)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [608.105, 620.548], "stop_times": [620.548, 639.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 608.105}, "reply_to": "21688__0_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__0_038", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, now, that was a bit... all of that was true prior to 1995.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [639.934], "stop_times": [642.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.934}, "reply_to": "21688__0_037", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_039", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Well, that may be, but now you're... now you're relying on... on the... on the statutory history argument rather than on the mere meaning of the word subparagraph.\nWhat I'm suggesting is I can... I can concede that subparagraph means what you says... say it means.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [642.906, 651.823], "stop_times": [651.823, 658.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 642.906}, "reply_to": "21688__0_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__0_040", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "It refers to a section with a capital (A).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [658.76], "stop_times": [659.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 658.76}, "reply_to": "21688__0_039", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_041", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Refers to all... all of (A).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [659.791], "stop_times": [662.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.791}, "reply_to": "21688__0_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__0_042", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [662.104], "stop_times": [662.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.104}, "reply_to": "21688__0_041", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_043", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "But when that phrase is used in an except clause that only applies to little (ii), it... it still says the... the foregoing liability under this subparagraph, that is, the liability contained in little (ii)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [662.426], "stop_times": [681.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 662.426}, "reply_to": "21688__0_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__0_044", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Let me go--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [681.051], "stop_times": [681.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 681.051}, "reply_to": "21688__0_043", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_045", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--which is a liability under this subparagraph.\nIsn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [681.489, 683.402], "stop_times": [683.402, 683.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 681.489}, "reply_to": "21688__0_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__0_046", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Well, it is, Your Honor.\nI... I'm having trouble following that, Your Honor.\nAnd let me go back, if I could, to 1974 which... and let... and let me say one more thing about 1974.\nThe last time this limitation was actually enacted by Congress, was actually put into words and put into a piece of legislation, as opposed to adding ornaments to it or things in between, or this or that, was in 1974.\nIn 1974, all they did with this provision was move it into a new section that had an (A) in front... a capital (A) in front of it and out of one that had a (1) in front of it.\nAnd they changed the word from paragraph to subparagraph.\nAnd I would suggest the Rosetta stone or the stones in these manuals that tell us what they tend to want to have in mind when they're doing this tell us exactly what they were thinking about when they put the word subparagraph--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [683.857, 685.26, 687.2, 692.856, 706.686, 715.481, 719.112], "stop_times": [685.26, 687.2, 692.856, 706.686, 715.481, 719.112, 731.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 683.857}, "reply_to": "21688__0_045", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_047", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--But even if we don't accept that... and I... if you're going to reach this, I... I don't want to spoil your sequence, but even if we don't accept the Rosetta stone, in order to get to the... to the position below, you've got to read subparagraph to refer to what we would normally call a clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [731.539], "stop_times": [749.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 731.539}, "reply_to": "21688__0_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__0_048", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Absolutely, Your Honor.\nCompletely correct.\nI... that... I can't say it better, and I won't.\nThe... a couple things I will say that are important are that when you go through the true... a standard way of reading legislation, if you want to know what a word means, is you read the rest of the legislation in issue.\nWhen you read the rest of the legislation in issue and you find that there are a total of 37 references to the word subparagraph, and 36 of them, without any ambiguity at all, refer to a letter... a... a provision that starts with a capital letter.\nIf you read the entire United States Code, you can find some instances where there are departures from this standard way of speaking.\nA number of them, frankly, are in statutes back to the '40's and '30's, but some are still... there are mistakes in various places.\nBut again, the convention that's laid out in these manuals is the one that the courts tend to follow.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [749.622, 749.993, 751.48, 754.823, 766.833, 780.291, 787.971, 793.544], "stop_times": [749.993, 751.48, 754.823, 766.833, 780.291, 787.971, 793.544, 798.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 749.622}, "reply_to": "21688__0_047", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_049", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "But that convention, it seems to me, is much less strong than the fact that you don't read a word to mean one thing for purposes of one part of the... of the whole paragraph and another thing for the purposes of the rest.\nIf... if you read it the way you want us to read it, it would apply to little (iii) as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [798.207, 814.471], "stop_times": [814.471, 820.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 798.207}, "reply_to": "21688__0_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__0_050", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, I mean, I think that that's the next thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [820.498], "stop_times": [822.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 820.498}, "reply_to": "21688__0_049", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_051", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "And that is simply a flat contradiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [822.439], "stop_times": [825.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 822.439}, "reply_to": "21688__0_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__0_052", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [825.123], "stop_times": [825.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 825.123}, "reply_to": "21688__0_051", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_053", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "And... and the... the reading given by the court below produced no flat contradiction in the terms of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [825.389], "stop_times": [831.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.389}, "reply_to": "21688__0_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__0_054", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Well, it... it flatly contradicted the standing meaning of the word subparagraph.\nIt ignored the standing meaning.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [831.788, 834.184], "stop_times": [834.184, 835.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 831.788}, "reply_to": "21688__0_053", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_055", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "No... no contradiction within... within the statute itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [835.503], "stop_times": [839.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 835.503}, "reply_to": "21688__0_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__0_056", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [839.961], "stop_times": [840.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 839.961}, "reply_to": "21688__0_055", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_057", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "It may have given what you call the Rosetta stone a different meaning, but it did not produce a... a contradiction in the terminology of the statute, whereas yours does.\nYou want us to read subparagraph to mean all of (A) except not for purposes of (iii).\nYou want us to do it for purposes of (ii) but not for purposes of (iii).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [840.35, 849.909, 855.444], "stop_times": [849.909, 855.444, 858.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.35}, "reply_to": "21688__0_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__0_058", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I think that the principle or the canon that the specific controls the general is one that... that Your Honor set forth in the... in the Casey case, and many other cases have asserted it.\nWhat went on here in 1995 I think is easy to discern.\nWhat it... what it was was they wanted to have a higher cap on mortgage loans than on other kinds of loans, and so they glued a provision on the back.\nWas it done elegantly?\nWas it done as clearly as it might have been?\nNo, but as the Court said in... in the Lamie case, it's awkward but it's still straightforward in terms of meaning.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [858.333, 869.228, 873.126, 881.488, 882.686, 884.832], "stop_times": [869.228, 873.126, 881.488, 882.686, 884.832, 891.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 858.333}, "reply_to": "21688__0_057", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_059", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "It isn't straightforward.\nThe... the specific controls the general where there is an unavoidable conflict.\nThere is no unavoidable conflict here.\nYou--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [891.148, 891.398, 896.228, 899.283], "stop_times": [891.398, 896.228, 899.283, 899.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 891.148}, "reply_to": "21688__0_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__0_060", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Only if--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [899.693], "stop_times": [900.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 899.693}, "reply_to": "21688__0_059", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_061", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--you're urging that one interpretation is better than another, and if there were an unavoidable conflict, I would agree that (iii) would... would overrule (ii), but it is not necessary to read (ii) that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [900.231], "stop_times": [911.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 900.231}, "reply_to": "21688__0_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__0_062", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--What you have to do, Your Honor, to take the approach that the court below took is ignore the established meaning of the word subparagraph.\nI say established because when it was enacted in 1974, it's perfectly clear why the word subparagraph was put in there.\nAnd then what one has to do is... is hypothesize that the 1995 amendment, which did not reenact the original provision, but simply added something else to it... and it wasn't something else that said we've just gotten rid of the cap on (i).\nIt was something else that said, as to mortgages, do the following.\nThat that by inference changed the meaning that was put in the word subparagraph in 1974 because it hasn't been reenacted since.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [911.005, 917.626, 925.122, 939.796, 942.296], "stop_times": [917.626, 925.122, 939.796, 942.296, 950.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 911.005}, "reply_to": "21688__0_061", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_063", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "I don't want to have to go through the... the legends of the... of the legislative process every time I read a statute.\nIf Congress wrote it this way--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [950.774, 958.393], "stop_times": [958.393, 960.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 950.774}, "reply_to": "21688__0_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__0_064", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "I thought Your Honor was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [960.622], "stop_times": [961.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 960.622}, "reply_to": "21688__0_063", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_065", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--it seems to me that I should interpret it the way it is written.\nWhy... why do I have to go back and say, oh, this is what it used to be?\nAnd when they added this word, if they made a mistake, they made a mistake, but the language reads the way it reads, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [961.365, 964.503, 967.847], "stop_times": [964.503, 967.847, 975.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 961.365}, "reply_to": "21688__0_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__0_066", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Well, I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [975.937], "stop_times": [977.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 975.937}, "reply_to": "21688__0_065", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_067", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "It's not my job to correct their mistakes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [977.352], "stop_times": [979.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 977.352}, "reply_to": "21688__0_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__0_068", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Again, I... I... all I can say is that it... it seems to me that we really do need to look at the meaning of the word subparagraph at the time it was enacted by Congress.\nThat meaning in 1974 is utterly clear.\nAnd what... the only way you can get to the conclusion of the court below is by saying in 1995 Congress somehow or other changed the meaning that was put in the statute in 1974, and they did it without ever saying they were doing it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [979.531, 990.798, 994.059], "stop_times": [990.798, 994.059, 1009.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 979.531}, "reply_to": "21688__0_067", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_069", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "May I ask you, Mr. Ayer, does your opponent agree that prior to the 1995 amendment, the word subparagraph in the (ii) part of (2)(A) referred to (i) as well as (ii)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1009.913], "stop_times": [1024.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1009.913}, "reply_to": "21688__0_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__0_070", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "I am not positive if they do agree with that.\nThe only thing I can say for sure is that every court that has ever addressed the issue does agree with that.\nAnd I... and I... I think they may have said something in their brief to question that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1024.978, 1028.321, 1033.152], "stop_times": [1028.321, 1033.152, 1037.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1024.978}, "reply_to": "21688__0_069", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_071", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Could we talk about the facts of this case?\nWould... would your client fall under little (i) as a result of what happened?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1037.405, 1040.56], "stop_times": [1040.56, 1046.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1037.405}, "reply_to": "21688__0_070", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21688__0_072", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1046.693], "stop_times": [1047.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1046.693}, "reply_to": "21688__0_071", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_073", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "And the limit there would be twice the amount of any finance charge in connection with it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1047.147], "stop_times": [1053.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1047.147}, "reply_to": "21688__0_072", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21688__0_074", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1053.464], "stop_times": [1054.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1053.464}, "reply_to": "21688__0_073", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_075", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Unless the except provision applies.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1054.085], "stop_times": [1056.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1054.085}, "reply_to": "21688__0_074", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21688__0_076", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1056.647], "stop_times": [1057.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1056.647}, "reply_to": "21688__0_075", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_077", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "And what would that dollar amount be here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1057.057], "stop_times": [1058.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1057.057}, "reply_to": "21688__0_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21688__0_078", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, that... that dollar amount in this case... and... and the judgment as it now stands is over $24,000.\nSo we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1058.998, 1064.487], "stop_times": [1064.487, 1065.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1058.998}, "reply_to": "21688__0_077", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_079", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "And you argue that the limitation is $1,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1065.602], "stop_times": [1069.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1065.602}, "reply_to": "21688__0_078", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21688__0_080", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Correct, Your Honor.\nAnd... and the... the last major reason... the... just to summarize, the... the two... first two reasons I think I've given now for why the decision below must be wrong are, first, that for all the reasons I've tried to point to, the word subparagraph really has quite a specific meaning, thankfully, in the place we're talking about it appearing.\nAnd... and it refers to a section starting with capital letter.\nSecond point--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1069.772, 1070.06, 1090.122, 1092.889], "stop_times": [1070.06, 1090.122, 1092.889, 1093.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1069.772}, "reply_to": "21688__0_079", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_081", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "What about the argument that this drafting manual that you're relying on for the meaning of paragraph, subparagraph, clause wasn't... what was the year it was published?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1093.632], "stop_times": [1109.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1093.632}, "reply_to": "21688__0_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21688__0_082", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Well, there... there are two, Your Honor.\nOne was published in the... I believe the House manual was published in 1995 and actually was published a month after the enactment of the statute.\nThe Senate manual... but there... but there was a prior version of it, and this version was in fact in draft form at the time.\nBut the... but the real... the point I want to... and... and the Senate manual was in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1109.153, 1110.434, 1119.101, 1125.667], "stop_times": [1110.434, 1119.101, 1125.667, 1129.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1109.153}, "reply_to": "21688__0_081", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_083", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Because the argument is that these manuals came out after this TILA statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1129.094], "stop_times": [1134.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1129.094}, "reply_to": "21688__0_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21688__0_084", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Right, Your Honor.\nBut... but we also in footnote 15 and in the text on that page refer to a whole collection of books, drafting books, mostly dealing with Federal legislative drafting, and all uniformly saying... and again, we're not trying to say that these are binding authority.\nWe're simply trying to say that in the... in the process of Federal legislative drafting, this is what the legislative draftsmen try to do, and then you look at the statute and you look to see what they in fact have done.\nAnd you see that this provision is there for a very particular reason.\nAnd so we're not trying to trump up these manuals as... you know, as part of the code or anything else.\nWe're simply trying to say they... they give you a real good guidance on what it means.\nAnd then when you look at the statute and you see that the statute consistently uses them in that way, uses the word in that way, you've got a good start on understanding what it means.\nThe... the last thing I want to say deals with, as I guess in the order I should be talking about it, legislative history.\nAnd there are two points on that.\nOne is in 1995 by adding clause (iii), Congress added... created a provision.\nAgain, I want to emphasize what they did is they pulled out of part (i), or clause little (i), which dealt with loans in general and said twice the finance charge... it pulled out the category of loans that were mortgage loans, and it said we want to impose a higher cap on those loans.\nAnd there is legislative history that we cite in our brief that indicates that that was what they were thinking about.\nIf they had intended to eliminate, entirely eliminate, not... not increase from $1,000 to $2,000, but entirely eliminate the cap on the entire category of... of loans, two things would be true.\nNumber one, somebody would have said something about it surely.\nThis is the dog that didn't bark, as this... many members of this Court have... have observed.\nAnd there's not a breath of a thought in any legislative history that anybody meant to do this.\nAnd the second point, which is even perhaps more telling, is that if they had done that, they would have contradicted the clear purpose of what they did.\nThey wanted a higher cap on mortgage loans than on loans in general, and it's clearly the case that if they had eliminated the cap on loans in general, they would have a lower cap on mortgage loans.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1134.667, 1135.204, 1150.354, 1161.416, 1165.503, 1171.242, 1174.891, 1183.707, 1189.446, 1191.138, 1199.933, 1217.766, 1223.46, 1236.796, 1240.261, 1245.091, 1249.549, 1258.094], "stop_times": [1135.204, 1150.354, 1161.416, 1165.503, 1171.242, 1174.891, 1183.707, 1189.446, 1191.138, 1199.933, 1217.766, 1223.46, 1236.796, 1240.261, 1245.091, 1249.549, 1258.094, 1269.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1134.667}, "reply_to": "21688__0_083", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_085", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Would there be any conceivable reason why Congress would have wanted a higher damages award for hard-to-detect misconduct of the type under little (i)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1269.118], "stop_times": [1282.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1269.118}, "reply_to": "21688__0_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21688__0_086", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Your Honor, I mean, there's a lot of speculation in a number of the briefs.\nYou know, there's speculation about, you know, inflation and... and there's all sorts of things that one could talk about endlessly if one wants to talk about policy.\nI... I think the answer is basically no.\nI think there's really no good reason to distinguish between, you know, no cap on (i) and a cap on (ii).\nAnd I'm prepared to argue this, but I think it's way down in the noise level in terms of what... what is relevant here.\nThe... the last point that I think I would... I would like to make is just that if the Court decides to reverse and if the Court were to decide that... that $1,000 cap is in fact... has always been and continues to be the law, we would simply ask the Court also to remand with regard to the attorney fee award.\nThe situation in this case would then be that the plaintiff, or the respondent, will have recovered $5,000.\nThe petitioner will have recovered affirmatively the other way $3900.\nIt's a net... a net of $1,100.\nAnd the court below reduced the fees at a time when the recovery for the plaintiff was $29,000, reduced them by 40 percent on the ground that plaintiff's counsel had... had raised 40-some claims, all of which failed, except for 2, and basically indicated that that was a strong reason for reducing the claim.\nI would submit if they essentially recovered $1,000 in this case, that that would be a reason to submit it back to the trial court.\nIf there are no further questions, I will reserve my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1282.531, 1286.868, 1295.785, 1297.864, 1304.413, 1309.26, 1329.777, 1337.578, 1342.37, 1346.064, 1368.355, 1374.654], "stop_times": [1286.868, 1295.785, 1297.864, 1304.413, 1309.26, 1329.777, 1337.578, 1342.37, 1346.064, 1368.355, 1374.654, 1377.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1282.531}, "reply_to": "21688__0_085", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__0_087", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Very well, Mr. Ayer.\nMr. Blankingship, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1377.747, 1379.029], "stop_times": [1379.029, 1381.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1377.747}, "reply_to": "21688__0_086", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21688__1_000", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court:\nPetitioner's starting point is not the starting point established by this Court.\nThe starting point in this case established by this Court in the Lamie decision and those prior is clearly the statute before you.\nHe talks of history.\nHe talks of what happened in the past.\nThe issue before this Court is what does the statute we have mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1381.008, 1386.542, 1390.668, 1397.149, 1398.719, 1400.865], "stop_times": [1386.542, 1390.668, 1397.149, 1398.719, 1400.865, 1405.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1381.008}, "reply_to": "21688__0_087", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_001", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, what... what do you think the term, this subparagraph, meant before 1995?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1405.406], "stop_times": [1413.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1405.406}, "reply_to": "21688__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21688__1_002", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Justice O'Connor, I'm not certain what it meant.\nWhat I first read it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1413.497, 1418.038], "stop_times": [1418.038, 1419.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1413.497}, "reply_to": "21688__1_001", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_003", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Do you agree that the courts had interpreted it to apply to both little (i) and (ii)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1419.319], "stop_times": [1426.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1419.319}, "reply_to": "21688__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21688__1_004", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--I agree that that's what the opinions in the Dryden and the Mars case said, but I would point out that in both of those cases that was not the issue before the Court.\nIn those cases, the plaintiff had lost down below.\nThere wasn't an issue of damages, and when the circuit court sent them back, they told them what the measure of damages was without any discussion.\nI personally, when I read the statute and first started this practice, thought that it was limited to (ii).\nI then did some research--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1426.128, 1436.121, 1438.76, 1445.242, 1450.815], "stop_times": [1436.121, 1438.76, 1445.242, 1450.815, 1452.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1426.128}, "reply_to": "21688__1_003", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_005", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, isn't the difficulty with that... that the point that I raised with Mr. Ayer?\nTo take that position before the most recent amendment and now, you've got to say that the word subparagraph refers to the section of one sentence which, regardless of legislative drafting manuals, I... I think anybody would say, well, it's a clause, and to call a clause a subparagraph is a stretch, at least in the absence of a very clear provision somewhere in the statute that says when we use the word subparagraph, we include clause.\nThat... there's a basic implausibility, I guess I find, in using subparagraph at any point in the statute to refer to a mere clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1452.113, 1456.099, 1488.793], "stop_times": [1456.099, 1488.793, 1499.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1452.113}, "reply_to": "21688__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__1_006", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Well, the answer is this subparagraph.\nIt's not just subparagraph.\nIt refers to this subparagraph.\nThus, it is much clearer or more precise as to where it's located.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1499.112, 1502.789, 1504.397, 1506.05], "stop_times": [1502.789, 1504.397, 1506.05, 1509.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1499.112}, "reply_to": "21688__1_005", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_007", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, no.\nIt... it... that... that completely leaves... even in your view, that leaves open the question whether this refers to a clause or a set of three clauses.\nIt... it doesn't answer the question before us whether subparagraph means clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1509.477, 1510.098, 1519.053], "stop_times": [1510.098, 1519.053, 1525.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1509.477}, "reply_to": "21688__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__1_008", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, the... the answer I believe is in... is in the context of the statute.\nYou must look to the context of the entire statute and... and look and see that there's obviously a conflict between (ii) and (iii).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1525.33, 1530.449], "stop_times": [1530.449, 1538.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1525.33}, "reply_to": "21688__1_007", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_009", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, the... you can look at that either way, it seems to me.\nOne way is to see it as a conflict.\nThere's no question about that.\nAnother way is to see it... I think the term that has been used is carve-out.\nIn other words, the... the cap on damages will be such and such provided that.\nIf you got a mortgage, the cap is going to be higher.\nYou can read it either way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1538.251, 1541.344, 1543.739, 1544.771, 1549.396, 1554.802, 1557.941], "stop_times": [1541.344, 1543.739, 1544.771, 1549.396, 1554.802, 1557.941, 1559.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1538.251}, "reply_to": "21688__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__1_010", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "I would disagree with you because of the language, the word or.\nYou see, when you see or that appears after (ii), after the... after the damages--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1559.92, 1565.288], "stop_times": [1565.288, 1571.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1559.92}, "reply_to": "21688__1_009", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_011", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "That's... that's the argument for your reading.\nThere's no question about it.\nBut it... I don't see it as an argument that excludes the proviso kind of reading.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1571.565, 1573.34, 1574.659], "stop_times": [1573.34, 1574.659, 1580.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1571.565}, "reply_to": "21688__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__1_012", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--You have to understand that... that all three of these are very, very different.\nThey have different rules.\nThey have different requirements, and they have different elements.\nThey all have different--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1580.232, 1585.312, 1586.465, 1588.86], "stop_times": [1585.312, 1586.465, 1588.86, 1589.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1580.232}, "reply_to": "21688__1_011", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_013", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, but wait a minute on that.\nWas that true before 1995?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1589.808, 1591.006], "stop_times": [1591.006, 1593.318], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1589.808}, "reply_to": "21688__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__1_014", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Before 1995, there weren't... there was not the section regarding the home mortgages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1593.318], "stop_times": [1598.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1593.318}, "reply_to": "21688__1_013", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_015", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "I understand, but it was my understanding... you correct me if I'm... you say there are just two cases.\nMy understanding is there are hundreds of lawyers who have practiced under statute... under this statute, and it was generally accepted that the cap in not subparagraph but clause (ii) did apply to cases under clause (i), that everyone accepted that.\nAnd you're... you're saying... should we accept that as a starting point or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1598.89, 1602.977, 1619.118], "stop_times": [1602.977, 1619.118, 1623.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.89}, "reply_to": "21688__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__1_016", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "I don't think you should accept it as a starting point because of the history.\nIf you look at those cases, they were never litigated.\nThat issue was not litigated--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1623.017, 1626.648, 1629.066], "stop_times": [1626.648, 1629.066, 1630.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1623.017}, "reply_to": "21688__1_015", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_017", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "You don't think this issue would... if there was a serious question about that, you don't think that there would have been a single case that would have arisen between 1974 and 1995 that made the... that gave this interpretation to... I want to call it... clause (i) and clause (ii)?\nIt seems to me most improbable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1630.431, 1647.354], "stop_times": [1647.354, 1649.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.431}, "reply_to": "21688__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__1_018", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--History suggests that most of those cases that came up... and if you look at them... in the early years were the technical cases.\nThey were not cases that involved a lot of money.\nThey were simply very technical, minor wording--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1649.128, 1655.361, 1658.045], "stop_times": [1655.361, 1658.045, 1660.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1649.128}, "reply_to": "21688__1_017", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_019", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "They couldn't have involved more than $1,000 if people read the statute the way I read it.\nThat's correct.\nBut if they read it the way you read it, it seems to me there would have been a lot of cases making the point, and they all would have had to assume that the word subparagraph in the statute, as then written, merely referred to clause (ii).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1660.646, 1663.701, 1664.361], "stop_times": [1663.701, 1664.361, 1677.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.646}, "reply_to": "21688__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__1_020", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--That... that was the assumption that was made at that point, and the Fourth Circuit followed that assumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1677.158], "stop_times": [1683.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1677.158}, "reply_to": "21688__1_019", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_021", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "That that applied only to clause (ii)?\nThat there was no cap on (i)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1683.02, 1685.703], "stop_times": [1685.703, 1687.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.02}, "reply_to": "21688__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__1_022", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "No.\nNo, I'm sorry, Justice Stevens.\nThat... that it was applying to both of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1687.023, 1687.306, 1688.843], "stop_times": [1687.306, 1688.843, 1691.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1687.023}, "reply_to": "21688__1_021", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_023", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1691.482], "stop_times": [1692.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1691.482}, "reply_to": "21688__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__1_024", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "But that was an assumption, and as... and as Judge Luttig pointed out, that was the assumption of the Fourth Circuit at the time, but when it got a new piece of evidence, when the statute was amended and added (iii), it explained clearly that the assumption was debunked.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1692.103], "stop_times": [1705.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1692.103}, "reply_to": "21688__1_023", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_025", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Do you think your position would have even been plausible before (iii) was added, if the word subparagraph meant only clause (ii)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1705.849], "stop_times": [1713.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1705.849}, "reply_to": "21688__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__1_026", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Yes, I do.\nI do think it... it is possible because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1713.651, 1714.394], "stop_times": [1714.394, 1716.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1713.651}, "reply_to": "21688__1_025", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_027", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "So, in other words, if that's right, I guess when I go get a mortgage... this is before.\nI get a mortgage and say it's a half a million dollars, and the finance charge is over 30 years.\nIt's probably $600,000 or so.\nAnd some technical mistake is made and Congress would have wanted me to collect $1,200,000 in damages.\nThat's what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1716.789, 1721.331, 1727.852, 1730.248, 1737.39], "stop_times": [1721.331, 1727.852, 1730.248, 1737.39, 1738.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1716.789}, "reply_to": "21688__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_028", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--No.\nThat's... that's not correct.\nIt would not have happened that way because there is a cap under (i).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1738.543, 1739.286, 1740.195], "stop_times": [1739.286, 1740.195, 1743.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1738.543}, "reply_to": "21688__1_027", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_029", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "No, no.\nUnder (i) there's a cap?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1743.706, 1744.57], "stop_times": [1744.57, 1745.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.706}, "reply_to": "21688__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_030", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Under (i) there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1745.852], "stop_times": [1746.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1745.852}, "reply_to": "21688__1_029", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_031", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Before.\nThe older statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1746.678, 1746.945], "stop_times": [1746.945, 1747.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1746.678}, "reply_to": "21688__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_032", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1747.671], "stop_times": [1748.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1747.671}, "reply_to": "21688__1_031", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_033", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "What was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1748.247], "stop_times": [1748.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1748.247}, "reply_to": "21688__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_034", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "It's $25,000.\nThe maximum amount financed.\nIf you finance a car for $26,000, there are no remedies--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1748.702, 1750.083, 1751.941], "stop_times": [1750.083, 1751.941, 1755.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1748.702}, "reply_to": "21688__1_033", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_035", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "So the maximum amount financed on my house was $1,000,000.\nI'm saying if I got a mortgage before they added paragraph (iii), how did it work?\nI get a mortgage on my house.\nThere's a finance charge.\nIt's over 30 years.\nIt's a huge amount of money.\nAnd before, I... I guess on your reading of it, I could have collected millions.\nBut nobody thought that was possible.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1755.368, 1758.844, 1763.458, 1765.027, 1766.225, 1767.356, 1768.621, 1775.225], "stop_times": [1758.844, 1763.458, 1765.027, 1766.225, 1767.356, 1768.621, 1775.225, 1777.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1755.368}, "reply_to": "21688__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_036", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--No.\nIt... it... prior to that, it did not apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1777.287, 1777.842], "stop_times": [1777.842, 1779.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1777.287}, "reply_to": "21688__1_035", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_037", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Didn't apply to mortgages at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1779.971], "stop_times": [1781.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1779.971}, "reply_to": "21688__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_038", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "No.\nNo, Your Honor, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1781.374, 1781.746], "stop_times": [1781.746, 1782.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1781.374}, "reply_to": "21688__1_037", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_039", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Okay. That's the answer.\nFine.\nI got the answer.\nNow we have a mortgage because (iii) brings mortgages in.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1782.368, 1782.906, 1783.277, 1783.937], "stop_times": [1782.906, 1783.277, 1783.937, 1787.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1782.368}, "reply_to": "21688__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_040", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1787.381], "stop_times": [1788.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1787.381}, "reply_to": "21688__1_039", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_041", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "And closed-end mortgages fall under (iii).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1788.457], "stop_times": [1790.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1788.457}, "reply_to": "21688__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_042", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Second mortgages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1790.232], "stop_times": [1791.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1790.232}, "reply_to": "21688__1_041", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_043", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Second.\nWhat about an open-ended mortgage?\nWhat about... what about a home equity mortgage?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1791.262, 1791.922, 1793.22], "stop_times": [1791.922, 1793.22, 1795.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1791.262}, "reply_to": "21688__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_044", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, it's a closed-end.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1795.954], "stop_times": [1797.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1795.954}, "reply_to": "21688__1_043", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_045", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "All right.\nSo home... home equity mortgages, do they fall under (i)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1797.412, 1798.034], "stop_times": [1798.034, 1801.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1797.412}, "reply_to": "21688__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_046", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "They... no.\nThey would be... they would fall under (iii).\nIt says or.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1801.006, 1803.606, 1804.837], "stop_times": [1803.606, 1804.837, 1805.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1801.006}, "reply_to": "21688__1_045", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_047", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "No.\nIt says closed.\nIt says non-open-ended.\nIt says under an open end... not under an open end credit plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1805.58, 1805.88, 1806.13, 1807.328], "stop_times": [1805.88, 1806.13, 1807.328, 1811.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1805.58}, "reply_to": "21688__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_048", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "That's correct--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1811.331], "stop_times": [1811.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1811.331}, "reply_to": "21688__1_047", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_049", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "So if it's under an open credit plan, i.e., a home equity mortgage, it's under (i).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1811.907], "stop_times": [1815.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1811.907}, "reply_to": "21688__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_050", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1815.418], "stop_times": [1816.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1815.418}, "reply_to": "21688__1_049", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_051", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Correct.\nOkay.\nSo I can just replicate my example.\nRight now, we have finance charges on those things.\nThey can be hundreds of thousands of dollars.\nAnd you're... you're saying that I guess we could.\nAm I right?\nThat's why I'm asking it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1816.077, 1816.737, 1816.987, 1819.338, 1822.104, 1824.167, 1826.768, 1827.677], "stop_times": [1816.737, 1816.987, 1819.338, 1822.104, 1824.167, 1826.768, 1827.677, 1828.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1816.077}, "reply_to": "21688__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_052", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "No.\nI... I believe that's incorrect--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1828.504, 1829.535], "stop_times": [1829.535, 1830.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1828.504}, "reply_to": "21688__1_051", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_053", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Because?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1830.816], "stop_times": [1831.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1830.816}, "reply_to": "21688__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_054", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--in that it would not have applied to over $25,000 at the time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1831.559], "stop_times": [1834.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1831.559}, "reply_to": "21688__1_053", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_055", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Under (i).\nSo we're talking about the range of $25,000, $50,000 doubled.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1834.615, 1835.108], "stop_times": [1835.108, 1839.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1834.615}, "reply_to": "21688__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_056", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1839.194], "stop_times": [1839.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1839.194}, "reply_to": "21688__1_055", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_057", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1839.649], "stop_times": [1840.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1839.649}, "reply_to": "21688__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_058", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Subsection (iii) was a completely different set to deal with the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1840.309], "stop_times": [1843.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1840.309}, "reply_to": "21688__1_057", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_059", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "I'm trying to figure out what the range is on your reading under (i), and what I... I've been telescoping my questions.\nBut I've come away with the impression that we're talking finance charges, if your reading is correct, in the range of $25,000, which would mean the damages would be $50,000, if you double it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1843.076, 1849.985], "stop_times": [1849.985, 1861.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1843.076}, "reply_to": "21688__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_060", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--No, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1861.857], "stop_times": [1863.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1861.857}, "reply_to": "21688__1_059", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_061", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "No.\nOkay.\nWhat is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1863.222, 1863.305, 1863.677], "stop_times": [1863.305, 1863.677, 1864.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1863.222}, "reply_to": "21688__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_062", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "The amount financed.\nI'm sorry.\nI misspoke.\nIt's not the finance charges.\nIt's the amount financed is $25,000.\nAs a result, you're looking at obviously much less during that period of time.\nAlso under (i), you have a limited statute of limitation of 1 year.\nSo you're not going to be able to come back 10 years later and say, gee, I want all my finance charges back.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1865.329, 1864.42, 1864.791, 1866.36, 1868.468, 1871.273, 1875.815, 1879.652], "stop_times": [1864.42, 1864.791, 1866.36, 1868.468, 1871.273, 1875.815, 1879.652, 1883.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1865.329}, "reply_to": "21688__1_061", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_063", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Okay.\nThank you.\nYou've answered my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1883.739, 1883.989, 1884.11], "stop_times": [1883.989, 1884.11, 1884.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1883.739}, "reply_to": "21688__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_064", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Petitioner argues that the term subparagraph, as used in TILA, always... always... means the capital letter.\nThat is not correct.\nIf the Court looks at the brief filed by the petitioner on page 23--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1884.936, 1894.967, 1896.825], "stop_times": [1894.967, 1896.825, 1900.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1884.936}, "reply_to": "21688__1_063", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_065", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "I don't believe they said always.\nThey said Congress sometimes doesn't use this.\nSometimes they make mistakes.\nI thought they said this is generally the way it is, not that it's always this way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1900.623, 1901.905, 1905.992, 1907.439], "stop_times": [1901.905, 1905.992, 1907.439, 1913.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1900.623}, "reply_to": "21688__1_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21688__1_066", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--That's correct, Justice Ginsburg.\nGenerally throughout the... the U.S. Code, they... they argue that specifically within TILA that it has never been used to mean something else.\nThere is an example that they have cited that... that supports their position, and that's 1637a(a)(6)(C).\nAnd if you look at that portion of the Federal Truth in Lending Act, it only has the following language.\nUnder the capital letter C--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1913.672, 1915.613, 1924.568, 1933.567, 1939.678], "stop_times": [1915.613, 1924.568, 1933.567, 1939.678, 1942.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1913.672}, "reply_to": "21688__1_065", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_067", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Does this appear somewhere in the papers?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1942.112], "stop_times": [1943.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1942.112}, "reply_to": "21688__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__1_068", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--No.\nThis was cited by them in their footnote.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1943.765, 1944.713], "stop_times": [1944.713, 1946.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.765}, "reply_to": "21688__1_067", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_069", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "But you're citing them.\nOkay.\nYou're going to read it.\nI'll close my eyes and listen.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1946.366, 1946.821, 1947.192, 1947.647, 1949.133], "stop_times": [1946.821, 1947.192, 1947.647, 1949.133, 1949.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1946.366}, "reply_to": "21688__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__1_070", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "What are you reading from?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1949.421], "stop_times": [1952.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1949.421}, "reply_to": "21688__1_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21688__1_071", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "He's... nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1952.393], "stop_times": [1953.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1952.393}, "reply_to": "21688__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__1_072", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "From... from the statute itself, 1637a.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1953.469], "stop_times": [1957.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1953.469}, "reply_to": "21688__1_071", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_073", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "And where is that in the briefs?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1957.017], "stop_times": [1959.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1957.017}, "reply_to": "21688__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21688__1_074", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "It is not in the... it is cited in a footnote to support the proposition that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1959.042], "stop_times": [1963.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1959.042}, "reply_to": "21688__1_073", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_075", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Where is the footnote?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1963.555], "stop_times": [1964.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1963.555}, "reply_to": "21688__1_074", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21688__1_076", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--It is on page 23.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1964.986], "stop_times": [1966.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1964.986}, "reply_to": "21688__1_075", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_077", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "It's just cited.\nIt's not set out in haec verba?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1966.472, 1967.808], "stop_times": [1967.808, 1969.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1966.472}, "reply_to": "21688__1_076", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21688__1_078", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "No.\nNo, Your Honor.\nIt... it's set out as... as a string of cites to support the proposition that Congress, in enacting TILA, never used the term, this subparagraph, in an improper way.\nAnd if you look at that section, the only language in that section is capital (C)... retention of information is the identifier.\nAnd the language says, a statement that the consumer should make or otherwise retain a copy of information disclosed under this subparagraph.\nPeriod.\nThat's it.\nThat's all that appears under (C).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [1969.361, 1970.02, 1970.597, 1982.298, 1990.249, 1999.576, 2000.113, 2000.956], "stop_times": [1970.02, 1970.597, 1982.298, 1990.249, 1999.576, 2000.113, 2000.956, 2002.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1969.361}, "reply_to": "21688__1_077", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_079", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "All right.\nCan I... maybe you can help me with this because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2002.692, 2003.047], "stop_times": [2003.047, 2005.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2002.692}, "reply_to": "21688__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_080", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Wait.\nI... I want to hear more.\nWhat does... what does this prove?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2005.276, 2005.542, 2006.474], "stop_times": [2005.542, 2006.474, 2007.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2005.276}, "reply_to": "21688__1_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__1_081", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "It proves that it clearly could not be referring to the capital letter (C).\nIt must be referring to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2007.96, 2012.501], "stop_times": [2012.501, 2014.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2007.96}, "reply_to": "21688__1_080", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_082", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "No, because (C) doesn't do anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2014.359], "stop_times": [2015.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2014.359}, "reply_to": "21688__1_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__1_083", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--(C) doesn't have any requirements.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2015.474], "stop_times": [2016.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.474}, "reply_to": "21688__1_082", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_084", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Just read it... read it once more, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2016.855], "stop_times": [2017.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2016.855}, "reply_to": "21688__1_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__1_085", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Certainly.\nA statement that the consumer should make or otherwise retain a copy of information disclosed under this subparagraph.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2017.936, 2018.308], "stop_times": [2018.308, 2026.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2017.936}, "reply_to": "21688__1_084", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_086", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "It couldn't be under (C).\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2026.192, 2027.185], "stop_times": [2027.185, 2027.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2026.192}, "reply_to": "21688__1_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__1_087", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "It couldn't be possible.\nCorrect.\nSo there are examples when Congress drew--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2027.39, 2028.133, 2028.959], "stop_times": [2028.133, 2028.959, 2030.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2027.39}, "reply_to": "21688__1_086", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_088", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Yes, but it is true if you look at that footnote... is it not correct, though, looking at that footnote, that the statute does repeatedly use a capital letter to describe what is clearly a subparagraph?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2030.695], "stop_times": [2040.559], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2030.695}, "reply_to": "21688__1_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__1_089", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Well, there are... I agree with that.\nYes, it does a number of times.\nBut you also see down in the bottom of the footnote, some of them, under subparagraph (A)(iii) where it's being more specific.\nThe problem in this case is that the term, this subparagraph, doesn't have anything to modify it to explain exactly what it's supposed to mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2040.559, 2042.334, 2043.903, 2051.871], "stop_times": [2042.334, 2043.903, 2051.871, 2059.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2040.559}, "reply_to": "21688__1_088", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_090", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "In other words, you're saying the... we should read this as though it said, under this subparagraph (2)(A)(ii).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2059.014], "stop_times": [2064.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2059.014}, "reply_to": "21688__1_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__1_091", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "If it said that, I don't think we'd have a dispute here.\nThat would be clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2064.177, 2066.983], "stop_times": [2066.983, 2068.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2064.177}, "reply_to": "21688__1_090", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_092", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--The difficulty that I'd like you to... for me.\nI'm not speaking for anyone else.\nBut when I read a statute, I first read it usually with what I call the approach of an English-speaking Martian, a person who doesn't know any of the context.\nI just read the language.\nAnd if I were just reading the language, I would think you have maybe the better of the argument.\nBut the language does support their position in the sense that theirs is a possible reading, not maybe the most natural for our English-speaking Martian, but nonetheless a possible reading.\nAnd then they bring in all these other claims.\nFirst, it really doesn't make sense to have a cap on everything and not (i).\nSecond, that isn't obviously what anybody thought was the case before this.\nThird, there was nothing in the legislative history.\nFourth... I mean, you know, fifth, sixth, seventh.\nAnd by the time I'm finished with it, I'm ready to abandon my English-speaking Martian point of view and ask what was the human purpose underlying the statute and does the language support it.\nNow, that's what I'd like to hear your answer to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2068.219, 2070.447, 2071.728, 2081.388, 2083.246, 2088.074, 2100.874, 2104.051, 2111.481, 2116.766, 2119.572, 2122.711, 2133.856], "stop_times": [2070.447, 2071.728, 2081.388, 2083.246, 2088.074, 2100.874, 2104.051, 2111.481, 2116.766, 2119.572, 2122.711, 2133.856, 2136.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2068.219}, "reply_to": "21688__1_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_093", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, the Fourth Circuit looked at that, and they looked at the language on how it was going to work together.\nAnd they found that it was the only way to put a square peg in a square hole.\nPetitioner argues that we should put a round peg in a square hole.\nWe should ignore the conflict with (iii).\nWe should ignore the fact that it has completely different requirements and completely different limits, and we should then try to treat it as a carve-out of (i), but the problem with that language is the or.\nIt doesn't say and.\nIt doesn't say an alternative.\nIt says or.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2136.457, 2141.946, 2146.488, 2150.286, 2152.56, 2163.638, 2165.313, 2167.049], "stop_times": [2141.946, 2146.488, 2150.286, 2152.56, 2163.638, 2165.313, 2167.049, 2167.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2136.457}, "reply_to": "21688__1_092", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_094", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "You're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2167.808], "stop_times": [2168.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2167.808}, "reply_to": "21688__1_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__1_095", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--thinking it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2168.656], "stop_times": [2169.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.656}, "reply_to": "21688__1_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_096", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--you're getting back to the language.\nWhy don't you talk about some of the other points that Justice Breyer was raising?\nWhat about the purpose?\nWhat purpose would there be not to have a limit on little (i) and have it on the other two?\nWhy... why would it make sense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2169.361, 2170.021, 2175.677, 2176.624, 2182.197], "stop_times": [2170.021, 2175.677, 2176.624, 2182.197, 2184.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2169.361}, "reply_to": "21688__1_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__1_097", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2184.882], "stop_times": [2186.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.882}, "reply_to": "21688__1_096", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_098", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Is there no reason why it would make sense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2186.368], "stop_times": [2188.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2186.368}, "reply_to": "21688__1_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__1_099", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--There's only one limit.\nIf... if you read the statute our way, there's only one limit in... in (ii).\nThere is no limit on (i).\nThere's no limit on (iii).\nThe fact that Congress decided to treat leases somewhat differently does not necessarily mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2188.141, 2188.968, 2192.312, 2194.048, 2195.367], "stop_times": [2188.968, 2192.312, 2194.048, 2195.367, 2199.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2188.141}, "reply_to": "21688__1_098", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_100", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--What do you mean there's no limit on (iii)?\nI thought it said $200 or $2,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2199.787, 2200.734], "stop_times": [2200.734, 2202.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.787}, "reply_to": "21688__1_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_101", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2202.963], "stop_times": [2203.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2202.963}, "reply_to": "21688__1_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__1_102", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Right, but it's not a limit to anything.\nThat is the damage.\nIt's not a limit.\nIt's not you get the finance charge or something else.\nYou see, there... there's only one that has two options, and that's (ii).\nAll the rest have one option.\nIt's very clear.\nUnder (i), it's two times the finance charges.\nOne of the things--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2203.418, 2204.821, 2205.897, 2207.3, 2209.816, 2213.038, 2214.813, 2215.639, 2218.156], "stop_times": [2204.821, 2205.897, 2207.3, 2209.816, 2213.038, 2214.813, 2215.639, 2218.156, 2219.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2203.418}, "reply_to": "21688__1_101", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_103", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Yes, but he's asking what the purpose of this would be for these mortgages, you know, which is a pretty big deal, a mortgage, you know, really putting a lot at risk when you get into a mortgage.\nThere's a limit of $2,000.\nIndeed, it's only $2,000, or whatever it is.\nNo... no... you can't get more than that.\nAnd as to (ii), there's the limit we're talking about, and why would anybody want (i) to be limitless?\nThat's the question.\nI'm not saying there's a no answer to it.\nI want to hear the answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2219.354, 2230.75, 2233.433, 2235.784, 2237.437, 2244.867, 2245.815, 2247.618], "stop_times": [2230.75, 2233.433, 2235.784, 2237.437, 2244.867, 2245.815, 2247.618, 2248.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2219.354}, "reply_to": "21688__1_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_104", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Okay.\nIn (iii), the amount of $200 to $2,000 is simply the icing on the cake.\nIt is not the cake.\nThe cake is the ability to rescind the transaction within 3 years and get all of your money back, which is not an option under (i).\n(i) has only the cake, which is the two times the amount of the finance charges.\nIt's the only damages you get there.\nUnder (iii), it's just an additional bonus damage.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2248.127, 2248.954, 2254.071, 2255.557, 2263.936, 2269.304, 2271.123], "stop_times": [2248.954, 2254.071, 2255.557, 2263.936, 2269.304, 2271.123, 2274.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2248.127}, "reply_to": "21688__1_103", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_105", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "May I stop you there?\nI thought you could get actual damages.\nIsn't that the first thing, if you could prove actual damages, you get actual damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2274.178, 2274.361, 2276.119], "stop_times": [2274.361, 2276.119, 2280.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2274.178}, "reply_to": "21688__1_104", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21688__1_106", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Yes, Justice Ginsburg, you can.\nIt does say that... that it's the sum of, and all of them are added together.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2280.661, 2282.23], "stop_times": [2282.23, 2285.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2280.661}, "reply_to": "21688__1_105", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_107", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "So all... all these cases are cases in which you couldn't prove any actual damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2285.984], "stop_times": [2290.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2285.984}, "reply_to": "21688__1_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21688__1_108", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, the problem is that it's very difficult to prove actual damages under the Federal Truth in Lending Act because there is that requirement that you go and show that you could have gone somewhere else and gotten a better deal, which by the time the consumer comes to the lawyer, that time has passed.\nIt never happens.\nAnd as a result, there are almost no cases that involve actual damages under (i).\nThe only damages you can get under (i) are the statutory damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2290.32, 2305.181, 2306.229, 2311.33], "stop_times": [2305.181, 2306.229, 2311.33, 2315.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2290.32}, "reply_to": "21688__1_107", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_109", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "All right.\nBut let's... I mean, start--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2315.128, 2315.667], "stop_times": [2315.667, 2317.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2315.128}, "reply_to": "21688__1_108", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__1_110", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Didn't you get actual damages in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2317.608], "stop_times": [2319.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2317.608}, "reply_to": "21688__1_109", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__1_111", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2319.094], "stop_times": [2320.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2319.094}, "reply_to": "21688__1_110", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_112", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Didn't you get actual damages in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2320.208], "stop_times": [2322.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2320.208}, "reply_to": "21688__1_111", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__1_113", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "No, Justice Stevens, we did not.\nWe only got the statutory damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2322.066, 2323.84], "stop_times": [2323.84, 2325.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2322.066}, "reply_to": "21688__1_112", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_114", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Start from your own analysis.\nThere's something very odd about saying that when there has been a violation involving a mortgage transaction, you can only get $2,000, but a violation in a conventional bank financing or a finance company financing or a dealer financing of a chattel transaction, the sky is... is the limit.\nThere's just something very strange about that.\nMost houses cost more than most cars.\nIt is odd that you would have the limitation on the potentially larger damages and no limitation... or, let's say, recovery just as a... a generic term... but no limitation on the damages in what normally is... is a smaller transaction.\nHow do you explain that oddity?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2325.948, 2328.753, 2352.037, 2355.298, 2358.763, 2375.276], "stop_times": [2328.753, 2352.037, 2355.298, 2358.763, 2375.276, 2376.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.948}, "reply_to": "21688__1_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__1_115", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "I disagree that there are no limitations.\nThere are a number of limitations under (i).\n(i) is the hardest of all of the three to prove and succeed.\nThe first limitation is the amount financed cannot be more than $25,000.\nIn the case of somebody who buys a car with good credit, they have 0 percent, 0.9 percent financing.\nTheir damages would be very small.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2376.762, 2379.651, 2382.419, 2386.422, 2390.797, 2396.908], "stop_times": [2379.651, 2382.419, 2386.422, 2390.797, 2396.908, 2398.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2376.762}, "reply_to": "21688__1_114", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_116", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, they do... they happen to be right at this moment in the business climate, but that is not the characteristic climate in which this act has operated over the years and presumably will operate again as interest rates start their way back up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2398.766], "stop_times": [2409.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2398.766}, "reply_to": "21688__1_115", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__1_117", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "But the... the cap is the amount of the finance charges, the total amount of the finance charges.\nSo if you start with a principal balance of $25,000, even if you have a very high interest rate like Mr. Nigh's, over 20 percent, the damages are not going to be even half of... in this case, it was $12,000.\nIt's less than the half of the maximum.\nSo there is a cap.\nThere are a number of caps.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2409.706, 2413.338, 2428.366, 2430.139, 2431.338], "stop_times": [2413.338, 2428.366, 2430.139, 2431.338, 2432.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2409.706}, "reply_to": "21688__1_116", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_118", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, but there's a cap, but he's still going to get more money than he would be if exactly this same kind of behavior had taken place with respect to the financing of a mortgage on a half a million dollar house.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2432.535], "stop_times": [2443.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2432.535}, "reply_to": "21688__1_117", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__1_119", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "I... I disagree.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2443.348], "stop_times": [2444.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2443.348}, "reply_to": "21688__1_118", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_120", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "That's strange.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2444.713], "stop_times": [2445.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2444.713}, "reply_to": "21688__1_119", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__1_121", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "I... I disagree with that analysis because under subsection (4), you're going to be able to go back and demand rescission.\nYou're going to be able to get all of your money back.\nYou will get much more under the home mortgage situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2445.206, 2452.143, 2454.355], "stop_times": [2452.143, 2454.355, 2457.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2445.206}, "reply_to": "21688__1_120", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_122", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, but getting all of your money back is... is presumably going to make you whole so far as the transaction is concerned, and we have to assume that allowing the transaction under (i) is going to keep you whole so far as the transaction is concerned.\nThe... the issue is what do you get in addition to remaining whole or steady with respect to the value of the transaction.\nAnd when we ask that question, the potential for recovery under (i) is significantly greater than the potential for recovery under (iii), even though (i) tends to be a smaller transaction, (iii) a bigger one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2457.865, 2472.438, 2480.323], "stop_times": [2472.438, 2480.323, 2493.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2457.865}, "reply_to": "21688__1_121", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__1_123", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, in... in this case, in Mr. Nigh's case, he was not made whole.\nIn this case, he had two cars that were repossessed from him, and that was not something that the Federal Truth in Lending Act could... could resolve.\nWhen he came out of this case, he was much worse than he was when he went in.\nHe now has two repossessions on his credit.\nSo I... I wouldn't suggest that he's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2493.836, 2497.701, 2504.882, 2508.308, 2510.637], "stop_times": [2497.701, 2504.882, 2508.308, 2510.637, 2513.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2493.836}, "reply_to": "21688__1_122", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_124", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "No.\nYour... your... there's no question that... that in... in this... in the case of your client, he's got problems that this act really does not address.\nBut the question what we've got is what does the statute normally address, and I still find something anomalous in the normal operation as you describe it.\nWhat am I missing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2513.199, 2513.488, 2521.04, 2531.442], "stop_times": [2513.488, 2521.04, 2531.442, 2532.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2513.199}, "reply_to": "21688__1_123", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__1_125", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Well, under the Truth in Lending Simplification Act of 1980, Congress came back and put a number of limits on (i) that did not apply to (iii), but do apply to (i).\nAnd you can't get violations for technical wording, misuse of the wording.\nUnder (i), the only one... the only way you can get damages is to prove that one of the magic numbers, the amount financed, the finance charge, the APR, or that they failed to give you the disclosures altogether.\nOnly under those situations, do you even qualify to get the statutory damages.\nIt's very limited and it's very difficult.\nIt's not a simple mathematical error, which is what happened prior to the Simplification Act.\nIn the Mars case and the other... in the Dryden case, those were simple mathematical errors.\nThey were... or just misrepresentations as to the wording of the... of the disclosures under the Federal Truth in Lending Act.\nThat's not the case now.\nThose will no longer provide statutory damages.\nYou must prove that they have done something wrong.\nAnd in this case, the proof was that they added a silencer that Mr. Nigh never wanted, that he didn't want, and in fact, they had packed this into the loan 3 days before they brought him back in.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2532.518, 2542.959, 2548.41, 2560.792, 2566.365, 2568.472, 2573.878, 2578.708, 2585.684, 2587.336, 2590.514, 2593.569], "stop_times": [2542.959, 2548.41, 2560.792, 2566.365, 2568.472, 2573.878, 2578.708, 2585.684, 2587.336, 2590.514, 2593.569, 2604.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2532.518}, "reply_to": "21688__1_124", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_126", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Mr. Blankingship, I thought that part of your response to Justice Souter would have been that there's nothing anomalous about imposing a dollar limit on massive transactions and not imposing a dollar limit on smaller transactions, that that is precisely what you would expect Congress to do.\nThe... the need for a dollar limit on... on home mortgages is... is obvious, and the need for a dollar limit on... on smaller loans is less obvious.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2604.881, 2624.776], "stop_times": [2624.776, 2634.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2604.881}, "reply_to": "21688__1_125", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__1_127", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "I would agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2634.436], "stop_times": [2635.362], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2634.436}, "reply_to": "21688__1_126", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_128", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "But if that is the answer, you're still left with the situation, as I understand it, in which the recovery under the small loan is going to be potentially in, I suppose, many cases practically bigger than the recovery under the large loan.\nAnd that still seems cuckoo to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2635.362, 2648.349], "stop_times": [2648.349, 2650.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2635.362}, "reply_to": "21688__1_127", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__1_129", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "It... it is possible there are, but there are so many different variables.\nIt can be that way.\nIn a 0 percent financing chance, it will not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2650.783, 2655.324, 2655.901], "stop_times": [2655.324, 2655.901, 2658.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2650.783}, "reply_to": "21688__1_128", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_130", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Of course, in (ii), it's... it's covered.\nYou have a... on your theory of it, small (ii), (ii), is also limited.\nAnd that's only $25,000, I gather, as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2658.38, 2660.897, 2667.091], "stop_times": [2660.897, 2667.091, 2670.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.38}, "reply_to": "21688__1_129", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_131", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Of the amount due on the lease, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2670.435], "stop_times": [2672.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2670.435}, "reply_to": "21688__1_130", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_132", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2672.747], "stop_times": [2673.202], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2672.747}, "reply_to": "21688__1_131", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_133", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "It's a little bit different.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2673.202], "stop_times": [2673.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2673.202}, "reply_to": "21688__1_132", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_134", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "So it... so it's... so you'd have to say Congress wanted to impose a limit on these small (ii) $25,000 or less transactions, but they didn't want to impose any limit on the small (i) $25,000 or under transactions.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2673.74, 2686.205], "stop_times": [2686.205, 2687.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.74}, "reply_to": "21688__1_133", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_135", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, I think that's... that's potentially right.\nAnd there's a big difference between (i) and (ii) also.\nUnder (ii), the statute of limitations is 1 year after the lease expires.\nThus, if you were to lease a car for 4 or 5 years, you have a 5 or 6-year statute of limitations.\nUnder (i), it's much more limited.\nYou have a 1-year statute of limitations.\nIt is the most difficult.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2687.774, 2691.034, 2693.514, 2698.465, 2703.955, 2705.979, 2707.549], "stop_times": [2691.034, 2693.514, 2698.465, 2703.955, 2705.979, 2707.549, 2709.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2687.774}, "reply_to": "21688__1_134", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_136", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Let me... let me ask you a question which you are free to decline to answer because it... it rests upon an assumption that you don't make but the Fourth Circuit did make, and if you say, look, I don't want to defend the Fourth Circuit on this, okay with me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2709.118], "stop_times": [2722.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2709.118}, "reply_to": "21688__1_135", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__1_137", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Don't answer.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2722.902, 2723.812], "stop_times": [2723.812, 2724.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2722.902}, "reply_to": "21688__1_136", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__1_138", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2724.283], "stop_times": [2724.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2724.283}, "reply_to": "21688__1_137", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__1_139", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "I think I know where you're going too.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2724.926], "stop_times": [2727.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2724.926}, "reply_to": "21688__1_138", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_140", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--the Fourth--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2727.072], "stop_times": [2727.898], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.072}, "reply_to": "21688__1_139", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__1_141", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "I've never heard counsel refuse to answer.\nI would just like to see it happen.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2727.898, 2729.756, 2731.076], "stop_times": [2729.756, 2731.076, 2732.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.898}, "reply_to": "21688__1_140", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__1_142", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--The... not refuse to answer.\nExercise an option not to answer.\n[Laughter]\nThe Fourth Circuit made the assumption that prior to the addition of (iii), the... the $100,000 minimum and... and cap applied to... to both little (i) or little (i) and little (ii).\nAnd you... you have argued that that really isn't a sound assumption.\nBut if you... if you start where the Fourth Circuit did in making that assumption, then there being no reenactment of (i) and (ii) when (iii) was added, the Fourth Circuit position has got to, I think, encounter the... the general presumption against repeals by implication.\nAnd on the Fourth Circuit's theory, the... the threshold cap applied to... to Roman little (i), and without any reenactment or anything, suddenly it no longer did.\nThere was no express provision to that effect.\nThere was nothing in the legislative history to indicate that that was intended, and it seems to me that there is a... a difficult repeal by implication problem here.\nIs... is there an answer to that problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2732.562, 2734.42, 2736.277, 2737.392, 2750.19, 2752.996, 2774.355, 2789.116, 2791.65, 2801.931], "stop_times": [2734.42, 2736.277, 2737.392, 2750.19, 2752.996, 2774.355, 2789.116, 2791.65, 2801.931, 2804.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.562}, "reply_to": "21688__1_141", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__1_143", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Well, I... I think in the United Bank v. Wolas case, where the Court held that the fact that Congress may not have foreseen the consequences of a statutory enactment is not a sufficient reason for refusing to give effect to its plain meaning, is... is probably the answer to the question.\nCongress may not have intended or maybe they did intend.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2804.887, 2819.664], "stop_times": [2819.664, 2823.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2804.887}, "reply_to": "21688__1_142", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_144", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "That's not the answer.\nThe... the answer is that it is not implication, that there is a new statutory text which, if it means what you say it means, has expressly repealed the earlier one.\nNow, if it doesn't mean what you say it means, then I guess it's by implication.\nBut if it means what you say it means, there's no implication.\nThere's a statutory text which means something different from what the prior text meant, and that's a repeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2823.007, 2823.667, 2836.588, 2841.583, 2843.997], "stop_times": [2823.667, 2836.588, 2841.583, 2843.997, 2849.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2823.007}, "reply_to": "21688__1_143", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21688__1_145", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "And that's... I absolutely--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2849.962], "stop_times": [2852.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2849.962}, "reply_to": "21688__1_144", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_146", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "If this is an express repeal, you win.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2852.729, 2855.042], "stop_times": [2855.042, 2855.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2852.729}, "reply_to": "21688__1_145", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21688__1_147", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Let... let me just make sure I understand.\nYou seem to have taken two different positions.\nDo you think subparagraph (i)... I mean, clause (i) and clause (ii) mean the same thing or something different than they did before 1995?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2855.618, 2858.014, 2860.076], "stop_times": [2858.014, 2860.076, 2870.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2855.618}, "reply_to": "21688__1_146", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__1_148", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--I'm not sure I understand the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2870.29], "stop_times": [2874.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2870.29}, "reply_to": "21688__1_147", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_149", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Did the... did the 1995 enactment, which added clause (iii), did that change the preexisting meaning of (i) and (ii)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2874.854], "stop_times": [2886.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2874.854}, "reply_to": "21688__1_148", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__1_150", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Yes, by its... by its language, by its introduction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2886.826], "stop_times": [2890.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2886.826}, "reply_to": "21688__1_149", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_151", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "So then you're agreeing that prior to the 1995 amendment, your opponent's reading of... of (i) and (ii) would have been correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2890.253], "stop_times": [2896.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2890.253}, "reply_to": "21688__1_150", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21688__1_152", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "I would agree that that's what the law was and that's what had been stated before.\nI think if you go back and... and the other problem with these... these statutes or these... these prior cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2896.485, 2902.058], "stop_times": [2902.058, 2906.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2896.485}, "reply_to": "21688__1_151", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_153", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Is it relevant that all that Congress did was added (iii)?\nIt didn't reenact (i) and little (i)... (i) and (ii)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2906.395, 2911.429], "stop_times": [2911.429, 2915.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2906.395}, "reply_to": "21688__1_152", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21688__1_154", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--No.\nThe statute then becomes what it is.\nI think that... that the Fourth Circuit did precisely what it was instructed by this Court to do, which is to look at the statute the way it is enacted in front of it today and to read that statute and to try to find a way to make a fit.\nAnd in this case they found that it was a square peg in a square hole, that everything fit, as Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2915.227, 2915.804, 2917.457, 2928.891], "stop_times": [2915.804, 2917.457, 2928.891, 2934.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2915.227}, "reply_to": "21688__1_153", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_155", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "So Congress basically left (i) or (i) and (ii) alone.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2934.73], "stop_times": [2938.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.73}, "reply_to": "21688__1_154", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21688__1_156", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--They did leave them alone, as they have in... in a lot of these amendments.\nThey come and add different things.\nThey don't necessarily change them.\nBut in this case, you have to look at the statute we have before us, and under that particular statute, it's clear that it can't work where the... the limiter on (ii) applies to (i) and (ii), but not to (iii).\nIf it applies to all of (A), then it must apply to (i), (ii), and (iii), not just to (i) and (ii).\nAnd thus, that's why the Fourth Circuit said we cannot apply it this way.\nIt does not make sense.\nIf it is... subparagraph is all of (A), then there's a clear conflict with (iii), and which petitioners then go and argue, well, now we'll explain it as a carve-out, but the carve-out argument loses, I submit, because of the or.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2938.262, 2943.63, 2945.404, 2946.602, 2959.067, 2965.483, 2969.553, 2970.584], "stop_times": [2943.63, 2945.404, 2946.602, 2959.067, 2965.483, 2969.553, 2970.584, 2982.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2938.262}, "reply_to": "21688__1_155", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_157", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "No, because of the or.\nBecause of little (iii), (iii).\nTake out (iii) and it all makes sense.\nWhat it says is to the whole subparagraph damages are limited to $1,000 or if it's the special real estate thing, they're limited to $2,000.\nAnd if that little (iii) weren't there, it would be clear.\nBut the little (iii) is there, and you say, well, maybe sometimes we can say a little (iii) is superfluous.\nIt's not a word, after all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [2982.844, 2984.042, 2986.809, 2990.031, 3001.26, 3003.899, 3009.738], "stop_times": [2984.042, 2986.809, 2990.031, 3001.26, 3003.899, 3009.738, 3011.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2982.844}, "reply_to": "21688__1_156", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__1_158", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "And... and all Congress did was add (iii), it didn't reenact the whole section.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3011.495], "stop_times": [3017.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3011.495}, "reply_to": "21688__1_157", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21688__1_159", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "It did not reenact the whole section.\nThat's correct.\nIf there are no further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3017.44, 3019.214, 3019.753], "stop_times": [3019.214, 3019.753, 3023.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3017.44}, "reply_to": "21688__1_158", "speaker": "a_hugo_blankingship"}
{"id": "21688__1_160", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Blankingship.\nMr. Ayer, you have 7 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3023.384, 3025.159], "stop_times": [3025.159, 3027.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3023.384}, "reply_to": "21688__1_159", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21688__2_000", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nI just have a short list of things I'd like to address.\nThe first is just to repeat that the last time Congress enacted the word subparagraph in this provision was in 1974.\nI don't understand why the 1995 amendment is not simply subsequent legislative history.\nIt tells us nothing about what Congress meant in 1974.\nThe second point is, Justice Scalia, I'd like to... I wasn't quick enough to think when you said before that if you read the way the Fourth Circuit did, there's no inconsistency.\nIndeed, not.\nThere is still an incongruity between clause (i) and clause (iii) because contrary to what Mr. Blankingship has said, ever since the beginning of TILA, mortgage transactions have been covered by the Truth in Lending Act, I can assure you.\nAnd prior to this addition in 1995, they were dealt with in clause (i).\nAnd so what... what you've got here is a provision that says, with regard to loans in general, the cap is... you know, it's twice the... the finance charge, and... and then whatever we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3027.759, 3028.298, 3031.557, 3038.7, 3043.652, 3046.874, 3056.988, 3057.481, 3071.31, 3076.611], "stop_times": [3028.298, 3031.557, 3038.7, 3043.652, 3046.874, 3056.988, 3057.481, 3071.31, 3076.611, 3085.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3027.759}, "reply_to": "21688__1_160", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__2_001", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Oh, so I was... I'm sorry.\nThat was the one thing I was trying to clarify in this that I thought I had... that I didn't understand--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3085.799, 3088.111], "stop_times": [3088.111, 3093.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3085.799}, "reply_to": "21688__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__2_002", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3093.024], "stop_times": [3093.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3093.024}, "reply_to": "21688__2_001", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__2_003", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--is before this (iii) came about, where was my normal home mortgage?\nWas it covered or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3093.395, 3098.764], "stop_times": [3098.764, 3100.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.395}, "reply_to": "21688__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__2_004", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "It was in (i), Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3100.333], "stop_times": [3101.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3100.333}, "reply_to": "21688__2_003", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__2_005", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "If it was in (i), then how... but he says at 1603, there's a $25,000 limit on what's in (i).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3101.364], "stop_times": [3107.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3101.364}, "reply_to": "21688__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__2_006", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "1603, Your Honor, specifically says that credit transactions, other than those in which a security interest is or will be acquired in real property.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3107.141], "stop_times": [3116.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3107.141}, "reply_to": "21688__2_005", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__2_007", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Are limited to $25,000?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3116.429], "stop_times": [3118.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3116.429}, "reply_to": "21688__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__2_008", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3118.576], "stop_times": [3118.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3118.576}, "reply_to": "21688__2_007", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__2_009", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Oh, so then... then I'm back the opposite of what I was thinking.\nIn other words, you're saying that... that prior to... prior to the reenactment... I'm sorry.\nThis is the one thing I was trying to clarify in this oral argument.\nPrior to the... prior to the enactment of the new amendment, your secured mortgage transaction is up in (i).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3118.947, 3122.291, 3129.244, 3131.829], "stop_times": [3122.291, 3129.244, 3131.829, 3138.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3118.947}, "reply_to": "21688__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__2_010", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3138.638], "stop_times": [3139.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3138.638}, "reply_to": "21688__2_009", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__2_011", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Okay.\nAnd then after, although the non-open-ended one is in (iii), my home equity loan is in (i).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3139.259, 3139.918], "stop_times": [3139.918, 3148.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3139.259}, "reply_to": "21688__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__2_012", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "You bet, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3148.38], "stop_times": [3148.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3148.38}, "reply_to": "21688__2_011", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__2_013", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "And so, in fact, if I have, say, a balance of a couple hundred thousand dollars of home equity borrowing over, say, 10 or 15 years, I could have a total finance charge of hundreds of thousands.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3148.919], "stop_times": [3162.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3148.919}, "reply_to": "21688__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21688__2_014", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Absolutely.\nThat's correct.\nI want to just say a word about the facts, although frankly I think they're utterly irrelevant.\nBut the facts here are that summary judgment was entered against Mr. Nigh on 40 or so claims.\nThree went to trial.\nAmong the claims on which summary judgment was entered were claims for fraud and claims for breach of contract.\nThe reason that no damages... no actual damages were not given was not because they weren't available.\nThey were available.\nThey just weren't proven.\nThere were no actual damages proven.\nActual damages are always available even for technical TILA violations, technical in the sense that they're within the group that are said to give rise to a violation under 1640(a).\nI do want--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3162.869, 3163.241, 3164.234, 3170.095, 3176.987, 3178.102, 3182.931, 3189.164, 3189.907, 3190.65, 3192.591, 3203.919], "stop_times": [3163.241, 3164.234, 3170.095, 3176.987, 3178.102, 3182.931, 3189.164, 3189.907, 3190.65, 3192.591, 3203.919, 3205.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3162.869}, "reply_to": "21688__2_013", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__2_015", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Mr. Blankingship said that as a matter of fact, it's rare that under TILA people are able to prove actual damages.\nIs that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3205.306, 3215.542], "stop_times": [3215.542, 3216.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3205.306}, "reply_to": "21688__2_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21688__2_016", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "--That may be true, Your Honor.\nI... I think there's a question of how one goes about doing that, and you have to actually show harm.\nAnd so, you know, the question is how do you prove that and in what kind of a case.\nI do want to say and be clear... I think I said earlier that in 36 of 37 uses in TILA, the meaning is clear and refers to... subparagraph is used to refer to a capital letter.\nThe 37th is not clear.\nIn fact, I would agree with Mr. Blankingship's reading of it.\nBut 36 out of 37 ain't bad, particularly when we know in 1974 exactly what they meant to do.\nThe... the last point I guess I just want to sum up by saying is that I think this case really has a lot in common with the parable of the elephant and the blind man.\nAnd when a blind man examines an elephant's leg and decides that it's a tree, maybe it's because he hasn't been able to... to discern what else is out there and consider what other considerations there are.\nAnd in this case I think clearly what we have is a case where simply reading a single sentence of a statute and thinking you know what it means and militantly refusing to look anywhere else will very likely lead you to the wrong answer in many cases.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3216.247, 3217.073, 3221.848, 3225.413, 3236.559, 3237.795, 3240.19, 3246.319, 3256.993, 3268.426, 3280.891], "stop_times": [3217.073, 3221.848, 3225.413, 3236.559, 3237.795, 3240.19, 3246.319, 3256.993, 3268.426, 3280.891, 3281.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3216.247}, "reply_to": "21688__2_015", "speaker": "donald_b_ayer"}
{"id": "21688__2_017", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Ayer.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3281.884, 3283.575], "stop_times": [3283.575, 3284.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3281.884}, "reply_to": "21688__2_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21688__2_018", "conversation_id": "21688", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-377", "start_times": [3284.79], "stop_times": [3289.148], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3284.79}, "reply_to": "21688__2_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "23002__0_000", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "We'll hear argument next in No. 03-407, John F. Kowalski v. John C. Tesmer.\nMr. Casey.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [0.0, 9.675], "stop_times": [9.675, 66.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23002__0_001", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn this facial challenge to the Michigan statute, court of appeals rulings that these lawyers have third party standing and that their potential clients have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in discretionary appeals are both wrong.\nFirst, with respect to the standing argument, in our brief we argue that the respondent attorneys could not meet any of the criteria for standing.\nThis morning I'd like to focus on the element of prudential standing that considers whether there is a hindrance to the ability of a third party to protect his own... to protect his own interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [66.009, 70.383, 85.449, 93.706], "stop_times": [70.383, 85.449, 93.706, 105.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 66.009}, "reply_to": "23002__0_000", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_002", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--there is an injury in fact.\nThese lawyers claim that if the State were compensating for this service and they're on the list to be appointed, they would have more money in their pockets.\nYou're not... you're not challenging that there is an injury in fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [105.677, 108.855, 120.084], "stop_times": [108.855, 120.084, 124.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 105.677}, "reply_to": "23002__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_003", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Yes.\nIn our... in our brief we have challenged that.\nThe... the requirement is that there be an injury in fact, a concrete and particularized actual or imminent injury in fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [124.049, 124.287, 125.451], "stop_times": [124.287, 125.451, 132.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 124.049}, "reply_to": "23002__0_002", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_004", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "But you... you said now you were going on to the prudential factors, and so I asked were you recognizing that there was an injury in fact, and you said no.\nAnd... and why not?\nBecause it seems so obvious that they would get appointments if the system were--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [132.76, 141.592, 142.995], "stop_times": [141.592, 142.995, 148.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 132.76}, "reply_to": "23002__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_005", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I take it you're reserving it for... in your... in your brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [148.114], "stop_times": [150.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 148.114}, "reply_to": "23002__0_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23002__0_006", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I... I am not waiving the argument.\nI... I would like to rest on the brief.\nBut I... in answer to your question, we believe yes, there is a likelihood that these lawyers on the list for appointed counsel will some day... if they stay on the list and a case comes up in that county, there is a likelihood that there will be a case.\nWe submit, however, that on these facts in this facial challenge, we don't know how many lawyers are on the list for appointments in Saginaw County.\nWe don't know how many appeals of this nature come up.\nSo it may be many years before the situation arises.\nThis is not a concrete and particularized actual or imminent injury in fact, and we've argued that in the brief.\nAt... at best, if there is an injury in fact and if there is... another factor is the close relationship to the third party.\nWe believe those are weak at best, and we've argued in our brief that they don't exist.\nI think it is most clear, however, that the criteria concerning the hindrance to the third party does not exist here.\nThis is a facial challenge bought by... brought by lawyers before the statute took effect, claiming not that the statute violates their own constitutional rights, but that it violates the rights of potential future clients, and that the lawyers will suffer economic harm.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [150.343, 151.64, 153.276, 168.426, 176.971, 179.571, 184.401, 192.946, 200.209, 204.75, 213.091], "stop_times": [151.64, 153.276, 168.426, 176.971, 179.571, 184.401, 192.946, 200.209, 204.75, 213.091, 228.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 150.343}, "reply_to": "23002__0_005", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_007", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "May I clarify something about this case?\nAre any of the indigent defendants whose rights the respondent attorneys want to advance... do any of those people themselves have standing to bring their claims in Federal court now?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [228.156, 231.128], "stop_times": [231.128, 248.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 228.156}, "reply_to": "23002__0_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__0_008", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Yes.\nWe argue that there are... there are three ways that an indigent defendant can bring this claim themselves without having to rely on an attorney in this type of case.\nFirst, they can bring the challenge directly through the State courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [248.673, 251.273, 260.767], "stop_times": [251.273, 260.767, 264.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 248.673}, "reply_to": "23002__0_007", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_009", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I'm asking if there are any individuals now before this Court in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [264.443], "stop_times": [269.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 264.443}, "reply_to": "23002__0_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__0_010", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "No.\nNone of these... none of these defendants--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [269.523, 270.016], "stop_times": [270.016, 271.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 269.523}, "reply_to": "23002__0_009", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_011", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--who would be available and who would have remedies or standing to bring their claims.\nAre we just talking pure hypotheticals here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [271.956, 277.901], "stop_times": [277.901, 280.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 271.956}, "reply_to": "23002__0_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__0_012", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--In this facial challenge, we're talking about pure hypotheticals.\nThe... the three named indigent defendants--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [280.38, 283.928], "stop_times": [283.928, 286.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 280.38}, "reply_to": "23002__0_011", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_013", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "There were three named indigents.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [286.241], "stop_times": [288.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 286.241}, "reply_to": "23002__0_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__0_014", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [288.675], "stop_times": [289.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 288.675}, "reply_to": "23002__0_013", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_015", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "They were?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [289.501], "stop_times": [290.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 289.501}, "reply_to": "23002__0_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__0_016", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "They were denied counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [290.161], "stop_times": [291.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 290.161}, "reply_to": "23002__0_015", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_017", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Denied counsel, and they were also dismissed at some point down the line?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [291.73], "stop_times": [297.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 291.73}, "reply_to": "23002__0_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__0_018", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Yes.\nThe... the Sixth Circuit held that the Federal court should abstain from deciding their claims because they could have brought their claims in their direct State appeals.\nThey raised claims about the practice of denying counsel before the statute took effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [297.758, 297.841, 306.181], "stop_times": [297.841, 306.181, 312.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 297.758}, "reply_to": "23002__0_017", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_019", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Mr. Casey, was it a Younger abstention--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [312.952], "stop_times": [315.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 312.952}, "reply_to": "23002__0_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_020", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [315.591], "stop_times": [316.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 315.591}, "reply_to": "23002__0_019", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_021", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--with respect to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [316.128], "stop_times": [317.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 316.128}, "reply_to": "23002__0_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_022", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "The... the Sixth Circuit en banc held that under Younger v. Harris, the Federal court should abstain from deciding the claims of the three indigent defendants.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [317.077], "stop_times": [326.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 317.077}, "reply_to": "23002__0_021", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_023", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--So that means that the defendants could never bring this 1983 suit.\nOnly the lawyers arguably could.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [326.326, 332.681], "stop_times": [332.681, 334.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 326.326}, "reply_to": "23002__0_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_024", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "No.\nYounger v. Harris is only... only defers the time when a proper Federal civil rights action can be brought.\nThere were... at the time this action was brought, there were pending State appeals in two of the cases.\nOne of the defendants never appealed at all.\nThe Sixth Circuit recently issued an opinion not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [334.789, 335.026, 341.309, 347.436, 349.771], "stop_times": [335.026, 341.309, 347.436, 349.771, 353.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 334.789}, "reply_to": "23002__0_023", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_025", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Why didn't these lawyers instead of... instead of trying to sue on their own, why didn't they just offer their services to... to these defendants through the State courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [353.736], "stop_times": [353.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 353.736}, "reply_to": "23002__0_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__0_026", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Your Honor, perhaps opposing counsel could answer that better than I.\nWe say that is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [353.736, 362.653], "stop_times": [362.653, 368.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 353.736}, "reply_to": "23002__0_025", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_027", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I mean, that's what I don't understand about... about the fact that they won't... won't have the right to counsel.\nIt... it's at least as easy for... for counsel to appear in cases in which indigents need counsel as it is for counsel to bring their own lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [368.187, 374.049], "stop_times": [374.049, 382.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 368.187}, "reply_to": "23002__0_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__0_028", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--That is our point on the standing issue precisely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [382.405], "stop_times": [385.749], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 382.405}, "reply_to": "23002__0_027", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_029", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Didn't... didn't the Michigan Supreme Court already rule on this issue and said that the statute was constitutional, that there was no right to counsel, therefore no possibility of appointing counsel, paid counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [385.749], "stop_times": [399.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 385.749}, "reply_to": "23002__0_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_030", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That's correct.\nIn... in 2000, the... the... while this case was pending, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion, the Bulger decision that's discussed in the briefs, saying that the practice of denying appointed counsel was constitutional.\nThe statute was not in effect at that time.\nThe statute took effect, and in a case just decided in June of this year, People v. Harris, the Michigan Supreme Court relied on Bulger and said this statute is constitutional.\nIt does not violate any rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [399.002, 399.457, 414.484, 416.629, 427.692], "stop_times": [399.457, 414.484, 416.629, 427.692, 429.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 399.002}, "reply_to": "23002__0_029", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_031", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "So going through the State system, there's no possibility that these lawyers or the defendants could successfully assert a right to paid counsel--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [429.428], "stop_times": [440.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 429.428}, "reply_to": "23002__0_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_032", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [440.695], "stop_times": [442.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 440.695}, "reply_to": "23002__0_031", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_033", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--because that's already been decided by the Michigan Supreme Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [442.06], "stop_times": [444.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 442.06}, "reply_to": "23002__0_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_034", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "As... as a matter of jurisprudence by the State supreme court, yes.\nBoth State and Federal constitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [444.184, 447.799], "stop_times": [447.799, 449.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 444.184}, "reply_to": "23002__0_033", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_035", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "There... there's an appeal from... they could request certiorari from the State supreme court to this Court, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [449.656], "stop_times": [455.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.656}, "reply_to": "23002__0_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__0_036", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--There are, in fact, two cases pending, the Harris case that I just mentioned.\nA petition for certiorari was filed about 2 weeks ago raising this precise claim.\nThere is another case Halbert v. Michigan.\nIt's docket--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [455.906, 459.483, 463.774, 467.573], "stop_times": [459.483, 463.774, 467.573, 468.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 455.906}, "reply_to": "23002__0_035", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_037", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Was there... was there a cert petition in Bulger itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [468.316], "stop_times": [470.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 468.316}, "reply_to": "23002__0_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_038", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--There was a petition in Bulger.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [470.628], "stop_times": [471.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 470.628}, "reply_to": "23002__0_037", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_039", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "And it was denied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [471.909], "stop_times": [472.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 471.909}, "reply_to": "23002__0_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_040", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "It was denied.\nIn... in addition--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [472.214, 472.857], "stop_times": [472.857, 475.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 472.214}, "reply_to": "23002__0_039", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_041", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "But there... there is a cert petition filed in what case?\nIn the June case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [475.252, 479.506], "stop_times": [479.506, 481.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 475.252}, "reply_to": "23002__0_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__0_042", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--In the... the case is pending in this Court as Melody Harris v. Michigan.\nIt was filed about 2 weeks ago.\nI have not been able to find out the docket number.\nThere was another case, Halbert v. Michigan, which is a pro se defendant who was denied counsel.\nHis applications, pro se applications, were denied in the State appellate courts.\nA pro se petition was filed.\nI filed a response to that about a month ago.\nThat's docket No. 03-10198.\nIt's on this Court's conference for Friday, October 8th.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [481.568, 487.678, 489.62, 492.675, 498.824, 503.859, 505.717, 508.772, 514.345], "stop_times": [487.678, 489.62, 492.675, 498.824, 503.859, 505.717, 508.772, 514.345, 518.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 481.568}, "reply_to": "23002__0_041", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_043", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "So your point is that there are petitions filed here that would enable this Court to decide whether the Michigan Supreme Court was correct in holding the statute constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [518.059], "stop_times": [532.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 518.059}, "reply_to": "23002__0_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__0_044", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That's correct.\nThere are at least those two petitions pending that I'm aware of in this Court now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [532.549, 533.004], "stop_times": [533.004, 538.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 532.549}, "reply_to": "23002__0_043", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_045", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Do you acknowledge there is a good Federal question there at least?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [538.122], "stop_times": [542.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.122}, "reply_to": "23002__0_044", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__0_046", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Oh, yes.\nIt's... it's an important question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [542.292, 542.952], "stop_times": [542.952, 544.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 542.292}, "reply_to": "23002__0_045", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_047", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [544.438], "stop_times": [545.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 544.438}, "reply_to": "23002__0_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__0_048", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "We... we... in the Bulger case, I opposed certiorari, saying that yes, it's an important question, but it was correctly decided.\nAt that time, there was no conflict.\nThen when the Sixth Circuit opinion came up, we filed the petition saying it's an important question and now there's a conflict between the State supreme court and the Federal court of appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [545.181, 552.573, 554.552], "stop_times": [552.573, 554.552, 564.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.181}, "reply_to": "23002__0_047", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_049", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That's the position you've taken in... in the Halbert case, that the Court should take the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [564.666], "stop_times": [570.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 564.666}, "reply_to": "23002__0_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_050", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "What I said in the Halbert case is that the Court need not grant this petition now because, although it's an important question, the issue is pending in... in this Tesmer, the current case, Kowalski v. Tesmer.\nIf this Court rules in our favor on standing and then does not reach the constitutional question, then it would be appropriate to grant certiorari in either the Halbert case or the Harris case because the... the determination of the constitutionality of this statute is important to the State of Michigan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [570.239, 583.242], "stop_times": [583.242, 601.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 570.239}, "reply_to": "23002__0_049", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_051", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Do they have lawyers in those cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [601.985], "stop_times": [602.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 601.985}, "reply_to": "23002__0_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__0_052", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Now, the Halbert petition is pro se.\nThe Harris petition has either retained or pro bono counsel.\nBut the... the constitutionality of the statute is... excuse me... is directly challenged in both of those petitions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [602.933, 605.533, 609.825], "stop_times": [605.533, 609.825, 616.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 602.933}, "reply_to": "23002__0_051", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_053", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "May I ask you if in exercising prudential judgment on whether to accord prudential standing, because I guess there's article III standing here, is it appropriate to take into consideration as one fact that it's already been argued in this case and it's now ripe for decision, or should we just totally ignore that aspect of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [616.845], "stop_times": [634.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 616.845}, "reply_to": "23002__0_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23002__0_054", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "As a matter of judicial economy, there is a point to be made that it... the issue has been briefed and argued.\nSo perhaps it should be decided.\nJust last term in Elk Grove v. Newdow, the Court faced a similar situation.\nThey disposed of the case on standing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [634.595, 642.89, 644.271, 649.911], "stop_times": [642.89, 644.271, 649.911, 652.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 634.595}, "reply_to": "23002__0_053", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_055", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "No, but in that case there was a conflict between the interests of the third party and the interests of the litigant or a potential client.\nHere there's no conflict between the lawyers and the clients.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [652.14, 656.97], "stop_times": [656.97, 659.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 652.14}, "reply_to": "23002__0_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23002__0_056", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--That's true.\nThat's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [659.57, 660.314], "stop_times": [660.314, 661.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 659.57}, "reply_to": "23002__0_055", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_057", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Of course, also bearing upon our prudential judgment, I... I suppose, would be that in order to reach the merits, we have to do what you assert to be an end run around the Younger abstention.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [661.223, 672.74], "stop_times": [672.74, 673.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 661.223}, "reply_to": "23002__0_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__0_058", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That's... that's correct.\nIn my view, the... the most logical, most appropriate disposition would be to say that these attorneys do not have standing.\nTherefore, reverse the Sixth Circuit's judgment.\nThere are these other vehicles pending now to reach the constitutional issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [673.938, 675.629, 681.823, 684.34], "stop_times": [675.629, 681.823, 684.34, 689.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 673.938}, "reply_to": "23002__0_057", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_059", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "But... but why isn't the Younger abstention problem just like the mootness problem in Craig against Boren?\nIt took one class of litigants unavailable but then allowed the third party to have standing.\nWhy... why aren't... aren't your opponents here just like the bartenders in Craig against Boren?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [689.624, 693.877, 699.449], "stop_times": [693.877, 699.449, 704.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 689.624}, "reply_to": "23002__0_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23002__0_060", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, in determining prudential standing, there are several criteria that should be examined in deciding whether there's an exception to the general rule where a litigant cannot argue the rights of third parties.\nIn Craig v. Boren, the statute directly affected the vendor in that case.\nIt was a statute against sale of certain alcoholic beverages.\nAnd in this case we don't have that.\nAlso, in Craig v. Boren, nobody argued prudential standing considerations until the case reached the Supreme Court apparently.\nBut in our case, we have a situation where we have lawyers who do not have any present clients who are not directly affected by the statute.\nThey're not claiming rights--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [704.485, 715.796, 722.112, 726.033, 729.543, 735.858, 746.178], "stop_times": [715.796, 722.112, 726.033, 729.543, 735.858, 746.178, 747.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 704.485}, "reply_to": "23002__0_059", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_061", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "No, but they have the same interest that the bartenders had because they won't make some... sell their services and the bartenders wouldn't sell the booze.\nI don't see the difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [747.376, 753.32], "stop_times": [753.32, 754.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 747.376}, "reply_to": "23002__0_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23002__0_062", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Well, in... in Craig v. Boren, the... if the bartenders did not comply with the statute, they'd be subject to criminal penalties.\nHere, the attorneys will not be subject to any criminal penalties.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [754.601, 761.743], "stop_times": [761.743, 764.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 754.601}, "reply_to": "23002__0_061", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_063", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, why--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [764.715], "stop_times": [764.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 764.715}, "reply_to": "23002__0_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__0_064", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That wasn't true... that wasn't true in the Pierce v. Society of Sisters case and it wasn't true in the Singleton case.\nBoth of those cases recognized third party standing, although the prohibition was not on the plaintiff who was seeking to raise the rights of another person.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [764.948, 773.26], "stop_times": [773.26, 785.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 764.948}, "reply_to": "23002__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_065", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That's... that's true.\nThe parties have discussed many cases.\nAlmost all of them have some factors similar to the circumstances here, and as we've argued, all of them have distinguishing factors too.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [785.753, 787.544, 789.607], "stop_times": [787.544, 789.607, 797.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 785.753}, "reply_to": "23002__0_064", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_066", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--But isn't... isn't the biggest distinguishing factor the one that you raised in response to Justice Scalia's question?\nThese... these lawyers can represent somebody on a direct appeal, the same way and raise exactly the same issue that they're trying to raise on third party standing now.\nIsn't... isn't that true?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [797.946, 804.346, 814.21], "stop_times": [804.346, 814.21, 815.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.946}, "reply_to": "23002__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__0_067", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That... precisely.\nJust normal principles of litigation counsel that it is appropriate to have a real party in interest.\nThe criminal defendants whose rights are at stake in the statute litigate that case.\nIf you take the step and allow standing for an attorney, based on speculative claims about future clients and economic harm to the attorney, as the dissent in the Sixth Circuit says, that opens up the possibility of vastly expanding the doctrine of standing beyond what this Court has ever said.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [815.508, 816.772, 824.779, 830.268], "stop_times": [816.772, 824.779, 830.268, 848.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 815.508}, "reply_to": "23002__0_066", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_068", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, is it correct as a factual matter that these particular lawyers do have clients that they could be representing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [848.927], "stop_times": [855.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 848.927}, "reply_to": "23002__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23002__0_069", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That is not in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [855.243], "stop_times": [857.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 855.243}, "reply_to": "23002__0_068", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_070", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--on direct appeal?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [857.184], "stop_times": [857.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 857.184}, "reply_to": "23002__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23002__0_071", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--that is not in the record.\nIn their response brief, they said that they currently do have clients, but in the complaint... this case was, again, a facial challenge.\nIt was decided on summary disposition or it was a motion to dismiss.\nIt was filed and decided within about a month.\nAnd there was no factual development here.\nIf they had actual clients, there would be clearly a closer relationship, but again, those clients would not be hindered from making the claims themselves.\nThere is no reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [857.638, 858.465, 865.729, 869.172, 872.704, 875.76, 884.305], "stop_times": [858.465, 865.729, 869.172, 872.704, 875.76, 884.305, 885.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 857.638}, "reply_to": "23002__0_070", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_072", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "But the... the claim that... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [885.048], "stop_times": [886.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.048}, "reply_to": "23002__0_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__0_073", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, it just would seem to me that the lawyers who are advancing this claim may or may not be representing individuals who want to make the same claim, but there... there must be some lawyers who want to make these claims who don't have any clients, and the question is whether they have standing.\nAnd are they to be defeated standing because there are a lot of other lawyers who might also sue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [886.163, 899.703], "stop_times": [899.703, 903.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 886.163}, "reply_to": "23002__0_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23002__0_074", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--In our view, as a general proposition, lawyers should not be given independent standing to raise claims of their clients.\nWhen the clients can present their own issues themselves, as they can in this case or in this situation under the statute, there's no need--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [903.418, 911.797], "stop_times": [911.797, 920.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.418}, "reply_to": "23002__0_073", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_075", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Is that different from Caplin & Drysdale where the lawyers didn't raise the interest of the client and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [920.963], "stop_times": [926.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 920.963}, "reply_to": "23002__0_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_076", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Again, there was an actual client in that case and there was significant money at stake.\nThe lawyers had been paid money from drug forfeiture.\nThey had been paid $25,000, and they wanted another 107--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [926.286, 931.942, 934.914], "stop_times": [931.942, 934.914, 939.555], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 926.286}, "reply_to": "23002__0_075", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_077", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--But as far as the actual client, you moved to dismiss.\nSo that's why there's no... was no back-development.\nYou moved to dismiss.\nTherefore, you have to assume whatever facts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [939.555, 941.601, 945.483, 947.546], "stop_times": [941.601, 945.483, 947.546, 950.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 939.555}, "reply_to": "23002__0_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_078", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--That... that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [950.684], "stop_times": [951.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 950.684}, "reply_to": "23002__0_077", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_079", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--in favor of the opponent of the motion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [951.51], "stop_times": [953.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 951.51}, "reply_to": "23002__0_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_080", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That's correct.\nBut my response on that was to the question of, you know, do they in fact now have clients.\nThere is no allegation in the complaint and no proof that they now have clients.\nThey may--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [953.534, 954.377, 960.071, 963.853], "stop_times": [954.377, 960.071, 963.853, 964.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 953.534}, "reply_to": "23002__0_079", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_081", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "But if... if you assume... you assume the correctness of the allegations, which you... you have to do at this point, the allegation is that they would get clients and would be paid but for this bar to payment.\nIsn't that correct?\nSo if you take them in terms of their claim, you've got to assume that they will have clients and they can bring this... this issue on behalf of the client.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [964.308, 976.363, 977.311], "stop_times": [976.363, 977.311, 987.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 964.308}, "reply_to": "23002__0_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__0_082", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Correct.\nThat goes to the criteria of injury in fact and close relationship with the third party.\nWe still have the criteria that I wanted to discuss this morning about hindrance to the right... to the ability of the third party to litigate for themselves.\nExcuse me.\nIn our view, there is no need to expand the doctrine of standing to permit lawyers to have independent standing to make these claims because the clients, who are directly affected by the statute, can make them themselves.\nThere are the two pending habeas... or two pending petitions for certiorari that we've mentioned.\nThere is another case, the Bulger case.\nMr. Bulger himself, after he lost in the Michigan courts, he filed a petition for... for habeas corpus.\nAnd the district court granted the writ of habeas corpus.\nWe appealed.\nThat case is now pending in the Sixth Circuit.\nSo that's another vehicle.\nIt is also possible that an indigent inmate himself could bring a section 1983 case.\nIt's simply not necessary to expand the doctrine of standing to give lawyers--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [987.22, 987.714, 993.015, 1003.689, 1004.448, 1016.404, 1021.029, 1023.629, 1030.688, 1034.775, 1035.601, 1037.626, 1039.233, 1045.799], "stop_times": [987.714, 993.015, 1003.689, 1004.448, 1016.404, 1021.029, 1023.629, 1030.688, 1034.775, 1035.601, 1037.626, 1039.233, 1045.799, 1051.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 987.22}, "reply_to": "23002__0_081", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_083", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "How could an indigent bring a 1983 case?\nI thought you said that that would be barred by Younger.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1051.15, 1055.003], "stop_times": [1055.003, 1058.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1051.15}, "reply_to": "23002__0_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_084", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--If they had a pending prosecution, it would be barred by Younger.\nOnce that pending prosecution is over, they could bring a 1983 action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1058.718, 1062.766], "stop_times": [1062.766, 1067.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1058.718}, "reply_to": "23002__0_083", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_085", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Could they?\nBecause I thought this Court had held that... that you can't bring a 1983 suit if what you're seeking to do is overturn the conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1067.817, 1068.339], "stop_times": [1068.339, 1078.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1067.817}, "reply_to": "23002__0_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_086", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Under Heck v. Humphrey, if the outcome of the 1983 case would necessarily imply that the conviction or sentence is invalid, you cannot bring the 1983 case.\nHere, the allegation is simply that they were entitled to counsel.\nThat's not the substantive merits of whether the claim... whether they are properly convicted or properly sentenced.\nThe Sixth Circuit, in a case decided August 31st--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1078.203, 1089.449, 1094.345, 1101.404], "stop_times": [1089.449, 1094.345, 1101.404, 1105.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1078.203}, "reply_to": "23002__0_085", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_087", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, if that... that... that's... you're saying that the defendants themselves could not sue now under 1983?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1105.241], "stop_times": [1113.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.241}, "reply_to": "23002__0_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_088", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--A... a defendant who is currently in the State system on direct appeal is barred by the abstention doctrine from filing a 1983 action.\nBut after they go through the State court and lose, in addition to filing a writ of certiorari with this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1113.953, 1122.869], "stop_times": [1122.869, 1130.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1113.953}, "reply_to": "23002__0_087", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_089", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--And presumably up to this Court, if they want to come that far.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1130.549], "stop_times": [1132.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1130.549}, "reply_to": "23002__0_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__0_090", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Oh, certainly.\nAfter... after they go through the State court, they could file a writ of cert in this Court, as the two pending petitions have.\nThey could file a complaint for habeas corpus.\nThey could bring a facial challenge under 1983.\nIn a case called Howard v. Whitbeck from the Sixth Circuit, just decided about a month ago, that was the very question that was decided.\nAn inmate... a prison inmate, challenging another statute, litigated and lost in the State court, then filed a 1983 action.\nWe argued in a Federal case under Rooker v. Feldman, he was actually trying to seek review of the State court judgment.\nThe district court agreed.\nBut the Sixth Circuit just said Rooker v. Feldman bars the as-applied challenge, but they remanded for a trial on the merits of the facial challenge, which is not barred by Rooker v. Feldman.\nSo an inmate who has been unsuccessful in the State court, under Sixth Circuit law in my jurisdiction, can bring a 1983 action.\nSo there are at least three vehicles that an inmate can bring--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1132.118, 1132.657, 1137.336, 1139.631, 1142.809, 1150.49, 1158.95, 1166.546, 1167.866, 1179.634, 1188.755], "stop_times": [1132.657, 1137.336, 1139.631, 1142.809, 1150.49, 1158.95, 1166.546, 1167.866, 1179.634, 1188.755, 1191.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1132.118}, "reply_to": "23002__0_089", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_091", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "And do you... do you agree that that's right?\nAnd you said that that's their theory, that they could bring a 1983 action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1191.893, 1192.925], "stop_times": [1192.925, 1198.952], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1191.893}, "reply_to": "23002__0_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_092", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--We are not filing a petition for certiorari from that decision.\nWe are abiding by that decision.\nWe're going back and we're going to try that case on the merits of the facial challenge to the statute.\nThat... that case is Howard v. Whitbeck, docket No. 03-1396.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1198.952, 1203.494, 1205.928, 1211.008], "stop_times": [1203.494, 1205.928, 1211.008, 1217.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1198.952}, "reply_to": "23002__0_091", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_093", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Of course, what the other side says is, well, yes, maybe they can bring these suits, but in all of those suits, they don't have counsel, what they... what they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1217.528], "stop_times": [1228.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1217.528}, "reply_to": "23002__0_092", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__0_094", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That's true.\nThat... that gets into the... the merits of the constitutional claim.\nAnd in our view, talking about the merits, all that is required in the Michigan application for leave to appeal process is that a defendant identify the issues and ask the appellate court to review it.\nUnlike Douglas, this is not a review on the merits.\nAn order denying an application for leave is not an affirmance.\nIt's not an adjudication of the merits of any legal issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1228.468, 1230.903, 1234.329, 1248.819, 1252.451, 1256.044], "stop_times": [1230.903, 1234.329, 1248.819, 1252.451, 1256.044, 1259.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1228.468}, "reply_to": "23002__0_093", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_095", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "What... what do we look to in order to verify what... what you've just said?\nDo the Michigan appellate courts catch mistakes all the time?\nAnd if so, what's the standard that they use?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1259.138, 1263.391, 1268.675], "stop_times": [1263.391, 1268.675, 1270.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1259.138}, "reply_to": "23002__0_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23002__0_096", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "The court rules concerning applications for leave do not set out specific standards.\nWhat... what the court of appeals can do on an application for leave is grant the application, deny it, or issue peremptory relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1270.7, 1277.016], "stop_times": [1277.016, 1283.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1270.7}, "reply_to": "23002__0_095", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_097", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "But what are the standards they use?\nWhere... where do I look to find out what standards they use, if I get there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1283.582, 1285.189], "stop_times": [1285.189, 1288.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1283.582}, "reply_to": "23002__0_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23002__0_098", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "To the best of my knowledge, there are no published standards in court rule or statute on that.\nThe court is free to exercise its discretion to... to deny leave for any reason that it chooses.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1288.533, 1294.272], "stop_times": [1294.272, 1301.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1288.533}, "reply_to": "23002__0_097", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_099", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Can you give me an example of where they grant leave to appeal, and if not... and it's not one of the exceptions listed in the statute such as incorrect--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1301.868], "stop_times": [1311.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1301.868}, "reply_to": "23002__0_098", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23002__0_100", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "If... if--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1311.239], "stop_times": [1311.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1311.239}, "reply_to": "23002__0_099", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_101", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--such as incorrect sentencing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1311.611], "stop_times": [1312.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1311.611}, "reply_to": "23002__0_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23002__0_102", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Well, if... under the statute, if the court of appeals grants leave, counsel is automatically appointed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1312.521], "stop_times": [1318.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1312.521}, "reply_to": "23002__0_101", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_103", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Right.\nWhat are the instances in which they grant leave, other than sentencing or some other statutory--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1318.481, 1319.329], "stop_times": [1319.329, 1326.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1318.481}, "reply_to": "23002__0_102", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23002__0_104", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "They're... most often they are sentencing issues.\nThe statistics we put in our brief, in footnote 25 of our brief, indicated that out of the... in 2001, there were 38,000 guilty plea convictions.\nThe court of appeals that year disposed of 7,600 cases.\n14 percent of them were guilty plea appeals.\nMost of them were disposed of by order.\nThere were somewhere in the neighborhood of about 50 decisions... opinions issued in guilty plea cases.\nI have not canvased all of them.\nI suspect that the vast majority of them are sentencing issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1326.182, 1327.918, 1338.858, 1343.195, 1346.538, 1348.146, 1355.288, 1357.684], "stop_times": [1327.918, 1338.858, 1343.195, 1346.538, 1348.146, 1355.288, 1357.684, 1360.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1326.182}, "reply_to": "23002__0_103", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_105", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Do we... do we know whether any of those were cases that didn't fall under the four categories where you a... a right to?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1360.285], "stop_times": [1369.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1360.285}, "reply_to": "23002__0_104", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_106", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "In every case where there was an opinion, counsel was appointed.\nThe statute requires it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1369.284, 1373.742], "stop_times": [1373.742, 1375.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1369.284}, "reply_to": "23002__0_105", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_107", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "But one of the problems, I thought, for the indigent is the rulings... am I correct... in Michigan, that they're not required... say, there's an objection.\nThere's no written record that the indigent could look to, even assuming he could understand it, to... to determine what issues might be raised on... on appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1375.024, 1387.2], "stop_times": [1387.2, 1397.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1375.024}, "reply_to": "23002__0_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_108", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I believe you're incorrect on that, Your Honor.\nThe... what an indigent inmate will... or defendant will have available to him to prepare an application for leave to appeal is a transcript of the proceedings.\nHe's entitled to that for free.\nHe will have whatever written motions and written decisions the trial judge may have issued.\nHe will have... in the transcript, he will have the oral motions and the decisions of the judge, and then in addition to whatever pro se materials, as in the Ross v. Moffitt case, the inmate can muster.\nIn... in these cases, there are other pro se materials available.\nThe district court's opinion in this case noted that there is a... a form brief, 38-page brief that was circulating among inmates on the precise question of entitlement to counsel, which two of the defendants used in their State court appeals.\nBut in determining whether counsel is constitutionally required under Ross v. Moffitt, this Court has said you look to two things.\nAre the merits decided?\nWhat is the nature of the appellate process?\nAnd if the merits are not being decided, as in the Michigan case, we say that falls within the Ross v. Moffitt line of cases, unlike the Douglas case.\nIn... in addition to the nature of the appellate proceedings, he--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1397.437, 1400.659, 1410.773, 1412.009, 1417.46, 1431.123, 1437.522, 1452.05, 1460.018, 1461.875, 1464.122, 1474.236], "stop_times": [1400.659, 1410.773, 1412.009, 1417.46, 1431.123, 1437.522, 1452.05, 1460.018, 1461.875, 1464.122, 1474.236, 1477.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1397.437}, "reply_to": "23002__0_107", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_109", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, now, your... your opponents quote some language from the... one of the Michigan court of appeals which suggests that the reason that an appeal was denied was it had no merit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1477.58], "stop_times": [1488.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1477.58}, "reply_to": "23002__0_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23002__0_110", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--A... a typical order that the court of appeals issues when it denies an application for leave to appeal says, denied for lack of merit on the grounds presented.\nBut there is published, controlling Michigan authority, which we cited in our brief, that says that language does not mean that the court of appeals looked at the merits of the underlying legal issue.\nWhat... what the court is looking at is the question of whether to grant leave or deny leave.\nIf they grant leave, counsel will be appointed.\nIn a very real sense--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1488.232, 1499.515, 1512.131, 1517.787, 1520.842], "stop_times": [1499.515, 1512.131, 1517.787, 1520.842, 1522.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1488.232}, "reply_to": "23002__0_109", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_111", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "What... what are they getting at when they say merit?\nI mean, I take it you concede there was a quotation from that Contineri case on... cited on page 30 of their brief.\nI mean, what... what is the reference to merit supposed to mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1522.245, 1524.286, 1530.685], "stop_times": [1524.286, 1530.685, 1533.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1522.245}, "reply_to": "23002__0_110", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__0_112", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--I... I do not know why the court of appeals uses that language.\nWhat I do know is that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1533.657, 1537.911], "stop_times": [1537.911, 1539.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1533.657}, "reply_to": "23002__0_111", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_113", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Isn't the reasonable thing to assume that they use it as we would normally expect it to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1539.647], "stop_times": [1544.393], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1539.647}, "reply_to": "23002__0_112", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__0_114", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1544.393], "stop_times": [1544.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1544.393}, "reply_to": "23002__0_113", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_115", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--to mean by the words they use?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1544.97], "stop_times": [1546.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1544.97}, "reply_to": "23002__0_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__0_116", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--On its face, that would be the first impression that is given from those words.\nHowever, the published opinions of the court of appeals we've cited in our brief reject that, and they say that in an application for leave to appeal, the court of appeals is not adjudicating the merits.\nMy opposing counsel in this case was counsel of record in the Bulger case in the Michigan Supreme Court.\nHe made exactly that same argument.\nHe persuaded the dissent in that opinion, but he did not persuade the majority.\nThey didn't decide the issue precisely, but he has been arguing that ever since.\nBut the... all the precedent that Michigan has on that point we've cited in our brief.\nThose are not decisions on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1546.706, 1552.029, 1562.803, 1569.862, 1571.969, 1575.889, 1581.34, 1585.837], "stop_times": [1552.029, 1562.803, 1569.862, 1571.969, 1575.889, 1581.34, 1585.837, 1587.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1546.706}, "reply_to": "23002__0_115", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_117", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Is it true that Michigan is the only State in the Union so far that denies counsel on a first appeal, whether discretionary or mandatory?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1587.695], "stop_times": [1598.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1587.695}, "reply_to": "23002__0_116", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_118", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I believe that is incorrect.\nThe plaintiffs have cited a 1987 habeas corpus case that purports to make a national survey.\nIn the Michigan v. Bulger Michigan Supreme Court opinion in footnote 3, they cited a 1992 Arizona study which reached almost an opposite conclusion.\nThey said there were only seven States which give unrestricted right of appeal, and there were 21 States that prohibited appeals--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1598.552, 1599.916, 1607.097, 1617.311], "stop_times": [1599.916, 1607.097, 1617.311, 1624.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1598.552}, "reply_to": "23002__0_117", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_119", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Not... not the right of appeal.\nThe right to counsel, whether it's a mandatory or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1624.37, 1625.484], "stop_times": [1625.484, 1629.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1624.37}, "reply_to": "23002__0_118", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__0_120", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--It's my understanding that Michigan may be the only State that has a specific statute prohibiting it with exceptions like this, but it's also my understanding that the practice in many other States is that counsel is routinely denied in appeals from guilty pleas.\nI'd like to reserve my remaining time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1629.737, 1643.567], "stop_times": [1643.567, 1645.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1629.737}, "reply_to": "23002__0_119", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__0_121", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Very well, Mr. Casey.\nMr. Moran, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1645.712, 1647.57], "stop_times": [1647.57, 1649.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1645.712}, "reply_to": "23002__0_120", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23002__1_000", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn fact, in the 41 years since this Court's decision in Douglas, no State, not one, not even a... a territorial jurisdiction, except for Michigan, has even attempted to deny counsel to any indigents appealing any type of first tier appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1649.345, 1654.091], "stop_times": [1654.091, 1671.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1649.345}, "reply_to": "23002__0_121", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_001", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, Mr. Moran, this is a very important question, whether the Michigan law can survive.\nBut I think before we can address that, we have to decide whether there is standing for the lawyers you represent here today, and that's a much tougher question I think.\nIs it possible that this Court could grant certiorari in one of the pending petitions and resolve the underlying issue of constitutionality of Michigan's unusual law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1671.143, 1677.376, 1690.955], "stop_times": [1677.376, 1690.955, 1705.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1671.143}, "reply_to": "23002__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__1_002", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "It is, of course, possible, Justice O'Connor, that this Court could do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1705.073], "stop_times": [1708.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1705.073}, "reply_to": "23002__1_001", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_003", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "And if we were to grant you standing here, wouldn't we have sort of expanded our existing holdings on who has standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1708.499], "stop_times": [1720.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1708.499}, "reply_to": "23002__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__1_004", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Not at all, Justice O'Connor.\nThis case fits squarely within the two prior lawyer-client standing cases, the Triplett case in which this Court unanimously found standing for a... for a lawyer representing black lung claimants, and the Caplin & Drysdale case in which this Court found standing for a third party assertion by a firm representing a criminal defendant.\nAnd what those three cases have in common and what makes them unique is that this can only arise in a case in which the statute or law being challenged disentitles the client either through loss of funding or through, like Michigan's law, a statute... disentitles the client to representation.\nAny other change in the law, tort reform brought up by my--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1720.471, 1721.214, 1740.904, 1759.276], "stop_times": [1721.214, 1740.904, 1759.276, 1763.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1720.471}, "reply_to": "23002__1_003", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_005", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, it doesn't really disentitle the client to representation.\nIt says counsel won't be appointed for him.\nBut presumably these lawyers could have offered their services.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1763.363, 1766.046, 1768.071], "stop_times": [1766.046, 1768.071, 1771.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1763.363}, "reply_to": "23002__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23002__1_006", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, that wouldn't be practical, and that raises a point that Justice Souter also raised in the argument.\nIt wouldn't be practical for Mr. Fitzgerald or Mr. Vogler to offer their services pro bono to some indigent in this position because to do so would probably... probably be unethical or malpractice.\nFirst of all, they can't be appointed.\nWhat the statute prohibits is the appointment of counsel like Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Vogler.\nSo they... they cannot form an attorney-client relationship by operation of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1771.043, 1778.473, 1789.452, 1790.855, 1796.678], "stop_times": [1778.473, 1789.452, 1790.855, 1796.678, 1800.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1771.043}, "reply_to": "23002__1_005", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_007", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "But isn't the answer that all they have to do is to say, okay, I will represent him but I am representing him with a claim for funds?\nAnd at the end of the day, regardless of what the Michigan law says, I'm going to say to the State of Michigan, through the court, pay me for what I did.\nThat isn't a waiver and there's nothing unethical about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1800.309, 1807.656, 1815.913], "stop_times": [1807.656, 1815.913, 1819.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1800.309}, "reply_to": "23002__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_008", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "But Justice Souter, that's impractical and unethical in this case because if Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Vogler were to do that, they would have to represent the indigent on his or her underlying plea and sentencing issues--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1819.274], "stop_times": [1830.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1819.274}, "reply_to": "23002__1_007", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_009", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1830.115], "stop_times": [1830.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1830.115}, "reply_to": "23002__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_010", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--or those would be lost forever--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1830.608], "stop_times": [1831.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1830.608}, "reply_to": "23002__1_009", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_011", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1831.517], "stop_times": [1831.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1831.517}, "reply_to": "23002__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_012", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--because the time would fly.\nAnd so if they also represented him on the underlying plea and sentencing issues, then this person would not... then the underlying defendant would not be a person with standing to raise the lack of counsel because in fact they have counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1831.988, 1833.291], "stop_times": [1833.291, 1845.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1831.988}, "reply_to": "23002__1_011", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_013", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, which... which indigent defendants are the attorney plaintiffs asserting claims on behalf of here?\nIs it past defendants?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1845.923, 1853.436], "stop_times": [1853.436, 1856.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1845.923}, "reply_to": "23002__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__1_014", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "This was... this was... for Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Vogler, they were challenging both the prestatutory practice of the three defendant judges.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1856.037], "stop_times": [1863.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1856.037}, "reply_to": "23002__1_013", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_015", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "You're talking about the two individuals, but they've been dismissed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1863.346], "stop_times": [1866.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1863.346}, "reply_to": "23002__1_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__1_016", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "No.\nMr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Vogler, Justice O'Connor, are the attorneys.\nThey were... they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1866.606, 1866.977, 1869.949], "stop_times": [1866.977, 1869.949, 1871.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1866.606}, "reply_to": "23002__1_015", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_017", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, I'm trying to find out what indigent criminal defendants are these attorneys attempting to represent here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1871.064], "stop_times": [1879.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1871.064}, "reply_to": "23002__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__1_018", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--They routinely take appointments.\nThey are on a list of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1879.404, 1880.64], "stop_times": [1880.64, 1881.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1879.404}, "reply_to": "23002__1_017", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_019", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Future defendants?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1881.672], "stop_times": [1883.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1881.672}, "reply_to": "23002__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__1_020", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Presently and future defendants.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1883.036], "stop_times": [1885.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1883.036}, "reply_to": "23002__1_019", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_021", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Past defendants?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1885.115], "stop_times": [1886.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1885.115}, "reply_to": "23002__1_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__1_022", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Past defendants.\nThey... they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1886.502, 1887.039], "stop_times": [1887.039, 1888.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1886.502}, "reply_to": "23002__1_021", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_023", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, if it's past defendants who were convicted and didn't have counsel, how is it consistent with Heck v. Humphrey that they could be here, these attorneys?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1888.154], "stop_times": [1899.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1888.154}, "reply_to": "23002__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__1_024", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--I think I... I think I misspoke.\nAt the time the statute was passed, it had not gone into effect.\nThis challenge was filed in order to prevent the statute from going into effect, to prevent approximately 2,000 Michigan indigents a year being denied the right to counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1899.505, 1900.703, 1905.078], "stop_times": [1900.703, 1905.078, 1914.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1899.505}, "reply_to": "23002__1_023", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_025", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, are you asserting then that these attorney respondents are here trying to represent future defendants?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1914.988], "stop_times": [1922.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1914.988}, "reply_to": "23002__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__1_026", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Present and future defendants.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1922.539], "stop_times": [1924.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1922.539}, "reply_to": "23002__1_025", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_027", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "And if it's present defendants, how is that consistent with Younger?\nHow can they do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1924.458, 1929.598], "stop_times": [1929.598, 1932.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1924.458}, "reply_to": "23002__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__1_028", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, they're not representing any named defendants.\nThe... the problem is that as the statute goes into effect, they will presumably not receive any further funding for--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1932.365, 1934.223], "stop_times": [1934.223, 1941.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1932.365}, "reply_to": "23002__1_027", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_029", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, if it's future people, how is it consistent with Los Angeles v. Lyons?\nI mean, I just don't see how these attorney representatives get here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1941.282, 1945.74], "stop_times": [1945.74, 1951.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1941.282}, "reply_to": "23002__1_028", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23002__1_030", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Well, they're in exactly the same position as the bartender in... or the beer vendor in... in Craig v. Boren.\nThey're representing prospective clients, prospective patients as in Singleton v. Wulff again.\nThis Court has over and over again... in fact, in Triplett itself, this Court recognized that... specifically said that in Triplett that it applied to prospective clients, that the... and it said that in Triplett that... it quoted the three factors.\nAnd it said that... excuse me.\nI'm looking at the wrong page.\nIt said in Triplett that a restriction upon the fees a lawyer may charge applied to the lawyer's prospective client of a due process right to obtain legal representation falls squarely within this principle.\nAnd that was the principle of third party standing that this Court cited--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [1951.85, 1958.166, 1964.399, 1981.86, 1985.0, 1985.864, 1997.01], "stop_times": [1958.166, 1964.399, 1981.86, 1985.0, 1985.864, 1997.01, 2000.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1951.85}, "reply_to": "23002__1_029", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_031", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, of course, in Triplett, the attorneys themselves were subject to discipline.\nThey were raising third party rights in order to defend a proceeding brought against themselves.\nIt seems to me that's distinguishable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2000.065, 2003.576, 2009.064], "stop_times": [2003.576, 2009.064, 2010.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.065}, "reply_to": "23002__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23002__1_032", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2010.55], "stop_times": [2011.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2010.55}, "reply_to": "23002__1_031", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_033", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "And the same thing in the bar case.\nThe... the restriction against the sale of... of liquor was a restriction imposed upon the person seeking to raise the third party right.\nBut here, there's no restriction that applies to these lawyers who are seeking to raise the third party right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2011.088, 2012.202, 2022.129], "stop_times": [2012.202, 2022.129, 2027.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2011.088}, "reply_to": "23002__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__1_034", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--But Justice Scalia, this Court has never held that such a restriction is a condition precedent or required in order for a person to assert third party rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2027.64], "stop_times": [2036.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2027.64}, "reply_to": "23002__1_033", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_035", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That's so, but we've never held what you want us to hold either, that... that when the law does not bear upon you personally, you have the right to raise the claim of a prospective client.\nWe've never held that either.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2036.556, 2050.674], "stop_times": [2050.674, 2051.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2036.556}, "reply_to": "23002__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__1_036", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, in... Singleton is a case in which there was no direct sanction against the doctors who provided Medicaid abortions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2051.955], "stop_times": [2060.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2051.955}, "reply_to": "23002__1_035", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_037", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, just as... as to Triplett and Boren, you can't cite those two cases and say those are controlling and then say, well, we've never held it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2060.007], "stop_times": [2065.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2060.007}, "reply_to": "23002__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23002__1_038", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I'm sorry.\nI didn't follow that question, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2065.951, 2067.437], "stop_times": [2067.437, 2068.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2065.951}, "reply_to": "23002__1_037", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_039", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, we've said that Triplett and... and Boren are... are distinguishable, and you said, well, we've never ruled on this point.\nWell, then Triplett and Boren aren't controlling.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2068.755, 2074.579], "stop_times": [2074.579, 2077.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2068.755}, "reply_to": "23002__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23002__1_040", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, I think you have ruled on this Court... point by many times recognizing that even persons against whom the statute or law would not directly affect... for example, all the way back to 1925 with Pierce v. Society of Sisters, there was no legal prohibition against the school.\nThe legal prohibition was against the students not going to public school.\nSo 80 years ago this Court recognized that.\nIn a situation analogous to this, the school--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2077.013, 2093.36, 2096.536, 2099.221], "stop_times": [2093.36, 2096.536, 2099.221, 2101.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2077.013}, "reply_to": "23002__1_039", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_041", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "It was... a prohibition was on the parents and there were no parents as plaintiffs in that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2101.45], "stop_times": [2105.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2101.45}, "reply_to": "23002__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__1_042", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2105.537], "stop_times": [2105.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2105.537}, "reply_to": "23002__1_041", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_043", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--only the schools.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2105.992], "stop_times": [2106.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2105.992}, "reply_to": "23002__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__1_044", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That's correct, Justice Ginsburg.\nIt was the school that was... was held to have standing to assert the rights of future and current students, and the same is true of the Singleton case where, again, there was no particular restriction against the doctors.\nIt was simply that they would not get funding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2106.53, 2107.766, 2121.678], "stop_times": [2107.766, 2121.678, 2123.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2106.53}, "reply_to": "23002__1_043", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_045", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "But there was a problem, wasn't there, in Singleton that... that the part that said that the doctors could raise the patients' right as opposed to the doctor's own right to practice or whatever, that that was only a plurality?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2123.081], "stop_times": [2138.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2123.081}, "reply_to": "23002__1_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__1_046", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That was a plurality portion of the opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2138.025], "stop_times": [2140.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2138.025}, "reply_to": "23002__1_045", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_047", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, it shouldn't be cited then.\nYou're citing it for something that the Court didn't hold.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2140.254, 2141.369], "stop_times": [2141.369, 2144.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2140.254}, "reply_to": "23002__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__1_048", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, actually we've cited it in our brief only for the article III proposition which this Court unanimously agreed that the doctors had article III standing because there was an economic energy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2144.425], "stop_times": [2153.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2144.425}, "reply_to": "23002__1_047", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_049", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "You... I thought you were citing it here for the quite different proposition that... that you can raise third party rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2153.917], "stop_times": [2161.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2153.917}, "reply_to": "23002__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__1_050", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--But ultimately this Court in Singleton allowed the doctors' claim on behalf of the patients to proceed.\nI understand that it was a plurality opinion on the... on the jus tertii standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2161.143, 2167.088], "stop_times": [2167.088, 2170.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2161.143}, "reply_to": "23002__1_049", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_051", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I... I could accept... I guess I probably would accept your position if I did not think there... there was another equally workable alternative here.\nAnd I didn't understand your answer to my earlier question in which you said, if I recall correctly, that it would be unethical for these lawyers to represent a... a future client, subject to a claim to be paid and on behalf both of the client and, I suppose, of themselves, but essentially on behalf of a client, say, there is a right to State money to pay the lawyer who is representing them.\nIt would be, as I understood you to say, unethical for the lawyer to proceed on that basis.\nAnd I don't understand the reason for your answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2170.431, 2183.517, 2217.037, 2222.898], "stop_times": [2183.517, 2217.037, 2222.898, 2225.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.431}, "reply_to": "23002__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_052", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I think I might have misunderstood your question, Justice Souter.\nThe question I understood was why don't they represent people and raise only the entitlement to right to counsel.\nIn the Bulger case, for example, the Michigan Supreme Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2225.416, 2227.745, 2233.301], "stop_times": [2227.745, 2233.301, 2236.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2225.416}, "reply_to": "23002__1_051", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_053", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Oh, no.\nI'm assuming they... they represent the client for all purposes and one of the client's claims is, pay my lawyer.\nI don't have any money.\nYour statute is unconstitutional.\nWhy cannot the lawyer pursue that claim on behalf of the client and... and raise exactly the issue that is being raised in substance here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2236.606, 2236.811, 2243.088, 2244.324, 2246.842], "stop_times": [2236.811, 2243.088, 2244.324, 2246.842, 2257.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.606}, "reply_to": "23002__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_054", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--If that attempt... if that method were attempted, Mr. Casey would undoubtedly argue that the attorney would not be entitled to any funding because the attorney was never appointed.\nYou can't just go out and find indigents that you would like to represent.\nYou have to be formally appointed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2257.328, 2267.813, 2271.528], "stop_times": [2267.813, 2271.528, 2273.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2257.328}, "reply_to": "23002__1_053", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_055", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, except that that's a very formalistic answer.\nThe... the claim, in effect, would be I have a right to be appointed whatever your statute says because... or my... the... the client would say my lawyer... I have a right to appointed counsel, whatever your statute says, with the consequence of payment.\nSo to say, well, they're not appointed, that's the question.\nShould they be appointed?\nI don't see why they cannot raise that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2273.18, 2275.243, 2293.159, 2297.041, 2298.156], "stop_times": [2275.243, 2293.159, 2297.041, 2298.156, 2300.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2273.18}, "reply_to": "23002__1_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_056", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "The problem is is that the way the Michigan system works, it works on a strict rotation system, and so there's no... there's no line-jumping here.\nThere's no right for a... a client to... to request a certain attorney, for a certain attorney to go the head of the queue and say I would like to represent that fellow and be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2300.385, 2308.763], "stop_times": [2308.763, 2318.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2300.385}, "reply_to": "23002__1_055", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_057", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Okay, but these... these lawyers are in the rotation.\nAre you suggesting that the rotation is so enormous that it will be 20 years before they get another client?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2318.051, 2319.62], "stop_times": [2319.62, 2324.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2318.051}, "reply_to": "23002__1_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_058", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--No, not at all.\nThey--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2324.45, 2325.072], "stop_times": [2325.072, 2325.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2324.45}, "reply_to": "23002__1_057", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_059", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2325.238], "stop_times": [2325.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.238}, "reply_to": "23002__1_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_060", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--They routinely--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2325.694], "stop_times": [2326.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2325.694}, "reply_to": "23002__1_059", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_061", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I mean, your... your claim is that they are going to get clients in the future and they... they ought to have a right to be paid when the time comes.\nSo why doesn't, number one, a lawyer representing the next client, whoever he may be, have a right to raise this, and why doesn't each one of these lawyers have a right to raise it presumably within a reasonable time when they next come up in the rotation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2326.149, 2332.464], "stop_times": [2332.464, 2349.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2326.149}, "reply_to": "23002__1_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_062", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--I think it's clear that the Michigan courts would unquestionably hold that a lawyer who simply inserts himself into a relationship without formal court appointment is not entitled to be paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2349.926], "stop_times": [2360.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2349.926}, "reply_to": "23002__1_061", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_063", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Sure they would, and that's what will get brought to this Court.\nThat's what we're here for.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2360.412, 2363.922], "stop_times": [2363.922, 2365.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2360.412}, "reply_to": "23002__1_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_064", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "But the problem is, Justice Souter, we would then have an issue of Michigan law inserted as to whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2365.324], "stop_times": [2370.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2365.324}, "reply_to": "23002__1_063", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_065", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "No, because the claim is that they have a right under Federal law to an effective procedure whereby paid counsel can be supplied to them.\nThat's a Federal issue, not a State issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2370.238, 2378.987], "stop_times": [2378.987, 2381.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2370.238}, "reply_to": "23002__1_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_066", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--That part is a Federal issue, but what Michigan--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2381.505], "stop_times": [2384.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2381.505}, "reply_to": "23002__1_065", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_067", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That's all you've got to get up here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2384.106], "stop_times": [2385.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2384.106}, "reply_to": "23002__1_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_068", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "It's at least an argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2385.403], "stop_times": [2386.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2385.403}, "reply_to": "23002__1_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__1_069", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "It's an argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2386.418], "stop_times": [2387.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2386.418}, "reply_to": "23002__1_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_070", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "And even if they lose on it, they still will have... would have raised the issue that you are most concerned about getting raised.\nThey're not... they're not so much interested in the so many dollars for this particular representation.\nEven if they lose on what seems to me at least a close argument, they will have raised the question you're trying to raise today.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2387.328, 2394.32, 2399.793], "stop_times": [2394.32, 2399.793, 2408.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2387.328}, "reply_to": "23002__1_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__1_071", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--And they will have to do so without any prospect of being paid, and that's... that's the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2408.133], "stop_times": [2412.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2408.133}, "reply_to": "23002__1_070", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_072", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Who's paying them for this lawsuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2412.441], "stop_times": [2413.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2412.441}, "reply_to": "23002__1_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__1_073", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "They're not being paid for this lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2413.827], "stop_times": [2415.685], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2413.827}, "reply_to": "23002__1_072", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_074", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Right.\nExactly the same situation.\nThey can... they can bring the case directly for the client they're representing just as readily as they can bring this one.\nAnd if that is true, why is there an impediment to raising the issue unless we recognize third party standing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2415.685, 2415.951, 2417.52, 2424.374], "stop_times": [2415.951, 2417.52, 2424.374, 2430.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2415.685}, "reply_to": "23002__1_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_075", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Because Justice Souter, they would have to represent them on all of their issues.\nThey would have to represent them on their plea and sentencing issues without being paid.\nAnd that's not what they're doing in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2430.706, 2433.595, 2437.128], "stop_times": [2433.595, 2437.128, 2438.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2430.706}, "reply_to": "23002__1_074", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_076", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Without being paid if they lose--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2438.947], "stop_times": [2440.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2438.947}, "reply_to": "23002__1_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_077", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--in this litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2440.843], "stop_times": [2441.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2440.843}, "reply_to": "23002__1_076", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_078", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--being paid if they win.\nIn this case, if they win, they don't get a dime because they're not representing a client.\nAll they get is a declaration.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2441.586, 2443.072, 2448.728], "stop_times": [2443.072, 2448.728, 2450.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2441.586}, "reply_to": "23002__1_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_079", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "And--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2450.214], "stop_times": [2451.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2450.214}, "reply_to": "23002__1_078", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_080", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "And they'd be better off to represent a real client.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2451.04], "stop_times": [2453.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.04}, "reply_to": "23002__1_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_081", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That's right.\nThey have a shot at getting paid using this other method.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2453.558, 2454.096], "stop_times": [2454.096, 2457.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2453.558}, "reply_to": "23002__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__1_082", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--In... in this lawsuit, if we win on the merits, they will then get far more appointments on the rotation system and then they will get paid for those appointments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2457.19], "stop_times": [2467.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2457.19}, "reply_to": "23002__1_081", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_083", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Why will they get more appointments?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2467.221], "stop_times": [2468.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2467.221}, "reply_to": "23002__1_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_084", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2468.973], "stop_times": [2469.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2468.973}, "reply_to": "23002__1_083", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_085", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I thought you said there's a strict rotation system.\nWhen your name comes up, you get an appointment.\nHow is that going to change regardless of how this comes out?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2469.822, 2471.929, 2473.703], "stop_times": [2471.929, 2473.703, 2475.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2469.822}, "reply_to": "23002__1_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_086", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Because the statute, which is now in effect... and this goes, by the way, back to the issue of prudential standing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2475.911], "stop_times": [2480.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2475.911}, "reply_to": "23002__1_085", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_087", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Oh, you're just saying there... there's going to be a further class of clients to be represented on the rotation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2480.762], "stop_times": [2484.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2480.762}, "reply_to": "23002__1_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_088", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Correct.\nFar more.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2484.643, 2484.743], "stop_times": [2484.743, 2485.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2484.643}, "reply_to": "23002__1_087", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_089", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Okay, but that's... that's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2485.386], "stop_times": [2487.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2485.386}, "reply_to": "23002__1_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23002__1_090", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "And... and while this Court considers these issues of prudential standing, thousands of Michigan defendants will be denied the right to counsel--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2487.698], "stop_times": [2494.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2487.698}, "reply_to": "23002__1_089", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_091", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "And while this suit is being brought, we can't do the simple thing, which is to take a case from an indigent who's raising it that we happen to have on our docket and face it directly because everybody is tied up in these knots on standing.\nI mean, what... what is it that... that you... led you to bring this case rather than just filing an amicus brief in a case brought by a real indigent who wants a lawyer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2494.84, 2507.927], "stop_times": [2507.927, 2518.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2494.84}, "reply_to": "23002__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23002__1_092", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Because there... there was no person in position at the time.\nThe problem was we had to file this litigation before the statute went into effect because once the statute went into effect, thousands of Michigan indigents would be denied the right to counsel every year and would suffer probably irreparable damage to their right to appeal--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2518.823, 2522.788], "stop_times": [2522.788, 2538.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2518.823}, "reply_to": "23002__1_091", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_093", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I see... I see that.\nThat's a good answer.\nAnd the... the question I have is if I now, since we have real indigents, believe that there absolutely is a way for a real indigent to raise this claim that isn't even hard, you could file an amicus brief.\nSuppose I believed that, and I do believe it actually.\nIf I believe it, then does your third party standing claim disappear?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2538.392, 2539.794, 2540.637, 2553.003, 2555.853], "stop_times": [2539.794, 2540.637, 2553.003, 2555.853, 2561.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2538.392}, "reply_to": "23002__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23002__1_094", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2561.714], "stop_times": [2562.086], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2561.714}, "reply_to": "23002__1_093", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_095", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "All right.\nNow, if it doesn't disappear and I hold in your favor, would I then be opening the door to any lawyer whose pocketbook is hurt by tort reform, by any change at all, you know, that means less money for him, and we'd be besieged with people?\nInstead of the clients, we'd have all the lawyers in complaining that they want to be richer.\nNow, that's what's worrying me.\nSo on my assumption, how could I possibly decide in your favor without opening that door?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2562.086, 2562.64, 2582.148, 2587.432, 2589.456], "stop_times": [2562.64, 2582.148, 2587.432, 2589.456, 2596.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2562.086}, "reply_to": "23002__1_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23002__1_096", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Your--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2596.72], "stop_times": [2597.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2596.72}, "reply_to": "23002__1_095", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_097", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That's the question I'd like answered.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2597.091], "stop_times": [2598.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2597.091}, "reply_to": "23002__1_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23002__1_098", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Your Honor, the only kind of case to which this applies is a case exactly like Triplett, a case exactly like Caplin & Drysdale where the claim is that the underlying change in the law or the underlying law disenfranchises or disentitles the indigent or the criminal defendant or the defendant to representation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2598.373], "stop_times": [2618.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2598.373}, "reply_to": "23002__1_097", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_099", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Because?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2618.351], "stop_times": [2619.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2618.351}, "reply_to": "23002__1_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23002__1_100", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Because, first of all, if the indigent or the client still has representation, then there is no hindrance to the third party raising it themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2619.094], "stop_times": [2628.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2619.094}, "reply_to": "23002__1_099", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_101", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Why is that?\nWhy would a change in substantive law--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2628.587, 2629.33], "stop_times": [2629.33, 2631.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.587}, "reply_to": "23002__1_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__1_102", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "No, no.\nI assumed there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2631.271, 2631.454], "stop_times": [2631.454, 2631.659], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2631.271}, "reply_to": "23002__1_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23002__1_103", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--have the same result?\nSuppose there's a change in... in the antitrust law and... and the person says this change... this change has the... the effect of... of denying me equal protection of the law.\nThat's the claim that the... that the client would have.\nBut there's a lawyer who says, my goodness, this change will mean there are many... many fewer antitrust suits.\nI can demonstrate that.\nThat's my specialty, antitrust law.\nI'm going to lose a lot of business.\nWhy wouldn't he have the right to raise the equal protection claim of the prospective client?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2631.659, 2632.197, 2644.102, 2649.453, 2656.429, 2658.287, 2660.266, 2661.714], "stop_times": [2632.197, 2644.102, 2649.453, 2656.429, 2658.287, 2660.266, 2661.714, 2667.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2631.659}, "reply_to": "23002__1_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__1_104", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Because the client could raise it directly, represented by the attorney.\nAnd so the third prong in jus tertii standing would be clearly missing in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2667.658, 2670.796], "stop_times": [2670.796, 2674.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2667.658}, "reply_to": "23002__1_103", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_105", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--No.\nI'm sorry.\nI... I... Justice Scalia and I were assuming the same thing.\nIf I assume that there's no problem with the real person, the indigent, raising the claim himself... and I'm saying on that assumption, which I believe, then if I were to decide in your favor, how would I not be opening the door that I wanted to keep firmly closed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2674.612, 2675.255, 2675.627, 2679.342], "stop_times": [2675.255, 2675.627, 2679.342, 2703.656], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2674.612}, "reply_to": "23002__1_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23002__1_106", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "But this Court's precedents indicate, Justice Breyer, that the indigents do have a significant hindrance to filing their claims themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2703.656], "stop_times": [2711.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2703.656}, "reply_to": "23002__1_105", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_107", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Oh, okay.\nNo.\nI agree with you.\nIf in fact you think that there's a problem about a real indigent bringing a claim in Michigan, although we have two on the docket, if I accepted that premise, I would begin to think you were right.\nSo then what I was trying to explore is whether the whole thing comes down to whether I accept that premise.\nAnd of course, that's what's everybody has been talking about, and I do see at the moment a couple of very good ways that indigents can bring it themselves, and indeed they have.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2711.791, 2711.929, 2712.179, 2713.044, 2725.387, 2731.786], "stop_times": [2711.929, 2712.179, 2713.044, 2725.387, 2731.786, 2741.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2711.791}, "reply_to": "23002__1_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23002__1_108", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "But I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2741.157], "stop_times": [2741.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2741.157}, "reply_to": "23002__1_107", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_109", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "But everything comes down to that.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2741.611, 2742.81], "stop_times": [2742.81, 2743.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2741.611}, "reply_to": "23002__1_108", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23002__1_110", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--I think an answer I need to give to... to cut through all of this is that third party standing is never predicated on the impossible.\nThird party standing is never predicated on the idea that third party standing is appropriate only if it is impossible for some indigent to make it into court or some third party or the person whose rights are being violated to make it into court.\nAll that must be shown from this Court's precedents is a hindrance.\nSo this Court did not require in Craig v. Boren that it was impossible that some young man could get his claim in front of the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2743.182, 2751.355, 2765.223, 2768.361], "stop_times": [2751.355, 2765.223, 2768.361, 2775.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2743.182}, "reply_to": "23002__1_109", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_111", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "It was altogether possible there had been a young man.\nThe problem was he turned 21.\nSo the case would... from his point of view was moot.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2775.42, 2777.937, 2780.166], "stop_times": [2777.937, 2780.166, 2784.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2775.42}, "reply_to": "23002__1_110", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__1_112", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Right, but this Court never suggested that it was... showing that it was impossible for someone to quickly get his claim before the court was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2784.253], "stop_times": [2792.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2784.253}, "reply_to": "23002__1_111", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_113", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I think I agree with you on that.\nI'm just... the reason I think it's so easy is because we get indigents.\nWe get thousands of them.\nAnd all you have to have is some indigent saying, hey, I want a lawyer.\nOkay?\nThat's all.\nHe has to be able to write those words.\nAnd at that point, you and the others come in with amicus briefs, if necessary, and support him.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2792.965, 2793.996, 2797.339, 2798.454, 2802.625, 2803.118, 2803.572, 2805.718], "stop_times": [2793.996, 2797.339, 2798.454, 2802.625, 2803.118, 2803.572, 2805.718, 2810.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2792.965}, "reply_to": "23002__1_112", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23002__1_114", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Well, the problem is is that in the meantime thousands of Michigan indigents are going to be denied counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2810.527], "stop_times": [2816.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2810.527}, "reply_to": "23002__1_113", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_115", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "May I ask you a practical question about what is currently before the Court?\nMr. Casey I think told us that the Halbert case is on for the October 8th conference.\nIf we should grant cert in either of those direct from the Michigan Supreme Court... Michigan Supreme Court following Bulger, so you always leave before then.\nIf we should grant in either of those cases, wouldn't the wise thing be to simply hold this case till those are decided?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2816.121, 2821.322, 2829.207, 2842.293], "stop_times": [2821.322, 2829.207, 2842.293, 2850.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2816.121}, "reply_to": "23002__1_114", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__1_116", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That may well be a wise course of action... action, Justice Ginsburg.\nI should point out that Mr. Casey, when he filed the response to the Bulger cert petition, brought this Court's attention to the fact that this underlying litigation was proceeding in a case that was then called Tesmer v. Granholm.\nAnd so he brought to this Court's attention that we had already prevailed in Federal district court in Tesmer v. Granholm as a suggestion as to why this Court did not need to grant cert in the Bulger case, and so this Court did not grant cert I don't know, of course... I don't know why this Court did not grant cert in Bulger.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2850.301, 2854.387, 2867.019], "stop_times": [2854.387, 2867.019, 2882.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2850.301}, "reply_to": "23002__1_115", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_117", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "But he said now he's not taking that position in the Halbert case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2882.873], "stop_times": [2888.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2882.873}, "reply_to": "23002__1_116", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__1_118", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "But I can be confident that if there are any procedural hurdles to this Court's exercise of jurisdiction in any of the State cases, Mr. Casey will alert this Court of them.\nAnd there may well be.\nFor example, in the Melody Harris case, the Michigan Supreme Court remanded for further... remanded for her to then file an application for leave to appeal on her underlying plea and sentencing issues without the assistance of counsel.\nWas the Michigan Supreme Court's order a final order?\nI don't know.\nThis Court would obviously have to resolve that.\nBut I can be confident that Mr. Casey will certainly bring up any procedural hurdles.\nAnd of course, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction it does not have in a case just because it would be more convenient to do so.\nThis Court does have jurisdiction in this case.\nThe petitioners never challenged prudential standing at any point in this litigation... they... they challenged only article III standing, injury in fact... until this Court.\nAnd so part of the reason we don't have a better record is because this came on a motion to dismiss.\nThis Court recognized in Lujan that a motion to dismiss is different than a summary judgment, requires a... a different procedural posture.\nIt requires the assumption of facts being true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2888.157, 2897.195, 2898.681, 2912.344, 2915.028, 2915.938, 2918.372, 2921.882, 2929.063, 2931.663, 2941.406, 2946.79, 2955.607], "stop_times": [2897.195, 2898.681, 2912.344, 2915.028, 2915.938, 2918.372, 2921.882, 2929.063, 2931.663, 2941.406, 2946.79, 2955.607, 2957.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2888.157}, "reply_to": "23002__1_117", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_119", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "But... but no facts... no additional facts would... would affect the central point that... that we've been devoting most of this discussion to, which is whether there is an impediment or not to... to the... the actual individuals whose rights your clients are asserting raising their own rights.\nNo additional facts bear upon that it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2957.464, 2976.579], "stop_times": [2976.579, 2980.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2957.464}, "reply_to": "23002__1_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__1_120", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I agree with you on that, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2980.377], "stop_times": [2981.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2980.377}, "reply_to": "23002__1_119", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_121", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Then what case holds that there must be an impediment for the third party?\nI keep coming back to Craig against Boren.\nThey could have filed another class action and say that they filed a class action and had standing.\nWould we have suddenly decided we won't decide the merits even though it's been argued and both sides have had their day in court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2981.613, 2984.752, 2987.103, 2991.273], "stop_times": [2984.752, 2987.103, 2991.273, 2996.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2981.613}, "reply_to": "23002__1_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23002__1_122", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I agree with you, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2996.928], "stop_times": [2998.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2996.928}, "reply_to": "23002__1_121", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_123", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "What is the source of the requirement there must be an impediment to the third party suit?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [2998.293], "stop_times": [3001.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2998.293}, "reply_to": "23002__1_122", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23002__1_124", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, this Court has said so many times, and Powers v. Ohio, for example, noted the impediment to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3001.841], "stop_times": [3006.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3001.841}, "reply_to": "23002__1_123", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_125", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That... where they granted standing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3006.299], "stop_times": [3007.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3006.299}, "reply_to": "23002__1_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23002__1_126", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3007.375], "stop_times": [3008.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3007.375}, "reply_to": "23002__1_125", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_127", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Have they ever denied standing on the ground that there was no impediment to the third party suit?\nI don't think we have.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3008.368, 3013.031], "stop_times": [3013.031, 3015.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3008.368}, "reply_to": "23002__1_126", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23002__1_128", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I don't believe in all of the cases that both parties cited that there are any cases in which this Court has said that there was no impediment to the third party.\nIt is... it is certainly not the standard--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3015.055, 3022.03], "stop_times": [3022.03, 3024.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3015.055}, "reply_to": "23002__1_127", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_129", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Well, do you think that was just idle observation then?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3024.093], "stop_times": [3026.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3024.093}, "reply_to": "23002__1_128", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23002__1_130", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--Not at all, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI didn't mean to be light about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3026.505, 3027.975], "stop_times": [3027.975, 3029.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3026.505}, "reply_to": "23002__1_129", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_131", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "It doesn't have to be idle to be dicta, though, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3029.173], "stop_times": [3031.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3029.173}, "reply_to": "23002__1_130", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23002__1_132", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "There... we... we fully concede there need to be an impediment, but what it does not require is the showing that it is impossible for someone to get here.\nWhat is a showing is that for most... for the average person in the class, just like the average grand juror in Campbell v. Louisiana, or the average venire person in Powers v. Ohio, there are impediments to getting here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3031.895, 3042.276], "stop_times": [3042.276, 3054.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3031.895}, "reply_to": "23002__1_131", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_133", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Do you fully concede there must be an impediment even though the Court has never so held?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3054.186], "stop_times": [3058.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3054.186}, "reply_to": "23002__1_132", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23002__1_134", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I'm willing to concede that because it is so clear to me that there is, that there is an impediment that trying to get into Federal court, trying to get here, for that matter, trying to get into Federal district court... for an indigent, a typical person who is very likely... someone like Mr. Carter, functionally illiterate, poorly educated, completely unaware of his rights, to try and navigate the... the procedural hurdles of the Michigan system to get all the way through the Michigan system and then into Federal court, that is a daunting hurdle.\nAnd that's Evitts v. Lucey.\nThis Court has recognized time and time again in... in plea cases, Roe v.... Roe v. Flores-Ortega.\nThis Court has recognized time and time again in Peguero that even in a plea case a typical indigent is completely incapable of getting his or her case held... heard, especially if you have to go through multiple layers of appeal without a counsel for the first tier.\nAnd that is the problem here.\nOn the merits, I certainly would like to correct Mr. Casey's representations about the... the nature of the Michigan system.\nThe... a properly filed application for leave to appeal is invariably denied for lack of merit in the grounds presented.\nI certainly urge this Court to look at each and every one of the cases that Mr. Casey has cited for the proposition that that is not a determination on the merits because not one of them says that.\nNot one of them specifically says that a order denying leave for lack of merit on the grounds presented is not a decision on the merits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3058.152, 3088.124, 3089.071, 3094.589, 3110.991, 3112.41, 3118.876, 3126.39, 3135.594], "stop_times": [3088.124, 3089.071, 3094.589, 3110.991, 3112.41, 3118.876, 3126.39, 3135.594, 3143.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3058.152}, "reply_to": "23002__1_133", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_135", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Could... could you give me an example, just from your experience in practice, where there's an important issue raised after a guilty plea that requires an appeal where it's not one of the statutory exceptions?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3143.396], "stop_times": [3157.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3143.396}, "reply_to": "23002__1_134", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23002__1_136", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Many, many.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3157.802], "stop_times": [3158.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3157.802}, "reply_to": "23002__1_135", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_137", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Most... what are... what are those cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3158.545], "stop_times": [3160.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3158.545}, "reply_to": "23002__1_136", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23002__1_138", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Improper denial of jail credit, making... improper denial of jail credit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3160.486], "stop_times": [3164.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3160.486}, "reply_to": "23002__1_137", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_139", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That's not sentencing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3164.368], "stop_times": [3165.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3164.368}, "reply_to": "23002__1_138", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23002__1_140", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "That is a sentencing error.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3165.111], "stop_times": [3167.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3165.111}, "reply_to": "23002__1_139", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_141", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Okay, but that's covered by the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3167.118], "stop_times": [3168.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.118}, "reply_to": "23002__1_140", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23002__1_142", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "No, it's not.\nThe statute... the only exceptions in the statute are for guidelines departures--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3168.454, 3169.031], "stop_times": [3169.031, 3174.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3168.454}, "reply_to": "23002__1_141", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_143", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3174.398], "stop_times": [3174.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3174.398}, "reply_to": "23002__1_142", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23002__1_144", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--and for... and then if the indigent gets the appeal granted, but that's putting... that's after the indigent has had to file an application identifying his or her own issues without any assistance of counsel.\nDouble jeopardy issues.\nDouble jeopardy issues arise in Michigan all the time; whether sentences should be consecutive or concurrent; whether there's been a breach of the plea bargain.\nAll of these issues arise in Michigan courts every day, and while we are--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3174.975, 3184.718, 3186.371, 3194.377], "stop_times": [3184.718, 3186.371, 3194.377, 3199.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3174.975}, "reply_to": "23002__1_143", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_145", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Are there instances where Michigan has denied the right to appeal when those claims are raised?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3199.019], "stop_times": [3203.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3199.019}, "reply_to": "23002__1_144", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23002__1_146", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--The problem, Your Honor, is that an indigent can't raise... a typical indigent would be completely incapable of identifying this... these sorts of issues.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3203.582], "stop_times": [3210.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3203.582}, "reply_to": "23002__1_145", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_147", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "His counsel will have raised them.\nAnd... and most, if not all, of those have to have been raised by counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3210.807, 3213.202], "stop_times": [3213.202, 3218.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3210.807}, "reply_to": "23002__1_146", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23002__1_148", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Your Honor, Michigan requires that ineffective assistance of counsel claims be raised on direct appeal.\nSo if counsel has not raised the issue, then the indigent would have to recognize that by... by himself, and then raise that issue, the ineffective assistance of counsel, on direct appeal.\nFurther, even if counsel has recognized it, what we typically would have would be an oral objection at a sentencing hearing.\nFor example, Your Honor, I think these sentences should be concurrent, and the judge says, no, I'm going to make them consecutive.\nThat's an oral objection.\nThe indigent will have to be able to get the transcripts, get the register of actions, get all the necessary documents, realize that that's a winning issue, that it does not put him at additional risk.\nThat's another factor.\nOne of the... one of the points that a counsel can help with is tell an indigent, you don't want to take this appeal because success may result in revocation of the plea bargain and an additional risk... will have to realize that this is in my best interest to go ahead with this appeal.\nThis is my issue.\nFind the cases, find the controlling authority.\nAnd even issues as complex as a Blakely issue, which this Court, of course, will be dealing with this afternoon, that is an open issue of Michigan law right now.\nIs... are the Michigan sentencing guidelines unconstitutional or at least the application of them as a result of this Court's decision in Blakely?\nRight now, as a result of the order in Melody Harris, a typical Michigan indigent will have to raise that complex issue of Sixth Amendment law by herself or by himself, and that's simply an impossible burden, or the issue will be lost forever.\nAnd that is... that is a burden that no indigent can meet.\nAnd so I would hope that this Court would not get hung up on the standing issue because this issue is so important right now, as a result of the Michigan Supreme Court's order.\nRight now these issues are happening and right now Michigan indigents are being denied the assistance of counsel.\nUnique in the Nation.\nAnd so this case has been adversely argued.\nThat's the point of prudential standing.\nThe petitioners waived the prudential standing issues below.\nThey challenged only article III standing.\nAnd so there is every reason for this Court not to wait for a perfect case that may never come.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3218.199, 3224.16, 3234.75, 3241.15, 3246.201, 3247.67, 3257.718, 3258.611, 3273.305, 3273.76, 3276.816, 3284.618, 3292.17, 3306.099, 3308.767, 3319.541, 3324.658, 3325.706, 3329.488, 3331.179, 3335.72, 3337.578], "stop_times": [3224.16, 3234.75, 3241.15, 3246.201, 3247.67, 3257.718, 3258.611, 3273.305, 3273.76, 3276.816, 3284.618, 3292.17, 3306.099, 3308.767, 3319.541, 3324.658, 3325.706, 3329.488, 3331.179, 3335.72, 3337.578, 3342.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3218.199}, "reply_to": "23002__1_147", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_149", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Are you familiar with the Halbert case?\nYou mentioned that there might be a finality problem in Harris.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3342.203, 3344.637], "stop_times": [3344.637, 3348.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3342.203}, "reply_to": "23002__1_148", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__1_150", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "I'm not familiar with that case, Your Honor.\nI just became aware of it by letter a few days ago and I have not had a chance to find out anything more about it.\nI have not seen the cert petition in that case.\nI'm not aware of the underlying... excuse me... the underlying order from the Michigan courts in that case.\nBut there may never be a perfect case, but this case is adverse and that meets all the... all the requirements for prudential standing.\nArticle III standing is clearly met in this case, and I hope this Court will affirm the decision of the Sixth Circuit.\nIf this Court has no further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3348.352, 3350.127, 3355.95, 3357.723, 3362.47, 3371.469, 3376.383], "stop_times": [3350.127, 3355.95, 3357.723, 3362.47, 3371.469, 3376.383, 3377.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3348.352}, "reply_to": "23002__1_149", "speaker": "david_a_moran"}
{"id": "23002__1_151", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Moran.\nMr. Casey, you have 3 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3377.802, 3379.81], "stop_times": [3379.81, 3381.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3377.802}, "reply_to": "23002__1_150", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23002__1_152", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Did you waive the objection to prudential standing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3381.956], "stop_times": [3387.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3381.956}, "reply_to": "23002__1_151", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23002__2_000", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "We did not waive any of the standing claims in this case.\nWe've discussed that in our reply brief.\nI've cited pages of the briefs where these issues were discussed.\nAnd the overriding fact is that the district court, the three-judge panel in the court of appeals, and the en banc Sixth Circuit all decided these issues.\nThey have been properly raised and preserved and they're before the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3387.862, 3389.636, 3392.153, 3396.24, 3406.105], "stop_times": [3389.636, 3392.153, 3396.24, 3406.105, 3409.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3387.862}, "reply_to": "23002__1_152", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__2_001", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Did you file a brief in opposition in Halbert?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3409.343], "stop_times": [3412.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3409.343}, "reply_to": "23002__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__2_002", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Yes, I did.\nI filed that about a month ago.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3412.049, 3413.33], "stop_times": [3413.33, 3415.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3412.049}, "reply_to": "23002__2_001", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__2_003", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "And does that have any procedural impediments?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3415.104], "stop_times": [3417.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3415.104}, "reply_to": "23002__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__2_004", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Not to my knowledge.\nThat individual was convicted in pleas, asked for counsel citing the Federal litigation in this Kowalski v. Tesmer case.\nIt was denied.\nHe filed a pro se application for leave to appeal challenging the denial of counsel and raising his sentencing issues--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3417.416, 3419.108, 3429.222, 3430.132], "stop_times": [3419.108, 3429.222, 3430.132, 3437.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3417.416}, "reply_to": "23002__2_003", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__2_005", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "So what was the basis for your opposition to cert?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3437.562], "stop_times": [3439.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3437.562}, "reply_to": "23002__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23002__2_006", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "--That the Court need not grant cert in that case because the issue is pending in this case.\nIf... if this case goes away, then I suspect we will agree that that would be an appropriate vehicle to decide the constitutional issue.\nAs long as this case is pending in which the issue is raised, I suggested that the Court need not grant cert in that case to decide the issue.\nIf the issue is not going to be decided in this case, then that would be an appropriate vehicle to raise and decide the issue.\nOn the standing point, if the plaintiffs here are given standing, it would be a significant expansion of this Court's standing doctrine.\nThis Court has never found third party standing when a litigant is not directly affected by a statute and there is no close existing relationship with the third party and there is no hindrance.\nWe've discussed many cases in which some of these factors are present and others are distinguishing factors.\nThis... this case is, in some respects, unlike all of them.\nThere would be a significant expansion of the doctrine.\nOn the merits of the issue, a constitutional right to appointed counsel, under the Michigan system, please read the cases I've cited in my brief, particularly the Bobenal decision, which I've cited in my principal brief.\nIn a footnote in my brief, I quote the orders that the court of appeals was considering.\nThey have the same language that is at issue here.\nControlling Michigan precedent says that applications for leave to appeal are not decisions on the merits.\nAll an inmate has to do is identify the issues.\nThat can be done.\nIt has been done, as seen by the two pending petitions for cert..\nIf the Court has no further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3439.67, 3446.479, 3455.767, 3464.29, 3470.999, 3483.054, 3494.942, 3502.661, 3506.005, 3508.523, 3521.98, 3527.06, 3530.486, 3536.552, 3539.524, 3540.806, 3544.604], "stop_times": [3446.479, 3455.767, 3464.29, 3470.999, 3483.054, 3494.942, 3502.661, 3506.005, 3508.523, 3521.98, 3527.06, 3530.486, 3536.552, 3539.524, 3540.806, 3544.604, 3547.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3439.67}, "reply_to": "23002__2_005", "speaker": "thomas_l_casey"}
{"id": "23002__2_007", "conversation_id": "23002", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Casey.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-407", "start_times": [3547.409, 3549.101], "stop_times": [3549.101, 3550.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3547.409}, "reply_to": "23002__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22633__0_000", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "We'll hear argument now on No. 03-409, KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. versus Lasting Impression, Inc.--\nMr. Machat?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [0.0, 9.454], "stop_times": [9.454, 11.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22633__0_001", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case concerns whether or not a defendant in a trademark case who fulfills the statutory requirements of the fair-use defense must also demonstrate an absence of likelihood of confusion in order to avail himself of that affirmative defense.\nNow, here are four reasons why that should not be the case.\nIn the first place, if that is the case it would render the defense useless, because if there is no likelihood of confusion, then there's no trademark infringement to begin with, so why should someone try to prove an affirmative defense when there's no trademark infringement?\nSecond--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [11.229, 14.572, 30.055, 33.315, 48.669], "stop_times": [14.572, 30.055, 33.315, 48.669, 51.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.229}, "reply_to": "22633__0_000", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_002", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "You agree with Judge Niemeyer's comment in the Fourth Circuit case, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [51.436], "stop_times": [55.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 51.436}, "reply_to": "22633__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22633__0_003", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Yes.\nSecondly, what it does is, is it shifts the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant.\nThere's no reason ever to... there's no reason ever to prove an absence of likelihood of confusion if you're a defendant.\nAnd then, also... there's no reason to prove the fair-use defense if you have to also prove an absence of likelihood of confusion, because it's just much more of a burden.\nYou have to prove, first of all--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [55.068, 56.842, 65.266, 80.21, 90.901], "stop_times": [56.842, 65.266, 80.21, 90.901, 92.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 55.068}, "reply_to": "22633__0_002", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_004", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "In this case, did the plaintiff offer any evidence of confusion, consumer confusion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [92.387], "stop_times": [98.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 92.387}, "reply_to": "22633__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22633__0_005", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--This was a motion for summary judgement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [98.453], "stop_times": [100.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 98.453}, "reply_to": "22633__0_004", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_006", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "And was there anything in the affidavits or attachments that have to do with consumer confusion on behalf of the plaintiff?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [100.682], "stop_times": [108.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 100.682}, "reply_to": "22633__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22633__0_007", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Yeah, actually, the record does contain some references to confusion.\nThe... in this case, the respondent, they were claiming that they did have some people that actually were confused.\nAnd when that happens, you need to look at what is causing the confusion.\nAnd essentially--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [108.212, 112.57, 118.515, 122.601], "stop_times": [112.57, 118.515, 122.601, 126.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 108.212}, "reply_to": "22633__0_006", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_008", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, it might make it necessary for a defendant in such a situation, in order to avoid some kind of summary judgement, to also offer evidence on consumer confusion to try to show there wasn't any.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [126.028], "stop_times": [140.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 126.028}, "reply_to": "22633__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22633__0_009", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Well, but that's shifting the issue, then, to whether or not there's likelihood of confusion.\nHowever, even if there... what I'm saying is even if there is confusion, if you meet the elements of the fair-use defense, it doesn't matter if there's any resulting confusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [140.784, 145.802], "stop_times": [145.802, 155.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 140.784}, "reply_to": "22633__0_008", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_010", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, is it possible that showing consumer confusion could be considered by the court on the issue of what's the fair use?\nWhat's fair?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [155.311, 168.177], "stop_times": [168.177, 169.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 155.311}, "reply_to": "22633__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22633__0_011", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, the thing is, a lot of times when there is confusion, that is evidence that the term or the word being used is not being used as a mark, so the confusion illustrates that... one of the elements of the fair-use defense, whether or not the term is being used descriptively or as a mark, whether or not those elements are being met.\nThe confusion does not go to the likelihood of confusion issue; rather, it goes to the individual elements of the fair-use--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [169.124, 188.61], "stop_times": [188.61, 196.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 169.124}, "reply_to": "22633__0_010", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_012", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, but I'm interested in Justice O'Connor's point.\nSuppose it's a close case as to whether or not the use is in good faith and it's only discretion.\nWith reference to good faith, suppose there's very substantial confusion that's caused by the allegedly infringing mark.\nDoes that at least bear on a good-faith assessment?\nIn other words, suppose that it were shown that the owner of the non-registered mark, the alleged infringing mark, used the phrase... not the mark, but used the phrase... deliberately in order to cause confusion.\nWould that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [196.412, 198.846, 207.762, 216.846, 220.682, 238.681], "stop_times": [198.846, 207.762, 216.846, 220.682, 238.681, 239.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 196.412}, "reply_to": "22633__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22633__0_013", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Yes... well, that would show an absence of good faith, and good faith is one of the elements of the fair-use defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [239.508], "stop_times": [244.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.508}, "reply_to": "22633__0_012", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_014", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Well, so that if you know that there's going to be confusion, there is no good faith?\nYou wouldn't go that far.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [244.46, 248.425], "stop_times": [248.425, 249.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 244.46}, "reply_to": "22633__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22633__0_015", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "No, I wouldn't go that far.\nIt's a balancing sentence where it says \"fairly and in good faith\", and you have to look at how descriptive the word is, in particular.\nFor instance, if you're using the word \"best\"... as in \"best buy\" or \"best foods\"... I mean, best is an extremely descriptive word.\nSo you could go a lot further in claiming,\n\"Hey, I have the best... I have the best food. \"\nor, you know,\n\"Come to my store. \"\n\"I have the best buy. \"\nAnd, yes, there could be confusion, but that is one of the risks that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [249.911, 251.192, 258.084, 265.022, 267.622, 269.73, 270.473, 271.482, 272.331], "stop_times": [251.192, 258.084, 265.022, 267.622, 269.73, 270.473, 271.482, 272.331, 276.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 249.911}, "reply_to": "22633__0_014", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_016", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, is it your position that subjective good faith is always a defense, no matter how unreasonable it is or how much confusion results?\nIs that your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [276.872, 288.018], "stop_times": [288.018, 289.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 276.872}, "reply_to": "22633__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22633__0_017", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--No, I wouldn't go that far, because you also have to look at the objective use.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [289.687], "stop_times": [293.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.687}, "reply_to": "22633__0_016", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_018", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "I would have thought that consumer confusion is one factor in determining fairness; perhaps not subjective good faith, but certainly on the issue of fairness.\nSome of the amici take that position, do they not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [293.469, 305.107], "stop_times": [305.107, 308.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 293.469}, "reply_to": "22633__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22633__0_019", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, I think... I was reading the amici brief last night.\nI think the issue of confusion, as the amicus brief points out, you have to look at whether the confusion is illustrative of whether or not the term is being used as a mark or not.\nThe same evidence that shows confusion can be used to show a likelihood of confusion on the plaintiff's side of the case, and that same evidence can also be used to... in the case of determining whether or not the elements of a fair-use defense have been... have been met.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [308.534, 311.672, 325.79], "stop_times": [311.672, 325.79, 343.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 308.534}, "reply_to": "22633__0_018", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_020", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "What did... what did the district court do here?\nDid it grant summary judgement or deny summary judgement?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [343.623, 345.952], "stop_times": [345.952, 349.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 343.623}, "reply_to": "22633__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22633__0_021", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "The... well, the district court granted summary judgement on a fair-use defense.\nIt found that, in this case, the mark was being used... sorry, that my client's words were being used not as a mark, only to describe, and that the use was done fairly and in good faith.\nThe Ninth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [349.651, 353.821, 366.164], "stop_times": [353.821, 366.164, 368.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 349.651}, "reply_to": "22633__0_020", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_022", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "But the district court... the district court... this way--\n[Laughter]\n--seemed to focus on the use of the word \"micro color\", just the word.\nIt didn't bring up what was new in 1999.\nThat is, a brochure appears where \"micro color\" is not simply a word, but it appears in a logo-like fashion.\nAnd as I understand it, the district court said you could use 1991.\nIt didn't refer to the stylized 1999 new appearance.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [368.31, 371.282, 372.108, 380.532, 384.99, 396.962, 407.531, 415.666], "stop_times": [371.282, 372.108, 380.532, 384.99, 396.962, 407.531, 415.666, 417.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 368.31}, "reply_to": "22633__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__0_023", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Yes, that is correct.\nThe district court, in its opinion, did not specifically refer to that use in 1999.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [417.524, 418.1], "stop_times": [418.1, 422.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.524}, "reply_to": "22633__0_022", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_024", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--And it might not have been confusion just by using the word.\nBut when you're using it in the logo-like appearance, maybe that's different.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [422.929, 429.617], "stop_times": [429.617, 436.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 422.929}, "reply_to": "22633__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__0_025", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, in the abstract case, it could be.\nI would argue, though, in this case it's not, because that was one use on a... you have a ten-page brochure, and it's one use on a ten-page brochure.\nAnd you... on that same page of the brochure, at the very bottom, it said my client's name, KP Permanent Makeup.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [436.138, 439.36, 446.912, 454.442], "stop_times": [439.36, 446.912, 454.442, 454.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 436.138}, "reply_to": "22633__0_024", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_026", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, that wouldn't relate to the question presented here, anyway.\nIt wouldn't relate to the reason for which we took this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [454.73, 457.315], "stop_times": [457.315, 460.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 454.73}, "reply_to": "22633__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__0_027", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [460.37], "stop_times": [461.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 460.37}, "reply_to": "22633__0_026", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_028", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "I mean, maybe the district court misinterpreted or misapplied \"fairly and in good faith\" if it didn't consider the logo-like use.\nBut, as I understand it, the only question we have before us is whether the \"fairly and in good faith\" provision is an exception even when there is confusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [461.113, 474.033], "stop_times": [474.033, 489.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 461.113}, "reply_to": "22633__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__0_029", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Yes, I would agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [489.265], "stop_times": [490.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 489.265}, "reply_to": "22633__0_028", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_030", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Is that... I'm... and I'm mixed up.\nI thought that the issue is whether you, on your side, have to present evidence of no confusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [490.713, 493.518], "stop_times": [493.518, 500.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 490.713}, "reply_to": "22633__0_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__0_031", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Yes, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [500.289], "stop_times": [503.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 500.289}, "reply_to": "22633__0_030", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_032", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "So as far as--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [503.056], "stop_times": [503.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 503.056}, "reply_to": "22633__0_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__0_033", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--I think we're both saying the same thing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [503.056], "stop_times": [504.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 503.056}, "reply_to": "22633__0_032", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_034", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--So as far as Justice O'Connor's question is concerned, I thought your answer would be, if they want to go and present evidence that there is confusion, to the point where it's so obviously unfair, it's ridiculous, they can do it.\nI mean, do you object to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [504.132, 515.111], "stop_times": [515.111, 517.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 504.132}, "reply_to": "22633__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__0_035", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--No, I agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [517.917], "stop_times": [519.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 517.917}, "reply_to": "22633__0_034", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_036", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "No.\nSo your answer to her question is, of course it could be relevant.\nLet the other side come in and show that it's relevant.\nYou don't have to show that there is no confusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [519.115, 519.298, 522.004, 524.399], "stop_times": [519.298, 522.004, 524.399, 527.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 519.115}, "reply_to": "22633__0_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__0_037", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [527.742], "stop_times": [528.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 527.742}, "reply_to": "22633__0_036", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_038", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "That's where we are, is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [528.57], "stop_times": [529.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 528.57}, "reply_to": "22633__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__0_039", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "That's exactly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [529.935], "stop_times": [530.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 529.935}, "reply_to": "22633__0_038", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_040", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [530.557], "stop_times": [530.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 530.557}, "reply_to": "22633__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__0_041", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--where we are.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [530.678], "stop_times": [531.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 530.678}, "reply_to": "22633__0_040", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_042", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Could you give us a... I'd be much more sympathetic to your case if I could readily envision a situation where there is confusion but, nonetheless, the use is fair and in good faith.\nGive me a clear example.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [531.3, 549.876], "stop_times": [549.876, 552.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 531.3}, "reply_to": "22633__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__0_043", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "In my particular case?\nThis--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [552.105, 554.167], "stop_times": [554.167, 554.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 552.105}, "reply_to": "22633__0_042", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_044", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "No.\nI mean, make up one--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [554.827, 555.364], "stop_times": [555.364, 556.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 554.827}, "reply_to": "22633__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__0_045", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [556.767], "stop_times": [557.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 556.767}, "reply_to": "22633__0_044", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_046", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--that's really clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [557.222], "stop_times": [558.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 557.222}, "reply_to": "22633__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__0_047", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Let's use the words \"best buy\".\nBest Buy is a famous consumer electronics store, and somebody opens up a shop, say Mark's, that says,\n\"Mark's, he has the best buy. \"\nHe wants to advertise on radio,\n\"Come down to Mark's Electronics for the best buy... for the best buy in consumer electronics, go to Mark's. \"\nand he keeps using those words \"best buy\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [558.17, 561.226, 568.739, 571.59, 573.076, 577.96], "stop_times": [561.226, 568.739, 571.59, 573.076, 577.96, 580.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 558.17}, "reply_to": "22633__0_046", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_048", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "I don't think there's any likelihood of confusion there, do you?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [580.628, 583.329], "stop_times": [583.329, 584.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.628}, "reply_to": "22633__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__0_049", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [584.405], "stop_times": [585.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 584.405}, "reply_to": "22633__0_048", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_050", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--what if he just takes out an ad that says, \"Best Buy\", exclamation point?\nThat would be closer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [585.641, 590.099], "stop_times": [590.099, 591.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 585.641}, "reply_to": "22633__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__0_051", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Okay, in that case there would be confusion, but Mark, in that case, would be using \"best buy\" as a trademark, not only to describe; and, therefore, he would not fulfill the statutory requirements of a fair-use defense.\nBecause a lot of times when confusion comes up, it comes up in the case that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [591.935, 603.391], "stop_times": [603.391, 608.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 591.935}, "reply_to": "22633__0_050", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_052", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "I didn't mean to make it that in my hypothetical.\nYou're just putting it in bold type at the beginning of the piece, \"Best Buy\", exclamation point.\nThat means it's a trademark?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [608.387, 611.747, 617.509], "stop_times": [611.747, 617.509, 618.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 608.387}, "reply_to": "22633__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__0_053", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Well, it would be evidence that it is a trademark.\nYou have to... it depends how big the words \"best buy\" were in relation to the word \"Mark's Electronics\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [618.502, 622.422], "stop_times": [622.422, 628.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 618.502}, "reply_to": "22633__0_052", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_054", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, but if you had a... if you had a headline at the head of an ad, \"Great Sale\", that surely is not a trademark, just because you have it in boldfaced print.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [628.82], "stop_times": [639.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 628.82}, "reply_to": "22633__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22633__0_055", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "I agree, it's not necessarily a trademark.\nYou have to look at the totality of the ad, and you have to look at what the person is trying to use to help consumers to identify and distinguish the products, or, in this case, the store.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [639.223, 641.741], "stop_times": [641.741, 653.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.223}, "reply_to": "22633__0_054", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_056", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "I suppose if you have a sign that says \"Park 'n Fly\" and an arrow, with a capital \"P\" and a capital \"F\", then it's arguably being used as a trademark.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [653.546], "stop_times": [662.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.546}, "reply_to": "22633__0_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22633__0_057", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [662.546], "stop_times": [663.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 662.546}, "reply_to": "22633__0_056", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_058", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Whereas, if you say in a brochure,\n\"Rent a car from us, and park and fly. \"\nthen that's okay.\nIs that the distinction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [663.949, 665.063, 668.014, 668.778], "stop_times": [665.063, 668.014, 668.778, 669.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 663.949}, "reply_to": "22633__0_057", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22633__0_059", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Yes, but I'd go even further and say that the... if you had a big sign that said \"Park 'n Fly\", and it's next to an airport, that would not necessarily be a trademark.\nI mean, if it said, like,\n\"Jerry's Airport Parking, Park and Fly. \"\nI would say that's being a descriptive use.\nBut some people may argue differently in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [669.521, 681.222, 682.236, 685.747, 689.212], "stop_times": [681.222, 682.236, 685.747, 689.212, 692.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 669.521}, "reply_to": "22633__0_058", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_060", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "The Ninth... the Ninth Circuit, as I understand it, did put an initial burden on the trademark-holder to prove confusion.\nIf you look at the petition for cert, 6a, in its opinion, it seems to recognize that the trademark-holder must show that the alleged infringer's use of the mark is likely to cause confusion or to cause mistake or to deceive.\nSo this opinion starts out by saying,\n\"Yes, we know that under the Lanham Act the trademark-holder is obliged to show likelihood of confusion. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [692.927, 707.666, 732.186, 736.067], "stop_times": [707.666, 732.186, 736.067, 746.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 692.927}, "reply_to": "22633__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__0_061", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "They do it.\nBut then on... if you look on page 17a of my cert petition, the same opinion, the Ninth Circuit later on go on to say, in the middle paragraph,\n\"As expressed in Kahn's, the fair-use analysis only complements the likelihood of confusion... likelihood of customer confusion analysis. \"\nAnd then they quote from Transgo, and they say... explain that\n\"anyone is free to use the term in its primary descriptive sense as long as such use does not result in consumer confusion as to the source of goods. \"\nIn effect, what they're doing is, they're expanding the rights of trademark-holders of descriptive words.\nEssentially what they're saying is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [746.554, 749.359, 760.422, 768.761, 772.476, 780.65, 791.878], "stop_times": [749.359, 760.422, 768.761, 772.476, 780.65, 791.878, 792.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 746.554}, "reply_to": "22633__0_060", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_062", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, they go further in that same paragraph, and the last couple of lines refer to a Lindy Pen case, according to... the way they described, explaining that the fair-use defense is not available if likelihood of confusion has been shown.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [792.871], "stop_times": [808.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 792.871}, "reply_to": "22633__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22633__0_063", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Right, and that's... that's where they're negating what they said in the beginning of their opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [808.68], "stop_times": [814.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 808.68}, "reply_to": "22633__0_062", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_064", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "They do have one authority for that proposition.\nThey cite McCarthy, and I think they're right about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [814.169, 817.53], "stop_times": [817.53, 822.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 814.169}, "reply_to": "22633__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__0_065", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, they do cite McCarthy, but I would submit that McCarthy is incorrect, in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [822.881], "stop_times": [828.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 822.881}, "reply_to": "22633__0_064", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_066", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "But there is a treatise writer who does take the position that if there's confusion, there's no fair-use defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [828.165], "stop_times": [833.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 828.165}, "reply_to": "22633__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__0_067", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, there are other treatise writers... Kane, for example, takes the contrary position and says that fair use will always be a defense, even if--\n--even if there is likelihood of confusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [833.632, 840.591], "stop_times": [840.591, 842.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 833.632}, "reply_to": "22633__0_066", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_068", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "So does the... what is it... the unfair competition restatement?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [842.633], "stop_times": [847.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 842.633}, "reply_to": "22633__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__0_069", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Yes, that takes a similar position, as well, that there can be confusion and fair use at the same time.\nAgain, you have to look at what's causing the confusion.\nAnd most often the problem is the confusion is being caused because the person with the words in question is using it as a mark, and that's causing the confusion.\nIf... there's certain... there's certain... there's certain terms and words that Congress has said never get trademark protection.\nDescriptive words, of course, is one of them, in the sense that they can never get trademark protection in their primary descriptive sense; they only get trademark protection in their... in their secondary-meaning sense if they can actually prove secondary meaning.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [847.939, 854.914, 857.515, 867.053, 885.09], "stop_times": [854.914, 857.515, 867.053, 885.09, 902.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 847.939}, "reply_to": "22633__0_068", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_070", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "But I thought we're dealing with an incontestable mark here, and the secondary meaning would be assumed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [902.097], "stop_times": [909.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.097}, "reply_to": "22633__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__0_071", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Yes.\nIn the case of an incontestable mark, secondary meaning is presumed; however, that still does not take away the burden of the holder of an incontestable mark of proving likelihood of confusion.\nAnd, second, the trademark protection attaches only to the secondary meaning of the mark, never to the primary, descriptive meaning of the words in question.\nAnd one other quick example.\nThe laws say you cannot obtain a trademark in the U.S. flag.\nNow, we have 12 ice-cream manufacturers, they each put the flag on their ice cream.\nThere will be confusion there.\nSomeone will say,\n\"I want the ice cream with the flag on it. \"\nBut they all have a flag on it.\nThat's another example where Congress said, \"We will tolerate confusion\".\nSometimes we tolerate confusion so we can free up descriptive words so business owners are free to describe their goods to consumers.\nAnd, if I may, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [909.694, 910.271, 923.274, 935.7, 939.871, 943.669, 947.506, 948.704, 949.364, 950.561, 952.336, 956.134, 967.197], "stop_times": [910.271, 923.274, 935.7, 939.871, 943.669, 947.506, 948.704, 949.364, 950.561, 952.336, 956.134, 967.197, 970.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 909.694}, "reply_to": "22633__0_070", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__0_072", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Very well, Mr. Machat.\nNow, Ms. Millett, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [970.047, 971.283], "stop_times": [971.283, 973.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 970.047}, "reply_to": "22633__0_071", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22633__1_000", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nJustice Scalia, you asked for an example of a case where there might be confusion, but there would still be a fair use.\nThis Court's decision in William Warner versus Eli Lilly, which was a common-law case cited on page 27 of our brief, gives an example of that.\nYou had Coco-quinine, and Quin-coco being sold.\nAnd this Court held, as a matter of the common law fair-use doctrine, that the descriptive... fair, truthful, descriptive use of a term to describe a product will be permitted even if consumer mistakes result.\nThere are other cases cited in the brief.\nHowe Scale is cited in our brief.\nThe Canal Company versus Farr case.\nThe fair-use defense that's at issue here takes its... has its roots in that common law precedent, and that common law precedent, in origin, speaks directly, Justice O'Connor, to your... and Justice Kennedy... to your questions about, what does a fairness component of this test in the statute mean.\nThere is not a general requirement that the... say, the defendant here; the parties were reversed, but the non-trademark holder acts fairly.\nThat's not what Congress said.\nIt says the term... and I'm... and you can see, on page 9a of the statutory appendix to our brief--\n--the term has to be used fairly and in good faith... putting that aside, used fairly only to describe the product.\nThat is not some sort of general equitable receptacle for fairness concerns.\nThat focuses on what the defendant did and how they acted in describing.\nThat's not a test of how the public reacted.\nHow did the defendant behave?\nWhich is exactly what William Warner, Canal Company, and Howe Scale also looked at.\nIn common parlance, in a common dictionary meaning, when you talk about fairly describing something, that's not general equity.\nThat is, is it a legitimate, reasonable, proper, objectively apt, and fair way to describe a product.\nOne could reasonably--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [973.141, 986.599, 992.339, 1000.512, 1004.16, 1019.952, 1021.522, 1023.668, 1025.858, 1041.128, 1049.469, 1050.872, 1056.899, 1066.558, 1072.337, 1078.075, 1079.933, 1081.791, 1086.909, 1094.506, 1102.801], "stop_times": [986.599, 992.339, 1000.512, 1004.16, 1019.952, 1021.522, 1023.668, 1025.858, 1041.128, 1049.469, 1050.872, 1056.899, 1066.558, 1072.337, 1078.075, 1079.933, 1081.791, 1086.909, 1094.506, 1102.801, 1104.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 973.141}, "reply_to": "22633__0_072", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_001", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, does... does consumer--\n--if substantial consumer confusion is shown by the plaintiff, is that enough to defeat a fair-use defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1104.825, 1105.939], "stop_times": [1105.939, 1116.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.825}, "reply_to": "22633__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22633__1_002", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Not by itself, no, Justice O'Connor.\nCongress told us what will defeat the defense, and that is a... that is a conclusion that the term is being used as a mark.\nConsumer confusion might be, if you could explain that that demonstrates that it's being used as a mark.\nIt might show that you're not objectively, reasonably, accurately describing your product.\nIf I describe Twinkies as a sugary snack, that's a... I can fairly describe Twinkies as a sugary snack.\nI can't fairly describe Twinkies as a healthy food.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1116.259, 1118.116, 1124.887, 1129.716, 1135.002, 1142.061], "stop_times": [1118.116, 1124.887, 1129.716, 1135.002, 1142.061, 1145.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1116.259}, "reply_to": "22633__1_001", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_003", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Suppose, in the Coco-quinine case, the non... the non-holder is doing just fine without using the particular term, and then he decides,\n\"you know, I'm going to cut into that market, and I'm going to use the term Coco-quinine. \"\n\"And I'm going to do that just in order to get more customers away from the trademark-holder. \"\nIs that good faith?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1145.776, 1158.24, 1162.699, 1167.324], "stop_times": [1158.24, 1162.699, 1167.324, 1168.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1145.776}, "reply_to": "22633__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22633__1_004", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Yes, because there's nothing, in the marketplace, with wanting to increase your business and to do better and to use descriptive terms descriptively to do that.\nThe good-faith--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1168.188, 1178.591], "stop_times": [1178.591, 1179.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1168.188}, "reply_to": "22633__1_003", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_005", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "But what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1179.534], "stop_times": [1179.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1179.534}, "reply_to": "22633__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__1_006", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--continued here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1179.989], "stop_times": [1180.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1179.989}, "reply_to": "22633__1_005", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_007", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--what if he intends to increase his market share precisely by causing the confusion?\nThat would eliminate the good-faith element, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1180.36, 1185.19], "stop_times": [1185.19, 1187.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1180.36}, "reply_to": "22633__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__1_008", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--The good-faith element is, do I intend... it depends on what you mean by \"causing confusion\".\nIf I intend to freeload or ride or exploit the secondary--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1187.669, 1192.515], "stop_times": [1192.515, 1197.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1187.669}, "reply_to": "22633__1_007", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_009", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1197.412], "stop_times": [1197.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.412}, "reply_to": "22633__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__1_010", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--meaning of the term--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1197.662], "stop_times": [1198.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1197.662}, "reply_to": "22633__1_009", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_011", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1198.527], "stop_times": [1199.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1198.527}, "reply_to": "22633__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__1_012", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--that's what good faith means in trademark law, generally.\nIt has an established component.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1199.148, 1201.293], "stop_times": [1201.293, 1202.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1199.148}, "reply_to": "22633__1_011", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_013", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1202.658], "stop_times": [1202.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1202.658}, "reply_to": "22633__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__1_014", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "If I intend to do that.\nBut just showing that consumer confusion could result, or that I hope consumers will pause and think about, you know,\n\"what... what's in the... what am I now being offered in the marketplace? \"\nBut I have to... if I intend to avail myself of the secondary meaning that you've established of the goodwill that you've generated, that's what good faith goes to.\nBut to use fairly to describe is not a general means of just saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1202.895, 1203.772, 1211.946, 1215.511, 1224.577], "stop_times": [1203.772, 1211.946, 1215.511, 1224.577, 1230.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1202.895}, "reply_to": "22633__1_013", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_015", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "May I ask you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1230.521], "stop_times": [1231.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1230.521}, "reply_to": "22633__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22633__1_016", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--if there's confusion, that's a bad--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1231.347], "stop_times": [1232.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1231.347}, "reply_to": "22633__1_015", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_017", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--What does the term \"micro color\" describe?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1232.09], "stop_times": [1234.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1232.09}, "reply_to": "22633__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22633__1_018", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--The term \"micro color\" describes--\n--this is not my area of expertise, but... describes, as I understand it, the inks that are used for this permanent make-up process.\nAnd the reason it's called \"micro color\"--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1234.569, 1236.837, 1246.291], "stop_times": [1236.837, 1246.291, 1248.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1234.569}, "reply_to": "22633__1_017", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_019", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Does it have a meaning in any context other than describing the... one party's product in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1248.027], "stop_times": [1253.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1248.027}, "reply_to": "22633__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22633__1_020", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--I wouldn't begin to know whether other professions or occupations use the term \"micro color\".\nBut my understanding, from the record, is that the color is obvious.\nThat's... it's different color inks.\nAnd the reason that they use the term 98 of the first volume of the joint appendix, is that the molecular size of these inks is very, very fine.\nIt's going into the skin.\nIt's micron-size.\nAnd so that's, I think, the... as suggested by petitioner's client... that that's the origin of the term \"micro color\".\nNow, \"micro\" is a common term that's... common descriptive term in its own right.\nIt appears in many contexts.\nObviously, computers is one that we're all familiar with.\nMedical devices often will refer to \"micro\".\nBut \"micro color\"--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1253.144, 1259.089, 1262.804, 1264.373, 1275.769, 1276.8, 1278.452, 1287.097, 1291.911, 1293.313, 1295.83, 1299.341], "stop_times": [1259.089, 1262.804, 1264.373, 1275.769, 1276.8, 1278.452, 1287.097, 1291.911, 1293.313, 1295.83, 1299.341, 1300.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1253.144}, "reply_to": "22633__1_019", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_021", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Wasn't there... wasn't there something to the effect that \"micro pigmentation\" is a synonym in the trade for permanent make-up?\nIt's another name for permanent make-up, and it's... it has \"micro\" in it, \"micro pigmentation\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1300.91, 1309.827], "stop_times": [1309.827, 1316.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1300.91}, "reply_to": "22633__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__1_022", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--That's my understanding, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1316.514], "stop_times": [1317.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1316.514}, "reply_to": "22633__1_021", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_023", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "\"Micro pigmentation\" sounds awfully close to \"micro color\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1317.628], "stop_times": [1321.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1317.628}, "reply_to": "22633__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__1_024", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "\"Micro color\", yeah.\nThat's my understanding.\nAgain, I don't really want to weigh in on one side of the dispute or the other on the merits of whether \"micro color\" is a generic or a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1321.055, 1322.458, 1323.573], "stop_times": [1322.458, 1323.573, 1331.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1321.055}, "reply_to": "22633__1_023", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_025", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, you have to weigh in on it.\nI mean, you have to show that the... it seems to me, if you think that side should win, that the words are being used in a descriptive sense.\nAnd if \"micro color\" doesn't mean a blessed thing to anybody unless they associate it with the trademark, then, it seems to me, you lose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1331.003, 1332.489, 1341.406], "stop_times": [1332.489, 1341.406, 1349.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1331.003}, "reply_to": "22633__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__1_026", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--But, Justice Scalia, the problem here is that the Ninth Circuit said that what makes them lose is not that they didn't use this fairly to describe their product, or not that they failed to act in good faith, or not that they were using this as a trademark, but that it was a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1349.102], "stop_times": [1364.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1349.102}, "reply_to": "22633__1_025", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_027", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "You're right, that's not the issue in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1364.046], "stop_times": [1364.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1364.046}, "reply_to": "22633__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__1_028", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Right.\nRight.\nAnd my understanding... again, the record shows that, in fact, the descriptive use of this was conceded in this case, and that's on page 29a of the petition appendix, and also in the joint appendix on 152.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1364.668, 1365.123, 1365.373], "stop_times": [1365.123, 1365.373, 1376.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1364.668}, "reply_to": "22633__1_027", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_029", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "You're right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1376.352], "stop_times": [1377.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1376.352}, "reply_to": "22633__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__1_030", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "But, again, our concern is that this statute has to be read with the terms Congress enacted.\nCongress drew a balance here.\nCongress struck the balance between allowing... giving unprecedented protection that this Court recognized in \"Park 'n Fly\" two descriptive terms, but policing the line between the secondary meaning that attaches to descriptive terms and the... reserving for the marketplace, for competition, the availability of descriptive terms in their original descriptive sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1377.383, 1383.493, 1385.64], "stop_times": [1383.493, 1385.64, 1409.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1377.383}, "reply_to": "22633__1_029", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_031", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "In other words, if you choose to use a descriptive term as your logo, you take your chances--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1409.955], "stop_times": [1414.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1409.955}, "reply_to": "22633__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__1_032", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1414.99], "stop_times": [1415.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1414.99}, "reply_to": "22633__1_031", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_033", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--that that descriptive term will be used fairly and in good faith by somebody else and cause confusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1415.9], "stop_times": [1421.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1415.9}, "reply_to": "22633__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__1_034", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1421.101], "stop_times": [1421.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1421.101}, "reply_to": "22633__1_033", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_035", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "And if you don't want confusion, pick a term that isn't descriptive.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1421.76], "stop_times": [1424.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1421.76}, "reply_to": "22633__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__1_036", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "That's exactly right.\nThere's a tradeoff.\nWhen you pick a descriptive term, you get right up front, right up front, the immediate appeal and resonance of a term to the... to the consumers.\n\"Best buy\".\nWho wouldn't want the best buy?\nI want the best buy.\n\"Chunky\" candy bars.\nIt's going to be easier to break into the marketplace with \"Chunky\" candy bars or \"Almond Joy\" candy bars, because consumers will have a sense of what they're getting, than if you come in with a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1424.445, 1425.392, 1426.135, 1434.93, 1435.423, 1437.448, 1438.312, 1440.336], "stop_times": [1425.392, 1426.135, 1434.93, 1435.423, 1437.448, 1438.312, 1440.336, 1448.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1424.445}, "reply_to": "22633__1_035", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_037", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "\"Schwartz\", \"Schwartz\" candy bars.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1448.138], "stop_times": [1449.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1448.138}, "reply_to": "22633__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__1_038", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--\"Schwartz\" candy bar, \"Kodak\", I don't know--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1449.996], "stop_times": [1452.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1449.996}, "reply_to": "22633__1_037", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_039", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "It doesn't do anything for you.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1452.104, 1452.575], "stop_times": [1452.575, 1452.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1452.104}, "reply_to": "22633__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__1_040", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--I don't know why that is, and why would I want to eat it.\nThey're going to have to do more work.\nBut the downside, the tradeoff, is, as you said, Justice Scalia, that you do not get to take those terms out of usage.\nTrademark law protects usage, not words.\nAnd if the usage is descriptive, and it's fair, in the sense that it's reasonable, apt, and accurate, as this Court said in William Warner, Canal Company, Howe Scale, in the unfair-competition sense; and the Kellogg versus National Biscuit Company, the Shredded Wheat case, if it's apt and accurate, that's what \"used fairly\" means.\nAnd if its satisfies that objective test, and if it satisfies the subjective good-faith test, and it's not used as a mark, we will tolerate that confusion, because that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1452.913, 1455.73, 1458.197, 1466.454, 1469.881, 1489.943], "stop_times": [1455.73, 1458.197, 1466.454, 1469.881, 1489.943, 1500.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1452.913}, "reply_to": "22633__1_039", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_041", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "How do you tell whether it's used as a mark?\nI mean, is that... that certainly seems to be central.\nIs it used as a mark?\nAnd if it's used as a mark, then there is a violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1500.429, 1502.863, 1506.412, 1508.064], "stop_times": [1502.863, 1506.412, 1508.064, 1513.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.429}, "reply_to": "22633__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__1_042", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--The fair-use defense is unavailable if it's used as a mark.\nThere are other--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1513.842, 1517.269], "stop_times": [1517.269, 1517.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1513.842}, "reply_to": "22633__1_041", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_043", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1517.807], "stop_times": [1518.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1517.807}, "reply_to": "22633__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__1_044", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--defenses that are available, but the fair-use defense is, by definition, unavailable.\nThat's correct.\nThe way you prove whether something is used as a mark... there's, sort of, two ways of getting to that end.\nWhen something is used as a mark, that means it is signifying to the origin or source of those goods in the marketplace.\nIt's not just describing it, it's telling you who is making it or who is putting it out on the market.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1518.012, 1521.522, 1521.993, 1527.444, 1533.593], "stop_times": [1521.522, 1521.993, 1527.444, 1533.593, 1538.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1518.012}, "reply_to": "22633__1_043", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_045", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "So let's go back to the use on the brochure of a logo-like... I mean, as long as they're using just the word \"micro color\", I see your position entirely, it's used descriptively, not as a mark.\nBut what about when they use something that looks like a mark?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1538.59, 1555.43], "stop_times": [1555.43, 1560.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1538.59}, "reply_to": "22633__1_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__1_046", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, there's... there's going to be difficult questions of proof.\nOur position is that, by taking a descriptive term, you don't get to consign everybody else to ten point Times New Roman font, and that they can do some colorful display, but not a mark.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1560.221, 1563.936], "stop_times": [1563.936, 1575.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1560.221}, "reply_to": "22633__1_045", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "22633__1_047", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Millett.\nMs. Brinkmann, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1575.12, 1575.946], "stop_times": [1575.946, 1578.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1575.12}, "reply_to": "22633__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22633__2_000", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nDefendant's... Petitioner's absolute defense is contrary to the text, purpose, structure and history of the fair-use defense of the Lanham Act.\nIn response to Justice Scalia's question about this is the risk that someone takes when they choose a descriptive term, this defense does not apply only to descriptive terms.\nUnder Petitioner's view, this defense would be available to users of arbitrary, fanciful and suggestive marks so long as they were used descriptively and not as a mark.\nIndeed, our mark here is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1578.564, 1588.495, 1598.526, 1608.185, 1618.299], "stop_times": [1588.495, 1598.526, 1608.185, 1618.299, 1619.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1578.564}, "reply_to": "22633__1_047", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_001", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "How can you use a fanciful term descriptively?\nI mean, I think that's the definition of an arbitrary or fanciful term, that it doesn't mean anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1619.953, 1622.553], "stop_times": [1622.553, 1628.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1619.953}, "reply_to": "22633__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__2_002", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Well, it may mean something in a different context, I think an example you could use would be the arbitrary trademark of \"Apple\" for computers.\nThere could be advertising for Computer Electronics, Incorporated in the fall, when there's the back to school rush, using the term \"Apple\" in a descriptive sense: \"Apples for Teachers\", you know, the beginning of the year, \"Come to our store\".\nSo, in reliance on that, you drive two hours because you're the school district director who needs to buy ten new computers to hook into the system.\nYou get there, it turns out they're not Apple Computers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1628.042, 1637.785, 1652.108, 1659.084], "stop_times": [1637.785, 1652.108, 1659.084, 1661.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1628.042}, "reply_to": "22633__2_001", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_003", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "No, but do they use the apple as clearly a descriptive term with secondary meaning, that's what gives it protection.\nBut if you have an arbitrary term, as Justice Scalia says, how could that be, how could the defense have any relevance to a fanciful or arbitrary term.\nAnd I thought the defense only was relevant when you... everybody agrees you're talking about descriptive terms?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1661.313, 1667.712, 1676.917], "stop_times": [1667.712, 1676.917, 1681.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1661.313}, "reply_to": "22633__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22633__2_004", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "No, Your Honor, the Solicitor General does not take that position either, in their brief they recognize that this applies to all level of mark.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1681.996], "stop_times": [1688.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1681.996}, "reply_to": "22633__2_003", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_005", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "No, but that, all we need to decide this case is to assume that it's descriptive.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1688.6], "stop_times": [1693.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1688.6}, "reply_to": "22633__2_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22633__2_006", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the Ninth Circuit's holding was that it was inherently distinctive, or descriptive, and we maintain that it is suggestive, as was pointed out earlier, this isn't a word that can be found in the English language anywhere, it doesn't describe the pigment or the ink, what it does is suggests the small nature and the fine lines that are ultimately used when this is applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1693.801], "stop_times": [1716.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1693.801}, "reply_to": "22633__2_005", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_007", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Let's assume that it was descriptive, would the Ninth Circuit test still apply?\nThat you would have to show absence of confusion before you raised the good faith defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1716.109, 1722.325], "stop_times": [1722.325, 1727.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1716.109}, "reply_to": "22633__2_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22633__2_008", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "We don't believe that's what the Ninth Circuit test does, this was a summary judgment entered against us when we had introduced--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1727.609], "stop_times": [1734.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1727.609}, "reply_to": "22633__2_007", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_009", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, would you agree, then, that in a case where the mark is descriptive, the non-trademark holder, the defendant in the case, can raise the fair-use defense without having to show that there's no confusion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1734.668], "stop_times": [1745.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1734.668}, "reply_to": "22633__2_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22633__2_010", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Yes, we believe it's the plaintiff's burden, it's clear it's the plaintiff's burden to show likelihood of confusion.\nThe point is, under the district court's absolute rule, notwithstanding evidence in this case of actual confusion, indeed, summary judgment was entered against us because the district court took Petitioner's absolute view that there was no relevance whatsoever to likelihood of confusion to the determination of fair use, that's the rule in the Ninth Circuit overruled, and that's what needs to be affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1745.153, 1750.605], "stop_times": [1750.605, 1772.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1745.153}, "reply_to": "22633__2_009", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_011", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Now, I'm confused. I thought the question you're supposed to answer, which is in the blue brief, is whether they have to show an absence of confusion.\nAnd I guess now you agree the answer to that question is \"no\".\nIs that right, you agree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1772.319, 1780.492, 1784.169], "stop_times": [1780.492, 1784.169, 1786.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1772.319}, "reply_to": "22633__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__2_012", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1786.027], "stop_times": [1786.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1786.027}, "reply_to": "22633__2_011", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_013", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Now, that's the end of this case, isn't it?\nThat's what we took it to decide, and that's... you agree with it and they agree with it, so everybody's happy.\nWe don't even have to write an opinion, we can just--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1786.77, 1788.339, 1793.457], "stop_times": [1788.339, 1793.457, 1795.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.77}, "reply_to": "22633__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__2_014", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "I believe the Petitioner came up with that formulation because they had taken on the burden because they were the movant on summary judgment.\nThat's where that misnomer came from.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1795.769, 1803.366], "stop_times": [1803.366, 1806.172], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1795.769}, "reply_to": "22633__2_013", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_015", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Did you object to the formulation of the question presented?\nHere's the question, does the classic fair-use defense to trademark infringement require the party asserting the defense to demonstrate an absence of likelihood of confusion?\nThat's the question.\nAnd you say, \"no\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1806.172, 1808.689, 1818.349, 1821.282], "stop_times": [1808.689, 1818.349, 1821.282, 1823.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1806.172}, "reply_to": "22633__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__2_016", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "We agree that the plaintiff, it's clear that under... in the Ninth Circuit... the Ninth Circuit pointed out that, Justice Ginsburg quoted before, made clear that the plaintiff does bear the burden of establishing likelihood of confusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1823.512], "stop_times": [1835.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1823.512}, "reply_to": "22633__2_015", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_017", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Now, suppose you establish it, maybe we can find some differences here, would you also agree that simply establishing confusion is not enough to overcome the fair-use defense, you'd have to also show that the confusion, along with possibly other things are such that it shows unfairness, or what's the other word, unfairness, or lack of good faith?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1835.81], "stop_times": [1856.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1835.81}, "reply_to": "22633__2_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__2_018", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "We believe that when Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1856.244], "stop_times": [1857.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1856.244}, "reply_to": "22633__2_017", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_019", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "You agree with that, or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1857.609], "stop_times": [1859.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1857.609}, "reply_to": "22633__2_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__2_020", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--No, Your Honor, we agree that when Congress wrote the test in 1946, it used the terms \"used fairly\" to refer to the common law, which included not only the common law of technical trademark, but the common law of unfair competition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1859.299], "stop_times": [1873.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1859.299}, "reply_to": "22633__2_019", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_021", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Good, so now we have something I can disagree with you about.\nNow, the question would be, why, it's the words are unfair, why, if you just show there's some confusion, which normally there would be, or quite often there would be, why is that enough to overcome their defense that they put here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1873.211, 1875.274], "stop_times": [1875.274, 1890.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.211}, "reply_to": "22633__2_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__2_022", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Your Honor, the time that those words were used, the common law, and we respectfully disagree with the Solicitor General's office on the reading of Warner, we'd urge the Court to read that.\nThe reason the Court allowed the use of the term in that case is because they quite clearly said it did not have a secondary meaning.\nThere is no trademark protection for descriptive words with secondary meaning, we are in complete agreement with that.\nWe're dealing with the secondary meaning.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1890.468, 1899.673, 1906.46, 1912.592], "stop_times": [1899.673, 1906.46, 1912.592, 1914.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1890.468}, "reply_to": "22633__2_021", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_023", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "All right, so now, if we're going to go back into what the Court did, I would say that I was a little disturbed reading this as to why you get protection at all, because I was thinking \"micro color\", well, that describes very well what it is, it's a tiny, teeny, weenie, weenie bit of color.\nAnd when I think of \"micro pigment\", I think of a farm animal, I think... I don't know what I think, it's confusing me.\nSo, for an average person, the word \"micro color\", I thought,\n\"Gee, that's very descriptive of just what it is, a teeny weenie bit of color. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1914.838, 1929.023, 1936.703, 1941.04], "stop_times": [1929.023, 1936.703, 1941.04, 1945.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1914.838}, "reply_to": "22633__2_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__2_024", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I would urge you to look at joint appendix pages 137 to 139 where it lists twenty other competitors that sell this very product, they have no cause to use that word.\nIt is not used in the industry as a descriptive term, they're called \"pigment\", they're called \"ink\", they're not called \"micro colors\", that is my client's trademark.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1945.126, 1955.65], "stop_times": [1955.65, 1963.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1945.126}, "reply_to": "22633__2_023", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_025", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "What's the difference between pigment and color, especially when it's not just \"micro color\", don't they advertise \"micro color red\", \"micro color grey\", so pigment--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1963.618], "stop_times": [1975.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1963.618}, "reply_to": "22633__2_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__2_026", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "The typical suggestive term, it was created to associate the high quality that my client markets in this product with that term, I want the \"micro color\" pigments, not the other pigments that are sold by--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1975.878], "stop_times": [1987.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1975.878}, "reply_to": "22633__2_025", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_027", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--But, what about the word, is it... am I wrong in what I suggested before, that the word, \"micro pigmentation\" is used in the trade as a synonym for permanent makeup?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1987.19], "stop_times": [1999.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1987.19}, "reply_to": "22633__2_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__2_028", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--That's correct, and oftentimes, trademarks are shortened versions of other terminology.\nThe fact is it is suggestive because \"micro colors\" is the protected trademark here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [1999.162, 2006.343], "stop_times": [2006.343, 2010.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1999.162}, "reply_to": "22633__2_027", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_029", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "But there is a sense of color in which color is synonymous with pigment.\nAnd I assume that's what was accepted here, which leads me to my question, I don't understand why we're having this discussion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2010.967, 2015.342], "stop_times": [2015.342, 2023.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2010.967}, "reply_to": "22633__2_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22633__2_030", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2023.804], "stop_times": [2024.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.804}, "reply_to": "22633__2_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__2_031", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Because I thought it was agreed that for purposes of the defense, this was a descriptive use, is that incorrect?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2024.259], "stop_times": [2033.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2024.259}, "reply_to": "22633__2_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22633__2_032", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, for purposes of the defense, it's the other party that has to be using the term descriptively.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2033.342], "stop_times": [2040.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2033.342}, "reply_to": "22633__2_031", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_033", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, could you just point to me... I'm not asking so much about the \"why\", I just want to know what this case is.\nIs there someplace in the materials that we've got that indicate that, in fact, you dispute that there is a descriptive use here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2040.029, 2043.623], "stop_times": [2043.623, 2052.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2040.029}, "reply_to": "22633__2_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22633__2_034", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Yes, footnote 3 of the red brief explains that this purported concession that they discuss about the use of this mark had to do because Justice Ginsburg was distinguishing before, early uses on a bottle, and a flyer, which we dispute occurred, but assuming they occurred, those were descriptive.\nIn 1998 and 1999, Petitioner started using it on their marketing brochures in a very different manner.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2052.371, 2069.751], "stop_times": [2069.751, 2078.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2052.371}, "reply_to": "22633__2_033", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_035", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Excuse me, this still goes to the merits of the defense and not to the question presented.\nThe question presented is, descriptive or not descriptive, do you have a defense if it's, if there is consumer confusion?\nAnd your position, if you're opposing the question presented, is that if there is consumer confusion, there is no defense.\nAnd it's... I thought that was the only question you were going to discuss here, not in fact whether, if there is such a defense, it has been made out in this case, because these words were or were not descriptive.\nI mean, that's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2078.007, 2083.763, 2094.521, 2103.188, 2114.788], "stop_times": [2083.763, 2094.521, 2103.188, 2114.788, 2115.548], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2078.007}, "reply_to": "22633__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__2_036", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor, I'd be happy to discuss that.\nAs I pointed out, it's contrary to the textual language used by the Congress in 1946.\nThey meant \"used fairly\" to mean what the common law meant.\nThe common law prohibited confusing uses of both technical trademarks and trade names.\nMoreover, Petitioner's interpretation is contrary to the clear focus of the Lanham Act, which is to prevent customer confusion.\nThe whole point is so that you can walk into a store--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2115.548, 2117.555, 2124.408, 2126.554, 2132.749, 2141.787], "stop_times": [2117.555, 2124.408, 2126.554, 2132.749, 2141.787, 2144.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2115.548}, "reply_to": "22633__2_035", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_037", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Ms. Brinkmann, may I stop you there, because I thought you have conceded, as I think you must, I thought you conceded quite clearly, I wrote down that you said, it is the plaintiff's burden to show likelihood of confusion.\nSo, if it's the plaintiff's burden to show likelihood of confusion, how can it be the defendant's burden to show unlikelihood of confusion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2144.387, 2159.331], "stop_times": [2159.331, 2169.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.387}, "reply_to": "22633__2_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__2_038", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--We don't believe it's the defendant's burden, we believe we... the district court was correctly reversed the Ninth Circuit in entering summary judgment against us, notwithstanding the fact that there was dispute regarding likelihood of confusion.\nAnd the district court did that, because as I said it was absolutely irrelevant to their determination of used fairly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2169.196, 2181.085], "stop_times": [2181.085, 2188.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2169.196}, "reply_to": "22633__2_037", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_039", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "I think this is really quite confusing, Ms. Brinkmann.\nThe question presented, as several people have pointed out, whether the Lanham Act's fair-use defense to trademark infringement requires a party asserting the defense to demonstrate the absence of a likelihood it could confuse... consumer confusion.\nNow, do you agree or disagree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2188.681, 2191.282, 2208.909], "stop_times": [2191.282, 2208.909, 2213.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2188.681}, "reply_to": "22633__2_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22633__2_040", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2213.163], "stop_times": [2214.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2213.163}, "reply_to": "22633__2_039", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_041", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "You can surely answer that, \"we agree\", or \"we don't agree\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2214.045], "stop_times": [2217.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2214.045}, "reply_to": "22633__2_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22633__2_042", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--We don't agree.\nWe believe that likelihood of confusion defeats the fair-use defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2217.454, 2218.653], "stop_times": [2218.653, 2223.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2217.454}, "reply_to": "22633__2_041", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_043", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Okay, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2223.194], "stop_times": [2224.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2223.194}, "reply_to": "22633__2_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22633__2_044", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "And we would point out that as a textual argument and the purpose argument--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2224.287], "stop_times": [2227.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2224.287}, "reply_to": "22633__2_043", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_045", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "May I ask, may I just interrupt, but when would one ever be able to use the defense if the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case, prima facie case, I assume, includes the burden of establishing likelihood of confusion.\nSo, is there any room for the defense at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2227.964, 2239.891], "stop_times": [2239.891, 2242.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2227.964}, "reply_to": "22633__2_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22633__2_046", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--As we point out in our brief, Your Honor, we do believe that since the amendment in 1988, this has ultimately become a redundancy, but the plaintiff's burden of showing likelihood of confusion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2242.574], "stop_times": [2254.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2242.574}, "reply_to": "22633__2_045", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_047", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "So the answer is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2254.918], "stop_times": [2255.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2254.918}, "reply_to": "22633__2_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22633__2_048", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--It remains as a Congressional emphasis that even if, in a trademark situation, a use that is not likely to confuse is allowed.\nThat is what, this was a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2255.744, 2267.14], "stop_times": [2267.14, 2268.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2255.744}, "reply_to": "22633__2_047", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_049", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "It's allowed without the affirmative defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2268.521], "stop_times": [2270.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2268.521}, "reply_to": "22633__2_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22633__2_050", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--To understand why this came in, it's important to understand in 1946 this defense applied only to incontestable marks.\nIt did not apply to other registered marks.\nAt that time, incontestable mark holders did not have to prove likelihood of confusion.\nThat incontestable mark was a conclusive evidence of the mark holder's exclusive right to use that mark on the same goods.\nSame mark, on the same goods that were set forth in the affidavit with the PTO.\nThat was akin to early common law.\nAt that point, the plaintiff could go into court with their incontestable mark, and it was conclusive evidence.\nSo there had to be a safety valve for defendants to be able to say,\n\"Okay, I know this is an incontestable mark, I know that, and I know I'm using it on the same goods, but notwithstanding, I can use it because I'm using it fairly, I'm not confusing consumers with this. \"\n\"That's what the purpose was. \"\n\"In 19-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2270.362, 2278.823, 2281.508, 2288.111, 2297.605, 2302.146, 2304.253, 2311.145, 2315.438, 2326.312, 2328.069], "stop_times": [2278.823, 2281.508, 2288.111, 2297.605, 2302.146, 2304.253, 2311.145, 2315.438, 2326.312, 2328.069, 2329.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2270.362}, "reply_to": "22633__2_049", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_051", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "But are you suggesting, I want to be sure I follow your thinking, are you saying that in, back in those days, somebody with an incontestable mark did not have to prove likelihood of confusion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2329.184], "stop_times": [2338.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.184}, "reply_to": "22633__2_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22633__2_052", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--It was presumed by the weight of that, that was the conclusive evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2338.266], "stop_times": [2341.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2338.266}, "reply_to": "22633__2_051", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_053", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Because otherwise, wouldn't that defeat the defense, too, then?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2341.943], "stop_times": [2344.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2341.943}, "reply_to": "22633__2_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22633__2_054", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Because the way Congress structured 1115(b), it was conclusive evidence except subject to the seven specific defenses, this was the fourth one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2344.051], "stop_times": [2353.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2344.051}, "reply_to": "22633__2_053", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_055", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "No, but you're saying, isn't your answer to Justice Stevens is that it was a rebuttable presumption?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2353.217], "stop_times": [2356.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2353.217}, "reply_to": "22633__2_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22633__2_056", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2356.068], "stop_times": [2356.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2356.068}, "reply_to": "22633__2_055", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_057", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2356.234], "stop_times": [2356.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2356.234}, "reply_to": "22633__2_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22633__2_058", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Yes, I'm sorry, yes.\nYes, Your Honor.\nI would also point out that when Congress amended in 1988, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they intended to change this and that's what's so fundamental about the position... the district court position.\nThis is a gaping hole in the core purpose of the Lanham Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2356.811, 2357.82, 2358.669, 2372.293], "stop_times": [2357.82, 2358.669, 2372.293, 2375.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2356.811}, "reply_to": "22633__2_057", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_059", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "But suppose IBM had used the word \"computers\" when they were the only company for ten or fifteen years to mark their product.\nNow, another company comes along and they produce the same thing, they want to use the word \"computer\".\nYou're saying that that would be the end of it, they couldn't do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2375.653, 2382.917, 2387.98], "stop_times": [2382.917, 2387.98, 2391.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2375.653}, "reply_to": "22633__2_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__2_060", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Not at all, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2391.528], "stop_times": [2392.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2391.528}, "reply_to": "22633__2_059", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_061", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "People would be confused.\nFor a while they'll think that IBM, there would be confusion, but it's the best word to describe the product, in fact, at least a very good one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2392.809, 2394.007], "stop_times": [2394.007, 2402.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2392.809}, "reply_to": "22633__2_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__2_062", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Your Honor, if that were the case, it was more than likely, almost certainly be a generic term with no protection.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2402.468], "stop_times": [2407.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2402.468}, "reply_to": "22633__2_061", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_063", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, at the very beginning, IBM was the only one to do it, they didn't have to call it computer, they could have called it a word processor, they could have called it a \"think faster\".\nI don't know what they could have called it, but I mean, you know, they chose the word computer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2407.919, 2417.866], "stop_times": [2417.866, 2421.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2407.919}, "reply_to": "22633__2_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__2_064", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "And Congress took that explicitly into account when it allowed any mark to be canceled at any time for genericism.\nEscalator, aspirin are all examples of your situation.\nThat's exactly what happened, and when they came a generic term, that trademark was canceled and it became used as generic.\nCongress--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2421.581, 2429.3, 2433.47, 2439.703], "stop_times": [2429.3, 2433.47, 2439.703, 2440.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2421.581}, "reply_to": "22633__2_063", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_065", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "So what is this fair-use defense for, since you're normally going to show confusion to show the infringement, what's it for, in your opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2440.817], "stop_times": [2448.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2440.817}, "reply_to": "22633__2_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__2_066", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Since 1988 it's a vestigial reminder of what Congress wanted to make sure was understood in 1946.\nEven for the strongest, incontestable mark on the same goods, we are still going to always allow uses that are not likely to confuse.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2448.331, 2454.813], "stop_times": [2454.813, 2462.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2448.331}, "reply_to": "22633__2_065", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_067", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--But we don't usually interpret statutes that way.\nI mean, you tell us what Congress had in mind, but our best indication of what Congress had in mind is the words of the statute.\nAnd the words of the statute make no sense if they say you have to prove confusion and the only... however, there's a special defense which you have, which turns out to be there's no confusion, that's not a special defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2462.41, 2465.671, 2472.358], "stop_times": [2465.671, 2472.358, 2489.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.41}, "reply_to": "22633__2_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__2_068", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Two points, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2489.038], "stop_times": [2490.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2489.038}, "reply_to": "22633__2_067", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_069", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Makes it a meaningless statute, really.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2490.07], "stop_times": [2492.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2490.07}, "reply_to": "22633__2_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__2_070", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Two points.\nPetitioner gives no meaning to words \"used fairly\".\nSo if a worst statutory construction--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2492.586, 2493.246, 2495.847], "stop_times": [2493.246, 2495.847, 2498.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2492.586}, "reply_to": "22633__2_069", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_071", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "I thought they did when they outlined to us what it means is you're using it descriptively, and not as a mark.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2498.819], "stop_times": [2508.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2498.819}, "reply_to": "22633__2_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__2_072", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Your Honor, those are other terms that are used in the statute, those are separate requirements.\nThere are four requirements in the provision, used not as a mark, used descriptively, used in good faith, and used fairly.\nThey read \"used fairly\" right out of the language.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2508.274, 2514.069, 2521.293], "stop_times": [2514.069, 2521.293, 2523.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2508.274}, "reply_to": "22633__2_071", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_073", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Ms. Brinkmann, am I right that several cases say, the key here is, are you using it as a mark.\nBecause that suggests you're trying to pawn off your goods as another's.\nAre you using it as a mark?\nOr, are you using it, merely descriptively?\nI thought use as a mark was the key, you're using it as a mark, you're not using it in good faith.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2523.855, 2530.088, 2537.64, 2539.869, 2543.667], "stop_times": [2530.088, 2537.64, 2539.869, 2543.667, 2550.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2523.855}, "reply_to": "22633__2_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__2_074", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "No, that is one of the factors in likelihood of confusion, that you can take into account, that there can be non-trademark uses that are confusing, but the common law cases we talk about are full of examples of that.\nI would like to make one other response to Justice Scalia's point, if I could.\nJustice Scalia, to the extent that you hold that the fair-use defense no longer prohibits, all uses are likely to confuse as unfair, we would look to the suggestion made by the amici that there is a middle ground that likely to confusion, in any event, cannot be completely irrelevant to the used fairly determination, as Petitioner in the district court would have it.\nWe discuss on page 15 of our brief, for example, the Restatement's position, which we would urge the Court to look to, which is akin to what the amici suggests.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2550.166, 2562.055, 2565.875, 2590.767], "stop_times": [2562.055, 2565.875, 2590.767, 2599.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2550.166}, "reply_to": "22633__2_073", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_075", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "That may well be, but I don't think that's the question presented here.\nI mean, we could agree with that, that it's relevant to deciding the defense, and still answer the question presented the way that the Petitioner wants.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2599.684, 2603.936], "stop_times": [2603.936, 2612.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2599.684}, "reply_to": "22633__2_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__2_076", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "The district court's entry of summary judgment must be reversed, the Ninth Circuit did that because of its total disregard for likely to confusion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2612.565], "stop_times": [2619.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.565}, "reply_to": "22633__2_075", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_077", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, that may be, but the issue here is whether the Ninth Circuit simply went too far in the other direction and required too much.\nAnd all we have to determine is whether there is a per se obligation to prove non-confusion.\nIf we do so, that doesn't necessarily reinstate the district court's position, it simply says that the Ninth Circuit went too far, isn't that correct?\nI mean, that is what is... that is the issue before us?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2619.746, 2626.683, 2632.256, 2640.922], "stop_times": [2626.683, 2632.256, 2640.922, 2644.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2619.746}, "reply_to": "22633__2_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22633__2_078", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--I think the ruling from this Court would have to be that it's not an absolute defense against likelihood of confusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2644.516], "stop_times": [2649.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2644.516}, "reply_to": "22633__2_077", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_079", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "How about if the ruling were a defendant who uses a descriptive term fairly and in good faith to describe its goods or services is not liable for infringement, even if some residual confusion is likely.\nThat's what the Restatement that you've just been applauding says.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2649.922, 2663.851], "stop_times": [2663.851, 2669.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2649.922}, "reply_to": "22633__2_078", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__2_080", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Yes, and that discussion explains a couple of things.\nIt explains that if there is a likelihood of substantial confusion, that would be the outer limit, ordinarily that would not be a fair use.\nIt also points out that likelihood of confusion is relevant to that determination that Your Honor just described.\nYes, we would win under that position, Your Honor, that's absolutely correct, that's the middle ground of the Restatement--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2669.607, 2671.447, 2678.672, 2685.072], "stop_times": [2671.447, 2678.672, 2685.072, 2690.644], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2669.607}, "reply_to": "22633__2_079", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_081", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, you would win--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2690.644], "stop_times": [2691.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2690.644}, "reply_to": "22633__2_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__2_082", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "You'd still have to vacate the judgment below, which seemed to go too far in saying that if there is any consumer confusion, that's the end of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2691.388], "stop_times": [2701.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2691.388}, "reply_to": "22633__2_081", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22633__2_083", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, we would actually urge the Court to affirm the judgment below, in support of we cite cases in our brief, the Meritor case and the Yakima case, in which the judgment of the Ninth Circuit reversing the district court should be affirmed, and there are other holdings of the Ninth Circuit also that are not before the Court that should be affirmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2701.79], "stop_times": [2719.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2701.79}, "reply_to": "22633__2_082", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_084", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, you're urging then that the Ninth Circuit be affirmed on alternate grounds.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2719.001], "stop_times": [2722.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2719.001}, "reply_to": "22633__2_083", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22633__2_085", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2722.882], "stop_times": [2723.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2722.882}, "reply_to": "22633__2_084", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_086", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "We rarely do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2723.875], "stop_times": [2724.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2723.875}, "reply_to": "22633__2_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22633__2_087", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, I understand that, but in this particular situation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2724.823], "stop_times": [2727.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2724.823}, "reply_to": "22633__2_086", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_088", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Why wouldn't we just vacate it, and you have other grounds that the court below didn't address, but why wouldn't, at the very least, we vacate the judgment and send it back?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2727.795], "stop_times": [2740.055], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2727.795}, "reply_to": "22633__2_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22633__2_089", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--We certainly would agree, Your Honor, that if we are then given an opportunity on remand to go back to summary judgment and carry our burden of establishing a likelihood of confusion, but not have it held against us.\nFor example, in the middle ground, to determine what used fairly is, in addition to likelihood of confusion, we would suggest that there are other factors that the Restatement puts forth.\nFor example, whether there is commercial justification for the use.\nDid we point out, there is no commercial justification, there are twenty other competitors that don't use this terminology.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2740.055, 2752.481, 2762.308, 2765.28], "stop_times": [2752.481, 2762.308, 2765.28, 2771.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2740.055}, "reply_to": "22633__2_088", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_090", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "They might have been afraid that you'd sue them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2771.141], "stop_times": [2773.082], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2771.141}, "reply_to": "22633__2_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__2_091", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "That's quite a strong mark, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2773.082], "stop_times": [2777.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2773.082}, "reply_to": "22633__2_090", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_092", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Ms. Brinkmann, am I right that they were, KP, they were in fact using the word \"micro color\" before you registered your trademark?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2777.744], "stop_times": [2790.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2777.744}, "reply_to": "22633__2_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__2_093", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "No, we dispute that, Your Honor, they've never produced one bottle from that period.\nIn fact, we introduced four bottles of their--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2790.005, 2793.804], "stop_times": [2793.804, 2796.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2790.005}, "reply_to": "22633__2_092", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_094", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "But that would be... that would be a disputed issue of fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2796.404], "stop_times": [2799.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2796.404}, "reply_to": "22633__2_093", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__2_095", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2799.127], "stop_times": [2799.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2799.127}, "reply_to": "22633__2_094", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_096", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "And are we making any differentiation at all between the mini color red or whatever, and this logo that appears?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2799.953], "stop_times": [2809.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2799.953}, "reply_to": "22633__2_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__2_097", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Yes, all the difference in the world, Your Honor.\nWe maintain that that is a mark use.\nI mean, the district court rejected that as well, but that is one of the issues where you suggested that courts have resolved these on whether something is used as a mark or not, that is not an easy answer, and that is why it's always part and parcel of the likelihood of confusion.\nThat's the purpose of the Lanham Act, to ensure that when you go into a store, you can buy the products you want.\nFor example, in the health and safety area here, you may be willing to buy a product that costs more money because you know of the quality of them.\nAt the same time, you want to be assured when you go in, because you don't want to buy the one that's recalled all the time, or that has ingredients that cause allergies for you, that's what the Lanham Act is to protect.\nAnd it encourages the economic efficiency of the market--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2809.696, 2811.925, 2814.359, 2828.105, 2834.05, 2841.646, 2851.223], "stop_times": [2811.925, 2814.359, 2828.105, 2834.05, 2841.646, 2851.223, 2854.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2809.696}, "reply_to": "22633__2_096", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_098", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Your customers are pretty sophisticated people, I guess, they're specialists in an unusual trade, so they're not just like a person walking off the street that doesn't know what it is, they probably know this market pretty well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2854.445], "stop_times": [2866.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2854.445}, "reply_to": "22633__2_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22633__2_099", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--That's directly relevant to the likelihood of confusion, Your Honor.\nIn fact, the typical way of proving that when it ultimately goes to trial is through consumer survey.\nAnd the law is clear that that survey would not be of the person on the street, it would be of the appropriate purchasers, who are more sophisticated clinicians and cosmetologists.\nBut, Your Honor, even on that situation in this record, we have direct evidence of confusion.\nIt's at joint appendix page 170, Your Honor, it's the declaration of Gloria Torres, where about 1998, 1999, she was one of the people who did sales, and she started getting calls from people wanting products, and it confused her because they weren't on my client's customer list, and also they were citing different prices.\nIt didn't mean anything to her at the time, it turns out this was the confusion because they were actually seeing this new usage on the marketing brochure by KP Permanent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2866.417, 2869.222, 2875.25, 2884.083, 2890.027, 2909.596], "stop_times": [2869.222, 2875.25, 2884.083, 2890.027, 2909.596, 2917.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2866.417}, "reply_to": "22633__2_098", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_100", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Just out of curiosity, it has nothing to do with the case, do they market this product with color charts, just like paint companies do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2917.686], "stop_times": [2923.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2917.686}, "reply_to": "22633__2_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22633__2_101", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "They do, Your Honor, that's absolutely right, color wheels, color... and also in the micro pigmentation history, it's very important, because even though it's like tattooing, the purpose is absolutely the opposite, it's to hide the color.\nSo mixing of the colors is a critical component of that industry.\nI want to make another point about the economic efficiency that is furthered by the trademark laws and not allowing likelihood of confusing uses, which is what Congress intended.\nBy allowing purchasers to know that they're getting the product that they want, they're a lot, able to be more efficient in the market--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2923.919, 2935.686, 2939.605, 2949.349], "stop_times": [2935.686, 2939.605, 2949.349, 2957.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2923.919}, "reply_to": "22633__2_100", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_102", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "I also... it's very efficient to allow people to communicate, in English.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2957.151], "stop_times": [2960.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2957.151}, "reply_to": "22633__2_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__2_103", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Your Honor, there's nothing to prevent that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2960.123], "stop_times": [2962.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2960.123}, "reply_to": "22633__2_102", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_104", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Well, I guess that's the question, because sometimes people... I have no doubt--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2962.231], "stop_times": [2968.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2962.231}, "reply_to": "22633__2_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22633__2_105", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Your Honor, I don't think there's anything... the way that Petitioner passed the Lanham Act grossly overstates it.\nI mean, I would just submit the following list.\nThe only thing that the Lanham... the Lanham Act does not allow registration of generic brands, as we mentioned before.\nIt allows cancellation of any mark if it becomes generic.\nIt applies only to commercial uses, not usage in ordinary English language, only in connection with the mark.\nIt can only have a valid trademark when it's actively being used, any mark can be canceled or abandoned after three years.\nIt also, of course, only applies when there's likelihood of confusion.\nAlso there is an expert agency that reviews and goes through a process in which there can be oppositions, objections, all of this could be brought up at that point.\nAnd also Congress directly addressed anticompetitive interests when it enacted the statute.\nIt, in 1946, enacted B(7) as a defense for antitrust violations.\nIt also reinforced the Justice Department, and the FTC maintains its enforcement authority, and it also had a particular provision that allowed the FTC to go in and cancel registration.\nI'd also point out--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [2968.918, 2978.882, 2980.89, 2988.441, 2992.9, 2999.587, 3006.441, 3011.764, 3021.302, 3026.808, 3032.735, 3042.312], "stop_times": [2978.882, 2980.89, 2988.441, 2992.9, 2999.587, 3006.441, 3011.764, 3021.302, 3026.808, 3032.735, 3042.312, 3043.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2968.918}, "reply_to": "22633__2_104", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_106", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "What would be a really expert agency, which you referred to as represented by the government here, and it takes the position quite different from yours.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [3043.509], "stop_times": [3051.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3043.509}, "reply_to": "22633__2_105", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22633__2_107", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--At this point in time, Your Honor.\nI would also point out economic efficiency--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [3051.145, 3052.714], "stop_times": [3052.714, 3054.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3051.145}, "reply_to": "22633__2_106", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_108", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Why are you saying at this point in time?\nAre you suggesting they'll take a different position some other time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [3054.86, 3056.884], "stop_times": [3056.884, 3060.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3054.86}, "reply_to": "22633__2_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22633__2_109", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--Your Honor, in this case, it... this mark has been put through becoming to... but went through all of the procedures that the PTO required.\nThere's no question that this is a valid mark.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [3060.394, 3069.971], "stop_times": [3069.971, 3072.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3060.394}, "reply_to": "22633__2_108", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_110", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "They're not assailing the validity of the mark.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [3072.2], "stop_times": [3075.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.2}, "reply_to": "22633__2_109", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22633__2_111", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Nobody is challenging it, it's the fair-use defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [3075.46], "stop_times": [3079.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3075.46}, "reply_to": "22633__2_110", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22633__2_112", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Your Honor, no, what I... the government's position is the same position that, in fact, it urged before Congress in 1946.\nThe Court's opinion in Park 'n Fly makes this clear.\nThey did not want descriptive terms at all protected, even with secondary meaning.\nAnd as the Park 'n Fly opinion makes clear, Congress rejected that and struck the balance this way and included all of these other safeguards, not allowing registration of generic marks, always prohibiting uses that are likely to confuse.\nWe would also point out that that encourages economic efficiencies for businesses as well.\nBy being able to benefit from the reputation of your mark, the business invests more.\nAs soon as confusion is allowed, there is a free rider problem, and that competitor is free riding on that investment.\nAnd it's a disincentive for further investment and it undermines the quality of the goods, because the only way--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [3079.009, 3089.373, 3091.519, 3095.689, 3109.845, 3114.925, 3119.466, 3125.782], "stop_times": [3089.373, 3091.519, 3095.689, 3109.845, 3114.925, 3119.466, 3125.782, 3132.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3079.009}, "reply_to": "22633__2_111", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_113", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Certainly the Restatement and the view of some of the amici is contrary to yours on this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [3132.348], "stop_times": [3138.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3132.348}, "reply_to": "22633__2_112", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22633__2_114", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--We believe that the Restatement and the amici are very consistent in rejecting Petitioner's position and the district court's position that likelihood of confusion is completely irrelevant.\nWe embrace that, I think that's a consistent position, and that would be the bottom line, I would urge, on this Court, because Petitioner's position in the district court wreaks havoc, truly, with the statutory framework that Congress set up and intended.\nWe believe as a matter of strict statutory construction, that indeed it is now a vestigial provision, the fair-use defense, after the 1988 changes to the inconstestability provision.\nBut if the Court is not going to hold that that fair-use defense prohibits uses that are likely to confuse, we would urge the Court to adopt the Restatement position, that the totality of the circumstances, likelihood of confusion is relevant, we think factors that it's confusing in relationship to a health and safety issue would be relevant, the investment by the mark holder could be relevant.\nAnd to the extent the competitor had a commercial justification for it, because it was a term that everyone needed to use, but \"micro colors\" is just not that kind of terminology as the record in this case demonstrates.\nIf there are no further questions, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [3138.58, 3148.899, 3161.326, 3174.784, 3199.221, 3212.14], "stop_times": [3148.899, 3161.326, 3174.784, 3199.221, 3212.14, 3215.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3138.58}, "reply_to": "22633__2_113", "speaker": "beth_s_brinkmann"}
{"id": "22633__2_115", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Brinkmann.\nMr. Machat, you have three minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [3215.484, 3216.683], "stop_times": [3216.683, 3219.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3215.484}, "reply_to": "22633__2_114", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22633__3_000", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Thank you.\nI'd like to point out that Ms. Brinkmann's reference to the legislative history is incorrect, and I'd just like to refer the Court's attention to my reply brief, pages 14 to 17 where basically it shows that prior to 1988, courts were required to find a likelihood of confusion before finding for the plaintiff on a trademark case.\nI'd also like to point out that in this particular case, the trademark is not for the word \"micro color\", the trademark is for the logo mark, and here's some of the confusion.\nThe Respondents were able to obtain a trademark registration for the logo itself, and the strength in the logo itself is not being copied, we're just using the descriptive words within the logo itself.\nAnd Congress always intended for descriptive words to be free for everybody to use in their primary descriptive sense, so long as the person, the subsequent user, is not using those descriptive words in the secondary meaning sense, and that's the distinction.\nThe confusion is only an issue to determine whether or not the elements of the fair-use defense is being met, but that confusion should be distinguished from likelihood of confusion.\nConfusion is a factual determination, likelihood of confusion is a legal determination.\nSo you can use whether or not there is actual confusion to determine whether or not the word is being used as a mark.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [3219.078, 3221.679, 3249.998, 3261.227, 3277.119, 3293.837, 3308.631, 3313.361], "stop_times": [3221.679, 3249.998, 3261.227, 3277.119, 3293.837, 3308.631, 3313.361, 3320.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3219.078}, "reply_to": "22633__2_115", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__3_001", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "I forget your position, if you've taken it, do you agree that the degree of confusion that is predictable or that is likely is one of the elements that can be used to determine whether the use is a fair one?\nDo you agree or disagree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [3320.874, 3334.721], "stop_times": [3334.721, 3337.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3320.874}, "reply_to": "22633__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__3_002", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "I would agree, the degree of confusion, but that comes into whether or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [3337.305], "stop_times": [3341.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3337.305}, "reply_to": "22633__3_001", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__3_003", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "All right, that's all I wanted to know.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [3341.679], "stop_times": [3342.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3341.679}, "reply_to": "22633__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22633__3_004", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "--In this case, \"used fairly\" means, it does mean something, we're saying used fairly refers to whether or not the use is a truthful or reasonably accurate description of the mark.\nAnd it always... truthful is something that the common law always looked at to see, that was a term used, in fact, by this Court in the Warner decision, basically, to quote briefly from that decision, it said\n\"the use of similar names by another to truthfully describe the same product does not constitute legal or moral wrong. \"\nSo I would maintain that \"used fairly\" means truthful, or can determine whether or not it's exactly true, reasonably accurate.\nAnd that would be the meaning of \"used fairly\".\nAnd of course, good faith refers to the intent, and there you have the elements of the fair-use defense.\nAlso, I'd just like to point out once again the Ninth Circuit opinion, it says on the bottom of page 17a, it says,\n\"KP can only benefit from the fair-use defense if there is no likelihood of confusion between KP's use of the term'micro color', and Lasting's mark. \"\nAnd then they go on to say,\n\"as discussed above, because in this case they can be no fair use.... \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [3342.877, 3354.311, 3370.841, 3377.716, 3386.594, 3391.257, 3397.407, 3413.261, 3421.722, 3424.284], "stop_times": [3354.311, 3370.841, 3377.716, 3386.594, 3391.257, 3397.407, 3413.261, 3421.722, 3424.284, 3427.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3342.877}, "reply_to": "22633__3_003", "speaker": "michael_machat"}
{"id": "22633__3_005", "conversation_id": "22633", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Machat, the case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-409", "start_times": [3427.545], "stop_times": [3430.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3427.545}, "reply_to": "22633__3_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23062__0_000", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 03-583, Josue Leocal v. John D. Ashcroft.\nMr. Sollers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [0.0, 11.229], "stop_times": [11.229, 14.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23062__0_001", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nDrunk driving offenses, while most serious and regrettable, were never intended to be crimes of violence under 18 U.S.C., section 16, triggering removal as an aggravated felony.\nWe are asking this Court to so conclude and eliminate the disparity and patchwork of decisions that are in the... that are currently in the circuit courts of appeals depending upon the vagaries of where a removal proceeding is instituted.\nThe Court need not go any further than straight statutory construction and the language of the statutes involved.\nIndeed, the Florida DUI statute has only two essential elements: driving while intoxicated and causing serious injury.\n18 U.S.C., section 16--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [14.368, 18.454, 30.919, 46.03, 53.293, 62.87], "stop_times": [18.454, 30.919, 46.03, 53.293, 62.87, 65.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 14.368}, "reply_to": "23062__0_000", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_002", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I guess what bothers me about this is that clause (b) of 18 U.S. Code, section 16 is... it says the crime of violence means any other offense that's a felony and, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.\nIf someone drives while drunk, have they not created a substantial risk of the automobile or the vehicle causing personal or property damage to another?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [65.804, 90.9], "stop_times": [90.9, 105.473], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 65.804}, "reply_to": "23062__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23062__0_003", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, there certainly is an increased risk of an accident.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [105.473], "stop_times": [111.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 105.473}, "reply_to": "23062__0_002", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_004", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "A substantial risk if a person is drunk.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [111.129], "stop_times": [113.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 111.129}, "reply_to": "23062__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23062__0_005", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Your Honor, I would agree that there is a substantial risk of an accident if one is driving drunk.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [113.896], "stop_times": [120.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 113.896}, "reply_to": "23062__0_004", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_006", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "So how is it that we should construe this provision in subsection (b)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [120.667], "stop_times": [126.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 120.667}, "reply_to": "23062__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23062__0_007", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Your Honor, subsection (b) also has the use of force as an element, and it is the use of force that is the critical terminology here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [126.528], "stop_times": [135.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 126.528}, "reply_to": "23062__0_006", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_008", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, before you quite get there... and of course, that's where you... you should go and I don't mean to sidetrack you.\nBut the phrase before that is by its nature, so that we don't look at the specific details of the offense.\nWe look to the offense itself.\nAnd if by its nature, as a generic matter, as a categorical matter, there is a substantial risk, then quite without reference to the particular facts of the case, it seems to me that the statute applies.\nSo you have to address the by its nature as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [135.445, 141.389, 148.819, 150.221, 164.81], "stop_times": [141.389, 148.819, 150.221, 164.81, 166.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 135.445}, "reply_to": "23062__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__0_009", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, Justice Kennedy, I would... I would indicate that it's the categorical approach that this Court has indicated should be used in the Taylor case, as well as the courts of appeals have applied the categorical approach... indeed, the Doe case in the First Circuit did so... to look at whether or not that element is present in the underlying predicate of facts.\nAnd the element is the use of force.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [166.939, 189.025], "stop_times": [189.025, 191.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 166.939}, "reply_to": "23062__0_008", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_010", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Mr. Sollers, I thought your... your response to the problem of (b) was that (b) also requires not just... not just a risk that there be physical injury, but a substantial risk that physical force against person or property be used.\nSo it's still the same terminology, using physical force.\nAnd the question we have before us is whether that terminology means it must intentionally be applied or could simply be applied carelessly, negligently, as by someone who is driving DUI.\nIsn't... isn't that the... the answer to this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [191.543, 211.233, 214.865, 228.983], "stop_times": [211.233, 214.865, 228.983, 232.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 191.543}, "reply_to": "23062__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__0_011", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [232.288], "stop_times": [233.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 232.288}, "reply_to": "23062__0_010", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_012", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Or at least your... your proffered answer to the problem of (b).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [233.486], "stop_times": [236.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 233.486}, "reply_to": "23062__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__0_013", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Yes, Justice Scalia.\nCritical is that the actor intended to use force.\nThat is the statutory construction here and it is clear, as you look at the statutory scheme, that individuals who engaged in an accident were not intended to be removed as aggravated felons.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [236.458, 237.367, 243.95], "stop_times": [237.367, 243.95, 257.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 236.458}, "reply_to": "23062__0_012", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_014", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, once again, do you have to have intent in the particular case?\nBecause the offense must by its nature... you mean by the nature of the particular offense that this person committed or by nature of the felony broadly categorized?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [257.346, 260.029], "stop_times": [260.029, 273.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 257.346}, "reply_to": "23062__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__0_015", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Your Honor, I think under the categorical approach, you look to the essential elements of the underlying offense.\nAnd I go back to the DUI statute in Florida which does not have the element of the use of force.\nIndeed, that statute is a strict liability statute.\nIt requires no mens rea whatsoever, does not even require negligence for a conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [273.404, 280.835, 286.658, 289.258], "stop_times": [280.835, 286.658, 289.258, 293.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 273.404}, "reply_to": "23062__0_014", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_016", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Are you suggesting then that it should vary from State to State whether the vehicle homicide is a crime of violence, that we should look to the particular State, so that people engaged in the same conduct in one State will be subject to removal and others will not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [293.921], "stop_times": [314.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 293.921}, "reply_to": "23062__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23062__0_017", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Your Honor, Justice Ginsburg, there are a number... almost every State has a similar statute to the one in Florida.\nWhere there is a... simply a causation of injury, there's an enhanced penalty for a drunk driving offense.\nOf course... so I would suggest that if this Court were to find, as we believe it should, that the use of force is required for it to be an aggravated felony, it would apply across all 50 States.\nIf one were to intentionally use force, there obviously are other statutes that would capture it.\nIntentional endangerment, for instance.\nIf one were--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [314.522, 322.611, 332.105, 347.131, 354.19, 357.822], "stop_times": [322.611, 332.105, 347.131, 354.19, 357.822, 358.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 314.522}, "reply_to": "23062__0_016", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_018", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "People who are drunk can intend to use force.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [358.733], "stop_times": [360.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 358.733}, "reply_to": "23062__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23062__0_019", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Absolutely, Your Honor.\nIt's absolutely the case that somebody could intend to use force who is drunk, but again, there are other statutes, more serious statutes, intentional endangerment, vehicular assault, statutes such as that, that would pick up such an action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [360.895, 361.909], "stop_times": [361.909, 377.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 360.895}, "reply_to": "23062__0_018", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_020", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "What... what about burglary?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [377.968], "stop_times": [379.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 377.968}, "reply_to": "23062__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__0_021", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Burglary is an offense that has typically been looked at as a B offense.\nEven though I will say that burglary has now been added as a specific offense under the aggravated felony listing in the INA, burglary is the offense that... that is typically viewed as one that causes someone to be in a position where they will engage in a volitional act of force.\nIn other words, you break into a house, that's a volitional act in and of itself, but then you are... you have not used force against a person, but you have put yourself in a position where you are likely to intentionally use force against someone you come upon.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [379.454, 388.454, 409.175], "stop_times": [388.454, 409.175, 422.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 379.454}, "reply_to": "23062__0_020", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_022", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "What about the risk of the driver going the wrong way on a freeway?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [422.634], "stop_times": [425.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 422.634}, "reply_to": "23062__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__0_023", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "That's absolutely--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [425.978], "stop_times": [428.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 425.978}, "reply_to": "23062__0_022", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_024", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "That's... that's a substantial risk, or it's a risk at least, of... of drunk driving.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [428.29], "stop_times": [432.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 428.29}, "reply_to": "23062__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__0_025", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Absolutely, and so is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [432.915], "stop_times": [434.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 432.915}, "reply_to": "23062__0_024", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_026", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I don't see how that's different from burglary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [434.501], "stop_times": [436.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 434.501}, "reply_to": "23062__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__0_027", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--I would suggest, Justice Kennedy, that it's different because it is not a intentional use of force.\nIt is an accidental action.\nIt is a diminished mens rea.\nAnd again, you look, in order to determine whether or not a crime of violence has occurred, at the underlying elements of the statute, and this Florida statute simply has no mens rea requirement whatsoever.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [436.009, 443.977, 445.669, 447.898], "stop_times": [443.977, 445.669, 447.898, 459.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 436.009}, "reply_to": "23062__0_026", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_028", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, is your... is... is your argument really that there's got to be an intentional use of force or an intentional use of force in order to injure?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [459.598], "stop_times": [467.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 459.598}, "reply_to": "23062__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23062__0_029", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Our argument is that there has to be simply the intentional use of force in order for it to be a crime of violence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [467.671], "stop_times": [480.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 467.671}, "reply_to": "23062__0_028", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_030", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Without looking... without looking to the... to the consequence, to... to the... to the result?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [480.674], "stop_times": [487.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 480.674}, "reply_to": "23062__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23062__0_031", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, that's correct, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [487.445], "stop_times": [490.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 487.445}, "reply_to": "23062__0_030", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_032", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "He's intentionally driving a car--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [490.312], "stop_times": [491.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 490.312}, "reply_to": "23062__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__0_033", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [491.782], "stop_times": [491.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 491.782}, "reply_to": "23062__0_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23062__0_034", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--that's speeding along at 65 miles an hour.\nThat's intentionally using force, surely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [491.986, 494.215], "stop_times": [494.215, 497.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 491.986}, "reply_to": "23062__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__0_035", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Your Honor, I would suggest that it's intentionally driving the car, but I would not agree that it is the intentional use of force against a person or property of another.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [497.187], "stop_times": [507.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.187}, "reply_to": "23062__0_034", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_036", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "What about 95 miles an hour?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [507.551], "stop_times": [509.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 507.551}, "reply_to": "23062__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__0_037", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Your Honor, there's a continuum, and that may suggest recklessness, but again, this statute that we're looking at, the Florida statute, does not require recklessness.\nIt does not require even negligence.\nIt's a strict--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [509.037, 518.119, 519.811], "stop_times": [518.119, 519.811, 520.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 509.037}, "reply_to": "23062__0_036", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_038", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "And you disagree--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [520.554], "stop_times": [520.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 520.554}, "reply_to": "23062__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23062__0_039", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Excuse me, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [520.926], "stop_times": [521.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 520.926}, "reply_to": "23062__0_038", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_040", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--you disagree with Ninth Circuit that said negligence is not covered, but a reckless state of mind would be covered.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [521.919], "stop_times": [531.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 521.919}, "reply_to": "23062__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23062__0_041", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Your Honor, I'm not necessarily taking a position as to whether or not that's... the Ninth Circuit is accurate on that.\nWhat I am taking a position on is the very statute at issue, which is the Florida DUI statute, which has no negligence requirement, no negligent... or no recklessness requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [531.329, 540.245], "stop_times": [540.245, 549.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 531.329}, "reply_to": "23062__0_040", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_042", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Yes, but we have to look down the road to the next case.\nSo, you know, you can't just not answer that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [549.783, 552.15], "stop_times": [552.15, 554.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 549.783}, "reply_to": "23062__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__0_043", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "And you just responded to my question that it's the same in all 50 States.\nSo either it's peculiar to Florida or it's... if I take your last answer to be correct, it would be the same in all 50 States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [554.734, 559.275], "stop_times": [559.275, 569.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 554.734}, "reply_to": "23062__0_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23062__0_044", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "The analysis that we believe is the correct analysis here is to look at the underlying statute to see whether it has use of force, and this statute has no such element.\nIt... and it has... again, it has no mens rea requirement.\nNow, interestingly, the Ninth Circuit decision looked at the very same Florida statute because the removal proceeding had been initiated out in California... so that's why the Ninth Circuit looked at the Florida statute... and found that it was not a crime of violence because it did not have the element of the use of force.\nIt did, as you say, indicate that a recklessness standard would satisfy a crime of violence in the Ninth Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [569.223, 582.577, 585.282, 602.826], "stop_times": [582.577, 585.282, 602.826, 609.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 569.223}, "reply_to": "23062__0_043", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_045", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "And what about a drive-by shooting into an occupied building?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [609.802], "stop_times": [612.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 609.802}, "reply_to": "23062__0_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__0_046", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "A drive-by shooting into an occupied building--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [612.857], "stop_times": [616.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 612.857}, "reply_to": "23062__0_045", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_047", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Right.\nYou're not sure you're going to hit anybody.\nYou're not even sure there's anybody in the building, but you drive by and you just shoot a... a bullet into the building.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [616.534, 616.705, 617.703], "stop_times": [616.705, 617.703, 623.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 616.534}, "reply_to": "23062__0_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__0_048", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [623.526], "stop_times": [624.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 623.526}, "reply_to": "23062__0_047", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_049", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "You... you would say that the... is that covered by this statute?\nI'd certainly want that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [624.369, 626.87], "stop_times": [626.87, 627.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 624.369}, "reply_to": "23062__0_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__0_050", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [627.713], "stop_times": [629.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 627.713}, "reply_to": "23062__0_049", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_051", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Why is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [629.199], "stop_times": [629.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 629.199}, "reply_to": "23062__0_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__0_052", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "It's intentional use of force.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [629.671], "stop_times": [631.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.671}, "reply_to": "23062__0_051", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_053", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Against a person.\nIt has to be the intentional use of force against a person.\nHe didn't... he didn't intend to hit a person.\nHe just didn't care whether there was anybody there or not.\nIt's the classic recklessness case.\nClassic... he didn't... wasn't shooting at any particular person.\nJust having a good old time shooting out a window in a... in a building.\nHe didn't know was anybody in there or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [631.428, 634.362, 636.795, 639.192, 641.459, 644.803, 648.025, 652.316], "stop_times": [634.362, 636.795, 639.192, 641.459, 644.803, 648.025, 652.316, 653.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 631.428}, "reply_to": "23062__0_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__0_054", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Your Honor, that is intentional conduct that has a substantial likelihood of... of causing injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [653.885], "stop_times": [659.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 653.885}, "reply_to": "23062__0_053", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_055", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "So is... so is driving under the influence.\nIt seems to me--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [659.542, 662.059], "stop_times": [662.059, 662.969], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.542}, "reply_to": "23062__0_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__0_056", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I... I thought your argument was that there's got to be more than simply a risk of causing injury.\nI thought your argument was that there has got to be a risk of acting intentionally to cause injury, as in the case of the burglar who suddenly is surprised.\nNow... now, which is it?\nIs it... if... if it's merely causing injury, then you're in trouble under part (b).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [662.969, 671.635, 681.916, 683.152], "stop_times": [671.635, 681.916, 683.152, 686.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 662.969}, "reply_to": "23062__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23062__0_057", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [686.868], "stop_times": [687.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 686.868}, "reply_to": "23062__0_056", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_058", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "If it's causing... if it's... it's using force for the purpose of causing injury, then I can see at least a consistent argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [687.694], "stop_times": [694.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 687.694}, "reply_to": "23062__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23062__0_059", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Your Honor, you are absolutely correct.\nIt is the use... the intentional use of force which causes injury, that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [694.67, 697.149], "stop_times": [697.149, 702.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 694.67}, "reply_to": "23062__0_058", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_060", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--So you've changed your answer to my previous question then.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [702.805], "stop_times": [705.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 702.805}, "reply_to": "23062__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__0_061", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--I... I may have, and if I did, I... I apologize.\nI may have misunderstood Your Honor, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [705.527, 708.816], "stop_times": [708.816, 710.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 705.527}, "reply_to": "23062__0_060", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_062", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, so is recklessness enough or not?\nI... I don't understand what you're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [710.181, 713.646], "stop_times": [713.646, 715.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 710.181}, "reply_to": "23062__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23062__0_063", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Your Honor, our... Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [715.298], "stop_times": [719.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 715.298}, "reply_to": "23062__0_062", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_064", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "The... the shooting, random shooting, in a building for target practice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [719.096], "stop_times": [723.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.096}, "reply_to": "23062__0_063", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23062__0_065", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--That is an intentional act.\nThe pulling of the trigger was an intentional act that has--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [723.721, 727.558], "stop_times": [727.558, 731.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 723.721}, "reply_to": "23062__0_064", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_066", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "So is getting behind a wheel when you're drunk and turning on the keys.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [731.068], "stop_times": [735.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 731.068}, "reply_to": "23062__0_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23062__0_067", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nThat is... I... I must distinguish the two however.\nI would suggest that while absolutely a... a regrettable and serious act to get behind the wheel when one is drunk... and we do not condone that whatsoever... the act of use of force that is involved is at most negligence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [735.36, 736.929, 743.345], "stop_times": [736.929, 743.345, 760.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 735.36}, "reply_to": "23062__0_066", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_068", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I thought that what you were saying, which I understood, is that if somebody intentionally uses force and hurts somebody... might hurt somebody, that falls within the statute.\nIf they do it negligently, they don't.\nIf they do it recklessly, recklessly and often assimilated to intention in the law, gross... you know, recklessness and sometimes it isn't.\nSo I thought you were going to say we didn't have to decide that one.\nMany States require negligence only for drunk driving hurting somebody.\nSome may require recklessness.\nSo we may have to decide it some day.\nNow, that... that's where... that's where I came into this argument.\nNow, if you're disowning that, I want to know.\nIf you're accepting it, I want to know.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [760.252, 775.363, 779.078, 790.056, 793.317, 801.369, 803.431, 805.91, 809.42, 811.854], "stop_times": [775.363, 779.078, 790.056, 793.317, 801.369, 803.431, 805.91, 809.42, 811.854, 813.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 760.252}, "reply_to": "23062__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23062__0_069", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I accept that, Your Honor, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [813.423], "stop_times": [817.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 813.423}, "reply_to": "23062__0_068", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_070", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Yes, but what's your answer on recklessness?\nThat's fine.\nMaybe we don't have to today, but we have to look ahead.\nWhat are we going to say about it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [817.677, 820.399, 821.142, 824.197], "stop_times": [820.399, 821.142, 824.197, 825.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 817.677}, "reply_to": "23062__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23062__0_071", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Your Honor, this case is based on a... an underlying statute that has no mens rea requirement whatsoever, and a crime of violence requires an intentional use of force.\nThe legislative history I believe dictates such a conclusion.\nIf you look at 18 U.S.C., section 16, its origins were all... was... was... the origin was the D.C. Court Reform Act, which was a detention... a detention statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [825.767, 843.433, 848.346], "stop_times": [843.433, 848.346, 858.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 825.767}, "reply_to": "23062__0_070", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_072", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "You... you responded--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [858.832], "stop_times": [859.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 858.832}, "reply_to": "23062__0_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23062__0_073", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Your answer might be recklessness.\nI mean, I think that's a hard question, but... but I guess you could say recklessness in respect to shooting?\nOf course, it's covered.\nRecklessness in respect to drunk driving?\nI'm not so sure.\nIt may depend on the nature of the crime, the nature of the underlying conduct.\nBut you may not accept that.\nYou may want an all or nothing answer, in which case you can answer.\nI'd have to say I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [859.204, 860.484, 867.171, 868.453, 871.73, 873.35, 878.606, 880.546, 884.345], "stop_times": [860.484, 867.171, 868.453, 871.73, 873.35, 878.606, 880.546, 884.345, 885.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 859.204}, "reply_to": "23062__0_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23062__0_074", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--I thought you responded to Justice Breyer's first inquiry reckless, at least maybe, and if that was your answer, if I understood your... that you agreed with him, why isn't getting into a car when you are drunk inherently reckless because you know there's a high risk of hurting someone?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [885.764], "stop_times": [913.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.764}, "reply_to": "23062__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23062__0_075", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Your Honor, there is a continuum... there's no question about it... of mens rea, beginning... you know, you have the strict liability offense all the way to specific intent.\nI don't know where it falls to get into a car when you're drunk, but I will suggest that the analysis for this Court in determining whether or not it's a crime of violence is to look at the underlying statute.\nAnd the underlying statute does not require even mere negligence for a conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [913.9, 925.871, 938.337], "stop_times": [925.871, 938.337, 942.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 913.9}, "reply_to": "23062__0_074", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_076", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "But... but that's because there's always a substantial risk.\nWhether there's an intent to be negligent or a likelihood of negligence or a likelihood of risk, that's inherent in driving a car while you're drunk.\nYou want this Court to say, in effect, that there is no substantial risk in drunk driving.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [942.878, 946.882, 955.51], "stop_times": [946.882, 955.51, 961.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 942.878}, "reply_to": "23062__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__0_077", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nNo, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [961.909, 962.819], "stop_times": [962.819, 963.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 961.909}, "reply_to": "23062__0_076", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_078", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "No substantial risk of use of force.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [963.6], "stop_times": [965.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 963.6}, "reply_to": "23062__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__0_079", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "May I ask this question about substantial risk?\nSay it's... there's always a substantial risk when you get in the car and you're intoxicated.\nDoes it make any difference whether you actually cause an injury or not?\nThere are two drivers, equally... equally drunk and equally negligent.\nOne hits somebody and the other doesn't.\nAre they treated alike or are they treated differently under the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [965.541, 967.937, 972.578, 975.45, 979.826, 981.19], "stop_times": [967.937, 972.578, 975.45, 979.826, 981.19, 984.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 965.541}, "reply_to": "23062__0_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23062__0_080", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Well, under this particular statute, it requires the causation of the injury, but it's simply a causation statute.\nIt's the consequence.\nAnd that's one of the elements of the offense.\nSo it does make a difference for this particular statute, otherwise I assume you'd be convicted of simply DUI.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [984.45, 991.797, 992.79, 994.852], "stop_times": [991.797, 992.79, 994.852, 1000.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 984.45}, "reply_to": "23062__0_079", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_081", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "So if there's... if there's clearly the substantial risk but he was lucky enough not to hit anybody, then he's not covered.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1000.425], "stop_times": [1004.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1000.425}, "reply_to": "23062__0_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23062__0_082", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "He'd be covered by a DUI--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1004.511], "stop_times": [1006.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1004.511}, "reply_to": "23062__0_081", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_083", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I understand, but he would not be covered--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1006.785], "stop_times": [1008.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1006.785}, "reply_to": "23062__0_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23062__0_084", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--if he was caught.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1008.271], "stop_times": [1008.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1008.271}, "reply_to": "23062__0_083", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_085", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--He would not be deportable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1008.521], "stop_times": [1010.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.521}, "reply_to": "23062__0_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23062__0_086", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1010.955], "stop_times": [1013.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1010.955}, "reply_to": "23062__0_085", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_087", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "But... but why when the statute says the offense by its nature includes the risk?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1013.451], "stop_times": [1018.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1013.451}, "reply_to": "23062__0_086", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__0_088", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Excuse me.\nI misanswered your question.\nHe would, under the determination in the Eleventh Circuit, be deportable because they have found that there is... it is a crime of violence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1018.014, 1020.986, 1022.722], "stop_times": [1020.986, 1022.722, 1031.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1018.014}, "reply_to": "23062__0_087", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_089", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Whether or not you hit anybody?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1031.267], "stop_times": [1032.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1031.267}, "reply_to": "23062__0_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23062__0_090", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--You don't necessarily have to hit somebody.\nA lot of these cases actually look at straight DUI offenses.\nA lot of these immigration cases are involving straight DUI--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1032.586, 1036.218, 1039.107], "stop_times": [1036.218, 1039.107, 1042.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1032.586}, "reply_to": "23062__0_089", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_091", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, excuse me.\nI thought we were looking at aggravated felony, and does not Florida make it a felony, a serious felony, if you cause serious bodily injury?\nThat's what puts it into the category of a third degree felony.\nIf you're just driving under the influence, it doesn't appear to fall in that category.\nMaybe I'm not reading it right--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1042.784, 1042.938, 1052.832, 1057.411, 1062.884], "stop_times": [1042.938, 1052.832, 1057.411, 1062.884, 1064.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1042.784}, "reply_to": "23062__0_090", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23062__0_092", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--I believe that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1064.099], "stop_times": [1064.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1064.099}, "reply_to": "23062__0_091", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_093", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--but that's how I read the Florida statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1064.553], "stop_times": [1066.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1064.553}, "reply_to": "23062__0_092", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23062__0_094", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I believe that's right in Florida, Justice O'Connor.\nThat's correct.\nBut a moment ago, Justice Kennedy asked me a question about substantial risk.\nAnd yes, Justice Kennedy, there is a substantial risk of an accident from getting behind the wheel when you're drunk.\nBut we suggest... and... and we believe that the... the statutory construction supports us... that there is not a substantial of the intentional use of force.\nAnd that's... that's the difference.\nIt's the consequence.\nIn the cases... a number of cases have, improperly so, focused on the consequence, the actual injury and not the actual use of force, which is the key element under a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C., section 16, which is what we're construing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1066.411, 1067.525, 1068.063, 1073.635, 1082.28, 1091.84, 1093.41, 1095.062], "stop_times": [1067.525, 1068.063, 1073.635, 1082.28, 1091.84, 1093.41, 1095.062, 1110.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1066.411}, "reply_to": "23062__0_093", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_095", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Mr. Sollers--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1110.007], "stop_times": [1110.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1110.007}, "reply_to": "23062__0_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__0_096", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "If this were a straight criminal statute and the arguments on each side were very close, you would be entitled to rely on the rule of lenity.\nThis is just a reflection really of a criminal statute.\nIt's a deportation statute.\nAre you entitled to rely on the rule of lenity here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1110.583, 1120.714, 1124.412, 1126.065], "stop_times": [1120.714, 1124.412, 1126.065, 1128.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1110.583}, "reply_to": "23062__0_095", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23062__0_097", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nWe... first of all, I would say that we do not need to rely on the rule of lenity because the straight language of the statute supports our position.\nThere is no element in the Florida statute, use of force.\nHowever, if it's a close call, we would be able to rely on the rule of lenity.\nThis is a most severe, severe punishment that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1128.954, 1130.812, 1140.2, 1143.815, 1149.266], "stop_times": [1130.812, 1140.2, 1143.815, 1149.266, 1153.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1128.954}, "reply_to": "23062__0_096", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_098", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "No, but it's... it's never been regarded as criminal, a deportation proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1153.74], "stop_times": [1158.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1153.74}, "reply_to": "23062__0_097", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23062__0_099", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--That is not, but, of course, 18 U.S.C., section 16 is the criminal statute, and that is what we're here to decide, the reach of 18 U.S.C. 16.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1158.183], "stop_times": [1167.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1158.183}, "reply_to": "23062__0_098", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_100", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Well, it... it doesn't impose criminal penalties on its own.\nIs it used in other criminal statutes that do impose criminal penalties?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1167.721, 1169.866], "stop_times": [1169.866, 1175.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1167.721}, "reply_to": "23062__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__0_101", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Absolutely.\nIt's used in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1175.644, 1176.116], "stop_times": [1176.116, 1176.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1175.644}, "reply_to": "23062__0_100", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_102", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Okay.\nWell, that's... that's your answer, that... that you can't interpret section 16 one way for purposes of deportation statutes and another way for purposes of criminal statutes.\nAnd therefore, the rule of lenity does apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1176.942, 1177.159, 1186.519], "stop_times": [1177.159, 1186.519, 1188.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1176.942}, "reply_to": "23062__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__0_103", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Absolutely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1188.998], "stop_times": [1190.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1188.998}, "reply_to": "23062__0_102", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_104", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Does the rule of lenity apply in sentencing statutes as opposed to the definition of crimes?\nI don't... I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1190.028, 1196.65], "stop_times": [1196.65, 1201.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1190.028}, "reply_to": "23062__0_103", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__0_105", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I don't know the answer to that.\nI... you know, I know the rule of lenity is to be applied to criminal statutes.\nI am not sure on sentencing statutes.\nBut I will say that... you know, we are not saying that someone who gets behind a wheel who's drunk should not be punished.\nMy client spent 2 years in jail and was immediately taken to INA facility and... and kept there for several months before he was shipped back to Haiti, where he remains now.\nSo it is not as if he has not paid a... a severe price for what he did.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1201.091, 1202.744, 1205.799, 1207.74, 1218.531, 1229.843], "stop_times": [1202.744, 1205.799, 1207.74, 1218.531, 1229.843, 1234.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1201.091}, "reply_to": "23062__0_104", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_106", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Mr. Sollers, let... let me ask you about the recklessness problem that... that a number of us have.\nYou... you insist on... on defining the crime of violence as one that requires the intentional application of force against an individual.\nWhy... why do you need that in order to win your case?\nWhy couldn't you just define it as the intentional... the intentional... use of a mode of force that is likely to injure an individual?\nNow, driving on a highway is not... is not likely to injure an individual.\nShooting a gun into... into a building is likely to... to injure an individual.\nWhy shouldn't that be the... the distinction?\nEither you intend to use it against a person or you have intentionally used a mode of force that is in its nature likely to injure a person, not caring whether it does or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1234.202, 1240.517, 1254.014, 1257.895, 1273.787, 1280.186, 1288.936, 1291.62], "stop_times": [1240.517, 1254.014, 1257.895, 1273.787, 1280.186, 1288.936, 1291.62, 1306.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1234.202}, "reply_to": "23062__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__0_107", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I understand your question, Justice Scalia.\nI... you know, our analysis is strictly on the statute itself, 18 U.S.C., section 16, which requires as an element the use of force or a substantial risk that force... that the use of force may occur.\nAnd in our view, this... getting in a car while... any driving certainly involves risk.\nThere's no question about that, and it's enhanced if one is intoxicated.\nBut it is not... not the case that Congress intended that drunk driving offenses and accidents relating from a drunk driving offense should trigger the draconian remedy of removal.\nAnd that... that's what our position is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1306.648, 1311.849, 1326.914, 1335.748, 1340.206, 1352.838], "stop_times": [1311.849, 1326.914, 1335.748, 1340.206, 1352.838, 1356.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1306.648}, "reply_to": "23062__0_106", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_108", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Just... just following up on Justice Scalia's question, the point would be that shooting a gun is the threatened use of... of physical force against a person or property.\nGetting into a car is not the threatened use of physical force against anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1356.347, 1371.868], "stop_times": [1371.868, 1376.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1356.347}, "reply_to": "23062__0_107", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23062__0_109", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "It's not the intentional use of any force.\nThat's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1376.243, 1379.92], "stop_times": [1379.92, 1380.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1376.243}, "reply_to": "23062__0_108", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_110", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "But why don't we interpret it as getting into a car while drunk and, as Justice O'Connor points out, while drunk and causing an injury?\nOtherwise, the statute isn't even applicable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1380.458, 1390.406], "stop_times": [1390.406, 1393.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1380.458}, "reply_to": "23062__0_109", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__0_111", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, certainly there is an enhanced risk from getting into the car while you're drunk.\nHowever, again, the Florida statute and statutes like it across the country do not have any mens rea element whatsoever required for conviction.\nTherefore, it's not subsumed by 18 U.S.C., section 16, which requires use of force as an element.\nIf one looks at the aggravated felonies that have been added, on four of five occasions the list of aggravated felonies have been added to the INA.\nNever has an non-intent crime been added.\nThere have been multiple occasions in which Congress has had the opportunity to specifically add DUI offenses.\nThey have never been added.\nIf one looks at the INA and the addition of serious offenses for which an alien can be inadmissible, that addition in 1990... and the Congress specifically listed separately DUI offenses, DUI-type offenses, and crimes of violence, showing that Congress did not believe that DUI offenses were subsumed by 18 U.S.C., section 16.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1393.478, 1400.065, 1410.839, 1416.866, 1429.061, 1432.759, 1440.439, 1441.471], "stop_times": [1400.065, 1410.839, 1416.866, 1429.061, 1432.759, 1440.439, 1441.471, 1468.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1393.478}, "reply_to": "23062__0_110", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_112", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "The Government suggests that Congress in an excess of caution might have listed DUI because... because the decisions in the lower courts were divided on the question of the correct categorization.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1468.053], "stop_times": [1485.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1468.053}, "reply_to": "23062__0_111", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23062__0_113", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1485.021], "stop_times": [1486.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1485.021}, "reply_to": "23062__0_112", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_114", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "And then it would do nothing... it would have changed nothing.\nIt just would have been clarified.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1486.136, 1489.479], "stop_times": [1489.479, 1490.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1486.136}, "reply_to": "23062__0_113", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23062__0_115", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Well, there is no legislative history that... to indicate that Congress so thought.\nCertainly that is a hypothetical possibility.\nWe do not believe that's the case.\nIf you look later on in 1990, crimes of violence were specifically added as aggravated felonies, and the... the Congress did not add DUI offenses along with the crimes of violence.\nIt simply added 18 U.S.C., section 16.\nIf I may, I'm going to reserve the rest of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1490.76, 1497.447, 1499.882, 1501.905, 1517.593, 1520.331], "stop_times": [1497.447, 1499.882, 1501.905, 1517.593, 1520.331, 1523.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1490.76}, "reply_to": "23062__0_114", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__0_116", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Very well, Mr. Sollers.\nMr. Himmelfarb, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1523.37, 1524.774], "stop_times": [1524.774, 1527.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1523.37}, "reply_to": "23062__0_115", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23062__1_000", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nDrunk driving that kills or seriously injures another person is a serious offense.\nIt is a violent offense in the ordinary sense of that term, and it satisfies the statutory definition of crime of violence.\nThe felony offense of which petitioner was convicted by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used against the person or property of another.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1527.003, 1535.881, 1542.772, 1550.78], "stop_times": [1535.881, 1542.772, 1550.78, 1561.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1527.003}, "reply_to": "23062__0_116", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_001", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "You say used against the person.\nDoesn't that connote some more intent than there is here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1561.637, 1563.866], "stop_times": [1563.866, 1567.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1561.637}, "reply_to": "23062__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23062__1_002", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "We don't think so, Mr. Chief Justice.\nStatutory terms take their meaning from context, and in the context of section 16, we think the better reading of use is that it doesn't require any particular mens rea.\nThe thing that's being defined in section 16 is a crime of violence and violence does not have any particular mens rea associated--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1567.127, 1569.522, 1580.296], "stop_times": [1569.522, 1580.296, 1589.295], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1567.127}, "reply_to": "23062__1_001", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_003", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I... I have to tell you.\nIn a... in a traffic court where we see all too many drunk driving cases go through the calendar, no injury is involved.\nI recognize there is in this case.\nIn the... in the drunk driving case without... without any aggravating factors, I just don't think judges think of those as crimes of violence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1589.295, 1589.667, 1595.777, 1597.923], "stop_times": [1589.667, 1595.777, 1597.923, 1605.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1589.295}, "reply_to": "23062__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__1_004", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1605.149], "stop_times": [1606.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1605.149}, "reply_to": "23062__1_003", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_005", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Do you... do you tell your family I committed a crime of violence?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1606.756], "stop_times": [1609.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.756}, "reply_to": "23062__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__1_006", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--There are a few things to be said about the simple offense of drunk driving, not the aggravated offense.\nThe first is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1609.729, 1615.673], "stop_times": [1615.673, 1616.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1609.729}, "reply_to": "23062__1_005", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_007", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "And... and incidentally, because I thought your opening remarks were applicable to drunk driving as an offense generically and... and as a whole.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1616.666], "stop_times": [1623.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.666}, "reply_to": "23062__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__1_008", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Well, Justice Kennedy, we have taken that position in the lower courts and before the Board of Immigration Appeals.\nIt's not necessary for the Court to agree with that position in order for us to prevail here.\nAs an initial matter, the simple offense of drunk driving is ordinarily a misdemeanor, and since it doesn't have force as an element, it could only be a crime of violence if it fell under 16(b) which covers only felonies.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1623.436, 1628.759, 1633.877], "stop_times": [1628.759, 1633.877, 1645.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1623.436}, "reply_to": "23062__1_007", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_009", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Yet the mental state is presumably the same whether it's drunken driving without injury or drunken driving with injury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1645.477], "stop_times": [1653.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1645.477}, "reply_to": "23062__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23062__1_010", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "That's true, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThat's not the distinction we're drawing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1653.279, 1655.675], "stop_times": [1655.675, 1658.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1653.279}, "reply_to": "23062__1_009", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_011", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I know you're not, but why... why don't you?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1658.026, 1660.71], "stop_times": [1660.71, 1660.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1658.026}, "reply_to": "23062__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23062__1_012", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, we think the... when I say that the Court need not agree with us that simple drunk driving is a crime of violence in order to hold that drunk driving resulting in serious injury is, I say that because if you take the view that physical force requires an actual crash, which is petitioner's view, which is the narrow understanding of the term physical force, it may or may not be the case... it is a debatable proposition... that if you're simply driving drunk, there's a substantial risk you're going to crash into somebody.\nSomebody might make the argument that while there's a risk, it's not a substantial risk.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1660.71, 1690.698], "stop_times": [1690.698, 1694.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1660.71}, "reply_to": "23062__1_011", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_013", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Of course, it certainly would come within (a).\nIt certainly would come within (a).\nAn offense... it doesn't have to be a felony to be within (a).\nAn offense that has an element the threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1694.429, 1695.915, 1697.873, 1701.859], "stop_times": [1695.915, 1697.873, 1701.859, 1707.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1694.429}, "reply_to": "23062__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_014", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia, we read threatened use and attempted use to require intentional conduct.\nSo we don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1707.682, 1715.317], "stop_times": [1715.317, 1715.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1707.682}, "reply_to": "23062__1_013", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_015", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Oh.\nSo you need intent for (a) but you don't need intent for (b).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1715.939, 1716.076], "stop_times": [1716.076, 1720.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1715.939}, "reply_to": "23062__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_016", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--No.\nYou need intent under (a) for a threat or an attempt because a threat or an attempt by its nature is an intentional act.\nBut the use of physical force in either (a) or (b) is not by its nature an intentional--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1720.768, 1721.073, 1728.775], "stop_times": [1721.073, 1728.775, 1733.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1720.768}, "reply_to": "23062__1_015", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_017", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, then... then you... then you think (a) does not apply to ordinary DUI.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1733.993], "stop_times": [1738.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1733.993}, "reply_to": "23062__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_018", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--That's right.\nThat was my position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1738.146, 1738.517], "stop_times": [1738.517, 1739.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1738.146}, "reply_to": "23062__1_017", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_019", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Oh.\nI thought your... I thought your position was that ordinary DUI is a crime of violence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1739.593, 1740.086], "stop_times": [1740.086, 1744.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1739.593}, "reply_to": "23062__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_020", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "We have taken that position in the lower courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1744.19], "stop_times": [1746.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1744.19}, "reply_to": "23062__1_019", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_021", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "But you don't believe it.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1746.485, 1747.245], "stop_times": [1747.245, 1747.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1746.485}, "reply_to": "23062__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_022", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "We believe... our position in the lower courts is that it's a crime of violence under 16(b), but there are arguments... the argument the other way--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1747.683], "stop_times": [1757.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1747.683}, "reply_to": "23062__1_021", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_023", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Wait, wait, wait.\nOrdinary DUI is a crime of violence under 16(b).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1757.692, 1758.457], "stop_times": [1758.457, 1761.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1757.692}, "reply_to": "23062__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_024", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1761.308], "stop_times": [1761.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1761.308}, "reply_to": "23062__1_023", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_025", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "It's not a felony.\nOrdinary DUI is not a felony.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1761.308, 1762.051], "stop_times": [1762.051, 1763.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1761.308}, "reply_to": "23062__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_026", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "If it's a misdemeanor, it couldn't be a crime of violence under (a) because force isn't an element and under (b) because it's not a felony.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1763.166], "stop_times": [1769.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1763.166}, "reply_to": "23062__1_025", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_027", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1769.853], "stop_times": [1770.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1769.853}, "reply_to": "23062__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_028", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "There are--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1770.225], "stop_times": [1770.68], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1770.225}, "reply_to": "23062__1_027", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_029", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "That... that is your current position and... and we can take that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1770.68], "stop_times": [1773.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1770.68}, "reply_to": "23062__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_030", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--No.\nMy position is that the Court doesn't have to reach the question of whether drunk driving without the aggravated injury element is a crime of violence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1773.818, 1774.207], "stop_times": [1774.207, 1783.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1773.818}, "reply_to": "23062__1_029", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_031", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Maybe... maybe we do and... and this depends on... on something I just don't know.\nMaybe you do.\nAre there States that define the second or a third subsequent DUI offense as felonious rather than a misdemeanor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1783.206, 1787.376, 1787.953], "stop_times": [1787.376, 1787.953, 1795.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1783.206}, "reply_to": "23062__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23062__1_032", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Yes, there is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1795.262], "stop_times": [1796.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1795.262}, "reply_to": "23062__1_031", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_033", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Then... then we do have to reach that issue because those would qualify as felonies, and on your analysis of (b), which doesn't require intent, they... they would... they would fall under (b).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1796.21], "stop_times": [1807.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1796.21}, "reply_to": "23062__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23062__1_034", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "That's right.\nThere are simple--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1807.084, 1808.115], "stop_times": [1808.115, 1809.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1807.084}, "reply_to": "23062__1_033", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_035", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I just want to make sure I understand it.\nSo that if we accept your position and there are States that... that do classify subsequent offenses as felonies regardless of injury, there would be some DUI offenses without injury that would be crimes of violence and... and a basis for deportation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1809.584, 1810.965], "stop_times": [1810.965, 1826.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1809.584}, "reply_to": "23062__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23062__1_036", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--That is our position.\nIt's also our position that the Court need not accept it in order for us to prevail in this case.\nThere is a difference between the sort of driving that takes place when somebody simply drives drunk and doesn't cause an injury and the sort of driving that takes place when somebody not only drives drunk but injures another person.\nIf somebody is driving and swerving or driving and falling asleep at the wheel or driving and doing any of the things--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1826.468, 1827.583, 1832.497, 1845.993], "stop_times": [1827.583, 1832.497, 1845.993, 1852.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1826.468}, "reply_to": "23062__1_035", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_037", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "And might be lucky and nothing happens.\nI mean, that's the... the problem thing.\nTwo people who engage in identical conduct, one has the misfortune to hit someone, the other doesn't, but they're both equally swerving in and out.\nThe... the distinction is whether someone is hit.\nAnd in that light, suppose there were an involuntary manslaughter conviction for someone who was speeding but cold sober, speeding, cold sober, and killing someone because he couldn't stop the car fast enough.\nWould that also be a crime of violence?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1852.93, 1854.621, 1857.017, 1869.732, 1874.95, 1894.995], "stop_times": [1854.621, 1857.017, 1869.732, 1874.95, 1894.995, 1897.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.93}, "reply_to": "23062__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23062__1_038", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--We think it would be, Justice Ginsburg.\nAnd to respond to your first question, the distinction between those two situations is that you have to look not at the underlying conduct to decide whether something is a crime of violence, but you have to look at the offense with which the defendant was charged and of which he was convicted and see what the elements are and what the risk is by its nature.\nSo if somebody is charged and convicted simply of simple driving under the influence, that crime by its nature may or may not involve a substantial risk of force even though in a particular case someone might be swerving.\nBut if there's injury, the crime by its nature has to entail the sort of driving beyond the ordinary drunk driving offense--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1897.8, 1900.606, 1920.297, 1933.755], "stop_times": [1900.606, 1920.297, 1933.755, 1941.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1897.8}, "reply_to": "23062__1_037", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_039", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "That's simply--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1941.64], "stop_times": [1942.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1941.64}, "reply_to": "23062__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_040", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, then... then the word substantial risk does no work in... in that... in the... in the case that Justice Ginsburg put.\nWe just ignore substantial risk.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1942.094, 1950.845], "stop_times": [1950.845, 1952.497], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1942.094}, "reply_to": "23062__1_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__1_041", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--No, we don't think you do, Justice Kennedy.\nMy point is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1952.497, 1954.893], "stop_times": [1954.893, 1955.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1952.497}, "reply_to": "23062__1_040", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_042", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Why do we need substantial risk?\nThey hit... they hit somebody.\nWe know they hit somebody.\nThat's it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1955.925, 1957.327, 1958.153, 1958.813], "stop_times": [1957.327, 1958.153, 1958.813, 1959.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1955.925}, "reply_to": "23062__1_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__1_043", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Well, here... here's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1959.268], "stop_times": [1961.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1959.268}, "reply_to": "23062__1_042", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_044", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "And the question is, what about her other hypothetical where the person is driving 90 miles an hour and hits no one?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1961.663], "stop_times": [1967.524], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1961.663}, "reply_to": "23062__1_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__1_045", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Well, our--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1967.524], "stop_times": [1968.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1967.524}, "reply_to": "23062__1_044", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_046", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "There's still a substantial risk.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1968.928], "stop_times": [1970.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1968.928}, "reply_to": "23062__1_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__1_047", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--our primary submission is that the crime at issue here falls under 16(a) because the use of force is an element because if you're driving drunk, you can't injure somebody without using force.\nBut our fallback position is that even if, as petitioner contends, the only time you use force in the drunk driving context is when you actually crash your car into somebody, and he hypothesizes these types of injuries which in his view don't involve physical force.\nThere is, at a minimum, going to be a substantial risk that you will crash your car into somebody if you're not only driving drunk, but driving drunk in a way that results in injury no matter how the injury is caused.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [1970.043, 1982.84, 1998.816], "stop_times": [1982.84, 1998.816, 2011.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1970.043}, "reply_to": "23062__1_046", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_048", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--If your primary position is (a), then... then I think you're back to the... to the situation that ordinary DUI would come under (a).\nIt has an element the threatened use of physical force.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2011.547, 2021.395], "stop_times": [2021.395, 2025.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2011.547}, "reply_to": "23062__1_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_049", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "No.\nWe don't rely on the threat... the threat language in 16(a), Justice Scalia.\nWe rely on use.\nIf you drive drunk and you injure somebody, you're using physical force against that person.\nBut even--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2025.36, 2025.615, 2030.766, 2031.964, 2037.249], "stop_times": [2025.615, 2030.766, 2031.964, 2037.249, 2038.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2025.36}, "reply_to": "23062__1_048", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_050", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I see.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2038.325], "stop_times": [2038.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2038.325}, "reply_to": "23062__1_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_051", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "But in your submission, as I understand it, the attempted use or threatened use is really a worse offense than the use because it involves intent, whereas use doesn't necessarily involve actual intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2038.663], "stop_times": [2049.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2038.663}, "reply_to": "23062__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23062__1_052", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Well, I don't... I don't think the measure of the seriousness of a crime--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2049.675], "stop_times": [2053.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2049.675}, "reply_to": "23062__1_051", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_053", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "What we're really looking at here, when you get all done with all this, is is this a person who should be sent back to Haiti because of this particular act that occurred.\nAnd the irony of it, it seems to me, is that in terms of moral culpability and... and the kind of person we don't want to stay in this country, it doesn't really make any difference whether he hit somebody when he was drunk or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2053.473, 2062.268], "stop_times": [2062.268, 2074.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2053.473}, "reply_to": "23062__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23062__1_054", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Well, Justice Stevens, I think that's an important point.\nWe don't think that mens rea is the measure of the seriousness of a crime.\nThere are a number of crimes that are indisputably crimes of violence under petitioner's view that are mens rea crimes that, in the scheme of things, people would think are not as serious as drunk driving resulting in serious--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2074.527, 2078.447, 2083.565], "stop_times": [2078.447, 2083.565, 2095.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2074.527}, "reply_to": "23062__1_053", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_055", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "What... what are they?\nWhat are they?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2095.621, 2096.159], "stop_times": [2096.159, 2096.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2095.621}, "reply_to": "23062__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_056", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Well, for example, simple misdemeanor assault would be a crime of violence under 16(a).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2096.53], "stop_times": [2101.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.53}, "reply_to": "23062__1_055", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_057", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, of course.\nIt's a crime of violence because you intend to apply force to the body of another person.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2101.194, 2102.02], "stop_times": [2102.02, 2107.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2101.194}, "reply_to": "23062__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_058", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, that's right, Justice Scalia, but for example, reckless homicide, a depraved heart murder, which in most States is second degree murder, under petitioner's view of things--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2107.183], "stop_times": [2117.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2107.183}, "reply_to": "23062__1_057", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_059", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "A depraved heart murder?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2117.586], "stop_times": [2118.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.586}, "reply_to": "23062__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23062__1_060", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Yes, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2118.495], "stop_times": [2119.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2118.495}, "reply_to": "23062__1_059", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_061", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "What sort of a murder is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2119.815], "stop_times": [2121.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2119.815}, "reply_to": "23062__1_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23062__1_062", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "That's a... that's a... that's the... the... I think the common law term for reckless homicide.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2121.301], "stop_times": [2125.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.301}, "reply_to": "23062__1_061", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_063", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "A malignant and abandoned heart is what we learned in law school.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2125.016, 2128.36], "stop_times": [2128.36, 2128.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2125.016}, "reply_to": "23062__1_062", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23062__1_064", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I think that's... that's the same thing, Mr. Chief Justice.\nBut in any event, that doesn't require intentional conduct.\nThat requires only recklessness.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2128.593, 2131.126, 2134.387], "stop_times": [2131.126, 2134.387, 2136.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2128.593}, "reply_to": "23062__1_063", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_065", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "That's why, I guess, reckless is a harder matter.\nBut you started with context, and when I looked at the context of this statute, the context to me seemed to be that this is not... this is a statute that has nothing to do with immigration.\n16 is a definition that's a kind of receptacle that other statutes refer to.\nAnd it was part of the original criminal code reform in the '80's.\nAnd the purpose of that was to pull together words that are similar throughout the U.S. Code and give them a common definition.\nAnd the history of this refers back to the D.C. Code.\nThe history of this and other similar language in the code makes clear that what they're talking about are things like murder, manslaughter, burglary, robbery, extortion, blackmail.\nThey give examples for all these things elsewhere in the code with similar language.\nSo if I look at the context, the context to me says, though the language can be read to cover it, this has nothing to do with drunk driving.\nNow, that's when you talk about context.\nI have that in my mind as context.\nNow, you tell me why I'm wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2136.039, 2138.352, 2151.455, 2157.3, 2161.674, 2169.643, 2173.48, 2185.568, 2190.198, 2199.569, 2202.458, 2204.604], "stop_times": [2138.352, 2151.455, 2157.3, 2161.674, 2169.643, 2173.48, 2185.568, 2190.198, 2199.569, 2202.458, 2204.604, 2206.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2136.039}, "reply_to": "23062__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23062__1_066", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, I think there are a couple of reasons why you're wrong.\nThe first is that insofar as section 16 was based in whole or in part on the D.C. Code provision, the D.C. Code provision listed specific crimes.\nCongress did not do that.\nIt had two general definitions.\nSo it's perfectly reasonable to think that Congress would be aware that it would be foreseeable to Congress that the general definitions, the general language it was using might pull in some crimes that were not among those listed in the D.C. Code provision.\nThe second point is that the very first crime listed in that D.C. Code provision is murder, and as I've just said, second degree murder includes in many jurisdictions reckless homicide.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2206.462, 2208.402, 2219.836, 2221.201, 2223.513, 2236.449], "stop_times": [2208.402, 2219.836, 2221.201, 2223.513, 2236.449, 2248.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2206.462}, "reply_to": "23062__1_065", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_067", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "No.\nI... I put aside the reckless argument, and I'm not relying on the D.C. Code.\nThat was but one example.\nI'm saying this same language appears elsewhere in the U.S. Code, 924(e).\nWherever it does appear, they list things like burglary, arson, extortion, explosives, and otherwise.\nAnd there's no indication that this is meant to be something different and there's every indication from the purpose of it being written in the criminal code reform that Congress is seeking a common definition.\nThat's what's moving me.\nSo your response to that is what?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2248.405, 2249.065, 2253.439, 2255.464, 2260.665, 2269.543, 2282.008, 2283.411], "stop_times": [2249.065, 2253.439, 2255.464, 2260.665, 2269.543, 2282.008, 2283.411, 2285.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2248.405}, "reply_to": "23062__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23062__1_068", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, insofar as the issue is whether Congress could have had this type of crime in mind, we think the answer is yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2285.186], "stop_times": [2292.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2285.186}, "reply_to": "23062__1_067", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_069", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Yes, it could have.\nI'm saying it didn't have.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2292.411, 2293.459], "stop_times": [2293.459, 2294.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2292.411}, "reply_to": "23062__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23062__1_070", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, let me... let me rephrase the question and the answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2294.574], "stop_times": [2298.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2294.574}, "reply_to": "23062__1_069", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_071", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I want your evidence that it did have.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2298.251], "stop_times": [2298.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2298.251}, "reply_to": "23062__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23062__1_072", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Insofar as the issue is whether Congress did have this type of crime of mind, we think the answer is yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2298.994], "stop_times": [2304.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2298.994}, "reply_to": "23062__1_071", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_073", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Because?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2304.499], "stop_times": [2305.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2304.499}, "reply_to": "23062__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23062__1_074", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Because a... a... the classic example of a crime of violence, as you have just pointed out, is murder, and as I've said, reckless homicide is a form of murder.\nThe definition of use that petitioner is advancing is to employ something for a purpose.\nSo the mens rea that he advocates be... be read into the statute is purposefulness, and it's not at all clear that recklessness, which is a lesser form of mens rea, fits at all comfortably with the concept of purposefulness.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2305.06, 2318.517, 2325.743], "stop_times": [2318.517, 2325.743, 2339.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2305.06}, "reply_to": "23062__1_073", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_075", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "May I ask you a question?\nMaybe I'm repeating a little bit of what Justice Breyer asked.\nBut in the blue... statutory appendix to the blue brief, they quote from section 101, and they point out that the term aggravate... of the INA... the term aggravated felony means either a... for purposes of 1182, either any felony... any crime of violence or, 3, a crime of reckless driving described as intoxicated.\nAnd it seems to me that statute draws a rather sharp distinction between crime of violence as defined in section 16 of title 18, on the one hand, and reckless driving that we're talking about in this case, on the other, which suggests to me that maybe Congress thought the two were different.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2339.201, 2340.332, 2343.166, 2364.836], "stop_times": [2340.332, 2343.166, 2364.836, 2379.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.201}, "reply_to": "23062__1_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23062__1_076", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, we don't... we don't think it does, Justice Stevens, and... and that's even apart from the fact that the Congress that enacted that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2379.779], "stop_times": [2387.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2379.779}, "reply_to": "23062__1_075", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_077", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Was different.\nRight.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2387.292, 2387.664], "stop_times": [2387.664, 2388.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2387.292}, "reply_to": "23062__1_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23062__1_078", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--statute was a different Congress from the one that enacted section 16.\nBut the... the thrust of petitioner's argument under 1101(h) is that if you interpret a crime of violence to include drunk driving resulting in bodily injury, you will render 1101(h)(3) essentially superfluous.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2388.201, 2391.629], "stop_times": [2391.629, 2407.233], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2388.201}, "reply_to": "23062__1_077", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_079", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I... I don't think your... your that was a different Congress argument carries much weight.\nWe don't usually interpret the United States Code to be chaotic because each of the sections has been enacted by a different Congress.\nWe try to reconcile the whole thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2407.233, 2411.812, 2421.183], "stop_times": [2411.812, 2421.183, 2423.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2407.233}, "reply_to": "23062__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_080", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2423.041], "stop_times": [2423.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2423.041}, "reply_to": "23062__1_079", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_081", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "And I think it... it is telling that this thing does seem to separate reckless driving from... from a crime of violence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2423.867], "stop_times": [2430.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2423.867}, "reply_to": "23062__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_082", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Well, that's the point I was just about to make, Justice Scalia, and we think it does separate the two, and there is no overlap.\nThere is some overlap, but there's not complete overlap.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2430.76, 2439.471], "stop_times": [2439.471, 2442.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2430.76}, "reply_to": "23062__1_081", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_083", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Do you agree that... that the rule of lenity applies?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2442.071], "stop_times": [2445.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2442.071}, "reply_to": "23062__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_084", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, it... it applies in the sense that if, at the very end of the interpretive process, the Court is left with a grievous doubt as to which way it should rule, yes.\nIt doesn't apply in the sense that we don't think there is a grievous doubt in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2445.621, 2455.159], "stop_times": [2455.159, 2459.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2445.621}, "reply_to": "23062__1_083", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_085", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Would you say the same thing about... isn't there also a principle that in deportation statutes, ambiguities are to be construed in favor of the alien?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2459.078], "stop_times": [2471.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2459.078}, "reply_to": "23062__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23062__1_086", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, there is, to be sure, language in this Court's decisions suggesting that.\nWe have never agreed with that view.\nWe think the immigration context is very different from the criminal context.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2471.81, 2477.821, 2480.626], "stop_times": [2477.821, 2480.626, 2483.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2471.81}, "reply_to": "23062__1_085", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_087", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, what difference does it make if you concede the rule of lenity, which says the same thing?\nAmbiguities are to be resolved in favor of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2483.477, 2486.57], "stop_times": [2486.57, 2488.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2483.477}, "reply_to": "23062__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_088", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "It... it doesn't, Justice Scalia.\nOur only point--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2488.678, 2490.285], "stop_times": [2490.285, 2490.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2488.678}, "reply_to": "23062__1_087", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_089", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--They're the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2490.823], "stop_times": [2491.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2490.823}, "reply_to": "23062__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_090", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Our only point is that if... if the rule of lenity is to be applied here, we think that the basis for applying it is that we're dealing with a criminal statute, not that we're dealing with a criminal statute incorporated into the immigration laws.\nI do want to say a little bit more about the... the text and statutory context definition of crime of violence.\nApart from the thing that's being defined, crime of violence... and as I've said, we don't think that the word violence has any mens rea necessarily associated with it.\nThe definition of the thing that's being defined is the use of physical force--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2491.294, 2501.597, 2510.142, 2519.158], "stop_times": [2501.597, 2510.142, 2519.158, 2522.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.294}, "reply_to": "23062__1_089", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_091", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "You say the word violence doesn't.\nAnd I think you're probably right.\nThere are all sorts of violent things that happen.\nBut you're dealing with the phrase, crime of violence.\nAnd more often than not, crime does have.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2522.94, 2526.117, 2528.263, 2530.121, 2533.464], "stop_times": [2526.117, 2528.263, 2530.121, 2533.464, 2535.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2522.94}, "reply_to": "23062__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23062__1_092", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--That's exactly right, Mr. Chief Justice.\nCrime, more often than not, does but it doesn't always.\nSo we think the focus should be on whether the crime involves violence, which we think is essentially an actus reus and not a mens rea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2535.982, 2538.294, 2541.283], "stop_times": [2538.294, 2541.283, 2549.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2535.982}, "reply_to": "23062__1_091", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_093", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "What does actus reus mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2549.894], "stop_times": [2551.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2549.894}, "reply_to": "23062__1_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23062__1_094", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Actus reus means the actual criminal conduct as opposed to the defendant's state of mind when he's carrying out that conduct.\nAnd since legislatures do regulate... do impose criminal liability for violent acts and they have varying degrees of mens rea in those criminal definitions, we don't think that a mens rea should be read into this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2551.752, 2558.645], "stop_times": [2558.645, 2573.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2551.752}, "reply_to": "23062__1_093", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_095", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "You say if I bump into somebody getting off the bus, I've... I've committed, as far as actus reus is concerned, an act of violence.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2573.217, 2582.876], "stop_times": [2582.876, 2583.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2573.217}, "reply_to": "23062__1_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_096", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "No, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2583.498], "stop_times": [2585.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2583.498}, "reply_to": "23062__1_095", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_097", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I say, excuse me, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2585.317], "stop_times": [2586.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2585.317}, "reply_to": "23062__1_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_098", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "We don't think so.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2586.265, 2588.123], "stop_times": [2588.123, 2588.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2586.265}, "reply_to": "23062__1_097", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_099", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--I committed... committed an act of violence.\n[Laughter]\nThis is just not normal use of language.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2588.745, 2589.959, 2590.435], "stop_times": [2589.959, 2590.435, 2592.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2588.745}, "reply_to": "23062__1_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_100", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Courts... courts have generally read use of physical force in section 16 to mean something more than force in a literal or a scientific sense.\nForce in this context means violent or force that has the risk of causing injury.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2592.747, 2603.317, 2611.036], "stop_times": [2603.317, 2611.036, 2611.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2592.747}, "reply_to": "23062__1_099", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_101", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I bump into him really hard, really hard.\nHe falls down.\nI've committed an act... an act of violence?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2611.862, 2615.122, 2616.98], "stop_times": [2615.122, 2616.98, 2621.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.862}, "reply_to": "23062__1_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_102", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Well, of course, Justice Scalia, you would have to have a legislature criminalizing that conduct, and I think it's very unlikely--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2621.067], "stop_times": [2626.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2621.067}, "reply_to": "23062__1_101", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_103", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I'm not talking about criminalizing.\nI'm just talking about normal English usage.\nWould you say that I committed an act of violence?\nI don't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2626.761, 2627.67, 2629.816, 2632.788], "stop_times": [2627.67, 2629.816, 2632.788, 2634.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2626.761}, "reply_to": "23062__1_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_104", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2634.07], "stop_times": [2634.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2634.07}, "reply_to": "23062__1_103", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_105", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I don't care how hard I... I accidentally bumped into him.\nYou wouldn't say, you know, Scalia... he's a violent man.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2634.525, 2637.785, 2640.807], "stop_times": [2637.785, 2640.807, 2641.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2634.525}, "reply_to": "23062__1_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_106", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Justice Scalia, if two outfielders are chasing after a fly ball and they crash into each other, the next day in the newspaper you may well read a headline that talks about a violent crash in the outfield during that game.\nI don't think it does any violence, if you'll forgive the expression--\n[Laughter]\n--to ordinary English usage to say that when there is a collision between cars, when there is a collision between athletes who are running at full speed, that is a violent act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2641.295, 2653.655, 2658.756, 2659.145], "stop_times": [2653.655, 2658.756, 2659.145, 2668.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2641.295}, "reply_to": "23062__1_105", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_107", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "No, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2668.699], "stop_times": [2669.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2668.699}, "reply_to": "23062__1_106", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23062__1_108", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "So you think it's standard--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2669.897], "stop_times": [2670.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2669.897}, "reply_to": "23062__1_107", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23062__1_109", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "You'd say it is a violent result.\nYes, a violent crash.\nYou're right.\nThey'd say that in the paper.\nBut they wouldn't say that the two players were committing acts of violence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2670.285, 2672.043, 2674.15, 2674.809, 2676.008], "stop_times": [2672.043, 2674.15, 2674.809, 2676.008, 2679.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2670.285}, "reply_to": "23062__1_108", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23062__1_110", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "It's a totally different meaning of violence.\nYou can talk about a violent wind.\n[Laughter]\nIt... it has nothing to do with when you're talking about a violent act in the sense of... of crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2679.889, 2681.375, 2683.15, 2683.893], "stop_times": [2681.375, 2683.15, 2683.893, 2690.663], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2679.889}, "reply_to": "23062__1_109", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_111", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, I've been... I've been speaking of the thing that's being defined.\nI want to speak some more about the definition that's really the ultimate statutory language that's being interpreted, which is use of physical force.\nIn the context of section 16, we think that the use of physical force means the application, the exertion, the putting into action of physical force, and in the absence of some specification of a purpose, for example, the use of physical force to subdue an attacker or to gain entry to a building, we don't think that the exertion, application, or putting into action of physical force has any particular mens rea associated with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2690.663, 2693.802, 2702.097], "stop_times": [2693.802, 2702.097, 2732.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2690.663}, "reply_to": "23062__1_110", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_112", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Why in the... in the House... in the Senate report on this bill, the example that they use for the first is an assault or a battery.\nNobody has used, you know, blindly in your sleep knocking over a table and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2732.19, 2740.009], "stop_times": [2740.009, 2746.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.19}, "reply_to": "23062__1_111", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23062__1_113", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, that... that wouldn't be a crime, of course, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2746.968], "stop_times": [2751.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2746.968}, "reply_to": "23062__1_112", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_114", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--No.\nRight.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2751.798, 2751.964], "stop_times": [2751.964, 2752.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2751.798}, "reply_to": "23062__1_113", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23062__1_115", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "An assault--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2752.541], "stop_times": [2753.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2752.541}, "reply_to": "23062__1_114", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_116", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I mean, it's pretty hard to assimilate your model to like an assault.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2753.163], "stop_times": [2756.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2753.163}, "reply_to": "23062__1_115", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23062__1_117", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Well, the... our essential point is that legislatures define crimes with all sorts of mens rea, ranging from specific intent on one end of the spectrum to strict liability on the other.\nAnd sometimes the thing that is being prohibited involves violence and sometimes it doesn't.\nDUI manslaughter, DUI resulting in serious injury is a classic example of a case where the thing that is being criminalized, the act, is violent but the mens rea is not an intent mens rea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2756.506, 2769.138, 2775.165], "stop_times": [2769.138, 2775.165, 2788.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2756.506}, "reply_to": "23062__1_116", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_118", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "What about negligent homicide?\nYou... you absent mindedly don't see a stop sign.\nYou go through the stop sign and someone is killed or just injured.\nSomeone is injured through your negligence driving a car.\nIs that... under your definition, that's a crime of violence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2788.39, 2790.042, 2795.532, 2799.907, 2803.367], "stop_times": [2790.042, 2795.532, 2799.907, 2803.367, 2806.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2788.39}, "reply_to": "23062__1_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_119", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I think... I think we would have to agree with that, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2806.556], "stop_times": [2809.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2806.556}, "reply_to": "23062__1_118", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_120", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Yes, I think you would, and boy, that's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2809.983], "stop_times": [2811.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2809.983}, "reply_to": "23062__1_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_121", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "So every driving accident is a crime of violence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2811.097], "stop_times": [2815.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.097}, "reply_to": "23062__1_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23062__1_122", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, no, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2815.638], "stop_times": [2817.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2815.638}, "reply_to": "23062__1_121", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_123", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--if there's negligence involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2817.003], "stop_times": [2818.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2817.003}, "reply_to": "23062__1_122", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23062__1_124", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Most driving accidents aren't criminal at all.\nIt... it takes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2818.322, 2820.839], "stop_times": [2820.839, 2821.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2818.322}, "reply_to": "23062__1_123", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_125", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "But any... any one that is criminal... let's see.\nCriminal negligence in respect to driving becomes a crime of violence under your definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2821.582, 2823.911], "stop_times": [2823.911, 2830.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2821.582}, "reply_to": "23062__1_124", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23062__1_126", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--I don't... I don't know that legislatures generally criminalize most car accidents.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2830.87], "stop_times": [2837.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2830.87}, "reply_to": "23062__1_125", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_127", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "And why isn't it if there's a traffic infraction involved?\nA traffic infraction... you went through a stop sign.\nIn Justice Scalia's example, he went through a stop sign.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2837.723, 2839.043, 2843.13], "stop_times": [2839.043, 2843.13, 2845.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2837.723}, "reply_to": "23062__1_126", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23062__1_128", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I don't... I don't think that would be a felony or even a misdemeanor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2845.997], "stop_times": [2849.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2845.997}, "reply_to": "23062__1_127", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_129", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--It doesn't have to be a felony.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2849.712], "stop_times": [2850.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2849.712}, "reply_to": "23062__1_128", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_130", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "It doesn't have to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2850.167], "stop_times": [2850.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.167}, "reply_to": "23062__1_129", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23062__1_131", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "It just has to be an offense--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2850.455], "stop_times": [2851.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.455}, "reply_to": "23062__1_130", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_132", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2851.82], "stop_times": [2852.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2851.82}, "reply_to": "23062__1_131", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_133", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--certainly an offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2852.192], "stop_times": [2852.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2852.192}, "reply_to": "23062__1_132", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_134", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--I think a traffic infraction probably would not be even a misdemeanor.\nSo there's a whole set of driving infractions that wouldn't even rise to the level of a misdemeanor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2852.935, 2856.361], "stop_times": [2856.361, 2861.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2852.935}, "reply_to": "23062__1_133", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_135", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--I don't know, and if you're going to... if you're... you're making an argument based on what the language read most broadly can accommodate, and if we're going to follow that criterion, then the... the reference to the... to the infraction in (a) is offense.\nAn offense is certainly broad enough to... to include driving infractions, as well as misdemeanors.\nI mean, if... if you want a broad interpretation, you're going to pick up a lot.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2861.645, 2878.363, 2885.301], "stop_times": [2878.363, 2885.301, 2890.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2861.645}, "reply_to": "23062__1_134", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23062__1_136", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, I'm... I'm not sure we are, Justice Souter, because a traffic infraction would not have as an element the use of force.\nIf you drive through a stop sign and you're cited for driving through a stop sign, the offense you're cited for would not have an element--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2890.502, 2897.682], "stop_times": [2897.682, 2904.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2890.502}, "reply_to": "23062__1_135", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_137", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "The offense you're... you're cited for is driving your car through the stop sign and you've just been telling us that... that using an automobile is inherently a use of force.\nSure, it would cover it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2904.164, 2912.172], "stop_times": [2912.172, 2914.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2904.164}, "reply_to": "23062__1_136", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23062__1_138", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--No.\nNo, Justice Souter.\nWe... we agree that the use of force has to be directed against another person.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2914.379, 2915.394, 2916.303], "stop_times": [2915.394, 2916.303, 2923.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2914.379}, "reply_to": "23062__1_137", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_139", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Well, the offense you're cited for in Justice Scalia's hypo is negligent homicide, not going through a stop sign.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2923.899], "stop_times": [2930.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2923.899}, "reply_to": "23062__1_138", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23062__1_140", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2930.421], "stop_times": [2931.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2930.421}, "reply_to": "23062__1_139", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_141", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "That's right, but you... you agree negligent homicide would... would be covered.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2931.414], "stop_times": [2935.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2931.414}, "reply_to": "23062__1_140", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__1_142", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "We do.\nI just want to say one last thing about the other part of this case.\nMost of the discussion has been whether use requires intent.\nPetitioner actually makes two alternative arguments.\nOne has to do with the meaning of the word use.\nThe other has to do with the meaning of physical force.\nWe don't think that the physical force part of this case is truly in dispute.\nHis view is that physical force requires that the driver actually crash into somebody, but we think that if you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2935.212, 2935.751, 2944.212, 2947.184, 2949.701, 2952.385, 2954.798, 2960.104], "stop_times": [2935.751, 2944.212, 2947.184, 2949.701, 2952.385, 2954.798, 2960.104, 2967.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2935.212}, "reply_to": "23062__1_141", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_143", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "No.\nHe said his view is that the... that the physical force requires an element of intent, which you dispute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2967.906, 2968.36], "stop_times": [2968.36, 2974.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2967.906}, "reply_to": "23062__1_142", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23062__1_144", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--That's true, Justice Souter.\nI was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2974.843, 2976.701], "stop_times": [2976.701, 2977.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2974.843}, "reply_to": "23062__1_143", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_145", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "He's making the... he's making the same argument that Justice Holmes said the dog understands, the difference between getting tripped over and kicked.\nAnd... and you're saying no.\nThe dog's perception doesn't count in... in the... the interpretation of... of using force.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2977.072, 2983.51, 2985.905], "stop_times": [2983.51, 2985.905, 2991.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2977.072}, "reply_to": "23062__1_144", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23062__1_146", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--I agree he's making an argument about the requirement of intent which he thinks the word use encompasses.\nHe's also making an alternative argument, which is whether or not use requires intent, the crime does not have as an element the use of physical force because you could injure somebody by driving drunk without the use of physical force.\nAnd he gives examples of how you could do that.\nOur position is that even if those examples he gives, for example, swerving and forcing somebody off the road or falling asleep at the wheel and having somebody else crash into you, even if those examples do not, by themselves, involve the use of... involve physical force, it's our view that if you're driving drunk and you're doing those things, there's a substantial risk of physical force.\nSo on the physical force part of the case, we think we win under 16(b), which means that the only issue that's really in dispute between the parties is whether use requires intent.\nAnd for all the reasons in our brief and the reasons I've given today, I think our position is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [2991.949, 2998.992, 3012.738, 3014.717, 3037.752, 3048.609], "stop_times": [2998.992, 3012.738, 3014.717, 3037.752, 3048.609, 3054.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2991.949}, "reply_to": "23062__1_145", "speaker": "dan_himmelfarb"}
{"id": "23062__1_147", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Himmelfarb.\nMr. Sollers, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [3054.47, 3057.442], "stop_times": [3057.442, 3059.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3054.47}, "reply_to": "23062__1_146", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23062__2_000", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Very briefly.\nOn Justice Scalia's drive-by shooting example, that would be absolutely a use of force that has an element, the attempted use or threatened use against a person or property of another.\nRespondent's position, as... as I listened to it, would require, as I think the Court fleshed out, that if someone is speeding or someone runs a stop sign and gets in an accident and there's... and someone is... is killed, that's an involuntary homicide or negligent homicide, and that would be a crime of violence for which someone would be removed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [3059.837, 3064.751, 3078.952], "stop_times": [3064.751, 3078.952, 3105.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3059.837}, "reply_to": "23062__1_147", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__2_001", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Or even injured I suppose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [3105.823], "stop_times": [3108.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3105.823}, "reply_to": "23062__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__2_002", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Or even injured, quite possibly, yes, Your Honor, depending on how it's charged.\nAnd we do not believe that Congress in any way contemplated that such an offense would lead to such a draconian result.\nThere was considerable discussion about the difference between the use of force and consequence.\nAnd indeed, the circuit courts of appeals decisions that respondent can cite have confused the difference between the consequence of an act and the... the use of force.\nThe Le decision in the Eleventh Circuit, as well as the Tapia-Garcia decision in the Tenth Circuit, both confused use of force with causation of injury.\nAnd even in the Tenth Circuit, the Tapia-Garcia case has now been disfavored by a subsequent panel in Lucio-Lucio that focused on use of force, and the chief judge in the Tenth Circuit was, in fact, on both panels.\nSo in closing, I would simply indicate to the Court that this is a momentous decision.\nThere is a tremendous amount of... there are a tremendous number of ramifications that stem from the findings that a DUI type offense is a violent felony under 18 U.S.C., section 16, and we... we recommend and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [3108.34, 3111.395, 3120.106, 3130.137, 3142.231, 3150.942, 3165.903, 3173.15], "stop_times": [3111.395, 3120.106, 3130.137, 3142.231, 3150.942, 3165.903, 3173.15, 3192.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3108.34}, "reply_to": "23062__2_001", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__2_003", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "What other consequences besides deportation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [3192.181], "stop_times": [3195.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3192.181}, "reply_to": "23062__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__2_004", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "--Your Honor, there are... the statute is... 18 U.S.C., section 16 is subsumed in a number of different other statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [3195.07], "stop_times": [3203.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3195.07}, "reply_to": "23062__2_003", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__2_005", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Such as.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [3203.615], "stop_times": [3203.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3203.615}, "reply_to": "23062__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23062__2_006", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "There... RICO actually subsumes crime of violence.\nThe ownership of body armor, believe it or not, subsumes crime of violence.\nYou're not allowed to own body armor.\nThere are a number of... a whole array of different statutes.\nAccordingly, the Government is... has attempted to expand the reach of 18 U.S.C., section 16 well beyond the bounds of what Congress contemplated.\nBy parsing the word use and blurring the meaning of intentional conduct, the Government would seek to have lawful, permanent residents such as our client removed under these circumstances.\nAnd we respectfully urge this Court to reject the ill-founded position of the Government.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [3203.986, 3210.014, 3216.246, 3218.78, 3221.531, 3230.903, 3245.679, 3251.995], "stop_times": [3210.014, 3216.246, 3218.78, 3221.531, 3230.903, 3245.679, 3251.995, 3252.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3203.986}, "reply_to": "23062__2_005", "speaker": "joseph_s_sollersiii"}
{"id": "23062__2_007", "conversation_id": "23062", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Sollers.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-583", "start_times": [3252.905, 3253.853], "stop_times": [3253.853, 3255.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3252.905}, "reply_to": "23062__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22103__0_000", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "We will hear argument next in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A.--\nAttorney General Bennett.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [0.0, 8.356], "stop_times": [8.356, 68.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22103__0_001", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Justice O'Connor, and may it please the Court:\nFor 70 years the Federal courts have deferentially reviewed both the efficacy and the wisdom of legislation, even when it affects property interests.\nThis case squarely presents the question, should we now turn back the clock?\nWe make two main arguments: first, that the substantially advance test should not be a standalone test for determining whether regulation affects a taking because such a test is fundamentally divorced from a major principle of the regulatory takings doctrine itself, economic injury; and second, if there is such a standalone test, it ought to be no more searching than the rational basis test of due process.\nAs this Court has stated in First English, the Just Compensation Clause is not designed to interfere with the ability of government to affect property interests, but rather to require just compensation in the event of an otherwise valid taking.\nIn this particular case, we had a circumstance where one single Federal judge conducted a fact trial where she evaluated the demeanor and credibility of one expert from Chevron and one expert from the State of Hawaii in order to make a determination of whether or not garden variety economic regulation was constitutional or unconstitutional.\nThere was no... the test applied would have been no different if this had been an act of Congress instead of an act of the Hawaii State legislature.\nIn this case, what the district court did was wholly inconsistent, we submit, with any reasonable concepts of federalism, and if it had been an act of Congress that this district court judge was sitting in judgment of, it would have been entirely inconsistent with the respect that this Court has consistently said is due to a co-equal branch of government.\nA particular irony of the way the Ninth Circuit applied what it believed to be the Agins test, which it indicated the standard of review fell somewhere between rational basis and rough proportionality, but the... the supreme irony of that, we suggest, is that if that test were applied, it would have the effect of overruling the very cases that Agins cited in supporting the language it... it used, that if indeed you have this type of intermediate scrutiny, cases like Nectow and Euclid v. Village of Ambler could not stand because, as this Court has said, those cases set out a rational basis test, whether the object was in the power of the legislature or... or the municipal authority and whether the means used to achieve it were rational.\nAnd the test the Ninth Circuit set up in this case and, as applied by the district court, would have overruled those very cases because there would have been a fact trial necessary to determine whether or not the... the zoning ordinances at issue in that... in those cases were efficacious or inefficacious.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [68.46, 83.47, 95.813, 100.476, 125.84, 143.051, 166.235, 174.408, 194.349, 246.733], "stop_times": [83.47, 95.813, 100.476, 125.84, 143.051, 166.235, 174.408, 194.349, 246.733, 264.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 68.46}, "reply_to": "22103__0_000", "speaker": "mark_j_bennett"}
{"id": "22103__0_002", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Well, does the fact that discrete or individual property rights are being affected and, indeed, taken justify some higher level of scrutiny than we would apply to general economic regulation by the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [264.649], "stop_times": [282.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 264.649}, "reply_to": "22103__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22103__0_003", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWe... we would think, first of all, this... this Court has established that it doesn't look at whether some stick in the bundle of rights is affected by the regulation.\nIt looks at the parcel as a whole.\nAnd second, this Court has said that it is shying away from per se tests, and indeed, it... it looks at these types of cases under the rubric of Penn Central where the primary factor that the Court looks at is the extent of the economic injury and also the extent to which it interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations.\nA particular irony of this case is that the Ninth Circuit has said this particular statute of the Hawaii legislature affects a taking without any regard to whether or not it caused any economic injury to Chevron at all.\nThis Court has found that when the major flaw in legislation or the... the major argument as to why legislation should be deemed to be unconstitutional turns on the legitimacy of the legislation, that finds a natural home in the due process analysis, rather than in an analysis that looks at whether or not the legislation actually effects a taking or not.\nIndeed, this Court, Your Honor, despite what it said in Agins in relying on the due process analysis, has never found a taking based upon doubt as to the likely efficacy of economic legislation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [282.853, 283.679, 292.696, 294.082, 315.22, 330.491, 359.181], "stop_times": [283.679, 292.696, 294.082, 315.22, 330.491, 359.181, 371.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 282.853}, "reply_to": "22103__0_002", "speaker": "mark_j_bennett"}
{"id": "22103__0_004", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Well, we've said it a lot, though, haven't we?\nWhy do we keep on saying it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [371.353, 372.889], "stop_times": [372.889, 375.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.353}, "reply_to": "22103__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22103__0_005", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I think that in... in Del Monte Dunes, every opinion in the case discussed this language and... and said that the Court has never indicated that this sets out a more exacting test than rational basis other than in the rough proportionality context of Nollan and Dolan.\nAnd I think the language used in Agins, which came from due process cases, has somewhat taken on a life of its own, and the lower courts and the... the supreme courts of the several States have had quite... have had a great deal of difficulty in... in dealing with what exactly the language means.\nWe believe, as we've set forth in our brief, that to the extent it establishes this intermediate scrutiny, as the Ninth Circuit felt it did, that it would be dicta in Agins, but if the Court viewed it as not dicta, we think that the Court ought to reconsider the constitutional rule under the standards for such reconsideration that the Court has identified in cases like Payne v. Tennessee.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [375.368, 396.749, 413.718], "stop_times": [396.749, 413.718, 435.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 375.368}, "reply_to": "22103__0_004", "speaker": "mark_j_bennett"}
{"id": "22103__0_006", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Suppose... suppose a person has a piece of property, and they zone it suddenly, no building... no building... which destroys the value of the property pretty much.\nNow, should we just... I think those might be the cases where this language began to appear, something like that.\nShould that be just a simple rational basis review too?\nBecause I'm trying to put the case where it might be... arguably you should have something stronger since the property value is... is seriously hurt and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [435.061, 445.092, 450.87, 454.851], "stop_times": [445.092, 450.87, 454.851, 462.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 435.061}, "reply_to": "22103__0_005", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__0_007", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Your Honor, if... if the claim was that the legislation was irrational, that it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [462.925], "stop_times": [469.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.925}, "reply_to": "22103__0_006", "speaker": "mark_j_bennett"}
{"id": "22103__0_008", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--No.\nThey're going to say, well, we can imagine a reason, but if you look at it realistically, you know there's no good reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [469.695, 469.861], "stop_times": [469.861, 475.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.695}, "reply_to": "22103__0_007", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__0_009", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--No--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [475.639], "stop_times": [476.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 475.639}, "reply_to": "22103__0_008", "speaker": "mark_j_bennett"}
{"id": "22103__0_010", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "I mean, if you put your mind to it, you can make one up, which is sort of the test for rational basis in the economic context.\nBut as soon as we become more realistic, there isn't much of a reason.\nIt can't satisfy the stronger test, though it could satisfy the weaker.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [476.261, 483.895, 489.551], "stop_times": [483.895, 489.551, 492.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 476.261}, "reply_to": "22103__0_009", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__0_011", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nWe would suggest that this Court's jurisprudence indicates that that type of a claim of a taking ought to be analyzed under the Penn Central test where you first do look at the extent of the economic devaluation, if you will, of the property and you look at whether there is an interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [492.812, 494.009], "stop_times": [494.009, 513.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 492.812}, "reply_to": "22103__0_010", "speaker": "mark_j_bennett"}
{"id": "22103__0_012", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "What are we supposed to do, to return to Justice Scalia's question, with the fact that this appears... I counted about 12 cases, I mean, where it implicitly or explicitly appears, something like it.\nAre we supposed to just, oh, say all those cases were wrong and... what are we supposed to do about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [513.495, 524.763], "stop_times": [524.763, 530.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 513.495}, "reply_to": "22103__0_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__0_013", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Well, we would suggest, Your Honor, that what the Court does is say that... that in Agins, what the Court was essentially doing was restating a due process test, and either say--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [530.047], "stop_times": [538.592], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 530.047}, "reply_to": "22103__0_012", "speaker": "mark_j_bennett"}
{"id": "22103__0_014", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Would you speak up a little?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [538.592], "stop_times": [540.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 538.592}, "reply_to": "22103__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22103__0_015", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--I'm sorry, Your Honor.\nWe would... we would say that the Court ought to say that in Agins the Court was restating a due process test, and if this is to be a standalone test, it ought to be part of due process.\nBut if it finds a home in the Just Compensation Clause, it ought to find a home in the... in the public use portion of the Just Compensation Clause where if, indeed, the economic impact in a regulatory takings context is so severe that it constitutes a taking, then whether it rationally advances a State goal ought to be... ought to inform the question of whether or not it's a public use, but that it shouldn't be a standalone test for really sitting as a super-legislature to determine whether or not this really advances the government's goals as opposed to whether it could rationally have advanced the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [540.283, 541.192, 550.936], "stop_times": [541.192, 550.936, 586.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 540.283}, "reply_to": "22103__0_014", "speaker": "mark_j_bennett"}
{"id": "22103__0_016", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Why would you feel--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [586.723], "stop_times": [587.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 586.723}, "reply_to": "22103__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22103__0_017", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "So you want us to put--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [587.799], "stop_times": [588.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 587.799}, "reply_to": "22103__0_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22103__0_018", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Why would you feel better about our doing that in order to determine whether... whether there's a public use than you would feel about our doing it in order to decide whether there's been a taking?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [588.049], "stop_times": [598.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 588.049}, "reply_to": "22103__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22103__0_019", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [598.785], "stop_times": [599.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 598.785}, "reply_to": "22103__0_018", "speaker": "mark_j_bennett"}
{"id": "22103__0_020", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "I mean, wouldn't all of your... all of your objections apply equally?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [599.445], "stop_times": [603.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 599.445}, "reply_to": "22103__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22103__0_021", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Certainly if it were more than rational basis.\nSo we're... we're suggesting that it oughtn't, wherever it's put, be more than a rational basis test.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [603.364, 606.336], "stop_times": [606.336, 611.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 603.364}, "reply_to": "22103__0_020", "speaker": "mark_j_bennett"}
{"id": "22103__0_022", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "You're... you're not really urging us to... to defer the... the evil day and simply say, well, this test, which is more than rational basis, may well apply to... to whether there's been a... a public use or not, but it certainly doesn't apply to whether there's been a taking.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [611.62], "stop_times": [627.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 611.62}, "reply_to": "22103__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22103__0_023", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "No, absolutely not.\nIt shouldn't... it shouldn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [627.596, 628.689], "stop_times": [628.689, 629.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 627.596}, "reply_to": "22103__0_022", "speaker": "mark_j_bennett"}
{"id": "22103__0_024", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "I hope you won't do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [629.637], "stop_times": [629.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 629.637}, "reply_to": "22103__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22103__0_025", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--it shouldn't apply to... to either one, and wherever this... if the Court wants to say that this language needs to find a home somewhere and it isn't in due process, then it shouldn't be more than a rational basis test wherever it's put.\nIn many ways, Your Honor, this statute, Act 257 of the Hawaii legislature, is... is almost identical, although less intrusive, than the statute that this Court upheld in Exxon v. Maryland.\nThe goal of the statute in both cases was the same.\nIt was to preserve competition in the retail market, and in Hawaii, where we have at the refinery level a duopoly and at the wholesale level an oligopoly, it certainly was rational for the legislature to believe that trying to prevent the... the oligopolist from projecting their market share into the retail level would have the effect of preserving competition.\nAnd it was certainly rational for the... the legislature to believe that limiting the rents that oil companies could charge their independent service stations so that they couldn't charge excessive or predatory rents would serve the goal of preserving competition in the retail market in a State where the oil... where the gasoline prices at the pump are the highest in the country and the... the market at the two levels above the retail level is extraordinarily concentrated.\nThis Court, indeed, has said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [629.887, 644.209, 657.955, 661.011, 684.872, 711.743], "stop_times": [644.209, 657.955, 661.011, 684.872, 711.743, 714.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.887}, "reply_to": "22103__0_024", "speaker": "mark_j_bennett"}
{"id": "22103__0_026", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Well, suppose it were clear, from what the legislature said, that the only purpose of this legislation was to help out some local dealers who were politically powerful and the gasoline prices would go up.\nI assume you would be here defending the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [714.881, 728.34], "stop_times": [728.34, 730.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 714.881}, "reply_to": "22103__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22103__0_027", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, what we would say is that this Court's jurisprudence is that in applying a rational basis test, one doesn't look at what the legislature said was the purpose of the statute, but one looks at what could be advanced as a purpose for the statute and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [730.856], "stop_times": [745.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 730.856}, "reply_to": "22103__0_026", "speaker": "mark_j_bennett"}
{"id": "22103__0_028", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "And you would be here defending the statute on... in my hypothetical case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [745.262], "stop_times": [748.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 745.262}, "reply_to": "22103__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22103__0_029", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, and we would... we would be, I imagine, positing additional reasons why the statute would pass a rational basis test than those actually reflected in the legislative history because I think, as this Court has indicated a number of times, that requiring the legislature to state reasons or, indeed, looking at the precise reasons stated by the legislature in deciding whether the statute furthers those goals as opposed to other goals the legislature might have had, simply sets this Court up as a... as I said, a super-legislature, and... and really opens the door to the type of intrusive review of legislative acts that this Court has not engaged in for more than 70 years.\nThe number of cases that the Court has looked at in which it has indicated that it is not going to get into the business of determining efficacy or wisdom is, indeed, legion, and really since the New State Ice era, the Lochner era, this Court has not engaged in that type of review.\nAnd in fact, in Lochner itself, the... the Court stated that we do not believe in the soundness of the views which uphold this law, and one can take that and look at the Ninth Circuit opinion in this case in which the Ninth Circuit does essentially the same thing.\nYour Honor, in our representative democracy, decisions as to the wisdom of economic legislation are for the political branches, not the courts.\nThe voters of Hawaii have a remedy if their elected officials fail them.\nIt is in that forum that the wisdom of Act 257 should be debated.\nJustice O'Connor, I'd ask to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [748.789, 789.352, 810.195, 826.254, 835.087, 839.052, 843.261], "stop_times": [789.352, 810.195, 826.254, 835.087, 839.052, 843.261, 846.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 748.789}, "reply_to": "22103__0_028", "speaker": "mark_j_bennett"}
{"id": "22103__0_030", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Very well, General Bennett.\nWe'll hear next from Mr. Kneedler.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [846.111, 849.948], "stop_times": [849.948, 852.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 846.111}, "reply_to": "22103__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22103__1_000", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Justice O'Connor, and may it please the Court:\nThe reasons why this Court has applied the rational basis standard to review economic legislation of the sort involved here go to the heart of the role of courts in our democratic society.\nLegislatures, not courts, are elected to enact the laws, and courts, therefore, do not substitute their judgment for the economic wisdom of legislation for that of the legislature.\nAnd courts typically lack the fact-finding ability and expertise of legislatures, especially to make the sort of predictive judgments that the Ninth Circuit relied upon in this case.\nThese fundamental principles about the role of courts in our society would be greatly undermined if a plaintiff could simply... could obtain heightened scrutiny of legislation by simply recasting his claim as a takings claim.\nAnd therefore, it's not surprising that this notion doesn't find support in the Just Compensation Clause.\nWhen the government affirmatively exercises the power of eminent domain to take property, the requirement that compensation be paid doesn't rest on the proposition that the legislation is ineffective.\nTo the contrary, the taking presupposes that the... that the action will... will further a legitimate governmental purpose or at least that the legislature could have rationally so concluded.\nAny inquiry into the legitimacy of the governmental purpose or whether it will be served, instead, arises under the Public Use Clause, not whether there is a taking.\nAnd if those purposes are not served or the legislature could not rationally so conclude, it is not a public use and it's invalid and it should be enjoined, the consequences not to trigger the payment of... of compensation.\nAnd the... the same analytical approach applies for regulatory takings.\nIn deciding whether there is a regulatory taking, this Court has developed tests to look to see whether the nature of the government's restrictions are essentially the functional equivalent of the exercise of the power of eminent domain or appropriation.\nAnd that... that the Court has done by looking principally at the impact on the property owner, not the rationality of what the legislature has done.\nThat has not been part of it.\nFor example, in the Lucas case, the... the test for finding a taking is whether all economic value has been destroyed.\nOr in the physical appropriation cases, the Court has said that's such a fundamental interference burden on the landowner that there is a per se taking.\nAnd similarly under the Penn Central test, the central inquiry is on the economic impact and the interference with investment-backed expectations, things that look to the impact on the... on the landowner.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [852.799, 865.142, 876.697, 886.151, 897.131, 910.672, 916.821, 929.082, 941.713, 953.313, 966.976, 971.435, 985.802, 993.726, 995.295, 1002.725, 1010.405], "stop_times": [865.142, 876.697, 886.151, 897.131, 910.672, 916.821, 929.082, 941.713, 953.313, 966.976, 971.435, 985.802, 993.726, 995.295, 1002.725, 1010.405, 1021.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 852.799}, "reply_to": "22103__0_030", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22103__1_001", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Mr. Kneedler--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1021.672], "stop_times": [1022.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1021.672}, "reply_to": "22103__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22103__1_002", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Well, if you're going to use the public use prong of the... of the... the Constitution for what we think are regulatory takings, then what happens is you just invalidate the regulation.\nYou don't pay compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1022.581, 1036.327], "stop_times": [1036.327, 1037.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1022.581}, "reply_to": "22103__1_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22103__1_003", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "That's... that's correct, although I... although I should say--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1037.896], "stop_times": [1040.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1037.896}, "reply_to": "22103__1_002", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22103__1_004", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Because if it's not a public use, then you can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1040.291], "stop_times": [1042.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1040.291}, "reply_to": "22103__1_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22103__1_005", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Right.\nNo.\nThat... that's correct.\nAnd I think that's... that's the difference.\nIf something doesn't... if the legislature couldn't rationally conclude that... that the measure will... will serve a legitimate governmental purpose, it's invalid and... and therefore not a taking.\nIt's improper governmental action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1042.066, 1042.643, 1043.28, 1044.356, 1045.675, 1056.821], "stop_times": [1042.643, 1043.28, 1044.356, 1045.675, 1056.821, 1058.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1042.066}, "reply_to": "22103__1_004", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22103__1_006", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--What about substantially advances a legitimate State interest, which does sound like it's a higher standard?\nAnd it has been said, as was pointed out, in several cases of this Court... not that it made any difference to the bottom line, but that language is... sounds... sounds like it's a more toothful standard than rational basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1058.019, 1064.54], "stop_times": [1064.54, 1083.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1058.019}, "reply_to": "22103__1_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22103__1_007", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Well, in... in fact, the point you made that it has not actually affected the outcome I think is an important consideration for this Court.\nAnd... and now that the Court is focusing on the question of whether this really does logically fit into the Just Compensation Clause jurisprudence, I... I think it... I think it's important to consider that the Court has not actually ever struck down a measure under the Just Compensation Clause outside the exactions situation which present the different consequence of... of a physical appropriation.\nThe Court has not ever actually struck down a statute on... on that basis.\nBut with respect to that language, it... it arose in Agins.\nThere was a little bit of discussion along those lines in Penn Central, but in Agins, which most people see as... as the origin of it, the Court, as was pointed out, relied upon Village of Euclid and upon Nectow, both of which were due process cases and both of which applied a rational basis test.\nAnd in fact, on pages 24 and 25 of our brief, we set out the quotations from Nectow and Euclid which show that the Court... the Court there was using the notion of whether the measure will... will further a substantial or has a substantial relation to the public health, really in contradistinction to something that is irrational.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1083.487, 1091.744, 1112.483, 1116.098, 1121.549, 1140.058], "stop_times": [1091.744, 1112.483, 1116.098, 1121.549, 1140.058, 1162.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1083.487}, "reply_to": "22103__1_006", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22103__1_008", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "What about Moore?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1162.621], "stop_times": [1163.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.621}, "reply_to": "22103__1_007", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__1_009", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1163.614], "stop_times": [1164.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1163.614}, "reply_to": "22103__1_008", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22103__1_010", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "What about Moore?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1164.69], "stop_times": [1165.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1164.69}, "reply_to": "22103__1_009", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__1_011", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Moore?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1165.472], "stop_times": [1166.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.472}, "reply_to": "22103__1_010", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22103__1_012", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Yes, City of East Cleveland where they had the grandmother and the... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1166.381], "stop_times": [1171.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1166.381}, "reply_to": "22103__1_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__1_013", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Right.\nWell, cases... cases involving the... the family unit I think... I mean, those are... those go beyond simply the question of the... of regulating property.\nThose... those get into... those get into questions of... of who's occupying... who's occupying the house.\nBut... but in Village of Belle Terre, the... the Court applied a rational basis test to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1171.748, 1172.014, 1180.747, 1187.146], "stop_times": [1172.014, 1180.747, 1187.146, 1191.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1171.748}, "reply_to": "22103__1_012", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22103__1_014", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--So... so we might still keep a... a stronger test where a zoning ordinance affects the number of people that could live in a house or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1191.893], "stop_times": [1199.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1191.893}, "reply_to": "22103__1_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__1_015", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--No, not the number... not the number of people.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1199.49], "stop_times": [1201.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1199.49}, "reply_to": "22103__1_014", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22103__1_016", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Or who could live in the house.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1201.309], "stop_times": [1202.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.309}, "reply_to": "22103__1_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__1_017", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "That case concerned--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1202.462], "stop_times": [1203.91], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1202.462}, "reply_to": "22103__1_016", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22103__1_018", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Grandparents--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1203.91], "stop_times": [1205.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1203.91}, "reply_to": "22103__1_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__1_019", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--a family, the... the question of interfering... possible interference with a family unit.\nBut in Village of Belle Terre, the Court applied a... a rational basis test to a zoning ordinance that regulated unrelated people living in... living in the same house.\nSo the phrase, substantially advance, while it may have that ring to it, in fact its origins, when you look at page 25 of our brief, the... the Court in Nectow explained the test as being a... a court may not set aside the determination of public officers unless it's clear that it has no foundation in reason and is a mere arbitrary or irrational exercise, having no substantial relation to the public health.\nThe Court was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1205.479, 1209.377, 1218.028, 1243.374], "stop_times": [1209.377, 1218.028, 1243.374, 1243.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1205.479}, "reply_to": "22103__1_018", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22103__1_020", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Well, they don't sound like synonyms.\nSo I'm asking you what you would recommend that this Court do.\nIf you say that the standard is the same as rational basis, perhaps this confusing phrase should be eliminated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1243.829, 1245.11, 1250.682], "stop_times": [1245.11, 1250.682, 1260.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1243.829}, "reply_to": "22103__1_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22103__1_021", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Yes.\nI'm sorry.\nI misunderstood, if that was the question.\nWe think it definitely should be eliminated, and the... and the Court should say that it is applying the rational basis test.\nAnd I think it's instructive in the... in the post-Agins era to look at the Keystone decision, both the dissent and the majority in that case.\nIt was... the Court was essentially unanimous that the... that the taking provision of a clause does not authorize an inquiry into the efficacy of legislation.\nAnd in fact, on that point, the dissent quoted this Court's decision in Midkiff.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1260.919, 1261.373, 1261.828, 1263.314, 1269.591, 1278.275, 1286.06], "stop_times": [1261.373, 1261.828, 1263.314, 1269.591, 1278.275, 1286.06, 1289.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1260.919}, "reply_to": "22103__1_020", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22103__1_022", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Of course, when you have a physical invasion of property and a inverse condemnation is tantamount to a physical invasion, then we've built up some doctrine in order to protect the concept of physical invasion so that that can't be avoided.\nPerhaps that's not applicable to a... to an economic regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1289.858, 1306.41], "stop_times": [1306.41, 1312.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1289.858}, "reply_to": "22103__1_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22103__1_023", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Well, I... yes, this... this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1312.233], "stop_times": [1314.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1312.233}, "reply_to": "22103__1_022", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22103__1_024", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Even though this is a leasehold interest.\nI... I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1314.174, 1315.864], "stop_times": [1315.864, 1316.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.174}, "reply_to": "22103__1_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22103__1_025", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--But the Court applied a rational basis test in Pennell under the Due Process Clause and it would be odd to apply a... a higher test.\nI mean, it would be a different question if there was a claim of... of confiscation of the property, but Chevron has stipulated that it could not make out a taking claim on the basis of... of its economic impact.\nSo we're talking about a standalone inquiry into the efficacy of the legislation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1316.873, 1324.037, 1333.863], "stop_times": [1324.037, 1333.863, 1338.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1316.873}, "reply_to": "22103__1_024", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22103__1_026", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "But, Mr. Kneedler, simply giving... giving the phrase, substantially advance, the... the more modest meaning that you argue for doesn't solve the problem.\nThe... the statement in Agins would still be incorrect.\nAgins says that the application of a general zoning law to a particular property effects a taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate State interests.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1338.034, 1349.43, 1353.516], "stop_times": [1349.43, 1353.516, 1365.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1338.034}, "reply_to": "22103__1_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22103__1_027", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Yes.\nNow I... and that was the point--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1365.116, 1365.316], "stop_times": [1365.316, 1366.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1365.116}, "reply_to": "22103__1_026", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22103__1_028", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "I mean, so we have to eat crow no matter what we do.\nRight?\n[Laughter]\nSo why... why go through all the trouble of, you know, redefining substantially affects?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1366.702, 1368.848, 1369.014, 1369.303], "stop_times": [1368.848, 1369.014, 1369.303, 1374.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1366.702}, "reply_to": "22103__1_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22103__1_029", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Right.\nNo.\nI... I didn't mean to say that... that it should--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1374.315, 1374.687, 1374.753], "stop_times": [1374.687, 1374.753, 1376.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1374.315}, "reply_to": "22103__1_028", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22103__1_030", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1376.544], "stop_times": [1376.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1376.544}, "reply_to": "22103__1_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22103__1_031", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--be a rational basis test and therefore the Court would conclude it was a taking.\nIn... in the regulatory area, if the court... if a taking is not made out on the basis of economic impact under... under Penn Central or one of those tests, there's no taking.\nYou don't get to the public use requirement then because that only kicks in if there is a taking.\nSo it's the due process rational basis test that... that would apply.\nAnd... and as I said, I think Keystone, with... with respect to applying a rational basis test on the efficacy question is... is dispositive on that... on that question.\nNow, the... the Court did say you can look at the character of the governmental action, what... what the government is doing as part of the Penn Central test, but not this sort of means and efficacy question.\nAnd we do think it would be appropriate for the Court to jettison that.\nI would point out that throughout the course of history, the Court has sometimes used takings and due process kind of interchangeably.\nAnd we... we quote, for example, the... this Court's Rowan decision which refers to the plaintiff's constitutional claim as saying that the regulatory action violates the Fifth Amendment because it constitutes a taking without due process of law.\nI think sometimes the Court has used or parties have used those terms interchangeably, and that may well be what the Court was doing in Agins.\nAnd I think if you look at Penn Central where that phraseology was... was used, the same is true where the Court was... was relying upon the due process part of Goldblatt, and the Court put the word taking in... in quotes, I think perhaps indicating that it was not looking at a literal taking.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1376.916, 1379.395, 1388.228, 1392.481, 1397.433, 1407.342, 1420.567, 1423.727, 1431.408, 1443.212, 1452.129], "stop_times": [1379.395, 1388.228, 1392.481, 1397.433, 1407.342, 1420.567, 1423.727, 1431.408, 1443.212, 1452.129, 1468.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1376.916}, "reply_to": "22103__1_030", "speaker": "edwin_s_kneedler"}
{"id": "22103__1_032", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Kneedler.\nMr. Stewart.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1468.188, 1470.5], "stop_times": [1470.5, 1472.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1468.188}, "reply_to": "22103__1_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22103__2_000", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Justice O'Connor, may it please the Court:\nThe issue in this case is the content of this Court's regulatory takings doctrine and, in particular, whether that doctrine includes the inquiries called for by the substantially advances test, which this Court articulated in Agins, but which is grounded in principles the Court has long recognized both before and after Agins.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1472.236, 1478.263], "stop_times": [1478.263, 1496.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1472.236}, "reply_to": "22103__1_032", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_001", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Is it a regulatory taking in your view because the substantially advances test is not met, or is it a regulatory taking and then I ask if it substantially advances?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1496.856], "stop_times": [1507.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1496.856}, "reply_to": "22103__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22103__2_002", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1507.259], "stop_times": [1508.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1507.259}, "reply_to": "22103__2_001", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_003", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "How do I know this is a regulatory taking, in other words?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1508.002], "stop_times": [1510.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1508.002}, "reply_to": "22103__2_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22103__2_004", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--It's a... it's a regulatory taking because the government has not physically appropriated the property or condemned it.\nInstead, by operation of its regulation, it has taken the property interest from Chevron.\nIt's like--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1510.314, 1518.504, 1523.605], "stop_times": [1518.504, 1523.605, 1524.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1510.314}, "reply_to": "22103__2_003", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_005", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "No, but that... that means if it's a taking at all, it's got to be a regulatory taking.\nBut Justice Kennedy's question is what is the test for determining whether it is a taking.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1524.72, 1528.064], "stop_times": [1528.064, 1532.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1524.72}, "reply_to": "22103__2_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22103__2_006", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--And I believe that question, Your Honor, is answered by Pennsylvania Coal where the Court found that the fact that the statute at issue there prevented Pennsylvania Coal from mining a certain amount of the coal that was in the ground that it was otherwise entitled... be entitled to mine... took that property just as assuredly as a condemnation of it would.\nAnd then the Court said, but the seemingly absolute protection of the Just Compensation Clause in the context of a... of a regulation that affects that kind of appropriation, as opposed to an outright condemnation of it, that that protection is subject to an implied limitation that is exists to allow the government to serve its purposes, as Pennsylvania Coal described it, if the government could hardly function at all, if it were required to pay for every interference with property rights occasioned by its regulation.\nSo what we have growing out of Pennsylvania Coal is a... a rationale for allowing the government to interfere with private property rights that would otherwise be protected and otherwise could not be taken without compensation in order that the government may serve its legitimate purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1532.501, 1553.677, 1587.486], "stop_times": [1553.677, 1587.486, 1605.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1532.501}, "reply_to": "22103__2_005", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_007", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "And then the question, of course, is let's imagine you're either right or you're wrong as to its being a regulatory taking.\nAnd maybe if it's... they have no reason for it at all, they can't do it.\nPeriod.\nAnd if they have some reason for it, even a sort of bad one, they can do it.\nBut if that's the context... we're in the game where they can do it... why should it matter, in respect to paying compensation, whether their reason is quite a good one or just barely good enough?\nAnd that's... that's the puzzle, I think, that the other side is putting to you, and I must say I'm rather moved by their argument because it seems to me whether it's a very good reason or just a barely adequate reason has nothing to do with whether they should pay compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1605.401, 1614.772, 1620.141, 1620.551, 1626.578, 1640.491], "stop_times": [1614.772, 1620.141, 1620.551, 1626.578, 1640.491, 1656.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1605.401}, "reply_to": "22103__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__2_008", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "I think it goes to the difference, Your Honor, between the public use standard and the... which governs in a situation in which the government is paying compensation.\nAnd in that standard, as we've been discussing to day, in that context, the Court has applied a very deferential standard because the... the burden on property rights is lesser and the... the impediment--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1656.3, 1666.619], "stop_times": [1666.619, 1679.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1656.3}, "reply_to": "22103__2_007", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_009", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "But the burden on--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1679.955], "stop_times": [1680.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1679.955}, "reply_to": "22103__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__2_010", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--to governmental action is greater.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1680.531], "stop_times": [1681.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1680.531}, "reply_to": "22103__2_009", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_011", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Maybe I'm not... I thought... are we in the world in which you agree the government can do it even though their reason... or is your basic argument, no, they can't do this at all?\nIn which case it's not a compensation question.\nIt's a question of whether the Constitution of the United States forbids them from doing it.\nPeriod.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1681.357, 1692.753, 1695.332, 1700.555], "stop_times": [1692.753, 1695.332, 1700.555, 1700.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1681.357}, "reply_to": "22103__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__2_012", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "We... we believe, Your Honor, that it is a compensation issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1700.805], "stop_times": [1703.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1700.805}, "reply_to": "22103__2_011", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_013", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "It's a compensation issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1703.877], "stop_times": [1705.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1703.877}, "reply_to": "22103__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__2_014", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "So you want money?\nYou want a money judgment?\nI thought you wanted them to stop it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1705.263, 1705.968, 1707.204], "stop_times": [1705.968, 1707.204, 1709.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1705.263}, "reply_to": "22103__2_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22103__2_015", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "We wanted a declaration from the court that the... that they cannot proceed with a statute that takes our rents without paying... paying for us.\nWhat's happened here is that this legislature has enacted--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1709.228, 1719.176], "stop_times": [1719.176, 1722.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1709.228}, "reply_to": "22103__2_014", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_016", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "But... but isn't... I thought your premise was that because the statute doesn't authorize any payment, that is a way of stopping it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1722.043], "stop_times": [1727.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.043}, "reply_to": "22103__2_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22103__2_017", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Yes.\nThe statute does not authorize payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1727.699, 1728.609], "stop_times": [1728.609, 1730.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1727.699}, "reply_to": "22103__2_016", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_018", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "So if... if Hawaii modifies its statute and says, we will give to you the difference between, you know, whatever the rent we... if we can figure it out... whatever the rent would be and... and what our statute requires, you'd be perfectly happy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1730.216], "stop_times": [1743.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1730.216}, "reply_to": "22103__2_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22103__2_019", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1743.674], "stop_times": [1744.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1743.674}, "reply_to": "22103__2_018", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_020", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1744.213], "stop_times": [1744.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.213}, "reply_to": "22103__2_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22103__2_021", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "What we are arguing about here is compensation, and the standard that we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1744.706], "stop_times": [1748.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1744.706}, "reply_to": "22103__2_020", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_022", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Well, it would seem that you're arguing about whether this amounts to a taking--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1748.299], "stop_times": [1752.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1748.299}, "reply_to": "22103__2_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22103__2_023", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1752.508], "stop_times": [1753.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1752.508}, "reply_to": "22103__2_022", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_024", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--at all.\nAnd you have to look at how severely the State law burdens the property rights.\nDon't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1753.872, 1754.698, 1761.674], "stop_times": [1754.698, 1761.674, 1762.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1753.872}, "reply_to": "22103__2_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22103__2_025", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Your Honor, the... in Lucas, this Court found that a... a complete deprivation of the economic value of property constitutes a categorical taking.\nBut the Court has not held... it did not hold in Lucas and it has not otherwise held... that a regulation that affects less than a complete destruction of economic value is categorically not a taking.\nThe point of the Court's regulatory takings doctrine and the inquiries that it mandates is to determine those circumstances in which a deprivation that is less than a complete destruction of economic value require compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1762.333, 1772.941, 1784.624], "stop_times": [1772.941, 1784.624, 1799.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1762.333}, "reply_to": "22103__2_024", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_026", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Well, the... let me go back to my question because I haven't heard the answer.\nAnd I'm in a world, imaginative if you like, where Hawaii passes this statute, and what we're interested in is not whether they can do it, but whether they have to pay compensation.\nAnd my question is, what in heaven's name has the goodness or badness of their reason to do with that question?\nAfter all, I can imagine instances in which their reason for the regulation is pretty bad.\nIt just barely survives, and they shouldn't have to pay.\nAnd I can imagine cases where their reason is wonderful and they should have to pay or maybe they shouldn't.\nIt's neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition.\nIt has nothing to do with whether you should have to pay.\nNow, that's their argument I think, or at least as I understand it, and I want you to explain to me why the goodness or badness of the reason, once it has passed the minimal point, has anything to do with whether you should have to pay compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1799.28, 1804.027, 1817.911, 1827.349, 1835.356, 1839.814, 1848.442, 1852.241, 1857.276], "stop_times": [1804.027, 1817.911, 1827.349, 1835.356, 1839.814, 1848.442, 1852.241, 1857.276, 1874.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1799.28}, "reply_to": "22103__2_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__2_027", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "And my answer to that, Your Honor, is that it goes... it stems from the rationale expressed in Pennsylvania Coal for allowing the government to interfere with private property--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1874.077], "stop_times": [1884.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.077}, "reply_to": "22103__2_026", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_028", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Holmes said, though he didn't hold that... what he said was you have to pay when the regulation, a legitimate regulation, goes too far.\nSo I will repeat.\nWhy does the goodness or badness of the reason, past the minimal point, have anything to do with whether a regulation goes too far?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1884.934, 1896.246, 1898.103], "stop_times": [1896.246, 1898.103, 1908.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1884.934}, "reply_to": "22103__2_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__2_029", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Well, part of the question whether the regulation goes too far is whether there is a basis for imposing the burden on a particular property right.\nHere we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1908.506, 1918.704], "stop_times": [1918.704, 1919.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1908.506}, "reply_to": "22103__2_028", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_030", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Yes, and in that respect, Holmes did not use the word legitimate.\nHe said just when the regulation goes too far, and if it's illegitimate, that tends to show... I suppose the jurisprudence is... that this is not an accepted form of regulation in the usual course and therefore unnecessary.\nI take it that's your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1919.364, 1922.54, 1936.825], "stop_times": [1922.54, 1936.825, 1938.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1919.364}, "reply_to": "22103__2_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22103__2_031", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Well, I think, Your Honor, that the... growing out of Pennsylvania Coal, the Court has recognized that one of the critical factors, if not the most critical factor, in regulatory takings analysis is the character of the government's action and the nature of the government's interest.\nIt's not simply a matter of how much property has been taken.\nThe question is the government's basis for taking that property.\nWhen we... what we have here, Justice Breyer, is a... is a... a right specifically protected by the Constitution.\nThe Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.\nAnd Justice Holmes in Pennsylvania Coal was... said that that seemingly absolute protection is qualified, and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1938.804, 1953.626, 1958.595, 1962.088, 1968.654, 1975.834], "stop_times": [1953.626, 1958.595, 1962.088, 1968.654, 1975.834, 1983.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1938.804}, "reply_to": "22103__2_030", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_032", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "But he... he didn't go into this question.\nLet me give you an example that will make it clear.\nLet's take a case where there's the best reason in the world, fabulous reason.\nWe're taking this property to build a highway, which is absolutely necessary.\nWould you suggest that compensation doesn't have to be paid?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [1983.347, 1984.462, 1986.941, 1992.735, 1997.343], "stop_times": [1984.462, 1986.941, 1992.735, 1997.343, 2000.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1983.347}, "reply_to": "22103__2_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__2_033", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Compensation, of course, has to be paid there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2000.974], "stop_times": [2003.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.974}, "reply_to": "22103__2_032", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_034", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Of course, it does.\nNow, let me suggest the other side of the coin, a really terrible reason.\nYou cannot build your house without using metal pipes.\nThat's our building reg in this State.\nNow, everybody knows... I'm imagining anyway... plastic pipes are just as good, but not quite, so they have a barely adequate reason.\nDo you think that they have to pay compensation to have a general building code saying you can't use plastic pipes?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2003.388, 2003.471, 2007.846, 2013.669, 2016.845, 2024.647], "stop_times": [2003.471, 2007.846, 2013.669, 2016.845, 2024.647, 2031.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2003.388}, "reply_to": "22103__2_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__2_035", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Your Honor, I... to me there's a threshold question of whether a general building regulation of that type really would be a... a regulation that would implicate the Takings Clause at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2031.789], "stop_times": [2041.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2031.789}, "reply_to": "22103__2_034", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_036", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Well, it is an... it does regulate the use of your property and it means added cost, in fact, several thousand dollars added cost, to the building of a house, and come up here and argue we agree there's a rational reason, but it isn't so you can do it, but it isn't a really good reason, not substantial.\nNow, do you think that has anything to do with paying compensation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2041.737, 2062.504], "stop_times": [2062.504, 2065.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2041.737}, "reply_to": "22103__2_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__2_037", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, I do.\nAnd because the... the... assuming... on the assumption that this is really a... a burden on property rights that would be subject to the Takings Clause, then that burden requires compensation unless there's some limitation on the compensation principle.\nAnd the limitation that the Court has recognized, growing out of Pennsylvania Coal, is the need for the government to function.\nSo we have an inquiry into whether this furthers the governmental purposes.\nNow, in your example, Your Honor, I don't think there's any question that that inquiry would be satisfied.\nOur point is simply that the inquiry must be made.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2065.226, 2067.166, 2085.947, 2092.635, 2096.972, 2103.742], "stop_times": [2067.166, 2085.947, 2092.635, 2096.972, 2103.742, 2106.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2065.226}, "reply_to": "22103__2_036", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_038", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Mr. Stewart, I'm trying to understand not your theory but its concrete applications.\nHere we're dealing with the rent to be paid by a lessee of a gas station, but what you're saying, I take it, would go for any kind of rent control.\nYou could make the same argument.\nSo you're... so you are saying that rent control is a taking and the State could do it with compensation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2106.176, 2115.381, 2126.322, 2128.301], "stop_times": [2115.381, 2126.322, 2128.301, 2140.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2106.176}, "reply_to": "22103__2_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22103__2_039", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Yes, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2140.811], "stop_times": [2143.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2140.811}, "reply_to": "22103__2_038", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_040", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "And... and the measure of compensation would be?\nHow would the State... let's take a... an ordinary rental property, and the city puts a rent control ordinance into effect.\nYou say that's a taking, and how would one measure the compensation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2143.123, 2146.012, 2159.691], "stop_times": [2146.012, 2159.691, 2165.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2143.123}, "reply_to": "22103__2_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22103__2_041", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--The compensation would be measured as the difference between the... the rent that was allowed under the regulation or the statute and the rent that the... that the landlord, the lessor, would otherwise be entitled to collect in the marketplace.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2165.619], "stop_times": [2179.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2165.619}, "reply_to": "22103__2_040", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_042", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "I didn't understand you as saying that all rent control constitutes a taking.\nI thought it is only unintelligent rent control that constitutes a taking.\n[Laughter]\nOr do you not think that any rent control is intelligent?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2179.737, 2182.503, 2186.424, 2186.796], "stop_times": [2182.503, 2186.424, 2186.796, 2189.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2179.737}, "reply_to": "22103__2_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22103__2_043", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "No, that is not our position, Your Honor.\nThe... the... and in fact, the... the State has specifically disclaimed any contention that... that this is like the typical residential rent control.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2189.375, 2191.194, 2200.232], "stop_times": [2191.194, 2200.232, 2200.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2189.375}, "reply_to": "22103__2_042", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_044", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "I'm asking for not the State's position but your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2200.854], "stop_times": [2204.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2200.854}, "reply_to": "22103__2_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22103__2_045", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--And our--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2204.198], "stop_times": [2204.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2204.198}, "reply_to": "22103__2_044", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_046", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "And let's... let's assume that there's no better reason for the rent control for the building, residential building, than there is for the rent control on the lease for the gas station.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2204.819], "stop_times": [2218.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2204.819}, "reply_to": "22103__2_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22103__2_047", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Your Honor, our... the question would be, under our analysis, is not the validity of the... of the ends, of the legislative ends.\nThat would be taken care of in the inquiry under public use.\nSo... so the... so the question of the legitimacy of the government's interest in controlling rent would not be at issue.\nBut what would be at issue under our test is the connection between the... the rent control, the burden on private... private property rights that's imposed and the nature of the asserted interests and the degree to which that burden furthers that interest.\nNow, in the typical residential rent control circumstance, where the purpose of the statute... where... where the... where the legislature is concerned about the... the price, the rent... the rental amount that residents are having to pay, in that circumstance, the test that we're proposing would be easily met because the purpose of the statute would be to grant rent relief to the... to the tenants.\nAnd that could easily be accomplished--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2218.194, 2227.11, 2229.915, 2237.8, 2254.973, 2281.639], "stop_times": [2227.11, 2229.915, 2237.8, 2254.973, 2281.639, 2283.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2218.194}, "reply_to": "22103__2_046", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_048", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "And on your theory it would easily be met no matter how severe the control.\nI... I take it on your theory, if... if the... if the rent control ordinance said, $5 an apartment, that's the top rent, fine with you because it's extraordinarily efficient in relieving poor renters from the... from the burden of... of high rents.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2283.375, 2286.263], "stop_times": [2286.263, 2305.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2283.375}, "reply_to": "22103__2_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22103__2_049", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--I think our--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2305.788], "stop_times": [2306.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2305.788}, "reply_to": "22103__2_048", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_050", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "That can't be the test.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2306.531], "stop_times": [2307.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2306.531}, "reply_to": "22103__2_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22103__2_051", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Well, I think our position, Your Honor, is that there are... this... this is a threshold inquiry, the... the hypothetical--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2307.729], "stop_times": [2314.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2307.729}, "reply_to": "22103__2_050", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_052", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "But... but it would... in any case it would pass the threshold inquiry on your test.\nYou would say, boy, it doesn't get any more efficient than this until it gets to zero.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2314.294, 2317.76], "stop_times": [2317.76, 2321.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2314.294}, "reply_to": "22103__2_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22103__2_053", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--I think that it would pass the inquiry.\nI suppose you could... you could--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2321.27, 2324.158], "stop_times": [2324.158, 2325.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2321.27}, "reply_to": "22103__2_052", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_054", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "So you would say at the threshold level, there's no taking.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2325.727], "stop_times": [2328.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.727}, "reply_to": "22103__2_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22103__2_055", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2328.495], "stop_times": [2329.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2328.495}, "reply_to": "22103__2_054", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_056", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "And what would you then do?\nGo on to Penn Central?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2329.154, 2329.897], "stop_times": [2329.897, 2330.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2329.154}, "reply_to": "22103__2_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22103__2_057", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2330.89], "stop_times": [2331.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2330.89}, "reply_to": "22103__2_056", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_058", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2331.14], "stop_times": [2331.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2331.14}, "reply_to": "22103__2_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22103__2_059", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "You would have an inquiry into whether there is a categorical taking under Lucas because it deprived essentially all economic value of the property and you would inquire under Penn Central whether... because the threshold inquiry into the nature of the government's interest is satisfied, you then inquire into whether the burden is such in light of the purposes to be served that we believe it goes too far--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2331.156], "stop_times": [2358.055], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2331.156}, "reply_to": "22103__2_058", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_060", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Okay.\nBut if... if the test is going to be as unhelpful as it would be in my extreme hypothetical, why have the test at all?\nBecause in the more difficult case where it's not $5 an apartment, but a case like this in which the justification is ultimately a justification in gasoline prices and so on, the... the inquiry is going to be much more complex.\nPenn Central is a way of approaching that complexity.\nWhy do we bother with this threshold test which produces a bizarre result in one case and is going to be very difficult to apply in another case, in which event I don't see the reason for having it as distinct from the Penn Central difficulty test.\nWhat's... what's its value?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2358.055, 2358.344, 2366.889, 2382.121, 2387.405, 2403.835], "stop_times": [2358.344, 2366.889, 2382.121, 2387.405, 2403.835, 2405.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2358.055}, "reply_to": "22103__2_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22103__2_061", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--I mean... part of my answer to that, Your Honor, is that this test, in our view, does have very narrow application, which is the reason why we don't believe that the State is correct in suggesting that it will result in the invalidation of all kinds of economic regulation.\nHaving said that, though, I do believe that it is an important threshold requirement that should be met, and if the government has not identified a basis for singling out a given property right and imposing on that the burden of a regulation and if it has not demonstrated that the burden it is imposing is related in a... in a... in advancing the purpose for which the burden is being imposed, then in that circumstance, the... the rationale for imposing that burden without compensation, in contravention of the compensation requirement in the Fifth Amendment, is missing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2405.777, 2423.526], "stop_times": [2423.526, 2460.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2405.777}, "reply_to": "22103__2_060", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_062", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "But isn't the sensible response to the situation you posit that the government shouldn't be doing it?\nI mean, it's a little crazy to say the Government is acting crazy.\nTherefore it... it ought to contribute money so the net economic effect is somehow zero.\nThere's simply a transfer.\nThe taxpayers bear a burden as... as opposed to somebody else.\nOn the... on the justification you're giving for the test, you would say, look, if it's not substantially advancing this interest, why let the government do it at all?\nI'm not saying that should be the test for whether the government should do it at all.\nBut isn't that kind of the sensible tendency of the test, to suggest that the government shouldn't even be doing it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2460.678, 2465.713, 2469.883, 2475.167, 2476.365, 2479.997, 2489.989, 2493.909], "stop_times": [2465.713, 2469.883, 2475.167, 2476.365, 2479.997, 2489.989, 2493.909, 2499.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2460.678}, "reply_to": "22103__2_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22103__2_063", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "And I... the distinction we're relying upon there, Your Honor, is... is the question whether the government can proceed with compensation as distinct from proceeding without compensation.\nWhen the government proceeds with compensation... it's going to pay for the private property rights, the constitutionally protected private property rights, with which it's interfering... then we demand a lesser showing.\nBut when there is a constitutional right at stake, the... the showing should be higher.\nWe're not asking whether the government can proceed at all.\nWe're simply asking whether the government can proceed without compensation.\nAnd the without compensation is what triggers and infringes upon the very rights that are protected by the Just Compensation Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2499.853, 2511.47, 2524.002, 2530.978, 2535.519, 2539.44], "stop_times": [2511.47, 2524.002, 2530.978, 2535.519, 2539.44, 2547.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2499.853}, "reply_to": "22103__2_062", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_064", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "I must say I agree with Justice Souter.\nIt seems to me if you say... you're saying it doesn't make sense, so you got to pay for it.\nI think it... it's much more reasonable to say it doesn't make sense, so you can't do it.\nWhy isn't the latter the... the intelligent reaction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2547.325, 2549.842, 2555.498, 2560.328], "stop_times": [2549.842, 2555.498, 2560.328, 2564.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2547.325}, "reply_to": "22103__2_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22103__2_065", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Your Honor, I... the... the question of whether it makes sense turns upon the standard of review that the Court is going to apply to answer that question.\nAnd when we are--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2564.432, 2573.786], "stop_times": [2573.786, 2574.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2564.432}, "reply_to": "22103__2_064", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_066", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "No.\nThe... I mean, it seems to me that the... the whole point of the argument you're making is it won't hurt me, the landowner, quite so much, but if it doesn't make sense at all, why should we even have to get to that question?\nWhy isn't the more sensible thing to say to the government, stop doing it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2574.612, 2574.779, 2588.487], "stop_times": [2574.779, 2588.487, 2592.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2574.612}, "reply_to": "22103__2_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22103__2_067", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Because of the... the... the difference in the relative interests at stake when we're talking about proceeding with compensation as against without compensation.\nIn... in the... it's similar to the other protections extended under the Bill of Rights.\nThe Court has indicated that the Just Compensation Clause is just as much a part of the Bill of Rights as any of the other protections of the Bill of Rights.\nAnd there are circumstances in which the government may proceed.\nThere would be a rational basis for it to proceed under a very deferential standard that would be applied under the Due Process Clause, but the Court, nonetheless, requires a higher showing because of the intrusion on constitutionally protected rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2592.406, 2603.841, 2610.156, 2617.382, 2621.385], "stop_times": [2603.841, 2610.156, 2617.382, 2621.385, 2638.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2592.406}, "reply_to": "22103__2_066", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_068", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "But isn't the effect of what you're arguing that you can't do it?\nBecause you... the government would have to pay the same amount that... by the... that the rent is being reduced.\nWe'd have to figure out how much higher the rent would have been, and... so it... it would be a... a nonsensical thing for the government to engage in.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2638.392, 2641.364, 2650.281], "stop_times": [2641.364, 2650.281, 2658.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2638.392}, "reply_to": "22103__2_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22103__2_069", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Your Honor, the State's position in this case is that by preserving a network of lessee dealers, there will be benefits to the public in terms of lower gasoline prices.\nAnd I think their... their theory is that those benefits would far outweigh the... the modest decrease in rent, lost rent to the oil companies.\nAnd so that it... it would make sense if the government wished to make that choice and... and to pay compensation, if the government's theory were correct.\nAnd one of the values of the Just Compensation Clause and the constitutional rights that it protects is that it forces that choice to be made.\nIt... it puts the decision on budget as opposed to off budget.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2658.804, 2670.714, 2683.717, 2691.231, 2699.776], "stop_times": [2670.714, 2683.717, 2691.231, 2699.776, 2704.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2658.804}, "reply_to": "22103__2_068", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_070", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Well, why wouldn't it make sense then for the government to say, Chevron, you charge what you want and, station owner, we, the government, gives you... Hawaii gives you this money so you'll be able to pay the excess rent?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2704.234], "stop_times": [2714.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2704.234}, "reply_to": "22103__2_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22103__2_071", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "In fact, we believe that is... is, in essence, what is occurring here.\nThere... there is no claim that the rents that Chevron or the other oil companies were charging are excessive or that they have been the cause of any problem in the State of Hawaii that Hawaii is trying to address.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2714.598, 2720.375], "stop_times": [2720.375, 2732.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2714.598}, "reply_to": "22103__2_070", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_072", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Explain it... explain your theory in terms of the example.\nThat is, imagine that the benefits of the network of dealers of gasoline into the community are fabulous and obvious.\nSo there's a great reason for doing this.\nNow, why is it that, on your theory, the government shouldn't have to pay compensation then, but it should have to pay compensation just because the benefits are not obvious, that they're bizarre, that they don't... may not really exist?\nThat's... you see why I'm having a problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2732.924, 2736.268, 2745.184, 2748.445, 2762.563], "stop_times": [2736.268, 2745.184, 2748.445, 2762.563, 2765.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2732.924}, "reply_to": "22103__2_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22103__2_073", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Let me see if I can get to it better, Your Honor.\nOne reading of the Takings Clause, the Just Compensation Clause, would be that the government should pay compensation in those circumstances where it is depriving property owners of protected property rights.\nBut in Pennsylvania Coal, the Court said in the regulatory takings area, because of the need for the government to function, we are going to allow the government in certain circumstances to... to interfere with rights without paying for them.\nAnd the inquiry that we're saying the Court should make is whether that need exists and whether the burden being imposed serves that need.\nAnd... and again, I'd like to emphasize that this should not be considered an unfamiliar concept in constitutional law.\nThis Court has consistently recognized that when the government seeks to intrude on protected... rights protected by explicit provisions in the Constitution, on the basis that its needs, its legitimate interests require that intrusion, then the court's role to enforce the constitutional protections is to make that inquiry into whether the need is... is being actually served.\nNow, I'd like to at... at this point emphasize that our position is not that no deference may be given to legislative judgments under this test.\nOur position is simply that it must be more than a mere rational basis test.\nThe reason why the Court, in repudiating the Lochner-era cases, has held that mere rationality is enough to satisfy the constitutional standard is that there was no specific constitutional prohibition.\nIn the... and... and the Court specifically distinguished those circumstances in which there is a constitutional right--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2765.329, 2768.757, 2782.586, 2796.249, 2806.485, 2813.794, 2842.068, 2853.668, 2859.529, 2873.525], "stop_times": [2768.757, 2782.586, 2796.249, 2806.485, 2813.794, 2842.068, 2853.668, 2859.529, 2873.525, 2880.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2765.329}, "reply_to": "22103__2_072", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_074", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "But there are so many things that you could dress up as being a taking.\nAnd... and so it seems to me that it's up to the artful pleader to say whether this is a due process excessive regulation or this is intrusive to the point where it amounts to a taking.\nI mean, the... the... would you... rent control is one.\nWhat about... suppose Hawaii had said, we're going to cap the price of gas so it will make it easier for these stations to survive.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2880.584, 2885.33, 2900.108, 2905.764], "stop_times": [2885.33, 2900.108, 2905.764, 2915.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2880.584}, "reply_to": "22103__2_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22103__2_075", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--I think, Your Honor, that most courts have recognized, although I don't know that it's settled, that a... a control on the price of a product that... that a business has produced would implicate the Takings Clause.\nAnd... and in that circumstance, the substantially advances test almost certainly would be met, and our--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2915.423, 2928.222], "stop_times": [2928.222, 2934.909], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2915.423}, "reply_to": "22103__2_074", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_076", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Do we have a case involving price control where we have analyzed that as a taking?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2934.909], "stop_times": [2939.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.909}, "reply_to": "22103__2_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22103__2_077", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--Yes.\nThe Florida Power case v. the FCC where there was a regulation on the prices that telecommunications companies could charge for access to their poles.\nBack in the war era, there was cases involving rent control where the Court found that the rent control was justified because there was a market distortion caused by the extraordinary imbalance in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2939.118, 2942.09, 2951.378], "stop_times": [2942.09, 2951.378, 2964.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2939.118}, "reply_to": "22103__2_076", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_078", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "I didn't know that those were treated as taking cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2964.547], "stop_times": [2967.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.547}, "reply_to": "22103__2_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22103__2_079", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "--I believe they were, Your Honor, and that they have been... that this Court has discussed them in those terms.\nBut I would like to, if I could, address the broader point that I believe Your Honor was... was making, which is can these claims just simply be repackaged and... and sweep into the takings analysis all of the regulation and apply to it the very same test that the Court has repudiated in Lochner.\nAnd the answer to that I believe is clearly no.\nThe... the Just Compensation Clause is limited to rights of private property, would not extend... and I don't believe there's anything in this Court's precedents that would require it that it extend to the kinds of laws, minimum wage laws, wage and hour provisions, regulations on the size of bread loaves, that were the professional licensing requirements that were the subject of the Lochner-era cases.\nAnd the Due Process Clause extends even to expectancy interests or... or reliance interests on governmental benefit programs.\nNothing in our position here would... would apply to that because those, we don't believe, have ever been held and... and should not be held to be covered within the specific provision of the Just Compensation Clause.\nYour Honors, in Nollan and Dolan and First English, this Court recognized that the Just Compensation Clause is not a poor relation among the provisions of the Bill of Rights.\nIn First English, the Court recognized that the constitutional provisions by their very nature limit the freedom and flexibility of the government in order to protect constitutional rights.\nAnd the Court in First English said that the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment is one such provision.\nAnd our position here is that this constitutional right, that private property shall not be taken without just compensation, should be entitled to the same protection as the other constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights, and that just as with respect to those rights, when the government seeks to intrude on those interests, the court should properly inquire into the nature of that intrusion and the justification for that intrusion.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [2967.436, 2973.176, 2991.396, 2994.064, 3019.244, 3028.244, 3043.931, 3054.789, 3065.767, 3072.25, 3099.576], "stop_times": [2973.176, 2991.396, 2994.064, 3019.244, 3028.244, 3043.931, 3054.789, 3065.767, 3072.25, 3099.576, 3101.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2967.436}, "reply_to": "22103__2_078", "speaker": "craig_e_stewart"}
{"id": "22103__2_080", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Thank you.\nAttorney General Bennett, you have 7 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [3101.434, 3106.142], "stop_times": [3106.142, 3110.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3101.434}, "reply_to": "22103__2_079", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22103__3_000", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "Your Honors, this case is not about compensation.\nIndeed, Chevron's discussion of compensation... the first time that that occurred in the entirety of this case was in its brief in this Court, as we point out, in particular, in footnote 6 at page 11 of our reply brief.\nThis case is, indeed, about whether this economic regulation is legitimate.\nThe Ninth Circuit's test was it doesn't work well enough, so it is illegitimate.\nThat type of a test belongs under the Due Process Clause, not under the Just Compensation Clause.\nThis Court has time and time again said that it is not going to set up separate per se tests except in very limited circumstances and, indeed, it's not going to divide parcels in the way Chevron suggests here and whether it's in Tahoe-Sierra or Penn Central or Keystone, the Court has said, absent taking all value or use of the property or in Loretto, in the case of a physical invasion, it is going to allow these types of regulatory takings tests to be judged under Penn Central.\nWhat Chevron is arguing for here is a separate test outside of Penn Central, divorced from economic impact, that concerns solely legitimacy of the regulation.\nWe suggest that that belongs in due process.\nWe believe that what the Court should do is say that what was stated in Agins does not state a standalone test.\nTests for judging the legitimacy of a regulation belong in due process based upon a rational basis test and that other than the very limited per se categories that this Court has established, regulatory takings claims depend on economic impact and belong under the Penn Central analysis.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [3110.683, 3116.295, 3130.412, 3135.864, 3141.065, 3147.957, 3180.651, 3192.168, 3196.171, 3203.768, 3222.632], "stop_times": [3116.295, 3130.412, 3135.864, 3141.065, 3147.957, 3180.651, 3192.168, 3196.171, 3203.768, 3222.632, 3223.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3110.683}, "reply_to": "22103__2_080", "speaker": "mark_j_bennett"}
{"id": "22103__3_001", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [3223.375], "stop_times": [3225.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3223.375}, "reply_to": "22103__3_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22103__3_002", "conversation_id": "22103", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-163", "start_times": [3225.87], "stop_times": [3231.177], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3225.87}, "reply_to": "22103__3_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22316__0_000", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "We'll hear argument next in Deneice A. Mayle v. Jacoby Lee Felix.\nMr. Chan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [0.0, 10.223], "stop_times": [10.223, 60.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22316__0_001", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn 1996, Congress made an important change to the habeas corpus proceedings by enacting a one-year statute-of-limitations period.\nThis Court is now asked to consider, for the first time, how the relation back doctrine under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(2) is to be applied in the habeas context.\nThe Warden rule for relation back is that the conduct transaction occurrence set forth in the initial petition is the core of operative facts to support the constitutional violations alleged.\nThis rule is far superior to the Ninth Circuit's rule, which a majority of Circuits have determined effectively nullifies AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [60.778, 64.025, 72.533, 85.524, 100.191], "stop_times": [64.025, 72.533, 85.524, 100.191, 110.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 60.778}, "reply_to": "22316__0_000", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_002", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, of course, I take it the issue doesn't even arise unless the amendment is accepted under 15(a).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [110.329], "stop_times": [119.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 110.329}, "reply_to": "22316__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__0_003", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [119.939], "stop_times": [121.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 119.939}, "reply_to": "22316__0_002", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_004", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "And if there's been lack of diligence, et cetera, and... or some prejudice to the State in the delay of the amendment, the Court just won't accept the amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [121.278], "stop_times": [133.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 121.278}, "reply_to": "22316__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__0_005", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "I should clarify that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [133.576], "stop_times": [134.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 133.576}, "reply_to": "22316__0_004", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_006", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Or am I wrong about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [134.637], "stop_times": [135.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 134.637}, "reply_to": "22316__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__0_007", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--that in Civil Rule 15(a), the Court has discretion and grants... needs to grant leave to amend after a responsive pleading has been filed.\nHowever, a Petitioner gets to file a responsive pleading... excuse me, an amended petition, as a matter of right, before a responsive pleading is filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [135.799, 147.202], "stop_times": [147.202, 156.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 135.799}, "reply_to": "22316__0_006", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_008", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, it was filed before a responsive pleading--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [156.466], "stop_times": [160.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 156.466}, "reply_to": "22316__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22316__0_009", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "In this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [160.94], "stop_times": [162.327], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 160.94}, "reply_to": "22316__0_008", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_010", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--was filed--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [162.327], "stop_times": [162.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 162.327}, "reply_to": "22316__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22316__0_011", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [162.861], "stop_times": [162.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 162.861}, "reply_to": "22316__0_010", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_012", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [162.903], "stop_times": [163.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 162.903}, "reply_to": "22316__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22316__0_013", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "How long does it usually take to file a responsive pleading?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [163.532], "stop_times": [165.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 163.532}, "reply_to": "22316__0_012", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__0_014", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "It depends, Your Honor.\nIt varies with... case to case.\nIn a lot of pro se--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [165.883, 170.187, 172.271], "stop_times": [170.187, 172.271, 174.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 165.883}, "reply_to": "22316__0_013", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_015", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "But the State has a certain amount of flexibility in deciding when to respond, does it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [174.472], "stop_times": [179.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 174.472}, "reply_to": "22316__0_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22316__0_016", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, the rule does not require the State to respond to petition until ordered by the District Court.\nAnd to get back to the question of Rule 15(a), even after a responsive pleading has been filed, Rule 15(a) does not serve the same purposes as Rule 15(c).\nThe statute of limitations is strict defense, which is meant to apply whether the filing is a day late or a year late, whether there is prejudice, or whether there is dilatory motive.\nTo ameliorate the harsh effects of the statute of limitations, Rule 15(c)(2) provides an exception to the statute of limitations, but that exception is limited to the parameters of Rule 15(c)(2), itself.\nSo when the Court is provided with a untimely claim, it determines whether or not that claim is time-barred, pursuant to 15(c)(2).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [179.335, 186.476, 198.119, 209.074, 223.613], "stop_times": [186.476, 198.119, 209.074, 223.613, 235.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 179.335}, "reply_to": "22316__0_015", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_017", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, just before we leave 15(a), let's assume that we do not accept your position in this case and there's potential for a gaping hole in AEDPA.\nDoes the State have some ability to protect itself by filing a responsive pleading and cutting off the amendment, or must it do so only as it is ordered by the Court to file a response?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [235.303, 249.958], "stop_times": [249.958, 262.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 235.303}, "reply_to": "22316__0_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__0_018", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "For pro--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [262.209], "stop_times": [264.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 262.209}, "reply_to": "22316__0_017", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_019", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Do you see what I'm asking--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [264.101], "stop_times": [265.172], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 264.101}, "reply_to": "22316__0_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__0_020", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--I do understand, Your Honor.\nAnd for pro se petitions, without counsel, the State is not even aware of the existence of the petition until it is served by the Court.\nAnd that occurs after the Court has made a determination as to whether or not a responsive pleading is required.\nIt can happen that a Petitioner will be able to amend his petition after the statute of limitations has already expired, and we would not even know of that until after everything had been done.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [265.172, 266.245, 279.546, 285.508], "stop_times": [266.245, 279.546, 285.508, 300.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 265.172}, "reply_to": "22316__0_019", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_021", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "But you... you have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [300.298], "stop_times": [302.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 300.298}, "reply_to": "22316__0_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22316__0_022", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "No, please, go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [302.058], "stop_times": [303.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 302.058}, "reply_to": "22316__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22316__0_023", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--I was going to say, if... on the scenario that you have raised, in which you don't even know that the petition has been filed, because the... you don't... the Court hasn't called for a response, the whole rationale behind the narrow reading is absent, as I understand it, because you point out that the rationale for the narrow reading is that the first pleadings put you on notice as to the case that you have to meet.\nAnd you shouldn't then have to be given an entirely new case to meet after you've been put on notice and taken whatever preliminary steps you've taken.\nBut in the scenario that you're talking about, you have not been put on notice, because you don't even know there is a petition there yet.\nYou have not been led to prepare a case which has now changed.\nSo it seems to me that your rationale does not apply in the case in which you do not yet have notice, and, hence, have not filed a response, for that reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [303.194, 334.27, 343.065, 349.721, 354.969], "stop_times": [334.27, 343.065, 349.721, 354.969, 365.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 303.194}, "reply_to": "22316__0_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22316__0_024", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "But even in that scenario, we are still prejudiced by the fact that now we have to address additional claims that would otherwise be time-barred.\nWe do not get a chance to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [365.103, 374.014], "stop_times": [374.014, 376.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 365.103}, "reply_to": "22316__0_023", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_025", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "No, but that... the problem with that is that a... the whole point of a relation-back rule is to get around the time bar.\nThat's why you have them.\nAnd I thought your argument was,\n\"Well, you shouldn't allow them to get around this time bar, because we have been put on notice, we have begun to prepare our case, and we should not then be presented with an entirely new case. \"\nAnd so, that's why, it seems to me, your preparation point, in effect, is trying to limit a rule, the whole purpose of which is to get around the time bar.\nIf you don't have the preparation point, you don't have an argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [376.354, 382.829, 384.12, 385.981, 396.141, 411.922], "stop_times": [382.829, 384.12, 385.981, 396.141, 411.922, 415.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 376.354}, "reply_to": "22316__0_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22316__0_026", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Well, I was addressing the situation in which we... in which we can answer first.\nAnd I think that I responded, in the reply brief, that that would be an onerous burden on the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [415.666, 423.181], "stop_times": [423.181, 430.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 415.666}, "reply_to": "22316__0_025", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_027", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Oh, it would be.\nBut, again, in the case that you're talking about, the very value that you're arguing for... i.e.,\n\"We ought to be able to rely on the notice that we have given. \"\n--is an argument which hasn't arisen yet, because there's no factual basis to make it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [430.268, 431.435, 437.152, 440.869], "stop_times": [431.435, 437.152, 440.869, 445.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 430.268}, "reply_to": "22316__0_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22316__0_028", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, that situation would occur not as frequently as the situation in which we face an amendment after we have notice, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [445.039], "stop_times": [456.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 445.039}, "reply_to": "22316__0_027", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_029", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Mr. Chan, there is really no way for the State entirely to protect itself by... even by filing an answer immediately.\nThat would protect it against the automatic acceptance of an amendment, but it wouldn't protect it against the District Judge's ability to grant an amendment after the response.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [456.43, 467.074], "stop_times": [467.074, 484.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 456.43}, "reply_to": "22316__0_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22316__0_030", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "That's right, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [484.958], "stop_times": [485.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 484.958}, "reply_to": "22316__0_029", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_031", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "There's no way to get any protection against that, no matter how promptly you respond.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [485.885], "stop_times": [490.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 485.885}, "reply_to": "22316__0_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22316__0_032", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "That's absolutely correct.\nAnd Congress could not have intended its statute-of-limitations rule to be... to have its effectiveness dependent upon the Court exercise of discretion under Rule 15(a).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [490.194, 491.207], "stop_times": [491.207, 503.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 490.194}, "reply_to": "22316__0_031", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_033", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "The discretion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [503.617], "stop_times": [505.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 503.617}, "reply_to": "22316__0_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22316__0_034", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Why--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [505.563], "stop_times": [506.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 505.563}, "reply_to": "22316__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22316__0_035", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Liberally granted amendments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [506.235], "stop_times": [507.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 506.235}, "reply_to": "22316__0_034", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_036", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--The discretion under 15(a), at least in the general run of civil proceedings, that is to be liberally exercised in favor of the pleaders, so it's a different... the 15(c) relation-back test is quite different from the general attitude to pleading amendments,\n\"Well, we'll let the Plaintiff. \"\nor, here, the Petitioner,\n\"make the pleading alteration, and then it will be there, and the Court will make a determination of whether the pleading is good or not. \"\nBut, at the 15(a) threshold, it's not much... it's not much of a screening device, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [507.169, 528.725, 531.456, 532.747, 544.795], "stop_times": [528.725, 531.456, 532.747, 544.795, 552.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 507.169}, "reply_to": "22316__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22316__0_037", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe better screening device is in Rule 15(c)(2).\nAs mentioned, Rule 15(c)(2) is the provision that determines whether or not a claim is time-barred.\nAnd 15(a), then, can determine whether or not the claim can be amended if it is not time-barred.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [552.646, 553.738, 557.817, 564.548], "stop_times": [553.738, 557.817, 564.548, 571.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 552.646}, "reply_to": "22316__0_036", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_038", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Mr. Chan, do you think the Rules of Civil Procedure should be applied in habeas cases after AEDPA the same way they are in civil... other civil litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [571.325], "stop_times": [584.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 571.325}, "reply_to": "22316__0_037", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22316__0_039", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "If the Court is referring to Rule 15(c)(2), our argument is that Rule 15(c)(2) is not a rule of automatic relation back, in civil terms, in civil cases; and, therefore, should not be applied as a rule of automatic relation back in habeas cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [584.19], "stop_times": [603.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 584.19}, "reply_to": "22316__0_038", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_040", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "But what if we were to determine that in regular civil litigation it is relatively automatic?\nWhat would your position be with respect to habeas cases after AEDPA?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [603.705, 611.123], "stop_times": [611.123, 616.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 603.705}, "reply_to": "22316__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22316__0_041", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, my argument would be that the habeas Rule 11 provides that, to the... to the extent that the civil rules are not inconsistent with the federal habeas provisions and rule, that they may be applied.\nAnd I think that Rule 11 compels a reading that if you have one application that is inconsistent AEDPA's provisions and the framework of habeas corpus, and another interpretation that is not inconsistent, then you must go with the interpretation that is consistent with AEDPA.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [616.403, 633.811], "stop_times": [633.811, 656.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 616.403}, "reply_to": "22316__0_040", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_042", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--But you have more than Rule 11; you have Section 2244, which says that an application for habeas corpus, quote,\n\"may be amended as provided in the rules of procedure applicable to civil actions. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [656.094, 664.984], "stop_times": [664.984, 670.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 656.094}, "reply_to": "22316__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22316__0_043", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "And that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [670.327], "stop_times": [671.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 670.327}, "reply_to": "22316__0_042", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_044", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "So, I don't think it's even a close question whether the rules of procedure for amendment in civil actions apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [671.335], "stop_times": [678.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.335}, "reply_to": "22316__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22316__0_045", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--There's no question that... we are not questioning that Rule 15(c)(2) applied to habeas corpus, but Section 2242 does not give any guidance as to how 15(c)(2) should be interpreted.\nAnd I believe that guidance comes from Rule 11.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [678.876, 691.435], "stop_times": [691.435, 693.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 678.876}, "reply_to": "22316__0_044", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_046", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Mr. Chan, can I ask you a question, based on your experience?\nI'm sure you've had a lot of experience in this area.\nThis particular claim was about six months beyond the statute of limitations when he asked to relate back.\nIt would seem to me that that would normally be the case, something about that amount of time would be an issue, because it takes time to process these, and they had to get counsel appointed.\nAnd counsel comes in and wants to amend the petition, usually, I suppose, in a pro se petition.\nIs it... would I be correct in assuming that normally in cases of this kind we're talking about a delay of only a few months?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [693.601, 697.211, 699.397, 707.071, 717.043, 721.204], "stop_times": [697.211, 699.397, 707.071, 717.043, 721.204, 728.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 693.601}, "reply_to": "22316__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22316__0_047", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "For pro se petitions who have been assigned counsel, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [728.739], "stop_times": [733.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.739}, "reply_to": "22316__0_046", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_048", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, no, normally... the issue of whether or not there should be... the petition may have the benefit of the relation back normally is... involves a delay of not more than, say, five or six months, in a normal case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [733.069], "stop_times": [745.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 733.069}, "reply_to": "22316__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22316__0_049", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "I don't have any statistics on that, Your Honor.\nBut even if it were only five or six months, that would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [745.533, 747.672], "stop_times": [747.672, 751.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 745.533}, "reply_to": "22316__0_048", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_050", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "You still lose the benefit of the statute.\nYou lose an important right.\nBut I'm just wondering about how serious a problem it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [751.522, 753.271, 754.386], "stop_times": [753.271, 754.386, 757.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 751.522}, "reply_to": "22316__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22316__0_051", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--It can be a more serious problem in capital litigation, where you're dealing with many more claims, which could be more complex, which could require exhaustion for the... before the federal review.\nIt just depends on the nature of the claim and the nature of the issues involved.\nI think that the statistics that were cited in the Justice Department study have different dates for how long cases pend, depending on the nature of the claim, whether it be for prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance, and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [757.234, 773.015, 779.067], "stop_times": [773.015, 779.067, 796.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 757.234}, "reply_to": "22316__0_050", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_052", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "But in the capital case, you've got a specific provision in there.\nI mean, for the capital case, which is the one, I agree, you worry about most, because there's reason to delay there, Congress provided specifically for states to opt in; and when they opt in, they get the benefit of pretty rigorous time bars.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [796.231, 800.374], "stop_times": [800.374, 817.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 796.231}, "reply_to": "22316__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22316__0_053", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "That's true, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [817.228], "stop_times": [818.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 817.228}, "reply_to": "22316__0_052", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_054", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "And so, why... I mean, isn't the answer to the capital-case problem exactly the answer that Congress gave, and, if a state does not want to opt in, then the normal amendment rules apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [818.736], "stop_times": [831.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 818.736}, "reply_to": "22316__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22316__0_055", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Chapter 154 provisions do set forth a fast track for capital cases if the State can establish certain appointment procedures for counsel.\nHowever, it did not speak to the interpretation of Rule 15(c)(2), and Congress could not have intended that the statute of limitations not apply to Chapter 153 simply because of Chapter 154.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [831.596, 844.87], "stop_times": [844.87, 859.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 831.596}, "reply_to": "22316__0_054", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_056", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "What is your definition of the test under 15(c)(2)?\nI mean, on the one side, the argument is... Felix's argument is, it's the entire trial episode, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [859.003, 864.529], "stop_times": [864.529, 878.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 859.003}, "reply_to": "22316__0_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22316__0_057", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [878.102], "stop_times": [879.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 878.102}, "reply_to": "22316__0_056", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_058", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "And is yours that every single objection that might be made in this entire trial record, every one, is a separate transaction or occurrence, for purposes of 15(c)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [879.196], "stop_times": [892.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 879.196}, "reply_to": "22316__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22316__0_059", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "For purpose of 15(c)(2), our interpretation is that the kind of transaction occurrence is that core of operative facts that support the constitutional claims.\nThat means that the objections... it is not necessarily true that one objection claim would not relate back to a second objection claim.\nIt just depends upon whether they're closely related.\nIn this case, the claims are not closely related.\nYou have a claim made of confrontation... excuse me... confrontation clause, by the admission of Williams' videotaped evidence; and then you have the admission of evidence of a coerced confession statement.\nHowever, it takes an entirely different set of facts to establish that new claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [892.715, 903.388, 914.225, 917.638, 922.113, 939.873], "stop_times": [903.388, 914.225, 917.638, 922.113, 939.873, 945.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 892.715}, "reply_to": "22316__0_058", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_060", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--The successive petition rules, or the rules prohibiting successive petition, seem to treat the entire attack as one... as one legal theory, as one case.\nAnd it seems to me to be in... somewhat intentioned for that, for you to break it down the way you want to under Rule 15(c).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [945.425, 962.555], "stop_times": [962.555, 969.761], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 945.425}, "reply_to": "22316__0_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__0_061", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "I think that the Respondent made a similar argument, based on a res judicata claim, and it was noted in the treatises that were cited that you have different intents behind res judicata and the relation-back doctrine, and its do not apply that way.\nI'd like to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [969.761, 993.233], "stop_times": [993.233, 998.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 969.761}, "reply_to": "22316__0_060", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__0_062", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Very well, Mr. Chan.\nMs. Blatt, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [998.081, 999.585], "stop_times": [999.585, 1001.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 998.081}, "reply_to": "22316__0_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22316__1_000", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe relevant conduct, transaction or occurrence in the habeas context is the set of facts that are asserted in support of the particular grounds for relief under habeas Rule 2.\nThat reference point best preserves Congress' intent under AEDPA to accelerate the filing and disposition of habeas proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1001.334, 1014.193, 1027.163], "stop_times": [1014.193, 1027.163, 1036.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1001.334}, "reply_to": "22316__0_062", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_001", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Are you, Ms. Blatt, taking the position that that is a tighter test than would apply ordinarily to the run of civil cases under 15(c)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1036.401], "stop_times": [1047.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1036.401}, "reply_to": "22316__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22316__1_002", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "I think, Justice Ginsburg, our fundamental point is, there is no counterpart to tort or contract action, with habeas.\nThere is just no analog.\nAnd that is because there's not only Rule 2, which imposes this heightened across-the-board fact pleading requirement, but it's also because those pleading rules work in tandem with all the other unique habeas rules that apply only to habeas that serve to narrow the timing and scope of habeas review.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1047.66, 1056.289, 1057.904], "stop_times": [1056.289, 1057.904, 1079.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1047.66}, "reply_to": "22316__1_001", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_003", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "It's a... it's a little odd for the statute to say that the rules apply; and then we look to the rules, but we interpret it differently.\nI certainly see the common sense of your position, but I'm just having a problem with 15(c)(2).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1079.045, 1085.241], "stop_times": [1085.241, 1090.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1079.045}, "reply_to": "22316__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__1_004", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Yeah, I just don't think it's different, both... regardless, you've got to come the case and figure out what is the relevant-conduct transaction or occurrence in a habeas petition.\nAnd there's the extreme view of viewing it as the entire trial or conviction, or there's another view as... look at it as what the habeas rules require, and that is the prisoner to identify a particular unconstitutional conduct or occurrence that gives rise to a basis for relief.\nNow, under the Ninth Circuit's view, a prisoner can timely file one claim and then add any number of completely different claims after the one-year period.\nFor instance, a timely Batson challenge could then... after the one year, the claim could add claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, Brady violations, or coerced confession.\nAnd to have to resolve those claims would significantly extend the limitations period beyond the one-year period.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1090.447, 1099.47, 1116.253, 1126.077, 1138.61], "stop_times": [1099.47, 1116.253, 1126.077, 1138.61, 1145.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1090.447}, "reply_to": "22316__1_003", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_005", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, this case isn't as extreme as that, is it?\nIt has to do with evidence admitted at trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1145.715, 1149.57], "stop_times": [1149.57, 1153.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1145.715}, "reply_to": "22316__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22316__1_006", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "It's... well, that's true, it takes in trial errors, but that's a lot.\nIneffective assistance of counsel is a trial error.\nCoerced confession, confrontation clause, discriminatory selection in the jury... I mean, I don't know if that's a trial, or maybe pretrial... but it does take in a lot, and I don't think there's a close call that they relate to different actors, different time periods--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1153.048, 1157.906, 1160.572], "stop_times": [1157.906, 1160.572, 1174.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1153.048}, "reply_to": "22316__1_005", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_007", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, certainly in the civil-case context, generally, the interpretation has been pretty broad.\nAnd I suspect if we try to narrow it a lot, we're going to have a lot of litigation about this point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1174.765, 1181.847], "stop_times": [1181.847, 1191.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1174.765}, "reply_to": "22316__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22316__1_008", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--I'm not sure about that.\nThis has been the rule in the majority of Circuits for five or six years now, since 1999 or 2000, and it hasn't generated a lot of problems.\nAnd that's because, Justice O'Connor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1191.72, 1192.802, 1201.02], "stop_times": [1192.802, 1201.02, 1202.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1191.72}, "reply_to": "22316__1_007", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_009", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Can you articulate the rule that you want?\nBe as precise as you can, if you would.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1202.545, 1206.679], "stop_times": [1206.679, 1209.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1202.545}, "reply_to": "22316__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22316__1_010", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--It would be the set of facts that are asserted in support of the grounds for relief in the original habeas petition.\nAnd the reason why this hasn't generated a problem, Justice O'Connor, is that... and the way the Courts of Appeals haven't really had to identify a test... is because they're so disparate in time and type.\nYou have an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim that's timely raised, and then there's discriminatory selection of the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1209.729, 1216.966, 1227.542], "stop_times": [1216.966, 1227.542, 1234.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1209.729}, "reply_to": "22316__1_009", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_011", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "How about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1234.484], "stop_times": [1235.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1234.484}, "reply_to": "22316__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22316__1_012", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "If I sue for negligence or, in any civil action we might... we might imagine, there might be three or four ways in which the Defendant has injured me, and the Tiller case, the railroad case, tells us that it's a single action.\nAnd do you concede this, that you're asking us to interpret this differently and more narrowly than in the civil context?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1235.418, 1254.814], "stop_times": [1254.814, 1262.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1235.418}, "reply_to": "22316__1_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__1_013", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1262.063], "stop_times": [1262.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1262.063}, "reply_to": "22316__1_012", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_014", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Or do you concede that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1262.547], "stop_times": [1263.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.547}, "reply_to": "22316__1_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__1_015", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--I concede that... it's hard to answer that, Justice Kennedy, because a habeas proceeding is not a train accident.\nAnd there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1263.433, 1269.928], "stop_times": [1269.928, 1270.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1263.433}, "reply_to": "22316__1_014", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_016", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, it's hard for me to figure it out, too, but it seems to me that what you're saying is that we have a different rule, because this is habeas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1270.828], "stop_times": [1277.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1270.828}, "reply_to": "22316__1_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__1_017", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--In the civil context, you always have a question of, Do we let in other loan transactions in a breach of contract, or, Do we let in another pattern or practice or... of similar products?\nI mean, there's line-drawing, when it comes up in the civil context, all the time, every day in District Courts.\nBut, Justice Kennedy, in habeas there are more than ordinary principles of finality at stake that aren't... that just aren't true in any tort or contract action.\nAnd this Court said that in the Calderon decision.\nAnd the reason is because of the interest in not just the prosecutor in having adequate notice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1277.179, 1286.32, 1291.322, 1300.084, 1302.244], "stop_times": [1286.32, 1291.322, 1300.084, 1302.244, 1306.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1277.179}, "reply_to": "22316__1_016", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_018", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "So to complete Justice O'Connor's... the answer to Justice O'Connor's question, you say,\n\"And we interpret this differently in habeas than in other cases, because of finality concerns. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1306.734, 1311.197], "stop_times": [1311.197, 1315.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1306.734}, "reply_to": "22316__1_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__1_019", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--I would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1315.613], "stop_times": [1316.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1315.613}, "reply_to": "22316__1_018", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_020", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "You want us to interpret it differently.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1316.355], "stop_times": [1317.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1316.355}, "reply_to": "22316__1_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__1_021", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--That would be totally acceptable, because of the distinct interest in not only the finality in the interest of society, and repose--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1317.368], "stop_times": [1324.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1317.368}, "reply_to": "22316__1_020", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_022", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, I'm sure it would be acceptable, but what's the authority for interpreting the rule two different ways, depending on the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1324.061], "stop_times": [1328.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1324.061}, "reply_to": "22316__1_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__1_023", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Well, it's not like there's a habeas civil proceeding that we're asking for a habeas... habeas proceeding to be different.\nThere is no counterpart to a tort action or a contract action where it's liberal pleading requirements under Rule 8, and every single grounds for relief in a habeas proceeding there is a requirement that the prisoner actually identify all the grounds and the particular facts in support of that, and those heightened pleading requirements focus the proceeding on that particular transaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1328.914, 1337.085], "stop_times": [1337.085, 1361.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1328.914}, "reply_to": "22316__1_022", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_024", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Well, let me... let me ask you how that would work in this case.\nThe original claim is that there was a Fourth Amendment violation in admitting, you know, unlawfully seized evidence.\nLater, the Petitioner wants to amend to claim ineffective assistance of counsel, because counsel totally overlooked the leading case, directly on point, on this particular evidence.\nIs that arising out of the same operative set of facts, or is... or is that something different?\nClearly, the facts are not exactly the same.\nClose enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1361.682, 1364.807, 1372.79, 1385.356, 1390.438, 1392.656], "stop_times": [1364.807, 1372.79, 1385.356, 1390.438, 1392.656, 1393.717], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1361.682}, "reply_to": "22316__1_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22316__1_025", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, we'd look to the common core.\nAnd I think we would argue that one is focusing on counsel's performance, and the other is on police misconduct.\nBut, Justice Souter--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1393.717, 1396.011, 1401.536], "stop_times": [1396.011, 1401.536, 1402.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1393.717}, "reply_to": "22316__1_024", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_026", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Yeah, but if that's... if that's the line you're going to draw, then it seems to me that, in effect, what you are saying is, you can't amend.\nBecause I can't imagine an operative set of facts that are going to be much close than... in the real world, than the... than the two sets that I gave you; and if they're not close enough, you're really arguing for a no-amendment rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1402.373, 1410.836], "stop_times": [1410.836, 1422.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1402.373}, "reply_to": "22316__1_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22316__1_027", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--There's amendment all the time in the majority of Circuits that have applied the Government's test, and it comes up in two--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1422.76], "stop_times": [1428.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1422.76}, "reply_to": "22316__1_026", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_028", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Not if you were the judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1428.12], "stop_times": [1429.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.12}, "reply_to": "22316__1_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22316__1_029", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--No, that's not true, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1429.198], "stop_times": [1431.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1429.198}, "reply_to": "22316__1_028", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_030", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "No, but, I mean, why--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1431.426], "stop_times": [1431.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1431.426}, "reply_to": "22316__1_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22316__1_031", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1431.702], "stop_times": [1432.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1431.702}, "reply_to": "22316__1_030", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_032", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--why--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1432.608], "stop_times": [1432.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1432.608}, "reply_to": "22316__1_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22316__1_033", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Let me just say, on the attorney-ineffectiveness one, it's completely besides the point what the Government's view is, because the claims are completely derivative, and the prisoner gets no benefit whether he gets the amendment or not, because, in order to show procedural default, he's going to have to show attorney effectiveness, and he just doesn't get anything additional, one way or the other, and it really doesn't matter which claim he asserts first.\nBut the reason why amendment occurs all the time is because our rule allows the prisoner to amplify facts such that if he raises a Miranda claim or a Strickland claim, and doesn't allege custody or doesn't allege prejudice under Strickland, he can amend, after the one-year period.\nAnd also--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1432.779, 1453.92, 1469.231], "stop_times": [1453.92, 1469.231, 1470.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1432.779}, "reply_to": "22316__1_032", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_034", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--So you can amend... you can amend your factual basis, as it were, but you can't amend your claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1470.212], "stop_times": [1474.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1470.212}, "reply_to": "22316__1_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22316__1_035", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--No, the way you get claims, which is really the... the direct text on the rule says you can add a claim if it arises out of the same... is if the transaction relates to the... to give you an example, to an involuntary confession, you could have an amendment of a Miranda claim that arises out of that police... alleged police misconduct that culminated in the admission of the confession.\nYou could also have a Massiah violation that related back to a Fifth Amendment claim.\nAnd you could have other types, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1474.963, 1495.847, 1501.005], "stop_times": [1495.847, 1501.005, 1503.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1474.963}, "reply_to": "22316__1_034", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_036", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "It seems to me that the reason for the... for defining the relation back the way the rule does is interest in fairness to the Defendant you don't want to let him be surprised; whereas, your claim, as I understand, is really based entirely on the interest in finality and repose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1503.81], "stop_times": [1518.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1503.81}, "reply_to": "22316__1_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22316__1_037", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, I think the interest of notice is part of it.\nI mean, it doesn't always trigger when the State hasn't... or the Federal Government hasn't answered.\nBut statute of limitations are not only about fairness, in terms of preserving evidence, but the interest in repose--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1518.972, 1521.211, 1525.852], "stop_times": [1521.211, 1525.852, 1532.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1518.972}, "reply_to": "22316__1_036", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_038", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "No, but the definition--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1532.375], "stop_times": [1533.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1532.375}, "reply_to": "22316__1_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22316__1_039", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--and closure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1533.44], "stop_times": [1533.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1533.44}, "reply_to": "22316__1_038", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_040", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--in the rule is really to protect the interest in fairness, because interest in repose is always the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1533.553], "stop_times": [1538.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1533.553}, "reply_to": "22316__1_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22316__1_041", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, that... it's to preserve the statute of limitations, but if the relevant transaction is something narrower than the conviction, then the interest of repose sets in.\nAnd, I mean, the other side has, you know, the same point... it's if you draw it out broad enough--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1538.928, 1553.952], "stop_times": [1553.952, 1560.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1538.928}, "reply_to": "22316__1_040", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_042", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, the interest in repose is always there.\nYou'd always like to preserve the defense, whenever you can.\nThat's really what's at stake here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1560.182, 1561.184, 1563.467], "stop_times": [1561.184, 1563.467, 1564.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1560.182}, "reply_to": "22316__1_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22316__1_043", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Well, I think what's at stake is Congress' intent in passing the one year.\nAnd it's fundamentally inconsistent with that to have a prisoner timely file one claim and then potentially add an unlimited number of claims, no matter how different and... in time and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1564.933, 1569.658], "stop_times": [1569.658, 1581.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1564.933}, "reply_to": "22316__1_042", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_044", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Even if they all come in just two or three months after the statute's run.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1581.135], "stop_times": [1584.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.135}, "reply_to": "22316__1_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22316__1_045", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1584.281], "stop_times": [1585.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1584.281}, "reply_to": "22316__1_044", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_046", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "It's really not a big deal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1585.194], "stop_times": [1586.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1585.194}, "reply_to": "22316__1_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22316__1_047", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--a six-month difference is a 50-percent extension of the limitations period, which is a big deal.\nAnd Congress wanted a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1586.105, 1590.792], "stop_times": [1590.792, 1592.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1586.105}, "reply_to": "22316__1_046", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_048", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "And here, it was five months.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1592.12], "stop_times": [1593.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1592.12}, "reply_to": "22316__1_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22316__1_049", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--I think it was five months.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1593.369], "stop_times": [1594.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1593.369}, "reply_to": "22316__1_048", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_050", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1594.818], "stop_times": [1595.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1594.818}, "reply_to": "22316__1_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22316__1_051", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "It was five months.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1595.976, 1596.52], "stop_times": [1596.52, 1597.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1595.976}, "reply_to": "22316__1_050", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_052", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Are you relying, Ms. Blatt, at all on the difference between the pleading rules for civil cases, generally, and habeas, where you do have a whole set of pleading rules, separate from the habeas rules?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1597.132], "stop_times": [1612.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1597.132}, "reply_to": "22316__1_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22316__1_053", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--May I answer?\nI think we're relying on both habeas Rule 2 and the principles under AEDPA on finality.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1612.555, 1613.899], "stop_times": [1613.899, 1618.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1612.555}, "reply_to": "22316__1_052", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22316__1_054", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Blatt.\nMr. Porter, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1618.315, 1619.734], "stop_times": [1619.734, 1623.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1618.315}, "reply_to": "22316__1_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22316__2_000", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI'd like to respond to the finality concern, because I think that really goes to the heart of this case.\nThree weeks ago, this Court, in Rhines versus Weber, unanimously approved of the stay-and-abeyance procedure, because the Petitioner's interest in obtaining review of his federal claims outweighed the competing interests of finality and speedy resolution of the federal petition.\nNow, Mr. Felix's case is even more compelling than Rhines, because, unlike the stay-and-abeyance procedure, which is just the power... the inherent power of the Court to control its docket, here we're talking about the command of Congress.\nIn Section 2242, of the judicial code, Congress provided, specifically, that the rules governing amendments of habeas petitions be controlled by the rules governing civil procedure.\nThe only rule regarding--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1623.339, 1628.763, 1631.216, 1637.92, 1658.582, 1675.825, 1692.71], "stop_times": [1628.763, 1631.216, 1637.92, 1658.582, 1675.825, 1692.71, 1694.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1623.339}, "reply_to": "22316__1_054", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_001", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, that's true.\nI mean, we can accept that, but we still have to interpret what's a transaction or occurrence, I assume.\nAnd is it open to us, in the habeas context, to take a narrow view of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1694.694, 1694.826, 1700.436], "stop_times": [1694.826, 1700.436, 1707.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1694.694}, "reply_to": "22316__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22316__2_002", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Your Honor, I believe that under this Court's decisions about how you determine what Congress did, Congress operated against a backdrop of how Rule 15(c) was applied by this Court and the lower courts.\nAnd in 1948, when 2242 was adopted, Tiller was very recent; it was a 1945 case.\nIt must have been... we assume that Congress, like normal citizens, know what the law is, and they developed the rule against that backdrop.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1707.775, 1724.809, 1732.697], "stop_times": [1724.809, 1732.697, 1741.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1707.775}, "reply_to": "22316__2_001", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_003", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, that was... that was a rule for tort cases; it wasn't a rule for habeas cases.\nAnd, as pointed out by the Government, habeas cases are fundamentally different, in that the notice that you give to the opposing party in tort cases, ordinary civil cases, is very vague.\nIt's just, you know, what the event was,\n\"I got hit by a train. \"\nYou don't have to say,\n\"Wherein, the train was negligent... or the railroad was negligent. \"\nor anything else; just,\nWhereas, with respect to habeas corpus, there are rules that require specifying all the grounds for relief available to the Petitioner, state the facts supporting each ground.\nIt seems to me that those different pleading requirements suggest that what is the relevant transaction or occurrence for the one is not the same as what is the relevant transaction or occurrence for the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1741.634, 1745.806, 1759.523, 1771.374, 1764.382, 1765.427, 1770.147, 1772.664, 1785.368], "stop_times": [1745.806, 1759.523, 1771.374, 1764.382, 1765.427, 1770.147, 1772.664, 1785.368, 1798.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1741.634}, "reply_to": "22316__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22316__2_004", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "That's a very good point I'd like to address, because I don't think we hit that... upon that in our briefs.\nHabeas 2... habeas Rule 2 does require fact pleading, but the purpose of that is not to give notice to the other party, as the Solicitor General and the Warden suggest.\nThe petition is not served on the Warden in habeas cases, so they don't even get a copy of the petition; it is filed with the court.\nThe purpose of the fact-pleading requirement of Rule 2 is so that the District Court, under Rule 4 of habeas rules, can perform its screening function to determine whether the petition is facially valid or not.\nThat requires some sort of facts to be plead.\nAnd that's in the Advisory Committee notes.\nIt's also the requirement of 2243 of the Judicial Code, that the District Court review the petition so that wardens are not disturbed with every pro se litigant's Petitioner and have to respond.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1798.248, 1802.952, 1815.033, 1824.915, 1839.293, 1842.582, 1844.343], "stop_times": [1802.952, 1815.033, 1824.915, 1839.293, 1842.582, 1844.343, 1859.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1798.248}, "reply_to": "22316__2_003", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_005", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Whatever the reason for it is, certainly you can interpret the rules to say that the pleading requirement being different and much more specific, the amendment process should be different.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1859.015], "stop_times": [1872.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.015}, "reply_to": "22316__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22316__2_006", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "I think that that's... Congress reasonably could have said that, and reasonably could have said that... amended 2242, for example, when it passed the Antiterrorism Act, and said,\n\"Generally, yes, the rules of civil procedure apply for amendments. \"\nbut we're... there should be a narrower rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1872.396, 1884.39, 1888.854], "stop_times": [1884.39, 1888.854, 1892.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1872.396}, "reply_to": "22316__2_005", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_007", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "But you don't need an amendment, I don't think.\nIf you're talking about a transaction, the question is, What is the transaction?\nAnd in habeas it may be quite different than in other civil proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1892.07, 1894.166, 1899.605], "stop_times": [1894.166, 1899.605, 1904.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1892.07}, "reply_to": "22316__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22316__2_008", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "I think that the only basis for determining what \"transaction\" is, you have to look at the... if you... if you're right, that we should have some kind of different rule for habeas than all other civil proceedings, well, then it has to be grounded in the habeas statutes.\nAnd if... when you look at the habeas statutes, it says,\n\"Confinement must be in violation of the constitutional-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1904.73, 1920.901, 1923.616], "stop_times": [1920.901, 1923.616, 1928.154], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1904.73}, "reply_to": "22316__2_007", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_009", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "But then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1928.154], "stop_times": [1928.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1928.154}, "reply_to": "22316__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22316__2_010", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--\"laws which\"--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1928.325], "stop_times": [1929.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1928.325}, "reply_to": "22316__2_009", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_011", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--I mean, what's bothering me about this case is, I don't know that the Government needs to argue that there is a different rule.\nAs I read the lower-court decisions, what they've done is used the words \"core operative fact\".\nCore operative facts in a tort case, where the engine of Train A runs into the caboose of Train B, is that collision.\nAnd the decision that the front... the locomotive should have been lit, as well as the back of the caboose, seems, arguably at least, the same operative fact.\nCore operative facts.\nBut to say that a witness, in the middle of the trial, was treated unconstitutionally seems, at least arguably, quite a different set of core operative facts from the fact that the Defendant was questioned before the trial.\nNow, that seems to me related to the nature of habeas, but it still seems to me that those words, \"core operative fact\", the same words, work differently in the two situations.\nAnd to adopt your approach also strikes me as running around the one-year statute of limitations.\nNow, those are my concerns, and I would appreciate your addressing them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [1929.087, 1937.226, 1943.855, 1954.276, 1966.591, 1968.186, 1988.266, 2002.116, 2009.033], "stop_times": [1937.226, 1943.855, 1954.276, 1966.591, 1968.186, 1988.266, 2002.116, 2009.033, 2013.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1929.087}, "reply_to": "22316__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22316__2_012", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Well, I hope I can put those to rest.\nOn the first concern, I think that there are differences between a train wreck and habeas.\nMost of my habeas cases are train wrecks, so I hope that's not... but I think there is a logical difference between them.\nBut I think when you look carefully at the case of Tiller, those really were very different facts about the head car not being lit and the rear of the locomotive not being lit.\nAfter all, those were two separate legal claims, as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2013.567, 2015.407, 2025.946, 2037.396, 2049.598], "stop_times": [2015.407, 2025.946, 2037.396, 2049.598, 2052.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2013.567}, "reply_to": "22316__2_011", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_013", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "But, Mr. Porter--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2052.574], "stop_times": [2053.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.574}, "reply_to": "22316__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22316__2_014", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "The first one--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2053.906], "stop_times": [2054.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2053.906}, "reply_to": "22316__2_013", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_015", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--all that would be required to allege, to take the four-line complaint... all that the Plaintiff would have to say in that tort case is, \"The train was negligently operated\", with nothing more specific than that.\nAnd then the particulars could come out later.\nUnder habeas, you can't do that.\nYou must set out your grounds, and the... Rule 2 is very specific about that.\nSo, it's a very different approach to what you have to allege, going in.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2054.034, 2072.364, 2076.914, 2079.063, 2087.164], "stop_times": [2072.364, 2076.914, 2079.063, 2087.164, 2092.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2054.034}, "reply_to": "22316__2_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22316__2_016", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--I agree, Your Honor, but you... I think you need to step back and look at the purpose for the difference in the pleading rules.\nThe purpose is, if the... if the reason was that you have to give specific facts to put the other side on notice, I would say that there is a compelling argument that that should be... that should inform this Court's decision about how Rule 15(c) should be read.\nBut it's very clear, from 2243 and from habeas Rule 4, that the purpose for requiring the facts underlying the claims is not to give notice to the other side, but to allow the District Court to perform its screening function to determine whether the... whether the petition is facially valid or not.\nIf it's not valid, then the Warden is not even served with the petition.\nIt just... the petition is simply dismissed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2092.455, 2101.948, 2118.332, 2137.378, 2142.103], "stop_times": [2101.948, 2118.332, 2137.378, 2142.103, 2144.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2092.455}, "reply_to": "22316__2_015", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_017", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Can you file... can you file a request for a more specific statement in habeas, as you can in a civil case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2144.306], "stop_times": [2155.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.306}, "reply_to": "22316__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22316__2_018", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Yes, under Rule 81 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 11, unless application of that rule is contrary to, or inconsistent with, the habeas statutes or rules, then it is applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2155.021], "stop_times": [2168.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2155.021}, "reply_to": "22316__2_017", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_019", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Could we go back?\nBecause I'm still concerned with the fact that Claim 1, which is a claim on January 2 that police arrested the Defendant and didn't read him Miranda warnings properly; Claim 2 is a claim that, two and a half years later, the prosecutor, during the trial, made some prejudicial arguments.\nNow, I think, just common sense, Do those arise out of the same core operative facts?\nAbsolutely not.\nThe facts are totally different.\nThe only thing that brings them together is that there was a single legal proceeding.\nAnd, at the same time, if I adopt this approach that doesn't seem to comport with the common sense, I'm running around Congress' effort with the one-year statute.\nSo what is your response?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2168.279, 2169.297, 2189.75, 2196.224, 2197.482, 2199.317, 2204.576, 2215.739], "stop_times": [2169.297, 2189.75, 2196.224, 2197.482, 2199.317, 2204.576, 2215.739, 2218.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.279}, "reply_to": "22316__2_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22316__2_020", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "First of all, the response is that the statute... the rule does not use the term \"core operative facts\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2218.16], "stop_times": [2226.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2218.16}, "reply_to": "22316__2_019", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_021", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "No, but every lower court that has... not every one; you know better than I... but it seems like a commonly found expression when lower courts have interpreted the Rule 15 and have looked to Tiller.\nIs that true, or not true?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2226.464, 2240.612], "stop_times": [2240.612, 2243.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2226.464}, "reply_to": "22316__2_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22316__2_022", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Not in the habeas context.\nNone of those--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2243.375, 2245.043], "stop_times": [2245.043, 2245.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2243.375}, "reply_to": "22316__2_021", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_023", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "No, of course not in the habeas context.\nI'm saying that if we're trying to apply, in the habeas context, the same test that's used elsewhere in the civil law, wouldn't we use the word \"core operative fact\"?\nOr would we?\nI'm not as familiar with this as you.\nWhat is the answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2245.262, 2246.734, 2258.851, 2259.4, 2261.069], "stop_times": [2246.734, 2258.851, 2259.4, 2261.069, 2262.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.262}, "reply_to": "22316__2_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22316__2_024", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--I don't believe so.\nI think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2262.034, 2262.529], "stop_times": [2262.529, 2263.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2262.034}, "reply_to": "22316__2_023", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_025", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "No?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2263.205], "stop_times": [2263.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.205}, "reply_to": "22316__2_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22316__2_026", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--and Wright and Miller confirmed this, that actually courts have tried to develop different tests: Is it the same evidence that they're going to use?\nIs it a core of operative facts?\nAnd, in the end, they say there's no better test than the one set forth in the rule, and that is conduct, transaction, or occurrence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2263.344, 2271.61, 2273.428], "stop_times": [2271.61, 2273.428, 2280.986], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2263.344}, "reply_to": "22316__2_025", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_027", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "But, of course, we're trying to decide what is the transaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2280.986], "stop_times": [2283.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2280.986}, "reply_to": "22316__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22316__2_028", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Right, but the reason why is that there is a body of case law that determines... that's told us what that means.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2283.977], "stop_times": [2292.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2283.977}, "reply_to": "22316__2_027", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_029", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Let's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2292.936], "stop_times": [2293.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2292.936}, "reply_to": "22316__2_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__2_030", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "And Tiller tells us it means that it's the events leading up to the injury.\nAnd so, that's how, I think, that that phrase has been interpreted, and that's what Congress adopted--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2293.346, 2297.713], "stop_times": [2297.713, 2305.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2293.346}, "reply_to": "22316__2_029", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_031", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Let's take--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2305.057], "stop_times": [2305.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2305.057}, "reply_to": "22316__2_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__2_032", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "What about... what about the case law in the lower courts that Justice Breyer referred to, dealing with the core operative facts and adopting--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2305.531], "stop_times": [2316.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2305.531}, "reply_to": "22316__2_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22316__2_033", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, I think... they don't... I'm not aware of those cases using--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2316.826], "stop_times": [2325.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2316.826}, "reply_to": "22316__2_032", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_034", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--you say let's look at all the cases that have followed Tiller, and... but apparently a lot of the courts adopting the core operative fact have developed that without full regard to Tiller.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2325.92], "stop_times": [2340.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.92}, "reply_to": "22316__2_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22316__2_035", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--No, the lower courts... the most usual interpretation of Tiller that we've cited in our brief that the lower courts perform is this idea of any events leading up to the ultimate injury--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2340.938], "stop_times": [2355.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2340.938}, "reply_to": "22316__2_034", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_036", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "But in the habeas context, haven't the majority of the Circuits had a more restrictive rule than the Seventh Circuit and the Ninth have espoused?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2355.007], "stop_times": [2365.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2355.007}, "reply_to": "22316__2_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22316__2_037", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Yes, they have.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2365.146], "stop_times": [2365.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2365.146}, "reply_to": "22316__2_036", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_038", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Yeah.\nAnd so, I think the question is, Should we follow the majority of the Circuits?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2365.673, 2366.11], "stop_times": [2366.11, 2370.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.673}, "reply_to": "22316__2_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22316__2_039", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "And you should not, because what those courts failed to do is, they failed to appreciate that Congress has already spoken, in two different ways.\nFirst, Congress adopted 2242; and when it adopted AEDPA, it did not amend 2242, and it did not amend Rule 15(c).\nAnd, second, in death-penalty cases, which, after all, is really the only set of cases where there is an incentive to delay, Congress specifically spoke.\nAnd in 2266(b)(3)(B) Congress said,\n\"Amendments to petitions shall not be permitted after answers are filed unless the Petitioner can make a showing for a second or successive petition. \"\nNow, this is Lindh versus Murphy all over again.\nThis is a case where Congress has spoken as to Chapter 154.\nIn Lindh versus Murphy, it said,\n\"That chapter will be... the amendment will be applied retroactively to cases then pending. \"\nThey did not do anything with Chapter 153 cases.\nTheir negative implication, when Congress so specifically addresses this issue for one limited, narrow set of cases... and that really make sense in death-penalty cases, does it not?\nWhen the State gives the death-penalty Petitioner lawyers for State post-conviction review, then all of those claims are done in state habeas, they are brought together, it fulfills the claim-gathering function of the Antiterrorism Act; and then, very logically, Congress determined,\n\"We should have a very, very strict restriction of amendments. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2370.168, 2378.584, 2388.968, 2400.764, 2404.781, 2414.738, 2418.46, 2423.58, 2425.32, 2431.17, 2434.984, 2446.476, 2469.303], "stop_times": [2378.584, 2388.968, 2400.764, 2404.781, 2414.738, 2418.46, 2423.58, 2425.32, 2431.17, 2434.984, 2446.476, 2469.303, 2476.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2370.168}, "reply_to": "22316__2_038", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_040", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Let me... let me ask you.\nTake the two events in this case, and as explained by Justice Breyer, a Miranda violation in the questioning and then a problem with the confrontation clause in the trial, two years later.\nLet's assume that there was a 1983 civil action for those violations, and let's assume that both are actionable.\nDifferent cause of action.\nIs that... how would... how would an amendment be treated in a civil action?\nBased on most of the lower-court precedents you've been... would the amendment related back?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2476.05, 2477.217, 2489.958, 2497.59, 2501.408, 2505.967], "stop_times": [2477.217, 2489.958, 2497.59, 2501.408, 2505.967, 2510.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2476.05}, "reply_to": "22316__2_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__2_041", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "I don't believe so.\nIn civil-rights actions, there are... the constitutional rights at issue are the injury.\nSo one... if a person started out with saying their injury in the civil-rights action was the admission of the evidence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2510.442, 2511.924, 2517.952], "stop_times": [2511.924, 2517.952, 2526.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2510.442}, "reply_to": "22316__2_040", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_042", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "You would think no relation back, in the case I put--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2526.02], "stop_times": [2529.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2526.02}, "reply_to": "22316__2_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22316__2_043", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Because there... it does not relate to the same injury.\nIn habeas, by contrast, the injury is the custody that's in violation of the Constitution laws and treaties--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2529.071, 2532.89], "stop_times": [2532.89, 2541.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2529.071}, "reply_to": "22316__2_042", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_044", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, the injury--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2541.913], "stop_times": [2542.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2541.913}, "reply_to": "22316__2_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22316__2_045", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2542.389], "stop_times": [2543.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2542.389}, "reply_to": "22316__2_044", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_046", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--I suppose, in the... in the Miranda violation, is introducing the evidence at the time of trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2543.135], "stop_times": [2546.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2543.135}, "reply_to": "22316__2_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22316__2_047", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2546.622], "stop_times": [2547.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2546.622}, "reply_to": "22316__2_046", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_048", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "That's the point.\nYou don't look two and a half years back just to... you decide what happened at the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2547.433, 2547.949], "stop_times": [2547.949, 2551.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2547.433}, "reply_to": "22316__2_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22316__2_049", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "That's correct.\nAnd in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2551.97, 2552.487], "stop_times": [2552.487, 2553.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2551.97}, "reply_to": "22316__2_048", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_050", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Right.\nSo what about the injury?\nWhat about that?\nThat the injury... the trial's over, say, six weeks... the injury takes place at the time of introduction?\nOr is the injury the whole time the... the guilty verdict?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2553.403, 2553.521, 2554.347, 2555.084, 2560.912], "stop_times": [2553.521, 2554.347, 2555.084, 2560.912, 2564.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2553.403}, "reply_to": "22316__2_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22316__2_051", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Well, that the that's the problem with the... with the Warden's proposed test.\nAre these, quote, \"closely related claims\"?\nThat is not, I suggest, a... nearly a bright-line rule that would help the District Courts in determining what is, and what is not, part of the same transaction.\nSo, I don't think that that's a real viable alternative.\nI... again, I think it's important for the Court to go back... if it's going to create a different rule in habeas, it has to have some grounding--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2564.267, 2568.795, 2571.024, 2581.323, 2586.118], "stop_times": [2568.795, 2571.024, 2581.323, 2586.118, 2594.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2564.267}, "reply_to": "22316__2_050", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_052", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, why doesn't the 1981... given... maybe I don't... haven't followed it correctly, but why doesn't the 1981 claim, then, relate back?\nI think the injury that took place from both violations took place at the time of trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2594.166, 2603.36], "stop_times": [2603.36, 2609.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2594.166}, "reply_to": "22316__2_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22316__2_053", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Well, maybe I wasn't following the hypothetical closely enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2609.851], "stop_times": [2613.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2609.851}, "reply_to": "22316__2_052", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_054", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Okay, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2613.131], "stop_times": [2613.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2613.131}, "reply_to": "22316__2_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22316__2_055", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "If--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2613.515], "stop_times": [2614.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2613.515}, "reply_to": "22316__2_054", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_056", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Forget it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2614.314], "stop_times": [2614.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2614.314}, "reply_to": "22316__2_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22316__2_057", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Okay.\nWell, let... if we can return to the facts of this case, I think these... we fit comfortably within the definition of Mr. Felix is asserting in this habeas petition are trial rights.\nUnder this Court's decision in Chavez versus Martinez, in this Court's decision in Pennsylvania versus Ritchie, both the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment rights are trial rights.\nThose statements, independently, when they were taken by the same police officer, did not violate any rights.\nThey only violated Mr. Felix's rights when they were introduced in the... in the prosecution's case in chief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2614.442, 2614.943, 2630.115, 2642.164, 2649.422], "stop_times": [2614.943, 2630.115, 2642.164, 2649.422, 2656.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2614.442}, "reply_to": "22316__2_056", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_058", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "But the argument as to whether it was properly done, whether the ruling was proper, is going to go back to the time of the Miranda interrogation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2656.836], "stop_times": [2667.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2656.836}, "reply_to": "22316__2_057", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22316__2_059", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "I agree that those facts are relevant, but it's the operative facts that are--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2667.918], "stop_times": [2674.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2667.918}, "reply_to": "22316__2_058", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_060", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Well, why isn't that an operative fact?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2674.084], "stop_times": [2676.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2674.084}, "reply_to": "22316__2_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22316__2_061", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Well, it is... the operative fact... what makes it actionable is that the statements were introduced at trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2676.723], "stop_times": [2683.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2676.723}, "reply_to": "22316__2_060", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_062", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Yeah, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2683.997], "stop_times": [2684.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2683.997}, "reply_to": "22316__2_061", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22316__2_063", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "If those statements weren't introduced at trial--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2684.409], "stop_times": [2685.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2684.409}, "reply_to": "22316__2_062", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_064", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--Well, you've switched.\nWe were talking about \"operative fact\", and now you said \"actionable fact\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2685.726, 2687.827], "stop_times": [2687.827, 2693.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2685.726}, "reply_to": "22316__2_063", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22316__2_065", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--I believe those are the same principles, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2693.299], "stop_times": [2698.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2693.299}, "reply_to": "22316__2_064", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_066", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Mr. Porter, if I understand you right, you are saying that, in the habeas context, the counterpart to an injury in a tort case is the unlawful detention, itself.\nAm--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2698.093, 2711.4], "stop_times": [2711.4, 2713.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2698.093}, "reply_to": "22316__2_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22316__2_067", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2713.826], "stop_times": [2714.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2713.826}, "reply_to": "22316__2_066", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_068", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--I right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2714.214], "stop_times": [2714.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2714.214}, "reply_to": "22316__2_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22316__2_069", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2714.358], "stop_times": [2714.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2714.358}, "reply_to": "22316__2_068", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_070", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Okay.\nSo if that's the injury, could the habeas Petitioner come in with a complaint that says,\n\"I am being detained in violation of the Constitution. \"\nperiod,\n\"and I need a lawyer to spell out the details? \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2714.86, 2715.441, 2723.296, 2730.704, 2732.144], "stop_times": [2715.441, 2723.296, 2730.704, 2732.144, 2736.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2714.86}, "reply_to": "22316__2_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22316__2_071", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "The Petitioner could file such a petition.\nThey have been called \"placeholder petitions\".\nBut, clearly, under Rule 4 of the habeas rules, such a petition would be subject to immediate dismissal by the District Court, because it doesn't conform with habeas Rule 2, which requires that all of the claims be alleged and all of the facts be alleged.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2736.71, 2739.328, 2741.051], "stop_times": [2739.328, 2741.051, 2757.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2736.71}, "reply_to": "22316__2_070", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_072", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "What about the other part of what's been bothering me?\nTo be specific about it, it sounds like a very good system.\nThe system is,\n\"Habeas Petitioner, you file, within a year, your petition with one claim, and we'll look it over. \"\nsays the judge,\n\"and if it sounds like you need a lawyer, we'll give you a lawyer, and then he'll come in with a whole lot more. \"\nAnd that's quite protective.\nBut suppose you said that to Congress.\nThey passed this thing.\nAnd you say,\n\"You know, your year here, it doesn't really mean a year. \"\n\"It means a year for this initial filing, and then what's going to happen is, they'll give him a lawyer, and he'll come back and say the interest of justice, but, really, it always, almost always, favors the Petitioner, and the State isn't that fooled, and, really, it's not a problem for them, and. \"\n--what would that Congress have said?\nThat's... that is very much disturbing me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2757.275, 2759.382, 2763.216, 2764.427, 2771.008, 2772.262, 2776.454, 2778.459, 2780.965, 2782.81, 2783.424, 2785.903, 2802.975, 2805.503], "stop_times": [2759.382, 2763.216, 2764.427, 2771.008, 2772.262, 2776.454, 2778.459, 2780.965, 2782.81, 2783.424, 2785.903, 2802.975, 2805.503, 2808.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2757.275}, "reply_to": "22316__2_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22316__2_073", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "I think the answer to that is that statutes of limitations are ubiquitous in civil proceedings.\nBut just as ubiquitous is Rule 15(c) relation back.\nThey go hand in glove.\nAnd Congress, in 1948, just three years after the Tiller case, when it enacts 2242, must have had on its mind that relation back goes along hand in glove with the statutes of limitation; and, not only that, but how relation back has been construed by the courts.\nSo I don't think it's any surprise to Congress now all of you... now all of a sudden that we say,\n\"Oh, you know, by the way, there's this relation back that's going to give us maybe four or five months longer than the year. \"\nI don't think Congress is at all surprised by that.\nAnd Congress just adopted new rules of habeas proceedings, in 2004; didn't amend Rule 15(c), didn't provide another rule in habeas, didn't amend 2242.\nAnd, as far as the potentials for abuse here, the Seventh Circuit's... Judge Easterbrook's decision for the Seventh Circuit in the Ellzey case has been on the... on the books for more than two years now.\nAnd I would suggest that if the parade of horribles that the Warden has suggested, about year-long delays and all of these potential abuses, in fact, are allowed by the rule that we seek here, that the Warden or the United States would have come to this Court and said,\n\"Look, here are the abuses. \"\n\"They are happening right now. \"\nWell, in fact, Ellzey's been cited twice in all... in these years, by the District Court, to allow relation back.\nMr. Felix's case has not been cited at all in a public case.\nSo, I think that the parade of horribles is theoretical and not practical.\nAs Justice Kennedy pointed out, you have Rule 15(a) as a backstop.\nAnd once the answer is filed, that really cuts off any right to file an amendment as a matter of right.\nThen--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2808.144, 2816.116, 2820.51, 2822.371, 2841.102, 2846.824, 2853.23, 2855.747, 2869.497, 2887.048, 2906.807, 2908.359, 2910.278, 2917.681, 2921.483, 2927.932, 2932.086, 2940.966], "stop_times": [2816.116, 2820.51, 2822.371, 2841.102, 2846.824, 2853.23, 2855.747, 2869.497, 2887.048, 2906.807, 2908.359, 2910.278, 2917.681, 2921.483, 2927.932, 2932.086, 2940.966, 2941.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2808.144}, "reply_to": "22316__2_072", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_074", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "But I think that, first of all, the amendment may be made before there is a defensive plea.\nAs Mr. Chan pointed out, the Warden doesn't even get the petition until it's been screened by the Court.\nThe other is the understanding, on the civil side, of Rule 15(a).\nIt's a very liberal pleading rule.\nThe threshold for granting permission to amend a pleading under 15(a) is very easy to pass.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2941.607, 2948.955, 2956.443, 2962.71, 2964.822], "stop_times": [2948.955, 2956.443, 2962.71, 2964.822, 2974.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2941.607}, "reply_to": "22316__2_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22316__2_075", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "--In Foman versus Davis, this Court responded to that concern and said that District Courts have ample authority under 15(a) to deny amendments to petitions... or amendments to initial pleadings.\nIt said, for bad-faith or dilatory tactics, but then said even undue delay... so you don't even require a showing of bad faith... for prejudice to the other side.\nSo all of the concerns that the Warden has raised are specifically identified by this Court to give the District Court the right to deny an amendment to the petition.\nAnd so, I believe that those powers in the District Court are very ample, indeed.\nPlus, we have... the states have their own ability to protect themselves.\nAs one of Your Honors mentioned, we have 2266.\nIf the... if the states opt in, they get the protections of 2266.\nStates have their own mechanisms.\nAll but six states in the Union have statutes of limitations, or very firm laches doctrines, that will prevent the elongated delays that the Warden is worried about in this case.\nAnd as far as the notice provision, Justice Breyer announced the unanimous opinion for the Court this morning, in Durachem, and said,\n\"It doesn't take much to give the defendant fair notice. \"\nNow, I'd like to leave the Court with the judicial aphorism that wisdom often never comes at all; it should not be rejected merely for coming late.\nWe ask this Court to affirm the decision of the Circuit Court.\nIf there are no more questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [2974.864, 2989.53, 3003.155, 3015.764, 3024.495, 3029.486, 3033.891, 3039.176, 3043.811, 3057.923, 3067.027, 3070.541, 3081.843, 3086.52], "stop_times": [2989.53, 3003.155, 3015.764, 3024.495, 3029.486, 3033.891, 3039.176, 3043.811, 3057.923, 3067.027, 3070.541, 3081.843, 3086.52, 3087.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2974.864}, "reply_to": "22316__2_074", "speaker": "david_m_porter"}
{"id": "22316__2_076", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Porter.\nMr. Chan, you have four minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [3087.741, 3092.227], "stop_times": [3092.227, 3094.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3087.741}, "reply_to": "22316__2_075", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22316__3_000", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Mr. Felix assumes that Congress knew about the Tiller case, and assumed that Congress would know that Tiller would be interpreted in a way as to allow relation back in a situation such as this.\nHowever, as pointed out, Tiller is not a habeas case.\nRule 15(c)(2) did not even have any application to habeas cases at the time, until it was decided.\nAlso, I wanted to respond to Justice Souter's earlier question about examples of relation back in habeas corpus cases.\nAnd I've cited two examples on page 27 of the Warden's brief.\nUnless there's any other questions, I have no more rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [3094.819, 3114.957, 3119.746, 3126.631, 3134.054, 3138.704], "stop_times": [3114.957, 3119.746, 3126.631, 3134.054, 3138.704, 3149.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3094.819}, "reply_to": "22316__2_076", "speaker": "matthew_km_chan"}
{"id": "22316__3_001", "conversation_id": "22316", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chan.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-563", "start_times": [3149.515, 3150.783], "stop_times": [3150.783, 3151.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3149.515}, "reply_to": "22316__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23091__0_000", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "And we will now hear argument in McCreary County against the ACLU.\nMr. Staver?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [0.0, 6.316], "stop_times": [6.316, 39.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23091__0_001", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Justice Stevens and may it please the Court.\nBefore this Court is a setting of law in a courthouse and a display on law that contains the universally recognized symbol of law.\nDespite the fact that the deck law occupies only one tenth of this otherwise secular display, the Sixth Circuit struck it down.\nThe Court focused solely on the religious aspect of the Ten Commandments and that's aired by ignoring the overall context.\nThe Ten Commandments is unlike most any other acknowledgment.\nIt is in a category essentially all by itself.\nIt is thematic in common places in courthouses while Nativity scenes and menorahs occur occasionally and often gratuitously on public property.\nThe Ten Commandments occurs quite frequently and has for more than a century in courthouses all over this nation.\nIt is associated with courthouses for a clear historic reason, because the Ten Commandments has played an influential role in American law and government and our system of law in this country.\nThe context in this case is clearly important.\nYet the Sixth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [39.547, 42.891, 52.096, 59.898, 68.071, 71.415, 74.47, 83.758, 89.619, 101.425, 104.291], "stop_times": [42.891, 52.096, 59.898, 68.071, 71.415, 74.47, 83.758, 89.619, 101.425, 104.291, 105.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 39.547}, "reply_to": "23091__0_000", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_002", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "May I ask you there basically to comment on the point that Justice Scalia made in the course of the last argument?\nThe context, as we know, has changed pretty radically in the course of litigation over this and it started out with just the Ten Commandments alone and then version 2, the Ten Commandments had certain... were surrounded by certain quotations of religious content from other texts.\nAnd finally, as I guess literally is true with a new lawyer and more litigation, we've gotten to the present context.\nIsn't the problem that you have to face, as I've said before, what Justice Scalia raised before, everybody knows what's going on.\nEverybody knows that the present context is simply litigation dressing and that the object for what is going on is the object that was revealed in the first place.\nWhat is your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [105.306, 113.313, 135.333, 145.636, 156.204, 168.836], "stop_times": [113.313, 135.333, 145.636, 156.204, 168.836, 170.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 105.306}, "reply_to": "23091__0_001", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23091__0_003", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "--Several.\nThe display in this case has three different phases.\nFirst it was the stand-alone Ten Commandments.\nThey were sued.\nThey could have defended that but they chose instead to switch rather than fight because they wanted to try to comply with this Court's establishment clause jurisprudence, to try to figure out how to be able to display this particular document.\nThey stepped, however, on a land mine admittedly with this second display.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [170.527, 171.27, 175.812, 178.291, 179.527, 193.645], "stop_times": [171.27, 175.812, 178.291, 179.527, 193.645, 197.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 170.527}, "reply_to": "23091__0_002", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_004", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Well, they created the land mine basically.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [197.527, 199.96], "stop_times": [199.96, 200.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 197.527}, "reply_to": "23091__0_003", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23091__0_005", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "They were trying to do the best that they could, trying to follow this ever bending establishment clause jurisprudence especially in the area of displays.\nRemember this was back in 1999.\nAt that time, there were less than a handful of reported decisions ever in this country on the Ten Commandments.\nThe first was in 1973, Stone was in 1980 and there were a couple of others.\nThere are only 30 reported cases in the country or so and 23 of those happened from 1999 to the present so they didn't have really any guidance.\nThey were trying to follow Lynch and Allegheny as best as they could but these are governmental officials.\nThey're not jurists schooled in the law.\nAnd admittedly they made a mistake.\nBut what they have now is the foundations display and as the District Court recognized, it is fundamentally different than any previous display.\nLike this Court's decision in the Sunday law cases, even though it may have started off for a religious purpose, the Sunday laws were continued to be retained for secular reasons.\nIn this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [200.332, 209.331, 211.66, 218.043, 222.79, 231.335, 236.908, 239.88, 242.231, 250.57, 261.8], "stop_times": [209.331, 211.66, 218.043, 222.79, 231.335, 236.908, 239.88, 242.231, 250.57, 261.8, 262.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 200.332}, "reply_to": "23091__0_004", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_006", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Are you saying that the purpose is neutral or that the purpose doesn't matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [262.831], "stop_times": [267.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 262.831}, "reply_to": "23091__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23091__0_007", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "--We're saying that in this case, the purpose is about the display of law.\nWe also have an argument later on that this Court should reconsider the purpose prong in generally as it relates to the Lemon test.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [267.001, 272.324], "stop_times": [272.324, 280.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 267.001}, "reply_to": "23091__0_006", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_008", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "--Okay, but if we still have a purpose inquiry, what you say of course is true.\nThe current display includes the display of a lot of legal documents.\nBut is there any reason for anyone to believe that that display of legal documents or anything else would be there for any other purpose than the display of the Ten Commandments, including the religious, the overtly theistic part of the text of the Ten Commandments?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [280.476, 285.949, 290.323], "stop_times": [285.949, 290.323, 310.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 280.476}, "reply_to": "23091__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23091__0_009", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nThe District Court actually recognized that one of the omni intended effects of the history is to educate everyone of the difference between an acknowledgment and an establishment.\nAnd even if they had a religious purpose under the second display, that religious purpose has been buried and has been abandoned.\nThey voluntarily accepted the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [310.84, 311.666, 322.068, 330.985], "stop_times": [311.666, 322.068, 330.985, 333.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 310.84}, "reply_to": "23091__0_008", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_010", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "You're not abandoning the position that you have a right to make this kind of religious display, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [333.214], "stop_times": [343.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 333.214}, "reply_to": "23091__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23091__0_011", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "--No, we're not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [343.04], "stop_times": [343.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 343.04}, "reply_to": "23091__0_010", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_012", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [343.783], "stop_times": [344.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 343.783}, "reply_to": "23091__0_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23091__0_013", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "And that's why we said that they could have defended the individual first display which was the Ten Commandments alone, in part because it is the uniquely recognized historic symbol of law and is commonplace and thematic in the courthouse.\nThey could have defended when they were originally sued on that basis alone but instead they chose to modify the display.\nAnd when they modified the display, it had excerpted sections around it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [344.193, 357.279, 364.421], "stop_times": [357.279, 364.421, 369.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 344.193}, "reply_to": "23091__0_012", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_014", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "But is there... I guess... I don't want to tie you up too long but I mean given the history, isn't it still the case that there is no serious reason to believe that there is any object here other than the display of the Ten Commandments including the overtly theistic text and the rest of this is basically enabling context which does not affect the objective, the objective being the Ten Commandments and the religious text?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [369.722], "stop_times": [402.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 369.722}, "reply_to": "23091__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23091__0_015", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Your Honor, they must be able to change their misstep, if it was a misstep, that they had.\nOtherwise, that past taint would be superimposed on the foundation's display forever and the question would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [402.044, 409.064], "stop_times": [409.064, 416.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 402.044}, "reply_to": "23091__0_014", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_016", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Well, not forever but for now.\nThis isn't a case in which they came up with the Ten Commandments display, it got enjoined and 10 years later somebody comes along and says, let's have a display of important documents in the history of law.\nThis in fact is a continuous process and it is a continuous process within the context of litigation about the constitutionality of the display.\nIt's not a... the implication is not that you can never have a different display but that there is no reason to believe that the intent of this display has changed as the context has changed.\nWhat is your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [416.988, 419.012, 433.435, 445.102, 458.598], "stop_times": [419.012, 433.435, 445.102, 458.598, 459.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 416.988}, "reply_to": "23091__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23091__0_017", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "--The intent has certainly broadened in this case and there is clearly no evidence in this record that this foundations display is solely purposed or intended to be a religious display.\nIn fact, even the respondents of amici that wrote against us said that on the face of this display, it appears secular in nature.\nIt does.\nIn fact, the foundations display not only has numerous other documents of which the Ten Commandments is only one tenth of these many other document but it also has a foundations document that says what the purpose is about.\nThere is only two places that talk about the purpose on the foundations display.\nOn the document itself, which says it's a display about some documents that influenced American law and government, and the undisputed testimony that these are documents that reflect documents that have influenced American law and government.\nThat's the record before this Court on the foundations display and that is fundamentally different--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [459.796, 469.91, 477.34, 477.962, 490.055, 494.801, 507.971], "stop_times": [469.91, 477.34, 477.962, 490.055, 494.801, 507.971, 512.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 459.796}, "reply_to": "23091__0_016", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_018", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Suppose we go back to the first display.\nIf all that was there was the Ten Commandments, now, in your opinion, was that constitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [512.717, 515.318], "stop_times": [515.318, 521.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 512.717}, "reply_to": "23091__0_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23091__0_019", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "--That is arguably constitutional--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [521.179], "stop_times": [522.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 521.179}, "reply_to": "23091__0_018", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_020", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Do we take it along with the resolution of the counties?\nDo we look at everything?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [522.914, 526.835], "stop_times": [526.835, 528.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 522.914}, "reply_to": "23091__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23091__0_021", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "--Your Honor, there was no resolution, Justice O'Connor, for the first display.\nIt just went up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [528.61, 533.439], "stop_times": [533.439, 533.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 528.61}, "reply_to": "23091__0_020", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_022", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "So just that first display, what was the purpose of that first one?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [533.977], "stop_times": [539.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 533.977}, "reply_to": "23091__0_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23091__0_023", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "The purpose of that first one is like it is in many courthouses around the country.\nBoth courthouses have numerous documents of his historical nature along the walls, 284 just in the curia alone.\nAnd in Pulaski, many, many documents, when they celebrated their 200th anniversary in 1999.\nSo that was one of many documents that's there and that was a document of the Ten Commandments that was meant to show the historic nature of the Ten Commandments, how it has in fact influenced American law and government in the appropriate setting of a courthouse.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [539.755, 544.008, 551.522, 556.945], "stop_times": [544.008, 551.522, 556.945, 570.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 539.755}, "reply_to": "23091__0_022", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_024", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "The original one?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [570.607], "stop_times": [572.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 570.607}, "reply_to": "23091__0_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23091__0_025", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "The original one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [572.093], "stop_times": [572.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 572.093}, "reply_to": "23091__0_024", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_026", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Was there anything there that said we're interested in history and what we're not interested in is having this on the wall as... to encourage people to study the Bible and to encourage them to study religion and to understand that in their lives, religion should be important and this very solemn secular setting.\nNonetheless, religion is important.\nWas there anything other than the document itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [572.82, 592.222, 594.33], "stop_times": [592.222, 594.33, 597.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 572.82}, "reply_to": "23091__0_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23091__0_027", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "No, it was just the document itself in a frame on a wall amongst almost 300 other documents.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [597.302], "stop_times": [602.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 597.302}, "reply_to": "23091__0_026", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_028", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "What if its purpose were to demonstrate... and I quote from one of our earlier opinions... that we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.\nWhat if that were its purpose?\nWould that have made it bad?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [602.875, 615.961, 618.107], "stop_times": [615.961, 618.107, 620.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 602.875}, "reply_to": "23091__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23091__0_029", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I don't believe so, Justice Scalia, because that in fact is an acknowledgement that is part of our history; like in Marsh versus Chambers.\nThat's why this Court has authorized prayers before legislative sessions or suggested that the national motto is constitutional because indeed we are a religious people as this Court has said more than five times.\nWe are a religious people.\nOur institutions do presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [620.215, 627.289, 638.995, 640.564], "stop_times": [627.289, 638.995, 640.564, 644.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 620.215}, "reply_to": "23091__0_028", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_030", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "And is it your position that no real harm is inflicted on people who do not agree with that message?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [644.092], "stop_times": [653.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 644.092}, "reply_to": "23091__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23091__0_031", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nJustice Kennedy, it would not inflict any harm because in this case, it's a passive display in a courthouse in a hallway and you could simply walk past that and avert your eyes once you see this.\nIt inflicts no harm, it does not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [653.773, 654.97, 667.231], "stop_times": [654.97, 667.231, 668.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 653.773}, "reply_to": "23091__0_030", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_032", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Mr. Staver, what about all the distinctions that have been made between messages that are brief or I think the expression has been minimal or minimum in some of our cases, like in God we Trust, like God save the United States and this Honorable Court, like under God, and a document that is about worshipping the Lord, at least as many words devoted to that topic.\nSo it's not a brief reference.\nIt's a powerful statement of the covenants that the Lord is making with his people.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [668.884, 699.803, 704.465], "stop_times": [699.803, 704.465, 713.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 668.884}, "reply_to": "23091__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23091__0_033", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, the Ten Commandments is a unique symbol in the area of acknowledgment because of its historic role in influencing our law and government.\nIt is displayed in this context for that unique role.\nIt does have some statements in there about God but, frankly, very few when you look at the overall context.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [713.466, 724.073, 727.6], "stop_times": [724.073, 727.6, 735.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 713.466}, "reply_to": "23091__0_032", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_034", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Have you read the first four commandments and could you say that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [735.219], "stop_times": [739.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.219}, "reply_to": "23091__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23091__0_035", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Sure.\nAnd those are definitely and decidedly religious.\nThere is no question that the Ten Commandments is a religious document.\nThere is also no question that it has influenced our American law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [739.594, 740.587, 742.816, 746.531], "stop_times": [740.587, 742.816, 746.531, 749.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 739.594}, "reply_to": "23091__0_034", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_036", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Do you think the Ten Commandments are longer than the legislative prayers you've heard at the beginning of congressional sessions?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [749.708], "stop_times": [757.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 749.708}, "reply_to": "23091__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23091__0_037", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "No, Justice Scalia.\nI think they're quite shorter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [757.881, 759.013], "stop_times": [759.013, 760.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 757.881}, "reply_to": "23091__0_036", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_038", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I don't know how much help I can get or not but I was thinking in terms of the involvement of the government, is the government involved in religion when it posts the Ten Commandments alone?\nYes, of course it is.\nNow, there could be a purpose to it, that they want to just show the history of law but it's all by itself and there is a lot more history than that and context may matter a lot.\nNot everybody will go with the Ten Commandments just by itself there and say, well, gee, this seems to go too far.\nThis is going too far.\nWhy?\nBecause it isn't really related to history, it's the only thing up there, it's involvement in religion, so forth.\nNow, suppose I go down that track because what I'm really looking for is a key as to what's too far and what's not.\nBut for present purposes, let's assume it's too far.\nNow, once they've gone too far there, the next thing that happens is they keep changing it but they change it pursuant to the resolution and it seems as if in context, all they've tried to do is to surround what went too far with a number of other things that would somehow make it legal.\nNow, if it was wrong to begin with, is it wrong to end with?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [760.028, 771.711, 773.281, 785.745, 793.836, 795.572, 796.065, 803.457, 809.401, 812.085, 834.309], "stop_times": [771.711, 773.281, 785.745, 793.836, 795.572, 796.065, 803.457, 809.401, 812.085, 834.309, 839.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 760.028}, "reply_to": "23091__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23091__0_039", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "No, Justice Breyer, it is not wrong to end with any more than it would be wrong to begin with the Sunday laws based upon the Sabbath commandment which was a commandment about worship and the end with the secular reason for keeping those particular laws as this Court has recognized in McGowan.\nAnd in this case, even if they started off with a decidedly and only religious purpose, which we contend they did not, they did not end with one and they've got to, as governmental officials, be able to adjust their missteps whenever they step on a constitutional land mine that is sometimes blurry and confusing to them.\nThat's what they tried to do in this case, the best efforts to try to follow this Court's decision when there was really no specific guidelines for them to be guiding their direction.\nThe Ten Commandments that Justice Stevens, you had mentioned about the versions, the versions I don't believe, with all due respect, are relevant in this case or any other case regarding the Ten Commandments because if that were the case, you wouldn't be able to teach the Bible in an appropriate context because there are so many different versions and yet Stone and Schempp has indicated that you indeed can teach even the Biblical text with all of its multiple versions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [839.289, 856.174, 875.782, 887.01], "stop_times": [856.174, 875.782, 887.01, 914.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 839.289}, "reply_to": "23091__0_038", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_040", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "But I assume if you were running a course in a school about the biblical text, you would explain the differences.\nYou would indicate the difference between the Jewish, the Roman, the Protestant, the Lutheran and so on and you're not doing that here.\nI would have thought your answer might be, well, if that really made a difference, we could have separate versions.\nBut it's not comparable to school teaching.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [914.791, 925.77, 935.058, 944.634], "stop_times": [925.77, 935.058, 944.634, 948.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 914.791}, "reply_to": "23091__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23091__0_041", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Justice Souter, in fact it would be somewhat comparable because if you're teaching general biblical text, you wouldn't have all the different versions lined out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [948.515], "stop_times": [958.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 948.515}, "reply_to": "23091__0_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23091__0_042", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Would you think it was appropriate in a public school course that was otherwise a bona fide course to teach the day on exodus, to teach about simply the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [958.275], "stop_times": [978.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 958.275}, "reply_to": "23091__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23091__0_043", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "We would believe that, in fact, in this case, I don't even think they thought about whether there were different versions but we certainly believe that they could have the text there and talk about the Ten Commandments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [978.587], "stop_times": [990.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 978.587}, "reply_to": "23091__0_042", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_044", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "In a public school, wouldn't it be required, at least for intellectual reasons if not the reasons of the establishment clause to say, well, graven images are dealt with differently in the standard Roman translation and the preamble sections of what may and may not be regarded as commandment number 1 are different in the Christian versus Jewish and so on.\nWouldn't that be an intellectually responsible requirement?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [990.392, 1018.051], "stop_times": [1018.051, 1021.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 990.392}, "reply_to": "23091__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23091__0_045", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "That's in a school context which this is a courthouse context.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1021.888], "stop_times": [1025.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1021.888}, "reply_to": "23091__0_044", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_046", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Exactly.\nI thought you were equating the two together.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1025.314, 1026.057], "stop_times": [1026.057, 1028.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1025.314}, "reply_to": "23091__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23091__0_047", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Not one to one but I think the version issue, if there is a version that flunks the test, it would be this Court's south frieze.\nIt's actually in Hebrew and it speaks only to Jewish people.\nBut yet that's not sectarian such that it violates the establishment clause.\nThat's the acknowledgment as opposed to an establishment.\nJustice Stevens, if you would like, I would like to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1028.825, 1037.287, 1041.29, 1045.582, 1049.109], "stop_times": [1037.287, 1041.29, 1045.582, 1049.109, 1052.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1028.825}, "reply_to": "23091__0_046", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__0_048", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "You certainly may do so.\nMr. Clement, you're welcome back for a second time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1052.519, 1053.612], "stop_times": [1053.612, 1060.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1052.519}, "reply_to": "23091__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23091__1_000", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court.\nThe display of historical documents here, like the display in the Lynch against Donnelly case of the creche, may include a religious item without running afoul of the establishment clause.\nAs in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1060.754, 1065.295, 1079.125], "stop_times": [1065.295, 1079.125, 1080.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1060.754}, "reply_to": "23091__0_048", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23091__1_001", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Do we have to consider the history of the display at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1080.073], "stop_times": [1084.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1080.073}, "reply_to": "23091__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23091__1_002", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, we would urge you not to consider the history of the display.\nYou in your concurring opinion in the Pinette case made the point that in the context of accommodations, the inquiry into religious purpose doesn't make a lot of sense and you urged the Court to drop it in that context.\nI think so too in the acknowledgment context.\nCertainly if you have a situation where you don't have... I think in the acknowledgment context as well, a focus on purpose may not be that productive.\nBut I would like to talk about the purpose--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1084.781, 1088.906, 1100.673, 1103.29, 1110.909], "stop_times": [1088.906, 1100.673, 1103.29, 1110.909, 1112.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1084.781}, "reply_to": "23091__1_001", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23091__1_003", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I don't know what you mean by the acknowledgment context.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1112.395], "stop_times": [1114.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1112.395}, "reply_to": "23091__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23091__1_004", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "--I think this Court has said that you can accommodate religions.\nThey've also said that you can acknowledge the role that religion has played in our society and I think in both contexts, a focus on purpose is probably not a prudent exercise of judicial resources.\nBut I would like to talk about the purpose here because I think what you have here is a display of a document alone in the first instance that certainly was at least defensible and probably constitutional, yet the courts below got off on the wrong foot by saying that the first display was open defiance of this Court's decision in Stone against Graham and I think this Court's cases themselves suggest that the contextual differences between the schoolhouse and the courtroom are enough to make the display, at least the first display, not in open defiance.\nNow there was the second display and we are not here to defend the second display but that was the display that was in reaction to the lawsuit filed against the first display.\nNow, I don't know if that second display was the product of bad legal advice or simply frustration at the first lawsuit being filed but I don't think it should make a constitutional difference.\nIn the Lynch against Donnelly case, Mayor Lynch, after the ACLU filed a lawsuit against him, had a rally at the site of the creche, a press conference, where he publicly vowed to fight to keep Christ in Christmas and then he led city workers in carols and said they should sing another one that apparently bothers people.\nYet despite that adverse reaction to the litigation being filed against the city of Pawtucket, this Court upheld the display and although the dissent did focus on the mayor's crusade to keep Christ in Christmas, the majority and the concurring opinions did not.\nAnd I think that is the proper mode of analysis.\nNow, the second point I think is should these counties be faulted for trying to bring their practices in compliance with the Constitution?\nAnd I think the answer there is clearly not.\nAnd I was going to point this Court to the Marsh case that's been talked about quite a bit.\nOne of the things that as Professor Chemerinsky said about the Marsh case that this Court emphasized in that case itself and in subsequent cases is the fact that the prayers there were non-sectarian in the sense that they did not directly invoke, say, Christ.\nBut that actually is something of a change that took place after the litigation began.\nPrior to the litigation, there were explicit references to Christ as Justice Stevens pointed out in footnote 2 of his dissent in that case.\nBut the state of Nebraska, after they had a lawsuit, decided let's make this an easier case for the Court, not a harder case, and they modified their conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1114.874, 1118.506, 1130.516, 1159.289, 1169.282, 1178.941, 1197.434, 1212.582, 1215.183, 1224.842, 1227.527, 1234.957, 1248.62, 1253.905, 1261.623], "stop_times": [1118.506, 1130.516, 1159.289, 1169.282, 1178.941, 1197.434, 1212.582, 1215.183, 1224.842, 1227.527, 1234.957, 1248.62, 1253.905, 1261.623, 1270.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1114.874}, "reply_to": "23091__1_003", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23091__1_005", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Okay, but at the end of the day in Marsh, there wasn't any question that what they were doing was praying.\nAnd here it seems to me that the change that you're arguing for as significant is only significant unless it is a change in the essential activity because there is no law and it would be crazy law from this Court that said you can engage in religious endorsement, promotions, et cetera, so long as you hide the ball well enough.\nWhat this Court basically has said is you can engage in secular objectives that incidentally involve religious figures or references, e.g., Moses up there.\nWhat you started with in this case or what the county started with was a pretty religious-looking exercise and the question is, did they go from a totally religious exercise to a secular exercise or did they go from an obviously religious exercise to an obscured religious exercise?\nAnd therefore, you can't make context a mere change in physical context dispositive because it ignores that distinction.\nAnd that distinction I think is what is driving or what is going to drive possibly in my mind the resolution of this case.\nWhat do you say to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1270.473, 1277.515, 1306.744, 1320.983, 1344.927, 1354.708, 1361.645], "stop_times": [1277.515, 1306.744, 1320.983, 1344.927, 1354.708, 1361.645, 1363.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1270.473}, "reply_to": "23091__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23091__1_006", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Justice Souter, I have two points in response.\nFirst of all, what I think would be a crazy way of having a jurisprudence is for the Court to say that this display is a foundation to the law document, it's perfectly constitutional in every other county courthouse in Kentucky except for McCreary County and Pulaski County because of their prior conduct.\nThe second point that I think is important in this context is that I think this Court's establishment clause jurisprudence is already difficult enough to apply without creating the First Amendment equivalent of covered jurisdictions under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1363.048, 1365.194, 1384.158], "stop_times": [1365.194, 1384.158, 1400.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1363.048}, "reply_to": "23091__1_005", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23091__1_007", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Basically, and I think I understand you, you're saying, and I think you said it earlier, drop the intent clause and basically have a... try to move toward an objective criterion saying there are some ways you can display religious things and some ways perhaps that you can't and try to develop that kind of objective jurisprudence as distinct from an intent jurisprudence.\nThat's your point, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1400.405, 1425.668], "stop_times": [1425.668, 1426.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1400.405}, "reply_to": "23091__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23091__1_008", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "That would be my point, Justice Souter, but I also think independent of that point, it is also not a particular productive jurisprudence to really treat municipalities differently because the mayor in one case may have started with the creche and decided to add the wishing well or in the other case started with the wishing well and added the creche.\nI don't think it makes any sense that if they end up in the same place, the constitutional rules should be the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1426.966, 1446.723], "stop_times": [1446.723, 1451.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1426.966}, "reply_to": "23091__1_007", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23091__1_009", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Mr. Clement, you placed heavy reliance on Marsh, which was prayer and it was undisguised and it was permitted as it has been since the beginning of our nation.\nWould it be equally compatible with the establishment clause if this Court opened its daily sessions with prayer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1451.264, 1471.409], "stop_times": [1471.409, 1483.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1451.264}, "reply_to": "23091__1_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23091__1_010", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I'm not sure that I could understand the jurisprudence that said this Court could not open its sessions with a prayer but the Capitol can.\nNow, if there was any difference drawn at all, I would assume it would be a difference based on history.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1483.586, 1493.867], "stop_times": [1493.867, 1499.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1483.586}, "reply_to": "23091__1_009", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23091__1_011", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I'm not sure we don't do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1499.561], "stop_times": [1500.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1499.561}, "reply_to": "23091__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23091__1_012", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "You know, it depends on how much content one wants to give--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1500.842], "stop_times": [1505.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1500.842}, "reply_to": "23091__1_011", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23091__1_013", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I don't know who we're addressing when we say God save the United States and this Honorable Court.\nThey're not talking to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1505.217, 1508.727], "stop_times": [1508.727, 1511.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1505.217}, "reply_to": "23091__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23091__1_014", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "The kind of prayer that is used to open the legislative sessions which this Court has distinguished from in God we trust, God save the United States and this Honorable Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1511.04], "stop_times": [1520.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1511.04}, "reply_to": "23091__1_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23091__1_015", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "And as I said, Justice Ginsburg, I think if there were a difference in principle, it would have to be a difference based on history.\nBut I don't think there is... in this context, I think it is fair to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1520.245, 1526.644], "stop_times": [1526.644, 1530.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1520.245}, "reply_to": "23091__1_014", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23091__1_016", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I'm asking you what your view is of the compatibility of every federal Court in the country having over the bench a replica of the Ten Commandments and opening each session with prayer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1530.609], "stop_times": [1545.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1530.609}, "reply_to": "23091__1_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23091__1_017", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, I suppose if the federal courts decided to do that, we would probably try to defend them on establishment clause grounds.\nI don't think, though, that... I think that would obviously be a much tougher case than the posting of the Ten Commandments in the outer hallway along with a variety of other documents which I take it to be the first case here.\nAnd then the final display that the Court has before it is actually the Ten Commandments in the context of the other secular historical documents.\nAnd I think that kind of display clearly is constitutional for the reasons that the display was constitutional in the Lynch case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1545.22, 1552.939, 1564.706, 1573.251], "stop_times": [1552.939, 1564.706, 1573.251, 1580.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1545.22}, "reply_to": "23091__1_016", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23091__1_018", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Do you think we have to amend the Lemon test to reach your approach?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1580.803], "stop_times": [1588.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1580.803}, "reply_to": "23091__1_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23091__1_019", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Well, Justice O'Connor, this Court on a variety of occasions has chosen to simply put Lemon to one side as opposed to overtly amending it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1588.938], "stop_times": [1597.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1588.938}, "reply_to": "23091__1_018", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23091__1_020", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Do you think, then, we have to either put it aside or amend it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1597.771], "stop_times": [1602.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1597.771}, "reply_to": "23091__1_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23091__1_021", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "No, I don't, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1602.888], "stop_times": [1605.034], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1602.888}, "reply_to": "23091__1_020", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23091__1_022", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "To decide this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1605.034], "stop_times": [1605.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1605.034}, "reply_to": "23091__1_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23091__1_023", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "No, I don't.\nI think it would be prudent, as I suggested at the outset, to make not necessarily a full amendment and eliminate the first purpose prong of Lemon but at least in the acknowledgment context as in the accommodation context we're not going to focus on that.\nBut independent of that, I think many of these Court's cases that were decided even under Lemon acknowledge the principles that municipalities should be rewarded, not punished, for trying to change their conduct to try to get things right.\nIn Abbington against Schempp, which I think in many respects is a precursor to Lemon because it talked at least about the purpose and effects test and I gather that's about all that's left of Lemon.\nIn that case, this Court held out the promise that it might be permissible for the government to have some use of the Bible in school.\nNow, when it did that, it didn't except out Abbington township and said, but not for you, Abbington township, because you violated the purpose prong.\nThe Sixth Circuit here has adopted a rule that's essentially once mistaken, always condemned and we don't think that has any proper place in this Court's establishment clause jurisprudence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1605.86, 1606.482, 1618.675, 1632.404, 1642.146, 1650.031, 1657.667], "stop_times": [1606.482, 1618.675, 1632.404, 1642.146, 1650.031, 1657.667, 1666.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1605.86}, "reply_to": "23091__1_022", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "23091__1_024", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Clement.\nMr. Friedman?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1666.684, 1667.882], "stop_times": [1667.882, 1671.225], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1666.684}, "reply_to": "23091__1_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23091__2_000", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Justice Stevens and may it please the Court, three times in the course of a year, McCreary and Pulaski county posted Ten Commandments displays.\nThey variously describe the Ten Commandments as the precedent legal code of Kentucky, the central historic legal document of the State and, finally, as the moral background of the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of our legal system.\nIn the course of the litigation, they announced that under current law, they announced to the court that uncurrent law, America is a Christian nation and they acknowledge that the purpose of their second display was to demonstrate America's Christian heritage.\nIn this context, it is our position that the current courthouse display reveals both a purpose and an effect to endorse religion.\nThis Court has repeatedly and most recently in the Santa Fe case made clear that it is necessary to look at the content, the context and the history of a display in order to gauge whether or not there is a true secular purpose or whether or not an asserted secular purpose is a sham.\nWe submit here that on this record, the District Court and particularly in the context of an appeal from a preliminary injunction, which we have here, that the District Court had ample evidence from which it could conclude that the asserted secular purpose of McCreary and Pulaski counties was indeed a sham.\nThe counties announced their purpose not only in the content of the display itself but in the resolution that the counties enacted, the identical resolutions that the counties enacted within weeks after the filing of this lawsuit.\nAnd in that resolution, the counties make clear that they relied on and cited approvingly the Kentucky legislature's reference to Jesus Christ as the prince of ethics.\nThey made clear that they supported the fight of Alabama Supreme Court justice Roy Moore against the ACLU.\nThey made absolutely clear in their legal papers that they deemed this to be a Christian nation under current law and they made clear that they absolutely intended and believed they had the right to display the Ten Commandments.\nThey did so not in a display of history.\nThey asserted and they intended to do so because of the religious nature of the Ten Commandments.\nThere can be no doubt that the Ten Commandments portrays a religious point of view and is profoundly religious.\nThe Court said so in Stone.\nThere is no serious question about that.\nThe question then here is whether or not the counties, in their current display, have done anything to sufficiently neutralize the endorsing message that is contained in this record.\nAnd we submit it has not done so.\nIt now announces that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of our legal system, not just that religion is but that the Ten Commandments, a particular religious code, the word of God, it asserts is the foundation of our legal system.\nIt asserts that the Ten Commandments, the revealed Word of God, provides the moral background of the Declaration of Independence.\nWe think it clear that the content of the Ten Commandments and the content of the Declaration of Independence deal with substantially different topics.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1671.225, 1682.288, 1699.749, 1714.693, 1724.99, 1745.529, 1765.386, 1780.989, 1798.739, 1806.83, 1822.6, 1827.651, 1833.745, 1842.29, 1844.232, 1846.005, 1859.919, 1861.981, 1877.668, 1886.129], "stop_times": [1682.288, 1699.749, 1714.693, 1724.99, 1745.529, 1765.386, 1780.989, 1798.739, 1806.83, 1822.6, 1827.651, 1833.745, 1842.29, 1844.232, 1846.005, 1859.919, 1861.981, 1877.668, 1886.129, 1895.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1671.225}, "reply_to": "23091__1_024", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_001", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Suppose you had a county 100 miles away or a state, a different state, and the same display was put on and the recitation was... and it was a sincere recitation, that the government simply wanted to recognize that the 10 Commandments has played an important role in the civic life of our people.\nThen you have... they're each up for five years and five years later, some school kids wander by one and they wander by the other.\nIn your view, from what you're telling me, the Commandments are permitted in one location and not the other?\nI mean, that's the necessary purport of your argument.\nYou may not think that either of them are valid but on this prong of the argument, it seems to me that to differentiate, I just don't understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1895.045, 1922.621, 1932.259, 1939.672, 1943.055], "stop_times": [1922.621, 1932.259, 1939.672, 1943.055, 1950.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1895.045}, "reply_to": "23091__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23091__2_002", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I think to an extent there is a differentiation because this Court has made clear that any assessment must depend on context.\nThere is no fixed per se rule but rather, the context one must look at both the purpose and the effect.\nIn gauging the purpose, one looks at both the litigation history, the social facts, the content and any changes.\nHere the District Court had not only the display itself but it had the announced purpose of the county.\nIt therefore was in a unique position to gauge the purpose of the... the true purpose of these counties.\nMoreover, it was in a unique position to gauge the effects that the reasonable observer in these small rural Kentucky counties, the reasonable observer's assessment of this particular display.\nAnd the Court... McCreary County is a county with only 17,000 people.\nWhitley City, the county seat, which is not even incorporated, has 1,100 people.\nThe District Court from its chambers in London, Kentucky was well situated to gauge whether or not the reasonable observer, knowing the litigation history of this case and knowing the changes in the forum and the context of this display, would perceive this to be a neutral recitation of history or simply the third in a series of efforts by this county government to post the Ten Commandments because that is what it wanted to post.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [1950.279, 1958.62, 1964.974, 1972.404, 1982.907, 1989.373, 2003.778, 2009.434, 2014.431], "stop_times": [1958.62, 1964.974, 1972.404, 1982.907, 1989.373, 2003.778, 2009.434, 2014.431, 2042.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1950.279}, "reply_to": "23091__2_001", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_003", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Does that mean forever?\nWhat I'm thinking... let me spell it out a second.\nThe key words in Stone would be that this was posted, the Ten Commandments, because it would lead to, in the circumstances, the students remeditate, venerate, perhaps, and obey.\nIn other words, their reaction to it would likely be a religious reaction.\nNow, here if you saw it just by itself, perhaps one would be concerned with the intent or the effect of calling to the viewer's mind the sacred character of the law, which is fine for religious people to do but not necessarily fine for the State to do; and that leads them to venerate, perhaps to meditate, perhaps to consider the relationship in a religious way.\nIf that's the problem, that would exist here only because of the history or most likely because of the history.\nAnd if that is the problem, that would dissipate over time because it is the smallness of the audience and their familiarity with the history that would likely produce the similar religious reaction to the display.\nNow, what's your reaction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2042.21, 2044.068, 2048.237, 2064.956, 2069.869, 2101.448, 2111.191, 2128.653], "stop_times": [2044.068, 2048.237, 2064.956, 2069.869, 2101.448, 2111.191, 2128.653, 2131.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2042.21}, "reply_to": "23091__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23091__2_004", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I think it's a question of degree and while over time the importance of the purpose may diminish, the purpose does not fully diminish and the effect does not change substantially.\nIt is a question of degree, it is a question of line drawing.\nHere there is not an effort to incorporate the Ten Commandments into a neutral display or a neutral course of study such as a compare and contrast of ancient moral codes or a comparative religion course such as many of us have taken and schools clearly can offer.\nIt is not a neutral display of law givers like the frieze in this Court.\nIt asserts the primacy of the Ten Commandments.\nIt says the Ten Commandments are the moral background of the Declaration of Independence.\nIt doesn't say there is some commonality between the Ten Commandments and some American laws.\nIt talks not only about law.\nIt talks about our system of government.\nIt says the Ten Commandments, the revealed Word of God is the moral foundation of the Declaration of Independence.\nThat in itself is an endorsement of religion in this context and I don't think that can dissipate over time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2131.254, 2144.257, 2147.107, 2170.429, 2175.054, 2177.877, 2182.485, 2187.519, 2189.377, 2191.69, 2199.613], "stop_times": [2144.257, 2147.107, 2170.429, 2175.054, 2177.877, 2182.485, 2187.519, 2189.377, 2191.69, 2199.613, 2205.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2131.254}, "reply_to": "23091__2_003", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_005", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Why is it?\nIt may be true.\nThese pilgrims came for religious reasons.\nIf all this was... so you have a display of the history of the origin of the law in the United States, what would be wrong with saying, this is a historical account?\nIt's like teaching religion in the schools.\nOf course it stemmed from the religious beliefs of those who came to the United States.\nYou don't mean it religiously.\nYou mean it historically.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2205.186, 2208.53, 2209.727, 2213.897, 2224.012, 2226.036, 2233.094, 2234.869], "stop_times": [2208.53, 2209.727, 2213.897, 2224.012, 2226.036, 2233.094, 2234.869, 2235.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2205.186}, "reply_to": "23091__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23091__2_006", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "It's the difference between acknowledgment and endorsement.\nOf course counties and other governments can acknowledge the role that religion played in history.\nThat is very different from acknowledging religion as a general matter and asserting that a specific code that is central to specific religions is the one... not only the one religious source but the one source, religious or moral, that provide... religious or secular that provides the moral background of the Declaration of Independence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2235.984, 2238.851, 2244.612], "stop_times": [2238.851, 2244.612, 2268.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2235.984}, "reply_to": "23091__2_005", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_007", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I don't think it stands for that.\nAs you heard, the code takes various forms for various religions.\nAnd I think all it stands for is the proposition that the moral order is ordained by God.\nThat's all it stands for.\nAnd to say that that's the basis of the Declaration of Independence and of our institutions is entirely realistic.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2268.223, 2269.437, 2278.875, 2286.056, 2287.997], "stop_times": [2269.437, 2278.875, 2286.056, 2287.997, 2297.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2268.223}, "reply_to": "23091__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23091__2_008", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "What this display says--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2297.535], "stop_times": [2300.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2297.535}, "reply_to": "23091__2_007", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_009", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I don't think they're really saying that the particular commandments of the Ten Commandments are the basis of the Declaration of Independence.\nThat's idiotic.\nWhat the commandments stand for is the direction of human affairs by God.\nThat's what it stands for.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2300.136, 2308.514, 2309.257, 2318.999], "stop_times": [2308.514, 2309.257, 2318.999, 2319.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2300.136}, "reply_to": "23091__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23091__2_010", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "--Whatever the merit of that statement, that is not what these counties have said.\nWhat these counties have said in their resolutions is that the Ten Commandments are the precedent legal code of Kentucky and the central historic legal document of the state.\nWhat they have said in this display itself, in the explanation of the display, that they are the moral background of the Declaration of Independence, to the exclusion of all others, in effect.\nWhen you say the, it doesn't say one of.\nIt says it is the foundation of our legal system.\nIt doesn't say it had an influence on some of our laws.\nIt asserts the primacy, the actual text of this display asserts the primacy of the Ten Commandments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2319.964, 2326.142, 2337.575, 2347.573, 2349.919, 2353.096, 2355.863], "stop_times": [2326.142, 2337.575, 2347.573, 2349.919, 2353.096, 2355.863, 2362.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2319.964}, "reply_to": "23091__2_009", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_011", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "If that's what it means, it's idiotic.\nI don't think anybody is going to interpret it that way.\nYou can't get the Declaration of Independence out of the Ten Commandments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2362.278, 2365.251, 2367.957], "stop_times": [2365.251, 2367.957, 2372.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2362.278}, "reply_to": "23091__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23091__2_012", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I would agree with that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2372.209], "stop_times": [2374.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2372.209}, "reply_to": "23091__2_011", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_013", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "And I don't think that's how somebody would normally read it.\nI think what they're saying is the principle of laws being ordained by God is the foundation of the laws of this state and the foundation of our legal system.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2374.356, 2380.3], "stop_times": [2380.3, 2391.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2374.356}, "reply_to": "23091__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23091__2_014", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "How long is that resolution going to guide our view of the future displays or even the present one?\nWhat if the membership of the board of supervisors is changed?\nHow long do we look to that particular resolution?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2391.983, 2400.645, 2406.018], "stop_times": [2400.645, 2406.018, 2410.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2391.983}, "reply_to": "23091__2_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23091__2_015", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I think, Your Honor, it's an element that the District Court in the first instance must accept and gauge in determining whether or not the announced secular purpose is indeed a true purpose or is a sham.\nWhere we're talking about a close time period, here three displays in less than a year by the same officials of the same county trying to post the same document, this case becomes very close to the Santa Fe independent school district case where it's a moving target in direct response to pending litigation as an effort to try to get the same end result and changing the operative facts just slightly in the hope that eventually it will be right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2410.643, 2423.846], "stop_times": [2423.846, 2453.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2410.643}, "reply_to": "23091__2_014", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_016", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "May I ask you a question on that point?\nAnd I should know the answer.\nIt must be in the briefs but I don't remember.\nI assume that they rescinded the resolution before version 3 of the display was put up, is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2453.534, 2456.506, 2457.537, 2459.312], "stop_times": [2456.506, 2457.537, 2459.312, 2465.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2453.534}, "reply_to": "23091__2_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23091__2_017", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "That is not correct, Your Honor.\nThe resolution was enacted in early December 1999, a couple of weeks after the display.\nIt has never been rescinded.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2465.339, 2466.165, 2471.905], "stop_times": [2466.165, 2471.905, 2472.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2465.339}, "reply_to": "23091__2_016", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_018", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "It is still on the books?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2472.853], "stop_times": [2473.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.853}, "reply_to": "23091__2_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23091__2_019", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "It is still on the books.\nA point is made in the reply brief, and it is accurate that it is is not a binding resolution, it encourages the county judge executive to post the Ten Commandments as part of a historic display.\nIt doesn't say post a display of documents and have a county judge choose to post the Ten Commandments.\nThe initial paragraph of the resolution makes clear that it encourages the county judge to post the Ten Commandments and then as part of a historic display.\nThe county judge did that.\nThe District Court enjoined that display.\nThe county appealed that injunction and then, after getting new lawyers, dropped its appeal.\nSoon after that, the county posted a third display, again, the Ten Commandments with what it called historic documents, leaving aside how the Stars Spangled Banner or the national motto as a historic document.\nWhat it did is wrap the Ten Commandments in the three or four secular documents that we all clearly acknowledge as the root of the American system of government.\nIt did so pursuant to the same resolution.\nThere has never been another resolution, it has not been rescinded.\nThe resolution is there.\nIt cites Jesus Christ as the prince of ethics, it cites legislative allusions to Jesus Christ.\nI think the resolution, which is cited in the joint appendix of the docket number, makes it clear that the purpose of this county was to post the Ten Commandments and to do so because of the religious nature of the Ten Commandments because of the primacy in its view of the Ten Commandments.\nThat's what it focused on.\nThat's what this litigation history has revealed throughout and that's what the District Court found at least at the preliminary injunction stage, which is where we still are.\nThere has been no evidence taken in the case, no discovery taken in the case to suggest anything other than what the District Court found.\nAnd on this record, I submit that there can be no conclusion other than that the purpose of the county in posting the series of displays was to post the Ten Commandments because of their religious nature and the effect on the reasonable observer who knew what was going on, who was there to see what was transpiring in this small county was clear to the District Court.\nThe District Court doesn't operate in a vacuum.\nAnd this Court has made clear that courts cannot turn a blind eye to a sham secular purpose.\nThe District Court not only saw the displays, heard the arguments of counsel, saw the resolutions of the District Court, of the fiscal Court.\nThe fiscal Court is the legislative branch of government in Kentucky.\nThe District Court also was there in the community and could see both the public reaction, the letters to the editor, the keep the Ten Commandments signs on yards throughout the county.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2473.596, 2474.423, 2486.805, 2493.947, 2504.838, 2506.29, 2508.891, 2515.29, 2528.294, 2539.189, 2541.79, 2544.928, 2546.043, 2553.201, 2573.619, 2575.105, 2582.84, 2592.632, 2618.323, 2620.923, 2627.489, 2638.468, 2641.707], "stop_times": [2474.423, 2486.805, 2493.947, 2504.838, 2506.29, 2508.891, 2515.29, 2528.294, 2539.189, 2541.79, 2544.928, 2546.043, 2553.201, 2573.619, 2575.105, 2582.84, 2592.632, 2618.323, 2620.923, 2627.489, 2638.468, 2641.707, 2655.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2473.596}, "reply_to": "23091__2_018", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_020", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Is all of that in the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2655.491], "stop_times": [2657.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2655.491}, "reply_to": "23091__2_019", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23091__2_021", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "That is not in the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2657.127], "stop_times": [2658.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2657.127}, "reply_to": "23091__2_020", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_022", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Then I don't think we should talk about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2658.447], "stop_times": [2659.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.447}, "reply_to": "23091__2_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23091__2_023", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "The District Court was well situated to understand the social fact, historical record and arguments of both the lawyers and the parties and the statements of the parties.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2659.933], "stop_times": [2676.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2659.933}, "reply_to": "23091__2_022", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_024", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Mr. Friedman, can you tell me where in the joint appendix the resolution appears?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2676.817], "stop_times": [2681.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2676.817}, "reply_to": "23091__2_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23091__2_025", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Joint Appendix page 1, number 5, and it's Exhibit 1 attached to it.\nAnd that's for one of the counties.\nThe other one is... and these are the docket entries.\nThe document itself is not in the joint appendix.\nAnd the other county is joint appendix page 28, number 6.\nThey're both Exhibit 1s attached to those documents.\nThose documents are the county's motions to dismiss in the District Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2681.814, 2687.963, 2690.481, 2692.505, 2694.984, 2700.018, 2704.848], "stop_times": [2687.963, 2690.481, 2692.505, 2694.984, 2700.018, 2704.848, 2709.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2681.814}, "reply_to": "23091__2_024", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_026", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "It's not printed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2709.845], "stop_times": [2711.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2709.845}, "reply_to": "23091__2_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23091__2_027", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "It is not in the appendix itself, no.\nThe resolution is not in there.\nThe citation to it from the index is there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2711.247, 2714.796, 2716.282], "stop_times": [2714.796, 2716.282, 2721.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2711.247}, "reply_to": "23091__2_026", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_028", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "It is in the record which we have?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2721.278], "stop_times": [2723.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2721.278}, "reply_to": "23091__2_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23091__2_029", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "It is in the record.\nIt was submitted in fact by the petitioners in this case.\nThey submitted the resolution in support of their arguments defending the second display, the display that surrounded the Ten Commandments with the religious text.\nThey made clear in that brief that they were asserting their right to display the Ten Commandments as part of their argument that the purpose was to demonstrate America's Christian heritage.\nI submit that in that brief, in that resolution, in the repeated statements of the county officials and of their counsel, the District Court was well within its discretion to determine that the purpose here was religious, was not secular and that the effect, as viewed by the reasonable observer, was religious... was to endorse religion, not secular.\nIf there are additional questions, I would be happy to answer them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2723.097, 2723.673, 2727.305, 2736.017, 2748.565, 2773.912], "stop_times": [2723.673, 2727.305, 2736.017, 2748.565, 2773.912, 2777.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2723.097}, "reply_to": "23091__2_028", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_030", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "The other question I have is assuming you didn't have any of this history and they started off with plan 3, would that have violated the establishment clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2777.256], "stop_times": [2785.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2777.256}, "reply_to": "23091__2_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23091__2_031", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, I think it would.\nIt would be a closer question but in this context, what we have is the assertion that the Ten Commandments are the source, the moral background of the Declaration of Independence, the foundation of our legal system.\nIt is not incorporating the Ten Commandments as part of a neutral course of study.\nIt is not like having Moses along with 15 other or 15 law givers.\nIt is the assertion of the primacy of the Ten Commandments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2785.512, 2787.164, 2802.23, 2807.765, 2813.087], "stop_times": [2787.164, 2802.23, 2807.765, 2813.087, 2816.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.512}, "reply_to": "23091__2_030", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_032", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I don't understand the difference.\nI mean it seems to me it would violate the establishment clause, it would equally do so if you said it's a major part of or even a part of.\nNow, maybe it makes it wrong to say it's the exclusive one.\nIt may make it more wrong but we're not grading papers here.\nIt seems to me that whether it violates the establishment clause depends upon whether you're endorsing... whether you're proselytizing religion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2816.348, 2818.456, 2831.209, 2837.115, 2840.83], "stop_times": [2818.456, 2831.209, 2837.115, 2840.83, 2851.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2816.348}, "reply_to": "23091__2_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23091__2_033", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I think that's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2851.604], "stop_times": [2853.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2851.604}, "reply_to": "23091__2_032", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_034", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "What does primacy have to do with it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2853.09], "stop_times": [2856.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.09}, "reply_to": "23091__2_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23091__2_035", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I think it makes it an easier case when it asserts this is the one rather than one of several or one of many.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2856.041], "stop_times": [2864.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2856.041}, "reply_to": "23091__2_034", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_036", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "But your real position is they wouldn't have to have done that as long as they had the Ten Commandments in the display, that would be enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2864.114], "stop_times": [2870.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2864.114}, "reply_to": "23091__2_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23091__2_037", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I think it depends on the content and context of the display.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2870.885], "stop_times": [2873.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2870.885}, "reply_to": "23091__2_036", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_038", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Exactly what we've got in Exhibit 3 or whatever it is, that we don't have the statement of purposes, we don't have them saying it's the sole source or the primary source.\nThey say it's a source.\nDoes that still violate the establishment clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2873.978, 2883.516, 2884.592], "stop_times": [2883.516, 2884.592, 2887.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2873.978}, "reply_to": "23091__2_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23091__2_039", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I think it does, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2887.231], "stop_times": [2888.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2887.231}, "reply_to": "23091__2_038", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_040", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Since you have a minute, give me your opinion to the right standard if hypothetically you start with the Goldberg-Schempp idea, that the government is not absolutely forbidden by the establishment clause to recognize the religious nature of the people nor the religious origins of much of our law and so forth but it's easy to go too far and it's easy in this area you are trading on eggs to become far more divisive than you hoped and really end up with something worse than if you stayed out in the first place.\nIn other words, it's a very delicate matter and it's very easy to offend people.\nNow, suppose you start with that.\nYou're trying to define what is too far constitutionally speaking.\nWhat's your test?\nOf the many that have been in our opinions, which do you think works the best for that purpose or some other?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2888.307, 2924.566, 2929.296, 2931.996, 2936.355, 2937.469], "stop_times": [2924.566, 2929.296, 2931.996, 2936.355, 2937.469, 2943.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.307}, "reply_to": "23091__2_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23091__2_041", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I think the Court's endorsement test has stood the test of time and has worked well.\nIt allows the District Courts that are most familiar with what is actually happening to look at both the purpose and the effect of a particular display.\nI don't think there can be an ironclad rule.\nThere can be presumptions.\nThere can be brighter line tests perhaps.\nBut I think ultimately--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2943.868, 2952.209, 2961.125, 2965.045, 2967.108, 2969.874], "stop_times": [2952.209, 2961.125, 2965.045, 2967.108, 2969.874, 2970.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2943.868}, "reply_to": "23091__2_040", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_042", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Within reason outline an approach that would say a religious display is presumptively for... is a presumptive endorsement.\nI think with the Baptist brief.\nWould you endorse that test?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2970.701, 2988.079, 2992.166], "stop_times": [2988.079, 2992.166, 2995.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2970.701}, "reply_to": "23091__2_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23091__2_043", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "--We think that test can work very well in a context like this where we're talking about the display of religious texts rather than just symbols.\nAnd the point I think is well worth considering, that we assume that when people post signs or displays, bumper stickers, buttons, that they endorse the content of that text and that the presumption then would place a burden on government to make sure that it is neutralizing the endorsing effect of displaying text.\nI think that is a very workable test in a context like this where we're talking about the posting of core religious texts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [2995.304, 3003.478, 3031.919], "stop_times": [3003.478, 3031.919, 3038.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2995.304}, "reply_to": "23091__2_042", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_044", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Would you explain why you distinguish text and symbolize them?\nYou distinguish text from the crucifix and so on.\nWhy?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3038.318, 3041.912, 3045.088], "stop_times": [3041.912, 3045.088, 3046.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3038.318}, "reply_to": "23091__2_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23091__2_045", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "It does depend entirely on context, to be sure, but symbols are subject to alternative interpretation.\nText is not.\nOr text rarely is.\nAnd text such as this, religious text, cannot be seen as anything other than the revealed Word of God.\nI mean, here we have 120 words in the first four Commandments, 142 in the first five Commandments of this display that is a profound, detailed explication of core religious content, core religious meaning.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3046.491, 3054.748, 3056.439, 3057.348, 3064.507], "stop_times": [3054.748, 3056.439, 3057.348, 3064.507, 3083.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3046.491}, "reply_to": "23091__2_044", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_046", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "I understand the text part but why not adopt the same test for the symbols?\nFor example, why not adopt it for the Moses up here?\nThe burden would be on the government to show that it was not approving, endorsing, et cetera, and in this context, that would be pretty easy.\nWhy not have the same test?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3083.067, 3087.647, 3090.331, 3102.219], "stop_times": [3087.647, 3090.331, 3102.219, 3104.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3083.067}, "reply_to": "23091__2_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23091__2_047", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "There is no reason why it couldn't be applied just as well.\nMy point was simply that it's even easier to do it when there is text.\nThe Court doesn't need to go so far as to decide whether to apply it to both text and symbol, although it certainly could.\nIt need only go so far as say when government posts religious texts, it must be presumed to endorse the content of that text.\nIt's a little more difficult when you're talking about symbols, depending on what the symbols are.\nSome symbols are far more sectarian such as the Cross, such as the Star of David, than are other symbols.\nAt least when there is text involved, one presumes that the display of text is an endorsement of the content of that text unless the content and the context make clear that it is neutralizing.\nThe examples are obvious.\nThe display of religious art in a government owned art museum, the playing of religious music by a government symphony orchestra, the context of the orchestra, the context of the museum are sufficient to neutralize the religious message that is contained in the display itself.\nHere... and the same thing I think would be said of a comparative religion course or a compare and contrast ancient moral code course.\nThere there is not an endorsement of a particular code, a particular text but rather a neutral educational display about several alternative ones.\nThat is different from taking one religious code, one revealed Word of God, placing it next to the revered documents that frame the American Republic and saying, these are all alike, these are worthy of equal reverence.\nThat is simply wrapping the Ten Commandments in the flag and, with all due respect, that constitutes endorsement.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3104.077, 3106.844, 3110.476, 3116.504, 3123.95, 3127.733, 3134.458, 3148.166, 3150.684, 3170.746, 3178.669, 3190.065, 3208.928, 3213.964], "stop_times": [3106.844, 3110.476, 3116.504, 3123.95, 3127.733, 3134.458, 3148.166, 3150.684, 3170.746, 3178.669, 3190.065, 3208.928, 3213.964, 3216.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3104.077}, "reply_to": "23091__2_046", "speaker": "david_a_friedman"}
{"id": "23091__2_048", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Friedman.\nMr. Staver, you have about three minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3216.359, 3217.573], "stop_times": [3217.573, 3220.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3216.359}, "reply_to": "23091__2_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23091__3_000", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Justice Stevens, the argument before this Court was unlike anything that went down in the District Court or the Circuit Court of Appeals because never was a resolution ever mentioned.\nNever did the District Court or the Sixth Circuit ever discuss a resolution.\nIt was not mentioned in this Court until this answer brief by respondents was filed.\nIt is not part of the District Court's decision, it was not part of the Circuit Court of Appeals.\nThe District Court said that what imprinted every action thereafter with defiance in a taint is the mere posting of the first display.\nThere was no resolution for that display, none is needed.\nThere is no resolution for the foundations display.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3220.529, 3231.303, 3235.306, 3241.25, 3245.503, 3256.361, 3260.076], "stop_times": [3231.303, 3235.306, 3241.25, 3245.503, 3256.361, 3260.076, 3262.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3220.529}, "reply_to": "23091__2_048", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__3_001", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Was there a resolution, Counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3262.964], "stop_times": [3265.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3262.964}, "reply_to": "23091__3_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23091__3_002", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "For the second display, yes, Your Honor, there was.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3265.787], "stop_times": [3268.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3265.787}, "reply_to": "23091__3_001", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__3_003", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "And whatever is in the record is that resolution?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3268.25], "stop_times": [3271.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3268.25}, "reply_to": "23091__3_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23091__3_004", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "It is that resolution but it is specific to the second display because it specifically mentions what kind of documents are in that display.\nIt is not a general display regarding posting of documents.\nIn this case, when the Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3271.798, 3279.517, 3284.43], "stop_times": [3279.517, 3284.43, 3286.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3271.798}, "reply_to": "23091__3_003", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__3_005", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "But is it correct that it was not amended when the third display was created?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3286.576], "stop_times": [3290.828], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3286.576}, "reply_to": "23091__3_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23091__3_006", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "--It was not amended because it was not... it was relevant and fact-specific in the display itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3290.828], "stop_times": [3297.228], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3290.828}, "reply_to": "23091__3_005", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__3_007", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "It is the last expression of the governing body's intent?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3297.228], "stop_times": [3300.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3297.228}, "reply_to": "23091__3_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23091__3_008", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWhat's the last expression is the foundations display which clearly a reasonable observer would see.\nAnd if there is any doubt regarding--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3300.776, 3301.769, 3306.721], "stop_times": [3301.769, 3306.721, 3308.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3300.776}, "reply_to": "23091__3_007", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__3_009", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "But there hasn't been a new resolution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3308.661], "stop_times": [3310.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3308.661}, "reply_to": "23091__3_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23091__3_010", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "--There is not a new resolution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3310.974], "stop_times": [3312.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3310.974}, "reply_to": "23091__3_009", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__3_011", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "And that one wasn't rescinded?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3312.832], "stop_times": [3313.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3312.832}, "reply_to": "23091__3_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23091__3_012", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "That one died, Your Honor, with the Court's ruling.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3313.825], "stop_times": [3317.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3313.825}, "reply_to": "23091__3_011", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__3_013", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "It was adopted and it still is there, presumably?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3317.085], "stop_times": [3320.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3317.085}, "reply_to": "23091__3_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23091__3_014", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Presumably.\nThere is nothing in the record that suggests what happened to it.\nWhether it was repealed or not.\nBut it was specific factually only to that second display, not to the foundations display which the District Court found was fundamentally different.\nAnd if there is any doubt regarding the history of purpose, we would suggest, Justice O'Connor, your suggestion in the Wallace, that if there is any doubt regarding purpose, to look to the effects prong.\nAnd I think when you look to the effects prong, a reasonable observer will see that this is a constitutional display.\nThis case is one in which the Sixth Circuit drew the most difficult taint, it imposed it in a subsequent action in the most difficult area of the establishment clause and clearly the public officials have substantially and fundamentally changed.\nThey can't live under this taint forever.\nThey tried but they could to correct their way.\nThey tried what they could to display this in a constitutional manner so that anyone passing by would see this as one document among many others.\nIn addition to the display itself, with all the other hundreds of other documents that are on the wall, that this display has a specific stated purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3320.884, 3322.203, 3326.29, 3328.89, 3338.633, 3353.578, 3360.402, 3378.181, 3381.319, 3384.951, 3395.808], "stop_times": [3322.203, 3326.29, 3328.89, 3338.633, 3353.578, 3360.402, 3378.181, 3381.319, 3384.951, 3395.808, 3404.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3320.884}, "reply_to": "23091__3_013", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__3_015", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "So presumably these things are open if it goes on to the final hearing?\nThe preliminary injunction stage?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3404.231, 3410.38], "stop_times": [3410.38, 3412.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3404.231}, "reply_to": "23091__3_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23091__3_016", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Yes, the preliminary injunction.\nIf the fact that the resolution is technically latent on the books, they will repeal that, they repudiate that resolution.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3412.776, 3414.157, 3422.718], "stop_times": [3414.157, 3422.718, 3424.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3412.776}, "reply_to": "23091__3_015", "speaker": "mathew_d_staver"}
{"id": "23091__3_017", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "Thank you.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3424.454, 3425.402], "stop_times": [3425.402, 3426.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3424.454}, "reply_to": "23091__3_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23091__3_018", "conversation_id": "23091", "text": "The honorable Court is now adjourned until Monday next at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1693", "start_times": [3426.516], "stop_times": [3431.057], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3426.516}, "reply_to": "23091__3_017", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22848__0_000", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 04-5928, Jose Medellin versus Doug Dretke.\nMr. Donovan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [0.0, 11.536], "stop_times": [11.536, 68.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__0_001", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court:\nThis case was exceptionally important when the Court granted it, and it's even more important now.\nIt belongs in this Court.\nAt the same time, Mr. Medellin requests that the Court hold the case while he goes back to Texas.\nI'd like to explain why, before I turn to the merits.\nUnder its decision last year in ex parte, so far, Texas has modified its longstanding two-forums rule.\nCourt of Criminal Appeals will now entertain a subsequent application for habeas writ, even if there are proceedings pending before a Federal Court, so long as the Federal Court stays its proceedings.\nThe Court designed that procedure so that a habeas petitioner could return to state court to exhaust an unexhausted claim without compromising his right to federal habeas--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [68.444, 75.187, 80.232, 81.797, 86.425, 89.541, 95.438, 105.361], "stop_times": [75.187, 80.232, 81.797, 86.425, 89.541, 95.438, 105.361, 115.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 68.444}, "reply_to": "22848__0_000", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_002", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Ordinarily do not think of that as covered in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [115.049], "stop_times": [119.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 115.049}, "reply_to": "22848__0_001", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__0_003", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, the Court of Criminal Appeals did not specify; but we find, of course, ourselves in an unusual posture, in the sense that the sequence of events here are such that even... the Court of Appeals has decided the Avena judgement claim, the Court has--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [119.665], "stop_times": [133.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 119.665}, "reply_to": "22848__0_002", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_004", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "But has this Court ever just said,\n\"Fine, we'll hold it in abeyance and come back next term? \"\nI can't recall that we've done that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [133.471, 136.098, 139.224], "stop_times": [136.098, 139.224, 141.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 133.471}, "reply_to": "22848__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__0_005", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, it's an... it is, in fact, an unusual posture.\nAnd it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [141.829, 144.355], "stop_times": [144.355, 145.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 141.829}, "reply_to": "22848__0_004", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_006", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "I mean, it would be more likely that we would dismiss this, improvidently granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [145.648], "stop_times": [149.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 145.648}, "reply_to": "22848__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__0_007", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, the case, though, has not been improvidently granted, with the greatest respect to the Court.\nOf course, the case was important when the Court granted it.\nThe question, whether or not the United States will comply with an international obligation that every actor here... the United States, Texas, and the Petitioner... all recognize as binding, is an important question.\nThe President has now come in and said that it's even more important, by saying that, in fact, the United States will comply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [149.847, 154.945, 157.834, 169.238], "stop_times": [154.945, 157.834, 169.238, 175.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 149.847}, "reply_to": "22848__0_006", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_008", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, it's so odd, because usually what happens, if there is something that could occur at the state court level, is the state court itself would hold off until this Court had resolved whatever the case was.\nSo, this is a very unusual request.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [175.206, 188.197], "stop_times": [188.197, 191.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.206}, "reply_to": "22848__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__0_009", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "We recognize that it's an unusual request, because of the unusual circumstances.\nAnd, of course, the alternative, if the Court is not prepared to stay, or, for example, vacate, in light of the presidential determination, remand to the Court of Appeals--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [191.29, 195.362], "stop_times": [195.362, 203.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 191.29}, "reply_to": "22848__0_008", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_010", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, I think... I think granting a stay could be seen as validating the position of the government without ever having an opinion on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [203.423], "stop_times": [214.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 203.423}, "reply_to": "22848__0_009", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__0_011", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, actually, I think that a stay would actually show respect to each of the relevant actors here.\nAnd so--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [214.992, 220.996], "stop_times": [220.996, 221.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 214.992}, "reply_to": "22848__0_010", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_012", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, why shouldn't we just go ahead and decide the case, if we can?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [221.729], "stop_times": [224.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 221.729}, "reply_to": "22848__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__0_013", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, we believe that there are, in fact, firm grounds on which this Court could grant... could decide the question presented, because, in fact, for the reasons... there are really three points here... for the reasons we've laid out, the Court, under the direct command of the Supremacy Clause, has... can give effect to the Avena judgement as the rule of decision.\nThe President's determination, in fact, eliminates the... even setting aside its independent force, eliminates the basic objection of Texas to that course of action.\nAnd then, of course, there's the basic independent full force of the Supremacy Clause.\nSo if I may move to that, the Court, as I said, has recognized the importance of the United States complying with an international obligation reflected in treaties entered into by the democratically elected representatives of the American people.\nI want to address the question presented first, because, I... before... setting aside the presidential determination... and just take a look at where we stand after the briefing by the parties as a... on the question whether or not the Avena judgement provides the rule of decision.\nFirst of all, there's an extraordinary amount of agreement between petitioner and respondent.\nRespondent agrees that the Vienna Convention is a binding legal commitment of the United States.\nThe Respondent agrees that the Convention is self-executing.\nThe Respondent agrees that the United States agreed to submit disputes concerning the application and interpretation of the Convention to the ICJ.\nHe agrees that the United States agreed that any determination by the International Court of Justice would be binding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [224.923, 243.461, 252.487, 256.87, 270.412, 286.842, 291.192, 295.751, 299.334, 307.11], "stop_times": [243.461, 252.487, 256.87, 270.412, 286.842, 291.192, 295.751, 299.334, 307.11, 313.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 224.923}, "reply_to": "22848__0_012", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_014", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "How about the creation of a private right of action?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [313.762], "stop_times": [316.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 313.762}, "reply_to": "22848__0_013", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__0_015", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, there is a... there is a... there are basically three objections that the Respondents made.\nOne of them is the cause of action.\nBut the Respondent confuses the creation of a cause of action with what the... a treaty will typically do.\nThe treaty here lays out the rights, and the treaty lays out an individual right, as determinated by the ICJ.\nThe treaty will not customarily create the cause of action.\nFor how the United States will abide by its legal obligations... that is, how the United States will give effect to the international obligation... we look to domestic law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [316.941, 323.557, 325.635, 334.105, 340.062, 344.723], "stop_times": [323.557, 325.635, 334.105, 340.062, 344.723, 354.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 316.941}, "reply_to": "22848__0_014", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_016", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, the courts... the courts usually do that, don't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [354.012], "stop_times": [358.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 354.012}, "reply_to": "22848__0_015", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__0_017", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "That's exactly right.\nBut we would look... we would look to how the United States has provided for the implication of that international obligation.\nHere, in the first instance, we have a direct command of the Supremacy Clause, a very fundamental choice made by the Framers--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [358.571, 359.948, 367.719], "stop_times": [359.948, 367.719, 373.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 358.571}, "reply_to": "22848__0_016", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_018", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "That doesn't speak to the private right of action--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [373.323], "stop_times": [375.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 373.323}, "reply_to": "22848__0_017", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__0_019", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--The private right of action is found here in the habeas statute itself, which provides that a person in custody in violation of laws, treaties, or the Constitution of the United States can seek--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [375.749], "stop_times": [386.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 375.749}, "reply_to": "22848__0_018", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_020", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "So, presumably, that could provide some cause of action, quite irrespective of the ICJ decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [386.301], "stop_times": [394.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 386.301}, "reply_to": "22848__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__0_021", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, it could... it... the cause of action is, itself, provided by--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [394.73], "stop_times": [399.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 394.73}, "reply_to": "22848__0_020", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_022", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Yeah, I mean, you don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [399.345], "stop_times": [399.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 399.345}, "reply_to": "22848__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__0_023", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--the rest of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [399.736], "stop_times": [399.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 399.736}, "reply_to": "22848__0_022", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_024", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--you don't really have to get into whether that judgement is enforceable here.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [399.961, 405.135], "stop_times": [405.135, 405.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 399.961}, "reply_to": "22848__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__0_025", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [405.913], "stop_times": [406.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 405.913}, "reply_to": "22848__0_024", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_026", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--we could look at... look at it from the perspective of the habeas statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [406.096], "stop_times": [410.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 406.096}, "reply_to": "22848__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__0_027", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, that's right.\nI mean, there are three... there are three basic questions that need to be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [410.024, 410.889], "stop_times": [410.889, 413.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 410.024}, "reply_to": "22848__0_026", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_028", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "But is it right... I mean, you couldn't... you could not... unless the ICJ decision gave a right to an individual, and you had no claim under the federal habeas statute... and it is unusual, is it not, for a judgement of the International Court of Justice to recognize the right of an individual, as opposed to being just a judgement between nations?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [413.978], "stop_times": [445.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 413.978}, "reply_to": "22848__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22848__0_029", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, it may be that, because of the character of the typical dispute that the International Court of Justice hears, that it does not typically address such a question.\nBut, plainly it has jurisdiction to do so when the underlying treaty confers a right.\nAnd that's exactly one of the questions that was litigated between Mexico and the United States in the Avena judgement.\nAnd the Court held that, in fact, this treaty does provide individual rights.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [445.214, 454.379, 459.373, 464.517, 468.711], "stop_times": [454.379, 459.373, 464.517, 468.711, 469.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 445.214}, "reply_to": "22848__0_028", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_030", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "How many... how many times has the ICJ held that, that a treaty, apart from being contract between the signers, confers individual rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [469.373], "stop_times": [480.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 469.373}, "reply_to": "22848__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22848__0_031", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, it has, of course, held, in... first, in LaGrand and then here in Avena.\nIn most of the cases the ICJ has held, however... it has dealt previously, for example, with rights in this situation.\nFor example, rights in the nature of diplomatic protection.\nFor example, when the United States went to the ICJ in the Tehran hostages case, it went, not only in its own behalf, but in the exercise of diplomatic protection.\nAnd in that posture, the ICJ--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [480.777, 487.114, 494.872, 497.679, 508.091], "stop_times": [487.114, 494.872, 497.679, 508.091, 510.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 480.777}, "reply_to": "22848__0_030", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_032", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "But there was no individual in that case.\nThat was a case of one nation against another.\nThere was no individual, like the Plaintiff here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [510.542, 512.418, 514.961], "stop_times": [512.418, 514.961, 520.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 510.542}, "reply_to": "22848__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22848__0_033", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--But, in fact, in that case the United States did assert the rights of its nationals who were held hostage.\nIt didn't... the case didn't come down on that point.\nBut, likewise, the famous Barcelona--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [520.162, 525.493, 527.96], "stop_times": [525.493, 527.96, 529.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 520.162}, "reply_to": "22848__0_032", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_034", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, that's what I asked, if this... I know that, certainly in the context of the Vienna Convention, there have been the series of decisions you mentioned; but I was wondering whether, outside the Vienna Convention, there has been any similar judgement of the ICJ that operates directly on individuals.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [529.999], "stop_times": [547.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 529.999}, "reply_to": "22848__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22848__0_035", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, for example, in the Barcelona Traction case, which is another case where, again, there were rights of a particular company and a particular national decided with... under the guise of diplomatic protection.\nAnd that's the posture which this case went forward.\nMexico asserted rights not only on its own behalf, but on behalf of its nationals.\nAnd, therefore, if we think of the... the three objections that was... the Respondent has made to whether this Court can give us back the Avena judgement, they come down... they include the two we've just discussed, and one more.\nFirst, they've said there are no individual rights here.\nBut, of course, the treaty, as this Court suggested in Breard, talks specifically about rights... quote/unquote, \"rights\".\nAnd that, of course, is what the ICJ held.\nIf the Avena judgement is binding, if the Avena judgement informs the Vienna Convention with binding effect, then that question is not the question this Court needs to answer.\nThe second point that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [547.492, 557.978, 560.644, 565.02, 576.769, 580.316, 588.069, 589.968, 600.062], "stop_times": [557.978, 560.644, 565.02, 576.769, 580.316, 588.069, 589.968, 600.062, 601.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 547.492}, "reply_to": "22848__0_034", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_036", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Do you think... do you think that the President can enter into a treaty, with the approval of Congress, that would provide that, in a particular combat, the Commander in Chief will be somebody other than the President of the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [601.925], "stop_times": [619.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 601.925}, "reply_to": "22848__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_037", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, the Court has recognized that the only limitations of the treaty-making power are affirmative litigations... affirmative limitations within the Constitution, itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [619.532], "stop_times": [629.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 619.532}, "reply_to": "22848__0_036", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_038", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [629.35], "stop_times": [629.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 629.35}, "reply_to": "22848__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_039", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "And if--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [629.702], "stop_times": [630.301], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.702}, "reply_to": "22848__0_038", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_040", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "And you think that the Constitution provides the President shall be Commander in Chief, and, therefore, that can't be given away.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [630.301], "stop_times": [636.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 630.301}, "reply_to": "22848__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_041", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [636.677], "stop_times": [637.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 636.677}, "reply_to": "22848__0_040", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_042", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [637.604], "stop_times": [637.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.604}, "reply_to": "22848__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_043", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--no, the... obviously, a treaty would not be able to amend the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [637.9], "stop_times": [641.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 637.9}, "reply_to": "22848__0_042", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_044", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Right.\nWell, what if I think that the Constitution provides that all questions of federal law... statutory, treaty, constitutional... are to be decided, ultimately, by the Supreme Court of the United States.\nCan a treaty give that away?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [641.525, 641.723, 656.655], "stop_times": [641.723, 656.655, 657.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 641.525}, "reply_to": "22848__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_045", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, a treaty would not be... this treaty does not do that.\nWhen the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [657.87, 663.579], "stop_times": [663.579, 664.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 657.87}, "reply_to": "22848__0_044", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_046", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "It does if we're bound by the determination of Avena.\nIt does if I have to believe that individual rights were created here, without reexamining the question on my own.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [664.974, 669.335], "stop_times": [669.335, 677.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 664.974}, "reply_to": "22848__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_047", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, but the... but the Court has... it... the Court has regularly... and it has never been an objection to Article III power to give effect to a judgement that has been rendered in another sphere by another adjudicatory authority.\nThat happens all the time with respect to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [677.961, 692.902], "stop_times": [692.902, 694.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 677.961}, "reply_to": "22848__0_046", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_048", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Not a question concerning United States law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [694.879], "stop_times": [697.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 694.879}, "reply_to": "22848__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_049", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--But this is a question--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [697.224], "stop_times": [698.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 697.224}, "reply_to": "22848__0_048", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_050", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "You're talking here about a question of United States law, What is the meaning of this treaty that the United States has entered into?\nDo you know another case where we have... we have been bound by a judgement of a foreign court or an international court concerning the meaning of United States law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [698.47, 704.76], "stop_times": [704.76, 715.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 698.47}, "reply_to": "22848__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_051", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, what the Court would be giving effect to is the determination by the political branches themselves to enter into the treaty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [715.781], "stop_times": [724.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 715.781}, "reply_to": "22848__0_050", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_052", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, I have a question that is much along the same lines, whether this Court must apply Avena as the rule of decision, or perhaps say,\n\"No, it does not have to do that. \"\nThen you're left with looking at the treaty itself.\nAnd does that... can that take effect as American law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [724.445, 735.79, 738.704, 741.903], "stop_times": [735.79, 738.704, 741.903, 748.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 724.445}, "reply_to": "22848__0_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__0_053", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, the treaty does take effect as American law.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [748.402, 751.104], "stop_times": [751.104, 751.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 748.402}, "reply_to": "22848__0_052", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_054", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "And, can--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [751.445], "stop_times": [751.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 751.445}, "reply_to": "22848__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__0_055", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [751.735], "stop_times": [752.087], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 751.735}, "reply_to": "22848__0_054", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_056", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--is it open in this case to... for this Court to apply that, not Avena?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [752.087], "stop_times": [756.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 752.087}, "reply_to": "22848__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__0_057", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, the Court could, in fact, apply the treaty.\nIt could reach its own interpretation of the treaty, in accord with the Avena judgement.\nBut we think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [756.517, 759.459, 764.934], "stop_times": [759.459, 764.934, 765.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 756.517}, "reply_to": "22848__0_056", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_058", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Is that open in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [765.805], "stop_times": [766.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 765.805}, "reply_to": "22848__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__0_059", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, it surely would be open in this case, but it would not be open at this point.\nWe've suggested alternative bases by which the Court could conform with Avena.\nBut we do believe that Avena, in fact, controls the decision, for this reason, that, in the first instance, the political branches have agreed to the substantive obligations under the treaty; in the second place--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [766.788, 771.146, 775.466], "stop_times": [771.146, 775.466, 786.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 766.788}, "reply_to": "22848__0_058", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_060", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, suppose we think it can't control?\nNow, then what's open to us?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [786.421, 788.252], "stop_times": [788.252, 790.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 786.421}, "reply_to": "22848__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__0_061", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, if the... if the Court decided that the Avena judgement did not control, then it would obviously go to the terms of the treaty itself.\nBut our argument is that, in fact, by virtue of the political branches' decision and in operation of the treaty... of the Supremacy Clause, the Court must be... must give effect if the Court reached a decision--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [790.756, 797.832], "stop_times": [797.832, 810.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 790.756}, "reply_to": "22848__0_060", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_062", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, can the President give an interpretation of the treaty unilaterally that is binding on us?\nCan the President sign a treaty and then, a year later, give an interpretation of that treaty that's binding on us, insofar as what the treaty means?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [810.467, 815.249], "stop_times": [815.249, 825.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 810.467}, "reply_to": "22848__0_061", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22848__0_063", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, the Court has--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [825.719], "stop_times": [828.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 825.719}, "reply_to": "22848__0_062", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_064", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Can he do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [828.501], "stop_times": [828.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 828.501}, "reply_to": "22848__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22848__0_065", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, no, the treaty... the Court has traditionally accorded deference to the Executive's determination, but has not... has not given that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [828.929], "stop_times": [836.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 828.929}, "reply_to": "22848__0_064", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_066", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Right.\nI would say that that, ultimately, is for this Court.\nThen, if that's so, how can he agree with the... to confer jurisdiction on the World Court, which would do the same thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [836.621, 836.885, 839.164], "stop_times": [836.885, 839.164, 847.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 836.621}, "reply_to": "22848__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22848__0_067", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Because it's not just the President that's done that; it's the treaty-makers, it's the President acting with the advice and consent of the Senate in a context in which they are empowered to authorize a treaty... enter into a treaty.\nAnd they've done--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [847.765, 859.42], "stop_times": [859.42, 860.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 847.765}, "reply_to": "22848__0_066", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_068", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, is the constitutionality of the President's action here before the Court in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [860.09], "stop_times": [864.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.09}, "reply_to": "22848__0_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__0_069", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [864.643], "stop_times": [866.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 864.643}, "reply_to": "22848__0_068", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_070", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Only peripherally.\nIs that an issue for us to decide in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [866.642, 867.556], "stop_times": [867.556, 870.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.642}, "reply_to": "22848__0_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__0_071", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--The question that we'd ask--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [870.582], "stop_times": [871.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.582}, "reply_to": "22848__0_070", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_072", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "I hadn't thought so.\nDo you think it is?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [871.911, 873.114], "stop_times": [873.114, 874.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 871.911}, "reply_to": "22848__0_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__0_073", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, the... we've asked that the Court take account of the President's determination in this respect.\nThe Vienna Convention sets out a... sets out substantive obligations.\nThe ICJ... we've agreed to go to the ICJ for the interpretation obligation of those obligations.\nThe ICJ has now ruled.\nThe only objections, in effect, that the Respondent has made is to say,\n\"This Court can't decide that question. \"\nbecause it's within the power of the political branches.\nIn effect, it said,\n\"This Court should step back and await the permission of the Executive. \"\nAnd in Mr. Medellin's view, this Court does not need to do that.\nBut if you did need to do that, which is the Respondent's essential objection, the President has now said, not only should... not only can the Court give effect to the Avena a judgement, but that it's in the paramount interest of the United States that it do so, and that it do so promptly, and that, therefore, any question about the... about the effectiveness of the Avena judgement has, on Texas' own terms--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [874.274, 879.523, 884.646, 889.183, 890.623, 895.818, 898.705, 901.389, 902.459, 906.365, 909.941], "stop_times": [879.523, 884.646, 889.183, 890.623, 895.818, 898.705, 901.389, 902.459, 906.365, 909.941, 932.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 874.274}, "reply_to": "22848__0_072", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_074", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "What's the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [932.266], "stop_times": [932.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 932.266}, "reply_to": "22848__0_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22848__0_075", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--on the Respondent's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [932.769], "stop_times": [932.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 932.769}, "reply_to": "22848__0_074", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_076", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--what's the case that you're citing for this proposition, that the President and the Senate can, in effect, confer on an international tribunal the obligation to bind this Court with reference to an interpretation of a treaty?\nWhat's the best case you've got for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [932.957, 947.169], "stop_times": [947.169, 949.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 932.957}, "reply_to": "22848__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22848__0_077", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, it goes to the Supremacy Clause itself, Justice Kennedy.\nIt's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [949.351, 952.669], "stop_times": [952.669, 953.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.351}, "reply_to": "22848__0_076", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_078", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "So you're telling me you don't have a case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [953.322], "stop_times": [955.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 953.322}, "reply_to": "22848__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22848__0_079", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, I'm not suggesting that there is direct precedent in this Court for this circumstance.\nWe recognize that the circumstances presented in these particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [955.09, 960.525], "stop_times": [960.525, 965.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 955.09}, "reply_to": "22848__0_078", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_080", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Were you saying 51-case set?\nIn respect to that deference, I suppose, he interprets the treaty in such a way that the Avena decision, in his opinion, as applied to this 51-set... case set is what the treaty means.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [965.194, 977.468], "stop_times": [977.468, 992.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 965.194}, "reply_to": "22848__0_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22848__0_081", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, he has, in fact, come--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [992.984], "stop_times": [995.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 992.984}, "reply_to": "22848__0_080", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_082", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Is that right, or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [995.535], "stop_times": [996.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 995.535}, "reply_to": "22848__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22848__0_083", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, that's right.\nHe has... he has, in fact, endorsed the notion that the United States should comply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [996.395, 996.892], "stop_times": [996.892, 1001.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 996.395}, "reply_to": "22848__0_082", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_084", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, if it is... what I'm wondering is if this is similar to that insurance case out of California, where, in fact, we gave considerable deference to Mr. Eisenstat's interpretation of the relationship of the treaty to the insurance laws of California.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1001.591], "stop_times": [1021.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1001.591}, "reply_to": "22848__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22848__0_085", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, it... that is true.\nAnd the Garamendi--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1021.341, 1022.653], "stop_times": [1022.653, 1023.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1021.341}, "reply_to": "22848__0_084", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_086", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "That was not an interpretation that ousted this Court of jurisdiction over the matter, though, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1023.695], "stop_times": [1028.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1023.695}, "reply_to": "22848__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_087", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1028.319], "stop_times": [1029.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1028.319}, "reply_to": "22848__0_086", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_088", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Don't you think that's a little bit different?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1029.032], "stop_times": [1030.279], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1029.032}, "reply_to": "22848__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_089", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--But the Garamendi case did, in fact, endorse the President's power.\nIt's similar to the Dames & Moore case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1030.279, 1033.157], "stop_times": [1033.157, 1034.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1030.279}, "reply_to": "22848__0_088", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_090", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Yes, but in that case it was overseeing arrangements that were made by our government, not... they didn't have that much local authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1034.679], "stop_times": [1046.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1034.679}, "reply_to": "22848__0_089", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__0_091", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, that's... that is a distinction in the cases, but they still come down to a notion that... both Garamendi and Dames & Moore... to the President's authority to give effect to international obligations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1046.723], "stop_times": [1056.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1046.723}, "reply_to": "22848__0_090", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_092", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1056.562], "stop_times": [1057.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1056.562}, "reply_to": "22848__0_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__0_093", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "And here we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1057.056], "stop_times": [1057.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1057.056}, "reply_to": "22848__0_092", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_094", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--doesn't the President, in Dames & Moore, enter into an agreement with Iran?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1057.507], "stop_times": [1062.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1057.507}, "reply_to": "22848__0_093", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__0_095", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, that's right.\nBut that's... that situation doesn't really distinguish the cases, because in Dames & Moore v. Regan there was, in fact, an agreement, and the President acted pursuant to that agreement.\nBut here we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1062.618, 1064.682, 1073.41], "stop_times": [1064.682, 1073.41, 1074.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1062.618}, "reply_to": "22848__0_094", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_096", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "But we decided, in Dames & Moore, that he was acting pursuant to the agreement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1074.437], "stop_times": [1079.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1074.437}, "reply_to": "22848__0_095", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__0_097", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, they did act pursuant to the agreement, and that's what the Court decided, but that's precisely what the President is doing here.\nThe President is giving effect to commitments made by the United States in the Vienna Convention, in the Optional Protocol, in the ICJ statute and in the United Nations charter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1079.895, 1086.5], "stop_times": [1086.5, 1095.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1079.895}, "reply_to": "22848__0_096", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_098", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "But we didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1095.591], "stop_times": [1096.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1095.591}, "reply_to": "22848__0_097", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__0_099", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "So if--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1096.456], "stop_times": [1096.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1096.456}, "reply_to": "22848__0_098", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_100", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--we didn't decide it on the basis that President Reagan says,\n\"This is what in particular the agreement affected. \"\nWe examined it for ourselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1096.635, 1101.75, 1104.309], "stop_times": [1101.75, 1104.309, 1106.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1096.635}, "reply_to": "22848__0_099", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__0_101", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--That's true, but... and the Court looked at the... the Court did not reexamine the terms of the agreement.\nWhat the Court decided in that case was that it was within the President's foreign-affairs authority to enter into an agreement that would essentially required American claimants to go to the Iranian-United States Claims Tribunal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1106.27, 1112.516], "stop_times": [1112.516, 1123.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1106.27}, "reply_to": "22848__0_100", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_102", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "That doesn't... that doesn't involve an interpretation of the treaty that is rendered by somebody else and that is binding upon this Court.\nI mean, it's just a matter of different magnitude.\nTo say that there can be private claims, fine; but that doesn't say that the interpretation of a treaty entered into the by the United States is subject to a court, other than this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1123.455, 1134.005, 1137.712], "stop_times": [1134.005, 1137.712, 1150.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1123.455}, "reply_to": "22848__0_101", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_103", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "The treaty itself is what the United States has committed itself to.\nIt's the treaty in addition that the United States--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1150.419, 1156.519], "stop_times": [1156.519, 1159.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1150.419}, "reply_to": "22848__0_102", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_104", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "We have to look beyond the President's interpretation of the treaty.\nIt happens that the President is interpreting it, for reasons related to what the ICJ said.\nBut that doesn't make us have to look beyond the reason for the President interpreting it the way he wants.\nI mean, do we have to defer to the ICJ, or do you... is it not sufficient to defer to the President, who is operating within his foreign-affairs power for whatever set of reasons he deems sufficient?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1159.097, 1162.979, 1169.857, 1177.813], "stop_times": [1162.979, 1169.857, 1177.813, 1192.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1159.097}, "reply_to": "22848__0_103", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22848__0_105", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, that's precisely why we've said, in fact, what... there are two independent sources of authority here, because, by operation of the Supremacy Clause, the ICJ, the interpretation and application of the Avena judgement would be given effect.\nNow we have an independent source of right in the form of the President's determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1192.862, 1205.248], "stop_times": [1205.248, 1209.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1192.862}, "reply_to": "22848__0_104", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_106", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Except that the President doesn't think that the remedy is in federal habeas.\nThe President thinks that the remedy is within the states.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1209.075, 1211.556], "stop_times": [1211.556, 1215.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1209.075}, "reply_to": "22848__0_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_107", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, the President has said that it should be given effect, and hasn't... and hasn't said that it shouldn't be in federal habeas.\nTo the contrary, the President has indicated that, in fact, habeas would be available.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1215.157, 1220.614], "stop_times": [1220.614, 1224.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1215.157}, "reply_to": "22848__0_106", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_108", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, your position, I take it, is that if somehow we follow your suggestion so that the President's suggestion may be put into effect in the state courts, that there would still be a habeas jurisdiction, ultimately, over the result if you're dissatisfied with what happens in Texas.\nDo I understand you correctly?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1224.636, 1243.893], "stop_times": [1243.893, 1245.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.636}, "reply_to": "22848__0_107", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22848__0_109", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "That's right, there would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1245.025], "stop_times": [1245.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1245.025}, "reply_to": "22848__0_108", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_110", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Now, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1245.895], "stop_times": [1246.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1245.895}, "reply_to": "22848__0_109", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_111", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--there would surely be habeas jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1246.104], "stop_times": [1247.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1246.104}, "reply_to": "22848__0_110", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_112", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--that's an interesting question.\nLet's turn from the more cosmic questions into how you overcome the impediment that in order to get a Certificate of Appealability here, you have to show that there was... you have to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.\nWhat constitutional right has been denied here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1247.468, 1248.488, 1269.573], "stop_times": [1248.488, 1269.573, 1274.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1247.468}, "reply_to": "22848__0_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_113", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, at this point, of course, the Court need not address that question on this... on this petition.\nThe question that the Court granted was, Will the United States abide by the Avena judgement?\nAnd that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1274.662, 1279.822, 1284.164], "stop_times": [1279.822, 1284.164, 1284.767], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1274.662}, "reply_to": "22848__0_112", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_114", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "No, I take--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1284.767], "stop_times": [1285.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.767}, "reply_to": "22848__0_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_115", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--question would be answered without--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1285.137], "stop_times": [1286.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1285.137}, "reply_to": "22848__0_114", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_116", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--that question to be a jurisdictional question, as far as the lower court is concerned; and, therefore, I think it's a jurisdictional question for us.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1286.121], "stop_times": [1292.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1286.121}, "reply_to": "22848__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_117", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, of course, for the reasons we've laid out in our brief, we do not regard it as jurisdictional for this Court.\nThe Court clearly has jurisdiction under the petition to decide the questions on the basis that they should decide the question presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1292.911, 1298.587], "stop_times": [1298.587, 1304.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1292.911}, "reply_to": "22848__0_116", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_118", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "No, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1304.238], "stop_times": [1304.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1304.238}, "reply_to": "22848__0_117", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22848__0_119", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "But even if it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1304.603], "stop_times": [1305.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1304.603}, "reply_to": "22848__0_118", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_120", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "No.\nWe can't forego limits on our jurisdiction simply by granting the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1305.171, 1305.743], "stop_times": [1305.743, 1313.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1305.171}, "reply_to": "22848__0_119", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22848__0_121", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--No, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1313.038], "stop_times": [1314.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1313.038}, "reply_to": "22848__0_120", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_122", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "You don't say,\n\"Oh, you've granted a question; therefore, you have to decide whether you have jurisdiction or not. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1314.355, 1314.959], "stop_times": [1314.959, 1317.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1314.355}, "reply_to": "22848__0_121", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22848__0_123", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--But this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1317.878], "stop_times": [1318.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1317.878}, "reply_to": "22848__0_122", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_124", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "See?\nAnd, as Justice Scalia indicates, the COA is a jurisdictional requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1318.582, 1318.772], "stop_times": [1318.772, 1322.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1318.582}, "reply_to": "22848__0_123", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22848__0_125", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--But the COA is a jurisdictional requirement for an appeal in the Court of Appeals.\nThis comes to this Court as... on the denial of a Certificate of Appealability--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1322.377, 1326.789], "stop_times": [1326.789, 1330.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1322.377}, "reply_to": "22848__0_124", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_126", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Yes, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1330.765], "stop_times": [1331.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1330.765}, "reply_to": "22848__0_125", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_127", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--and on a petition from that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1331.221], "stop_times": [1332.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1331.221}, "reply_to": "22848__0_126", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_128", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Do you know of any--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1332.323], "stop_times": [1333.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1332.323}, "reply_to": "22848__0_127", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_129", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "And so, the question raised by--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1333.521], "stop_times": [1334.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1333.521}, "reply_to": "22848__0_128", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_130", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--do you know of any case in which a lower court did not have jurisdiction, but we do have jurisdiction on appeal from in a... from a court that didn't have jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1334.12], "stop_times": [1346.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1334.12}, "reply_to": "22848__0_129", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_131", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--But the Court... the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain an application for Certificate of Appealability.\nAnd this Court, in turn, has jurisdiction to grant a petition from the denial of the Certificate of Appealability.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1346.986, 1355.139], "stop_times": [1355.139, 1361.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1346.986}, "reply_to": "22848__0_130", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_132", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, if the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1361.56], "stop_times": [1362.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1361.56}, "reply_to": "22848__0_131", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_133", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "And in that posture--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1362.083], "stop_times": [1362.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1362.083}, "reply_to": "22848__0_132", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_134", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--had jurisdiction to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1362.504], "stop_times": [1363.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1362.504}, "reply_to": "22848__0_133", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__0_135", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--the Court can decide the question presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1363.305], "stop_times": [1364.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1363.305}, "reply_to": "22848__0_134", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_136", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "You're simply saying that any court has jurisdiction to determine its jurisdiction.\nWe grant you that.\nBut, granted that, if we reach it, what is your answer to the claim that the COA requires a showing of substantial infringement of constitutional, as distinct from other sources of, rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1364.851, 1370.146, 1371.912], "stop_times": [1370.146, 1371.912, 1387.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1364.851}, "reply_to": "22848__0_135", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22848__0_137", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, first of all, we believe that in the posture that this case comes to this Court, there has been a substantial denial of a constitutional right, even in the terms that Texas defines the statute, because what we have here is a claim based on the Avena judgement... I mean, the ICJ's interpretation and application of the Avena judgement that the Court of Appeals held in effect that had been defaulted prior to its coming into existence.\nBecause the effect of the Court of Appeals judgement that the Avena... dismissing the... or denying the Avena... deciding the Avena judgement claim... was to say... was to give effect to a procedural default of the Avena judgement when it had not yet--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1387.274, 1411.368], "stop_times": [1411.368, 1425.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1387.274}, "reply_to": "22848__0_136", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_138", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "So you're saying the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1425.775], "stop_times": [1426.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1425.775}, "reply_to": "22848__0_137", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22848__0_139", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1426.671], "stop_times": [1427.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1426.671}, "reply_to": "22848__0_138", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_140", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--the constitutional violation is the violation of the Supremacy Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1427.095], "stop_times": [1430.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1427.095}, "reply_to": "22848__0_139", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22848__0_141", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, in that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1430.243], "stop_times": [1431.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1430.243}, "reply_to": "22848__0_140", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_142", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Is that what you're saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1431.091], "stop_times": [1431.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1431.091}, "reply_to": "22848__0_141", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22848__0_143", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, it's a violation here of both the Due Process Clause and the Supremacy Clause.\nDue process--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1431.658, 1435.54], "stop_times": [1435.54, 1436.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1431.658}, "reply_to": "22848__0_142", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_144", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Due Process Clause because?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1436.065], "stop_times": [1436.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1436.065}, "reply_to": "22848__0_143", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22848__0_145", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Because it was an arbitrary denial of a forum in which to hear the Avena judgement claim, not simply the... a different source of right.\nIn other words, although the Avena judgement claim comes up on Texas as a proposition as a... under a treaty, the action of the Court of Appeals was to deny that claim without giving it a forum.\nThat is to say, without... that... before it had been raised itself, before it even existed... because the effect of the Court of Appeals was to give effect to a procedural default of a right that hadn't come into effect.\nAnd, therefore, in that context, it's effectively a due process claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1436.933, 1444.972, 1455.808, 1466.964], "stop_times": [1444.972, 1455.808, 1466.964, 1470.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1436.933}, "reply_to": "22848__0_144", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_146", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "How do you answer--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1470.764], "stop_times": [1471.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1470.764}, "reply_to": "22848__0_145", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22848__0_147", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "In addition it's a violation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1471.459], "stop_times": [1471.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1471.459}, "reply_to": "22848__0_146", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_148", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--the related... the related question that... well, assuming the Vienna Convention is certainly law, and treaty stands on the same footing as law, but I believe that the... Texas and the Government have said the AEDPA statute is the later-in-time provision, and when you have two provisions with a statute treaty, the later-in-time prevails.\nSo why did... why isn't the AEDPA controlling, and not the Vienna Convention?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1471.976, 1497.179], "stop_times": [1497.179, 1507.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1471.976}, "reply_to": "22848__0_147", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22848__0_149", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--With respect to this claim, AEDPA itself would be, in our view, ousted by The Charming Betsey Principle.\nBut in the particular context here, you don't have... you don't have a conflict with respect to the constitutional claims themselves; you have a constitutional claim based on a denial a right that did not exist, and you also have a constitutional claim based on the Supremacy Clause itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1507.903, 1517.075], "stop_times": [1517.075, 1532.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1507.903}, "reply_to": "22848__0_148", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_150", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "And you're talking about denial of a right that didn't exist.\nThat seems perfectly rational, the way you put it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1532.602, 1536.745], "stop_times": [1536.745, 1540.67], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1532.602}, "reply_to": "22848__0_149", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__0_151", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1540.67], "stop_times": [1541.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1540.67}, "reply_to": "22848__0_150", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_152", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "If the right didn't exist, it should have been denied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1541.338], "stop_times": [1543.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1541.338}, "reply_to": "22848__0_151", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__0_153", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--And perhaps... but the effect of that... and perhaps a more prudent way to put it is that the effect of that is to deny Mr. Medellin a forum, an... arbitrarily deny him a forum on the effect of the Avena judgement, because the effect was to deny the Avena judgement claim based on a procedural default before the Avena judgement had been rendered.\nIf I may save the remaining... my remaining time for rebuttal?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1543.682, 1565.382], "stop_times": [1565.382, 1567.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1543.682}, "reply_to": "22848__0_152", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__0_154", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Very well, Mr. Donovan.\nMr. Cruz, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1567.814, 1569.82], "stop_times": [1569.82, 1572.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1567.814}, "reply_to": "22848__0_153", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__1_000", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nAt the outset, two issues bear emphasis.\nFirst, the Court need not, and should not, address the many interesting issues of international law and constitutional law that swirl about this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1572.07, 1578.647, 1581.12], "stop_times": [1578.647, 1581.12, 1590.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1572.07}, "reply_to": "22848__0_154", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_001", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "They really are interesting, you know.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1590.851, 1592.38], "stop_times": [1592.38, 1593.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1590.851}, "reply_to": "22848__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__1_002", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "They are, indeed.\nAnd this may launch a thousand law-review articles.\nBut with respect to the question before the Court, there is a simple and straightforward statutory basis to resolve this case; namely, that Section 2253 of the AEDPA does not allow a Certificate of Appealability for nonconstitutional claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1593.104, 1594.527, 1597.813], "stop_times": [1594.527, 1597.813, 1613.251], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1593.104}, "reply_to": "22848__1_001", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_003", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Before we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1613.251], "stop_times": [1613.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.251}, "reply_to": "22848__1_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22848__1_004", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Can that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1613.632], "stop_times": [1613.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.632}, "reply_to": "22848__1_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__1_005", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--before we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1613.875], "stop_times": [1614.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.875}, "reply_to": "22848__1_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22848__1_006", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--be waived?\nCan that be waived?\nAnd did Texas raise that issue in the Fifth Circuit at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1614.291, 1614.984, 1616.729], "stop_times": [1614.984, 1616.729, 1620.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1614.291}, "reply_to": "22848__1_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__1_007", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Justice O'Connor, Texas did not explicitly waive this ground before the Fifth Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1620.186], "stop_times": [1624.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1620.186}, "reply_to": "22848__1_006", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_008", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "But it wasn't raised in the Fifth Circuit by Texas, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1624.425], "stop_times": [1627.933], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1624.425}, "reply_to": "22848__1_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__1_009", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--That's correct, it was not.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1627.933, 1629.711], "stop_times": [1629.711, 1630.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1627.933}, "reply_to": "22848__1_008", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_010", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "And I assume, although we haven't so decided, that that can just be waived.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1630.263], "stop_times": [1634.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1630.263}, "reply_to": "22848__1_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__1_011", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, this Court has characterized the standards for a COA as jurisdictional in a threshold inquiry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1634.353], "stop_times": [1639.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1634.353}, "reply_to": "22848__1_010", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_012", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--But this is also a jurisdictional.\nThey decided it on a jurisdictional ground.\nThey decided that no COA lay, for the reason that they said.\nNow, I guess, though we wouldn't necessarily have to, we could simply say they're either right on that or they're wrong on that.\nAnd if they're wrong on it, send it back, and then you can argue whether there are other grounds; in which case, they could go into waiver, they could go into whether \"constitutional\" means to embrace \"treaty\", and all those other interesting arguments that we could write law-review articles about that were not, in fact... they swirl around in this case, and you would not, in fact, be able to... you wouldn't, in fact, have to pronounce on them now, here, when they really haven't been thoroughly gone into, below.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1639.954, 1642.294, 1644.843, 1649.968, 1659.108], "stop_times": [1642.294, 1644.843, 1649.968, 1659.108, 1686.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1639.954}, "reply_to": "22848__1_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22848__1_013", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Justice Breyer, there are alternative jurisdictional grounds this Court could address, but the COA ground is straightforward.\nIt flows from the direct text.\nAnd Petitioner has given this Court no reason to disagree with every Court of Appeals that has looked at this question, all of whom have determined that \"constitutional\" means \"constitutional\".\nIt doesn't mean \"treaty\", it doesn't mean \"statute\".\nAnd that's every Court of Appeals that's looked at that.\nGiven that that ground is direct and straightforward, there is no need for this Court to venture into the difficult constitutional areas, the difficult questions of international law, when there is a straightforward statutory--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1686.602, 1693.674, 1695.247, 1705.217, 1707.205, 1709.724], "stop_times": [1693.674, 1695.247, 1705.217, 1707.205, 1709.724, 1720.927], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1686.602}, "reply_to": "22848__1_012", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_014", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, of course, we wouldn't even have to venture into... possibly have to venture into this issue of law if Texas were interested in following the determination of the President.\nI take it that the suggestion that your brother has made, that, in fact, we take no action at this point so that they may return to Texas with the President's determination, is not appealing to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1720.927, 1731.169], "stop_times": [1731.169, 1747.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1720.927}, "reply_to": "22848__1_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22848__1_015", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--We do not believe the Court should stay this action, because whatever the resolution of the subsequent proceedings that are now filed in Texas, the resolution of that question will not control the federal-law questions here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1747.54], "stop_times": [1759.415], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1747.54}, "reply_to": "22848__1_014", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_016", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, but does Texas have a position in response to the President's determination?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1759.415], "stop_times": [1764.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1759.415}, "reply_to": "22848__1_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22848__1_017", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Our first position would be, as Justice O'Connor said, that that question is not presented in this case.\nThat will surely be litigated in the Texas state courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1764.998, 1770.505], "stop_times": [1770.505, 1774.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1764.998}, "reply_to": "22848__1_016", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_018", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "You said... you said that something has started in the Texas courts.\nWe have the motion to stay this case, and your response that it shouldn't be stayed, that we should decide this case.\nBut what is going on, at this moment, in the Texas courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1774.113, 1778.978, 1785.902], "stop_times": [1778.978, 1785.902, 1789.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1774.113}, "reply_to": "22848__1_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22848__1_019", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, this weekend, Medellin filed a subsequent state habeas application with the Court of Criminal Appeals, in which he asked the Court of Criminal Appeals to stay its hand, pending this Court's decision whether this Court should stay its hand, pending the Court of Criminal Appeals' resolution--\n[Laughter]\nAnd so, that is a 50-page filing that they just filed this weekend in which--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1789.622, 1806.828, 1807.236], "stop_times": [1806.828, 1807.236, 1812.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1789.622}, "reply_to": "22848__1_018", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_020", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "And after the Texas court stays its hand, then what action is asked?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1812.475], "stop_times": [1818.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1812.475}, "reply_to": "22848__1_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22848__1_021", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, what it asks for is to authorize a subsequent state habeas proceeding based upon the President's determination, which he characterizes as the predicate for a new claim.\nAnd if that is correct, then there is yet another problem to his getting relief here, which is that he has failed to exhaust what he claims is now the predicate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1818.188, 1830.406], "stop_times": [1830.406, 1837.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1818.188}, "reply_to": "22848__1_020", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_022", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, but we don't... we may not reach that, if Texas says,\n\"Well, yes, you're right, it is a claim, and we'll entertain it. \"\nDoes Texas have a position on that question yet?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1837.646, 1840.63, 1844.746], "stop_times": [1840.63, 1844.746, 1847.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1837.646}, "reply_to": "22848__1_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22848__1_023", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "With respect to whether the presidential determination is authorized, any... that matter will be resolved in subsequent state court litigation.\nAny responsible state attorney--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1847.764, 1856.729], "stop_times": [1856.729, 1858.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1847.764}, "reply_to": "22848__1_022", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_024", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, I'm sure it will be, but does Texas have a position on that, at this point?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1858.493], "stop_times": [1862.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1858.493}, "reply_to": "22848__1_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22848__1_025", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--We would respectfully submit, as would any responsible state attorney general, that there are significant constitutional problems with a unilateral Executive determination displacing generally applicable criminal laws.\nBut whatever the resolution of that question, that would ultimately be reviewable by this Court, on certiorari review.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1862.667, 1875.599], "stop_times": [1875.599, 1883.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1862.667}, "reply_to": "22848__1_024", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_026", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, that was my next... my question, and it follows on the question Justice Souter asked.\nDoes the attorney general concede, or do you not, or acknowledge that there are Texas procedures in which these questions can be litigated?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1883.011, 1887.188], "stop_times": [1887.188, 1899.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1883.011}, "reply_to": "22848__1_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22848__1_027", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "There absolutely are Texas procedures in which the question of the validity of the President's determination can be litigated.\nAnd we would anticipate that that would be litigated--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1899.568, 1906.933], "stop_times": [1906.933, 1909.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1899.568}, "reply_to": "22848__1_026", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_028", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "But that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1909.43], "stop_times": [1909.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1909.43}, "reply_to": "22848__1_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22848__1_029", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--and resolved--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1909.699], "stop_times": [1910.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1909.699}, "reply_to": "22848__1_028", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_030", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Yeah, that's what I'm trying... I'm trying to get to, which is, What is actually the practical thing to do now?\nShould we stay it, with a short per curiam, which says, \"Texas, go ahead\", or should we do something else?\nSuppose we just dismiss this, as you say, on the alternative ground.\nWell, then what happens if Texas objects to the President's order and turns out to be right, legally?\nSee, if that were true and then the review showed that it was true... I don't know that it is true, but if it were, then we should turn to the Fifth Circuit claim, and there are 51 cases that depend on it.\nBut if we've dismissed it, by that time it's gotten mixed up in the very issue you raise.\nThe question is, Does \"constitutional\" embrace \"treaty\"?\nAnd I think there is one case that says it does, actually; or a treatise, anyway.\nSo that's an issue.\nAnd then they might refuse a COA on that ground.\nAnd then there might... and we'll never get this basic question decided.\nI'm trying out on you the argument for actually staying it, rather than digging it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1910.033, 1915.799, 1923.151, 1927.796, 1938.118, 1950.886, 1956.511, 1959.148, 1962.927, 1964.876, 1968.435, 1973.011], "stop_times": [1915.799, 1923.151, 1927.796, 1938.118, 1950.886, 1956.511, 1959.148, 1962.927, 1964.876, 1968.435, 1973.011, 1978.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1910.033}, "reply_to": "22848__1_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22848__1_031", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Whatever the resolution--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1978.454], "stop_times": [1980.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1978.454}, "reply_to": "22848__1_030", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_032", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "What do you think?\nWhat do you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1980.211, 1980.713], "stop_times": [1980.713, 1981.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.211}, "reply_to": "22848__1_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22848__1_033", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--I do not believe the Court should stay it.\nDigging it would be an option.\nI also believe... I believe the most correct--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1981.29, 1982.988, 1985.013], "stop_times": [1982.988, 1985.013, 1986.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1981.29}, "reply_to": "22848__1_032", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_034", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, why do you believe we shouldn't stay it?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1986.836, 1988.855], "stop_times": [1988.855, 1989.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1986.836}, "reply_to": "22848__1_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__1_035", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--I don't believe the Court should--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1989.471], "stop_times": [1990.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1989.471}, "reply_to": "22848__1_034", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_036", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--as an opinion, it's based on what?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1990.404], "stop_times": [1991.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1990.404}, "reply_to": "22848__1_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__1_037", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Because whatever the resolution in the State Court litigation, the resolution of that question will not impact the legal question before this Court now, which is, on first federal habeas, a claim that was filed that did not rely on Avena when it was filed, did not rely on the presidential determination--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [1991.35], "stop_times": [2008.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1991.35}, "reply_to": "22848__1_036", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_038", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Yes, but is it not true that it's entirely possible that the Texas proceeding would make this issue moot--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2008.959], "stop_times": [2015.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2008.959}, "reply_to": "22848__1_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22848__1_039", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--That is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2015.019], "stop_times": [2016.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.019}, "reply_to": "22848__1_038", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_040", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--and, therefore, avoid the necessity for deciding a lot of very difficult questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2016.625], "stop_times": [2020.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2016.625}, "reply_to": "22848__1_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22848__1_041", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "That is true.\nThat is frequently the case, that in a... in a case that is being litigated, there are other proceedings that have the potential to make something moot.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2020.901, 2022.186], "stop_times": [2022.186, 2028.066], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2020.901}, "reply_to": "22848__1_040", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_042", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "And is it also true that, in the Texas proceedings, they necessarily would involve a federal question on which this Court could, if it chose, grant certiorari on direct review?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2028.066], "stop_times": [2037.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2028.066}, "reply_to": "22848__1_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22848__1_043", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Absolutely.\nAnd the difficult questions about the constitutional authority for the Executive determination may come back to this Court, but they're not presented by the case right now before the Court.\nThe most direct avenue, I would submit, for this Court is to resolve this decision by affirming the Fifth Circuit judgement, and by affirming it on the grounds that a COA could not issue because this was not a constitutional claim.\nAnd that would necessarily entail affirming Breard to the extent that Breard noted that a subsequently enacted statute, the AEDPA, to the extent of a conflict, superceded the Vienna Convention.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2037.607, 2038.65, 2048.195, 2060.76], "stop_times": [2038.65, 2048.195, 2060.76, 2073.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2037.607}, "reply_to": "22848__1_042", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_044", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Is the question... how difficult is the question?\nThe President of the United States has issued a document where he says,\n\"Exercising my foreign-affairs power, in my opinion the treaty, as I... I accept the meaning of the treaty as set forth by the ICJ and apply it to these 51 cases. \"\nSo he's deciding that.\nAnd why doesn't he have the authority to decide what that treaty means in these circumstances?\nThat's his decision.\nAnd Texas is bound by the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2073.625, 2077.078, 2080.041, 2092.503, 2094.315, 2100.22, 2101.495], "stop_times": [2077.078, 2080.041, 2092.503, 2094.315, 2100.22, 2101.495, 2104.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2073.625}, "reply_to": "22848__1_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22848__1_045", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "We would agree that the fact that the President has acted underscores the point made by both Texas and the United States, that the responsibility for determining the remedy to the Avena judgement is found in the political branches.\nAnd the fact that the President is acting underscores this, that there is no precedent for an ICJ judgement being judicially enforceable.\nIndeed, Respondent is aware of no country in the world that accords binding effect to ICJ judgements in their own domestic courts.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2104.783, 2119.567, 2127.281, 2137.412], "stop_times": [2119.567, 2127.281, 2137.412, 2137.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2104.783}, "reply_to": "22848__1_044", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_046", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, Mr. Cruz, maybe the treaty becomes part of federal law if it's properly ratified and signed, as this one was.\nNow, it's possible that the treaty itself gives certain individually enforceable rights to Mr. Medellin.\nAnd we can disregard the question of whether the Avena judgement is enforceable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2137.784, 2146.314, 2154.329], "stop_times": [2146.314, 2154.329, 2161.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2137.784}, "reply_to": "22848__1_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__1_047", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2161.459], "stop_times": [2164.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2161.459}, "reply_to": "22848__1_046", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_048", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Isn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2164.057], "stop_times": [2164.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2164.057}, "reply_to": "22848__1_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__1_049", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--that's absolutely correct, that this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2164.677], "stop_times": [2166.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.677}, "reply_to": "22848__1_048", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_050", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "I mean, it would be open to this Court, presumably, to say, that treaty became part of federal law when it was ratified, and Congress can enact subsequent laws.\nIt did in AEDPA.\nBut, in any event, the treaty could give rise to individual enforceable rights.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2166.31, 2177.207, 2178.094, 2184.391], "stop_times": [2177.207, 2178.094, 2184.391, 2185.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2166.31}, "reply_to": "22848__1_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__1_051", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--To be sure, this Court could certainly determine that the Vienna Convention gives rises to the individual rights.\nThat interpretation, however, would conflict with the express language of the preamble to the treaty, and would also conflict with the consistent position of the Executive Branch since 1969, when this treaty was ratified.\nFor those 36 years, the State Department has consistently answered the question, that the Vienna Convention does not give rise to individual rights.\nAnd, indeed--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2185.196, 2191.473, 2203.089, 2210.878], "stop_times": [2191.473, 2203.089, 2210.878, 2211.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2185.196}, "reply_to": "22848__1_050", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_052", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Did the Breard case speak to that issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2211.663], "stop_times": [2213.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2211.663}, "reply_to": "22848__1_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22848__1_053", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--The Breard case simply made reference to... that there was, arguably, individual rights.\nIt didn't purport to resolve that.\nIt said, even if there were, it is barred by AEDPA.\nSo I don't believe the Breard case answers it, one way or the other; but, given the United States' consistent position... and, indeed, it uses very similar language in later treaties, such as the two terrorism treaties that are cited in the United States' brief.\nIt is worth underscoring that on every question currently before this Court in this proceeding, the United States agrees entirely with Texas, that this Court's resolution of this case should be to affirm the judgement of the Fifth Circuit because a COA should not have issued.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2213.878, 2219.225, 2220.796, 2223.887, 2237.658], "stop_times": [2219.225, 2220.796, 2223.887, 2237.658, 2255.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2213.878}, "reply_to": "22848__1_052", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_054", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, if we came to the conclusion that the treaty, by its own force, did not create enforceable individual rights, then we would have to get to the question of whether the President's proclamation changes that result.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2255.088], "stop_times": [2273.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2255.088}, "reply_to": "22848__1_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__1_055", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Only in the most threshold sense; because, on its face, the President's proclamation, or determination, is focused only on state courts, and what the President says is that he has determined that the Avena decision will have binding effect in state courts.\nSo, according to the Executive determination, that does not have a binding effect on this proceeding; but, rather, on a subsequent--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2273.944, 2289.899], "stop_times": [2289.899, 2297.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2273.944}, "reply_to": "22848__1_054", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_056", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "But that seems to be topsy-turvy, that a treaty would have effect in state courts but not in federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2297.598], "stop_times": [2308.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2297.598}, "reply_to": "22848__1_055", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__1_057", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--We don't disagree that the Executive could have chosen other avenues.\nNevertheless, Medellin's argument that, given the Executive has said,\n\"This should have effect in some other proceeding. \"\nwe should disregard what the Executive has said about this proceeding and apply it here, notwithstanding the President's express determination it wouldn't apply here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2308.301, 2314.324, 2318.475, 2321.794], "stop_times": [2314.324, 2318.475, 2321.794, 2330.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2308.301}, "reply_to": "22848__1_056", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_058", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "But isn't what the President's memorandum says exactly what the Avena judgement said?\nThat is, the President said,\n\"Well, the ICJ said that these people are entitled to review and reconsideration of their guilt and of their punishment. \"\n\"And so, I think that's what should happen. \"\n\"I agree with the judgement, or at least I think it should be enforced, and the only place it can be enforced is in the state court that rendered the judgement, because the ICJ said what the United States has to implement is, they have to give a review and reconsideration. \"\nNow, I suppose, as far as the ICJ is concerned, they don't care if it's done by some federal tribunal, or state, but within our system, it must be the state, mustn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2330.283, 2337.026, 2338.753, 2347.823, 2352.047, 2370.191], "stop_times": [2337.026, 2338.753, 2347.823, 2352.047, 2370.191, 2380.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2330.283}, "reply_to": "22848__1_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22848__1_059", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, certainly under the terms of the President's order, where the President said that he's determined it shall... should be given effect, quote,\n\"By having state courts give effect. \"\nby the express terms of the order, particularly as explained in the United States' brief, where that is conjoined with the position of the United States, that in this proceeding, on appeal from the first federal habeas proceeding, that there is no effect to the Avena judgement.\nThat's the position the United States has articulated.\nAnd so, to the extent this Court gives deference to the Executive's position... and in matters of foreign affairs, this Court has historically given great deference to that position... that position states that that should have no effect upon this proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2380.131, 2386.831, 2389.317, 2403.276, 2405.619], "stop_times": [2386.831, 2389.317, 2403.276, 2405.619, 2419.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.131}, "reply_to": "22848__1_058", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_060", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "But, Mr. Cruz, let me just make a suggestion.\nAssume you lose... I'm not suggesting you will, but assume you do... the net result of the proceeding, in your adversary's favor, would be that they would get a hearing in the state court, which is what... the President's order says,\n\"Let them have that right away. \"\nSo the whole purpose of having a lot of federal litigation to decide what you can address right away by honoring the President's request, at least litigating it in the state court right away, we may be engaged in a lot of useless activity.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2419.89, 2421.7, 2433.793, 2435.258], "stop_times": [2421.7, 2433.793, 2435.258, 2449.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2419.89}, "reply_to": "22848__1_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22848__1_061", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Respectfully, if we were to lose, and if Medellin were to prevail, his position could potentially open the door to the reconsideration of the over 100 foreign nationals that are on death row across this country, and, beyond that, to thousands--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2449.13], "stop_times": [2464.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2449.13}, "reply_to": "22848__1_060", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_062", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, so could the President's order, the same thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2464.9], "stop_times": [2466.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.9}, "reply_to": "22848__1_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22848__1_063", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--But the President's order is, by its term, confined to the 51 Mexican nationals.\nMedellin's theory is not.\nMedellin's theory is not even confined to those on death row; but, rather, would potentially extend to the thousands of foreign nationals--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2466.156, 2470.27, 2471.59], "stop_times": [2470.27, 2471.59, 2478.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2466.156}, "reply_to": "22848__1_062", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_064", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "But that can't be, in light of the United States' most recent action.\nI mean, we have a judgement.\nThe judgement concerns how many people?\nFifty-one?\nForty-nine?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2478.953, 2481.93, 2482.94, 2485.372, 2486.037], "stop_times": [2481.93, 2482.94, 2485.372, 2486.037, 2486.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2478.953}, "reply_to": "22848__1_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22848__1_065", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Fifty-one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2486.696], "stop_times": [2487.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2486.696}, "reply_to": "22848__1_064", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_066", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Okay.\nThere is no judgement concerning anybody else.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2487.255, 2487.727], "stop_times": [2487.727, 2490.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2487.255}, "reply_to": "22848__1_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22848__1_067", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "That's true with respect to the Executive determination.\nBut the ICJ's decision went beyond its authorizing statute and explicitly... even though its authorizing statute says the ICJ has jurisdiction only to speak to the matter directly before it, in paragraph 151 the ICJ said it wasn't speaking just to the matter before it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2490.558, 2493.324], "stop_times": [2493.324, 2509.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2490.558}, "reply_to": "22848__1_066", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_068", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "But this... but if there's a claim here based on the Avena judgement, it is that the United States agreed to the ICJ's jurisdiction in Vienna Convention cases.\nAnd so, pursuant to that agreement, there was an adjudication.\nThe United States is no longer agreeing, so there will never be another adjudication.\nThis adjudication concerns 51 people or... and there are no others.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2509.254, 2521.199, 2525.971, 2530.81], "stop_times": [2521.199, 2525.971, 2530.81, 2535.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2509.254}, "reply_to": "22848__1_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22848__1_069", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "But Medellin's theory that Avena should be applied as a binding rule of judgement, even without subsequent proceedings before the ICJ, could be taken to support granting habeas relief in other proceedings for individuals whose cases weren't litigated, particularly given that the ICJ in Avena purports--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2535.37], "stop_times": [2553.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2535.37}, "reply_to": "22848__1_068", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_070", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, you have to... you have to recognize that there is a distinction between this case, which is, in large part, based on a judgement of the ICJ, and other cases that would not have the benefit of that judgement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2553.58], "stop_times": [2565.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2553.58}, "reply_to": "22848__1_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22848__1_071", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Surely.\nAlthough the terms of the ICJ decision purport to apply more broadly than to these 51, and they explicitly say that this cannot be taken to imply that this does not apply to other foreign nationals, notwithstanding its jurisdictional statute that prevents it from doing that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2565.832, 2566.494], "stop_times": [2566.494, 2582.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2565.832}, "reply_to": "22848__1_070", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_072", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Why isn't this... the United States did consent to the jurisdiction of the ICJ in these Vienna Convention cases, and that tribunal issued a judgement.\nWhy doesn't it get the same recognition and enforcement of any judgement of any court with jurisdiction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2582.811, 2596.397], "stop_times": [2596.397, 2603.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2582.811}, "reply_to": "22848__1_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22848__1_073", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Under the terms of the applicable treaties, the ICJ has jurisdiction to determine, as a matter of international law, if there is a treaty breach.\nBut those treaties also specify the remedy for any judgement of the ICJ, and that remedy, under Article 94 of the U.N. charter, is recourse to the Security Council.\nThat was explicitly adopted as a political remedy, because it is the prerogative of the President and the political branches to determine how to respond.\nOne of the responses open to the political branch, as the United States has articulated, is to decline to respond.\nAnd with respect to the Nicaragua case, that's exactly what the United States did.\nIn that situation... and that matter was ultimately litigated; Judge Mikva, for the D.C. Circuit, wrote a compelling opinion laying out that decisions of the ICJ are not judicially enforceable in U.S. courts; they are, rather, matters sovereign-to-sovereign.\nThat same reasoning applies here.\nIt is a matter for the Executive to determine how to apply.\nI would note that Medellin also presents an argument... two arguments as to why he's presented constitutional claims.\nOne, a due-process claim.\nDue process was not in the questions presented, as he authored.\nIt was not in the brief that he wrote to the Fifth Circuit asking for a COA.\nThe words \"due process\" do not appear in his merits briefs.\nAnd, indeed, under the sections... the constitutional sections cited, he does not include the Due Process Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2603.724, 2612.071, 2621.821, 2628.761, 2634.67, 2638.467, 2653.127, 2655.255, 2657.731, 2663.037, 2664.982, 2668.232, 2672.004, 2675.27], "stop_times": [2612.071, 2621.821, 2628.761, 2634.67, 2638.467, 2653.127, 2655.255, 2657.731, 2663.037, 2664.982, 2668.232, 2672.004, 2675.27, 2680.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2603.724}, "reply_to": "22848__1_072", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_074", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, what difference does that make, since this... the issue to which it is addressed has not been raised either?\nI mean, it's a new issue, and I presume, to the extent that it may be considered at all, his response... he can make a response to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2680.318, 2685.594], "stop_times": [2685.594, 2694.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2680.318}, "reply_to": "22848__1_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22848__1_075", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "He might conceivably have brought a due-process claim.\nAnd if he had brought a due-process claim, the Court of Appeals could have considered if that due-process claim met the substantive standards of the AEDPA.\nHe didn't bring a due-process claim.\nHe brought a treaty claim.\nAnd that's the question upon which he sought certiorari review by this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2694.931, 2697.966, 2705.155, 2706.961, 2708.162], "stop_times": [2697.966, 2705.155, 2706.961, 2708.162, 2712.109], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2694.931}, "reply_to": "22848__1_074", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_076", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, I can understand the argument, that he shouldn't be allowed to raise due process here if the argument also goes to your... the permissibility of your raising 2253.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2712.109], "stop_times": [2723.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2712.109}, "reply_to": "22848__1_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22848__1_077", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "But 225--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2723.621], "stop_times": [2724.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2723.621}, "reply_to": "22848__1_076", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_078", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "What's sauce for the goose--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2724.722], "stop_times": [2725.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2724.722}, "reply_to": "22848__1_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22848__1_079", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--but 2253 is a jurisdictional bar to this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2725.528], "stop_times": [2729.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2725.528}, "reply_to": "22848__1_078", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_080", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Okay.\nThen I don't see why it isn't also a jurisdictional gate for him to make a response to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2729.354, 2729.718], "stop_times": [2729.718, 2734.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2729.354}, "reply_to": "22848__1_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22848__1_081", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Because he didn't bring that case.\nSure, there are dozens of constitutional claims he could have brought that would have satisfied 2253.\nHe didn't bring those claims.\nSo that's not presented by that proceeding.\nHe's not entitled, in his reply brief, to say,\n\"Well, you know, we could have brought this constitutional claim. \"\ngiven that he did not, in fact, bring that... this constitutional claim.\nIf Medellin's theory is adopted, it would embrace a standard beyond Fay versus Noia.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2734.539, 2736.348, 2742.482, 2743.988, 2746.49, 2749.053, 2751.703, 2755.189, 2762.716], "stop_times": [2736.348, 2742.482, 2743.988, 2746.49, 2749.053, 2751.703, 2755.189, 2762.716, 2763.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2734.539}, "reply_to": "22848__1_080", "speaker": "r_ted_cruz"}
{"id": "22848__1_082", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Cruz.\nMr. Dreeben, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2763.8, 2766.685], "stop_times": [2766.685, 2769.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2763.8}, "reply_to": "22848__1_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__2_000", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nFor the reasons articulated in the brief for the United States and by the State of Texas, this Court should conclude that there was no jurisdiction in the lower court to issue of Certificate of Appealability; and, therefore, the Court should not reach the many questions that Petitioner has raised in this case about the effect of the Avena judgement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2769.022, 2774.408], "stop_times": [2774.408, 2794.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2769.022}, "reply_to": "22848__1_082", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22848__2_001", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Have there been any cases in the Circuits holding that the state can waive the jurisdictional limitation on COA?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2794.243], "stop_times": [2803.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2794.243}, "reply_to": "22848__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22848__2_002", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "There have been cases in the Circuits, Justice Kennedy, that have held that once a COA has issued, the Court of Appeals may consider a claim that would otherwise be beyond the jurisdiction of the courts.\nBut this is a case where a COA has not been issued, and there is a plain procedural obstacle to its issuance that this Court can determine and, therefore, obviate the need to consider the very sensitive and delicate questions that Petitioner has raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2803.206, 2814.443], "stop_times": [2814.443, 2829.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2803.206}, "reply_to": "22848__2_001", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22848__2_003", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "But is their whole question of the COA waivable?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2829.342], "stop_times": [2832.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.342}, "reply_to": "22848__2_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__2_004", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "I don't think so, Justice O'Connor, because a COA is a jurisdictional requirement.\nAnd just as a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and the prerequisites for proper notice of appeal have to be satisfied, the prerequisites for a proper Certificate of Appealability should be satisfied before this Court goes on to reach the merits of a question, which, as Justice Stevens has pointed out, may never need to be reached at all if the Texas courts recognize the President's determination with respect to the Avena decision or apply the Avena decision itself.\nAnd I think it's very noteworthy that the filing that Petitioner made at the end of last week in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Texas law specifically, at page 25, says that Petitioner is relying on the Avena judgement and he's relying on the President's determination, which are two new sources of law that were not available at the time the Texas courts previously addressed the matter and that now are available, which constitutes a ground for a second petition under Texas law, and that, accordingly, the Texas courts should allow this claim to be developed in the state courts and to be litigated there.\nTo me, those statements are almost an admission that the claims that Petitioner has brought here are barred by failure to exhaust available state remedies.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2832.829, 2838.364, 2866.394, 2908.334], "stop_times": [2838.364, 2866.394, 2908.334, 2918.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2832.829}, "reply_to": "22848__2_003", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22848__2_005", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, could this question of the effect of the Avena Treaty be brought before the Court?\nMr. Donovan raised, I think, the All Writs Act, and he also raised original writs in this court.\nIf the COA doesn't work, then treat this... I think that's what he's saying... treat it as though it were an application under the All Writs Act or an original writ.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2918.929, 2926.132, 2935.962], "stop_times": [2926.132, 2935.962, 2948.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2918.929}, "reply_to": "22848__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22848__2_006", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "I do think that the Court would have the option of availing itself of extraordinary jurisdiction, but, as the Court made clear in the Felker case, its exercise of extraordinary original writs would be informed by the limitations that the AEDPA imposes upon the grant of habeas corpus relief; and, therefore, the Court should look to at least the additional jurisdictional obstacle that the United States and Texas has raised; and, namely, that is that the decision that the Texas courts raised... issued in this case is not contrary to any Supreme Court decision or a misapplication of any clearly established federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2948.519], "stop_times": [2989.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2948.519}, "reply_to": "22848__2_005", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22848__2_007", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "So all those are... there are a lot of reasons.\nDoes that counsel in favor of our holding this?\nHere we have a case that went on a jurisdictional ground.\nAnd if we affirm or reverse that jurisdictional ground from the Court of Appeals, we'll decide a lot of issues that will create guidance.\nWe might not have to decide it, because Texas may deal with it; or we may decide, if they come out the other way, they're wrong.\nBut we might.\nAnd that's why I was thinking perhaps we should hold it rather than dig it, particularly because that other issue does have some authority the other way.\nI take it there's a treatise in the Fifth Circuit case which does say that the word \"constitutional\" here encompasses \"treaty\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [2989.682, 2992.122, 2994.493, 3000.807, 3010.213, 3016.298, 3017.42, 3025.263], "stop_times": [2992.122, 2994.493, 3000.807, 3010.213, 3016.298, 3017.42, 3025.263, 3031.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2989.682}, "reply_to": "22848__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22848__2_008", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Justice Breyer, I do not think that the Court should hold the case, pending the outcome of the Texas proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [3031.414], "stop_times": [3037.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3031.414}, "reply_to": "22848__2_007", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22848__2_009", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Because?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [3037.821], "stop_times": [3038.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3037.821}, "reply_to": "22848__2_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22848__2_010", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "The Texas proceedings can consider the Avena claim and the claim in reliance--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [3038.02], "stop_times": [3042.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3038.02}, "reply_to": "22848__2_009", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22848__2_011", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Yeah, but suppose you lose... see, I'm thinking, suppose you lose in the Texas proceeding, it comes here, and, for whatever reason, suppose you lost again... you might not, but you might... in which case, then what do we do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [3042.214], "stop_times": [3054.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3042.214}, "reply_to": "22848__2_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22848__2_012", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--Well, the Supreme Court would have the option of granting cert to review whatever the Texas courts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [3054.108], "stop_times": [3059.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3054.108}, "reply_to": "22848__2_011", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22848__2_013", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "No, no, but suppose we thought they were right?\nSee, suppose you lost across the board?\nThat would be the argument for holding it... holding it because then you'd have another vehicle to get to these questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [3059.036, 3060.522, 3063.77], "stop_times": [3060.522, 3063.77, 3069.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3059.036}, "reply_to": "22848__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22848__2_014", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--I think it would be close to issuing an advisory opinion for the Court to decide an important issue of federal law in which there is a clear jurisdictional bar to the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability, and I don't think that a treatise creates enough of a doubt that AEDPA, means \"constitutional\" for this Court to embark on a wide-ranging exploration of potentially very significant issues with constitutional overtones.\nThe Avena decision is not a freestanding source of law that can be administered by this Court wholly apart from the President's determination.\nWhat the President did was to determine not that the treaty has a particular meaning that favors Petitioner's case, but that, as a matter of compliance with the obligation of the United States, under international law, to comply with a judgement of the International Court of Justice... or to determine not to... but that, in the interest of the rule of law and the obligations that were taken on, the President would create a new source of law, in effect, that would enable the enforcement of that particular judgement, without respect to the validity of the underlying merits determination that the ICJ made.\nBut if this Court were to treat the ICJ judgement as a freestanding source of law, it would frustrate the Executive's ability to determine, in a particular case, this determination by an international tribunal should not be enforced and it should not be given effect; rather, that the President might, in a particular case, choose to... not to comply with that determination.\nAnd it would rob the President of that freedom in international affairs were this Court to treat a determination by the International Court of Justice as a freestanding--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [3069.92, 3096.09, 3105.402, 3143.784, 3167.12], "stop_times": [3096.09, 3105.402, 3143.784, 3167.12, 3176.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3069.92}, "reply_to": "22848__2_013", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22848__2_015", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Well, is, though, a treaty that's been duly ratified and signed enforceable as part of our federal law, as this one is drafted?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [3176.602], "stop_times": [3186.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3176.602}, "reply_to": "22848__2_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22848__2_016", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--It is, Justice O'Connor, but it should... properly construed as not conferring privately-enforceable rights on a criminal defendant in a criminal case.\nIt has not one word about private enforceability in a criminal case in its language.\nThe backdrop of the Vienna Convention was that no country had ever provided notice of rights to a criminal defendant that would then form a basis, in the event of a violation, of an attack on a criminal conviction.\nState practice since the Vienna Convention has not recognized, here or abroad, a privately-enforceable right--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [3186.855, 3194.836, 3199.408, 3214.847], "stop_times": [3194.836, 3199.408, 3214.847, 3223.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3186.855}, "reply_to": "22848__2_015", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22848__2_017", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, how many... how many states are we talking about for these 51 individuals involved in the case?\nHow many different states?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [3223.348, 3232.959], "stop_times": [3232.959, 3234.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3223.348}, "reply_to": "22848__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__2_018", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "--I'm not sure of the exact number, Justice Scalia.\nI think it's five or six states that have defendants that are at issue in those proceedings.\nAnd what the President determined was, with respect to those 51 individuals, observance of the ICJ judgement was warranted, as a matter of United States foreign policy, not because the United States agrees with the ICJ's rulings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [3234.827, 3237.957, 3244.161], "stop_times": [3237.957, 3244.161, 3259.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3234.827}, "reply_to": "22848__2_017", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22848__2_019", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "It's conceivable that those five or six states could say,\n\"The President has no authority to do this. \"\nground one.\nGround two,\n\"Even if he did, on the merits, we reexamine. \"\nSo the whole thing could go away.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [3259.948, 3262.799, 3264.564, 3265.822, 3266.752, 3269.675], "stop_times": [3262.799, 3264.564, 3265.822, 3266.752, 3269.675, 3271.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3259.948}, "reply_to": "22848__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22848__2_020", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "That is absolutely correct.\nAnd I think that's an additional reason why this Court should not rush ahead and overlook jurisdictional obstacles that may not have been apparent to it at the time that it granted certiorari, and certainly the Court did not have the benefit of the fact that the President would make a determination that state courts should provide the review and reconsideration that the ICJ had determined was appropriate.\nAnd the Court, of course, didn't know that Petitioner would then file a petition for successive writ in the Texas courts that could provide him the review and reconsideration that he now seeks this Court to announce in a ruling that would have extraordinarily broad and detrimental foreign-policy consequences for the United States' freedom to respond to the decisions of international tribunals in a manner that the President sees fit in accordance with his foreign-policy judgement.\nIf the Court has no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [3271.395, 3273.118, 3294.372, 3322.958], "stop_times": [3273.118, 3294.372, 3322.958, 3327.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3271.395}, "reply_to": "22848__2_019", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22848__2_021", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Dreeben.\nMr. Donovan, you have five minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [3327.205, 3327.792], "stop_times": [3327.792, 3332.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3327.205}, "reply_to": "22848__2_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22848__3_000", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe Respondent came to this Court saying that he agrees with Mr. Medellin that America could keep her... should keep her word.\nHere's the situation we have.\nEverybody agrees that these treaties are binding.\nEverybody agrees now that the President has determined that Mr. Medellin should get exactly what he came to this Court asking for, which is review and reconsideration from the state courts.\nThe... as Mr. Dreeben has pointed out, and as we advised the Court last week, in order to protect against any statute of limitations bar, we have, in fact, filed in Texas, in order to make these claims, pending the disposition here.\nAnd Mr. Medellin is prepared to go forward in state court, making exactly these claims, which the state courts have never had an opportunity to occasion.\nThe question here is, How does this Court fulfill its function of ensuring that the United States complies with its international obligations that the President has now confirmed he will comply with?\nAnd, of course, the question here is not whether this... whatever this Court does with respect to the question presented here... that is, Does the Avena judgement having binding effect under the Supremacy Clause +/?\nin this case, would no in any way constrain the President's determination at some future point, because here we have a situation where the President has said \"comply\".\nAnd so, this case does not raise questions... if it operated directly under the Supremacy Clause... does not raise a question about what would happen if, in some future case, the political branches made a different determination once an ICJ judgement came to this country.\nHere, we have the President saying,\n\"You should do exactly what... the United States... what the ICJ said to do. \"\nSo the question is, How does one proceed?\nWe have proposed a means of going forward that, in our view, is respectful to the authority of this Court, that is respectful to the Texas courts, and that's respectful to the President; and that is, to go forward on the subsequent application in the Texas courts, giving them two issues that they've never had a chance to address, the Avena judgement claim and the claim under the President's determination.\nWhat should not happen is, that application should not be compromised by any adverse action on this Court, and the suggestion of a dismissal might have compromising effects.\nAt a minimum, it might be perceived as leaving in place a judgement that this Court has already said warranted review and is now, in our view, fatally undermined by the President's determination, as it has been previously fatally undermined by the plain command of the Supremacy Clause.\nIn addition, we would, no doubt... we're already hearing arguments from the opposition to the motion to stay... we would no doubt hear arguments that, on some subsequence habeas which the United States says is... would be available, that that would be a second or successor habeas, even though Mr. Medellin has never had a chance to bring the... otherwise, to bring these claims to the Court.\nAnd, therefore, the Court might, at some point... at this point, the best thing to do, if we are going to achieve expeditious compliance with the President's determination... is, in fact, to stay; not to deal with any of the questions that have been raised here, but to let the Texas courts deal with them in the first instance.\nIf it comes back to this Court in the posture of a direct... for example, request for certiorari review from a judgement of the Texas courts... there should be no adverse impact from anything this Court did at this posture, simply because Mr. Medellin came here.\nAnd, indeed, it was Mr. Medellin's case that presumably prompted the President to act.\nThat would be unfair, and it would complicated the Court's own disposition.\nWhat do we have Texas saying before this Court?\nEffectively, Texas has come into this courtroom and said neither the President nor this Court can effect... can give effect of the Avena judgement, because Texas has opposed the Court's authority under the direct operation of the Supremacy Clause, and now Texas has told the Court that the President can't do this either.\nAnd in the face of that suggestion, Mr. Medellin has every hope and expectation that the Texas courts will see their obligations under the Supremacy Clause in a form of both the Avena judgement interpreting and applying the Vienna Convention and the President's determination, differently than the Texas authorities have so far announced.\nBut if it does not, this Court should have the full complement of means at its disposal in order to ensure that the United States complies with its international obligations.\nMr. Dreeben has, himself, just suggested that there may be circumstances if it were not otherwise achievable.\nIt's hard to think of a more important case for the exercise of this Court's extraordinary writs.\nBut none of that should be in any way compromised by a dismissal, at this point, simply because the President came in in the midst... in fact, concurrently... into Mr. Medellin's own case before this Court and made this determination.\nInstead, as we'd suggest, the appropriate thing would be... to do is to stay the case, to allow it to go forward in the Texas courts.\nBut if the Court does not wish to stay, we would respectfully suggest that, at this point, under direct command of the Supremacy Clause endorsed by the President's determination, as well as the President's determination itself, the Court should give effect to the United States' promises.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [3332.108, 3334.834, 3341.591, 3343.437, 3345.489, 3355.399, 3368.546, 3376.716, 3387.031, 3396.451, 3404.596, 3417.853, 3419.736, 3424.769, 3426.497, 3446.283, 3457.232, 3471.951, 3491.502, 3508.748, 3523.407, 3528.044, 3531.093, 3533.379, 3549.259, 3564.681, 3575.436, 3581.047, 3586.05, 3598.648, 3605.479, 3619.357], "stop_times": [3334.834, 3341.591, 3343.437, 3345.489, 3355.399, 3368.546, 3376.716, 3387.031, 3396.451, 3404.596, 3417.853, 3419.736, 3424.769, 3426.497, 3446.283, 3457.232, 3471.951, 3491.502, 3508.748, 3523.407, 3528.044, 3531.093, 3533.379, 3549.259, 3564.681, 3575.436, 3581.047, 3586.05, 3598.648, 3605.479, 3619.357, 3620.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3332.108}, "reply_to": "22848__2_021", "speaker": "donald_francis_donovan"}
{"id": "22848__3_001", "conversation_id": "22848", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Donovan.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5928", "start_times": [3620.336, 3620.677], "stop_times": [3620.677, 3622.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3620.336}, "reply_to": "22848__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21343__0_000", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "We'll hear argument now in the Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences.\nMr. Rosenkranz.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [0.0, 8.394], "stop_times": [8.394, 10.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21343__0_001", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Thank you, Your... Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nYour Honors, there is no dispute among the parties, nor among the 19 amicus briefs presented before the Court today.\nAs to the answer to the threshold legal question, everyone agrees that the FDA exemption does, indeed, apply, with full course, to the sorts of experiments that are conducted and that would be relevant to the FDA in consideration of an Investigational New Drug application, a so-called IND.\nSo the battleground now shifts to Integra's alternative arguments in support of the judgement--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [10.793, 13.866, 22.794, 44.34], "stop_times": [13.866, 22.794, 44.34, 50.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.793}, "reply_to": "21343__0_000", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_002", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Well, would you just clarify something for me as we start to consider the case?\nI guess this thing went to the jury under an instruction that tried to come to grips with the definition under the statute in some way.\nWas that instruction one to which Merck preserved an objection?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [50.387, 56.43, 67.555], "stop_times": [56.43, 67.555, 74.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 50.387}, "reply_to": "21343__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_003", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nWe did not object to the core of the jury's instructions stating the legal standard.\nAnd we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [74.878, 75.95, 81.123], "stop_times": [75.95, 81.123, 81.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 74.878}, "reply_to": "21343__0_002", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_004", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Do you think it was properly stated in that instruction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [81.816], "stop_times": [84.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 81.816}, "reply_to": "21343__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_005", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--The core of the instruction, yes, Your Honor, was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [84.978], "stop_times": [87.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 84.978}, "reply_to": "21343__0_004", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_006", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "That's as good as we could do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [87.319], "stop_times": [88.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 87.319}, "reply_to": "21343__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_007", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--Your Honor, I believe... the answer is, the core was as good as this Court can do, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [88.294], "stop_times": [94.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 88.294}, "reply_to": "21343__0_006", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_008", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "All right.\nAnd, under that, you think that Merck was entitled to a directed verdict--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [94.165, 94.277], "stop_times": [94.277, 100.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 94.165}, "reply_to": "21343__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_009", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [100.117], "stop_times": [100.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 100.117}, "reply_to": "21343__0_008", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_010", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--from the evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [100.724], "stop_times": [100.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 100.724}, "reply_to": "21343__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_011", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "It was entitled to a verdict as a matter of law, but let me just--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [100.836], "stop_times": [104.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 100.836}, "reply_to": "21343__0_010", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_012", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Okay, but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did not address the case in... by looking at the evidence and whether a directed verdict should have been given--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [104.617], "stop_times": [122.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 104.617}, "reply_to": "21343__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_013", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--Your Honor, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [122.141], "stop_times": [122.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 122.141}, "reply_to": "21343__0_012", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_014", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [122.615], "stop_times": [123.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 122.615}, "reply_to": "21343__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_015", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--the Federal Circuit did understand that this was a JMOL case but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [123.052], "stop_times": [128.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 123.052}, "reply_to": "21343__0_014", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_016", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "No, but it seemed to decide the case based on its view of the statute as just applying to generic drugs or something--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [128.043], "stop_times": [137.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 128.043}, "reply_to": "21343__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_017", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--That is absolutely correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [137.152], "stop_times": [138.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 137.152}, "reply_to": "21343__0_016", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_018", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--So it didn't, in fact, come to grips with the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [138.708], "stop_times": [141.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 138.708}, "reply_to": "21343__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_019", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "It absolutely did not come to grips with the evidence, nor did it grapple with the alternative arguments that Integra was presenting--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [141.445], "stop_times": [148.501], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 141.445}, "reply_to": "21343__0_018", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_020", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Yeah, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [148.501], "stop_times": [149.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 148.501}, "reply_to": "21343__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_021", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--so they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [149.177], "stop_times": [149.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 149.177}, "reply_to": "21343__0_020", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_022", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--maybe all we have to do is deal with whether that court should have addressed the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [149.461], "stop_times": [156.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 149.461}, "reply_to": "21343__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_023", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--That would be one answer, Your Honor, reverse and not addressing the alternative legal grounds, but I would urge this Court to address the alternative grounds, because they raise--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [156.106], "stop_times": [165.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 156.106}, "reply_to": "21343__0_022", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_024", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "All of them?\nYou mean, like the research tools problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [165.86, 166.218], "stop_times": [166.218, 172.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 165.86}, "reply_to": "21343__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_025", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--No, Your Honor, because the research tools problem was never presented--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [172.629], "stop_times": [175.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 172.629}, "reply_to": "21343__0_024", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_026", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [175.732], "stop_times": [175.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.732}, "reply_to": "21343__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_027", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--as an issue before the jury or before the District Court.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [175.855, 179.07], "stop_times": [179.07, 179.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 175.855}, "reply_to": "21343__0_026", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_028", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Or the Tripps Treaty?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [179.282], "stop_times": [180.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 179.282}, "reply_to": "21343__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_029", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [180.572], "stop_times": [181.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 180.572}, "reply_to": "21343__0_028", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_030", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [181.259], "stop_times": [181.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 181.259}, "reply_to": "21343__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_031", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "In fact, that's not even raised by Respondents.\nIt's raised by--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [181.744, 184.549], "stop_times": [184.549, 185.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 181.744}, "reply_to": "21343__0_030", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_032", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "All right.\nAnd how about the common-law research--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [185.242, 185.338], "stop_times": [185.338, 187.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 185.242}, "reply_to": "21343__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_033", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--I would... I would urge the Court not broach the subject of any of the questions that are not properly presented--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [187.204], "stop_times": [193.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 187.204}, "reply_to": "21343__0_032", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_034", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--Okay, so--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [193.533], "stop_times": [193.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 193.533}, "reply_to": "21343__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_035", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--to this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [193.831], "stop_times": [193.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 193.831}, "reply_to": "21343__0_034", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_036", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--all we're doing is looking at the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [193.937], "stop_times": [195.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 193.937}, "reply_to": "21343__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_037", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "We're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [195.88], "stop_times": [196.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 195.88}, "reply_to": "21343__0_036", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_038", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [196.407], "stop_times": [196.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 196.407}, "reply_to": "21343__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_039", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, we're looking at the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [196.525], "stop_times": [198.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 196.525}, "reply_to": "21343__0_038", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_040", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [198.188], "stop_times": [198.331], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 198.188}, "reply_to": "21343__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__0_041", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--but it is an... it is important, in answer to the very first question, to embellish a bit, because the lower courts need this Court's guidance, because every one of the theories on which Integra defends the judgement below raise exactly the same problems that the Federal Circuit's opinion raises.\nThey defy the plain language of the statute Congress passed.\nThey are equally at odds with the purpose that Congress had in mind when it passed the FDA exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [198.331, 217.386, 221.69], "stop_times": [217.386, 221.69, 228.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 198.331}, "reply_to": "21343__0_040", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_042", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "What are the alternative grounds that you're discussing now passed on by the Federal Circuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [228.437], "stop_times": [235.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 228.437}, "reply_to": "21343__0_041", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21343__0_043", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Your Honor, they were not passed on by the Federal Circuit, except perhaps to the extent that the Federal Circuit may have concluded that all... or that, excuse me... that safety is the only issue before the FDA when it is considering an Investigational New Drug application, or that a drug innovator may not harbor additional purposes in an experiment beyond the FDA exemption, or that the... excuse me... beyond FDA regulatory purposes... or, third, that the exemption does not cover efforts to optimize the drug candidate after it's identified and that candidate is, in fact, the lead candidate.\nThose are the three legal theories, Your Honors, on which Integra is resting its defense of the judgement below.\nAnd every single one of them is either incorrect as a matter of law or immaterial as a matter of law.\nIf this Court were to ask Integra to come up with a single genuine issue of fact that does not relate to one or another of those three propositions, it will not be able to do so, save a footnote to be addressed later about the credibility of witnesses on a topic on which Integra never argued the witnesses were not credible.\nJust beginning with the safety question, and I'll defer to the Government on that, because the Government can speak better than anyone else as to what it is that is relevant to the FDA in consideration of an IND, suffice it to say that the regulations say, as a matter of law, that safety is not the only consideration before the FDA as it considers an IND.\nThe FDA cares very much about whether a drug will work: efficacy.\nThe FDA cares very much about how it works: mechanism of action.\nIt cares about what the body does to that drug: pharmacokinetics.\nAnd it cares very much about what that drug does to the body: pharmacology.\nAnd Integra's position before the jury, and before this Court, depends upon the proposition that it can bring in a witness to argue that the law is other than what the law clearly is.\nAnd the same thing goes for the so-called GLP studies that the FDA considers in connection with safety data, but need not limit itself to GLP studies when it's considering those other IND relevant topics.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [235.674, 278.937, 286.308, 294.377, 317.363, 344.382, 350.302, 355.23, 359.406, 365.171, 377.826], "stop_times": [278.937, 286.308, 294.377, 317.363, 344.382, 350.302, 355.23, 359.406, 365.171, 377.826, 394.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 235.674}, "reply_to": "21343__0_042", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_044", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Mr. Rosenkranz, just one piece of information.\nBecause the IND is so important at this point, is it in the record... do we have a copy of the IND?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [394.973, 398.54], "stop_times": [398.54, 413.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 394.973}, "reply_to": "21343__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21343__0_045", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "The IND, Your Honor, is not in the record, because it was excluded from evidence, which may be why the jury reached the wrong conclusion.\nBut, I hasten to add, that will not be uncommon in these sorts of cases, because there are many circumstances in which a preclinical study begins and fails, and the IND will never materialize.\nThere are circumstances in which a preliminary injunction is brought and won, and the research stops cold, so an IND never materializes.\nAnd, again, it's important to understand, as one assesses the FDA exemption, that the inquiry is always ex ante, it is always,\n\"What is a reasonable drug innovator? \"\n\"What does that drug innovator or scientist know at the point in time at which it is about to perform the next set of experiments? \"\nSo you always reflect back to a point in time before the IND materializes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [413.142, 421.696, 435.937, 444.902, 453.242, 456.426, 464.442], "stop_times": [421.696, 435.937, 444.902, 453.242, 456.426, 464.442, 470.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 413.142}, "reply_to": "21343__0_044", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_046", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Mr. Rosenkrantz, the items you listed earlier seemed to me to more narrow than what I took to be the point of your opening brief, which was that the decision below was wrong because the Federal Circuit simply excluded all consideration of materials prepared for purposes of the IND, as opposed to materials prepared for the... for the drug application, later on.\nAre you abandoning that more expansive position?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [470.224, 504.426], "stop_times": [504.426, 507.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 470.224}, "reply_to": "21343__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21343__0_047", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [507.967], "stop_times": [509.114], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 507.967}, "reply_to": "21343__0_046", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_048", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Because I don't read the opinion that way.\nI don't think that opinion has to be read to say that they're not going to allow in anything that goes to the IND.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [509.114, 511.364], "stop_times": [511.364, 517.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 509.114}, "reply_to": "21343__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21343__0_049", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Your Honor, there is certainly a way to read the Federal Circuit's opinion... and this is also in response to Justice O'Connor's earlier question... in which it did grapple with the very questions we're talking about now, and did answer the questions about whether it's just safety... and I believe the Federal Circuit believed that only safety data were relevant; that is certainly what it indicated in oral argument... and also that dual purposes are not permissible.\nSo let me now turn to the dual-purpose question, because it's another major theme of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [517.128, 544.919], "stop_times": [544.919, 550.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 517.128}, "reply_to": "21343__0_048", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_050", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Have you answered my question?\nYou're abandoning the assertion that the Federal Circuit did not consider anything that didn't go to the IND... that didn't go to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [550.343, 551.441], "stop_times": [551.441, 560.73], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 550.343}, "reply_to": "21343__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21343__0_051", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [560.73], "stop_times": [561.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 560.73}, "reply_to": "21343__0_050", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_052", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--drug application.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [561.141], "stop_times": [562.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 561.141}, "reply_to": "21343__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21343__0_053", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nI believe that there are two ways to read the Federal Circuit's opinion.\nTo the extent that the Federal Circuit said nothing before the clinical stage is relevant to the FDA exemption... if that is what the Federal Circuit held, we are... we are not abandoning the position that that is wrong.\nI understand that there is another way to read the Federal Circuit's opinion that grapples with the subsidiary questions that we're discussing here, which are all fairly presented in our question presented.\nAnd that's what I'm addressing myself to now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [562.511, 563.759, 567.332, 582.264, 594.985], "stop_times": [563.759, 567.332, 582.264, 594.985, 596.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.511}, "reply_to": "21343__0_052", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_054", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "So your first answer, are you relying what the Federal Circuit said in its opinion... and it's in 10a of our cert petition appendix... that is, the Federal Circuit's statement of the question presented, whether the preclinical research conducted under Scripps Merck agreement is exempt from liability for infringement of Integra's patents.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [596.942], "stop_times": [626.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 596.942}, "reply_to": "21343__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21343__0_055", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nAnd then, two pages later, on 12a, the Federal Circuit states its conclusion, and I quote,\n\"Thus, the Scripps work sponsored by Merck was not solely for use as reasonably related to clinical testing for the FDA. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [626.525, 627.101, 633.847], "stop_times": [627.101, 633.847, 642.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 626.525}, "reply_to": "21343__0_054", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_056", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Yeah, but it... it's not at all clear in the opinion that the Court was using preclinical and clinical in the very technical sense that you were... that you use it, which means \"clinical\" is stuff submitted for the drug application, and \"preclinical\" is for the earlier application.\nThat is not at all--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [642.678, 664.832], "stop_times": [664.832, 665.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 642.678}, "reply_to": "21343__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21343__0_057", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Your Honor, it's not at all clear.\nAnd, just as in Boyle, when this Court faced a situation where it wasn't clear what the Federal... or, excuse me... what the Court of Appeals held, the Court...,\n\"The best thing for this Court to do is to address what appears to be the threshold question that the Court of Appeals decided. \"\nbut then also to address the subsidiary questions on the basis of which Integra is defending the judgement below.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [665.755, 667.098, 675.433, 683.96], "stop_times": [667.098, 675.433, 683.96, 692.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 665.755}, "reply_to": "21343__0_056", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_058", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Well, Mr. Rosenkranz--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [692.078], "stop_times": [692.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 692.078}, "reply_to": "21343__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21343__0_059", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "A moment ago... a moment ago, you were reading from 12(a).\nWas it the first sentence you were reading from?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [692.712, 697.756], "stop_times": [697.756, 700.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 692.712}, "reply_to": "21343__0_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21343__0_060", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "I believe it was the first paragraph, and I was reading from the end of that paragraph, Your Honor, the... which begins, \"Thus\", three lines... really two... the word \"thus\" is at the end of the third line from the bottom of that paragraph, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [700.285], "stop_times": [716.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 700.285}, "reply_to": "21343__0_059", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_061", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [716.151], "stop_times": [716.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 716.151}, "reply_to": "21343__0_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21343__0_062", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "And so, I was saying earlier that a critical component of Integra's case revolves around the notion that the use may not have more than one purpose, and that purpose can only be FDA directed.\nThat argument is also incorrect as a matter of law.\nAnd one way we can tell that is that there is no such thing as a preclinical course of study that has only one purpose.\nWhen one is studying mechanism of action, a scientist is deeply interested, not just in how this drug works, but in how the disease works.\nAnd the language of the statute is, of course, the touchstone here.\nThe statute is triggered by uses.\nThe use, in this context, is an experiment.\nAnd the statute covers, provides a safe harbor for, experiments that develop the sorts of information that are relevant to the FDA.\nIf that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [716.957, 732.508, 736.039, 744.22, 753.697, 758.006, 761.889, 764.972, 773.622], "stop_times": [732.508, 736.039, 744.22, 753.697, 758.006, 761.889, 764.972, 773.622, 774.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 716.957}, "reply_to": "21343__0_061", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_063", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Would that... would that... would that be explained by the research-tool doctrine, or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [774.544], "stop_times": [780.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 774.544}, "reply_to": "21343__0_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21343__0_064", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--No, absolutely not, Your Honor.\nThe research-tool question... let me begin by saying, these were not research tools; these RGD peptides were the objects of study.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [780.927, 782.382], "stop_times": [782.382, 790.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 780.927}, "reply_to": "21343__0_063", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_065", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "I guess what I was asking, Would you ever use the peptide as a research tool, was my... was my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [790.104], "stop_times": [794.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 790.104}, "reply_to": "21343__0_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21343__0_066", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Oh, yes, Your Honor.\nThere are circumstances in which these peptides could be used as research tools to stunt the growth of blood vessels and study what happens next with other compounds, but they were emphatically not used as research tools in this case.\nIn this case, they were the objects of study, and Integra won a jury verdict based upon that presentation.\nIn fact, never argued to any court or to the jury that there is a resource tool carve out.\nSo, I was just talking about the subjective purpose earlier, and it is... again, it's important to note that the information can be used for other purposes.\nThere's nothing in the statute that prohibits that.\nNow, let me turn, just briefly then, to what is often one of the most important questions in these FDA exemption cases, which is the timeline question.\nAt what point in the arc of drug development is it unreasonable for a jury to conclude that the FDA is an inappropriate audience for the next set of experiments?\nOur position... and people may differ, as a matter of law, as to whether it earlier... but our argument is, at a bare minimum, at the point in time at which a drug developer has a known structure and cures a disease in an animal with that known structure, all eyes turn to drug development; which is to say, all eyes turn to the FDA.\nAs a matter of law, everything after that, so long as it's relevant to the FDA, is FDA... is appropriate to view as FDA directed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [794.84, 795.442, 810.817, 817.702, 823.527, 838.316, 841.569, 851.632, 864.965, 889.205], "stop_times": [795.442, 810.817, 817.702, 823.527, 838.316, 841.569, 851.632, 864.965, 889.205, 899.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 794.84}, "reply_to": "21343__0_065", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_067", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--Do you agree then that at whatever period, however you want to describe the period, at which the researcher is basically trying to figure out what drug to concentrate on, that that period is too far back in time to come within the exception?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [899.434], "stop_times": [915.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 899.434}, "reply_to": "21343__0_066", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21343__0_068", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThat's exactly the trigger moment.\nIf it has a structure, and it's investigating analogs of that structure to figure out which of these various structures are the best ones to move forward, everything from that point on is FDA directed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [915.753, 916.27, 917.896], "stop_times": [916.27, 917.896, 930.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 915.753}, "reply_to": "21343__0_067", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_069", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Okay, here's what... here's the problem I have with your argument.\nI can understand that argument more easily under the statute, under the text of the statute as it is written, than I can understand it under the instruction that you agreed to, because the instruction that you agreed to had a limitation, a textual limitation which is not in the statute itself, that refers to \"relatively directly\" as describing the relationship between this information and its object.\nAnd if we decide this case on the basis of the statute, and we read the statute more broadly than the instruction, then you're getting something that you're not entitled to, because you agreed to the instruction.\nIf we decide this issue by construing the statute as if your instruction is correct, then we're making an assumption about the proper construction of the statute that has not been argued here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [930.781, 933.831, 960.523, 972.849], "stop_times": [933.831, 960.523, 972.849, 985.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 930.781}, "reply_to": "21343__0_068", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21343__0_070", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [985.04], "stop_times": [986.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 985.04}, "reply_to": "21343__0_069", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_071", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "It seems to me that the law of the case, as to what the statute means for your case, is set by the instruction, and that is why I am reluctant to get into the issue that you raise here, because I think we're rather... you are limited, and we are tied in what we can do as a result of your agreement with the instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [986.027], "stop_times": [1006.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 986.027}, "reply_to": "21343__0_070", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21343__0_072", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--Your Honor... and I see my time is running out; I'd like to reserve it for rebuttal, so let me, just briefly.\nUnder Praprotnik, of course, this Court is not bound by law of the case by the instruction.\nBut the instruction, as I understand it, says exactly what the statute says.\n\"Reasonably directly\" is simply another way of saying,\n\"Are these activities reasonably related to the FDA purposes? \"\nAnd every one of the comparative experiments is relevant to the FDA's inquiry, whether this drug or that is the optimum drug.\nEvery experiment that is involved here... and there were only 10 percent that were comparative in nature... develops information about the lead drug candidate, including understanding why this one works, rather than that one.\nSo, if it's all right, Your Honors, I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1006.266, 1011.423, 1017.567, 1024.489, 1027.556, 1032.195, 1041.353, 1054.985], "stop_times": [1011.423, 1017.567, 1024.489, 1027.556, 1032.195, 1041.353, 1054.985, 1059.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1006.266}, "reply_to": "21343__0_071", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__0_073", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Very well, Mr. Rosenkranz.\nMr. Joseffer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1059.091, 1060.991], "stop_times": [1060.991, 1062.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1059.091}, "reply_to": "21343__0_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21343__1_000", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nWe believe the question before the Court is the proper construction of the statute, and we believe the lower courts committed three important legal errors that should be corrected.\nThe first is in drawing the clinical/preclinical distinction.\nAnd, understanding that, Justice Scalia, I think the important thing to understand is that clinical studies refer to studies conducted on humans, and at the IND stage, the whole question is to decide whether studies should be conducted on humans.\nSo at that point in time the only information that's available is the preclinical studies on animals and in test tubes.\nSo when the Court distinguished between preclinical and clinical, it was essentially saying, you cannot do the information that's necessary to submit an IND, necessary to do clinical trials, necessary to get your drug approved.\nAnd that's why we... it seems to us that that's clearly wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1062.953, 1082.341, 1089.428, 1092.601, 1103.839, 1109.247, 1118.489], "stop_times": [1082.341, 1089.428, 1092.601, 1103.839, 1109.247, 1118.489, 1120.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1062.953}, "reply_to": "21343__0_073", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_001", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Do you have to have the FDA's permission to start clinical testing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1120.765], "stop_times": [1125.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1120.765}, "reply_to": "21343__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21343__1_002", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Yes, that's the purpose of an IND application, is... the whole... the only thing that FDA is looking at, at that point, is whether to permit human clinical trials to proceed.\nThe second important legal error committed by the Federal Circuit was in apparently concluding that only tests regarding the compounds ultimately submitted to FDA in an IND are subject to the protection.\nNow, the problem with that is that a company can decide which specific compound to submit only by first comparing... doing studies on that compound and on others in order to determine which would be the best compound to submit, which would strike the best balance between obtaining health effects or reporting safety concerns.\nSo, if the exemption only--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1125.911, 1133.778, 1146.881, 1161.857], "stop_times": [1133.778, 1146.881, 1161.857, 1163.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1125.911}, "reply_to": "21343__1_001", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_003", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Would you state again what you say the second error was?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1163.845], "stop_times": [1167.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1163.845}, "reply_to": "21343__1_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__1_004", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--The second error, we believe, is that the Federal Circuit indicated that only studies undertaken on the single compound ultimately submitted in an IND are protected by the exception.\nAnd the problem with that is that I can't figure out what that one compound is until I've done studies on it and on other compounds to determine--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1167.808, 1178.815], "stop_times": [1178.815, 1185.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1167.808}, "reply_to": "21343__1_003", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_005", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "That--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1185.273], "stop_times": [1185.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1185.273}, "reply_to": "21343__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21343__1_006", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--which is the best to submit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1185.551], "stop_times": [1186.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1185.551}, "reply_to": "21343__1_005", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_007", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--But that might well determine whether the research was relatively directly related.\nI mean, if I were a juror, I would... I would say it's relatively directly related if it relates to that particular compound which is ultimately submitted, and not relatively directly related if it was preliminary, trying to found out which compound to submit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1186.336, 1194.735], "stop_times": [1194.735, 1214.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1186.336}, "reply_to": "21343__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21343__1_008", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "We would... we would look at it this way.\nIf I'm... say I have 12 compounds that I'm going to test and decide which is best and go forward with.\nAt the time I'm doing a test on any one of those compounds, if those tests succeed, it's reasonably foreseeable I'll submit an IND for that compound.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1214.084, 1216.207, 1220.623], "stop_times": [1216.207, 1220.623, 1227.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1214.084}, "reply_to": "21343__1_007", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_009", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Yes, I understand all that.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1227.503, 1229.129], "stop_times": [1229.129, 1229.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1227.503}, "reply_to": "21343__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21343__1_010", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "And the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1229.636], "stop_times": [1229.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1229.636}, "reply_to": "21343__1_009", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_011", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--I'm just saying that that is certainly one interpretation of \"reasonably directly\".\nAnd if that is so, then you are erroneous in your assumption that the question before this Court is the meaning of the statute.\nIt might not be.\nIt might be... it might be the meaning of the instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1229.795, 1234.824, 1243.255, 1244.359], "stop_times": [1234.824, 1243.255, 1244.359, 1247.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1229.795}, "reply_to": "21343__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21343__1_012", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--Well, I think we would disagree with that, for two reasons.\nThe first is that the Federal Circuit, as Justice O'Connor noted, reserved... resolved these questions entirely as a matter of law, based on a de novo interpretation of the statute, without regard to the jury instruction.\nAnd that's the holding that's now before this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1247.319, 1249.793, 1260.55], "stop_times": [1249.793, 1260.55, 1262.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1247.319}, "reply_to": "21343__1_011", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_013", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "What's your position on the jury instruction?\nDoes it correctly state the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1262.689, 1264.636], "stop_times": [1264.636, 1266.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1262.689}, "reply_to": "21343__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__1_014", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "We think that it's... if it's construed correctly, we think that it's correct, but just too general to be of assistance to the courts in addressing the more specific questions of the issue here.\nAnd this is... remember, Merck has sought judgement as a matter of law.\nAnd when a party seeks judgement as a matter of law, the courts are not constrained to only applying the law that's found in the jury instruction; they can also articulate and apply... and do all the time... other legal principles that are relevant.\nPraprotnik v. St. Louis is a great example of a case where this Court did that.\nNow, there would be a problem if the jury instruction was inconsistent with the correct rule of law, because then there could be a waiver concern.\nBut we don't see that at issue here, because the jury instruction, we think, was just too general to speak to these issues.\nBut getting back to my point about why it can't be limited to that single compound--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1266.742, 1274.746, 1278.182, 1289.029, 1292.548, 1297.727, 1302.111], "stop_times": [1274.746, 1278.182, 1289.029, 1292.548, 1297.727, 1302.111, 1308.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1266.742}, "reply_to": "21343__1_013", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_015", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "If in fact the jury instruction is too general.\nI mean, if both parties agreed to it, aren't they, in a sense, bound by it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1308.745, 1313.214], "stop_times": [1313.214, 1319.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1308.745}, "reply_to": "21343__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21343__1_016", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--We think that the Petitioner should not, and is not, arguing inconsistently with the jury instruction.\nThe point is just that juries, being lay people, tend to be instructed--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1319.316, 1324.216], "stop_times": [1324.216, 1326.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1319.316}, "reply_to": "21343__1_015", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_017", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "The Petitioner said he agreed with the core of the instruction, whatever that is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1326.873], "stop_times": [1332.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1326.873}, "reply_to": "21343__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21343__1_018", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--I think that's just with the general principles.\nTake, for example, a negligence case.\nJurors are instructed all the time that the Defendant has a duty of ordinary care.\nAnd then courts, on appeal, will determine more specific legal questions, whether entire classes of conduct do or do not comply with the ordinary care, in much greater detailed instructions to the jury.\nAnd example of a case where this Court did that would be Shenker v. B&O Railroad, at 374 U.S. 1.\nAnd we think that in a... in determining whether a Petitioner is entitled to judgement as a matter of law, this Court should just articulate and apply the specific legal principles here; they're not inconsistent with the jury--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1332.963, 1335.891, 1338.685, 1342.035, 1352.227, 1357.901], "stop_times": [1335.891, 1338.685, 1342.035, 1352.227, 1357.901, 1366.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1332.963}, "reply_to": "21343__1_017", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_019", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Was the court below wrong in saying that the statute was enacted only to help generic drug development?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1366.455], "stop_times": [1375.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1366.455}, "reply_to": "21343__1_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__1_020", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--Yes.\nIn fact, this Court already held in Eli Lilly v. Medtronic that the statute is not limited to generic drugs.\nIn fact, it's not even limited to drugs, but also applies to things like medical devices, food additives, color additives.\nAnd it's a very important point, because the Federal Circuit thought the statute to be construed in an artificially narrow manner in light of a supposed focus on generic drugs, which is just inconsistent with this Court's authoritative construction of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1375.323, 1375.882, 1380.58, 1386.105], "stop_times": [1375.882, 1380.58, 1386.105, 1397.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1375.323}, "reply_to": "21343__1_019", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_021", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Is that going to be your third point, the third error that the court supposedly committed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1397.342], "stop_times": [1401.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.342}, "reply_to": "21343__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21343__1_022", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--No, the third is the error committed by the District Court and relied on by Respondents here, which is the statement that FDA only considers safety, and not efficacy, in determining whether to permit human clinical trials to proceed.\nIt's a very important point, because at the IND stage the question for FDA is whether a drug should be given to human beings.\nAnd because there's no such thing as an absolutely safe drug, because all drugs entail at least some safety risks, FDA will not let human clinical trials proceed unless there's some reason to believe that the study could be useful.\nIt's a... it's a benefit-risk analysis.\nThe Court looks to whether the potential benefits of the test would outweigh the risks of the test; and if not, the Court will not let a test proceed.\nNow, Congress charged FDA with doing that by instructing FDA to determine whether the drug would pose an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of humans.\nAnd FDA has construed that, as I said, to mean the benefit-risk.\nThe most express articulation of that comes in the guidance document that FDA has put out regarding the preparation of the investigators brochure, which is a required part of the 9d submission.\nAnd the investigators... and the guidance document explains that the investigators brochure must provide sufficient information for the... for the reader to, quote,\n\"make his/her own unbiased risk-benefit assessment of the proposed clinical trial. \"\nThat's set forth on the bottom of page 10 of our brief.\nAnd in order--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1401.176, 1410.972, 1416.658, 1427.074, 1429.138, 1436.327, 1444.699, 1447.286, 1456.123, 1464.416, 1468.932, 1471.715], "stop_times": [1410.972, 1416.658, 1427.074, 1429.138, 1436.327, 1444.699, 1447.286, 1456.123, 1464.416, 1468.932, 1471.715, 1472.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1401.176}, "reply_to": "21343__1_021", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_023", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "What are the consequences if someone goes ahead and conducts a clinical trial without the approval of the FDA?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1472.408], "stop_times": [1481.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1472.408}, "reply_to": "21343__1_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21343__1_024", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--That's contrary to federal law.\nI... certainly would be severe civil consequences.\nAnd my guess is there are criminal consequences for doing that, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1481.201, 1483.042, 1486.348], "stop_times": [1483.042, 1486.348, 1488.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1481.201}, "reply_to": "21343__1_023", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_025", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Your time is short, so could you tell us how far back you think, under the statute, you can go and not... and be within the safe harbor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1488.806], "stop_times": [1501.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1488.806}, "reply_to": "21343__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21343__1_026", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Yes.\nWe think that the proper test looks to whether a company is trying to develop a particular drug, by which we mean a substance with particular characteristics designed to achieve particular objectives.\nTo explain that, we recognize that basic scientific research into human biology and disease processes is not protected.\nThat's just too far down the stream of causation.\nBut once I get a particular concept for a drug, this says I'm going to treat the disease in a particular way by targeting a particular part of the disease process.\nThen we think that the work done, going forward, with includes comparing different substances to figure out which would be the best active ingredient, is protected.\nTo provide a concrete example--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1501.354, 1502.852, 1512.243, 1518.706, 1521.132, 1529.046, 1536.352], "stop_times": [1502.852, 1512.243, 1518.706, 1521.132, 1529.046, 1536.352, 1537.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1501.354}, "reply_to": "21343__1_025", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_027", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Why isn't that basic research?\nI mean, I want to... I want to treat this disease by stifling the development of blood cells around it, or something like that, and then you ask yourself,\n\"Gee, what would stifle the production of blood cells? \"\nAnd let's assume there hasn't been any research done in that field before.\nYou wouldn't consider that basic research, so long as the idea I have in my... in my head is, I want to create a drug to treat this disease that will stifle blood cells?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1537.867, 1540.101, 1552.041, 1557.29, 1561.625], "stop_times": [1540.101, 1552.041, 1557.29, 1561.625, 1571.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1537.867}, "reply_to": "21343__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21343__1_028", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--No.\nAnd here's why.\nThe basic insight, and then I'll explain it, is that the first time a study... a study is run on a particular substance, if that's... first study is not protected, then the exemption is worthless, because I'd have to commit that infringing study before I came to the protection of the exemption.\nSo, we would say that the... in this case, for example... I think it's easier on particulars... that basic research was figuring out that the key to cancer is... the key to the growth of tumors is angiogenesis, and the key to blocking angiogenesis is blocking the alpha v beta 3 receptors.\nThat's the basic research into how the body works.\nBut once I then start trying to figure out which substance would best block an alpha v beta 3 receptor, it's very specific, because I know what that receptor is, I know what it's like, I know what characteristics I'm going to need in a drug to block that.\nAnd when I try different things out to block that, that first experiment, at that point, has to be protected, because, otherwise, I'd have to commit the infringement before I could get--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1571.508, 1573.007, 1573.572, 1587.086, 1603.39, 1605.896, 1617.449], "stop_times": [1573.007, 1573.572, 1587.086, 1603.39, 1605.896, 1617.449, 1625.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1571.508}, "reply_to": "21343__1_027", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_029", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Did the earlier process that you described, the basic research, is that within the common law research exemption?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1625.368], "stop_times": [1634.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1625.368}, "reply_to": "21343__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21343__1_030", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--The... it would be if it was noncommercial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1634.333], "stop_times": [1636.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1634.333}, "reply_to": "21343__1_029", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_031", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "How does the common law of research exemption figure into this case, if at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1636.732], "stop_times": [1640.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1636.732}, "reply_to": "21343__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21343__1_032", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "It's not directly you, Your Honor, because Petitioner has not relied on it at all, and for good reason, which is that the courts have consistently held that the common law research exception applies only to noncommercial activity.\nThe most obvious example would be kids in their basements.\nBut when a drug company, that its entire business is developing and manufacturing drugs, undertakes the activity, that's commercial, and that's never been considered protected by the common law exception.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1640.321, 1650.917, 1654.799], "stop_times": [1650.917, 1654.799, 1664.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1640.321}, "reply_to": "21343__1_031", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_033", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Does Scripps... is Scripps in the business, too?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1664.473], "stop_times": [1671.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1664.473}, "reply_to": "21343__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21343__1_034", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "I see my red light is on, if I could answer the question.\nSome of Scripps'work, when it's working directly for Merck, certainly is, we would think, you know, tied closely to Merck's commercial activities.\nScripps may also do some other--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1671.395, 1677.955, 1684.85], "stop_times": [1677.955, 1684.85, 1686.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1671.395}, "reply_to": "21343__1_033", "speaker": "daryl_joseffer"}
{"id": "21343__1_035", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Joseffer.\nMr. Flores.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1686.103, 1687.355], "stop_times": [1687.355, 1693.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1686.103}, "reply_to": "21343__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21343__2_000", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis Court stated, in Black versus Cutter Laboratories, which is cited on page 27 of our brief, as follows,\n\"At times, the atmosphere in which an opinion is written may become so surcharged that unnecessarily broad statements are made. \"\n\"In such a case, it is our duty to look beyond the broad sweep of the language and determine for ourselves precisely the ground on which the judgement rests. \"\nThis is such a case.\nThe judgement of the Federal Circuit was its order affirming the District Court's denial of motion for judgement as a matter of law.\nThe precise grounds for the Federal Circuit's opinion is set forth in page 14a in the appendix attached to Merck's petition for certiorari.\nAnd there the Federal Circuit said that it upheld the denial of Merck's motion for judgement as a matter of law because the Federal Circuit discerned no error in the District Court's interpretation of section 271(e)(1), which raises the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1693.312, 1698.32, 1706.079, 1713.779, 1724.932, 1726.798, 1737.918, 1755.331], "stop_times": [1698.32, 1706.079, 1713.779, 1724.932, 1726.798, 1737.918, 1755.331, 1773.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1693.312}, "reply_to": "21343__1_035", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_001", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Where is this?\nPage 14a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1773.576, 1774.85], "stop_times": [1774.85, 1776.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1773.576}, "reply_to": "21343__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21343__2_002", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--Yes, Your--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1776.087], "stop_times": [1777.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1776.087}, "reply_to": "21343__2_001", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_003", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--What are you quoting from?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1777.27], "stop_times": [1778.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.27}, "reply_to": "21343__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21343__2_004", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Is it just before the letter 14a?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1778.044], "stop_times": [1783.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1778.044}, "reply_to": "21343__2_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21343__2_005", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1783.409], "stop_times": [1784.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1783.409}, "reply_to": "21343__2_004", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_006", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "What are the first few words of the sentence there that you quoted?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1784.705], "stop_times": [1790.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1784.705}, "reply_to": "21343__2_005", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21343__2_007", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "\"Because the language and context of the safe harbor do not embrace the Scripps-Merck general biomedical experimentation, this Court discerns no error-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1790.176], "stop_times": [1809.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1790.176}, "reply_to": "21343__2_006", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_008", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Exactly.\nAnd so, they are saying that they're wrong on their ground for thinking that the language and context don't embrace it.\nSince they used the wrong standard, they never got to the question of whether the evidence warranted a directed verdict.\nSo I don't see how we avoid looking at all of what you'd call the atmospherics.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1809.568, 1809.941, 1817.348, 1825.145], "stop_times": [1809.941, 1817.348, 1825.145, 1830.601], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1809.568}, "reply_to": "21343__2_007", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21343__2_009", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--The precise holding and the reasoning of the Federal Circuit was, they found no error in what the District Court's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1830.601], "stop_times": [1840.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1830.601}, "reply_to": "21343__2_008", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_010", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Because they interpreted the statute in a particular way.\nIsn't that right?\nI'm asking.\nI'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1840.079, 1843.551, 1845.221, 1846.042], "stop_times": [1843.551, 1845.221, 1846.042, 1846.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1840.079}, "reply_to": "21343__2_009", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21343__2_011", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1846.495], "stop_times": [1847.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1846.495}, "reply_to": "21343__2_010", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_012", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--No?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1847.135], "stop_times": [1847.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1847.135}, "reply_to": "21343__2_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21343__2_013", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "The only interpretation of the statute that can be found in the District Court's order denying Merck's motion for judgement as a matter of law is the standard articulated in the jury instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1847.811], "stop_times": [1859.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1847.811}, "reply_to": "21343__2_012", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_014", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "No, but I think... I think the Justice was asking whether it was the Court of Appeals that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1859.618], "stop_times": [1866.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.618}, "reply_to": "21343__2_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21343__2_015", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1866.636], "stop_times": [1866.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1866.636}, "reply_to": "21343__2_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21343__2_016", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--that applied a particular standard.\nAnd certainly it had to have been.\nDidn't the Court of Appeals have a particular standard as to what constituted general biomedical experimentation, as opposed to the kind of experimentation that's covered by the... by the safe harbor exemption?\nIt must have had.\nI mean, how could you... how could you rule on the question before you unless you have, in your head, a notion of what the safe harbor consists of and what is beyond it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1866.803, 1868.157, 1870.076, 1883.308, 1885.254], "stop_times": [1868.157, 1870.076, 1883.308, 1885.254, 1896.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1866.803}, "reply_to": "21343__2_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21343__2_017", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "The question before the Federal Circuit was whether the District Court erred by not applying the rational predicate interpretation of section 271(e), which was the sole focus of Merck's appeal to the Federal Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1896.709], "stop_times": [1911.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.709}, "reply_to": "21343__2_016", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_018", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Why should we say that's the question, when the Federal Circuit, itself, said what I read before from 10a?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1911.284], "stop_times": [1920.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1911.284}, "reply_to": "21343__2_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21343__2_019", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "We're... on page 10a, the Federal Circuit said, \"Thus\"... and this is in the... the last sentence in the middle paragraph of the page...\n\"Thus, this Court must determine whether section... the section 271(e) safe harbor reaches back down the chain of experimentation to embrace development and identification of new drugs that will, in turn, be subject to FDA approval. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1920.323, 1932.466], "stop_times": [1932.466, 1945.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1920.323}, "reply_to": "21343__2_018", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_020", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "That would answer that question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1945.725], "stop_times": [1948.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.725}, "reply_to": "21343__2_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21343__2_021", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "It does not.\nThe Federal Circuit answered that in the negative.\nThe Federal Circuit rejected the interpretation advanced by Merck, which was the rational predicate standard, which was basically a causal test, and held that the District Court's interpretation, under the Intermedics standard that's given in the jury instruction, that Merck now concedes is the correct standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1948.226, 1951.677, 1953.805], "stop_times": [1951.677, 1953.805, 1973.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1948.226}, "reply_to": "21343__2_020", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_022", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "So they say that does not... the safe harbor does not reach, among other things, back down the chain of experimentation to embrace the development of new drugs that will be subject to FDA approval.\nIn your opinion, is that statement, as I read it... I left out the word \"identification\"... as I read it, is that statement a correct statement of the law, or incorrect statement?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1973.047, 1988.524], "stop_times": [1988.524, 1998.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1973.047}, "reply_to": "21343__2_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21343__2_023", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "That is a correct statement of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [1998.15], "stop_times": [2000.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1998.15}, "reply_to": "21343__2_022", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_024", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "That is a correct statement of the law.\nSo then, I take it, the other thinks that it isn't, because, for example, you could have a situation where you are developing drugs, and, in developing drugs, you do some experiments and you get some information that would be useful to the FDA and the IND process, and, therefore, they are within the safe harbor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2000.091, 2001.244], "stop_times": [2001.244, 2024.299], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2000.091}, "reply_to": "21343__2_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21343__2_025", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI believe the Solicitor General agrees with this aspect of the Federal Circuit's opinion and makes that clear at the bottom of page 15 and onto page 16 of the Solicitor General's brief.\nMerck no longer challenges this aspect of the Federal Circuit's opinion.\nMerck concedes that there are experiments in the basic research phase, that, although they're necessary in the chain of causation, are not exempt.\nThe rational... Merck has abandoned the rational predicate standard that the Federal Circuit rejected here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2024.299, 2026.87, 2039.845, 2046.224, 2058.288], "stop_times": [2026.87, 2039.845, 2046.224, 2058.288, 2064.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2024.299}, "reply_to": "21343__2_024", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_026", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Mr. Flores, when I asked you about the sentence on page 10, I intended, not the one that you read, but an earlier one that precedes it, and that is,\n\"The questioning arising in this case is whether the preclinical research. \"\n--that is, the research on animals, as distinguished from humans...\n\"conducted under the Scripps-Merck agreement is exempt from liability for infringement of Integra's patents. \"\nNow, if you just took that as the question, then you would say it... this Circuit is drawing the line between clinical and preclinical.\nIt's not a crystal-clear opinion, by any means, but that is one question presented that they've identified.\nAnd how do they answer that question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2064.283, 2077.284, 2082.659, 2086.436, 2095.118, 2105.246, 2112.975], "stop_times": [2077.284, 2082.659, 2086.436, 2095.118, 2105.246, 2112.975, 2115.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2064.283}, "reply_to": "21343__2_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21343__2_027", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Your Honor, I disagree.\nI think the operative language in this sentence is the reference to \"the Scripps-Merck\"... is to\n\"research conducted under the Scripps-Merck agreement. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2115.945, 2118.925, 2126.497], "stop_times": [2118.925, 2126.497, 2129.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2115.945}, "reply_to": "21343__2_026", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_028", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "That's the way I read it.\nIt... the... and this is why I was disagreeing with counsel from the other side.\nIt... well, counsel ultimately conceded, you could read it not to draw the line between clinical and preclinical.\nAnd the way you read this sentence is... the question, they say, is not whether preclinical research falls under 271(e)(1); it's whether the\n\"preclinical research conducted under the Scripps Merck agreement. \"\nAnd then the next sentence explains what that means.\nThe experiments did not supply information for submission to the United States Food and Drug Administration, but, instead, identified the best drug candidate.\nSo, I think what they're describing as the question presented is whether preclinical research that is... that is not directed to supplying information for submission to the Food and Drug Administration, but, instead, to selecting the drug candidate, whether that type of preclinical research is within the safe harbor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2129.957, 2131.967, 2137.87, 2143.955, 2153.804, 2157.729, 2161.323, 2169.973], "stop_times": [2131.967, 2137.87, 2143.955, 2153.804, 2157.729, 2161.323, 2169.973, 2192.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2129.957}, "reply_to": "21343__2_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21343__2_029", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Yes.\nIn fact, Justice Scalia, if this opinion by the Federal Circuit were interpreted to hold that preclinical experiments are categorically excluded from the scope of the exemption, that holding would be inconsistent with the District Court's interpretation of the law, because the District Court's interpretation of the law was that preclinical experiments are potentially eligible, and the District Court submitted the question to the jury.\nSo the Federal Circuit would be completely inconsistent, if, on the one hand, it categorically excluded preclinical experiments, and, on the other hand, it approved the District Court's reasoning--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2192.874, 2194.372, 2219.79], "stop_times": [2194.372, 2219.79, 2230.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2192.874}, "reply_to": "21343__2_028", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_030", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "All right, this very dialogue makes me able to ask a question that I think will reveal better to you what I need an answer to.\nReading this, and listening to the discussion, and your use of the word \"atmospherics\", suggests that the opinion below is pretty foggy.\nWe have Merck, the Food and Drug Administration, the Government, the entire biotechnology industry, the drug industry of the United States, and everybody else telling us that they are wrong in the way they stated the standard.\nAnd you, yourself, urge us to look beyond the way they stated it.\nSo, what's the harm, and why wouldn't we, given this and the unclarity, just try to do a better job at stating the standard, say, \"That's the standard\", and then send it back, and then you can make all your arguments there about how it applies.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2230.499, 2238.22, 2250.248, 2264.199, 2268.093], "stop_times": [2238.22, 2250.248, 2264.199, 2268.093, 2285.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2230.499}, "reply_to": "21343__2_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21343__2_031", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--The reason it would not be appropriate for the Court to do so is because no standard, other than the Intermedics standard that was applied by the District Court, was ever suggested to the District Court.\nThere was only one standard ever considered.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2285.905, 2300.301], "stop_times": [2300.301, 2303.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2285.905}, "reply_to": "21343__2_030", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_032", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "We're not reviewing the District Court's opinion?\nWe granted certiorari as to the particular question which will deal with what was the Court of Appeals opinion.\nWe don't ordinarily simply compare the Court of Appeals' opinion with the District Court's opinion to see if they parse.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2303.826, 2307.079, 2317.458], "stop_times": [2307.079, 2317.458, 2327.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2303.826}, "reply_to": "21343__2_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21343__2_033", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nBut in this case the issue before the District Court was whether the District Court erred in denying a motion for judgement as a matter of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2327.084, 2330.012], "stop_times": [2330.012, 2338.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2327.084}, "reply_to": "21343__2_032", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_034", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Well, don't you think that the Federal Circuit may have focused too much on generic drug applications?\nDo you think it was right about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2338.253, 2348.151], "stop_times": [2348.151, 2350.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2338.253}, "reply_to": "21343__2_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__2_035", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "I think the Federal Circuit was right, as a factual matter, describing the impetus for Congress adopting section 271(e).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2350.012], "stop_times": [2359.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2350.012}, "reply_to": "21343__2_034", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_036", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Well, it seemed to be driven by its very narrow focus on generic drug development.\nDo you... do you think that the efficacy of the drug being suggested plays a role in the IND application?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2359.851, 2366.154], "stop_times": [2366.154, 2378.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2359.851}, "reply_to": "21343__2_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__2_037", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "No, Your Honor, it does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2378.394], "stop_times": [2380.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2378.394}, "reply_to": "21343__2_036", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_038", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "See, I think there may be a difference there, because I think the other side thinks that how the drug is expected to work, in practice, and whether it, in fact, will attack a certain disease, is part of what the FDA looks at.\nApparently, the Government takes that position, as narrowly as I could determine.\nBut you reject that, as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2380.208, 2399.962, 2403.977], "stop_times": [2399.962, 2403.977, 2406.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2380.208}, "reply_to": "21343__2_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__2_039", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nI think the answer to that is in the statute.\nIt's a... it's section... it's 21 United States Code 355(i)(3)(B)(i).\nAnd in that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2406.275, 2407.032, 2410.306, 2419.783], "stop_times": [2407.032, 2410.306, 2419.783, 2421.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2406.275}, "reply_to": "21343__2_038", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_040", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Can you repeat that 355 what?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2421.062], "stop_times": [2424.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2421.062}, "reply_to": "21343__2_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__2_041", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--(i)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2424.273], "stop_times": [2426.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2424.273}, "reply_to": "21343__2_040", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_042", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--(i)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2426.651], "stop_times": [2427.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2426.651}, "reply_to": "21343__2_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__2_043", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--(3)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2427.5], "stop_times": [2428.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2427.5}, "reply_to": "21343__2_042", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_044", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--Uh-huh.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2428.673], "stop_times": [2429.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.673}, "reply_to": "21343__2_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__2_045", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--(B)(i) again.\nAnd, in this section, Congress is telling the FDA what are the considerations that the FDA has to weigh in making the safety decision, the decision whether to allow clinical trials in humans--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2429.404, 2432.892], "stop_times": [2432.892, 2449.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2429.404}, "reply_to": "21343__2_044", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_046", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Is this text that you're referring to, is it someplace... is the text someplace where we can look at it while you're explaining this to us?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2449.297], "stop_times": [2457.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2449.297}, "reply_to": "21343__2_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21343__2_047", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--No, Your Honor, it's not in the appendix, unfortunately.\nLet me read that statute, because it's instructive about what Congress told FDA to weigh for the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2457.104, 2460.811], "stop_times": [2460.811, 2468.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2457.104}, "reply_to": "21343__2_046", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_048", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "But does the... does the statute... is that the only place we would look to decide whether safety is the only consideration for the FDA?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2468.661], "stop_times": [2480.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2468.661}, "reply_to": "21343__2_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__2_049", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nThe regulations, I believe, address that.\nAnd the regulations are 312.22(a), which is in the appendix attached to Integra's brief on the merits.\nAnd I'll read that.\nIt says--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2480.02, 2481.672, 2483.863, 2497.59, 2499.884], "stop_times": [2481.672, 2483.863, 2497.59, 2499.884, 2501.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2480.02}, "reply_to": "21343__2_048", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_050", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "But you do--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2501.345], "stop_times": [2501.963], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2501.345}, "reply_to": "21343__2_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__2_051", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "What are you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2501.963], "stop_times": [2502.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2501.963}, "reply_to": "21343__2_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21343__2_052", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--you do agree, do you not, that the Government does not agree with you on this point?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2502.208], "stop_times": [2508.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2502.208}, "reply_to": "21343__2_051", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__2_053", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--The Government disagrees, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2508.923], "stop_times": [2511.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2508.923}, "reply_to": "21343__2_052", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_054", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2511.108], "stop_times": [2511.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2511.108}, "reply_to": "21343__2_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__2_055", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--What are you reading from?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2511.304], "stop_times": [2512.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2511.304}, "reply_to": "21343__2_054", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21343__2_056", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Page 3a in the addendum to Integra's brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2512.51], "stop_times": [2518.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2512.51}, "reply_to": "21343__2_055", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_057", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2518.973], "stop_times": [2519.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2518.973}, "reply_to": "21343__2_056", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21343__2_058", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "That's 21 C.F.R. Section 312.22(a).\nIt states that,\n\"The FDA's primary objectives in reviewing an IND are, in all phases of the investigation, to assure the safety and rights of subjects, and, in phase two and three, to help assure that the quality of the scientific investigation of the drugs is adequate to prevent an evaluation of the drug's effectiveness and safety. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2519.752, 2526.184, 2526.924], "stop_times": [2526.184, 2526.924, 2544.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2519.752}, "reply_to": "21343__2_057", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_059", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Okay, that talks about the primary concern.\nThere is certainly going to be concern with efficacy to this extent.\nThey are going to want to know, before they allow clinical trials, whether the drug that it is proposed to give cancer patients has some relationship to cancer, as opposed to the common cold.\nAdmittedly, at the clinical trial they're trying to find out how effective it is on human beings, but there's got to be some threshold showing of effectiveness.\nThey can't simply ignore effectiveness and look at safety entirely prior to that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2544.017, 2547.084, 2552.699, 2568.785, 2578.662], "stop_times": [2547.084, 2552.699, 2568.785, 2578.662, 2585.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2544.017}, "reply_to": "21343__2_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21343__2_060", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "In fact, that paragraph refers to effectiveness, as I read it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2585.323], "stop_times": [2588.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2585.323}, "reply_to": "21343__2_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21343__2_061", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Yes, it does, Your Honor.\nBut it does... it refers to it in the context of phases two and three.\nAnd the simple fact is that until there's clinical trials in humans, there's no way tell whether this drug a going to be effective.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2588.854, 2591.093, 2594.772], "stop_times": [2591.093, 2594.772, 2601.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2588.854}, "reply_to": "21343__2_060", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_062", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "But there is at least... there's got to be some way to tell whether it even addresses the disease.\nThat is essentially a threshold effectiveness question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2601.854, 2607.346], "stop_times": [2607.346, 2610.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2601.854}, "reply_to": "21343__2_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21343__2_063", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "The FDA statutes and regulations do not use the term \"efficacy\" to describe that.\nIn section 355(i)(3)(B)(i), when Congress listed the factors to consider, what it listed was not efficacy.\nEfficacy is not to be found--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2610.513, 2616.763, 2625.69], "stop_times": [2616.763, 2625.69, 2627.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2610.513}, "reply_to": "21343__2_062", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_064", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Congress described the need that there be some relationship between the consequences of taking the given drug and the disease which is supposed to be addressed by taking the drug.\nIf they didn't use the word \"efficacy\", what word did they use?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2627.39, 2639.288], "stop_times": [2639.288, 2642.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2627.39}, "reply_to": "21343__2_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21343__2_065", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--They--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2642.146], "stop_times": [2642.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2642.146}, "reply_to": "21343__2_064", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_066", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "They used the word \"effectiveness\", which is pretty close.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2642.588, 2644.898], "stop_times": [2644.898, 2644.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2642.588}, "reply_to": "21343__2_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21343__2_067", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--No, Your Honor, they used the word, in the statute,\n\"the condition for which the drug is to be investigated. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2644.988, 2649.547], "stop_times": [2649.547, 2652.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2644.988}, "reply_to": "21343__2_066", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_068", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "That's important.\nThey say they want to know the pharmacological action of the drug in relation to its proposed therapeutic indication.\nThe reason, I take it, the word \"efficacy\" is not there directly is because that word has a history, the Kefauver hearings, and it was involving drugs that don't do anything.\nSafety is a different matter.\nBut of course when you consider whether something is safe, you must know, since, for example, cancer drugs poison people, the extent to which that poisoning is outbalanced by its effect in curing people.\nSo how could you possibly, particularly where cancer is at issue, know whether this is an appropriately safe drug, without knowing how effective it is, as well as knowing the side effects that are... that are harmful?\nIf I knew that there was any answer to that question at all, I might be tempted to agree with you, because it doesn't use the word.\nBut what's the answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2652.566, 2653.697, 2662.774, 2674.517, 2676.484, 2693.624, 2711.032, 2717.065], "stop_times": [2653.697, 2662.774, 2674.517, 2676.484, 2693.624, 2711.032, 2717.065, 2718.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2652.566}, "reply_to": "21343__2_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21343__2_069", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "The answer is that the FDA considers what information is available to it.\nIt does not have information about the effectiveness of the drug, because clinical trials have not taken place; and, therefore, the regulations and the statutes say you do the... what you can.\nYou look at the condition for which the drug--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2718.072, 2723.416, 2735.154], "stop_times": [2723.416, 2735.154, 2737.66], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2718.072}, "reply_to": "21343__2_068", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_070", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "But why wouldn't it have information about effectiveness on animals?\nI mean, if the... you show that the... all the FDA's interested in is that it didn't kill the animal, never mind whether it was effective to cure the tumor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2737.66, 2741.643], "stop_times": [2741.643, 2754.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2737.66}, "reply_to": "21343__2_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21343__2_071", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--The FDA is concerned with safety in animals.\nAnd there may be some cases in which there is a known safety risk to a drug, and there will be a heightened look at potential benefits in order to balance that out.\nBut the regulations focus on safety.\nAnd in this particular--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2754.795, 2760.027, 2771.696, 2774.891], "stop_times": [2760.027, 2771.696, 2774.891, 2776.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2754.795}, "reply_to": "21343__2_070", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_072", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Yeah, but it's absolutely clear, I thought, that the FDA, at the end of the day in some of these drug applications, ends up looking at not only safety, but how effective it is.\nAnd sometimes if the safety risk is minimal but the effectiveness is great, I understood at least, that could affect the decisions.\nSo, I would think that you would want to encourage the exemption to cover those matters.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2776.63, 2792.102, 2801.883], "stop_times": [2792.102, 2801.883, 2810.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2776.63}, "reply_to": "21343__2_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__2_073", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--Your Honor, of course FDA is very concerned about efficacy, and it... but concerned about that after it gets data from human clinical trials.\nThat's the... that is the basis of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2810.341, 2819.444], "stop_times": [2819.444, 2821.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2810.341}, "reply_to": "21343__2_072", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_074", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Well, I'm not sure.\nIf there's data earlier, at IND stage, as a result of the lab tests and the animal tests, I would think that would be part of the exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2821.487, 2822.963], "stop_times": [2822.963, 2835.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2821.487}, "reply_to": "21343__2_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__2_075", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--If efficacy... or some information about what benefits the drug might have, is probably a better way to phrase it... is considered at the safety stage as part of the safety balancing, then it's got to be done under good laboratory practices, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2835.517], "stop_times": [2853.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2835.517}, "reply_to": "21343__2_074", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_076", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Suppose that we concluded... well, I don't want to cut you off.\nGo ahead, please.\nI cut you off.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2853.446, 2858.258, 2859.756], "stop_times": [2858.258, 2859.756, 2860.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.446}, "reply_to": "21343__2_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21343__2_077", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--If... I believe the Solicitor General's point is that the safety decision is a practical one, and you've got to look at both sides of the ledger... potential harm, potential benefit... I don't believe it's proper to call that \"efficacy\".\nBut whatever you call it, if it's part of the safety balancing it has to be done under good laboratory procedures.\nThat, I think, is clear from the FDA regulations.\nAnd, as a matter of policy, it wouldn't make any sense for the FDA to say that half of the safety equation need not be done under good laboratory practices.\nBoth parts of the safety equation have to be done under that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2860.983, 2874.3, 2881.996, 2884.998, 2895.008], "stop_times": [2874.3, 2881.996, 2884.998, 2895.008, 2898.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2860.983}, "reply_to": "21343__2_076", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_078", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "I don't... so what?\nI don't understand what conclusion that leads to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2898.235, 2899.505], "stop_times": [2899.505, 2901.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2898.235}, "reply_to": "21343__2_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21343__2_079", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia, let me say that I think that this whole discussion about the interpretation of the FDA law is really somewhat off the point here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2901.605], "stop_times": [2912.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2901.605}, "reply_to": "21343__2_078", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_080", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "I was beginning to think that, too.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2912.964, 2915.61], "stop_times": [2915.61, 2916.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2912.964}, "reply_to": "21343__2_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21343__2_081", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "And the reason I say that is because we're not here to judge the legality of an FDA action in its discretion, saying we want to consider preclinical--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2916.932], "stop_times": [2926.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2916.932}, "reply_to": "21343__2_080", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_082", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Yeah, but the reason you brought it up is because the particular certificate that is for a safety-certified lab is not applicable to the lab that used this stuff.\nThat's why you brought it up, I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2926.82, 2936.537], "stop_times": [2936.537, 2937.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2926.82}, "reply_to": "21343__2_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21343__2_083", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2937.96], "stop_times": [2938.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2937.96}, "reply_to": "21343__2_082", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_084", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "And I understand that.\nAnd you'd have to conclude, for them to win... but suppose I did conclude... suppose, for hypothetical... the sake of... for... as a hypothetical, suppose I thought, yes, this does include the safety part, looking at how effective drugs are, too.\nSuppose I concluded that the statute meant sometimes you could do that, in an ordinary laboratory that didn't have the special certificate?\nSuppose I concluded that, indeed, you could look well in advance of the clinical test period to get the information for the IND?\nAnd suppose I concluded that sometimes, where it was reasonably related, you could, in fact, look at other drugs, too, that are related to the ones you do.\nIf I concluded that... and I'm not saying I would... then would you concede that a directed verdict would have been appropriate against you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2938.078, 2940.152, 2956.669, 2964.231, 2974.125, 2983.351], "stop_times": [2940.152, 2956.669, 2964.231, 2974.125, 2983.351, 2990.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2938.078}, "reply_to": "21343__2_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21343__2_085", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2990.812], "stop_times": [2991.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2990.812}, "reply_to": "21343__2_084", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_086", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Because?\nAnd what's your strongest argument that it wouldn't?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2991.408, 2992.009], "stop_times": [2992.009, 2994.531], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2991.408}, "reply_to": "21343__2_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21343__2_087", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Well, Your Honor, there's numerous admissions in the record that Merck made which would indicate that they've... that the program carried out at Scripps was not reasonably related to the FDA, that the real FDA work was being done in Germany, that the majority of these experiments conducted by Scripps were conducted on chicken embryos, which Merck's own scientists agree have nothing to do with safety, and, by logical extension, they can't tell you much about efficacy, either.\nMerck agreed that a significant portion of these experiments in which Merck was looking for non-peptide compounds as possible drug candidates, is something that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [2994.531, 3020.429], "stop_times": [3020.429, 3033.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2994.531}, "reply_to": "21343__2_086", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_088", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Well, we don't... I hope we don't have to, at this Court, look at all the evidence and try to sort it out that way.\nWhat we have to focus on is whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was in error in articulating the scope of the exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3033.523, 3042.829], "stop_times": [3042.829, 3054.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3033.523}, "reply_to": "21343__2_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__2_089", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--Your Honor, this Court does not have to get into Rule 50 review of the evidence here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3054.386], "stop_times": [3059.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3054.386}, "reply_to": "21343__2_088", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_090", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3059.297], "stop_times": [3059.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3059.297}, "reply_to": "21343__2_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__2_091", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--because there's no dispute about the legal standard.\nWe've all heard that this morning.\nThe only other possible issue is Rule 50 review.\nBut Merck has failed--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3059.819, 3062.847, 3064.218, 3067.62], "stop_times": [3062.847, 3064.218, 3067.62, 3068.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3059.819}, "reply_to": "21343__2_090", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_092", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Well, I thought the issue was whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit correctly determined the scope of the exemption.\nIf they were wrong about it, then it is open to us to correct that and send it back.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3068.782, 3080.834], "stop_times": [3080.834, 3087.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3068.782}, "reply_to": "21343__2_091", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__2_093", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--Your Honor, the Federal Circuit didn't determine the scope of the invention.\nThere's... it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3087.677, 3093.031], "stop_times": [3093.031, 3095.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3087.677}, "reply_to": "21343__2_092", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_094", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Exemption.\nThe statutory exemption.\nI thought that was what we were looking at.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3095.216, 3095.743, 3097.941], "stop_times": [3095.743, 3097.941, 3099.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3095.216}, "reply_to": "21343__2_093", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__2_095", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--Yes, that's what I was referring to.\nThe Federal Circuit didn't articulate a standard for that.\nThe Federal Circuit approved the District Court's use of the Intermedics standard, under which preclinical experiments are potentially--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3099.909, 3101.861, 3106.452], "stop_times": [3101.861, 3106.452, 3115.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3099.909}, "reply_to": "21343__2_094", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_096", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Well, but it's certainly... that the FDA considers only safety, and nothing else, that it was directed at generic drugs, not others, and that there was a cutoff point earlier than that argued by the Government and the Petitioner for what is exempt preclinical trial information.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3115.001], "stop_times": [3151.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3115.001}, "reply_to": "21343__2_095", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21343__2_097", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--The Federal Circuit's opinion, I believe... the Federal Circuit's opinion rejects the rational predicate theory.\nIt does not articulate an alternative standard to that.\nIt merely--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3151.608, 3161.71, 3166.365], "stop_times": [3161.71, 3166.365, 3167.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3151.608}, "reply_to": "21343__2_096", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_098", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "They spent about ten pages in the appendix trying to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3167.171], "stop_times": [3173.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.171}, "reply_to": "21343__2_097", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21343__2_099", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "--But Federal Circuit didn't do that.\nThat was discussion in there.\nIt gave a lot of background about the statute, which may not have been necessary for its ultimate holding.\nBut the Federal Circuit, when it comes down to it, didn't do anything other than approve the District Court's interpretation.\nNow, if the Federal Circuit did something different than that, which we just... which is... Integra does not believe is the case, its judgement should be upheld on the grounds articulated, that it could discern no error in the District Court's judgement... in the District Court's denial of Merck's motion for judgement as a matter of law.\nTo respond to one of Justice O'Connor's earlier questions,\n\"Does this Court have to get into a Rule 50 review. \"\nthe answer is no, because Merck failed to preserve its right to Rule 50 review.\nIn the District Court, in the Federal Circuit, the... Merck argued the rational predicate standard as a matter of law.\nThat was rejected.\nRule 50 review, under the Intermedics standard, is an entirely different argument, and Merck never raised that argument in... before the Federal Circuit.\nIn its brief, Merck relies, on pages 50 and 51 of its brief to the Federal Circuit, saying there it argued substantial evidence.\nBut what it argued there was, the experiments are rational predicates.\nMerck never argued, before the Federal Circuit, that the verdict can't be sustained under Rule 50, under the Intermedics standard, as opposed to the rational predicate standard, so it's not entitled to that review here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3173.55, 3177.907, 3179.603, 3185.453, 3192.744, 3214.717, 3219.73, 3222.343, 3226.802, 3236.049, 3237.291, 3247.105, 3255.313, 3259.105], "stop_times": [3177.907, 3179.603, 3185.453, 3192.744, 3214.717, 3219.73, 3222.343, 3226.802, 3236.049, 3237.291, 3247.105, 3255.313, 3259.105, 3272.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3173.55}, "reply_to": "21343__2_098", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_100", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "The dissenting judge did not... the dissenting judge, Judge Newman, did not read the Court's opinion the way you do.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3272.95, 3280.934], "stop_times": [3280.934, 3282.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3272.95}, "reply_to": "21343__2_099", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21343__2_101", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "That is correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3282.421], "stop_times": [3283.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3282.421}, "reply_to": "21343__2_100", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_102", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Maybe we should take that into account, to some extent, that someone who participated on the bench had a different take on what her colleagues were saying?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3283.935], "stop_times": [3296.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3283.935}, "reply_to": "21343__2_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21343__2_103", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "That is certainly a consideration, but we disagree with Judge Newman on that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3296.164], "stop_times": [3301.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3296.164}, "reply_to": "21343__2_102", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_104", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Is there a difference between you and Merck concerning the scope and extent of the common law research exemption?\nAnd if there is, does that even enter into our case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3301.752, 3312.104], "stop_times": [3312.104, 3314.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3301.752}, "reply_to": "21343__2_103", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21343__2_105", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "That issue hasn't entered into the case, so there's been no differences articulated, Your Honor.\nAnd to get back to the point that Merck did not preserve its right to Rule 50 review under the Intermedics standard, even if it had raised that issue before the Federal Circuit, clearly the Federal Circuit didn't reach that issue.\nAnd if the Federal Circuit didn't reach an issue that was properly presented before it, that was error, and Merck would have had to seek relief from that error.\nAnd it did not do so in its petition for certiorari.\nSo, I do not believe this Court even needs to address the issue of Rule 50 review.\nThere is no dispute in this case as to the substantive standard that governs the scope of Section 271(e)(1), and Merck, having failed to preserve its rights to Rule 50 review under the Intermedics standard, there his no controversy for this Court to decide.\nIf the Court does reach the issue of Rule 50 review under Intermedics, it is... the case should be decided under the basic principles that it is the exclusive province of the jury to weigh the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses.\nAnd my time is up, but... almost... but I'll say one thing.\nAfter 25 days of trial, the District Judge, in his denial of Merck's motion for judgement as a matter of law, expressly said that the jury had reasonable cause to disregard the testimony of Merck's main witness, Dr. Cheresh.\nAnd, on that ground alone, the judgement with the Federal Circuit should be sustained.\nMerck can't be rescued from the jury's verdict unless this Court determines, as a matter of law, that the jury was required to believe the testimony of Dr. Cheresh.\nAnd Merck can't show that, and hasn't even attempted to show that.\nUnless there are any questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3314.025, 3319.592, 3332.51, 3340.899, 3343.566, 3348.243, 3364.696, 3381.965, 3385.175, 3400.578, 3407.085, 3417.357, 3421.159], "stop_times": [3319.592, 3332.51, 3340.899, 3343.566, 3348.243, 3364.696, 3381.965, 3385.175, 3400.578, 3407.085, 3417.357, 3421.159, 3428.966], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3314.025}, "reply_to": "21343__2_104", "speaker": "mauricio_a_flores"}
{"id": "21343__2_106", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Flores.\nMr. Rosenkranz, you have two minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3428.966, 3432.625], "stop_times": [3432.625, 3436.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3428.966}, "reply_to": "21343__2_105", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21343__3_000", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nWith my two minutes, I want to make one overarching important point, and it's really in response to a question Justice Scalia asked.\nThe emphasis in the statute is about the use, so let's get past labels about, Is this drug discovery or basic research, or is it, as Merck says, optimization on the lead drug candidate, and look at exactly what was occurring here.\nHere, this was not a,\n\"Gee, we'd like to see what affects angiogenesis. \"\nMerck knew what affected angiogenesis.\nIt had a structure.\nAnd if you look at page 42 of the supplemental appendix, you will see that structure.\nIt knew exactly what that structure did and how it did it.\nIt then tweaked it by changing, literally, three atoms to compare that activity with other activity, exactly the sorts of research that any drug innovator would do to verify that they have the best and most effective candidate.\nThen, with... and with every single one of its experiments, it was examining information that was relevant to mechanism of action, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy.\nWith 10 percent of the experiments, it was also running them in parallel with a series of analogs that were designed to look exactly like the RGD peptides, and to work exactly like the RGD peptides.\nAnd no rational drug innovator ever proceeds to clinical trials, nor does the FDA want it to, without conducting that research, because you don't spend millions of dollars for expensive toxicology studies until you know you've got the safest and most effective drug candidate.\nThe FDA reviews that evidence, because it wants to know why you're proceeding with that candidate.\nAnd if you shift midstream to another lead, as Merck, in fact, did in this very case, the FDA wants to understand why.\nSo each of those experiments, even in comparison, developed information that is relevant to the FDA.\nThank you, Your Honors.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3436.806, 3437.904, 3448.666, 3465.541, 3467.274, 3471.626, 3474.314, 3476.404, 3481.993, 3486.174, 3503.289, 3518.488, 3532.872, 3551.875, 3557.523, 3565.475, 3572.786], "stop_times": [3437.904, 3448.666, 3465.541, 3467.274, 3471.626, 3474.314, 3476.404, 3481.993, 3486.174, 3503.289, 3518.488, 3532.872, 3551.875, 3557.523, 3565.475, 3572.786, 3573.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3436.806}, "reply_to": "21343__2_106", "speaker": "e_joshua_rosenkranz"}
{"id": "21343__3_001", "conversation_id": "21343", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Rosenkrantz.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1237", "start_times": [3573.82, 3575.4], "stop_times": [3575.4, 3577.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3573.82}, "reply_to": "21343__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22585__0_000", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "We'll hear argument now in number 04-480, MGM Studios versus Grokster, Limited.\nMr. Verrilli.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [0.0, 10.062], "stop_times": [10.062, 11.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22585__0_001", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nCopyright infringement is the only commercially significant use of the Grokster and StreamCast services, and that is no accident.\nRespondents deliberately set out to capture a clientele of known infringers to stock their services with infringing content, they intentionally and directly promote the infringing use of the service, they support infringing use of the service, and they directly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [11.269, 14.215, 22.012], "stop_times": [14.215, 22.012, 37.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 11.269}, "reply_to": "22585__0_000", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_002", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "May I just interrupt for the one... you said \"the only significant use\".\nThere's a footnote in the red brief that says the figure is some 2.6 billion legitimate uses.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [37.392, 39.781], "stop_times": [39.781, 47.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 37.392}, "reply_to": "22585__0_001", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22585__0_003", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Yeah.\nYes, Your Honor.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [47.773, 48.503, 49.131], "stop_times": [48.503, 49.131, 49.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 47.773}, "reply_to": "22585__0_002", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_004", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Is that correct, or incorrect?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [49.328], "stop_times": [50.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 49.328}, "reply_to": "22585__0_003", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22585__0_005", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Well, I think it's an absolutely incorrect assertion of reality, and perhaps I could delve into it and explain why.\nThe evidence in this case, which was presented at summary judgement, showed that 90 percent of the material on the services was either definitely or very likely to be infringing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [50.078, 56.308], "stop_times": [56.308, 67.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 50.078}, "reply_to": "22585__0_004", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_006", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Now, was there a finding of 90 percent?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [67.37], "stop_times": [68.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 67.37}, "reply_to": "22585__0_005", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22585__0_007", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, this was submitted on summary judgement, Your Honor, and we lost summary judgement, so the evidence has got to be construed in the light most favorable to us.\nAnd the Ninth Circuit decided the case on the assumption, we'd submit, of 90 percent.\nBut with respect to that 10 percent, what happened, and we submit is completely wrong, is that the Ninth Circuit drew the inference, because it wasn't shown by our expert study, which, by the way, is the only empirical analysis in the case, to be infringing, that the Court could assume that it was noninfringing and then extrapolate from that to a number along the lines of the number that Your Honor suggested.\nAnd I think that that's completely illegitimate analysis, factually, and, besides, that number is big only because the overall activity is so big.\nThe scale of the whole thing is mind-boggling.\nIf there are that many noninfringing uses--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [68.657, 76.366, 79.906, 102.894, 112.455, 114.395], "stop_times": [76.366, 79.906, 102.894, 112.455, 114.395, 116.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 68.657}, "reply_to": "22585__0_006", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_008", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "It goes to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [116.027], "stop_times": [116.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 116.027}, "reply_to": "22585__0_007", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22585__0_009", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--imagine how many infringing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [116.452], "stop_times": [117.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 116.452}, "reply_to": "22585__0_008", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_010", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--accuracy of your statement that there is no other significant legitimate use.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [117.367], "stop_times": [120.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 117.367}, "reply_to": "22585__0_009", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22585__0_011", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--I don't think there... I think it's quite accurate on the summary-judgement record, and certainly drawing the inferences in our favor, as we must here on summary... on this summary-judgement record, that there is no commercially significant noninfringing use.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [120.674], "stop_times": [133.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 120.674}, "reply_to": "22585__0_010", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_012", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "But there could be.\nThere could be, both with respect to material in the public domain and with respect to people who authorize the transmission.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [133.081, 133.79], "stop_times": [133.79, 142.575], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 133.081}, "reply_to": "22585__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22585__0_013", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I don't think, in the context of this record in this case and the business model of these Defendants, Grokster and StreamCast, that that is true, Justice Ginsburg.\nI don't think that's right.\nI think what Grokster and StreamCast are arguing is that this Court's decision in Sony stands for the proposition that their massive actual infringement is... gets a free pass, a perpetual free pass, so long as they can speculate that there are noninfringing uses out there, such as public-domain uses and authorized uses.\nWe don't think that that... that Sony stands for any such proposition.\nWe also want to point out that that doesn't help them... that proposition doesn't help them with respect to one very significant part of this case, and that's the fact that they intentionally built a network of infringing users, and they actively encouraged and assisted infringement.\nNow, even if there are commercially significant noninfringing uses, and we submit there most definitely aren't under Sony, but even if there are, that's no defense to a contributory infringement claim based on intentional building up of an infringing business and active encouragement and assistance of infringement, and it can't be; because, otherwise, then the fact that they had commercially significant noninfringing uses, again, would be just a free pass to actively promote infringing uses; not merely to support them, but to promote them.\nAnd so--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [142.575, 152.255, 153.415, 177.083, 180.475, 195.892, 222.998], "stop_times": [152.255, 153.415, 177.083, 180.475, 195.892, 222.998, 223.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 142.575}, "reply_to": "22585__0_012", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_014", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Your argument, I take it, would be the same if the proportions were reversed.\nYour argument with respect to... your current argument with respect to infringing use would be the same if only 10 percent... if it were assumed that only 10 percent of the use were illegitimate and infringing.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [223.451, 227.105, 240.534], "stop_times": [227.105, 240.534, 241.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 223.451}, "reply_to": "22585__0_013", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__0_015", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--The active-encouragement aspect of our argument would be the same, certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [241.287], "stop_times": [245.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 241.287}, "reply_to": "22585__0_014", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_016", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [245.069], "stop_times": [245.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 245.069}, "reply_to": "22585__0_015", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__0_017", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "They don't get a... they don't get a free pass to encourage any infringement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [245.233], "stop_times": [248.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 245.233}, "reply_to": "22585__0_016", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_018", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Is that the same as active inducement--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [248.103], "stop_times": [251.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.103}, "reply_to": "22585__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22585__0_019", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Yes.\nI think there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [251.146, 251.552], "stop_times": [251.552, 252.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 251.146}, "reply_to": "22585__0_018", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_020", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--as that term--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [252.061], "stop_times": [252.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 252.061}, "reply_to": "22585__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22585__0_021", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--there's a lot of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [252.392], "stop_times": [253.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 252.392}, "reply_to": "22585__0_020", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_022", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--is used?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [253.004], "stop_times": [253.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 253.004}, "reply_to": "22585__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22585__0_023", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Yes, Justice O'Connor, there's a lot of lingo floating around in this case... inducement, active encouragement and assistance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [253.573], "stop_times": [258.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 253.573}, "reply_to": "22585__0_022", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_024", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "If we should think that the Respondents are not liable for the type of contributory infringement dealt with in Sony, could this Court reach the question of active inducement on this record?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [258.673], "stop_times": [280.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 258.673}, "reply_to": "22585__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22585__0_025", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Yes, very definitely.\nI think... I think the Court, of course, should find that there's contributory liability under the Sony theory--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [280.265, 281.492], "stop_times": [281.492, 285.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 280.265}, "reply_to": "22585__0_024", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_026", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I know you do, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [285.731], "stop_times": [285.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 285.731}, "reply_to": "22585__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22585__0_027", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--but with respect to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [285.978], "stop_times": [286.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 285.978}, "reply_to": "22585__0_026", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_028", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--I just said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [286.569], "stop_times": [286.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 286.569}, "reply_to": "22585__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22585__0_029", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--that theory--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [286.895], "stop_times": [287.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 286.895}, "reply_to": "22585__0_028", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_030", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--could you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [287.377], "stop_times": [287.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 287.377}, "reply_to": "22585__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22585__0_031", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [287.797], "stop_times": [287.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 287.797}, "reply_to": "22585__0_030", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_032", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--assume, for a moment, that we didn't; could we, nonetheless, address the active inducement--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [287.947], "stop_times": [294.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 287.947}, "reply_to": "22585__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22585__0_033", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [294.213], "stop_times": [294.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 294.213}, "reply_to": "22585__0_032", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_034", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [294.584], "stop_times": [294.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 294.584}, "reply_to": "22585__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22585__0_035", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, and let me explain why.\nThe District Court in this case issued a partial final judgement, under Rule 54(b), granting the Respondent's summary-judgement motions.\nNow, we argued for contributory liability on two theories in the District Court and in the Ninth Circuit.\nWe argued that there was a lack of commercially significant noninfringing use under Sony, and we've argued the inducement or active-encouragement theory.\nWe argued that both theories entitle us to relief against the current operations of the service, entitled us to damages, and entitled us to injunctive relief to eliminate the harmful ongoing infringing consequences of this intentionally built-up infringement machine.\nThe District Court granted summary judgement against us and gave a clean bill of health, gave absolution, essentially, to the current versions of the services.\nThe only thing that was left to us, as the Ninth Circuit and the District Court... and the District Court, both, understood the law, is that we can go back and try to show that, with respect to specific past acts of infringement, if we can show that they occurred at a time when we had given them notice that they were about to occur, and that we had the power to... and they had the power to stop them at the moment we gave them the notice, that we can get damages for those specific things, and those specific things only.\nThat's all that's left in this case.\nAnd I think it's quite clear, from the Rule 54(b) certification order of the District Court that it was only damages with the past services and the past acts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [294.923, 296.264, 303.491, 310.43, 317.766, 332.693, 342.456, 371.44, 373.713], "stop_times": [296.264, 303.491, 310.43, 317.766, 332.693, 342.456, 371.44, 373.713, 381.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 294.923}, "reply_to": "22585__0_034", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_036", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "It's not clear... it's not clear to me from your brief, focusing on the contributory aspect of it, not... and not the inducement part of it... it's not clear to me from your brief what your test is.\nWhat do we tell the trier of fact, that if there is a substantial part of the use which is noninfringement, any part?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [381.573, 394.377], "stop_times": [394.377, 402.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 381.573}, "reply_to": "22585__0_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__0_037", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Here's what I... here's where I think the test--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [402.973], "stop_times": [404.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 402.973}, "reply_to": "22585__0_036", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_038", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Leaving aside the inducement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [404.895], "stop_times": [406.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 404.895}, "reply_to": "22585__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__0_039", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Right.\nHere's what I... here's what we think the test is on the... what we'll call the Sony aspect of the case, that it's... the question here is... Sony poses to us... is really a touchstone kind of question, not a numerical kind of question.\nThe question under Sony is whether this is a business that is substantially unrelated to infringement.\nIn other words, are they building their business on supporting legitimate activity, or, instead, are they building their business supporting infringing activity?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [406.01, 406.512, 421.033, 426.138], "stop_times": [406.512, 421.033, 426.138, 433.991], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 406.01}, "reply_to": "22585__0_038", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_040", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, then we just throw this to the birds on the trier of fact in every case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [433.991], "stop_times": [436.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 433.991}, "reply_to": "22585__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__0_041", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "No, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [436.845], "stop_times": [437.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 436.845}, "reply_to": "22585__0_040", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_042", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Well, how do we know--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [437.716], "stop_times": [438.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 437.716}, "reply_to": "22585__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__0_043", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--And that's where you start.\nThat's the touchstone.\nNow, the numbers, the relative proportions of use, are relevant.\nIn a case like Sony itself, certainly, where the majority use was noninfringing, that's a legitimate business; you don't need to go further.\nIn a case like this one, where, taking the record at summary judgement in our favor, as it must be, and the Ninth Circuit's assumption that you've got 90 percent infringing use, billions and billions of acts of infringing use, and minuscule actual noninfringing use, it seems to us it's just--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [438.583, 439.673, 440.541, 445.065, 452.667], "stop_times": [439.673, 440.541, 445.065, 452.667, 468.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 438.583}, "reply_to": "22585__0_042", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_044", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "You're not saying... now you're using different tests.\nYour test is \"substantial\".\nAll right, on your test, are we sure, if you were the counsel to Mr. Carlson, that you recommend going ahead with the Xerox machine?\nAre you sure, if you were the counsel to the creator of the VCR, that you could recommend, given the use, copying movies, that we should ever have a VCR?\nAre you sure that you could recommend to the iPod inventor that he could go ahead and have an iPod, or, for that matter, Gutenberg, the press?\nI mean, you see the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [468.001, 470.08, 471.415, 481.541, 491.554, 501.556], "stop_times": [470.08, 471.415, 481.541, 491.554, 501.556, 503.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 468.001}, "reply_to": "22585__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22585__0_045", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Yeah, I think my answer to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [503.563], "stop_times": [504.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 503.563}, "reply_to": "22585__0_044", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_046", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "What's the answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [504.879], "stop_times": [505.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 504.879}, "reply_to": "22585__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22585__0_047", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--those questions are: yes, yes, yes, and yes.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [505.189, 506.657], "stop_times": [506.657, 507.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 505.189}, "reply_to": "22585__0_046", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_048", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Because in each case... for all I know, the monks had a fit when Gutenberg made his press--\n[Laughter]\n--but the problem, of course, is that it could well be, in each of those instances, that there will be vast numbers of infringing uses that are foreseeable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [507.482, 511.905, 512.403], "stop_times": [511.905, 512.403, 526.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 507.482}, "reply_to": "22585__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22585__0_049", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I disagree with that, Your Honor.\nCertainly not... I don't think there's any empirical evidence to suggest, with respect to any of the things that Your Honor just identified... and let me pick out the iPod as one, because it's the most current example, I guess.\nFrom the moment that device was introduced, it was obvious that there were very significant lawful commercial uses for it.\nAnd let me clarify something I think is unclear from the amicus briefs.\nThe record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod.\nThere is a very, very significant lawful commercial use for that device, going forward.\nAnd, remember, I... what our test... our test is not \"substantial\".\nOur test is that it's a... it's a... when it's a vast-majority use, like here, it's a clear case of contribution--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [526.911, 528.289, 536.74, 545.234, 547.926, 560.181, 566.603, 569.841], "stop_times": [528.289, 536.74, 545.234, 547.926, 560.181, 566.603, 569.841, 578.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 526.911}, "reply_to": "22585__0_048", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_050", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "How do you... how do you know, going in, Mr. Verrilli?\nI mean, I'm about to start the business.\nHow much time do you give me to bring up the lawful use to the level where it will outweigh the unlawful use?\nI have to know, going in.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [578.235, 580.815, 583.672, 592.122], "stop_times": [580.815, 583.672, 592.122, 594.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 578.235}, "reply_to": "22585__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22585__0_051", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [594.9], "stop_times": [595.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 594.9}, "reply_to": "22585__0_050", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_052", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "And it's one thing to sit back and, you know, calculate with this ongoing business, it's 90 percent/10 percent.\nBut I'm a new inventor, and I'm... you know--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [595.56, 602.042], "stop_times": [602.042, 604.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.56}, "reply_to": "22585__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22585__0_053", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--I think the weight--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [604.577], "stop_times": [605.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 604.577}, "reply_to": "22585__0_052", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_054", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--I'm going to get sued right away.\nI know I'm going to get sued right away, before I have a chance to build up a business.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [605.351, 606.616], "stop_times": [606.616, 609.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 605.351}, "reply_to": "22585__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22585__0_055", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--I don't think that's right, Your Honor, and here's why.\nTo... it's not just the absence of commercially significant noninfringing uses that demonstrates contributory infringement.\nI mean, you have to demonstrate that you're making a material contribution, with knowledge that you're doing so.\nThe inventor, at the outset, is not in that position.\nThey're not making a contribution with knowledge that they're doing so.\nDo they have absolute certainty?\nNo, they don't have absolute certainty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [609.711, 612.028, 618.205, 623.645, 626.562, 629.623, 632.193], "stop_times": [612.028, 618.205, 623.645, 626.562, 629.623, 632.193, 634.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.711}, "reply_to": "22585__0_054", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_056", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Well, I don't quite understand the... I take it, inventors are profit-motive-driven, and if they know that something they're working on is going to have copyright experience, you... copyright problems, you can't just say,\n\"Oh, well, the inventor's going to invent anyway. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [634.173, 646.537], "stop_times": [646.537, 647.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.173}, "reply_to": "22585__0_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__0_057", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, I... but the problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [647.941], "stop_times": [649.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 647.941}, "reply_to": "22585__0_056", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_058", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Or did I misunderstand your--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [649.479], "stop_times": [650.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 649.479}, "reply_to": "22585__0_057", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__0_059", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--No, I... I think that you have... to show contribution, you should have... you have to be making a material contribution, with knowledge that you're doing so.\nAnd so--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [650.499, 656.446], "stop_times": [656.446, 657.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 650.499}, "reply_to": "22585__0_058", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_060", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "But the inventor of Xerox does that.\nI mean, he puts out the machine.\nHe knows some... he knows a lot of people are going to use it to Xerox books.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [657.551, 659.26, 660.654], "stop_times": [659.26, 660.654, 664.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 657.551}, "reply_to": "22585__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22585__0_061", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--I don't think that's right, Justice Scalia.\nI don't think there's anywhere close to a showing... I don't think there could be anywhere close to a showing that you've got the vast majority of use from... for infringement from the time that the device comes out.\nI just don't think that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [664.471, 666.114, 675.845], "stop_times": [666.114, 675.845, 677.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 664.471}, "reply_to": "22585__0_060", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_062", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, let's go--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [677.014], "stop_times": [677.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 677.014}, "reply_to": "22585__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__0_063", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--realistic.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [677.906], "stop_times": [678.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 677.906}, "reply_to": "22585__0_062", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_064", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--let's go from Xerox back to your iPod.\nHow is that clear in the iPod case?\nI may not understand what people are doing out there, but it's certainly not clear to me.\nI know perfectly well I could go out and buy a CD and put it on my iPod, but I also know perfectly well that if I can get the music on the iPod without buying the CD, that's what I'm going to do.\nAnd I think it's reasonable to suppose that everybody else would guess that.\nSo why, in the iPod, do you not have this Damoclean sword?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [678.099, 681.026, 683.668, 687.495, 699.845, 704.069], "stop_times": [681.026, 683.668, 687.495, 699.845, 704.069, 708.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 678.099}, "reply_to": "22585__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__0_065", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, because I don't actually think that there is evidence that you've got overwhelming infringing use.\nI just think that's... it's not a... it's not a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [708.851, 713.252], "stop_times": [713.252, 716.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 708.851}, "reply_to": "22585__0_064", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_066", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, there's never evidence at the time the guy is sitting in the garage figuring out whether to invent the iPod or not.\nI mean, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [716.077, 722.981], "stop_times": [722.981, 723.685], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 716.077}, "reply_to": "22585__0_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__0_067", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--I think when you get to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [723.685], "stop_times": [723.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 723.685}, "reply_to": "22585__0_066", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_068", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--the concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [723.895], "stop_times": [724.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 723.895}, "reply_to": "22585__0_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__0_069", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--I think when you have vast-majority infringing use, they should be on the hook.\nNow, I don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [724.464, 728.728], "stop_times": [728.728, 729.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 724.464}, "reply_to": "22585__0_068", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_070", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Okay, but you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [729.373], "stop_times": [730.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 729.373}, "reply_to": "22585__0_069", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__0_071", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--you have that problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [730.036], "stop_times": [730.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 730.036}, "reply_to": "22585__0_070", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_072", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--No, but you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [730.347], "stop_times": [730.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 730.347}, "reply_to": "22585__0_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__0_073", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--with the iPod, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [730.739], "stop_times": [731.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 730.739}, "reply_to": "22585__0_072", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_074", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--you're not answering... you're not answering the question.\nThe question is, How do we know in advance, on your test, anything that would give the inventor, or, more exactly, the developer, the confidence to go ahead?\nAs was said a minute ago, he knows he's going to be sued immediately.\nThere isn't a product performance out there, as there is in this case.\nSo, on your substantiality theory, why isn't it a foregone conclusion in the iPod that the iPod loser... or developer is going to lose his shirt?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [731.269, 732.917, 745.237, 749.4, 755.156], "stop_times": [732.917, 745.237, 749.4, 755.156, 765.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 731.269}, "reply_to": "22585__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__0_075", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Well, first of all, I don't... I think it's just counterfactual to think that there is going to be overwhelming infringing use of the iPod in the way that there indisputably is here.\nSecond, to the extent you get the closer cases, it is our position, as I gather it is the position of the United States, that you look at... to see what kind of business model the Defendant is operating under.\nIs it a... is it... are they marketing it for legitimate purposes?\nAre they taking reasonable steps to prevent infringement?\nIf they are, then they... then they're not liable.\nThird--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [765.675, 777.277, 786.943, 790.607, 792.65, 796.115], "stop_times": [777.277, 786.943, 790.607, 792.65, 796.115, 796.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 765.675}, "reply_to": "22585__0_074", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_076", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "That's your second argument, I think.\nI thought you were going to just stick with the... with the first one.\nI mean, that's an inducement argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [796.803, 799.06, 803.032], "stop_times": [799.06, 803.032, 805.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 796.803}, "reply_to": "22585__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22585__0_077", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Yeah, that's inducement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [805.614], "stop_times": [806.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.614}, "reply_to": "22585__0_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__0_078", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--No, I don't think it is an inducement argument, because it doesn't go all the way to requiring us to show, as we can show here, that they've got intent.\nBut I do think that the issue is, you know, really... in the real world, you know, it isn't the case that these guys have gotten immediately sued.\nThat's just not right.\nAnd the... and the reality is that what happens is what happens here.\nThere's perfectly valid uses--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [806.217, 812.554, 819.924, 820.778, 825.241], "stop_times": [812.554, 819.924, 820.778, 825.241, 826.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 806.217}, "reply_to": "22585__0_077", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_079", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--But it is the case under the test you're submitting to us.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [826.816], "stop_times": [830.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 826.816}, "reply_to": "22585__0_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__0_080", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--No, I don't think that's right, Justice Kennedy.\nIf there's vast-majority infringing use, and you continue to operate your business with the knowledge that there's vast-majority infringing use, then you've got liability.\nNow, of course, we do have all the additional inducement facts here, but we've also got those facts.\nAnd in the real world--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [830.179, 832.672, 840.479, 845.647], "stop_times": [832.672, 840.479, 845.647, 846.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 830.179}, "reply_to": "22585__0_079", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_081", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, are you dealing with active inducement as just a theoretical add-on, or is that a satisfactory way to resolve this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [846.369], "stop_times": [856.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 846.369}, "reply_to": "22585__0_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22585__0_082", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--I think that it is a... I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [856.141], "stop_times": [858.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 856.141}, "reply_to": "22585__0_081", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_083", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I don't understand--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [858.404], "stop_times": [859.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 858.404}, "reply_to": "22585__0_082", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22585__0_084", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Neither, is the answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [859.991], "stop_times": [860.291], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 859.991}, "reply_to": "22585__0_083", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_085", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--your pitch.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [860.291], "stop_times": [860.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.291}, "reply_to": "22585__0_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22585__0_086", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Neither, is the answer.\nIt is a basis for resolving this case, but not to the exclusion of getting the law right on Sony.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [860.783, 862.7], "stop_times": [862.7, 868.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 860.783}, "reply_to": "22585__0_085", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_087", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "But you couldn't get summary judgement.\nYour reply brief said,\n\"This case is so clear that we should get summary judgement. \"\nIf inducement is the theory... you have just said, you have to show intent--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [868.784, 870.547, 872.184, 876.835], "stop_times": [870.547, 872.184, 876.835, 880.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 868.784}, "reply_to": "22585__0_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22585__0_088", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [880.688], "stop_times": [881.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 880.688}, "reply_to": "22585__0_087", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_089", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--so you could not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [881.784], "stop_times": [882.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 881.784}, "reply_to": "22585__0_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22585__0_090", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [882.27], "stop_times": [882.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 882.27}, "reply_to": "22585__0_089", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_091", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--you'd have to go to trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [882.698], "stop_times": [883.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.698}, "reply_to": "22585__0_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22585__0_092", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--We agree with that.\nWe think, in a situation where the vast majority of the use is infringing and there isn't any evidence of a legitimate business plan, on the Sony part of the case we would be entitled to summary judgement.\nWe agree with you, Your Honor, that with respect to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [883.412, 884.192, 892.841], "stop_times": [884.192, 892.841, 895.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 883.412}, "reply_to": "22585__0_091", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_093", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Sony itself had a trial--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [895.007], "stop_times": [895.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 895.007}, "reply_to": "22585__0_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22585__0_094", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [895.608], "stop_times": [896.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.608}, "reply_to": "22585__0_093", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_095", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--a full trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [896.588], "stop_times": [896.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 896.588}, "reply_to": "22585__0_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22585__0_096", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "It came after the trial, that's right.\nBut the... a key point I think I want to make here is that this is not about this technology.\nWhat happens in the real world is that inventors come up with technology.\nSome people use it for lawful purposes and valid purposes, as some people use this technology for; some people abuse the technology to run business that... businesses that are devoted to expropriating the value of copyrights.\nThat's exactly what's going on in this case.\nIf I could reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chief Justice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [896.822, 898.014, 903.757, 906.68, 918.561, 921.22], "stop_times": [898.014, 903.757, 906.68, 918.561, 921.22, 923.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 896.822}, "reply_to": "22585__0_095", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__0_097", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Very well, Mr. Verrilli.\nMr. Clement, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [923.896, 924.675], "stop_times": [924.675, 927.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 923.896}, "reply_to": "22585__0_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22585__1_000", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe decision below allows companies, like Respondents, to build a business model out of copyright infringement without fear of secondary liability.\nAs long as they avoid obtaining actual knowledge that a particular customer is about to infringe a particular copyright, they are free to operate a system that involves massive copyright infringement with full knowledge that the draw of the entire system for customers and advertisers alike is the unlawful copying.\nNo matter much how much of that system--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [927.332, 943.147, 953.027, 973.463], "stop_times": [943.147, 953.027, 973.463, 975.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 927.332}, "reply_to": "22585__0_097", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_001", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, what do you think Sony allowed?\nIt talked about... if it's, what, capable of substantial noninfringing use, it's okay?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [975.417, 976.884], "stop_times": [976.884, 984.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 975.417}, "reply_to": "22585__1_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22585__1_002", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--That's right, Justice O'Connor.\nAnd then I think the Court explained and elaborated that the test is whether or not there are commercially significant noninfringing uses.\nAnd I would say what the Ninth Circuit did in this case is basically adopt the test of mere theoretical capability for noninfringing use, plus maybe some anecdotal evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [984.164, 986.205, 992.413], "stop_times": [986.205, 992.413, 1002.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 984.164}, "reply_to": "22585__1_001", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_003", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "And what... and your test is whether there's a substantial use that's lawful?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1002.657], "stop_times": [1008.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1002.657}, "reply_to": "22585__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__1_004", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, I think the way we would try to articulate it is that if the way that the business model of the particular Defendant is set up is that they are not involved in a business substantially unrelated from copyright infringement, that there should be liability in that situation.\nAnd I think in an extreme case like this, where over 90 percent of the business... and I think Mr. Verrilli correctly describes that it's not a minimum of 90 percent; it's over 90 percent... because the only evidence on the other side is anecdotal evidence that there are such things as public-domain works.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1008.222, 1023.35], "stop_times": [1023.35, 1039.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1008.222}, "reply_to": "22585__1_003", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_005", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Where did the 90 percent figure come from?\nI know we have to accept it because it's summary judgement, but where did it come from?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1039.027, 1041.926], "stop_times": [1041.926, 1047.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1039.027}, "reply_to": "22585__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22585__1_006", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "It came from a study by Petitioners' experts of the actual operation of the system.\nAnd what they did is, they identified about 75 percent of the works as clearly infringing works, another 15 percent of the works were identified as very likely infringing works, then there were 10 percent they just couldn't tell anything about.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1047.662, 1053.124], "stop_times": [1053.124, 1064.903], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1047.662}, "reply_to": "22585__1_005", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_007", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I thought it was just limited to music.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1064.903], "stop_times": [1066.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1064.903}, "reply_to": "22585__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22585__1_008", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, I think the... it's not... the system is not limited to music.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1066.263], "stop_times": [1070.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1066.263}, "reply_to": "22585__1_007", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_009", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I know, but I thought the study was about music.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1070.907], "stop_times": [1073.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1070.907}, "reply_to": "22585__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22585__1_010", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I'm not sure about that, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1073.138], "stop_times": [1074.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1073.138}, "reply_to": "22585__1_009", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_011", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, I thought... I mean, you know, we've had 90 briefs in this, and some briefs tear it apart, and others support it, but we also have briefs from the ACLU saying you could put whole libraries within this system.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1074.94], "stop_times": [1085.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1074.94}, "reply_to": "22585__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22585__1_012", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1085.505], "stop_times": [1086.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1085.505}, "reply_to": "22585__1_011", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_013", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "The question I wanted to ask you is, given that concern, that there are, conceptually anyway, really excellent uses of this thing, does deliberate... what is the word?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1086.336], "stop_times": [1097.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1086.336}, "reply_to": "22585__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22585__1_014", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Actual inducement?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1097.71], "stop_times": [1098.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1097.71}, "reply_to": "22585__1_013", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_015", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Yes.\nBecause what you are worried about, it seemed to me that the actual inducement would take care of.\nAnd if you sent it back and said,\n\"Let's have a trial on actual inducement. \"\nIf this really is the extreme case you're talking about, why wouldn't the Petitioners here be bound to win that trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1098.881, 1099.576, 1104.846, 1107.565, 1109.675], "stop_times": [1099.576, 1104.846, 1107.565, 1109.675, 1118.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1098.881}, "reply_to": "22585__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22585__1_016", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, based on our review of the record... and we haven't been able to see the entire record... I agree with you, the Petitioners ought to be able to win this case on an active-inducement ground, and that's a narrow way to decide the case.\nI do think, though, this Court might have to say something about the Sony issue before it reached that issue.\nAnd if it did feel compelled to do that, I think it would be a mistake to sanction the Ninth Circuit's reading of Sony, because, you're right, there's a theoretical possibility that public-domain works can be exchanged on this system, but it's also true that this system doesn't have much of a comparative advantage for trading in public-domain works.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1118.865, 1130.023, 1135.153], "stop_times": [1130.023, 1135.153, 1153.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1118.865}, "reply_to": "22585__1_015", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_017", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, you got interrupted a bit.\nTell us, in the simplest way you can, what test you think Sony stands for and how the Ninth got it wrong, if you believe it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1153.948, 1155.057], "stop_times": [1155.057, 1165.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1153.948}, "reply_to": "22585__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22585__1_018", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Justice O'Connor, it stands for... the test is whether or not there are commercially significant noninfringing uses.\nThe Ninth Circuit got it wrong because it thought that test was satisfied by a combination of two things: being able to point out that there were such things as public-domain works or authorized sharing of the Wilco album, for example, and anecdotal evidence that you could actually do that.\nNow, if that were the right reading of Sony, with respect, I would suggest that footnote 23 of this Court's Sony decision would have been the sum total of the Court's analysis, because in that footnote the Court observed that there were broadcasts of public-domain works.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1165.288, 1171.751, 1187.568], "stop_times": [1171.751, 1187.568, 1201.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.288}, "reply_to": "22585__1_017", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_019", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Suppose the owner of the instrumentality, the program, thinks that there's going to be a vast area of lawful use, and he knows that there's going to be some abuse at the... in the short term, but he does everything he can to discourage that.\nHe says,\n\"This is a two... P2P is going to revolutionize the way we talk to each other, there's things in the public domain. \"\n\"Please don't use this for copyright. \"\nBut he knows that there's going to be some infringement, let's say, but it'll be 50 percent of the use, in the short term.\nCan he use the program?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1201.052, 1217.357, 1217.771, 1224.363, 1226.795, 1233.064], "stop_times": [1217.357, 1217.771, 1224.363, 1226.795, 1233.064, 1235.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.052}, "reply_to": "22585__1_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__1_020", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "If it's 50 percent infringement in the short run?\nWe think, absolutely, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1235.996, 1238.886], "stop_times": [1238.886, 1240.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1235.996}, "reply_to": "22585__1_019", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_021", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Yes, that he can--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1240.185], "stop_times": [1241.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1240.185}, "reply_to": "22585__1_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__1_022", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "He can--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1241.385], "stop_times": [1242.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1241.385}, "reply_to": "22585__1_021", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_023", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--use the program.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1242.347], "stop_times": [1242.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1242.347}, "reply_to": "22585__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__1_024", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--use the program.\nI mean, as we suggest, if you're at a 50-50... I mean, if you're anywhere below 50 percent, we think that there should be no liability under the Sony standard.\nIf you're above that level and there's sufficient evidence that you're really targeting infringing uses, then I think maybe there would be liability.\nBut in the hypothetical you suggest, there would clearly not be liability in that situation.\nWhat we would like to suggest, though, is there ought to be enough room for... under the Sony test, before you reach actual inducement, to capture somebody where they've clearly set out, as a business model, to deal with the infringing uses.\nAnd the only thing they point to are the theoretical possibility, anecdotal evidence, that it could be used for public-domain works.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1242.675, 1243.056, 1250.252, 1257.674, 1262.21, 1275.492], "stop_times": [1243.056, 1250.252, 1257.674, 1262.21, 1275.492, 1283.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1242.675}, "reply_to": "22585__1_023", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_025", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "If there's more, they could bring it out at trial, could they not?\nThe difference between your position and Mr. Verrilli, I take it, is that you think there should be not summary judgement for the Petitioners, but a trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1283.046, 1286.072], "stop_times": [1286.072, 1298.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1283.046}, "reply_to": "22585__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22585__1_026", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I think that's a fair point, Justice Ginsburg.\nWe're operating in something of a disadvantage, because we haven't seen the entirety of the record.\nBased on the record that I've seen, I think there's a close case, unless perhaps once this Court clarifies the legal standard, Respondents put on additional evidence.\nI think this is a close case, where you actually could grant summary judgement in favor of the Petitioners.\nBut certainly we have no objection to having a trial on the Sony issue in this case.\nWhat we object to is the Ninth Circuit rule, which, in every case, is going to obviate the need for a trial, based on a showing that there are such things as public-domain works.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1298.027, 1300.524, 1303.863, 1312.35, 1316.592, 1320.934], "stop_times": [1300.524, 1303.863, 1312.35, 1316.592, 1320.934, 1330.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1298.027}, "reply_to": "22585__1_025", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_027", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "The inducement... the inducement point doesn't get you very far.\nPresumably a successor to Grokster, or whatever this outfit is called, could simply come in and not induce anybody but say, you know,\n\"We're setting up the same system. \"\nknow very well what people are going to use it for, but not induce them.\nAnd that would presumably be okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1330.349, 1335.499, 1346.397, 1348.078, 1352.37], "stop_times": [1335.499, 1346.397, 1348.078, 1352.37, 1354.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1330.349}, "reply_to": "22585__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22585__1_028", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I think that's potentially right--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1354.047], "stop_times": [1356.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1354.047}, "reply_to": "22585__1_027", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_029", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Which is why you need--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1356.049], "stop_times": [1356.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1356.049}, "reply_to": "22585__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22585__1_030", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1356.614], "stop_times": [1356.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1356.614}, "reply_to": "22585__1_029", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_031", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--the Sony--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1356.976], "stop_times": [1357.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1356.976}, "reply_to": "22585__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22585__1_032", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--and that's why I think it's important to preserve a role for the Sony test.\nAnd, again, this Court, in Sony, could have adopted a simple theoretical-capability test, but this Court, instead, adopted a test that required there to be shown some commercially significant use for the... noninfringing use.\nAnd even in the patent context, where I think the test is, and should be, more demanding, even in that context, cases like Fromberg, which we cite at page 19 of our brief, show that there is an analysis to make sure that the suggested theoretical noninfringing use is, in fact, a practical use of the item.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1357.748, 1361.14, 1374.511], "stop_times": [1361.14, 1374.511, 1391.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1357.748}, "reply_to": "22585__1_031", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_033", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Will you give a company ten years to establish that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1391.257], "stop_times": [1393.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1391.257}, "reply_to": "22585__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22585__1_034", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, I don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1393.322], "stop_times": [1395.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1393.322}, "reply_to": "22585__1_033", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_035", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I mean, what I worry about is the suit that just comes right out of the box, as soon as the company starts up.\nWill you give the company a couple of years to show that it's developing a commercial use?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1395.204, 1401.212], "stop_times": [1401.212, 1405.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1395.204}, "reply_to": "22585__1_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22585__1_036", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Well, Justice Scalia, we have concerns about that, as well.\nI don't know that we would give them ten years of, sort of, free space to do as... facilitate as much copyright infringement as possible.\nI think what we would say is that when you're... when a suit targets a nascent technology at the very beginning, there ought to be a lot of leeway, not just for observed noninfringing uses, but for the capacity of noninfringing uses.\nI don't think, in fairness, that's what you have before you in this case, because this is a case where the peer-to-peer technology was out there, it was employed in a particular way, with a centralized server, in a way that was actually... had a lot of users involved in it, and they were users of the old Napster system, that had a distinct character.\nThey were using that system for infringing copyrighted musical works.\nAnd then these individuals come along and seek to capitalize on that market.\nThat is their business plan from day one.\nAnd it's not some newfangled idea.\nThe only newfangled idea here is that if you give something of value away for free by ignoring the copyright laws, you're likely to draw consumers to your site, and you're likely to attract advertisers.\nBut that cannot be the kind of innovation that we want to further through development of secondary liability into the copyright laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1405.886, 1408.351, 1414.061, 1426.774, 1445.024, 1448.837, 1452.85, 1455.136, 1457.581, 1469.348], "stop_times": [1408.351, 1414.061, 1426.774, 1445.024, 1448.837, 1452.85, 1455.136, 1457.581, 1469.348, 1477.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1405.886}, "reply_to": "22585__1_035", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_037", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Mr. Clement, in one way this presents an easy case for answering Justice Scalia's question, but what about a case in which there isn't the Napster example to start with?\nShould there be some kind of flexible rightness doctrine in response to suits, as Justice Scalia put it, against the inventor or developer right out of the box?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1477.558, 1488.775], "stop_times": [1488.775, 1502.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1477.558}, "reply_to": "22585__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__1_038", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, whether you call it a flexible rightness doctrine or you develop the doctrine in a way that is very forgiving--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1502.269], "stop_times": [1508.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1502.269}, "reply_to": "22585__1_037", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_039", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Congress of laches.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1508.656], "stop_times": [1509.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1508.656}, "reply_to": "22585__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__1_040", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--a brand-new technology.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1509.424], "stop_times": [1509.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1509.424}, "reply_to": "22585__1_039", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_041", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Congress of laches.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1509.742], "stop_times": [1511.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1509.742}, "reply_to": "22585__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__1_042", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Right.\nI mean, I think... the way I would style it is to develop a substantive standard that's very forgiving of brand-new technologies and allows people to point to, in those situations, capabilities for future uses.\nI do think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1511.181, 1511.633, 1523.114], "stop_times": [1511.633, 1523.114, 1524.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1511.181}, "reply_to": "22585__1_041", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_043", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "How would you express the... how would you express that, that substantive standard that anticipates, just as you suggested we do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1524.131], "stop_times": [1531.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1524.131}, "reply_to": "22585__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__1_044", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Well, I was just trying to articulate it, which is to say that this Court has talked about the capacity for noninfringing uses.\nI think, with a mature product like this, it's fair to point to how it's actually used in the marketplace.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1531.139, 1537.787], "stop_times": [1537.787, 1542.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1531.139}, "reply_to": "22585__1_043", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_045", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Clement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1542.754], "stop_times": [1543.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1542.754}, "reply_to": "22585__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22585__1_046", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1543.437], "stop_times": [1544.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1543.437}, "reply_to": "22585__1_045", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22585__1_047", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Mr. Taranto, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1544.053], "stop_times": [1546.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1544.053}, "reply_to": "22585__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22585__2_000", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nBecause Respondent's software products are tools of autonomous communications that have large and growing legitimate uses, their distribution is protected under the clear Sony rule, that rule should be adhered to by this court, because copyright does not generally step into the role of product control, because doing so would cause overkill.\nThe Sony rule safeguards legitimate uses by protecting the product and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1546.535, 1551.221, 1575.683], "stop_times": [1551.221, 1575.683, 1581.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1546.535}, "reply_to": "22585__1_047", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_001", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Yeah, but active inducement is a doctrine that's been employed to curb the intentional encouragement of noninfringing uses, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1581.184], "stop_times": [1591.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.184}, "reply_to": "22585__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22585__2_002", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Not in copyright law, it hasn't, but that's not my primary point.\nMy primary point is that it is critical, it is jurisdictionally critical, to separate two separate acts, distributing the product and any of the past acts that the Petitioners allege constituted encouragement, their synonym for \"inducement\", which were explicitly outside the District Court ruling that was certified for interlocutory appeal.\nQuestions about past acts not inherent in the distribution of our product remain--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1591.025, 1595.31, 1620.915], "stop_times": [1595.31, 1620.915, 1628.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1591.025}, "reply_to": "22585__2_001", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_003", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "But they are inherent.\nThey are inherent.\nI mean, the point is that those past acts are what have developed your client's current clientele.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1628.74, 1629.468, 1630.262], "stop_times": [1629.468, 1630.262, 1637.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1628.74}, "reply_to": "22585__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22585__2_004", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--No, I don't think so, Justice Scalia.\nThe Petitioners... this is what I think is key or usable about the past acts.\nThey claim that there is an intent, as part of the current distribution of the product, to profit from increased use, including generically known infringing use, a point on which the District Court and the Court of Appeals assumed to be the case.\nBeyond that, the question whether there were encouraging acts, any kind of promotional activity that says,\n\"We ask you to, and urge you to, use this product for infringement. \"\nthat is not here, because that was explicitly part of the past activities, removed from the District Court decision.\nAnd when the Petitioners sought interlocutory appeal, they said, expressly, these were \"distinct and severable\", in their terms... that's a quote--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1637.298, 1639.501, 1646.189, 1666.598, 1673.456, 1679.658, 1687.242], "stop_times": [1639.501, 1646.189, 1666.598, 1673.456, 1679.658, 1687.242, 1696.141], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1637.298}, "reply_to": "22585__2_003", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_005", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "But I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1696.141], "stop_times": [1697.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1696.141}, "reply_to": "22585__2_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__2_006", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--from the past.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1697.033], "stop_times": [1697.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1697.033}, "reply_to": "22585__2_005", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_007", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--understand how you can separate the past from the present in that fashion.\nOne, I suppose, could say,\n\"Well, I'm going to make inducing remarks Monday through Thursday, and I'm going to stop, Thursday night. \"\nThe sales of the product on Friday are still going to be sales which are the result of the inducing remarks Monday through Wednesday.\nAnd you're asking, in effect... you're asking us... to ignore Monday through Thursday.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1697.502, 1703.174, 1705.633, 1714.351, 1723.215], "stop_times": [1703.174, 1705.633, 1714.351, 1723.215, 1729.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1697.502}, "reply_to": "22585__2_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__2_008", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "No, I'm not.\nLet me try to be clear.\nThere is a theory, not present here, along exactly those lines, which Petitioners are entitled to argue, back in the District Court, without a remand, because that issue remains in the District Court.\nIt is a theory that says,\n\"You started your business with illegitimate acts, your current business is a causal consequence of that. \"\nI will say, there is not one bit of evidence that the Petitioners introduced, in resisting summary judgement, in support of that theory.\nIt is, in fact, a highly implausible theory, for reasons that the District Court can explain, because users of software like this switch readily.\nThere is no plausible lock-in effect to this software.\nPeople go from Kazaa to Grokster to eDonkey to BitTorrent week by week.\nThat was... that is an available theory.\nYou would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1729.81, 1730.7, 1731.935, 1743.403, 1745.076, 1751.721, 1759.468, 1769.77, 1774.454, 1780.751, 1783.507], "stop_times": [1730.7, 1731.935, 1743.403, 1745.076, 1751.721, 1759.468, 1769.77, 1774.454, 1780.751, 1783.507, 1785.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1729.81}, "reply_to": "22585__2_007", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_009", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Then why was current... why was inducement, as a current theory of recovery, even the subject of summary judgement?\nIt seems to me that to make it a summary judgement is implausible to a non worldly degree.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1785.131, 1793.07], "stop_times": [1793.07, 1800.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1785.131}, "reply_to": "22585__2_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__2_010", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--I'm not entirely--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1800.647], "stop_times": [1802.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1800.647}, "reply_to": "22585__2_009", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_011", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I mean, I thought you were saying that, so far as the inducement theory of recovery is concerned--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1802.619], "stop_times": [1807.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1802.619}, "reply_to": "22585__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__2_012", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1807.75], "stop_times": [1808.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1807.75}, "reply_to": "22585__2_011", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_013", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--the only summary judgement that was granted was with respect to current acts of inducement, the way the company is acting now, not the way the company was acting last year.\nAnd my question is... if that is correct, then I don't see how summary judgement could even intelligibly have been considered.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1808.396, 1818.516], "stop_times": [1818.516, 1826.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1808.396}, "reply_to": "22585__2_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__2_014", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I think... because as the Petitioners insisted when they pressed for interlocutory appeal, they said these were distinct and severable, because, as Justice Scalia referred to before, the important question, on a going-forward basis, is whether the current set of activities... this software, given how it operates, being generally distributed... is a vendor's... the distributor of that software... secondarily liable because somebody else, tomorrow, can do exactly the same thing, without the baggage of any--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1826.719], "stop_times": [1862.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1826.719}, "reply_to": "22585__2_013", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_015", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, I don't want to get us too far off the track on this question, but it just seems to me that what you've done before bears on what you know, or have reason to know, on an ongoing basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1862.774], "stop_times": [1874.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1862.774}, "reply_to": "22585__2_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__2_016", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I agree with that, Justice Kennedy, but there's no dispute about that.\nThis case was decided on the assumption, which we are not contesting here, that the Respondents here knew that there would be widespread infringing use of a product that they were putting out, and, what's more, that they intended to profit from maximum use of the product, which necessarily would include infringing use, which they had no ability to separate from noninfringing use.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1874.315, 1877.622], "stop_times": [1877.622, 1905.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1874.315}, "reply_to": "22585__2_015", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_017", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, then why don't you tell us what's wrong with the Government's test and with the Petitioner's test, the substantial-use part of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1905.112], "stop_times": [1911.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1905.112}, "reply_to": "22585__2_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__2_018", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, I'm not entirely... I think there are several tests, and I'm not sure I followed them all here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1911.794], "stop_times": [1918.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1911.794}, "reply_to": "22585__2_017", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_019", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "We think it is critical that the Court adhere, for innovation protection, to the very clear Sony rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1918.613], "stop_times": [1928.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1918.613}, "reply_to": "22585__2_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__2_020", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "That, Mr. Taranto, is something I find very puzzling.\nThere is a statement... one could take it as clear... \"capable of substantial noninfringing use\".\nThat would be very clear, I agree.\nBut Sony goes on for 13 more pages.\nIf the standard were all that clear, it would have stopped there.\nAnd usually when you're interpreting a document, one rule is, you read on, and if you read on, you find we need not give precise content to the question of how much use is commercially significant.\nThat doesn't sound very clear to me.\nOr if you then read back, as a careful reader would, then you find the statement that the primary use of the Sony machine for most owners was time-shifting, a use that the Court found either authorized or fair, and, hence, noninfringing.\nSo I don't think you can take from what is a rather long opinion, and isolate one sentence, and say,\n\"Aha, we have a clear rule. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1928.376, 1932.251, 1939.256, 1941.341, 1944.734, 1949.083, 1964.879, 1966.735, 1985.525, 1991.411], "stop_times": [1932.251, 1939.256, 1941.341, 1944.734, 1949.083, 1964.879, 1966.735, 1985.525, 1991.411, 1992.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1928.376}, "reply_to": "22585__2_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22585__2_021", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Well, that sentence, Justice Ginsburg, is expressly stated to be the rule of law that is being applied.\nAnd then the Court went on to apply it to say, there are two things that satisfy the test.\nThe primary thing, of course, is what takes up most of those 13 pages, the question whether in-home time-shifting is fair use, a question that was of considerable interest to tens of millions of individuals throughout the United States.\nBut the Court, in fact, didn't rely only on that; it said,\n\"In addition, there was this roughly 7 to 9 percent use of authorized time-shifting. \"\nIt wouldn't have had to even talk about that if the primary use, you know, was the entirety of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [1992.981, 1999.66, 2005.947, 2020.193, 2024.332, 2031.822], "stop_times": [1999.66, 2005.947, 2020.193, 2024.332, 2031.822, 2038.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1992.981}, "reply_to": "22585__2_020", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_022", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Mr. Verrilli, I hope you won't waste a lot of your time on this point.\nThis Court is certainly not going to decide this case on the basis of stare decisis, you know, whatever else is true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2038.735, 2042.011], "stop_times": [2042.011, 2051.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2038.735}, "reply_to": "22585__2_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22585__2_023", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Well, I will... let me urge that there is, in fact, considerable weight to stare decisis, because there are major technological industries that have relied on the rule that derives from patent law that there is no, kind of, predominant-use kind of meaning to Sony rule.\nIn the patent context from which this came, all there has to be, in Professor Chisum's words, is, uses that are not farfetched, illusory, uneconomical for the user.\nAnd the inquiry there is, Is this a product whose... where the same features that are alleged to cause the infringement are also, in some nontrivial way, used for noninfringement?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2051.545, 2074.857, 2085.301], "stop_times": [2074.857, 2085.301, 2099.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2051.545}, "reply_to": "22585__2_022", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_024", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "What is... what is the answer to Justice Kennedy's question?\nI took it, whether... for the last 21 years, industry throughout America has taken the standard as being approximately whether it is capable of substantial... commercially significant substantial noninfringing uses.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2099.377, 2101.876], "stop_times": [2101.876, 2120.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.377}, "reply_to": "22585__2_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22585__2_025", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2120.048], "stop_times": [2120.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.048}, "reply_to": "22585__2_024", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_026", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I... and the country seems to have survived that standard.\nThere is innovation.\nThere are problems in the music industry, but it thrives, and so forth.\nSo there is an argument for just following it, because it's what it is.\nBut suppose it's totally open.\nWhy should that be the right test, instead of some other test, like substantial use, et cetera?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2120.5, 2123.359, 2124.861, 2129.175, 2132.47, 2134.292], "stop_times": [2123.359, 2124.861, 2129.175, 2132.47, 2134.292, 2141.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.5}, "reply_to": "22585__2_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22585__2_027", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I... because I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2141.445], "stop_times": [2143.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2141.445}, "reply_to": "22585__2_026", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_028", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "That, I think, was the question, and I'm very interested in your answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2143.065], "stop_times": [2145.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2143.065}, "reply_to": "22585__2_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22585__2_029", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Right.\nBecause I think any alternative is worse.\nA focus on intent to profit means that virtually every business which requires money and has the least bit of sensible forward-looking thinking about what the usage is going to be will be subject to litigation, arguing about their knowing that a substantial amount of the value of the product was going to be based on infringement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2145.308, 2145.761, 2148.217], "stop_times": [2145.761, 2148.217, 2170.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2145.308}, "reply_to": "22585__2_028", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_030", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2170.617], "stop_times": [2170.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.617}, "reply_to": "22585__2_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__2_031", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Every--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2170.838], "stop_times": [2171.188], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2170.838}, "reply_to": "22585__2_030", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_032", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--but what you have... what you want to do is to say that unlawfully expropriated property can be used by the owner of the instrumentality as part of the startup capital for his product.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2171.188], "stop_times": [2184.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2171.188}, "reply_to": "22585__2_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__2_033", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--I... well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2184.245], "stop_times": [2185.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.245}, "reply_to": "22585__2_032", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_034", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "And I... just from an economic standpoint and a legal standpoint, that sounds wrong to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2185.707], "stop_times": [2189.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2185.707}, "reply_to": "22585__2_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__2_035", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Well, I'm not entirely sure about that formulation.\nSony clearly sold many more tapes because of the illicit activity of Library.\nSony presumably sold more machines, maybe even priced them higher, because there was a group of people who wanted the machine for the illicit activity.\nThe Apple iPod, in the 60 gigabit version, holds 15,000 songs.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2189.909, 2193.629, 2200.672, 2213.298, 2219.414], "stop_times": [2193.629, 2200.672, 2213.298, 2219.414, 2219.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2189.909}, "reply_to": "22585__2_034", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_036", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "So you think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2219.854], "stop_times": [2220.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2219.854}, "reply_to": "22585__2_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__2_037", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--a thousand CDs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2220.112], "stop_times": [2220.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2220.112}, "reply_to": "22585__2_036", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_038", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--unlawfully expropriated property can be a legitimate part of the startup capital.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2220.539], "stop_times": [2224.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.539}, "reply_to": "22585__2_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22585__2_039", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "No, I... what I think is that, as a matter of general judicially formulated secondary copyright liability law, there is no better policy balance that the Court can strike, and that only Congress can make the judgements about what the industry-wide facts are.\nAnd I... let me pause there a minute... there are no industry-wide facts in this record.\nEvery citation in the Petitioner's brief about the magnitude of harm to the industry is extra-record citation.\nThere are 26 billion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2224.191, 2241.577, 2247.225, 2256.019], "stop_times": [2241.577, 2247.225, 2256.019, 2257.766], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2224.191}, "reply_to": "22585__2_038", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_040", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Then perhaps there should be a trial so it would all come out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2257.766], "stop_times": [2261.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.766}, "reply_to": "22585__2_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22585__2_041", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Petitioners... it's not just that they didn't have it in their brief, they did not submit any evidence in response to the summary-judgement motion that said the rule of Sony should be applied here because the magnitude of the injury to the recording industry or in... someday in the future, to the movie industry, is at zero--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2261.736], "stop_times": [2281.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2261.736}, "reply_to": "22585__2_040", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_042", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, they weren't concentrating on the damage to them, they were concentrating on the facilitation of copying that was provided.\nAnd you don't question that this service does facilitate copying.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2281.987, 2291.179], "stop_times": [2291.179, 2295.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2281.987}, "reply_to": "22585__2_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22585__2_043", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--As does the personal computer and the modem and the Internet service provider and the Microsoft operating system.\nThere's... everything in the chain that makes this work is absolutely essential to facilitating the copying.\nThe question is which pieces, if any, and under what standard, get singled out for a judicially fashioned secondary copyright liability doctrine.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2295.852, 2303.358, 2309.987], "stop_times": [2303.358, 2309.987, 2319.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2295.852}, "reply_to": "22585__2_042", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_044", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, you said... I think you were saying... this is something for Congress to solve; it's not for the Court.\nBut the Court is now faced with two apparently conflicting decisions: Aimster, in the Seventh Circuit, the Ninth Circuit decision.\nAnd if you're just looking at this in the abstract, you might say,\n\"Well, it's... isn't it odd that Napster goes one way in the Ninth Circuit, and this case goes another way? \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2319.497, 2326.144, 2336.153, 2340.134], "stop_times": [2326.144, 2336.153, 2340.134, 2346.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2319.497}, "reply_to": "22585__2_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22585__2_045", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Let me suggest why that's not odd and why the cases are not just different, but critically different.\nNapster rests... never mind the exact words of the opinion... Napster involves something more than distribution of a product.\nNapster, the company, was sending out, in response to requests, \"Where is this filed\", an answer, the information, \"The file is here\".\nEvery time it sent out that information, if it had been told by Mr. Verrilli's client,\n\"That file may not be shared. \"\nit was, with specific knowledge to that file, giving assistance.\nThat is a classic contributory infringement case based on specific knowledge of infringement.\nAnd the reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2346.552, 2352.098, 2361.421, 2373.304, 2379.869, 2381.996, 2389.022, 2395.895], "stop_times": [2352.098, 2361.421, 2373.304, 2379.869, 2381.996, 2389.022, 2395.895, 2396.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2346.552}, "reply_to": "22585__2_044", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_046", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Why isn't this a classic willful-ignorance case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2396.803], "stop_times": [2399.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2396.803}, "reply_to": "22585__2_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__2_047", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Because willful ignorance is about having possession of information and refusing to look at it.\nThis... that does not occur here.\nThis tool of autonomous communication is one in which there is no Mother-may-I system, no chaperone, no information provided to us at the time that there is any regress.\nWhen I ask for a file from you, there is no information that goes back to StreamCast or to Grokster--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2399.079, 2404.859, 2408.048, 2424.122], "stop_times": [2404.859, 2408.048, 2424.122, 2431.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2399.079}, "reply_to": "22585__2_046", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_048", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Sure, but I thought willful ignorance was basically a certainty of what was going on without empirically verifying it, so as to, sort of, maintain the guise of one's hands over one's eyes.\nAnd it seems to me, if that's what it is, that's what we've got.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2431.377, 2442.653], "stop_times": [2442.653, 2445.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2431.377}, "reply_to": "22585__2_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__2_049", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--No, I don't think so, I think, on either account.\nMy understanding of where in the law willful ignorance has bite is when you do have the information right in front of you, and you refuse to look at it.\nAnd, what's more, the change of system to an autonomous communication tool, where there is no intermediary, which is what all of their filtering systems would require, getting permission in advance, the change of tool is not just some way of blinding oneself to the information.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2445.061, 2448.237, 2457.496], "stop_times": [2448.237, 2457.496, 2475.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2445.061}, "reply_to": "22585__2_048", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_050", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Yeah, I think it would also include disabling yourself from looking at it.\nAnd so, I think it's an important part of your case, that you didn't adopt this new system of decentralizing the file so that it's in the computers, out there, solely in order to get around Napster.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2475.702, 2480.596], "stop_times": [2480.596, 2494.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.702}, "reply_to": "22585__2_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22585__2_051", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Right.\nAnd I think that the summary-judgement record on this is... it, I mean, doesn't leave any real room for dispute.\nSeeking--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2494.724, 2495.127, 2501.665], "stop_times": [2495.127, 2501.665, 2502.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2494.724}, "reply_to": "22585__2_050", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_052", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, wait.\nIn respect to that... I mean, is it open?\nIf you win on the question of the standard, is it open, or would we have to remand it for them to argue, in light of the history, in light of what they do now, they, your client, with knowledge of infringement, actively encouraged users to infringe copyright using their... using the Grokster technology, and, indeed, knowingly would include willful blindness?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2502.647, 2502.987, 2505.625], "stop_times": [2502.987, 2505.625, 2538.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2502.647}, "reply_to": "22585__2_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22585__2_053", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2538.203], "stop_times": [2540.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2538.203}, "reply_to": "22585__2_052", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_054", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Because... as I had gotten that from one of these amicus briefs, you know, that's their standard... they say a willful... of willful, deliberate inducement.\nAnd that, it seems to me, important that they be able to argue that.\nNow, can they argue it, in your opinion, if we do nothing but affirm the Ninth Circuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2540.15, 2549.006, 2552.993], "stop_times": [2549.006, 2552.993, 2557.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2540.15}, "reply_to": "22585__2_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22585__2_055", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--I think that they can certainly argue, with an affirmance by this Court, that all of the past acts, to use the District Court's term, constitute a basis for a... inducement liability.\nThere would be some legal questions about whether there is such a thing as inducement liability, but they get to argue that.\nNo remand is required for that.\nThe record in this case establishes that one reason for going to the decentralized system, without a central index and a third-party intermediary, was to... was a reaction to the Ninth Circuit's Napster decision that said, \"That's a legal problem\".\nBut it is also, I think, beyond genuine dispute, for summary-judgement proposes, that there were other reasons.\nYou don't have to have the servers to maintain.\nWhen StreamCast, in particular, was running a Napster-like system, the so-called openNap system, it had ten servers, and quickly maxed out and started crashing, and immediately concluded... I think this is at page 789 or... and 798 of the joint appendix... we would have had to start doubling, tripling, quadrupling the number of services, and we didn't have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2557.424, 2574.204, 2579.836, 2582.331, 2600.995, 2607.833, 2611.776], "stop_times": [2574.204, 2579.836, 2582.331, 2600.995, 2607.833, 2611.776, 2635.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2557.424}, "reply_to": "22585__2_054", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_056", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Mr. Taranto--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2635.539], "stop_times": [2635.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2635.539}, "reply_to": "22585__2_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22585__2_057", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--the money to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2635.735], "stop_times": [2636.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2635.735}, "reply_to": "22585__2_056", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_058", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--can I ask... I'm still a little puzzled about the posture of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2636.041], "stop_times": [2639.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2636.041}, "reply_to": "22585__2_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22585__2_059", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2639.003], "stop_times": [2639.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2639.003}, "reply_to": "22585__2_058", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_060", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Because I read the District Court opinion.\nI think he said... the judge said that both parties agreed that there were no disputed issues of fact that would preclude the entry of summary judgement in either way, no disputed issues relative to whether to grant relief.\nAnd I... it's on page 24a of the cert petition.\nAnd I understand you to be saying that leaving everything alone, affirming would allow the case to go forward with your adversaries seeking damages on an active-inducement theory.\nAm I correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2639.431, 2641.013, 2652.441, 2656.455, 2667.329], "stop_times": [2641.013, 2652.441, 2656.455, 2667.329, 2668.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2639.431}, "reply_to": "22585__2_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22585__2_061", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Yes.\nI think... all I read this, page 24a, to say is that both sides filed for summary judgement, so each one, of course, thought that there was... that it was entitled to summary judgement.\nEach--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2668.946, 2669.931, 2681.288], "stop_times": [2669.931, 2681.288, 2681.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2668.946}, "reply_to": "22585__2_060", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_062", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "But it says,\n\"Both parties believe there are no disputed issues of fact material to Defendant's liability. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2681.808, 2682.109], "stop_times": [2682.109, 2686.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2681.808}, "reply_to": "22585__2_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22585__2_063", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--I think that's just because each side filed summary judgement.\nEach side filed extensive--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2686.669, 2690.188], "stop_times": [2690.188, 2692.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2686.669}, "reply_to": "22585__2_062", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_064", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "So then your answer to my question is that, yes, if we affirm, as a possibility, they could continue to seek damages on an active-inducement theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2692.6], "stop_times": [2701.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2692.6}, "reply_to": "22585__2_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22585__2_065", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Yes, absolutely.\nAnd there are... there are affirmative defenses that are not even part of this motion that, of course, would, by themselves, preclude summary judgement in their favor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2701.361, 2702.672], "stop_times": [2702.672, 2711.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2701.361}, "reply_to": "22585__2_064", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_066", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "And then one other--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2711.8], "stop_times": [2712.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2711.8}, "reply_to": "22585__2_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22585__2_067", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I thought--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2712.873], "stop_times": [2713.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2712.873}, "reply_to": "22585__2_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22585__2_068", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--question I had.\nDoes the record contain their proposed form of injunction that they requested?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2713.132, 2713.753], "stop_times": [2713.753, 2718.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2713.132}, "reply_to": "22585__2_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22585__2_069", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I don't think it does, beyond the statement at the end of their summary-judgement pleading that asked for a very general injunction, \"Stop the Defendants from infringing\".\nI'm not aware of anything more specific.\nLet me comment a bit on what the record says about the substantial legitimate uses.\nThis is not a question of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2718.246, 2733.832, 2736.822, 2744.367], "stop_times": [2733.832, 2736.822, 2744.367, 2747.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2718.246}, "reply_to": "22585__2_068", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_070", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Mr. Taranto, before you go back to that, I wanted to be clear on what you were saying would be left over for trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2747.448], "stop_times": [2754.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.448}, "reply_to": "22585__2_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22585__2_071", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2754.921], "stop_times": [2755.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2754.921}, "reply_to": "22585__2_070", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_072", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Because, as I read your briefing, it was,\n\"Well, they can argue about some bad things that Grokster was doing in the past, but this decision says: henceforth, what we're doing is okay. \"\n\"The case zeroed in on now and the future, and the only thing that was left open was something that was over and gone could get damages for it. \"\nBut I thought that this judgement gave you an okay, a green light, from now on.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2755.412, 2757.404, 2770.361, 2783.1], "stop_times": [2757.404, 2770.361, 2783.1, 2790.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.412}, "reply_to": "22585__2_071", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22585__2_073", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "I... my view that... I mean, this was not talked about in these terms.\nI believe it ought to be open to the Petitioners, not only to prove that past acts were, themselves, illegal, but that the causal consequence of those past acts should somehow reach forward into the current acts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2790.72, 2795.858], "stop_times": [2795.858, 2811.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2790.72}, "reply_to": "22585__2_072", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_074", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Then what is the point of the current summary judgement?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2811.383], "stop_times": [2814.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.383}, "reply_to": "22585__2_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__2_075", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "The point of the current summary judgement is that there is... the forward-looking character of the activities taking place, starting in September 2002 on forward, has been held, by itself, not to be a basis for--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2814.221], "stop_times": [2836.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2814.221}, "reply_to": "22585__2_074", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_076", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "So you're saying the summary judgement simply, in effect, says,\n\"They're not doing anything wrong now, but we have left open the question, not merely of what they have done wrong in the past, but whether what they did wrong in the past can carry forward into the future? \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2836.781, 2839.079], "stop_times": [2839.079, 2851.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.781}, "reply_to": "22585__2_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__2_077", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--As I say, it wasn't stated in those terms, but, yes, I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2851.407], "stop_times": [2856.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2851.407}, "reply_to": "22585__2_076", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_078", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "That's bizarre.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2856.294], "stop_times": [2856.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2856.294}, "reply_to": "22585__2_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__2_079", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Well, I don't think so, because--\n[Laughter]\n--because the important question is, to the Petitioners, the entire recording and movie industry, Is this set of activities, which you and I, tomorrow, can start engaging in, one that they can stop?\nThere are literally a handful... on page 7 and 8 of their brief--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2856.99, 2858.747, 2859.433, 2873.006], "stop_times": [2858.747, 2859.433, 2873.006, 2879.246], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2856.99}, "reply_to": "22585__2_078", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_080", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "So you're saying... what it really says is,\n\"There's nothing to enjoin, but there may very well be something to recover for-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2879.246, 2881.376], "stop_times": [2881.376, 2885.576], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2879.246}, "reply_to": "22585__2_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__2_081", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2885.576], "stop_times": [2886.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2885.576}, "reply_to": "22585__2_080", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_082", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--\"even as to future activity\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2886.313], "stop_times": [2887.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2886.313}, "reply_to": "22585__2_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22585__2_083", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Yes, exactly right.\nAnd they would, of course, have had to make the very implausible assertion, in a business in which there is no plausible lock-in, that somehow a set of isolated events... e-mails... a handful of e-mails out of literally, between the two companies, 1700 a day, that might have said,\n\"Why don't you load some music out +/? \"\nare somehow the causal... the cause of what is going on today.\nLet me say a few words about what the record says about legitimate activities.\nAltnet is a company... this is at 1169 and 70 of the joint appendix... they say that they have distributed, on peer-to-peer systems, hundreds of thousands of authorized songs, and, they say, millions of pieces of... of video games, leading to sales.\nThis is not a trivial number.\nJIVE, at page 67 to 68, speaks about 250,000 peer-to-peer downloads of a music video.\nThe Internet archive, which is talked about in the record, and as you now look at what they are on their Website, now lists some several hundred musical artists with 20,000 recordings which are being put out there for peer-to-peer distribution.\nThe Creative Commons is licensing all kinds of things for authorized public distribution.\nThere are musical bands--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2887.795, 2889.674, 2911.321, 2913.261, 2919.836, 2924.546, 2945.639, 2947.81, 2957.555, 2976.273, 2984.147], "stop_times": [2889.674, 2911.321, 2913.261, 2919.836, 2924.546, 2945.639, 2947.81, 2957.555, 2976.273, 2984.147, 2987.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2887.795}, "reply_to": "22585__2_082", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_084", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Because, I gather, that some artists don't make money from the records, but make money from the popularity that draws fans to their concerts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2987.018], "stop_times": [2995.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2987.018}, "reply_to": "22585__2_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22585__2_085", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--My understanding--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2995.834], "stop_times": [2997.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2995.834}, "reply_to": "22585__2_084", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_086", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "So they're willing to give away the records for free.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2997.048], "stop_times": [2998.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2997.048}, "reply_to": "22585__2_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22585__2_087", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--my understanding is \"some\" is a great understatement, yes.\nThe bands talked about at 159 and 160 to '70 of the joint appendix, which have authorized their live concert recordings to be traded among... on... to be traded.\nThe GigAmerica business is in the business of compiling... this is at 323 of the joint appendix... of compiling musical recordings and other things for authorized distribution.\nThe world of music distribution and video distribution and movie-trailer distribution and, in small instances now, text distribution, but growing, is changing and making use of this extremely innovative, low-cost tool.\nThe great innovation of this tool of communication--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [2998.463, 3002.297, 3017.373, 3033.127, 3052.602], "stop_times": [3002.297, 3017.373, 3033.127, 3052.602, 3055.809], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2998.463}, "reply_to": "22585__2_086", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_088", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Mr. Taranto?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3055.809], "stop_times": [3056.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3055.809}, "reply_to": "22585__2_087", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22585__2_089", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3056.662], "stop_times": [3056.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3056.662}, "reply_to": "22585__2_088", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_090", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "In your motion for summary judgement, did you ask that the Plaintiff's claim be dismissed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3056.876], "stop_times": [3064.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3056.876}, "reply_to": "22585__2_089", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22585__2_091", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Well, we asked for judgement, in our favor on their claim, that our current activities constituted a basis for secondary liability.\nI'm not sure if the word \"dismiss\" was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3064.814, 3079.351], "stop_times": [3079.351, 3080.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3064.814}, "reply_to": "22585__2_090", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_092", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Were there other claims?\nYou said \"on their claim\".\nWere... did they make other claims?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3080.956, 3081.71, 3084.425], "stop_times": [3081.71, 3084.425, 3086.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3080.956}, "reply_to": "22585__2_091", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22585__2_093", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--They had a generic claim about secondary copyright liability.\nWe made the motion... or, actually, StreamCast made a motion that said,\n\"Let's carve this piece out and talk just about whether the set of current activities supports secondary liability. \"\nThe other side eventually agreed that that was distinct and severable from their claim of secondary liability as to past acts and as to past versions of the software, which has... which has changed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3086.653, 3092.947, 3098.2, 3106.456], "stop_times": [3092.947, 3098.2, 3106.456, 3120.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3086.653}, "reply_to": "22585__2_092", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_094", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Where does one find that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3120.738], "stop_times": [3121.968], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3120.738}, "reply_to": "22585__2_093", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22585__2_095", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "xxx--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3121.968], "stop_times": [3125.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3121.968}, "reply_to": "22585__2_094", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22585__2_096", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Yes, the motion... well, it... the simplest place, I guess, is in the June 2003 District Court ruling, which is in the Joint Appendix and attached to the brief in opposition, ruled on the Petitioner's motion for an interlocutory appeal under 1292.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3125.303], "stop_times": [3144.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3125.303}, "reply_to": "22585__2_095", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_097", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "But the motion itself is not there to take it through the opinion of the Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3144.168], "stop_times": [3149.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3144.168}, "reply_to": "22585__2_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22585__2_098", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "No, the motion is not... is not in the joint appendix.\nThe... most of the motions... in fact, both of our summary-judgement motions and their summary-judgement motion, are in the joint excerpts of record in the Ninth Circuit, can be found in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3149.902, 3153.733], "stop_times": [3153.733, 3163.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3149.902}, "reply_to": "22585__2_097", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_099", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--The text on--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3163.482], "stop_times": [3165.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3163.482}, "reply_to": "22585__2_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22585__2_100", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--30 volumes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3165.219], "stop_times": [3165.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3165.219}, "reply_to": "22585__2_099", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_101", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--the text, on pages 23a and 24a, gives the impression that the District Court is disposing of the entire case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3165.575], "stop_times": [3177.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3165.575}, "reply_to": "22585__2_100", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22585__2_102", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "That... it may give that impression on those pages.\nLater, the Court explains that it's ruling only on the current versions of the software.\nAnd then in the June 2003 order, the Court was explicit in saying,\n\"If I haven't been clear enough, let me amend my June... my April order. \"\nwhich is what you were just reading from, \"to make explicit the limitation\".\nAnd we quote that in our brief.\nThe great virtue of peer-to-peer decentralized software is that it doesn't require anybody to put stuff onto a server and then bear the cost of bandwidth, of being charged by the Internet service provider when a million people suddenly want it.\nIt automatically scales.\nIt... the more people who want it, the more people will have it, because it will be out there on a million computers.\nThat is an inherent distributional economy, together with the autonomy of the user, rather than having a kind of Mother-may-I system, with having to check every communication through some third party to say,\n\"Am I authorized to make this communication. \"\nthat are the virtues of this system and that make it clearly capable of growing the already large hundreds of thousands, even millions, of uses that this... that these pieces of software already enable people to do.\nOne final... final word.\nWe're not disputing that there are, in an industry-wide way, a set of important policy issues here, though there's nothing in the record about what self-help measures... digital-rights management, encryption, other things... there's nothing in the record what... about that.\nThere's nothing in the record about what kinds of real industry harm is being done by this.\nRight?\nThis is all citations to Websites in their brief.\nThese are classic questions of predictive judgement, industry-wide judgements that Congress should make to decide whether there is a problem in need of solution, and what solutions ought to be considered, whether changing the rule would have a overriding bad effect on other industries.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3177.771, 3182.909, 3189.911, 3194.957, 3200.186, 3204.41, 3206.429, 3227.921, 3230.218, 3238.054, 3252.39, 3255.067, 3271.465, 3276.489, 3294.328, 3302.438, 3302.67, 3305.633, 3326.159], "stop_times": [3182.909, 3189.911, 3194.957, 3200.186, 3204.41, 3206.429, 3227.921, 3230.218, 3238.054, 3252.39, 3255.067, 3271.465, 3276.489, 3294.328, 3302.438, 3302.67, 3305.633, 3326.159, 3327.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3177.771}, "reply_to": "22585__2_101", "speaker": "richard_g_taranto"}
{"id": "22585__2_103", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Taranto.\nMr. Verrilli, you have four minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3327.164, 3327.974], "stop_times": [3327.974, 3331.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3327.164}, "reply_to": "22585__2_102", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22585__3_000", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI'd like to start by clarifying the inducement issue, and then explain why inducement is not enough, and then have a word, if I might, about the reality of this case.\nThe reason, Justice Souter, you find it bizarre is because a shell game is going on here.\nWhat the Respondent's position... excuse me... the Respondent's position here is that we can sue for specific infringements that we can show were induced by these specific acts, such as e-mail support.\nOur position on inducement is that we are entitled to injunctive relief against the continued operation of this gigantic infringement machine, which was built by the inducement.\nNow, I think that the Respondents have quite clearly said that they're... they don't think any injunctive relief is available, going forward.\nBut we're entitled, under Section 502 of the Copyright Act, to effective relief, not merely a... relief, judgement relief, that says, \"Go and sin no more\", but relief that undoes the consequences of this inducement, of this massive effort to build a gigantic engine of infringement.\nAnd that is why they're just wrong about that.\nAnd you certainly can't affirm the Ninth Circuit and allow us to go forward with anything like that here, because the Ninth Circuit said the only thing we can sue for... the only thing we can sue for... is a situation in which we can show that we had knowledge of specific acts of infringement at a time when we could stop those specific acts of infringement.\nSo there's just no way to affirm and let that go forward.\nNow, why is infringement... why is inducement not enough?\nIt's not enough because, as Justice Scalia suggested, these companies already operate in the shadows, and a ruling here, which would be, I submit, a significant cutback of the Sony rule, that inducement is the only available ground of liability, would just need them to paper over... you know, we do have some paper evidence here, a paper trail here, but that'll just... they just won't exist next time.\nAnd it's just... it's just not enough.\nAnd I submit that Sony was quite clear on this.\nSony said that the staple article-of-commerce doctrine, not copyright law, generally, and not secondary liability, generally, but the staple article-of-commerce doctrine, the noninducement part of the analysis, has got to strike an effective balance... a real balance that provides effective protection of copyright, as well as protecting unrelated lines of commerce.\nNow, their rule is a rule of immunity.\nIt's a free pass.\nIt says, all you've got to do is speculate about noninfringing use, and you can continue with infringement, ad infinitum.\nAnd that's not a rule that protects innovation; that's a rule that destroys innovation.\nIt certainly destroys the innovation that the creators of the copyright law is supposed to protect, and that's supposed to be the effective protection part of the balance that Sony said this law is supposed to strike.\nIt also... it also deters legitimate technological innovation moving towards legitimate means of distributing this... of distributing, in a digital format, music and movies through the kinds of companies that filed amicus briefs and that are trying to do this legitimately.\nThey are inevitably and invariably undercut by the kinds of businesses that Respondents and the others run, so it deters innovation; it doesn't move it forward.\nAnd, beyond that, Justice Kennedy, as you suggested, it isn't just that they get to use our copyrighted... the value of our copyrighted materials as the seed capital, that's the whole business.\nThat is the whole business.\nAnd that's the reality here, and that's the problem.\nThey can talk about the hundreds of thousands, or maybe even millions, of uses, but the reality is that there are 2.6 billion downloads, unlawfully, every month.\nSo what they're talking about as lawful is a tiny, teeny little fraction of what's really going on here.\nAnd the problem with the rule which they say is a clear rule, but it obviously isn't in Sony, because Sony said, \"strike a balance\".\nAnd the problem with that rule, Your Honor, is that it gives them a perpetual license to keep going forward with billions and billions of unlawful downloads a month.\nThey never have to do anything to try to bring their conduct into conformity with law.\nThey're not in the position of that inventor that you identified, Justice Scalia, who has to, sort of, think through, \"What am I doing\"?\nThey're just in a position where they have every economic incentive in the world to maximize the number of infringing uses, because they make more money when they do so.\nNow, and with respect to the reality of this situation, let me just say... and I must beg to differ, Justice Breyer, with the suggestion that this industry is thriving.\nWhat the... the facts are that we have lost... the recording industry has lost 25 percent of its revenue since the onslaught of these services.\nAnd that's particularly critical, because, remember, this is really... the recording business, in particular, is really a venture-capital business.\nMost of the records we put out don't make money.\nA few make a lot of money.\nWell, what do you think's getting traded on Grokster and StreamCast and the rest of them?\nIt's the few that make all the money.\nSo they're draining all of the money out of the system that we use to find new artists and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3331.135, 3333.882, 3342.354, 3346.91, 3361.646, 3371.844, 3379.196, 3395.276, 3398.875, 3414.701, 3417.422, 3420.514, 3439.342, 3441.965, 3443.861, 3463.409, 3464.94, 3466.364, 3473.865, 3477.083, 3486.817, 3500.936, 3510.132, 3519.759, 3521.299, 3523.791, 3532.174, 3537.046, 3542.422, 3550.982, 3555.118, 3560.546, 3567.853, 3576.954, 3585.165, 3590.958, 3593.541, 3595.119, 3598.905, 3600.44], "stop_times": [3333.882, 3342.354, 3346.91, 3361.646, 3371.844, 3379.196, 3395.276, 3398.875, 3414.701, 3417.422, 3420.514, 3439.342, 3441.965, 3443.861, 3463.409, 3464.94, 3466.364, 3473.865, 3477.083, 3486.817, 3500.936, 3510.132, 3519.759, 3521.299, 3523.791, 3532.174, 3537.046, 3542.422, 3550.982, 3555.118, 3560.546, 3567.853, 3576.954, 3585.165, 3590.958, 3593.541, 3595.119, 3598.905, 3600.44, 3605.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3331.135}, "reply_to": "22585__2_103", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__3_001", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "Thank you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3605.923], "stop_times": [3607.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3605.923}, "reply_to": "22585__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22585__3_002", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--foster development.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3607.339], "stop_times": [3607.692], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3607.339}, "reply_to": "22585__3_001", "speaker": "donald_b_verrilli_jr"}
{"id": "22585__3_003", "conversation_id": "22585", "text": "--Mr. Verrilli.\nThank you.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-480", "start_times": [3607.692, 3608.047, 3608.632], "stop_times": [3608.047, 3608.632, 3610.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3607.692}, "reply_to": "22585__3_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21584__0_000", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "We'll hear argument now in the case of Miller-El against Dretke.\nMr. Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [0.0, 6.224], "stop_times": [6.224, 32.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__0_001", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nIn Hernandez v. New York, this Court explained that there are exceptional cases in which the totality of evidence surrounding jury selection is so strong that a finding of no discrimination is simply too incredible to be accepted by this Court.\nThis is that exceptional case, a case in which even on collateral review, the sheer weight of the mutually reinforcing evidence renders objectively unreasonable the State court's conclusion that race did not motivate even one of the prosecution's peremptory strikes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [32.811, 41.782, 61.099], "stop_times": [41.782, 61.099, 85.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 32.811}, "reply_to": "21584__0_000", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_002", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Do we have to find that the strike of at least one African American prospective juror was race-based for you to prevail?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [85.163], "stop_times": [95.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 85.163}, "reply_to": "21584__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21584__0_003", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "I believe so.\nYou have to find, Justice O'Connor, that race was the but-for factor or the tipping factor, not the only factor, but the but-for factor for at least one to come within the four corners of Batson.\nNow, I could argue I think, if I needed to in this case, that the jury shuffle evidence alone, which is an unexplained, blatantly race-based means of racially excluding jurors from the venire, comes within Batson, the Batson proscription itself, or I could argue that case too.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [95.91, 97.041, 110.897], "stop_times": [97.041, 110.897, 133.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 95.91}, "reply_to": "21584__0_002", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_004", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Were there any... were there any State decisions, or Federal court decisions for that matter, justifying the shuffle on the grounds of... I don't know... professional class versus working class or something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [133.495], "stop_times": [142.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 133.495}, "reply_to": "21584__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__0_005", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "The State has in its brief in this case, on this trip to the Court... the State has cited the Court to one other case in which the Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledged the State's justification in that case, that it shuffled because there was a member of the probation office in the front row that they didn't want to embarrass and that jurors in the front had tended more to have ties than jurors in the back.\nThat is... that was never claimed in this case.\nWe have, from the very--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [142.369, 171.575, 174.914], "stop_times": [171.575, 174.914, 176.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 142.369}, "reply_to": "21584__0_004", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_006", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Were there... were there any State court cases said that... or even in that case you're referring to... that the shuffle usually is race-based?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [176.967], "stop_times": [183.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 176.967}, "reply_to": "21584__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__0_007", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--You know, I can't... the case is called Ladd v. State.\nThere is... there's some... now some reasonably substantial Law Review commentary in the State of Texas.\nI cited the Court to... to one in the Houston Law Review or the Houston Bar Review when I was here last time, and there has since been one in the St. Mary's Law Review that says this is a procedure that is used to discriminate on the basis of visual preference.\nAnd what's particularly interesting about it in this case is there was a contemporaneous objection in week 2 and week 3 and week 4 that the State was doing this based on race, and the State offered no defense at the time.\nIt offered no defense in the subsequent Batson hearing.\nIt had no explanation before the magistrate, the district judge, the Fifth Circuit, in this Court or below, and now in this Court this time it says, well, there's this other case in which the reason given was that we didn't want to embarrass the probation officer and we didn't... and we had people who had ties in the front row.\nThere is no evidence whatsoever in the record that would justify those excuses here.\nAnd the evidence in the... the only evidence in the record that seems to me compels the conclusion that this was done for the deliberate purpose of minimizing the number of African Americans on the jury.\nAnd it was done by prosecutors, each of whom... there were two prosecutors in this case, each of whom was found to have violated Batson in criminal... other criminal trials contemporaneous with this one.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [183.661, 188.311, 195.949, 212.999, 231.005, 234.664, 257.784, 262.979, 276.36, 291.555], "stop_times": [188.311, 195.949, 212.999, 231.005, 234.664, 257.784, 262.979, 276.36, 291.555, 292.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 183.661}, "reply_to": "21584__0_006", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_008", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "And the... and the Fifth Circuit's answer to the jury shuffle was, well, the defense shuffled more times, as I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [292.601], "stop_times": [301.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 292.601}, "reply_to": "21584__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21584__0_009", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--The Fifth--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [301.369], "stop_times": [301.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 301.369}, "reply_to": "21584__0_008", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_010", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--as I recall.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [301.663], "stop_times": [302.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 301.663}, "reply_to": "21584__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21584__0_011", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--The... the Fifth Circuit said that we... that they shuffled twice and we shuffled five times.\nNow, that is both factually wrong and legally irrelevant.\nThey shuffled three times and they tried to shuffle a four times... a fourth time because, the Court will perhaps recall... this was discussed in the Court's last opinion... because they waived in the fourth week.\nThe defense shuffled... the defense then shuffled and they tried to come in and back... back and shuffle again when a number of African Americans were advanced in the order.\nThere... under this Court's Batson jurisprudence, the proscription against using peremptory strikes for a racial purpose or a gender-based purpose is proscribed to the defense, as well as the prosecution, but there... the one doesn't excuse the other, and there has never been a claim, nor is there a factual predicate laid in this case for a claim, that Mr. Miller-El's trial lawyers were doing the same.\nEven if it were true, it would not justify what they did.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [302.745, 308.98, 313.007, 328.628, 339.001, 370.452, 374.724], "stop_times": [308.98, 313.007, 328.628, 339.001, 370.452, 374.724, 375.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 302.745}, "reply_to": "21584__0_010", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_012", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "If... if we find or if there is a finding that the... that the attempted shuffle on this fifth try was race-based, does that win your case, even though the shuffle didn't take place?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [375.071], "stop_times": [384.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 375.071}, "reply_to": "21584__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__0_013", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Well, it was the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [384.196], "stop_times": [388.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 384.196}, "reply_to": "21584__0_012", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_014", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "I mean, does it show the necessary animus so that it carries through the whole case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [388.319], "stop_times": [390.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 388.319}, "reply_to": "21584__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__0_015", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--I think, if I needed to... I mean, we... we've argued that the shuffle, just like the race coding of the cards in the pre-Batson era, the disparate questioning on minimum punishment and the graphic script, all reinforce what we think the record shows with respect to each of the six peremptory strikes that we challenge--\nBut if we didn't have that, Justice Kennedy, I would be here arguing that if I could show a single strike that was made for the purpose of eliminating African Americans from being considered for jury service, that that ought to come within this Court's proscription of Batson.\nNow, we haven't made that freestanding claim because I don't think we need that freestanding claim.\nThe jury shuffle is a practice that exists only in the State of Texas and, to my understanding, has ever existed only in the State of Texas.\nSo it's a... it's a very peculiar phenomenon, but I think I could make the argument that, look, even if there weren't any of these six... let's say they shuffled it so successfully that no African Americans came up.\nThere simply were no African Americans out of the 108 who were questioned.\nIt seems to me that that in and of itself would violate at least a generous reading of Batson.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [390.762, 410.784, 430.394, 436.965, 446.186, 459.829, 464.432], "stop_times": [410.784, 430.394, 436.965, 446.186, 459.829, 464.432, 471.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 390.762}, "reply_to": "21584__0_014", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_016", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Mr. Waxman, we really have to examine your... you know, your allegations, I suppose, one at a time.\nIt makes it a very complicated case.\nThe... the State's response to... to your argument that two of... of the State's attorneys involved in this case had been found to have made racially based strikes in the past... the State's response to that is that that was not part of the evidence presented in State court, and therefore, it... it is not a proper consideration in reviewing the State court decision.\nWhat... what is your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [471.568, 478.416, 481.061, 512.341], "stop_times": [478.416, 481.061, 512.341, 513.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 471.568}, "reply_to": "21584__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_017", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "I think that's wrong.\nI think it's wrong, first of all, because those two cases had been decided by the Court of Criminal Appeals at the time it considered the Batson claim in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [513.866, 514.938], "stop_times": [514.938, 525.925], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 513.866}, "reply_to": "21584__0_016", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_018", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Was it brought to the attention of the court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [525.925], "stop_times": [528.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 525.925}, "reply_to": "21584__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_019", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "I... I am not sure.\nI don't have the... neither the transcript nor the briefs are available for that argument.\nBut it's... the court... they are judicial decisions of that court.\nThe Court can take judicial notice of them and they are evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [528.085, 529.76, 535.099, 540.197], "stop_times": [529.76, 535.099, 540.197, 543.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 528.085}, "reply_to": "21584__0_018", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_020", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Oh, my.\nYou mean anything out there that... that a court could take judicial notice of can be... can be charged to the court?\nMy goodness, no.\nI think it was the burden of the... of the defendant challenging the... the strikes to bring... bring that to the attention of the court.\nMy goodness.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [543.84, 544.939, 554.459, 555.424, 564.15], "stop_times": [544.939, 554.459, 555.424, 564.15, 564.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 543.84}, "reply_to": "21584__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_021", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Even... I understand your argument.\nI can't tell you for sure... and I don't believe anybody can... whether those cases were or weren't argued before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals because my understanding is... I don't... I have not seen the briefs that were filed in the Batson appeal, and I don't have the transcript of the argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [564.657, 568.188], "stop_times": [568.188, 585.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 564.657}, "reply_to": "21584__0_020", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_022", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Were... were both of the cases cases of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [585.01], "stop_times": [587.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 585.01}, "reply_to": "21584__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21584__0_023", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Yes, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [587.837], "stop_times": [588.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 587.837}, "reply_to": "21584__0_022", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_024", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Decided by the court... the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [588.061], "stop_times": [589.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 588.061}, "reply_to": "21584__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21584__0_025", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Yes.\nThe... the very same court.\nAnd in any event--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [589.634, 589.81, 591.298], "stop_times": [589.81, 591.298, 592.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 589.634}, "reply_to": "21584__0_024", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_026", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Well, now, Nelson... there's Macaluso?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [592.573], "stop_times": [594.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 592.573}, "reply_to": "21584__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__0_027", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Macaluso.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [594.712], "stop_times": [595.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 594.712}, "reply_to": "21584__0_026", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_028", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Macaluso and Nelson.\nNelson wasn't involved in the jury selection in this case, was he?\nHe came in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [595.96, 596.92, 601.155], "stop_times": [596.92, 601.155, 602.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.96}, "reply_to": "21584__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__0_029", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "He certainly was.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [602.089], "stop_times": [602.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 602.089}, "reply_to": "21584__0_028", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_030", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--I thought he came in after... after the jury had been selected.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [602.627], "stop_times": [606.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 602.627}, "reply_to": "21584__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__0_031", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "No.\nThat was Mr. Kinne had the chickenpox, so the jury was... the... the voir dire took place.\nMr. Macaluso and Mr. Nelson alternated the voir dire examination in the case, and those were the two prosecutors, Mr. Macaluso in the other Miller-El... in the Chambers case and Mr. Nelson in Mrs. Miller-El's case.\nAnd interestingly, what the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said with respect to Mr. Macaluso in the Chambers case is not only that he removed five out of five African Americans for reasons that violate Batson, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals also noted that he was using the same minimum punishment ploy that he used in this case in order to disqualify African American jurors.\nHe... the court actually goes and says, you know, with three of these people, the State tried to disqualify them by asking them an open-ended question about what they thought the minimum punishment should be even though that's usually what the defense is concerned about.\nPrecisely what happened in this case.\nNow, I'm not suggesting, Justice Scalia, that our case depends upon the... this 404(b) evidence or not, and I think it's quite--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [606.766, 606.969, 612.921, 628.19, 655.908, 671.269, 673.931], "stop_times": [606.969, 612.921, 628.19, 655.908, 671.269, 673.931, 682.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 606.766}, "reply_to": "21584__0_030", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_032", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "I mean, that's the problem.\nWe've got to go through each one of them one by one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [682.683, 682.859], "stop_times": [682.859, 684.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.683}, "reply_to": "21584__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_033", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [684.838], "stop_times": [685.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 684.838}, "reply_to": "21584__0_032", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_034", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "And... and I'm... you know, I don't remember the names of people involved in... in prior cases in this Court.\nI... I... you know, if we said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [685.798, 692.022], "stop_times": [692.022, 694.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 685.798}, "reply_to": "21584__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_035", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [694.278], "stop_times": [695.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 694.278}, "reply_to": "21584__0_034", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_036", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--you had this same officer before you, my goodness, I... I wouldn't remember it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [695.1], "stop_times": [699.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.1}, "reply_to": "21584__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_037", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Justice Scalia, a... first of all, these... each of these cases was tried within months of Mr. Miller-El's case, and a finding by a... the State's highest court that a prosecutor has engaged in intentional, deliberate, race discrimination in the selection of a jury I respectfully submit... I certainly hope is not the kind of everyday finding that is easily forgotten.\nBut in any event, you... yes.\nYou have to go through all of the evidence in the case, and what the evidence in the case shows is that, first of all, as this Court observed the last time it was here, the State's proper race-neutral rationales for striking African American jurors pertains just as well to white jurors who were not challenged and who did serve.\nIt's... you also have to look at the race-coding of the cards, race-coding that was done by prosecutors whom this Court observed last time were trained in an office culture suffused with bias against African Americans in jury selection.\nAnd you also have to look at, with respect, the remarkable disparity in the way in which African American and white venire members were questioned, both with respect to minimum punishment--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [699.105, 727.116, 729.778, 751.623, 768.791], "stop_times": [727.116, 729.778, 751.623, 768.791, 781.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 699.105}, "reply_to": "21584__0_036", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_038", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "May I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [781.858], "stop_times": [782.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 781.858}, "reply_to": "21584__0_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__0_039", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--and with respect to the graphic script.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [782.253], "stop_times": [784.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 782.253}, "reply_to": "21584__0_038", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_040", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--May I ask on the minimum punishment ploy?\nDid that ever work in this case or did any of... of the trial judges ever grant a... a challenge for cause on the basis of the use of the minimum punishment ploy?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [784.573, 786.691], "stop_times": [786.691, 797.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 784.573}, "reply_to": "21584__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__0_041", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Well, I can't speak to other cases.\nBut what's truly remarkable about this case... I mean, there are many things that are truly remarkable about this case... the State not only used this minimum punishment ploy with 90... 7 out of 8 of the African Americans, as opposed to only 2 out of 36 of the whites, but it actually tried to remove 2 of the African Americans in this case: Rand and Kennedy.\nIt submitted them for cause based on their answers to those questions.\nAnd then interestingly, when that was denied and the State had to justify its... to provide its race-neutral reasons for striking them, it didn't even mention it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [797.011, 798.665, 826.937, 830.9], "stop_times": [798.665, 826.937, 830.9, 840.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.011}, "reply_to": "21584__0_040", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_042", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Their response--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [840.527], "stop_times": [841.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.527}, "reply_to": "21584__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_043", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "But you... you haven't really answered my question yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [841.925], "stop_times": [843.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 841.925}, "reply_to": "21584__0_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__0_044", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Oh, I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [843.829], "stop_times": [844.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 843.829}, "reply_to": "21584__0_043", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_045", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Does any... did any Texas trial judge, to your knowledge, ever fall for this ploy, ever grant a... a challenge for cause based on answers to the minimum punishment harangue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [844.651], "stop_times": [855.397], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.651}, "reply_to": "21584__0_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__0_046", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "I... I would defer to Ms. Bunn about that because I don't know about other cases, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [855.397], "stop_times": [860.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 855.397}, "reply_to": "21584__0_045", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_047", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "I didn't see any in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [860.757], "stop_times": [861.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.757}, "reply_to": "21584__0_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__0_048", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Well, what happened in this case was there was an effort to rehabilitate.\nThe trial judge actually became quite energetic in trying to explain to the juror that, well, it's 5 years and you're not saying that you couldn't possibly consider 5 years.\nBut... and that was true with respect to white jurors as well as African American jurors.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [861.6, 866.389, 876.821], "stop_times": [866.389, 876.821, 882.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 861.6}, "reply_to": "21584__0_047", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_049", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--The respondent's reply to this... this minimal punishment argument is that in fact the... the two white prospective jurors who had... who had expressed antagonism towards the death penalty were subjected to the same questioning, and that the seven out of eight black prospective were seven who had expressed antagonism to the death penalty.\nNow, is that not true?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [882.005, 912.496], "stop_times": [912.496, 913.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.005}, "reply_to": "21584__0_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_050", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "I think that if I... I believe that with respect to minimum punishment, as opposed to the graphic script, what the State is saying is last time we said there were 10 whites and 10 blacks who expressed hesitation.\nAnd this Court observed that, well, yes, but only two of the whites got it.\nNow, they filed a brief that says, well, the other eight were all either struck for cause or by consent.\nNow, that's... that fails for at least two reasons.\nOne, they identified 10.\nIn this Court and below, we identified 19 jurors who absolutely expressed hesitation about the death penalty, and they have still not accounted for them.\nNumber one.\nNumber two, with respect to the eight who they have accounted for in their brief, the fact that at the very end of voir dire, they were struck for cause, or there was an agreement at the end of voir dire to remove them hardly provides a reason not to give the minimum punishment ploy to jurors who fit the categorization that the State has described.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [913.472, 926.139, 930.96, 939.493, 943.6, 946.155, 956.069, 956.651], "stop_times": [926.139, 930.96, 939.493, 943.6, 946.155, 956.069, 956.651, 982.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 913.472}, "reply_to": "21584__0_049", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_051", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Well, we have to go through each one of them and see if the degree of hostility expressed by the white jurors was the same as the degree of hostility expressed by the black jurors.\nAnd in fact, the degree of hostility by the black jurors was quite high.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [982.939, 994.449], "stop_times": [994.449, 998.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 982.939}, "reply_to": "21584__0_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_052", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [998.699], "stop_times": [999.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 998.699}, "reply_to": "21584__0_051", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_053", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "One said I really don't believe in it.\nI support it only in extreme cases, such as those involving mass killings or mutilation.\nAnd another one... another one said, well, right now maybe I do, but who knows later?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [999.755, 1001.179, 1006.651], "stop_times": [1001.179, 1006.651, 1012.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 999.755}, "reply_to": "21584__0_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_054", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1012.033], "stop_times": [1014.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1012.033}, "reply_to": "21584__0_053", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_055", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Now, if... if there happens to be a different attitude towards the death penalty among the black jurors than there is among the white jurors, you cannot fault the... the attorneys for... for striking more of the black jurors.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1014.001], "stop_times": [1027.259], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1014.001}, "reply_to": "21584__0_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_056", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Justice Scalia, in the context of all of this other evidence, which is the context in which you need to weigh it and determine whether we have satisfied the stringent standard for review that applies, I respectfully submit that if you go through the... the voir dire questioning of Mr. Fields and Mr. Warren and Mr. Rand and the others that we've mentioned, and compare it, even leaving aside all of the other evidence, contemporaneous evidence, of race discrimination in the jury selection in this case, I think you will have to come to the conclusion that race was a but-for factor in these cases.\nIn Mr. Fields... we've... we've mentioned him in our... we've described him at length in our brief.\nThis is a man whom... I mean, forget the... the State on its questionnaire at the time, on page 14 of the joint lodging, wrote, quote, no reservations against the death penalty.\nMr. Rand, who we've compared and... and your concurring opinion, Justice Scalia, the last time it was here said, well, yes, Rand and Mazza are very close, but it's a high burden you have to... you have to overcome here.\nIt's a burden we can overcome here not only because of all of this other evidence, but because of what the State wrote on the questionnaire when Mr. Rand was being examined, page 30 of the joint lodging.\nThis is the State's notes.\nQuote: could be enforced depending on the circumstances.\nMurder/robbery, type of offense.\nThink proper for death penalty.\nYes, I can serve.\nThis is a... this is a venireman who said that if he were Governor, he would set the minimum punishment for murder at 99 years.\nMr. Fields was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1027.259, 1073.531, 1078.092, 1093.239, 1108.743, 1124.22, 1126.113, 1130.332, 1134.268, 1136.172, 1137.713, 1147.105], "stop_times": [1073.531, 1078.092, 1093.239, 1108.743, 1124.22, 1126.113, 1130.332, 1134.268, 1136.172, 1137.713, 1147.105, 1149.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1027.259}, "reply_to": "21584__0_055", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_057", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Well, now, wait.\nHe also said... when asked whether he could vote to impose the death penalty, he said, right now I say I can, but tomorrow I might not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1149.383, 1149.591], "stop_times": [1149.591, 1158.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1149.383}, "reply_to": "21584__0_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_058", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--He said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1158.455], "stop_times": [1160.017], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1158.455}, "reply_to": "21584__0_057", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_059", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Do you think that's a strong--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1160.017], "stop_times": [1161.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1160.017}, "reply_to": "21584__0_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_060", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--I'm... I'm not sure whether that's Rand or Warren, but I'm saying that if you compare Mr. Rand who thought that the death penalty might be applicable for all murder, who repeatedly... in our reply brief, we include the... the recitation... repeatedly said over and over and over and over again that he would answer the three questions yes, depending on the evidence, without any regard for his view about the death penalty, who testified that... I'm not saying that this is somebody whom, if this were a case in which there was nothing in this... we were just before this Court saying there's Rand and Mazza or there's Rand and Hearn and that's enough to satisfy our burden, I would be up here arguing it but it would be a much more difficult argument.\nHere, those... that comparison has to be taken in the context of not one, not two, but six jurors who are similarly situated who were treated to this questioning by people who engaged in racially disparate shuffling, racially disparate questioning--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1161.996, 1212.103], "stop_times": [1212.103, 1231.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1161.996}, "reply_to": "21584__0_059", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_061", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Well, that's the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1231.005], "stop_times": [1232.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1231.005}, "reply_to": "21584__0_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21584__0_062", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--We have to deal with each of the six one by one, and... and they have arguments with respect to each of them.\nI don't care what Rand said.\nThose things that you said sounded very good.\nBut if he finishes it off by saying, right now I say that, but tomorrow I might not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1232.125, 1238.029, 1239.443, 1241.48], "stop_times": [1238.029, 1239.443, 1241.48, 1246.483], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1232.125}, "reply_to": "21584__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_063", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1246.483], "stop_times": [1247.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1246.483}, "reply_to": "21584__0_062", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_064", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--that doesn't strike me... and that... that's what respondent says Rand said, not... not one of the other ones.\nAnd you have to go down each of the other six, and they have a response for each one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1247.581, 1252.909], "stop_times": [1252.909, 1256.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1247.581}, "reply_to": "21584__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_065", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--And if this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1256.835], "stop_times": [1258.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1256.835}, "reply_to": "21584__0_064", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_066", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "I mean, and... and, you know, a buckshot attack on it has to be examined pellet by pellet.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1258.659], "stop_times": [1266.755], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1258.659}, "reply_to": "21584__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_067", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Justice... let me... let me switch your metaphor a little.\nThe problem with the State's approach to this case... and it was the problem that... of the Fifth Circuit's analysis... is it is pointillistic.\nIt is an analysis.\nIt's like walking up close to a Seurat painting and looking at each dot and saying, well, it's red, but that might not necessarily be the handbag.\nYes, you have... I mean, he had to paint with the dots, but as a reviewing court, you need to step back and look at this and ask yourself, with respect to, for example, Mr. Fields, who said not only would he have no hesitation about putting the death penalty in place, but he actually testified that he thought that in capital cases, the State was God's embodiment on earth.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1266.755, 1270.099, 1278.329, 1280.233, 1288.697], "stop_times": [1270.099, 1278.329, 1280.233, 1288.697, 1313.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1266.755}, "reply_to": "21584__0_066", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_068", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Suppose that you have 10 white jurors and 10 black jurors.\nThe 10 black jurors are all questioned much more extensively by the State, and in each of those cases, there is a plausible reason for excusing.\nA relative was... served time and so forth.\nViolation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1313.679, 1321.125, 1330.714, 1334.165], "stop_times": [1321.125, 1330.714, 1334.165, 1335.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1313.679}, "reply_to": "21584__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__0_069", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "All in and of itself?\nI would say definitely not.\nI... I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1335.018, 1337.855, 1339.423], "stop_times": [1337.855, 1339.423, 1341.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1335.018}, "reply_to": "21584__0_068", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_070", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "So... so then you admit that you have to go one by one.\nI had thought you would... would have said that if the black jurors are questioned in a different way and more intensively, that alone suffices even though the questioning in each case disclosed the basis, plausible, non-racial basis--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1341.013, 1344.725], "stop_times": [1344.725, 1361.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1341.013}, "reply_to": "21584__0_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__0_071", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--No, I would give--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1361.941], "stop_times": [1362.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1361.941}, "reply_to": "21584__0_070", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_072", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--for excusing them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1362.096], "stop_times": [1362.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1362.096}, "reply_to": "21584__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__0_073", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--I would give you a different answer, Justice Kennedy, if it's the jury shuffle because there's no plausible explanation available on the evidence in this case.\nIf there is a plausible explanation for disparate questioning, which there is not in the statistics in this case, I wouldn't be arguing that that in and of itself, leaving aside individual, you know, side-by-side juror comparisons, would suffice.\nBut here, we have, in addition to the disparate questioning that is not susceptible to a race-neutral explanation... we have things like the prosecutor's own notations in the... in the questionnaires.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1362.411, 1370.859, 1388.203], "stop_times": [1370.859, 1388.203, 1401.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1362.411}, "reply_to": "21584__0_072", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_074", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Mr. Waxman, you were dealing with Fields, and the answer in Fields' case that the prosecution gives is he had a strong feeling about rehabilitation, and so he was... he thought that everyone could rehabilitated... rehabilitated.\nSo that shows he... he wasn't like others who didn't entertain those doubts about rehabilitation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1401.787, 1422.619], "stop_times": [1422.619, 1432.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1401.787}, "reply_to": "21584__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21584__0_075", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Yes, Justice... Justice Ginsburg.\nHe... he expressed an opinion that he thought that people could be rehabilitated, not as strong as those opinions by juror... white Juror Hearn and white Juror Duke who sat.\nBut in Fields' case, he was absolutely unequivocal... I'm... I'm referring the Court to page 185 of the joint appendix... absolutely unequivocal that the ability or propensity for rehabilitation would not affect his willingness to... to put in the death penalty.\nI believe in the dissenting and concurring opinions in this case last time with respect to Mr. Fields, it was pointed out that he was a supporter of the death penalty who could put in the death penalty.\nAnd what's interesting about Fields is if you look at the transcript pages where the prosecutor justifies the strike, on page 197 of the joint appendix, the prosecutor says, well, he was... he... he... I... he... he said something about rehabilitation, and it goes on.\nAnd then two pages later... they have a discussion about something... a discussion about which questionnaires will or won't go into evidence.\nTwo pages later, Mr. Nelson comes in and says, oh, yes, and he also had a brother who had had some involvement with law enforcement.\nWell, to say that that's an afterthought is really saying something.\nHe wasn't questioned about it, as... as neither were... by the State, as neither were any of the four white jurors who sat who had family members who had been arrested or prosecuted.\nThey didn't even ask these questions.\nMay I reserve the balance of my--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1432.165, 1433.984, 1446.667, 1465.904, 1477.477, 1496.219, 1503.499, 1511.936, 1516.352, 1529.467, 1531.584], "stop_times": [1433.984, 1446.667, 1465.904, 1477.477, 1496.219, 1503.499, 1511.936, 1516.352, 1529.467, 1531.584, 1534.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1432.165}, "reply_to": "21584__0_074", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_076", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Was there any evidence that the jury cards in this... in the actual trial were marked or noted on the basis of race?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1534.0], "stop_times": [1543.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1534.0}, "reply_to": "21584__0_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21584__0_077", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Oh, absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1543.275], "stop_times": [1545.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1543.275}, "reply_to": "21584__0_076", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_078", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Where do we find that evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1545.142], "stop_times": [1546.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1545.142}, "reply_to": "21584__0_077", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21584__0_079", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "The... the juror cards are in the joint lodging beginning on page 82, and every single card lists the gender and race, even the cards as to jurors that they never questioned.\nSo we know that these were notations that were placed on the cards by the prosecutors at the time the venires were called.\nAnd the interesting thing about these is it's not just race and gender, it's were they fat, did they have a beard, did they have a mustache.\nIf you map up what's noted on these cards with the Sparling training manual that said don't take minorities, don't take Jews, don't take women, don't take fat people... people who have mustaches and beards don't make good jurors.\nIt's... these prosecutors were not only trained by that manual, they learned their lesson very well.\nMay--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1546.95, 1563.532, 1571.041, 1583.841, 1603.372, 1610.428], "stop_times": [1563.532, 1571.041, 1583.841, 1603.372, 1610.428, 1611.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1546.95}, "reply_to": "21584__0_078", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_080", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "All of those things are okay, right, except the race one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1611.249], "stop_times": [1613.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1611.249}, "reply_to": "21584__0_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_081", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1613.884], "stop_times": [1616.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1613.884}, "reply_to": "21584__0_080", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_082", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "I mean, maybe their right about beards and mustaches.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1616.018], "stop_times": [1617.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1616.018}, "reply_to": "21584__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_083", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--We know that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1617.335], "stop_times": [1617.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1617.335}, "reply_to": "21584__0_082", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_084", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "I don't know.\nIf they're right, good for them.\nRight?\nYou... you... they ought to strike them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1617.548, 1618.092, 1619.804, 1620.295], "stop_times": [1618.092, 1619.804, 1620.295, 1621.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1617.548}, "reply_to": "21584__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__0_085", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--I... we're not here... if this were gender or race, this Court has said that can't be the but-for reason.\nMustaches, overweight, you know, go with God.\nMay I... may I reserve the balance of my time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1621.773, 1627.522, 1631.421], "stop_times": [1627.522, 1631.421, 1634.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1621.773}, "reply_to": "21584__0_084", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_086", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Yes, by all means.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1634.317], "stop_times": [1634.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1634.317}, "reply_to": "21584__0_085", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__0_087", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1634.456], "stop_times": [1635.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1634.456}, "reply_to": "21584__0_086", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__0_088", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Ms. Bunn.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1635.043], "stop_times": [1636.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1635.043}, "reply_to": "21584__0_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_000", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThe big picture.\nThe majority of African Americans summoned for jury duty in this case were either opposed to the death penalty generally or unwilling to impose it, while the majority of white jurors had no qualms about the death penalty.\nStriking prospective jurors based on their case-related views which, after the fact, correlate with race is not unconstitutional.\nEssentially, though Miller-El has presented this case as one of disparate treatment, it is actually one of disparate impact.\nI will discuss first--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1636.68, 1641.464, 1643.198, 1656.211, 1664.398, 1672.43], "stop_times": [1641.464, 1643.198, 1656.211, 1664.398, 1672.43, 1674.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1636.68}, "reply_to": "21584__0_088", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_001", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Would... would the statement that you gave... let's assume there was a... a working premise that blacks were more... were less inclined to impose the death penalty.\nWould that alone justify more intensive questioning of every black juror?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1674.18, 1689.332], "stop_times": [1689.332, 1694.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1674.18}, "reply_to": "21584__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__1_002", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--No, Your Honor, it would not.\nAnd the record in this case actually does not support that that... does not support a proposition that black jurors were questioned differently.\nMost significantly, the minimum... the questioning on the graphic script.\nOf the six challenged jurors in this case, only two received the graphic... graphic script at the outset of their voir dire, Carrol Boggess and... and Wayman Kennedy, both of whom had answered the questions in their juror questionnaire indicating ambiguity regarding their views on the death penalty regarding their support for the death penalty.\nThis fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1694.217, 1696.286, 1704.857, 1711.438, 1732.404], "stop_times": [1696.286, 1704.857, 1711.438, 1732.404, 1733.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1694.217}, "reply_to": "21584__1_001", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_003", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Now... now, as I understand it, this case was here before.\nWe all read this and we went through it, and as a result of that, I... if I read the opinion... not the dissent, but the majority opinion... and it might be in my interest if people followed dissents more, but I think the law is we follow the majority opinion.\nSo when I read the majority opinion, I read, number one, there was history in this county, at least 7 years earlier though, where they actually had a booklet which said let's keep all the African Americans out, here's how you do it.\nThen you had jury shuffling, which were two instances.\nIn one of them, there are like 40 people.\nIn my mind, you know, we have rows.\nIn row 1 there are four black jurors and six white; row 2, three black and seven white; row 3, two black and in the last row one black, and the prosecution says, hey, let's shuffle it.\nAll right?\nAnd the other time he did it, the only other time... it wasn't quite that bad... the same idea.\nThen the third thing that comes up is you find instances here... not everyone, absolutely right... but instances where black people who seemed really for the death penalty, say, like Mr. Fields manages to get knocked off, but Mrs. Mazza who seems quite uncertain is kept on.\nAnd then we have this disparate questioning that you're about to mention where it just turns out that almost every black is given this really... you know, bring them in a gurney, put... put... you know, real graphic description of the death penalty, and white people who also expressed hesitation aren't.\nOkay?\nSo on the basis of that, the majority writes there is, indeed, a strong suspicion here that this was discrimination.\nSo I want to ask you... and if I were to write something like that... I didn't write the words, but I would mean, well, I think that's what it is unless there's something later on that comes out to the contrary.\nSo I'm asking you what was to the contrary.\nWhat came out in this Fifth Circuit that we didn't have in front of us the last time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1733.519, 1736.527, 1753.679, 1769.54, 1774.554, 1776.597, 1778.97, 1790.944, 1792.346, 1796.661, 1815.632, 1830.907, 1831.552, 1842.262, 1852.224, 1854.838], "stop_times": [1736.527, 1753.679, 1769.54, 1774.554, 1776.597, 1778.97, 1790.944, 1792.346, 1796.661, 1815.632, 1830.907, 1831.552, 1842.262, 1852.224, 1854.838, 1859.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1733.519}, "reply_to": "21584__1_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21584__1_004", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Your Honor, the first time before this Court, the issue was whether, based on a threshold examination of the record--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1859.638], "stop_times": [1866.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1859.638}, "reply_to": "21584__1_003", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_005", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "I know that was the issue, but I'm saying if I read the opinion to say... now, maybe you'll tell me I shouldn't.\nWe should just go back and redo what we did.\nBut I'm reading the opinion to say, well, unless something changes here, this is bad.\nIt's discriminatory.\nNow, you can tell me, one, I'm wrong to read the opinion that way.\nI got that argument.\nBut I want to be sure that that's what's in front of me.\nSo I want to know is there something different in the Fifth Circuit that wasn't here the first time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1866.961, 1872.609, 1874.614, 1882.449, 1883.702, 1886.79, 1887.846, 1889.798], "stop_times": [1872.609, 1874.614, 1882.449, 1883.702, 1886.79, 1887.846, 1889.798, 1895.132], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1866.961}, "reply_to": "21584__1_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21584__1_006", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Your Honor, I believe the most... the most important difference in the review of this Court the last time and the review of this... of the Court this time is that the Court did take a big-picture look at all of the pieces of evidence, but at this point, as the court of appeals did and as this... as this Court must do now, it must go, as Justice Scalia mentioned, juror by juror, the jurors who were challenged.\nMiller-El--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1895.132, 1919.67], "stop_times": [1919.67, 1920.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1895.132}, "reply_to": "21584__1_005", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_007", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "We only speak to the issues before us, don't we?\nAnd the issue before us last time was not the issue before us here.\nIt was simply whether there was enough evidence to require the issuance of a COA.\nIsn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1920.668, 1922.438, 1927.825, 1933.708], "stop_times": [1922.438, 1927.825, 1933.708, 1934.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1920.668}, "reply_to": "21584__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__1_008", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1934.545], "stop_times": [1935.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1934.545}, "reply_to": "21584__1_007", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_009", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Right.\nThat's why I asked.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1935.409, 1935.713], "stop_times": [1935.713, 1936.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1935.409}, "reply_to": "21584__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21584__1_010", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "And that's a good deal different.\nWhatever the majority might have said about other issues, it certainly was not binding on the court of appeals, was it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1936.183, 1936.828], "stop_times": [1936.828, 1943.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1936.183}, "reply_to": "21584__1_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__1_011", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1943.234], "stop_times": [1944.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1943.234}, "reply_to": "21584__1_010", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_012", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "I hate to say this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1944.328], "stop_times": [1945.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1944.328}, "reply_to": "21584__1_011", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_013", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "So that must be a different question--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1945.123], "stop_times": [1945.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.123}, "reply_to": "21584__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21584__1_014", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--to my colleagues, but I'm very much interested in hearing what Ms. Bunn has to say.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1945.912], "stop_times": [1947.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.912}, "reply_to": "21584__1_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_015", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--because that wasn't the one I asked.\nThe one I wanted answered was the question of I understand that point, which we could say it was definitely not definite the last time.\nI'm asking you... it's a serious question... as whether there was something new or different that came up when the Fifth Circuit wrote this.\nNow, I gathered from your answer, it might be yes, and if the answer is yes, I want you to say what it is because I'm interested.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1947.971, 1948.147, 1955.374, 1963.129], "stop_times": [1948.147, 1955.374, 1963.129, 1969.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1947.971}, "reply_to": "21584__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21584__1_016", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, there was additional analysis, particularly of the six jurors Miller-El claims were discriminated against, which this Court did not review the first... in its first opinion specifically.\nAnd a review of Miller-El's purposeful discrimination claim must focus on these six jurors.\nAnd given the... the views expressed by these six veniremen, it is no surprise that prosecutors struck them.\nEach venire member peremptorily struck by the State had voiced views unfavorable to the State but were not subject to a challenge for cause.\nThese reasons are race-neutral, case-related, and supported by the record, in fact, supported by the very words that the jurors uttered.\nCarrol Boggess indicated that her beliefs... on the questionnaire indicated her beliefs would impair... would impair her ability to impose the death penalty as a juror.\nShe referred to her... an execution as a murder during her voir dire and other comments evincing hesitance regarding her ability to impose the death penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [1969.006, 1980.958, 1987.204, 1993.998, 2002.478, 2010.041, 2018.164], "stop_times": [1980.958, 1987.204, 1993.998, 2002.478, 2010.041, 2018.164, 2028.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1969.006}, "reply_to": "21584__1_015", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_017", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "May I ask you this?\nThere are two questions just generally.\nOne, I'm curious about the answer to my question to... to Mr. Waxman.\nDid the minimum punishment ploy ever work?\nDid it ever succeed in getting a challenge for cause granted?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2028.895, 2029.178, 2030.554, 2034.906, 2039.05], "stop_times": [2029.178, 2030.554, 2034.906, 2039.05, 2042.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2028.895}, "reply_to": "21584__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_018", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Your Honor, there are other cases that I'm aware of in Texas where the State did challenge jurors on this basis.\nWhether there was any questioning... any difference in questioning, I don't know.\nIt's not apparent from the records.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2042.362, 2050.09, 2054.719], "stop_times": [2050.09, 2054.719, 2055.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2042.362}, "reply_to": "21584__1_017", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_019", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "But have... and the challenges were granted?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2055.914], "stop_times": [2056.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.914}, "reply_to": "21584__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_020", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2056.928], "stop_times": [2058.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2056.928}, "reply_to": "21584__1_019", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_021", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Of course, none of them were granted in this case.\nIs that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2058.036, 2059.69], "stop_times": [2059.69, 2060.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.036}, "reply_to": "21584__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_022", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2060.362], "stop_times": [2060.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2060.362}, "reply_to": "21584__1_021", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_023", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "So it... it was true that this was... was a ploy adopted for the purpose of trying to make it unnecessary to use a... a peremptory challenge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2060.906], "stop_times": [2069.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2060.906}, "reply_to": "21584__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_024", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nYes, Your Honor, that is right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2069.792, 2070.889], "stop_times": [2070.889, 2072.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2069.792}, "reply_to": "21584__1_023", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_025", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "And do you defend that practice?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2072.208], "stop_times": [2073.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2072.208}, "reply_to": "21584__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_026", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Yes, if it is a legitimate tactic, recognized... as an attorney, if there is a... some means that is available to use so that you do not have to use a peremptory strike--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2073.232], "stop_times": [2087.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2073.232}, "reply_to": "21584__1_025", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_027", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "If you... if you can get the venire person to make a mistake in his answer, then you... you get... get him off easy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2087.514], "stop_times": [2093.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2087.514}, "reply_to": "21584__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_028", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--That's what... that's what voir dire is all about, and the defense counsel did it in many occasions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2093.545], "stop_times": [2097.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2093.545}, "reply_to": "21584__1_027", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_029", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "And suppose... suppose you have a system in which that attempt to find cause is applied much more rigorously to black prospective jurors than to white prospective jurors.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2097.744], "stop_times": [2108.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2097.744}, "reply_to": "21584__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__1_030", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--If it's not... the record shows that there's no difference in the views expressed by the jurors, yes.\nIn this case that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2108.875, 2115.686], "stop_times": [2115.686, 2117.537], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2108.875}, "reply_to": "21584__1_029", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_031", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "No.\nThe... the white jurors don't express the views at all because they're not questioned intensively, so you don't know if there's cause for them or not.\nBut the black jurors are questioned intensively, and you find cause or... or a... a race-neutral reason for the dismissal.\nIs there a Batson violation in... in that instance?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2117.537, 2117.665, 2123.862, 2134.78], "stop_times": [2117.665, 2123.862, 2134.78, 2137.958], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2117.537}, "reply_to": "21584__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__1_032", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--No, Your Honor, not a Batson violation.\nNow, whether it's evidence of... of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2137.958, 2140.252], "stop_times": [2140.252, 2143.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2137.958}, "reply_to": "21584__1_031", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_033", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "So... so you say that in any case you can question black jurors more intensively than white jurors and still succeed in excusing them if the result of that voir dire shows some race-neutral basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2143.377], "stop_times": [2158.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2143.377}, "reply_to": "21584__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__1_034", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Your Honor, if the questioning itself results in the views that are the basis of the strike, that would present a problem.\nThat is not the case here, however, where the... the disparate questioning on minimum sentencing, for instance, was based on the views that were expressed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2158.849, 2168.577], "stop_times": [2168.577, 2180.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2158.849}, "reply_to": "21584__1_033", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_035", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Suppose... suppose you have a manual of... from the district attorney's office that says all black jurors shall be questioned more intensively than white jurors.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2180.924], "stop_times": [2188.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2180.924}, "reply_to": "21584__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__1_036", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "That would certainly be evidence that black jurors and white jurors were treated differently.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2188.647], "stop_times": [2195.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2188.647}, "reply_to": "21584__1_035", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_037", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "You're saying that that is not what happened here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2195.394], "stop_times": [2197.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2195.394}, "reply_to": "21584__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__1_038", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2197.608], "stop_times": [2198.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2197.608}, "reply_to": "21584__1_037", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_039", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "It was on the basis of the questionnaires expressing hostility to the death penalty that more intensive questioning was given to some people than to others, and that the mere fact that a larger number of those people was black is not a violation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2198.328], "stop_times": [2213.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2198.328}, "reply_to": "21584__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__1_040", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2213.869], "stop_times": [2215.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2213.869}, "reply_to": "21584__1_039", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_041", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "So the hypothetical, assuming that you... you just have blacks and whites with no difference in... in what they... in what they had said on the questionnaire, is a hypothetical that you say does not exist in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2215.55], "stop_times": [2228.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2215.55}, "reply_to": "21584__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__1_042", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2228.227], "stop_times": [2228.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2228.227}, "reply_to": "21584__1_041", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_043", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Yes, but you don't know what the questionnaire showed as to most of the white venire persons, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2228.755], "stop_times": [2234.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2228.755}, "reply_to": "21584__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_044", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "No, we don't, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2234.606], "stop_times": [2236.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2234.606}, "reply_to": "21584__1_043", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_045", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "And how many white venire persons were there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2236.136], "stop_times": [2238.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.136}, "reply_to": "21584__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_046", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "48.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2238.36], "stop_times": [2240.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2238.36}, "reply_to": "21584__1_045", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_047", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "48.\nAnd how many were given this questioning?\nTwo?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2240.227, 2240.808, 2242.515], "stop_times": [2240.808, 2242.515, 2243.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.227}, "reply_to": "21584__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_048", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "On the graphic script?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2243.128], "stop_times": [2244.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2243.128}, "reply_to": "21584__1_047", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_049", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2244.531], "stop_times": [2244.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2244.531}, "reply_to": "21584__1_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_050", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Two... three.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2244.846], "stop_times": [2246.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2244.846}, "reply_to": "21584__1_049", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_051", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "And so are we to assume that all 46 of the other white venire persons were as tough on the death penalty as you'd like everybody to be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2246.324], "stop_times": [2254.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.324}, "reply_to": "21584__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_052", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2254.75], "stop_times": [2256.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2254.75}, "reply_to": "21584__1_051", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_053", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "We just don't know about those other 46, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2256.292], "stop_times": [2259.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2256.292}, "reply_to": "21584__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_054", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "We do not know.\nWe do not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2259.23, 2259.908], "stop_times": [2259.908, 2260.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2259.23}, "reply_to": "21584__1_053", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_055", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "But is it not a reasonable inference that some of them might have expressed doubt about the death penalty?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2260.495], "stop_times": [2264.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2260.495}, "reply_to": "21584__1_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_056", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--That is... we do not know.\nThere... even though we do not know--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2264.788, 2267.071], "stop_times": [2267.071, 2269.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2264.788}, "reply_to": "21584__1_055", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_057", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Well, if you don't know... if you don't know, you... there's an excellent way to know.\nSomebody says, you know, Mr. Prosecutor, you gave this terribly graphic script to all the black people and you really didn't give it to hardly any of the white people.\nNow, it's also possible... possible... that the reason he didn't was because from the answer to their questionnaires, which we've not seen, you didn't need to.\nThat's possible.\nBut if that were the case, wouldn't he have said to the judge, Judge, that's why I did it.\nI didn't ask them because I read the questionnaires.\nWouldn't that be what you would do or any prosecutor would do if that were the reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2269.44, 2272.368, 2283.525, 2293.792, 2294.96, 2301.152, 2303.984], "stop_times": [2272.368, 2283.525, 2293.792, 2294.96, 2301.152, 2303.984, 2309.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2269.44}, "reply_to": "21584__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21584__1_058", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, I would.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2309.093], "stop_times": [2311.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2309.093}, "reply_to": "21584__1_057", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_059", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "And did the prosecutor ever do that here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2311.621], "stop_times": [2313.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2311.621}, "reply_to": "21584__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21584__1_060", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "No, but significantly in this case, the arguments regarding disparate questioning were never raised until Federal habeas corpus proceedings.\nThey were not raised at trial when the jury questionnaires still existed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2313.28, 2321.563], "stop_times": [2321.563, 2325.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2313.28}, "reply_to": "21584__1_059", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_061", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Did the prosecutor not... was he there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2325.057], "stop_times": [2326.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.057}, "reply_to": "21584__1_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21584__1_062", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nHe was not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2326.294, 2327.462], "stop_times": [2327.462, 2328.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2326.294}, "reply_to": "21584__1_061", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_063", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "No.\nAnd did... was anyone there who had ever talked to the prosecutors?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2328.14, 2328.422], "stop_times": [2328.422, 2330.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2328.14}, "reply_to": "21584__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21584__1_064", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--The prosecutors were contacted during that period, but the questionnaires--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2330.63], "stop_times": [2334.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2330.63}, "reply_to": "21584__1_063", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_065", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "All right.\nSo could then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2334.636, 2334.786], "stop_times": [2334.786, 2334.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2334.636}, "reply_to": "21584__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21584__1_066", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--no longer existed at that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2334.924], "stop_times": [2337.159], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2334.924}, "reply_to": "21584__1_065", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_067", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--But couldn't you have asked the prosecutors if that was the reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2337.159], "stop_times": [2339.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.159}, "reply_to": "21584__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21584__1_068", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "20... 15 years after a case is tried--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2339.261], "stop_times": [2344.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.261}, "reply_to": "21584__1_067", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_069", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "I mean, what are we supposed to do?\nI mean, what you've done is say... of course, I could think of reasons that could have been their reason, but unless there's some reason for thinking that was their reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2344.84, 2345.949], "stop_times": [2345.949, 2353.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2344.84}, "reply_to": "21584__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21584__1_070", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, in this case, the... the inmate Miller-El has the burden.\nHe had the burden in the trial court.\nHe had the burden to prove purposeful discrimination, and he could have put... he did put the questionnaires of the 10 challenged jurors in the record.\nHe did not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2353.608, 2358.781, 2360.563, 2369.896], "stop_times": [2358.781, 2360.563, 2369.896, 2370.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2353.608}, "reply_to": "21584__1_069", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_071", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Well, on... on that point, this is not exactly like McDonnell Douglas, Burdine where you have some prima facie case, the person was equally qualified, but was of a different gender than the one that got the job, and then the... you go back to square one.\nHere, the prima facie case is immensely powerful because of the culture of discrimination in the manuals and so forth, and that... that, it seems to me, stays in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2370.723, 2384.451], "stop_times": [2384.451, 2395.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2370.723}, "reply_to": "21584__1_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__1_072", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Your Honor, this evidence, however compelling a picture it draws of past injustice, simply cannot trump the State court's finding of no purposeful discrimination.\nIt does not address--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2395.091, 2407.395], "stop_times": [2407.395, 2409.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2395.091}, "reply_to": "21584__1_071", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_073", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Well, don't we at some point have to have some reason to believe that the evidence of past practices become irrelevant?\nAnd if we... if that is so, do we have any such evidence here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2409.273, 2417.945], "stop_times": [2417.945, 2422.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2409.273}, "reply_to": "21584__1_072", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21584__1_074", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--There... there was evidence in the Swain hearing, and that... in fact, the cross examination by the prosecutors did indicate that practices that were in the past had been... had been vitiated, at least closer to the time of trial.\nBut regardless of that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2422.457, 2437.828], "stop_times": [2437.828, 2440.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2422.457}, "reply_to": "21584__1_073", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_075", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "These are the same two prosecutors who in other cases had been found, in effect, guilty of... of racial discrimination and the same two prosecutors who were calling for the shuffle in these cases.\nIs it plausible to think that there had been this change of heart?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2440.292, 2451.774], "stop_times": [2451.774, 2455.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2440.292}, "reply_to": "21584__1_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21584__1_076", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Even assuming the evidence, the historical evidence... assuming its relevance, as the Fifth Circuit did--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2455.321], "stop_times": [2464.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2455.321}, "reply_to": "21584__1_075", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_077", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Well, I mean, I... I am assuming it is relevant, and I am asking the question, is there a reasonable basis to think that these particular individuals, engaging in the practice that they demonstrably engaged in, had had a change in heart in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2464.095], "stop_times": [2477.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.095}, "reply_to": "21584__1_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21584__1_078", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nThe record in this case indicates that... for instance, with the use of graphic script questioning, the... of the six... again, of the six challenged jurors, four did not receive the graphic script at the outset of voir dire.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2477.38, 2478.527], "stop_times": [2478.527, 2493.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2477.38}, "reply_to": "21584__1_077", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_079", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Is that why they engaged in the shuffle twice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2493.098], "stop_times": [2495.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2493.098}, "reply_to": "21584__1_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21584__1_080", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2495.743], "stop_times": [2497.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2495.743}, "reply_to": "21584__1_079", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_081", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--on... on a record that shows there were black jurors down front each time they engaged in it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2497.589], "stop_times": [2501.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2497.589}, "reply_to": "21584__1_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21584__1_082", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--The record shows that of 5 weeks of voir dire, the State requested shuffles three times.\nTwo of those times, the defense counsel put on the record that there were a greater number of African American jurors in the front of the panel.\nThey--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2501.962, 2507.77, 2514.698], "stop_times": [2507.77, 2514.698, 2515.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2501.962}, "reply_to": "21584__1_081", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_083", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "And... and that evidence was not refuted.\nIt was not denied, as I understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2515.93, 2517.653], "stop_times": [2517.653, 2520.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2515.93}, "reply_to": "21584__1_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21584__1_084", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Your Honor, there was no response from the prosecutors.\nThere was no objection made, no specific objection made as to... as to the State's exercise of a jury shuffle.\nBut in this case to ask this... what... what Miller-El is asking this Court is to assume that the only discernible trait that could have been the basis for the State's exercise of a jury shuffle is race, and that is not... that is not the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2520.01, 2523.242, 2530.794], "stop_times": [2523.242, 2530.794, 2549.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2520.01}, "reply_to": "21584__1_083", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_085", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "The... I... I don't think that's his argument at all.\nHe is not arguing that there might not be other bases for making challenges or making peremptory strikes.\nWhat he is saying is those challenges exist for lots and lots of jurors.\nAnd what in fact there is is very strong circumstantial evidence that what tipped the prosecutors to make the peremptory challenges here... what he was referring to earlier in this argument as the but-for cause was racial.\nHe's not saying nothing else could have been involved.\nHe was saying race tipped it.\nAnd it's the circumstantial evidence, among other things, that indicates that race does.\nAnd that's the reason for my question.\nIs there some reason to believe that there had been a change of heart on the issue of race so that his argument is unsound?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2549.509, 2552.394, 2561.466, 2567.914, 2582.538, 2587.578, 2589.872, 2595.269, 2597.792], "stop_times": [2552.394, 2561.466, 2567.914, 2582.538, 2587.578, 2589.872, 2595.269, 2597.792, 2606.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2549.509}, "reply_to": "21584__1_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21584__1_086", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Your Honor, again, Miller-El's claim of purposeful discrimination must focus on these six jurors, and in answer to your question, a review of these six jurors does show that these strikes were not based on race.\nThis was not the tipping--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2606.544, 2621.109], "stop_times": [2621.109, 2622.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2606.544}, "reply_to": "21584__1_085", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_087", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--You think they're based, for example, on capital punishment.\nBut now, let me give you two of them, and this is why... this is actually why I get somewhat concerned about this.\nHere is the answer of the white woman who served on the jury about capital punishment.\nCould you put Miller-El to death?\nMrs. Mazza: It's difficult.\nI've had 2 days to think about it, and given my religious upbringing, et cetera, going on for a few sentences, I think I could.\nShe serves on the jury.\nOkay?\nHere's Mr. Fields who is black and whom they got off.\nWhat I think, according to the Old Testament, people were killed if they violated His law.\nIn its extended service, the State represents Him.\nI feel the State is God's extended person.\nIn other words, the State represents God in today's time.\nTherefore, if the State exacts death, that's what it should be.\nThat's the man they feel has the qualm, and the woman I told you who was white they feel has no qualm.\nNow, I look at that, and I say, you know, I mean, my goodness, it's pretty hard to see how you get yourself in that frame of mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2622.048, 2624.454, 2632.134, 2638.502, 2640.182, 2642.502, 2650.124, 2675.873, 2652.337, 2657.03, 2663.308, 2666.513, 2669.217, 2672.513, 2677.26, 2684.188], "stop_times": [2624.454, 2632.134, 2638.502, 2640.182, 2642.502, 2650.124, 2675.873, 2652.337, 2657.03, 2663.308, 2666.513, 2669.217, 2672.513, 2677.26, 2684.188, 2691.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2622.048}, "reply_to": "21584__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21584__1_088", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Your Honor, the... that was not the prosecutor's argument at trial and it's... it is not our position now that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2691.932], "stop_times": [2697.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2691.932}, "reply_to": "21584__1_087", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_089", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "No.\nI know.\nThey then said that oh, you see, Mr. Fields was... is it a woman or a man?\nI'm not sure.\nYes, he's a man I think.\nHe... he's kept off, the black man, because of his views on rehabilitation.\nSo I looked up what those views were, and that consists of his saying... my... my interpretation... well, I think any person, if he really believes in God, really believes in God, could be rehabilitated.\nAt which point the prosecutor says to him, well, suppose you came to the conclusion that Miller-El really was touched by God, could you put him to death?\nAnswer: Yes.\nWhy?\nBecause, well, it seems to me my job here is to follow the law.\nThat's the man whom they think they are... they are kicking off because of his views of possibly not applying the death penalty, and the other woman, who is white, they keep on.\nNow, I think that's the whole story there.\nThere was also the brother who was a drug... who was the drug... you know, he had had drug convictions, but that's scarcely mentioned.\nSo... so I look at those two people and I think, gee, put that in context.\nMy goodness.\nWhat... what's your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2697.9, 2698.076, 2698.258, 2703.346, 2704.141, 2705.224, 2709.021, 2723.448, 2731.315, 2732.185, 2733.993, 2738.947, 2750.686, 2752.249, 2759.134, 2763.838, 2764.846], "stop_times": [2698.076, 2698.258, 2703.346, 2704.141, 2705.224, 2709.021, 2723.448, 2731.315, 2732.185, 2733.993, 2738.947, 2750.686, 2752.249, 2759.134, 2763.838, 2764.846, 2767.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2697.9}, "reply_to": "21584__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21584__1_090", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Your Honor, as to Juror Billy Jean Fields, he did not express qualms about the death penalty in general, but he did state that it was his belief that no one... no one... no matter their background or what they've done, is beyond rehabilitation.\nEveryone can be rehabilitated.\nAnd this was a view regarding rehabilitation that no one, white or black, had expressed.\nIt was a unique view, and in this case where jurors are asked to... to... the question, is this person going to be a continuing threat to society, is... is something that's going to go into their punishment inquiry.\nAnd if this person is one who the prosecutor believed could tend... if there's a repentant criminal defendant on the stand who testifies, that they would tend to believe that person and answer the question no.\nAnd... and again, this was not the only basis for the State's strike as well.\nThe fact that his brother had been prosecuted in Dallas County numerous times, the same prosecuting authority, contemporaneous with the trial, numerous occasions, had served time, and contrary to Miller-El's assertions, the State did question Mr. Fields on this issue during voir dire, and it was a basis for the strike.\nThere--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2767.513, 2783.001, 2786.281, 2791.945, 2808.959, 2821.087, 2827.391, 2852.026], "stop_times": [2783.001, 2786.281, 2791.945, 2808.959, 2821.087, 2827.391, 2852.026, 2853.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2767.513}, "reply_to": "21584__1_089", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_091", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Ms. Bunn, before you finish, there... there are two pieces of this I hope you can give me an answer to.\nThe race-coding.\nIs there any neutral reason for that?\nAnd when was that stopped, if it was?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2853.392, 2859.477, 2861.05, 2865.744], "stop_times": [2859.477, 2861.05, 2865.744, 2869.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.392}, "reply_to": "21584__1_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21584__1_092", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--I... I don't... I don't have any information.\nThere's no information on... in the record about exercising it in other cases, and I just... I just don't know.\nBut the first part of the question, there could... as Mr. Waxman mentioned, there... there were other visual cues noted on the cards.\nAttorneys, especially--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2869.301, 2872.208, 2878.085, 2886.651], "stop_times": [2872.208, 2878.085, 2886.651, 2889.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2869.301}, "reply_to": "21584__1_091", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_093", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Is it not a fair inference that each of the cues noted on the cards was something that the prosecutors thought relevant to whether or not to challenge the juror?\nAnd if so, is it not... does... is that not uncontradicted evidence that the race of the venire person was a factor in the decision?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2889.083, 2897.92], "stop_times": [2897.92, 2909.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2889.083}, "reply_to": "21584__1_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_094", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Not necessarily.\nI mean, there were other... there was other--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2909.12, 2911.221], "stop_times": [2911.221, 2913.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2909.12}, "reply_to": "21584__1_093", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_095", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Well, why else would it be noted?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2913.153], "stop_times": [2913.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2913.153}, "reply_to": "21584__1_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_096", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--There was... just to familiarize an attorney getting ready for voir dire of an extensive number of people--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2913.723], "stop_times": [2918.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2913.723}, "reply_to": "21584__1_095", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_097", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Is... is there any--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2918.945], "stop_times": [2919.516], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2918.945}, "reply_to": "21584__1_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__1_098", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Maybe the prosecutors didn't want to come up with an all-white jury for fear it would be challenged.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2919.516], "stop_times": [2924.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2919.516}, "reply_to": "21584__1_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__1_099", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--That's certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2924.263], "stop_times": [2925.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2924.263}, "reply_to": "21584__1_098", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_100", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "That may be, but is it not... is it not clear that this is one of the factors that was used to decide whether or not to exercise a challenge, just as the beard and the other things that are mentioned in the... in the manual were?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2925.81], "stop_times": [2939.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.81}, "reply_to": "21584__1_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_101", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nThe fact that it was noted on the race... on the... on the juror card does... does not necessarily indicate that.\nAgain, it could be a cue for a... a litigant preparing for voir dire.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2939.149, 2940.669, 2947.618], "stop_times": [2940.669, 2947.618, 2952.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2939.149}, "reply_to": "21584__1_100", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_102", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Well, were the... were the cues on the card similar to the instructions in the manual?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2952.53], "stop_times": [2958.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2952.53}, "reply_to": "21584__1_101", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__1_103", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "There were some that could... that would correlate, but there were others that aren't noted on the juror cards--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2958.562], "stop_times": [2964.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2958.562}, "reply_to": "21584__1_102", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_104", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Can you quantify the correlation or lack of correlation for me?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2964.526], "stop_times": [2967.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.526}, "reply_to": "21584__1_103", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__1_105", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--The... for instance, occupations were... or addresses... perhaps not occupations, but I know addresses were... were noted.\nThere could have been other things at that point that were not noted.\nThere was a lot... information available at that point, whether visual or from the juror information cards.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2967.15, 2975.88, 2981.112], "stop_times": [2975.88, 2981.112, 2985.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2967.15}, "reply_to": "21584__1_104", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_106", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "I had asked you if they were still race and gender-coded.\nYou hadn't gotten to that part of the question.\nThese cards were race-coded and for other things too.\nRight now in the State, do the prosecutors code cards... cards for race and gender?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [2985.364, 2988.841, 2993.118, 2998.606], "stop_times": [2988.841, 2993.118, 2998.606, 3007.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2985.364}, "reply_to": "21584__1_105", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21584__1_107", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "I do not know.\nI do not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3007.374, 3009.166], "stop_times": [3009.166, 3010.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3007.374}, "reply_to": "21584__1_106", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_108", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "The other question I had, are these two prosecutors the same ones who were involved in other cases where it was determined that they had used tactics that violated Batson?\nWere those cases contemporaneous with Miller-El's or were they earlier in time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3010.772, 3026.057], "stop_times": [3026.057, 3035.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3010.772}, "reply_to": "21584__1_107", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21584__1_109", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--The record indicates that Prosecutor Macaluso was involved in jury selection in the Chambers case, and that case was tried months... I believe it was late 1985 when Chambers was tried.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3035.23], "stop_times": [3050.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3035.23}, "reply_to": "21584__1_108", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_110", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Wasn't that 2 months?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3050.377], "stop_times": [3051.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3050.377}, "reply_to": "21584__1_109", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21584__1_111", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "2 months?\nThis was March, so it would have been probably 4 or 5 months, within a year certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3051.204, 3053.481], "stop_times": [3053.481, 3060.921], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3051.204}, "reply_to": "21584__1_110", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_112", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Is it... is it unlawful to take sex into account in jury selection?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3060.921], "stop_times": [3065.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3060.921}, "reply_to": "21584__1_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21584__1_113", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Yes.\nYes, Your Honor, it is.\nThat's certainly not alleged in this case.\nThe jury actually consisted of seven women.\nBut again, to... the... the race-coding issue... as far as whether it's exercised now, I mean, I wouldn't be particularly surprised if it were.\nA conscientious litigant... it's really necessary to keep track of the race of prospective jurors, as Justice Scalia noted, to be certain that you don't run afoul of Batson.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3065.113, 3065.988, 3067.758, 3070.974, 3075.049, 3086.334, 3101.742], "stop_times": [3065.988, 3067.758, 3070.974, 3075.049, 3086.334, 3101.742, 3102.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3065.113}, "reply_to": "21584__1_112", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_114", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Is... is that true with respect to weight and mustaches and things like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3102.729], "stop_times": [3107.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3102.729}, "reply_to": "21584__1_113", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21584__1_115", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--That... that doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3107.316], "stop_times": [3110.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3107.316}, "reply_to": "21584__1_114", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_116", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "They were... they were making notations of things like that, as I understand it, and they didn't have to worry about Batson there.\nBut there does seem to be a correlation with the manual.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3110.17, 3115.38], "stop_times": [3115.38, 3118.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3110.17}, "reply_to": "21584__1_115", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21584__1_117", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "And Batson hadn't been decided yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3118.271], "stop_times": [3120.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3118.271}, "reply_to": "21584__1_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__1_118", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Yes, that's true.\nI was referring to Justice Ginsburg's question about the... the practice, whether it continues.\nBut again, regarding its use in this case, I would... I would say that it... it's not... does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it was noted basically to treat African American venire members differently because the record actually--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3120.532, 3121.647, 3126.362], "stop_times": [3121.647, 3126.362, 3146.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3120.532}, "reply_to": "21584__1_117", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_119", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "But I... I don't... I mean, I'd just like to go back to my question.\nI don't know why else?\nIt's true if... if all they noted, if they had been prescient and had said, you know, Swain is going to give way to Batson and we're going to note Batson issues, you'd have an argument.\nBut they were noting a lot of non-Batson issues too, and the one common characteristic of the Batson issues and the non-Batson issues were they were all correlated to a manual that says keep these people off the jury.\nAnd... and isn't that a sound train of reasoning that that's what they were trying to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3146.122, 3147.781, 3149.227, 3160.821, 3175.824], "stop_times": [3147.781, 3149.227, 3160.821, 3175.824, 3183.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3146.122}, "reply_to": "21584__1_118", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21584__1_120", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "--Your Honor, the... the notations, though, correlate as well to simply visual cues that a litigant will use just simply to familiarize himself with the manual.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3183.088], "stop_times": [3193.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3183.088}, "reply_to": "21584__1_119", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_121", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "The manual had said there are certain visual cues that indicate jurors you don't want on the jury.\nYou don't want black jurors.\nYou don't want women jurors.\nYou don't want Jewish jurors.\nYou don't want fat ones.\nYou don't want bearded ones.\nAnd these are the things that they were noting.\nIsn't the reasonable inference that that's what they were noting them for?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3193.936, 3198.171, 3199.76, 3201.152, 3202.715, 3203.952, 3205.387, 3207.323], "stop_times": [3198.171, 3199.76, 3201.152, 3202.715, 3203.952, 3205.387, 3207.323, 3211.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3193.936}, "reply_to": "21584__1_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21584__1_122", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Your Honor, there are other explainable reasons, there are other plausible reasons for noting those things.\nBut even that aside, again, we must look at these six jurors and they all expressed views unfavorable to the State.\nAnd Miller-El has failed to identify a similarly situated white juror.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3211.638, 3219.846, 3229.238], "stop_times": [3219.846, 3229.238, 3233.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3211.638}, "reply_to": "21584__1_121", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_123", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "What about the Fifth Circuit said that comparing Rand's testimony... that that was in line with Mazza's.\nThe Fifth Circuit seems to recognize that those two were closely comparable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3233.675, 3242.182], "stop_times": [3242.182, 3249.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3233.675}, "reply_to": "21584__1_122", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21584__1_124", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, they recognized, as Justice Scalia had in his concurring opinion, that that was basically as close as it got.\nBut at most, Mazza acknowledged that the decision whether to impose a death sentence would be difficult, not an easy one, kind of hard, but she simultaneously stated that it was a decision that she believed that she could make.\nShe never questioned her ability to assess a death sentence in an appropriate case.\nShe merely acknowledged that it was a decision that she would not take lightly.\nShe also had served on another criminal jury in the last couple of years, a jury which had returned a guilty verdict.\nIn contrast, Rand explicitly questioned his ability to assess a death sentence in any case.\nWhen asked whether he could impose the death penalty, he told prosecutors right now I say I can, but tomorrow I might not.\nHe declined to describe himself as someone who believes in the death penalty and can serve as a jury... juror and assess the death penalty if warranted, stating that he was probably in between the first two categories described by the prosecutor.\nNotably, Mr. Waxman referred to the prosecutors' notes on the questionnaires.\nWhat he didn't mention was also noted on the... by the State at... at the joint lodging, page 30, is that Juror Rand had referred to the death penalty as a touchy subject and that he had described himself as a person falling somewhere in between the two categories described by the prosecutor, the first being someone who believes in the death penalty and can assess it, the second being someone who believes in the death penalty generally but cannot personally assess it as a juror.\nSo the State did take note of the... of the expressions of ambivalence by Rand during his voir dire.\nJuror Mazza, again, never expressed this level of ambivalence.\nThese are not similarly situated jurors.\nAnd the same is true of Miller-El's attempted comparison of Rand and... and Juror Sandra Hearn.\nShe expressed hesitance on assessing the death penalty in a very particular circumstance, the... a first offense, and certainly this is not the case here.\nOn the other hand, Rand had questioned his ability to assess a death penalty in any case and, against Hearn's State-friendly views, led to a defense challenge that was overruled.\nAnd the fact that the defense vehemently objected to her on direct appeal is further evidence that she's not similarly situated.\nUnder Batson, Miller-El has the ultimate burden of proving purposeful discrimination.\nHe has failed to satisfy that burden, and the State trial judge found that prosecutors in this case did not act with a discriminatory purpose.\nAs this Court acknowledged in its earlier opinion, Miller-El is not entitled to habeas relief unless he can... he can show that the State court's rejection of his Batson claim was objectively unreasonable.\nHe must produce clear and convincing evidence and he has failed to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3249.104, 3256.864, 3271.094, 3275.632, 3279.392, 3286.283, 3292.603, 3300.336, 3313.776, 3318.715, 3347.595, 3354.896, 3359.36, 3361.782, 3366.886, 3376.267, 3389.163, 3398.886, 3404.32, 3412.512, 3424.059], "stop_times": [3256.864, 3271.094, 3275.632, 3279.392, 3286.283, 3292.603, 3300.336, 3313.776, 3318.715, 3347.595, 3354.896, 3359.36, 3361.782, 3366.886, 3376.267, 3389.163, 3398.886, 3404.32, 3412.512, 3424.059, 3428.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3249.104}, "reply_to": "21584__1_123", "speaker": "gena_a_bunn"}
{"id": "21584__1_125", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "Thank you, Ms.... Ms. Bunn.\nMr. Waxman, you have about 3 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3428.059, 3430.624], "stop_times": [3430.624, 3435.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3428.059}, "reply_to": "21584__1_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21584__2_000", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "I have just three points.\nThe Fifth Circuit had precisely the same record before it that this Court had and the State submitted very nearly precisely the same brief that it presented to the Fifth Circuit the time before.\nDisparate questioning on the minimum punishment ploy was objected to by the defense during the voir dire and it was acknowledged.\nIf you look at the Batson argument, it's either Mr. Macaluso or Mr. Nelson said some of the jurors were questioned disparately, but... and they gave the explanation that it had to do with views on the death penalty.\nSo it was before the State courts.\nNow, on the graphic script, which is the disparate questioning that Ms. Bunn has focused the Court's attention on, the State now says, okay, we can't speculate about what we don't know about the questionnaires.\nLet's just look at the questionnaires that we do know about.\nJustice Stevens, it is... you are quite right that that tells you nothing about the dozens of other white jurors whose questionnaires we don't have, but we don't need to indulge in that speculation in this case because what we know from the questionnaire answers that we have is that every black who expressed anything that could be called hesitation on their juror questionnaire, including just not filling in either question... answering question 56 or 58, got it.\nFive whites who expressed hesitation did not.\nThat is Juror Mazza, Juror Hearn, Juror Duke, Ms. Girard, who testified that she didn't... who acknowledged in her voir dire that she hadn't filled out one of those questions which got similarly situated African American jurors the graphic script, and Juror Whaley who... or Venireman Whaley who testified that her questionnaire expressed great hesitation about the death penalty.\nAnd what we also know is that the three jurors who got the graphic script, Troy Woods, the black juror; Mr. Gutierrez, the Hispanic juror; and Marie Sztybel, the only Jewish juror.\nIf the Court has no further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3435.851, 3436.934, 3451.568, 3460.736, 3472.171, 3474.283, 3487.344, 3490.971, 3522.278, 3528.112, 3554.32, 3571.03], "stop_times": [3436.934, 3451.568, 3460.736, 3472.171, 3474.283, 3487.344, 3490.971, 3522.278, 3528.112, 3554.32, 3571.03, 3574.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3435.851}, "reply_to": "21584__1_125", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21584__2_001", "conversation_id": "21584", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9659", "start_times": [3574.982], "stop_times": [3577.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3574.982}, "reply_to": "21584__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__0_000", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "We'll now hear argument in the case of Muehler against Mena.\nMr. Phillips.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [0.0, 15.0], "stop_times": [15.0, 16.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__0_001", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nAt issue in this case is the safety of police officers when they attempt to execute a search warrant in an inherently unsafe situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [16.387, 19.423], "stop_times": [19.423, 28.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 16.387}, "reply_to": "22453__0_000", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_002", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "May I ask one preliminary question, Mr. Phillips?\nDo we have before us here any question at all about qualified immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [28.695, 32.064], "stop_times": [32.064, 37.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 28.695}, "reply_to": "22453__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22453__0_003", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, we do believe that a qualified immunity issue is bound up with the underlying merits.\nIt was addressed that way by the Ninth Circuit because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [37.401, 42.789], "stop_times": [42.789, 45.155], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 37.401}, "reply_to": "22453__0_002", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_004", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "But it wasn't... it wasn't in the questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [45.155], "stop_times": [47.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 45.155}, "reply_to": "22453__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22453__0_005", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--This Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [47.572], "stop_times": [49.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 47.572}, "reply_to": "22453__0_004", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_006", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--on which we granted cert?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [49.025], "stop_times": [50.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 49.025}, "reply_to": "22453__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22453__0_007", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--This Court in Procunier treated the qualified immunity issue as part and parcel of the underlying merits of the case and... and, in fact, skipped over the question of what 1983 meant in order to address the qualified immunity issue.\nAnd presumably--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [50.425, 65.802], "stop_times": [65.802, 66.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 50.425}, "reply_to": "22453__0_006", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_008", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "How... how--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [66.404], "stop_times": [66.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 66.404}, "reply_to": "22453__0_007", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22453__0_009", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--the Court could do the same thing here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [66.904], "stop_times": [68.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 66.904}, "reply_to": "22453__0_008", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_010", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--How do we do it?\nIt goes right to the heart of this from you, the qualified immunity thing, for the reason that if you look at the facts and circumstances, it sounds to me like a somewhat close question as to whether the police did or did not exceed the reasonable bounds... reasonable bounds.\nNow, if it's a close question, you have a jury verdict against you, and... and then I think, well, yes, but I begin to come... become disturbed if I think of qualified immunity.\nI mean, it isn't that clear.\nSo... so having read through the thing, I... I preliminarily start by thinking, well, it could have been excessive force, I mean, given... you know, I'm using that in quotes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [68.07, 69.189, 86.817, 97.773, 99.558], "stop_times": [69.189, 86.817, 97.773, 99.558, 110.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 68.07}, "reply_to": "22453__0_009", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22453__0_011", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [110.164], "stop_times": [110.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 110.164}, "reply_to": "22453__0_010", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_012", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "The jury said it was.\nWho am I to say it wasn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [110.599, 112.916], "stop_times": [112.916, 114.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 110.599}, "reply_to": "22453__0_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22453__0_013", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, I mean, this... this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [114.635], "stop_times": [115.785], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 114.635}, "reply_to": "22453__0_012", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_014", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--in that situation?\nBut qualified immunity.\nSo now, what do I do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [115.785, 116.168, 117.253], "stop_times": [116.168, 117.253, 118.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 115.785}, "reply_to": "22453__0_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22453__0_015", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Well, in the first instance, it's reasonably clear to me that you're not bound by the jury's determination here.\nThis Court has already--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [118.303, 122.924], "stop_times": [122.924, 123.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 118.303}, "reply_to": "22453__0_014", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_016", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "We... don't we have to give any weight at all to the jury finding there or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [123.974], "stop_times": [128.644], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 123.974}, "reply_to": "22453__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22453__0_017", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--With respect to the historical facts of the case, who did what to whom, of course, you have... that... that's subject to clearly erroneous review.\nOn the issue of whether or not the conduct at issue here is reasonable, that's an issue of law or at least a mixed issue of fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [128.644, 134.214], "stop_times": [134.214, 140.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 128.644}, "reply_to": "22453__0_016", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_018", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, a lot of it may depend on the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [140.368], "stop_times": [142.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 140.368}, "reply_to": "22453__0_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22453__0_019", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--and law that this Court has decided as de novo.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [142.134], "stop_times": [142.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 142.134}, "reply_to": "22453__0_018", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_020", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--on the music as to handcuffing and what did they say and what was the atmosphere and what was the garage really like and how risky was it that there be gang members in the outhouses and... and all kinds of stuff that you might sense from the testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [142.718], "stop_times": [159.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 142.718}, "reply_to": "22453__0_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22453__0_021", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "It... it seems to me that... Justice Breyer, that the answer to all of those questions go to the core of what it means to exercise unquestioned command of the situation, which is a pure legal standard that this Court adopted a quarter of a century ago in Michigan v. Summers.\nAnd that's a question of law.\nTo be sure, there are lots of elements of it, but what my position would be... and obviously the officers' position in this case... is that in exercising unquestioned command, you can accept all of the facts as you've just described them and none of that is excessive because it doesn't expose anyone to anything other than what is necessary in order to achieve complete control under the circumstances in order to ensure the protection of the individual officers and... and candidly of the other individuals who were being... being detained, all four of them, under these circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [159.58, 173.089, 174.889], "stop_times": [173.089, 174.889, 204.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 159.58}, "reply_to": "22453__0_020", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_022", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Have you responded to my initial question?\nHave you said all you want to say about qualified immunity?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [204.708, 205.893], "stop_times": [205.893, 208.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 204.708}, "reply_to": "22453__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22453__0_023", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "No, Justice O'Connor.\nMy... my basic answer to that is that this Court already addressed that issue in Procunier.\nIt considered that the qualified immunity issue was part and parcel of the issue, even though it hadn't been presented in the question presented, and indeed, I think in this case it's actually a... a stronger argument that qualified immunity is in this case because that is the way that the Ninth Circuit specifically addressed the issue.\nIt looked at under Saucier.\nIt evaluated whether or not qualified immunity was appropriate and... and did the two-part test, the first part being whether it was a constitutional violation and the second part whether or not it was reasonable under these particular circumstances.\nSo if I... if I cannot persuade you that this is constitutional, which obviously I... I hope I can do, it seems to me absolutely unquestioned that there... that what the officers did here under these circumstances were perfectly reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [208.695, 210.378, 214.582, 231.526, 233.128, 244.435], "stop_times": [210.378, 214.582, 231.526, 233.128, 244.435, 256.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 208.695}, "reply_to": "22453__0_022", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_024", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, what is the... what is the function of a jury in this case?\nWhat does the jury verdict stand for? And the jury doesn't return a special verdict and says we find X, Y, and Z.\nIt finds whether the police exercised excessive force, and that's all we know from the jury verdict.\nOther... I think what you're saying is that these cases should go off on summary judgment or even a demurrer.\nYou assume all the facts as the plaintiff alleges them and then the Court decides whether that adds up to unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [256.493, 259.778, 262.147, 276.323, 284.577], "stop_times": [259.778, 262.147, 276.323, 284.577, 295.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 256.493}, "reply_to": "22453__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__0_025", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I... I'm not saying that that would be true in all cases.\nI do think in this particular case you did not need to have a jury verdict.\nWe would have been prepared to stipulate to the facts as they were found ultimately and... and giving the benefit of all of the inferences to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [295.718, 297.836, 301.122], "stop_times": [297.836, 301.122, 308.526], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 295.718}, "reply_to": "22453__0_024", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_026", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, we don't know the fact... what facts were found because all we have is in the jury verdict that this was excessive force.\nPeriod.\nThat's all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [308.526, 314.948, 315.565], "stop_times": [314.948, 315.565, 316.182], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 308.526}, "reply_to": "22453__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__0_027", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--But that's just a conclusion of law, Justice Ginsburg.\nSo the... the facts that you know are the facts as they're described--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [316.182, 318.75], "stop_times": [318.75, 322.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 316.182}, "reply_to": "22453__0_026", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_028", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "But it's like was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [322.019], "stop_times": [322.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 322.019}, "reply_to": "22453__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__0_029", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--by the respondent's brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [322.736], "stop_times": [323.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 322.736}, "reply_to": "22453__0_028", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_030", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--the defendant negligent.\nIs that more or less a conclusion of law?\nWe don't know in what respect from the jury verdict.\nAnd here, were these police officers acting... did they use excessive force.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [323.302, 324.003, 327.189, 330.457], "stop_times": [324.003, 327.189, 330.457, 339.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 323.302}, "reply_to": "22453__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__0_031", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, we know precisely what they did.\nThey kept her in handcuffs throughout the duration of the... of the search.\nWe know that.\nThere's no... there are no additional claims as to having mistreated her physically.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [339.913, 342.365, 347.419, 348.303], "stop_times": [342.365, 347.419, 348.303, 351.721], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 339.913}, "reply_to": "22453__0_030", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_032", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Wasn't there a fact issue as to whether she was handcuffed for... even for a short period after the search had been completed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [351.721], "stop_times": [356.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 351.721}, "reply_to": "22453__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__0_033", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I don't think there is a factual question like that because I don't think that question was presented to the jury, and it was certainly not the basis on which the Ninth Circuit affirmed the jury's verdict in this case.\nThere... there was never an argument made to the jury that this... that this extended beyond the... the period of the end of the search.\nThe argument that was made to the jury was that the search should have... should have been limited to the room where the suspect was... was a resident or that the police should have made a decision somewhere in the... before the end of the 2-hour search that she was no longer a threat to them.\nAnd then they were arguing that... that it even went a little further in terms of the timing of it.\nBut they never asked the jury to find that that 15 minutes was the basis for a Fourth Amendment violation in its own right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [356.859, 366.547, 374.486, 391.096, 395.417], "stop_times": [366.547, 374.486, 391.096, 395.417, 401.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 356.859}, "reply_to": "22453__0_032", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_034", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "But if... but if it made a difference as a matter of law, what... what should we assume about that extra 15 minutes?\nDo we assume that they found the facts in the way that the... a plaintiff argues them or that you think they are?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [401.554, 407.391], "stop_times": [407.391, 414.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 401.554}, "reply_to": "22453__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__0_035", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I think if the jury had been asked to make that finding, that you... and... and the jury determined that there... that it was unreasonable, then I think you'd have to conclude that the 15 minutes were, in fact... that it did, in fact, go beyond 15 minutes.\nI do think there is still a legal issue as to whether that's de minimis under the circumstances.\nBut... but I agree.\nI mean, obviously there is a role for the jury's findings, and you have to give them a certain amount of respect.\nBut on the core questions of reasonableness and suspicion and whether or not the police exercised unquestioned command and what those terms mean, this Court has already decided that in the Fourth Amendment context it has to decide those issues as a matter of law to regulate the conduct of all police officers and not simply do it on the basis of whatever a particular jury would say in a particular circumstance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [414.378, 424.669, 429.388, 430.907, 435.442], "stop_times": [424.669, 429.388, 430.907, 435.442, 457.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.378}, "reply_to": "22453__0_034", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_036", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Now, in doing it as a matter of law here, should we give consideration to the fact that in this case, if... if I remember correctly, one of the officers testified that had they followed normal protocol, once they had, I think his phrase was, secured the building, the... the main building--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [457.824], "stop_times": [476.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 457.824}, "reply_to": "22453__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22453__0_037", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, the... all of the grounds actually.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [476.888], "stop_times": [478.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 476.888}, "reply_to": "22453__0_036", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_038", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Is that the whole compound?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [478.671], "stop_times": [480.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 478.671}, "reply_to": "22453__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22453__0_039", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [480.09], "stop_times": [480.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 480.09}, "reply_to": "22453__0_038", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_040", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "That... that they would have... they would have taken off the immediate restraints, and he wasn't sure why they didn't.\nWe... do we... do we consider that when we're crafting our statement of law as... as to what is or is not excessive?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [480.54, 487.009], "stop_times": [487.009, 495.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 480.54}, "reply_to": "22453__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22453__0_041", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I think if this Court could determine that, as a matter of course, the... the standard operating procedures in a particular way, that might certainly inform the Court's Fourth Amendment analysis.\nThat... I think what's important to keep in mind in this context, though, Justice Souter, is we're talking about four individuals who are being detained under these circumstances, and each of them poses a distinct issue for the police officers under the... under... when trying to decide how best to proceed.\nOne of them had been found with marijuana in his possession.\nOne of them had been determined to be an illegal alien, and the other two were individuals about whom the police knew virtually nothing.\nSo, you know, is it possible that police procedure, generally speaking, when you're talking about a single occupant of the residence, oftentimes concludes that he can take away... you can remove the handcuffs?\nThat may be, although I don't think there's much in the record here to... to reflect that.\nBut what the police said here... and I think it's extraordinarily important.\nOfficer Muehler testified that if something had gone wrong, if either a police officer had been injured or one of the occupants of that house had been shot or otherwise harmed as a... in the context of executing the search warrant, the first question that would have been asked is what was the least that could have been done to prevent those injuries from occurring.\nAnd he said to himself and he said it quite rightly... and it's a rule this Court ought to embrace under the unquestioned command theory of... of law... is that if we keep them in handcuffs through the duration of a reasonable search, we will make our way through the search much more rapidly, much more efficiently in order to minimize the detention and we will eliminate... and I mean, literally eliminate... the entirety of the risk either to the individuals themselves, the occupants, the detainees, or to the police under these circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [495.432, 506.138, 521.333, 524.119, 530.872, 541.144, 544.43, 547.465, 566.879], "stop_times": [506.138, 521.333, 524.119, 530.872, 541.144, 544.43, 547.465, 566.879, 596.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 495.432}, "reply_to": "22453__0_040", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_042", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Okay.\nI take it you obviously don't want us to... to come down with a kind of a finicky version of... of excessive force as the touchstone, and I take it you don't want us to come down with simply a blanket rule saying that essentially the police can do anything in... in restraining occupants so long as it is not wantonly cruel.\nSomewhere in between.\nDo you have a... a statement that would be the kernel of the holding that you want?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [596.631, 597.015, 617.311, 618.83], "stop_times": [597.015, 617.311, 618.83, 624.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 596.631}, "reply_to": "22453__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22453__0_043", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I'm... I'm quite comfortable with the way the Court analyzed it in Michigan v. Summers, that the officer is not required to evaluate the extent of the intrusion to be imposed by the seizure.\nThat is, you... you have a categorical rule that allows you, in the ordinary course, to do whatever is reasonably necessary in order to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [624.834, 635.023], "stop_times": [635.023, 641.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 624.834}, "reply_to": "22453__0_042", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_044", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "But in the facts there, there were no handcuffs.\nHe... he was just detained.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [641.677, 644.696, 646.648], "stop_times": [644.696, 646.648, 647.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 641.677}, "reply_to": "22453__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__0_045", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--I understand that, and... but my... my position is that handcuffs don't materially affect the detention under these circumstances other than to assure what the Court said, which is unquestioned command of the situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [647.931], "stop_times": [660.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 647.931}, "reply_to": "22453__0_044", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_046", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "So... I mean, I don't... would... would you say handcuffs are per se lawful for... for purposes of applying Summers?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [660.407], "stop_times": [668.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 660.407}, "reply_to": "22453__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22453__0_047", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Yes, but it's important to put that in context because Summers is a narrow exception to the... not an exception.\nIt's a narrow circumstance under the Fourth Amendment.\nYou have to have a search warrant.\nIt has to be a validly issued search warrant so that we know that there has either been a crime that's likely to be taking place in the premises.\nIt only... it only extends to the residents, occupants of the house, and it's only when the search is for contraband, not just for any evidence.\nSo, for instance, when the police go the 60th time to Michael Jackson's estate to go try to find evidence of whatever is going on there, I don't think it's reasonable to go in and handcuff Michael Jackson and anybody else who happens to be on site.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [668.061, 674.667, 677.619, 679.085, 685.572, 694.095], "stop_times": [674.667, 677.619, 679.085, 685.572, 694.095, 705.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 668.061}, "reply_to": "22453__0_046", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_048", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, it doesn't... why is contraband magical?\nWouldn't... wouldn't your point be when... when the reason they're investigating gives cause to believe that there may be physical danger--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [705.383, 708.854], "stop_times": [708.854, 718.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 705.383}, "reply_to": "22453__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22453__0_049", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [718.21], "stop_times": [719.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 718.21}, "reply_to": "22453__0_048", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_050", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--from letting people wander around?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [719.976], "stop_times": [721.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.976}, "reply_to": "22453__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22453__0_051", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [721.245], "stop_times": [721.678], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 721.245}, "reply_to": "22453__0_050", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_052", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Which is the case with contraband, but would be the case for many other reasons as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [721.678], "stop_times": [725.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 721.678}, "reply_to": "22453__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22453__0_053", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I think the important point here is that we're talking about guns.\nThese are gangs.\nThese are guns.\nThis is a circumstance that is inherently more dangerous than any other circumstance the police are likely to confront.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [725.297, 727.713, 728.582, 729.482], "stop_times": [727.713, 728.582, 729.482, 735.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 725.297}, "reply_to": "22453__0_052", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_054", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "But would you be happy then with a holding that says just what you said?\nWe reaffirm Summers and... but Summers said special circumstances or possibly a prolonged detention might lead to a different conclusion in an unusual case.\nAnd the only verdict part that I think we're concerned with here... it was not about four people.\nIt was one person, Iris Mena, and in respect to Iris Mena, the jury found that there was a violation of her... of her Fourth Amendment rights.\nAnd as to her, you could have found... you said... I don't know if you misspoke.\nYou said it could be more than 15 minutes.\nIn looking at it, I was certain whether they kept her for 15 minutes more or more than 15 minutes more, maybe up to an hour or more beyond the time that the search ended and kept her in handcuffs, both after the time they had secured the place and also after the time the search ended.\nWell, that would seem a basis for the jury's verdict and consistent with Summers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [735.569, 739.038, 749.328, 754.214, 765.688, 770.492, 772.209, 793.005], "stop_times": [739.038, 749.328, 754.214, 765.688, 770.492, 772.209, 793.005, 797.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.569}, "reply_to": "22453__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22453__0_055", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, it... it could have been a basis for the jury's verdict if they had, in fact, put the issue of whether or not they were detained--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [797.993], "stop_times": [804.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.993}, "reply_to": "22453__0_054", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_056", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "But, Mr.... Mr.... but may I point out that the judge's instructions did put that issue to the jury at page 203.\nA police officer is required to release an individual detained in connection with a lawful search as soon as the officer's right to conduct the search ends or the search itself is concluded, whichever is sooner.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [804.13, 810.384], "stop_times": [810.384, 821.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 804.13}, "reply_to": "22453__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__0_057", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Right.\nThat... I understand that, Justice Stevens, but the point we made in our reply brief is there's not a shred of evidence in this record and it was never argued to the jury that this search... that... that her detention lasted beyond the period of the search in this case.\nIndeed, counsel for the police officers specifically said in his closing argument, there is no issue but that she was released at the time of the... that when... as soon as the search was... was ended, the... the warrant was executed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [821.109, 821.559, 835.434], "stop_times": [821.559, 835.434, 848.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 821.109}, "reply_to": "22453__0_056", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_058", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I wonder why the judge gave this instruction then.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [848.842], "stop_times": [851.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 848.842}, "reply_to": "22453__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__0_059", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Because... because what he's... well, you know, it's a reasonable instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [851.544], "stop_times": [855.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 851.544}, "reply_to": "22453__0_058", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_060", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--And why... why there was... there was a special verdict of sorts, not a detailed one.\nBut the two questions, question 5 and question 6, on page 255 of the joint appendix--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [855.765, 860.65], "stop_times": [860.65, 867.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 855.765}, "reply_to": "22453__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__0_061", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [867.256], "stop_times": [867.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 867.256}, "reply_to": "22453__0_060", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_062", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--One question concerns whether the force was excessive, and the other one is, do you find that she was detained for a longer period than reasonable?\nThose two questions... my first is a procedural question.\nDid counsel for the defendants object to the jury getting... those two questions being submitted to the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [867.89, 883.182, 887.301], "stop_times": [883.182, 887.301, 897.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 867.89}, "reply_to": "22453__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__0_063", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "No, Justice Ginsburg.\nWe didn't.\nAnd... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [897.342, 898.242, 898.859], "stop_times": [898.242, 898.859, 900.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 897.342}, "reply_to": "22453__0_062", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_064", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, it seems to me that the judge is asking the jury in these questions, one is whether there was a... a detention, was force greater than was reasonable under the circumstances, and whether the duration was longer than reasonable under the circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [900.044], "stop_times": [920.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 900.044}, "reply_to": "22453__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__0_065", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Right.\nJustice Ginsburg, you have to put that in context.\nThe argument of the plaintiff in this case was that the detention should have ended at either of two points: after they had completely cleared the area and made it safe, or alternatively, at some point after that when they had asked her questions and determined that she had no particular involvement with Mr. Romero.\nTheir argument was anything after that was unreasonable, and that's what the jury certainly found, was that that was the reasonable break point.\nOur argument is that's not consistent with the notion of unquestioned command and... and is wrong as a matter of law.\nAnd there is no evidence... no evidence.\nThere was no testimony that she was kept for a period beyond the execution of that search warrant.\nIt's very important to understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [920.79, 921.14, 922.957, 938.936, 946.573, 952.243, 954.428, 959.099], "stop_times": [921.14, 922.957, 938.936, 946.573, 952.243, 954.428, 959.099, 960.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 920.79}, "reply_to": "22453__0_064", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_066", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "And you're saying the... the mere fact it... it went to the jury, even went to the jury without your objecting to it, does not mean we have to listen to what the jury said.\nIs that... is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [960.315, 969.121], "stop_times": [969.121, 969.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 960.315}, "reply_to": "22453__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22453__0_067", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Right.\nIf it's wrong as a matter of law, that's... then that's absolutely right.\nBut there was no evidence in this case that they kept going.\nThe only thing he said was, he... he didn't remember.\nThat was... the question was put to the police officer.\nWas she kept beyond there?\nHe said he didn't remember.\nHe wasn't even the police officer who was involved in it.\nThere's not a shred of evidence of that.\nIt's totally made up.\nIt wasn't their theory of the case in front of the jury.\nI'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [969.938, 970.307, 973.509, 977.061, 979.929, 981.729, 982.531, 983.698, 986.067, 987.683, 988.685, 991.486], "stop_times": [970.307, 973.509, 977.061, 979.929, 981.729, 982.531, 983.698, 986.067, 987.683, 988.685, 991.486, 992.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 969.938}, "reply_to": "22453__0_066", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__0_068", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "You might save your time.\nYes.\nMr. Shanmugam.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [992.669, 993.019, 993.602], "stop_times": [993.019, 993.602, 1005.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 992.669}, "reply_to": "22453__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__1_000", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nWhen executing a search warrant to investigate a violent crime, officers may routinely use reasonable restraints on detained occupants in order to exercise unquestioned command over the situation and to facilitate the orderly completion of the search.\nThe Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the officers' use of handcuffs in this case violated the Fourth Amendment.\nUnder the standard for excessive force claims first articulated by this Court in Graham v. Connor, as informed by this Court's decision in Michigan v. Summers, the degree of force used here was not excessive.\nThe same considerations that justified the detention of the occupants in Summers, most notably, the paramount concern of ensuring the safety of the officers and the occupants themselves, will ordinarily justify the precautionary use of handcuffs during the detention.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1005.81, 1007.996, 1021.569, 1026.958, 1038.265], "stop_times": [1007.996, 1021.569, 1026.958, 1038.265, 1052.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1005.81}, "reply_to": "22453__0_068", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_001", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Then this case should not have gone to the jury on the basis of what you said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1052.441], "stop_times": [1056.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1052.441}, "reply_to": "22453__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__1_002", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1056.327], "stop_times": [1057.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1056.327}, "reply_to": "22453__1_001", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_003", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--because you... you just said that this... the handcuffs... the circumstances... the circumstances here were reasonable as a matter of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1057.093], "stop_times": [1066.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1057.093}, "reply_to": "22453__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__1_004", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, that's correct.\nIt is our view that as a matter of law, the officers would have been entitled to prevail on the constitutional issue with regard to excessive force.\nAnd it's worth noting, I think, that the officers did move for summary judgment.\nThey also orally moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the evidence, and that motion was denied.\nNow, we also believe that the jury, quite frankly, was given insufficient guidance on the excessive force issue, and to turn to the jury instruction cited by Justice Stevens at page 203, it's quite clear that the jury only received one very general instruction on Summers detentions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1066.083, 1068.301, 1075.89, 1079.675, 1085.846], "stop_times": [1068.301, 1075.89, 1079.675, 1085.846, 1101.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1066.083}, "reply_to": "22453__1_003", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_005", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well... well, has the... the objection to the instruction been preserved here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1101.439], "stop_times": [1105.493], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1101.439}, "reply_to": "22453__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22453__1_006", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Perhaps an argument could be made that it's fairly included within the questions presented.\nThere was an objection made at trial and an objection made before the Ninth Circuit as well, but our fundamental position is that the jury was simply given insufficient guidance on the excessive force issue.\nThis instruction--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1105.493, 1110.628, 1121.085], "stop_times": [1110.628, 1121.085, 1122.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1105.493}, "reply_to": "22453__1_005", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_007", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "But on the... on the question whether they preserved the issue, I... I took it, implicit in what you said a minute ago, that yes, they did not object to the submission of the question.\nThey did not object, in effect, to an instruction or giving of an instruction as such.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1122.035, 1132.393], "stop_times": [1132.393, 1137.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1122.035}, "reply_to": "22453__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22453__1_008", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1137.762], "stop_times": [1138.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1137.762}, "reply_to": "22453__1_007", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_009", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "But they... they had moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence, and that's enough to preserve the issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1138.797], "stop_times": [1146.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1138.797}, "reply_to": "22453__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22453__1_010", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I think that's true.\nIt is true that they didn't object to the specific special verdict set of questions.\nI think they proposed slightly different language.\nBut ultimately I think our primary submission is that as a matter of law on these facts, no constitutional violation occurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1146.218, 1147.737, 1152.455, 1155.24], "stop_times": [1147.737, 1152.455, 1155.24, 1162.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1146.218}, "reply_to": "22453__1_009", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_011", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "When you... is your objection that the jury wasn't given enough guidance on excessive force, or is it that the... that the ultimate issue of excessive force is not a jury issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1162.346], "stop_times": [1174.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.346}, "reply_to": "22453__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22453__1_012", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "We would concede, I think, Justice Scalia, that the issue should go to the jury where there are disputed issues of historical fact.\nWe would submit that there are no relevant--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1174.82, 1182.326], "stop_times": [1182.326, 1184.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1174.82}, "reply_to": "22453__1_011", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_013", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, but is... is excessive force an issue of historical fact any more than... than unreasonable search or unreasonable seizure is an issue of historical fact?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1184.093], "stop_times": [1194.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1184.093}, "reply_to": "22453__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22453__1_014", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Well, there are certain--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1194.133], "stop_times": [1195.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1194.133}, "reply_to": "22453__1_013", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_015", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I mean, it's an historical fact how long you held the person, whether the person was in handcuffs, but the ultimate question was, you know, is this force excessive.\nIs that any different from the question as... of was this seizure unreasonable?\nIf you submit the one to the jury, you may as well submit the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1195.217, 1202.637, 1207.625], "stop_times": [1202.637, 1207.625, 1210.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1195.217}, "reply_to": "22453__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22453__1_016", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Justice Scalia, those facts may be disputed in a particular case.\nWe would submit that they really weren't disputed here, but there may actually be a dispute where the officers would say, yes, we used handcuffs and the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1210.243, 1213.362], "stop_times": [1213.362, 1219.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1210.243}, "reply_to": "22453__1_015", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_017", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "So when--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1219.166], "stop_times": [1220.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1219.166}, "reply_to": "22453__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22453__1_018", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--or no we didn't use handcuffs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1220.535], "stop_times": [1221.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1220.535}, "reply_to": "22453__1_017", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_019", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--when you know all those facts, you're willing to send it to the jury to say, given all of these facts, it's up to you to decide whether unreasonable force was used or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1221.418], "stop_times": [1229.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1221.418}, "reply_to": "22453__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22453__1_020", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "We believe that it is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1229.289], "stop_times": [1230.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1229.289}, "reply_to": "22453__1_019", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_021", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "It's not a matter of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1230.107], "stop_times": [1230.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1230.107}, "reply_to": "22453__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22453__1_022", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--a mixed question of fact and law, and once the historical facts are established, it is essentially--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1230.924], "stop_times": [1235.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1230.924}, "reply_to": "22453__1_021", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_023", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Why... why any more so... why any... any more so than... than whether it's an unreasonable seizure?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1235.192], "stop_times": [1239.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1235.192}, "reply_to": "22453__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22453__1_024", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Well, we would submit that it is no different from the question whether officers had probable cause or reasonable suspicion on any given set of historical facts which this Court held in Ornelas was a question subject to de novo review, over your dissent, admittedly.\nAnd we believe that the primary rationale for the rule in Ornelas also applies here, namely that officers do need to have a consistent set of substantive guidelines by which they can judge the validity of their conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1239.429, 1253.006], "stop_times": [1253.006, 1264.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1239.429}, "reply_to": "22453__1_023", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_025", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Are... are you saying that the only basis on... on which the jury could have ruled for the homeowner here, the... the respondent, is that she was handcuffed for too long?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1264.278], "stop_times": [1277.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1264.278}, "reply_to": "22453__1_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22453__1_026", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "We believe that that certainly is the primary issue that was at stake.\nAnd in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1277.704, 1280.839], "stop_times": [1280.839, 1281.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1277.704}, "reply_to": "22453__1_025", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_027", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, I think you have to say that.\nOtherwise, we have to uphold the jury verdict, if we can assume that the jury might have thought, well, you know, the handcuffs... the police had a right to do that, but she was held too long, she was... they... they yelled at her, she was taken into a... a place that was uncomfortable, blah, blah, blah.\nIf... if that's true, then we have to sustain the jury verdict.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1281.523, 1282.106, 1297.716], "stop_times": [1282.106, 1297.716, 1302.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1281.523}, "reply_to": "22453__1_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22453__1_028", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--I think that the handcuffing was the key factor at trial, and I think that the best evidence of that, quite frankly, is that respondent in her proposed instructions referred only to handcuffing in her excessive force instruction.\nUnfortunately, that's not part of the joint appendix.\nIt is part of the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1302.068, 1313.475, 1315.16], "stop_times": [1313.475, 1315.16, 1316.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1302.068}, "reply_to": "22453__1_027", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_029", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "No, no.\nBut the instruction that was given... and one was read that's in the briefs... it seems to me a... a perfectly good instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1316.643, 1317.093], "stop_times": [1317.093, 1322.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1316.643}, "reply_to": "22453__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22453__1_030", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I think that that's true, but I think that the instruction didn't really provide any guidance on excessive force specifically.\nIt was really an instruction with regard to the reasonableness of the detention more generally, rather than with regard to excessive force specifically.\nIt was not a Graham v. Connor type instruction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1322.981, 1329.77, 1337.257], "stop_times": [1329.77, 1337.257, 1339.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1322.981}, "reply_to": "22453__1_029", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_031", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, then it seems to me it was the plaintiff's obligation to submit a clarifying instruction and to bring this... the denial of that instruction here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1339.943], "stop_times": [1346.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1339.943}, "reply_to": "22453__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22453__1_032", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, there were objections to the instruction below, and all I can say is that perhaps an argument could be made... and perhaps Mr. Phillips will make the argument on rebuttal... that it is fairly included within the questions presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1346.696], "stop_times": [1356.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1346.696}, "reply_to": "22453__1_031", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_033", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I don't know how you can... you can say that the only thing that was before the jury was the handcuff when the... there was evidence that she was treated very roughly in... in the first instance, she was woken from her sleep, she wasn't told that they were police, she thought they were robbers, and she feared for her life.\nThat doesn't drop out of the case and what the jury was asked to determine.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1356.737, 1378.651], "stop_times": [1378.651, 1383.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1356.737}, "reply_to": "22453__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__1_034", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, it was the primary issue before the jury, and to be sure, there were other issues.\nI think that the other relevant use of force was the initial detention at gunpoint, but... and those... and I would add that those are the two factors on which the Ninth Circuit relied in affirming the jury's verdict.\nOur submission is that both with regard to the initial use of force and with regard to the continued use of force, the justifications of Graham v. Connor support the officers' use of force in both instances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1383.988, 1390.058, 1401.949], "stop_times": [1390.058, 1401.949, 1414.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1383.988}, "reply_to": "22453__1_033", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_035", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "But... but may I just ask a sort of very basic question?\nOne of the instructions reads, a detention may be unreasonable if it... if it is unnecessarily painful, degrading, prolonged, or if it involves an undue invasion of privacy.\nNow, are you telling us that you think the answer to that question is a question of law that the judge should provide rather than the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1414.257, 1417.109, 1427.333], "stop_times": [1417.109, 1427.333, 1434.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1414.257}, "reply_to": "22453__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__1_036", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Assuming that that instruction is correct... and that might very well be a valid instruction--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1434.754], "stop_times": [1439.474], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1434.754}, "reply_to": "22453__1_035", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_037", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, if you think was correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1439.474], "stop_times": [1439.974], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1439.474}, "reply_to": "22453__1_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__1_038", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--It may very well be a correct instruction--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1439.974], "stop_times": [1442.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1439.974}, "reply_to": "22453__1_037", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_039", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1442.176], "stop_times": [1442.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1442.176}, "reply_to": "22453__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__1_040", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--with regard to a challenge to the manner of the detention itself.\nIn that instance, then the jury does have a certain amount of leeway, but I think even then the teaching of Ornelas--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1442.66, 1445.045], "stop_times": [1445.045, 1450.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1442.66}, "reply_to": "22453__1_039", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_041", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Then it's not a question of law.\nThe answer to whether it was unnecessarily painful, degrading, prolonged, or involved undue invasion of privacy, is that a question of law or a question of fact to the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1450.699, 1452.299], "stop_times": [1452.299, 1461.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1450.699}, "reply_to": "22453__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__1_042", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--It is a mixed question of law and fact, and the jury's job is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1461.488], "stop_times": [1463.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1461.488}, "reply_to": "22453__1_041", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_043", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "It's a mixed question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1463.59], "stop_times": [1464.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1463.59}, "reply_to": "22453__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__1_044", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--The jury's job is to... to resolve the underlying factual issues and then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1464.907], "stop_times": [1469.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1464.907}, "reply_to": "22453__1_043", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_045", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, I understand the historical fact, but I'm... I'm questioning you about the conclusions that you draw from the unreasonableness, degrading, and so forth.\nIs that partly to be decided by the jury or entirely by the judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1469.093, 1476.664], "stop_times": [1476.664, 1480.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.093}, "reply_to": "22453__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__1_046", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--We believe that that actually is ultimately a judge issue in the same way that the issue of whether or not probable--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1480.818], "stop_times": [1486.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1480.818}, "reply_to": "22453__1_045", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_047", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "So this instruction should not have been given.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1486.639], "stop_times": [1487.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1486.639}, "reply_to": "22453__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__1_048", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--That's correct--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1487.705], "stop_times": [1488.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1487.705}, "reply_to": "22453__1_047", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_049", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I thought your position was that it... it may be submitted to the jury, but that it may be reviewed as a question of law simply because that's the way we are able to set standards for later cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1488.505], "stop_times": [1501.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1488.505}, "reply_to": "22453__1_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22453__1_050", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--I think that's exactly right, and I think that that is the teaching of Ornelas.\nAnd it may very well be that a more specific instruction should have been given so as to make clear that the jury had specific issues of historical fact to resolve.\nBut ultimately we do believe that it's a question of law in the sense that it should be reviewed de novo for precisely the reasons given in Ornelas.\nAnd if I could just say a couple words on the substantive issue of excessive force.\nWe believe that in cases involving violent crimes, officers should routinely be allowed to use handcuffs.\nIn this case, I would just add that there were several additional case-specific factors that justified the use of handcuffs.\nIn addition to the fact that this was a violent crime, the officers had reason to believe that at least one and possibly two members of a violent gang were living at the house.\nIn addition, the officers had previously visited the house on two occasions to investigate other violent crimes and had encountered resistance on at least one of those occasions.\nAnd our fundamental problem with the Ninth Circuit's rule is that it seems to suggest that officers in the course of a detention should really stop and investigate whether or not each... each individual that they encounter poses a safety threat.\nAnd we believe that that rule is as unworkable as it is unwise.\nIt would effectively divert officers from the primary task at hand and could perversely have the effect of prolonging rather than expediting the completion of the search.\nAnd for that reason, we believe that the Ninth Circuit's rule, its substantive constitutional rule, was erroneous.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1501.482, 1504.767, 1513.772, 1521.378, 1526.164, 1532.151, 1538.405, 1547.094, 1556.533, 1570.193, 1573.561, 1584.536], "stop_times": [1504.767, 1513.772, 1521.378, 1526.164, 1532.151, 1538.405, 1547.094, 1556.533, 1570.193, 1573.561, 1584.536, 1590.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1501.482}, "reply_to": "22453__1_049", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_051", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "How long did it take them to find out whether the... these other dangerous people were there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1590.522], "stop_times": [1594.908], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1590.522}, "reply_to": "22453__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__1_052", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "To find out whether?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1594.908], "stop_times": [1597.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1594.908}, "reply_to": "22453__1_051", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_053", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Whether the people they were afraid of were... were on the premises?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1597.21], "stop_times": [1600.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1597.21}, "reply_to": "22453__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__1_054", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, you know, I don't know that they ever actually made a... a determination other than that Mr. Romero was not on the premises.\nI think they figured that out once they had actually identified each of the individuals, which was fairly early on in the detention.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1600.914, 1608.251], "stop_times": [1608.251, 1613.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1600.914}, "reply_to": "22453__1_053", "speaker": "kannon_k_shanmugam"}
{"id": "22453__1_055", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Thank you.\nMr. Hoffman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1613.472, 1614.722], "stop_times": [1614.722, 1619.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.472}, "reply_to": "22453__1_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__2_000", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nLet me start on the issue of... that Mr. Phillips said we made up.\nActually we didn't make it up.\nThe claim that Ms. Mena was detained past the time of the search was made throughout the case.\nIf you look at footnote 3 in the Ninth Circuit opinion in 2000, the issue of the length of the detention was a factual issue that precluded summary judgment.\nMs. Mena claimed that the detention lasted for 2 to 3 hours.\nThe officers claimed that it lasted 90 minutes.\nBut more than that, the... the jury... the... the special verdict asked the jury to find whether Ms. Mena had been kept for a longer time than reasonable, and in fact, in the closing argument, it was argued that Ms. Mena had been kept beyond the time that the search ended.\nAnd not only is there not any... not only is there evidence in the record, there is overwhelming evidence in the record that Ms. Mena was kept for a period of time, at least 30 minutes, give or take, and possibly as long as an hour.\nAnd this is not based on Ms. Mena's testimony.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1619.309, 1622.578, 1629.414, 1631.266, 1638.003, 1646.542, 1650.161, 1652.595, 1670.974, 1684.401], "stop_times": [1622.578, 1629.414, 1631.266, 1638.003, 1646.542, 1650.161, 1652.595, 1670.974, 1684.401, 1686.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1619.309}, "reply_to": "22453__1_055", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_001", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Do you find that the... that the... do you define the end of the search as before they started videotaping everything they had done?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1686.801], "stop_times": [1695.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1686.801}, "reply_to": "22453__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22453__2_002", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, they were videotaping during the course of the search.\nBut if I can go through the facts which might clarify things.\nOfficer Muehler, who was the officer in overall charge of the... of the search, testified at trial that the search ended at 8:40 a.m. Officer Brill said a little bit later than that.\nHe tied... but there's a second video.\nThere are two videos.\nThe second video is from 8:50 to 8:57.\nAt the time that the second... the second video started at 8:50, Officer Brill testified that the search was over.\nThe... the evidence log... the last entry on the evidence log is 8:45 in terms of evidence being logged into the... into the case.\nOfficer Brill testified that Ms. Mena was kept for at least 10 or 15 minutes after the end of the second video and her handcuffs were not released until she was brought back around from the... the separate converted garage back into the house and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1695.506, 1697.808, 1701.426, 1715.003, 1717.622, 1718.572, 1721.59, 1728.411, 1736.833], "stop_times": [1697.808, 1701.426, 1715.003, 1717.622, 1718.572, 1721.59, 1728.411, 1736.833, 1754.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1695.506}, "reply_to": "22453__2_001", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_003", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Where... where is that testimony?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1754.311], "stop_times": [1755.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1754.311}, "reply_to": "22453__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__2_004", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--The testimony... Officer Brill's testimony?\nIs actually... they cite joint appendix number... on 75 where he says he doesn't recall.\nOn the next page, in joint appendix number 76, he's asked... they continue to ask the question.\nAnd isn't it your memory that about 10 or 15 minutes after that, Iris Mena was released?\nThat would sound consistent.\nAnd that's 10 or 15 minutes after 8:57.\nIn addition, Ms. Mena testified that she was kept between 2 or 3 hours, and that was actually consistent with prior testimony by the videographer herself, who testified in deposition and was impeached at trial, that it was 2 or 3 hours that the search lasted.\nThe... the point being... and if you take the distance between Officer Muehler's testimony and Officer Brill's testimony, Ms. Mena was... was kept in handcuffs at the end of a very long detention in handcuffs, for a period of approximately 27 to 33 minutes, if you don't even take Ms. Mena's testimony into account.\nAnd one of the ironies of the case is that there's testimony that Mr. Romero, the actual target of the case, was released at 8:45 at the time the search ended.\nAnd so while this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1755.763, 1758.799, 1765.019, 1772.523, 1777.426, 1778.945, 1782.313, 1797.157, 1819.503, 1828.942], "stop_times": [1758.799, 1765.019, 1772.523, 1777.426, 1778.945, 1782.313, 1797.157, 1819.503, 1828.942, 1830.061], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1755.763}, "reply_to": "22453__2_003", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_005", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "But not from these premises.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1830.061], "stop_times": [1831.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1830.061}, "reply_to": "22453__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__2_006", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--No.\nBut in fact, this was a... the search warrant was for two premises.\nHe was picked up at his mother's house.\nAnd in fact, Officer Muehler had... was... was to radio the start of both searches, and so there was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1831.078, 1831.478, 1834.346, 1836.615], "stop_times": [1831.478, 1834.346, 1836.615, 1843.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1831.078}, "reply_to": "22453__2_005", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_007", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "But the... the... I thought that this poorhouse, or whatever it was called... that the warrant covered weapons that were there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1843.285], "stop_times": [1851.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1843.285}, "reply_to": "22453__2_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__2_008", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1851.557], "stop_times": [1851.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1851.557}, "reply_to": "22453__2_007", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_009", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "That they were looking for weapons.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1851.941], "stop_times": [1853.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.941}, "reply_to": "22453__2_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__2_010", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "They were looking for a gun.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1853.076], "stop_times": [1854.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1853.076}, "reply_to": "22453__2_009", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_011", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "They were not looking for a gun at Romero's mother's house, were they?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1854.276], "stop_times": [1858.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1854.276}, "reply_to": "22453__2_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__2_012", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, I think the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1858.545], "stop_times": [1859.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1858.545}, "reply_to": "22453__2_011", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_013", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Did they have a warrant, a search warrant?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1859.363], "stop_times": [1861.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.363}, "reply_to": "22453__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__2_014", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--I think the warrant covered... I think they were looking for the gun wherever it was found, and... and the... I believe the warrant--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1861.013], "stop_times": [1865.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1861.013}, "reply_to": "22453__2_013", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_015", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, this was a... this was a pretty extensive search warrant that they had.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1865.984], "stop_times": [1869.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1865.984}, "reply_to": "22453__2_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__2_016", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1869.853], "stop_times": [1870.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1869.853}, "reply_to": "22453__2_015", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_017", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Did they have something like that, the same kind of warrant for the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1870.455], "stop_times": [1875.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1870.455}, "reply_to": "22453__2_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__2_018", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, it's the same warrant I believe, Your Honor, in terms of... we don't have... there's not a lot of information in the record about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1875.09], "stop_times": [1883.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1875.09}, "reply_to": "22453__2_017", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_019", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Well, wasn't... I thought that this warrant referred to a particular address, a particular house, not... not any house where one might find Romero.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1883.612], "stop_times": [1892.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1883.612}, "reply_to": "22453__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__2_020", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--No, no, no.\nIt... it referred to the two houses, one on Cimmaron.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1892.366, 1892.918], "stop_times": [1892.918, 1896.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1892.366}, "reply_to": "22453__2_019", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_021", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, was the other house his mother's house?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1896.336], "stop_times": [1898.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1896.336}, "reply_to": "22453__2_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__2_022", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Yes.\nThe location number one is his mother's house, 2646 Cimmaron, and that's... and Officer Muehler and this team was in charge of both of these searches pursuant to the same warrant.\nThey had information that... the reason they did that is that they had information that... that he lived in this poorhouse, that he rented a room from the Menas at the poorhouse, and that he also visited his... his mother from time to time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1898.872, 1899.472, 1910.077], "stop_times": [1899.472, 1910.077, 1923.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1898.872}, "reply_to": "22453__2_021", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_023", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Then that would make it even more curious if the place where the dangerous man was wasn't searched extensively and... and the mother... nobody was put in handcuffs, and yet for this... they knew pretty soon that Romero wasn't on the premises.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1923.837], "stop_times": [1942.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1923.837}, "reply_to": "22453__2_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__2_024", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, they knew right away.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1942.9], "stop_times": [1943.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1942.9}, "reply_to": "22453__2_023", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_025", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Yes.\nAnd that's, I guess, your... your point, that the place where the dangerous man was is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1943.983, 1944.551], "stop_times": [1944.551, 1953.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.983}, "reply_to": "22453__2_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__2_026", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I think that that explains one of the reasons why the jury imposed punitive damages here because they... they knew that at 8:45, at the time that Officer Muehler said that the search was over and all the officers were out of the house and... and everything was done, that Mr. Romero was cited and released for marijuana possession.\nAnd at the same time, from 8:45 until sometime after 9 o'clock, probably as long as 30, maybe longer, Iris Mena was sitting in a cold, damp, converted garage with her hands behind her back.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1953.439, 1973.003], "stop_times": [1973.003, 1986.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1953.439}, "reply_to": "22453__2_025", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_027", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "You might be able to keep your verdict, I... I think.\nBut I think the problem here is the Ninth Circuit... you go to the Ninth Circuit and you say, you know, there was excessive force here on anybody's definition for reasons that you say.\nAnd... and the Ninth Circuit says, oh, it was a clear violation of the Constitution and we'll tell you why, and then they give some reasons.\nAnd two of those reasons are, A, four and a half pages written the reason that this was unconstitutional is because they asked her questions about immigration status, which you... I don't think you even raised.\nMaybe you did.\nBut anyway, that's... that's the bulk of the... of... of... that's the bulk of the analysis.\nAnd... and these are the words that I think they're objecting to.\nAnd by any standard of reasonableness, Mena was... the... the officers should have released her from the handcuffs when it became clear that she posed no immediate threat.\nAnd that was long before the... the... because she wasn't a threat.\nAnd that was long before the end of the search.\nAnd what their point is on that is, you know, if that's the rule, that's going to interfere with our SWAT teams because they can't operate that way.\nThey... they can't evaluate the individual.\nThey put the individual... if there are guns and gangs and danger that she'll grab a gun, they put her in handcuffs, and they hold her there for the search for a couple of hours, then they release her.\nNow, that's their argument.\nSo they're objecting not so much to... to the fact they have to pay $30,000... or they may object to that.\nBut they're... they're objecting to the holding of the Ninth Circuit, and if they're right on that, then I guess we have to send it back and say, do this over again, though I'll be sorry about that and maybe there is a way not to do it.\nBut... but I want to know your view of what I see as those two issues here, that the Ninth Circuit's analysis was wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [1986.078, 1989.429, 2001.337, 2010.026, 2022.603, 2023.436, 2027.57, 2031.208, 2044.681, 2048.484, 2051.436, 2060.893, 2063.478, 2072.967, 2074.618, 2080.289, 2093.282], "stop_times": [1989.429, 2001.337, 2010.026, 2022.603, 2023.436, 2027.57, 2031.208, 2044.681, 2048.484, 2051.436, 2060.893, 2063.478, 2072.967, 2074.618, 2080.289, 2093.282, 2099.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1986.078}, "reply_to": "22453__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22453__2_028", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Yes.\nI mean, first of all, I'd... I'd say that the... the Court could affirm the judgment in this case and the verdict in this case on the ground that we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2099.352, 2099.686], "stop_times": [2099.686, 2105.173], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2099.352}, "reply_to": "22453__2_027", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_029", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Yes, but then we can't really reach the issue.\nThat's a possibility.\nI see that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2105.173, 2107.006, 2108.125], "stop_times": [2107.006, 2108.125, 2108.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2105.173}, "reply_to": "22453__2_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22453__2_030", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--And in fact... and I... I think that would be the appropriate thing to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2108.775], "stop_times": [2111.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2108.775}, "reply_to": "22453__2_029", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_031", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, but then suppose that the reason that this case is here is because of the implications--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2111.41], "stop_times": [2117.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2111.41}, "reply_to": "22453__2_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22453__2_032", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2117.58], "stop_times": [2118.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2117.58}, "reply_to": "22453__2_031", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_033", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--of the Ninth Circuit's analysis--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2118.063], "stop_times": [2120.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2118.063}, "reply_to": "22453__2_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22453__2_034", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2120.265], "stop_times": [2120.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.265}, "reply_to": "22453__2_033", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_035", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--not necessarily the extra 30 minutes because I see your point on the extra 30 minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2120.732], "stop_times": [2125.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.732}, "reply_to": "22453__2_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22453__2_036", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I think... I think that there... I would divide my response to that, Justice Breyer, into two parts really.\nOn the questioning issue, I would just say that that... that was not an issue that was presented to the jury for its verdict as a separate Fourth Amendment violation.\nIt wasn't.\nAnd we didn't argue it in the Ninth Circuit.\nWhat we did... we did say in our... in our brief to the Ninth Circuit that she was questioned about her immigration status about an issue that was unrelated to... to Summers detention.\nWe did say that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2125.651, 2131.471, 2141.513, 2142.463, 2144.465, 2155.605], "stop_times": [2131.471, 2141.513, 2142.463, 2144.465, 2155.605, 2156.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2125.651}, "reply_to": "22453__2_035", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_037", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, we could say is their opinion... that's their opinion.\nIt's beside the point, et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2156.255, 2157.838], "stop_times": [2157.838, 2159.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.255}, "reply_to": "22453__2_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22453__2_038", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Right.\nSo, I mean, I... I think on questioning, you know, we... we haven't been pushing that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2159.474, 2159.84], "stop_times": [2159.84, 2164.378], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2159.474}, "reply_to": "22453__2_037", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_039", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "If... if two of the reasons that the Ninth Circuit gave are in our view incorrect, why wouldn't we reverse and remand for them to do it without... to make the judgment without taking those two factors into account?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2164.378], "stop_times": [2181.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2164.378}, "reply_to": "22453__2_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22453__2_040", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, I think what... first of all, it's a separate alternative holding.\nWhat they said is that there was a separate Fourth Amendment violation while they affirmed on the basis that we actually won on.\nThe jury found that she had been detained longer than was reasonable and with more force than was reasonable.\nThis is a jury verdict.\nThe Ninth Circuit affirmed that.\nAnd we've argued in our brief that if the Court did something on questioning, it would really be issuing an advisory opinion in this... in this situation.\nAnd, you know, we've... we've argued the point and we're prepared certainly to argue about the merits of that question because it's obviously an important question.\nIn our view, the questioning issue should be governed by the more traditional Terry kind of idea that you can't question when it goes beyond the scope of the limited purposes of the intrusion, but we also understand that that's contested.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2181.923, 2184.875, 2191.279, 2197.432, 2198.565, 2200.051, 2208.74, 2217.679], "stop_times": [2184.875, 2191.279, 2197.432, 2198.565, 2200.051, 2208.74, 2217.679, 2233.289], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2181.923}, "reply_to": "22453__2_039", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_041", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2233.289], "stop_times": [2233.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2233.289}, "reply_to": "22453__2_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22453__2_042", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2233.789], "stop_times": [2234.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2233.789}, "reply_to": "22453__2_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22453__2_043", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--well, it does seem to me that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2234.289], "stop_times": [2235.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2234.289}, "reply_to": "22453__2_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22453__2_044", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Excuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2235.224], "stop_times": [2236.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2235.224}, "reply_to": "22453__2_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22453__2_045", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--It... it does seem... seem to me that the Ninth Circuit's opinion is questionable on... on this key point of when she had to be released.\nThe officers should have released her when it became clear she posed no immediate threat and did not resist arrest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2236.307, 2247.365], "stop_times": [2247.365, 2253.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.307}, "reply_to": "22453__2_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22453__2_046", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2253.852], "stop_times": [2254.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2253.852}, "reply_to": "22453__2_045", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_047", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I think that is critical to its holding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2254.369], "stop_times": [2257.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2254.369}, "reply_to": "22453__2_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22453__2_048", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2257.488], "stop_times": [2257.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2257.488}, "reply_to": "22453__2_047", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_049", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "And that implies that they have a... a duty at the outset to determine whether... what her status is rather than to go around looking for guns and... and to secure the premises.\nThat's... that's one of my concerns with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2257.988, 2270.029], "stop_times": [2270.029, 2271.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.988}, "reply_to": "22453__2_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22453__2_050", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Well, I would have a different position on that.\nFirst of all, I think that the judgment can actually be affirmed on the first ground regardless of this issue because it was a... a jury verdict and... and the damages were asked for either/or in terms of question 5 or 6.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2271.981, 2274.85], "stop_times": [2274.85, 2288.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2271.981}, "reply_to": "22453__2_049", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_051", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "The... the first ground being?\nJust an unreasonably long--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2288.625, 2289.692], "stop_times": [2289.692, 2291.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2288.625}, "reply_to": "22453__2_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22453__2_052", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Detained beyond the... the length of the search.\nAnd I think technically the judgment can be affirmed on that ground.\nBut with respect to the handcuffing, the position that we would say is that, first of all, you... you would have to view the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict.\nNow, it's been... there's been a lot of questioning about what that means and what the jury's role is.\nAs we understand it, if Ornelas applies to this decision, which we assume the Court would do... and that is, that you would first have to take the light... all the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict, including the possibility that the... the jury rejected as being incredible the statements that the officers made in terms of justification, if there was evidence in the record to show that there was contradicting evidence, which there is in this record.\nAnd so the facts that... that the other side has tried to argue are the facts on which you would make that constitutional decision are not the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict.\nIn the light most favorable to the verdict, there was... there was lots of planning.\nThere was a tactical plan in writing that the jury got to see, which said that the... the plan here was to go in and make the SWAT entry, to see if there were non-suspects there.\nThey would be patted down, identified, and released.\nThe jury was entitled not to believe the other side's claim that they didn't say when they were going to be released and believed that the plan was to release them as soon as it was ascertained that they did not have the connection in... in the situation.\nAnd in fact, there's testimony from the officers that they knew that they weren't gang members and they knew that they weren't connected to the crime.\nAnd they were completely cooperative, and they didn't resist arrest and they didn't flee.\nAnd Iris Mena is 5 foot 1... 5 foot 2 inches, and the jury had a videotape of exactly how they looked.\nThe officers had a total plan.\nThey... they exercised their command of the situation from the beginning.\nThey cleared it.\nThey made sure it was safe.\nThey took people outside through the pouring rain, which actually they say there wasn't evidence about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2291.061, 2292.494, 2295.863, 2305.619, 2310.373, 2338.19, 2348.831, 2353.133, 2364.089, 2367.707, 2380.848, 2387.102, 2390.97, 2397.559, 2399.709, 2402.944, 2403.646, 2404.83], "stop_times": [2292.494, 2295.863, 2305.619, 2310.373, 2338.19, 2348.831, 2353.133, 2364.089, 2367.707, 2380.848, 2387.102, 2390.97, 2397.559, 2399.709, 2402.944, 2403.646, 2404.83, 2410.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2291.061}, "reply_to": "22453__2_051", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_053", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Medium... medium rain.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2410.8], "stop_times": [2411.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2410.8}, "reply_to": "22453__2_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__2_054", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, actually at... at joint appendix number 183, Officer Allegra, who was one of the entry team, said it was pouring.\nSo... and in fact, the stipulation of facts said it was heavy.\nSo Iris Mena was being... was being demure when she talked about that.\nYou can even see the rain on the videotape.\nAnd so they took her outside.\nThey took all of them outside.\nThey put them in this little room, which is not connected to the house.\nThey had one or two armed officers outside.\nThere was no place for them to go.\nThey couldn't interfere with the facilitation of the search because they were in this room.\nThey couldn't flee because there's only one way out, a door.\nThere were two armed guards there.\nAnd... and if all they had to do was sit these four people, who were not connected to any gang activity, as to which they had no suspicion ever developed that they had any connection to Mr. Romero, who had already been arrested at his mom's house--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2411.85, 2417.788, 2422.008, 2426.829, 2429.079, 2431.63, 2433.149, 2436.201, 2438.969, 2440.486, 2444.457, 2447.24, 2448.742], "stop_times": [2417.788, 2422.008, 2426.829, 2429.079, 2431.63, 2433.149, 2436.201, 2438.969, 2440.486, 2444.457, 2447.24, 2448.742, 2462.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2411.85}, "reply_to": "22453__2_053", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_055", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "They can't have a flat rule that while you're conducting a search, you... you can restrain anybody that you find assuming the search is for a crime that... that involves violence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2462.835], "stop_times": [2473.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2462.835}, "reply_to": "22453__2_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22453__2_056", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Well, I think that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2473.774], "stop_times": [2475.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2473.774}, "reply_to": "22453__2_055", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_057", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I don't want to have to make that call all the time, you know.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2475.376], "stop_times": [2477.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.376}, "reply_to": "22453__2_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22453__2_058", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Well, but... but officers do make that call all the time.\nThey make it in the context of Terry stops.\nThey make it in the context of lots of Fourth Amendment issues.\nIn Summers... in Summers, the man was detained.\nIn many of the post-Summers cases, including many cited by the other side and the Government, handcuffing is not viewed as routine.\nHandcuffing is viewed as something that substantially aggravates the nature of the seizure--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2477.594, 2480.13, 2482.113, 2484.932, 2488.467, 2495.74], "stop_times": [2480.13, 2482.113, 2484.932, 2488.467, 2495.74, 2500.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2477.594}, "reply_to": "22453__2_057", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_059", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "That's true.\nIt isn't routine in... I mean, here what sort of pushes the other way on this is this is a dangerous gang.\nThey have lots of weapons and they have previously gone to this house, which I gather... sometimes when I read it, I think it's like a warren of little rooms.\nOn the other hand, maybe it isn't.\nI haven't seen the house.\nThere are a lot of buildings around, and they think a lot of people here... we don't know who's what, and we make a mistake in this and we're dead.\nYou know, I mean, so that's painting it the other way.\nBut where you have guns and... and houses and gangs and so forth, now that's why they say that it's reasonable in those circumstances to say, when we find someone in the house, we handcuff them through the search.\nWe might let them go earlier, but that's up to us and we don't want the courts second guessing us on that.\nNow, what's... I'm painting it their way, and I'd like you to respond.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2500.794, 2501.41, 2507.798, 2516.969, 2517.886, 2519.088, 2527.361, 2530.396, 2548.941, 2554.011], "stop_times": [2501.41, 2507.798, 2516.969, 2517.886, 2519.088, 2527.361, 2530.396, 2548.941, 2554.011, 2556.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2500.794}, "reply_to": "22453__2_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22453__2_060", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--I... I understand that.\nI guess the... the problem with that is that that means that no matter who they find... and in this case is a good example of it.\nThey were worried that they might find the gang member who had a gun there, and that's what they were looking for.\nOkay.\nAnd so they used the SWAT team.\nThat seems perfectly reasonable that they would use a SWAT team the way they did.\nAnd they went in and within literally 4 or 5 minutes, they had... this is a tiny, little house.\nThey had cleared the house.\nThey had figured out all the occupants.\nThey put them in a room completely under their control where they couldn't get away from anything.\nThey knew there were two 40-year-old people, a young hippie, and... and an 18-year-old girl that was 5 foot--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2556.98, 2557.43, 2563.884, 2568.688, 2569.254, 2570.654, 2575.258, 2581.662, 2583.198, 2584.681, 2589.435], "stop_times": [2557.43, 2563.884, 2568.688, 2569.254, 2570.654, 2575.258, 2581.662, 2583.198, 2584.681, 2589.435, 2595.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.98}, "reply_to": "22453__2_059", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_061", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Did they search that room?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2595.338], "stop_times": [2596.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2595.338}, "reply_to": "22453__2_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22453__2_062", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Yes.\nThey searched that room.\nSo the room was searched before they went there.\nThey searched all the rooms.\nThey searched Ms. Mena's room and found absolutely nothing there.\nAnd... and the testimony... and this goes to Justice Souter's question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2596.605, 2597.305, 2598.623, 2600.59, 2601.842, 2605.461], "stop_times": [2597.305, 2598.623, 2600.59, 2601.842, 2605.461, 2610.098], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2596.605}, "reply_to": "22453__2_061", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_063", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Did they... did they search the individuals too to make sure--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2610.098], "stop_times": [2612.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2610.098}, "reply_to": "22453__2_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22453__2_064", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2612.081], "stop_times": [2612.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2612.081}, "reply_to": "22453__2_063", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_065", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--I assume they did.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2612.448], "stop_times": [2613.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2612.448}, "reply_to": "22453__2_064", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22453__2_066", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Oh, yes.\nThey... they searched the individuals.\nThey... they... you know, they completely made sure that... that when they put them in that back room, there was nothing in the room.\nThere was nothing on the individuals.\nThere was nothing that... that could cause them danger.\nAnd... and the jury, I think, was entitled to... to look at those facts and... and to hear the facts and to see the facts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2613.3, 2613.65, 2614.917, 2620.204, 2621.573, 2624.223], "stop_times": [2613.65, 2614.917, 2620.204, 2621.573, 2624.223, 2633.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2613.3}, "reply_to": "22453__2_065", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_067", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "How did the qualified immunity question get resolved here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2633.279], "stop_times": [2638.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2633.279}, "reply_to": "22453__2_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22453__2_068", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2638.265], "stop_times": [2640.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2638.265}, "reply_to": "22453__2_067", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_069", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "And what... what role did that play in all of this?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2640.467], "stop_times": [2643.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2640.467}, "reply_to": "22453__2_068", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22453__2_070", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Well, at the... at the district court level, the... the district court heard a rule 59.\nBut one of the things about this case is it was tried right around the time that Saucier v. Katz came out, and in the Ninth Circuit, there was a question about who got to decide qualified immunity.\nThis was June 2001 actually.\nAnd so there was a rule 59 motion about whether the proper standard of qualified immunity had been applied.\nThe district judge, looking at the facts, found that there were facts to sustain the verdict, including evidence that Ms. Mena had been kept after the end of the search.\nThe district judge found that.\nAnd then in... in the Ninth Circuit, of course, the Ninth Circuit's published opinion deals with qualified immunity on both of these issues.\nAnd basically the... the qualified immunity... on the... on the over-detention claim, I think they've conceded that there just isn't any justification for... I mean, a de minimis exception doesn't extend to 30 minutes.\nI mean, that... this Court has debated whether 15 or 20 is too long on a... on a Terry stop when there's actually reasonable suspicion.\nHere, there's nothing to hold her.\nWith respect to the handcuffing issue--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2643.919, 2650.306, 2661.198, 2664.0, 2670.487, 2680.075, 2681.877, 2688.948, 2701.275, 2708.095, 2709.995], "stop_times": [2650.306, 2661.198, 2664.0, 2670.487, 2680.075, 2681.877, 2688.948, 2701.275, 2708.095, 2709.995, 2712.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2643.919}, "reply_to": "22453__2_069", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_071", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Is it clear that it was 30?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2712.881], "stop_times": [2714.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2712.881}, "reply_to": "22453__2_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22453__2_072", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Well, I think in viewing the light most favorable to the verdict, I think the Court has to assume that... that the jury could have found an hour.\nBut what I'm saying is based on the officer's own testimony alone, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, it's at least 27 to 32.\nAnd so you've got something that just could not possibly be considered de minimis under any kind of exception.\nAnd... and that's why they fought it on the facts.\nThey haven't even made an argument on the law at any point in this.\nAnd with respect to handcuffing, I think our position on the handcuffing is that Summers, first of all, doesn't deal with handcuffing.\nAnd the other side has consistently tried to equate detention with restraint.\nAnd I think what... what Summers indicated was that this Court was willing to allow people to be detained during the course of a search for three specific reasons.\nAnd when balancing the nature of the intrusion against the justifications, this Court specifically said it was endorsing a limited intrusion, and that it wouldn't be very much different asking someone to sit around--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2714.748, 2722.271, 2730.692, 2737.614, 2739.65, 2742.952, 2751.458, 2757.092, 2767.483], "stop_times": [2722.271, 2730.692, 2737.614, 2739.65, 2742.952, 2751.458, 2757.092, 2767.483, 2779.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2714.748}, "reply_to": "22453__2_071", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_073", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Doesn't that just go to the point that it's not clearly established at least?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2779.441], "stop_times": [2783.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2779.441}, "reply_to": "22453__2_072", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22453__2_074", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Well, no.\nI... I don't think that is the case, Justice Kennedy, because in... in... Summers doesn't authorize what they did.\nGraham certainly talks about having to justify force based on a... on a Fourth Amendment analysis.\nAnd Franklin v. Foxworth, which is a Ninth Circuit case that happened before this case, the Court, first of all, used the... the analysis that we have argued is appropriate based on Summers and Graham to decide that a particular Summers detention was carried out in an unreasonable manner.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2783.743, 2784.779, 2793.785, 2800.371], "stop_times": [2784.779, 2793.785, 2800.371, 2819.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2783.743}, "reply_to": "22453__2_073", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_075", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, but that was ill individual, a single individual--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2819.0], "stop_times": [2821.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2819.0}, "reply_to": "22453__2_074", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22453__2_076", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2821.868], "stop_times": [2822.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2821.868}, "reply_to": "22453__2_075", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_077", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--unclothed, et cetera--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2822.47], "stop_times": [2823.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2822.47}, "reply_to": "22453__2_076", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22453__2_078", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--No.\nI... I understand that the facts were more egregious, but the... the Court's analysis for a reasonable officer from a qualified immunity standpoint... for a reasonable officer reading that opinion, you draw at least three conclusions I think.\nOne is that the proper analysis to determine whether handcuffing or some additional form of restraint is... is allowed has to be decided under the kinds of justifications that Summers provides and under a Graham analysis when it comes to force.\nAnd there's lots of cases that... that allow officers to do that.\nLots of lower court cases.\nIn fact, our view is all the lower court cases follow that kind of analysis and just come out differently depending on the facts and circumstances confronted.\nThe second thing, the... the point about the disabled person and the particular facts made that case particularly egregious, and the Ninth Circuit said those were additional factors, not the line.\nThe Ninth Circuit didn't say that the constitutional standard was particularly abusive or egregious.\nIt... it applied traditional Fourth Amendment analysis.\nAnd finally and I think very important and not dealt with maybe in the briefs as much as it should be is that the Ninth Circuit in... in Franklin rejected a blanket handcuffing policy.\nThat's what the policy was in Portland.\nThe Portland police department had a policy that said you are to handcuff everybody until the search is over.\nAnd the Ninth Circuit said you can't have that kind of policy because Summers and... and Graham require it to be individualized justification for that... for an additional intrusion beyond the limited intrusion that's allowed in Summers.\nAnd in fact, in Summers, the Court went out of its way to say to compare with what the Court was allowing to what it... to... to the circumstances in Dunaway, to... to circumstances that start to look like an arrest.\nAnd I don't know how much more intrusive you could be than what these officers did to Iris Mena, and I think that's one of the... the issues here.\nIf... if the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2823.104, 2823.537, 2835.778, 2854.006, 2856.958, 2858.16, 2866.583, 2878.391, 2884.795, 2887.412, 2898.768, 2901.154, 2908.16, 2922.484, 2937.762, 2947.051], "stop_times": [2823.537, 2835.778, 2854.006, 2856.958, 2858.16, 2866.583, 2878.391, 2884.795, 2887.412, 2898.768, 2901.154, 2908.16, 2922.484, 2937.762, 2947.051, 2947.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2823.104}, "reply_to": "22453__2_077", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_079", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "And what do we do if we think the Ninth Circuit was off base in... in whether Mena could be questioned about her immigration status?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2947.818], "stop_times": [2957.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2947.818}, "reply_to": "22453__2_078", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22453__2_080", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Well, I... I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2957.407], "stop_times": [2959.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2957.407}, "reply_to": "22453__2_079", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_081", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "That seemed to be an important part of the Ninth Circuit's rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2959.176], "stop_times": [2962.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2959.176}, "reply_to": "22453__2_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22453__2_082", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Well, it's certainly... it's certainly an alternative ground.\nIt's not... it doesn't affect, I think, our verdict.\nAnd so I think what... I mean, I suppose the Court could dismiss that question as improvidently granted, could say to the court that it... that it should reverse that part of the ruling.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2962.478, 2964.747, 2967.199], "stop_times": [2964.747, 2967.199, 2978.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2962.478}, "reply_to": "22453__2_081", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_083", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "It might be useful to say they were wrong in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2978.404], "stop_times": [2981.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2978.404}, "reply_to": "22453__2_082", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22453__2_084", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, that... you... you could say that.\nI mean, I would... on the merits of the question, I... I would like to... if we were reaching that, I would argue that the Ninth Circuit... that... that there is... there should be a limit on questioning in a... in a Summers detention, and the Court should apply the kind of Terry analysis that the majority of the... the circuits apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2981.439, 2982.724], "stop_times": [2982.724, 2999.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2981.439}, "reply_to": "22453__2_083", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_085", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--What... what will do if we thought the Ninth Circuit was egregiously wrong on that and that its opinion was, to use the most polite word, disingenuous when it talked about a garage?\nThat... that was somewhat off-putting to me when it was a converted garage with a bed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [2999.836, 3010.359], "stop_times": [3010.359, 3016.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2999.836}, "reply_to": "22453__2_084", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22453__2_086", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3016.262], "stop_times": [3017.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3016.262}, "reply_to": "22453__2_085", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_087", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I mean, I... I thought this woman was standing in... by some grease rack or something and she was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3017.131], "stop_times": [3021.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3017.131}, "reply_to": "22453__2_086", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22453__2_088", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--She wasn't standing by a grease rack, but she was made to sit initially by an open door because the door had basically been obliterated on a very cold, rainy February morning where she was very cold, and after... and had been taken through the... the pouring rain in bare feet and with only a T-shirt and was left there for at least 20 or so minutes without being given a coat or shoes.\nAnd she was made to sit by there and she was very cold and uncomfortable.\nAnd she did complain that the handcuffs were too tight and she complained that they were uncomfortable and could they be removed.\nIt's not a garage in... in the way that the vision of it, but also if you look at it, it's... and the... the jury did look at it because it had a videotape of this.\nYou could see that the... the occupants were made to be in a very uncomfortable situation that was unnecessary.\nAnd that... that was clearly established law in the Ninth Circuit certainly under Franklin that the manner of a search that was unnecessarily prolonged or painful or an unnecessary invasion of privacy was clearly established law in the Ninth Circuit as of 1994.\nI think in the Heitschmidt case, which is very similar in a lot of ways to our case, that came out after the search, but applied the same reasoning to a 1994 search.\nYou had the same kind of handcuffing of a non-suspect as to whom the... the officers didn't have that... that kind of... of suspicion.\nAnd the Fifth Circuit found that that was a violation and denied qualified immunity to the officers.\nSo from our standpoint, on the issue of being detained past the time, I think it's just a clear case.\nI think the other side has conceded that if... if there's this evidence in the record, which there is, the judgment has to be affirmed on that basis.\nOn... on the handcuffing issue, we believe the same principle has to apply because the facts have to be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and when you view those facts, I... it... it is... no reasonable officer would believe you could do those things to Ms. Mena in these circumstances based on the law at the time.\nAnd I think that it would be... what the... what the United States and... and what petitioners' counsel is asking for is really for a radical change of law themselves.\nWe're happy with Summers and Graham and the way that applies, and the... the jury instruction was based on... on Summers and Graham and on Franklin.\nThe language is taken directly from those cases.\nAnd... and the... the jury in a case like this... qualified immunity obviously provides some protection for... for officers that when... when a reasonable officer wouldn't know these things.\nBut jury verdicts also play a crucial role in a civil rights case.\nIn this case, a jury of our community found that Iris Mena had been subjected to an abuse of... a specific abuse of authority in being held beyond the time of... of the search, even at a time when the prime target was... was free to go about his business with a citation, and was held in these painful handcuffs for a period of over 2 hours in circumstances where, in the totality of the circumstances, she was treated much more harshly than anything this Court, I think, contemplated in the Summers case.\nAnd I think that officers know how to... officers know how to handle the Fourth Amendment issues involved in this case.\nThey don't need a special rule because that rule would end up meaning that when you go in and you don't find what you're afraid of, that everybody is still going to be subjected to this kind of serious intrusion on their individual liberty.\nAnd so we would urge the Court not to go down this new path that the United States and the petitioners are asking and to affirm the judgment because it was based on clearly established principles that this Court and other courts around the country have... have established.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3021.849, 3043.965, 3047.317, 3053.737, 3065.278, 3074.968, 3092.695, 3102.987, 3114.193, 3120.782, 3130.138, 3137.808, 3160.757, 3170.715, 3180.003, 3182.522, 3197.949, 3202.501, 3233.87, 3241.209, 3257.486, 3273.746], "stop_times": [3043.965, 3047.317, 3053.737, 3065.278, 3074.968, 3092.695, 3102.987, 3114.193, 3120.782, 3130.138, 3137.808, 3160.757, 3170.715, 3180.003, 3182.522, 3197.949, 3202.501, 3233.87, 3241.209, 3257.486, 3273.746, 3275.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3021.849}, "reply_to": "22453__2_087", "speaker": "paul_l_hoffman"}
{"id": "22453__2_089", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Hoffman.\nMr. Phillips, you have about 3 and a half minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3275.531, 3277.181], "stop_times": [3277.181, 3280.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3275.531}, "reply_to": "22453__2_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__3_000", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens.\nI want to start with essentially the question that Justices Breyer and Kennedy raised, which is what do you do when you know that the Ninth Circuit is wrong, that the questioning here violated the Fourth Amendment, and what do you do when you know that the Ninth Circuit was wrong in saying that the officers have an affirmative duty in the middle of a Summers detention to make an assessment on an individualized basis as to the risks posed by any individual detainee.\nThose are rulings that I submit to you are plainly erroneous and warrant reversal on that basis alone.\nAt that stage, if the respondent wants to argue to the Ninth Circuit that that 15 minutes is, in fact, proved by the facts of this case, that's fine, but understand, those issues were put to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit did not affirm on the alternative ground that there were 15 minutes here.\nThe Ninth Circuit expressly never... or didn't expressly but never said one word about a period of time after the search ended in this particular case, and that's not an accident because there is no testimony.\nThe officer said he didn't remember and when asked, well, would 10 to 15 minutes be consistent with your memory, well, of course, it would.\nHe didn't remember anything.\nSo there's nothing in that evidence, and there's no way... I have looked at that tape.\nI ask you to look at that tape.\nI guarantee you there's no way you can draw any inference as to at what point in this process she was released vis-a-vis the end of this particular... this particular search being executed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3280.332, 3281.684, 3304.448, 3311.037, 3327.88, 3340.556, 3347.377, 3348.877, 3352.781, 3354.248], "stop_times": [3281.684, 3304.448, 3311.037, 3327.88, 3340.556, 3347.377, 3348.877, 3352.781, 3354.248, 3364.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3280.332}, "reply_to": "22453__2_089", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__3_001", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "So... so do we have the tape here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3364.588], "stop_times": [3365.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3364.588}, "reply_to": "22453__3_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22453__3_002", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "I assume you have the tape.\nIt's part of the record.\nIt should be in the clerk's office.\nIf you don't have it, I'd be more than happy to send you a copy.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3365.471, 3366.707, 3367.557, 3369.073, 3371.409], "stop_times": [3366.707, 3367.557, 3369.073, 3371.409, 3372.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3365.471}, "reply_to": "22453__3_001", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__3_003", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "But there was no... there was no objection to that question going to the jury, was the duration unreasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3372.409], "stop_times": [3380.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3372.409}, "reply_to": "22453__3_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__3_004", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--Of course not, Justice Ginsburg, because the issue before the jury was whether or not the... we had an affirmative duty to make an evaluation in the middle of the search as to whether or not she posed a... a threat.\nThat was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3380.198, 3393.875], "stop_times": [3393.875, 3394.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3380.198}, "reply_to": "22453__3_003", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__3_005", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "But the jury--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3394.375], "stop_times": [3394.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3394.375}, "reply_to": "22453__3_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__3_006", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--their theory of the case, and that's what the Ninth Circuit said, is yes, we do have that affirmative obligation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3394.891], "stop_times": [3398.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3394.891}, "reply_to": "22453__3_005", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__3_007", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "--But the jury answered the... just the general question, was the duration unreasonable, and the jury said yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3398.993], "stop_times": [3404.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3398.993}, "reply_to": "22453__3_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__3_008", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Not of the search.\nOf her detention.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3404.563, 3405.498], "stop_times": [3405.498, 3406.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3404.563}, "reply_to": "22453__3_007", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__3_009", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3406.565], "stop_times": [3407.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3406.565}, "reply_to": "22453__3_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__3_010", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Yes, of her detention.\nAnd that was based on the jury's determination that we had detained her beyond the period we had done the sweep.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3407.848, 3409.034], "stop_times": [3409.034, 3414.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3407.848}, "reply_to": "22453__3_009", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__3_011", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "So if the district court got it right and the Ninth Circuit wrote a poor opinion, why should we upset the judgment in the case?\nIn other words, if what we had here was a trial that was okay, a district judge that behaved... gave a proper charge, then the Ninth Circuit writes an opinion that doesn't seem to deal with what the district court and the jury decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3414.354, 3422.358], "stop_times": [3422.358, 3442.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3414.354}, "reply_to": "22453__3_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22453__3_012", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Well, the... the court of appeals' obligation here was to evaluate our argument that we should... we were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\nThe court of appeals put forth what it regarded as the most legitimate bases on which to affirm the judgment in this case.\nThe fact that neither of those withstand serious scrutiny, Justice Ginsburg, seems to me to be a basis for reversing the Ninth Circuit and allowing the matter to go back at this point.\nAnd... and that is exactly what this Court does in... you know, said it will do in Ornelas, that it is a de novo review.\nPunitive damages, exactly like a punitive damages cases.\nJuries make punitive damages determinations every day and every day courts of appeals and trial judges review those damages awards de novo because they... because the question is not just what are the historical facts... that you give deference to the jury on... but on the fundamental question of what is the rule of law that will govern the police officers in the execution of search warrants in circumstances like this.\nThey need protection, Your Honor.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3442.588, 3450.961, 3457.265, 3466.287, 3472.208, 3475.143, 3498.425, 3500.377], "stop_times": [3450.961, 3457.265, 3466.287, 3472.208, 3475.143, 3498.425, 3500.377, 3500.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3442.588}, "reply_to": "22453__3_011", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22453__3_013", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Phillips.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3500.877, 3501.61], "stop_times": [3501.61, 3502.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3500.877}, "reply_to": "22453__3_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22453__3_014", "conversation_id": "22453", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until Monday next at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1423", "start_times": [3502.71], "stop_times": [3507.228], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3502.71}, "reply_to": "22453__3_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "23513__0_000", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "We'll hear argument next, number 04-277, National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services.\nMr. Hungar.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [0.0, 14.463], "stop_times": [14.463, 64.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23513__0_001", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress declared that it is the policy of the United States to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet unfettered by federal or state regulation.\nThe FCC implemented that clear policy directive in the order under review by concluding that cable modem service should be classified as an information service and not a telecommunications service under the Communications Act.\nThat reasonable determination should be upheld, because it is consistent with the text, history, and purposes of the Act.\nThe Act defines \"telecommunications\" as the transmission of information without change in form or substance, and \"telecommunications service\" as the offering of telecommunications directly to the public for a fee.\nGiven that focus on the nature of the FCC reasonably concluded that the integrated cable modem service offering should be viewed as a whole in determining its classification under the Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [64.81, 68.063, 86.121, 102.138, 110.953, 126.901], "stop_times": [68.063, 86.121, 102.138, 110.953, 126.901, 142.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 64.81}, "reply_to": "23513__0_000", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_002", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Why?\nWhy is that reasonable?\nI mean, why is it offered to the public if it's offered alone, but it's not offered to the public if it's offered with a tie-in?\nI mean, if... you know, if I say, you know, I'm selling you a windshield alone, I guess I'm offering a windshield.\nBut if I say, you know, you've got to buy the windshield with a car, am I any less selling you a windshield?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [142.96, 143.551, 144.234, 153.609, 160.922], "stop_times": [143.551, 144.234, 153.609, 160.922, 168.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 142.96}, "reply_to": "23513__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_003", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Well, I don't think we would say, in that example, that you are offering windshields, per se.\nI mean, to give an example, [carmaxDOTcom] offers cars for sale over the Internet, but I don't think we would ordinarily say that they are offering windshields or steering wheels or tires for sale.\nCertainly, that's not been necessary construction of a regulatory regime that, say, is designed to focus on sellers of tires.\nIt wouldn't automatically, as a matter of law, have to be applied to entities that are selling cars instead.\nAnd the same is true here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [168.314, 174.398, 184.269, 190.525, 195.971], "stop_times": [174.398, 184.269, 190.525, 195.971, 196.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 168.314}, "reply_to": "23513__0_002", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_004", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Well, suppose I just tie it in with windshield wipers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [196.931], "stop_times": [198.973], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 196.931}, "reply_to": "23513__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_005", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Well, again, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [198.973], "stop_times": [202.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 198.973}, "reply_to": "23513__0_004", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_006", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "You can only buy my windshield if you buy the windshield wipers with it.\nAm I no longer selling a windshield because I'm selling it with... only with windshield wipers?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [202.818, 205.713], "stop_times": [205.713, 210.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 202.818}, "reply_to": "23513__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_007", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Well, I think it would depend on the nature of the regulatory--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [210.375], "stop_times": [212.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 210.375}, "reply_to": "23513__0_006", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_008", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Fifty-fifty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [212.722], "stop_times": [213.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 212.722}, "reply_to": "23513__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_009", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--regime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [213.329], "stop_times": [213.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 213.329}, "reply_to": "23513__0_008", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_010", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "But don't you think that the telecommunications aspect of what's going on here is at least as important as the information aspect of it?\nThe information is useless unless it can be conveyed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [213.985, 222.151], "stop_times": [222.151, 224.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 213.985}, "reply_to": "23513__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_011", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Well, the... and, by the same token, the transmission component is useless unless it offers all of the... all of the information-services type functionality that Internet service offers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [224.508], "stop_times": [235.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 224.508}, "reply_to": "23513__0_010", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_012", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Not necessarily.\nYou could... you can use that broadband service to go to other information providers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [235.004, 235.808], "stop_times": [235.808, 244.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 235.004}, "reply_to": "23513__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_013", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "But, Your Honor, it's the... it's the capabilities that you purchase in the integrated package... not the pure transmission, but the other capabilities, the computer data-processing, data-access capabilities that are an essential part of that.\nIf all you had was the transmission, with none of the other computer functionality... if you typed in the Supreme Court's Website, for instance, [supremecourtusDOTgov,] nothing would happen, because all of the computer functionality, like the domain-name system, which is a very sophisticated, complex, distributed database involving literally millions of computers around the world, that's data processing.\nThat's information-services capability that you use every time you type in a Website.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [244.23, 257.541, 279.621], "stop_times": [257.541, 279.621, 283.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 244.23}, "reply_to": "23513__0_012", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_014", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "I understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [283.152], "stop_times": [283.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 283.152}, "reply_to": "23513__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_015", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "It's not just transmission.\nIt's much more than that.\nAnd without the... without the computer data-processing aspects, it doesn't do anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [283.999, 284.143, 285.216], "stop_times": [284.143, 285.216, 289.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 283.999}, "reply_to": "23513__0_014", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_016", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "I agree, but the question isn't whether it doesn't do anything; the question is whether you are still offering telecommunications services to the public.\nAnd it seems to me... look it, I offer you broadband, initially without any information function at the end of it, and you're using this broadband to do all sorts of good stuff, going where you want, getting what you want, conveying what you want.\nAnd then I change my rules and I say,\n\"You know, in the future the only way I'm offering this broadband is if you, in addition to buying the broadband communications capacity, buy my information technology at the end of it. \"\nHave I suddenly stopped selling the broadband... or offering the broadband to the public?\nI just don't think that's a reasonable--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [289.883, 298.516, 313.662, 315.592, 328.035, 333.827], "stop_times": [298.516, 313.662, 315.592, 328.035, 333.827, 335.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 289.883}, "reply_to": "23513__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_017", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [335.127], "stop_times": [335.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.127}, "reply_to": "23513__0_016", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_018", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--use of language.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [335.261], "stop_times": [336.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 335.261}, "reply_to": "23513__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_019", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--well, two points.\nYour question starts with, I think, an incorrect assumption about the nature of the world.\nThe pure transmission function has not been offered to the public, to consumers, separately and apart... again, it doesn't do anything.\nConsumers don't use the pure transmission functions by itself.\n\"Internet service\", by definition, includes the data-processing aspects that the Commission so found on this record, and that factual determine is reasonable and supported by the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [336.263, 338.2, 344.279, 353.943, 356.412], "stop_times": [338.2, 344.279, 353.943, 356.412, 367.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 336.263}, "reply_to": "23513__0_018", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_020", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "I was giving you a hypothetical.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [367.282, 369.389], "stop_times": [369.389, 369.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 367.282}, "reply_to": "23513__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_021", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Well, in the... in the hypothetical, it's conceivable that a different result might be reached by the regulatory agency with authority for construing the statute and applying it to particular fact situations.\nBut I don't think the word \"offering\" necessarily and always compels the conclusion that any component of an integrated offering is also separately being offered within the meaning of the statute.\nIt depends on the purposes of the statute, as construed by the regulatory agency.\n\"Offering\" is ambiguous.\nAnd, therefore, what the agency has done here is reasonable.\nAnd it's supported, I would add, by the consistent pre-1996 regulatory approach in this area, which all parties agreed Congress incorporated into the 1996 Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [369.681, 379.344, 390.453, 393.91, 395.424, 398.197], "stop_times": [379.344, 390.453, 393.91, 395.424, 398.197, 407.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 369.681}, "reply_to": "23513__0_020", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_022", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--But if you do the same combination over telephone lines, you say they are... they are selling--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [407.856], "stop_times": [414.143], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 407.856}, "reply_to": "23513__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_023", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [414.143], "stop_times": [416.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.143}, "reply_to": "23513__0_022", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_024", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--offering to the public communications service.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [416.244], "stop_times": [417.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 416.244}, "reply_to": "23513__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_025", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--That's because the telephone companies have always offered a standalone transmission component which other... which other ISPs can utilize.\nThey've done that because of the preexisting regulatory regime.\nThey've always made the separate offering; therefore, it is a telecommunications service.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [417.684, 427.747, 431.129], "stop_times": [427.747, 431.129, 435.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.684}, "reply_to": "23513__0_024", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_026", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "What bearing does history have upon the definitional question of whether, when you sell a bundled offering of information technology and communications, you are selling communications?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [435.299], "stop_times": [449.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 435.299}, "reply_to": "23513__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_027", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [449.944], "stop_times": [450.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 449.944}, "reply_to": "23513__0_026", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_028", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "With respect to the telephone long-lines, you say, yes, you are; and with respect to cable, you say, no, you aren't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [450.419], "stop_times": [456.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.419}, "reply_to": "23513__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_029", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Your Honor, it's certainly not unusual for this Court, in construing a statute, to look to the regulatory history that led up to the enactment of the statute, particularly where it's clear in the legislative history that Congress was in... was essentially borrowing from the pre-1996 regulatory definitions, the definitional scheme that the Commission adopted in 1980 in its Computer II report.\nAll parties agree that that definitional framework forms the foundation for the very definitions at issue here.\nThat's undisputed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [456.883, 477.991, 483.062], "stop_times": [477.991, 483.062, 483.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 456.883}, "reply_to": "23513__0_028", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_030", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Mr. Hungar, what is the tentative decision the FCC has taken on the DSL regulation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [483.979], "stop_times": [492.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 483.979}, "reply_to": "23513__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23513__0_031", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Your Honor, the FCC has tentatively concluded that when a telephone company makes an integrated offering of the DSL transmission capacity with the Internet service, as a combined offering to consumers, that, tentatively that is an information service, precisely the classification that you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [492.618], "stop_times": [508.841], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 492.618}, "reply_to": "23513__0_030", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_032", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Even though--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [508.841], "stop_times": [509.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.841}, "reply_to": "23513__0_031", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23513__0_033", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--read here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [509.294], "stop_times": [509.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 509.294}, "reply_to": "23513__0_032", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_034", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--telephone lines have always been subject to common-carrier regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [509.426], "stop_times": [513.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 509.426}, "reply_to": "23513__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23513__0_035", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "That's correct.\nAnd even though... when a telephone company is making a separate standalone offering of just the pure DSL transmission capacity, which is useful only to ISPs, to Internet Service Providers, not to consumers, that that would be viewed, has traditionally been viewed, as a common-carriage offering, because it's pure transmission.\nBut when it's a bundled... or when it's an integrated offering... again, this goes back to 1980.\nThis very issue, Justice Scalia, was addressed by the Commission in 1980, and it said, if the offering is limited to pure transmission, it is basic telecommunications, basic service, the precursor to telecommunications service; but if you add any computer functionality to the offering, then it is not basic, it is enhanced service.\nThey said that at paragraphs 93 to 97 of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [513.249, 513.836, 529.649, 533.962, 553.775], "stop_times": [513.836, 529.649, 533.962, 553.775, 556.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 513.249}, "reply_to": "23513__0_034", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_036", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "I understand what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [556.11], "stop_times": [556.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 556.11}, "reply_to": "23513__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_037", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Computer II order.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [556.616], "stop_times": [556.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 556.616}, "reply_to": "23513__0_036", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_038", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--they're saying, but they're doing it all on policy grounds.\nThis definition means this, because that produces a good result.\nWith respect to telephone lines, they say, yes, bundled is, or it isn't, depending upon whether we like the result it produces.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [556.733, 560.451, 564.615], "stop_times": [560.451, 564.615, 572.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 556.733}, "reply_to": "23513__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_039", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [572.472], "stop_times": [573.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 572.472}, "reply_to": "23513__0_038", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_040", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "It just doesn't seem to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [573.49], "stop_times": [574.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 573.49}, "reply_to": "23513__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_041", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "It depends on the nature of the offering.\nIf the entity is offering... if cable companies, tomorrow, start offering pure cable transmission on an... on a nondiscriminate basis, that would regulated as a telecommunications service.\nBut what the Commission has always said is that you look at the offering as a whole, and if it's a... an integrated offering that encompasses not just telecommunications, but data-processing, and computer-type services, as well, it's in the enhanced or information-service category that... the Commission said, in 1980,\n\"We're doing this, in part, because it's not clear... it's clear that Congress didn't intend, in the 1934 Act, to extend regulation to this new... this novel, new type of intermingled service, and it would be inappropriate, we think, to try and extend the Act to that, for a number of reasons, including that it's very hard to draw lines between which is... which has more of a communications versus data-processing component. \"\n\"They had tried that, and concluded that it was unworkable. \"\nAnd so, they drew the line.\nBasic transmission, pure transmission, if the offering is limited to that, it is on the telecommunications service, or basic-service line; if it contains the computer-processing capabilities, data acquisition and retrival and the like--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [574.166, 575.441, 587.909, 602.879, 624.596, 626.612, 627.668], "stop_times": [575.441, 587.909, 602.879, 624.596, 626.612, 627.668, 641.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 574.166}, "reply_to": "23513__0_040", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_042", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "But it seems to be saying, because the cable companies do not offer separate telecommunications service, they don't have to offer it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [641.279], "stop_times": [650.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 641.279}, "reply_to": "23513__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23513__0_043", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [650.334], "stop_times": [650.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 650.334}, "reply_to": "23513__0_042", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_044", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "I mean, it just... it's almost question-begging.\nIt's peculiar.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [650.787, 653.629], "stop_times": [653.629, 654.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 650.787}, "reply_to": "23513__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23513__0_045", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "I don't think so, Your Honor.\nIt's only... it only... it's only question-begging because the Respondents have attempted to mischaracterize or misdescribe what is going on here.\nThe rule is, if you are a common carrier, as the telephone companies are, and, in 1980, the FCC was regulating in an environment when there was only one avenue into the home, one communications avenue, the telephone line, and they said,\n\"Under these circumstances, telephone common carriers are not going to be allowed to escape Title II regulation completely by offering enhanced services, if they can offer an enhanced service, an intermingled... integrated transmission and computer data-processing service, and that service, as a whole, when it's offered, will be unregulated, because Title II does not extend to those types of integrated service offerings. \"\nThey said,\n\"However, if you... if it is a telephone common carrier that's making that offering, a facilities-based, typically-monopoly common carrier, they will have an obligation to also make a standalone offering of transmission under Title II, because they were telephone... traditional common carriers. \"\nCable companies are not in that category.\nThey have not traditionally been--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [654.807, 655.814, 662.49, 677.05, 701.195, 701.904, 719.744, 721.771], "stop_times": [655.814, 662.49, 677.05, 701.195, 701.904, 719.744, 721.771, 722.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 654.807}, "reply_to": "23513__0_044", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_046", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Did you say... you say that the FCC is changing its view.\nIt has tentatively changed its view.\nSo it will bracket the telephone companies with the cable companies.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [722.709, 726.682, 728.74], "stop_times": [726.682, 728.74, 732.772], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.709}, "reply_to": "23513__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23513__0_047", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Well, actually, that's an important point, Justice Ginsburg.\nThe FCC has never said that an integrated offering of DSL that... DSL Internet service, the combined integrated offering, the analog to what we have here, in the cable context... the FCC has never said that that is not an information service.\nThey have... and they have tentatively concluded now that it is.\nWhat they have said... what they said in the 1998 order that Respondents cite was that the telecommunications... the telephone companies are already offering DSL on a standalone, pure-transmission basis to other competing Internet Service Providers; therefore, it is a telecommunications service.\nIndeed, it was undisputed that it was a telecommunications service.\nAnd, again, the reason they were doing that, we assume, is because the preexisting Computer II and Computer III framework required the telephone carriers to make that standalone offering.\nBut the Commission has not said the integrated offering is also a telecommunications service, and it has now tentatively concluded that it is an information service, in keeping with 25 years of regulatory history that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [732.772, 734.403, 750.595, 753.049, 770.467, 773.145, 782.899], "stop_times": [734.403, 750.595, 753.049, 770.467, 773.145, 782.899, 793.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 732.772}, "reply_to": "23513__0_046", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_048", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "What would be left in the common-carrier category?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [793.63], "stop_times": [796.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 793.63}, "reply_to": "23513__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23513__0_049", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Well, any standalone, pure-transmission offering, including, under the Computer II rationale, to the extent the Commission adheres to it--\nand it hasn't overturned it yet; it's considering the extent to which it should create an exception in the DSL context... but under Computer II, a basic, traditional common carrier cannot get away... cannot get out of Title II regulation by offering an integrated offering.\nThey will also have to make the standalone offering, unless and to the extent the Commission determines that that's not necessary; for instance, because the enhanced or integrated... information-service market is sufficiently competitive that it's not necessary and there are adequate alternative--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [796.851, 806.53, 820.429], "stop_times": [806.53, 820.429, 834.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 796.851}, "reply_to": "23513__0_048", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_050", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Well, that's wonderful policy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [834.392], "stop_times": [835.773], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 834.392}, "reply_to": "23513__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_051", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--communications pipelines.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [835.773], "stop_times": [835.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 835.773}, "reply_to": "23513__0_050", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_052", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--that's wonderful policy, but I don't... what I'm still waiting to hear is how you get that out of the definitions, which is the lever that the Commission is using to implement this good policy.\nIt is saying, in some cases, that a bundled offering is an offering of telecommunications; and, in other cases, it's saying a bundled offering isn't.\nAnd the reason, you say, is not because of the nature of the thing, because of the definition, it's because you tell us it has good consequences in one case, and doesn't have good consequences in the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [835.937, 847.722, 859.515], "stop_times": [847.722, 859.515, 870.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 835.937}, "reply_to": "23513__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_053", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Your Honor, I'm sorry, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [870.891], "stop_times": [872.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.891}, "reply_to": "23513__0_052", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_054", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "That's not my understanding--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [872.438], "stop_times": [873.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 872.438}, "reply_to": "23513__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_055", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [873.243], "stop_times": [873.477], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 873.243}, "reply_to": "23513__0_054", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_056", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--of how definitions work.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [873.477], "stop_times": [874.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 873.477}, "reply_to": "23513__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_057", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Let me try to clarify what the Commission's position is.\nThe Commission has never said, that I am aware of or that Respondents have pointed out, that the integrated... bundled, if you will... the integrated offering of transmission plus Internet service functionality is a telecommunications service.\nThey have never said that.\nThey have said that some companies, telephone common carriers, will be required to make the separate offering, but it is not correct that the integrated offering is, itself, going to be classified as a telecommunications service.\nIt's classified--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [874.373, 876.65, 891.417, 892.222, 904.718], "stop_times": [876.65, 891.417, 892.222, 904.718, 905.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 874.373}, "reply_to": "23513__0_056", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_058", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "So it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [905.331], "stop_times": [905.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 905.331}, "reply_to": "23513__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23513__0_059", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--as information.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [905.587], "stop_times": [906.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 905.587}, "reply_to": "23513__0_058", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_060", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--in effect, it's the unbundling requirement which is your answer to Justice Scalia's... Why should that make a difference?\nI mean, you could just as well make an unbundling requirement with respect to cable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [906.174, 912.446], "stop_times": [912.446, 916.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 906.174}, "reply_to": "23513__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23513__0_061", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "You could.\nAnd, in fact, the Commission is... has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking and an invitation for comment in the order under review here to consider whether it should make such a requirement under its ancillary Title I authority in this context, and what... and, if so, to what extent?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [916.675, 917.599], "stop_times": [917.599, 931.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 916.675}, "reply_to": "23513__0_060", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_062", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "And the reason for a distinction, at least at the present time... the reason for the reasonableness of the distinction at the present time, as a source of applying this definition, is history, basically.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [931.822], "stop_times": [944.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.822}, "reply_to": "23513__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23513__0_063", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "History and, not unrelated to that, the fact that the cable companies have not traditionally been regulated as common carriers under the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [944.782], "stop_times": [955.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 944.782}, "reply_to": "23513__0_062", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_064", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [955.348], "stop_times": [955.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 955.348}, "reply_to": "23513__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23513__0_065", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Title II of the Act.\nYes, that's correct.\nAnd then just one final point, if I may... Justice Scalia, I think this also goes to your question... Respondents are the ones who are being inconsistent, and that... the states, for instance, they suggest that, \"Well, if\"... they say that,\n\"Well, cable modem service should be regulated as a telecommunications service, in part. \"\nBut, of course, traditional information service providers, ISPs, should not be; they're pure information service, even though ISPs also provide transmission.\nThey provide telecommunications.\nInformation service... excuse me... Internet service does not work unless you have transmission from wherever the telephone call goes into the central office, and it has to be transmitted from there to the Internet Service Provider's point of presence on the Internet, and from there out onto the Internet.\nAnd Internet Service Providers either own or lease that transmission capacity and offer that as part of the bundled offering that they make.\nSo every Internet Service Provider would be a telecommunications carrier under their position, and that is contrary to what the FCC said before the '96 Act, and it's contrary to what Congress said in the 1996 Act.\nThey said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [955.752, 956.435, 957.646, 969.981, 973.869, 982.845, 984.658, 998.419, 1005.437, 1015.58], "stop_times": [956.435, 957.646, 969.981, 973.869, 982.845, 984.658, 998.419, 1005.437, 1015.58, 1015.996], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 955.752}, "reply_to": "23513__0_064", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_066", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "They claim that that's by toleration of the FCC.\nI was going to ask them about that, don't worry.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1015.996, 1018.688, 1020.16], "stop_times": [1018.688, 1020.16, 1020.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.996}, "reply_to": "23513__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__0_067", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--If I may reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1020.767], "stop_times": [1022.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1020.767}, "reply_to": "23513__0_066", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__0_068", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Very well, Mr. Hungar.\nMr. Cappuccio, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1022.5, 1024.308], "stop_times": [1024.308, 1026.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1022.5}, "reply_to": "23513__0_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23513__1_000", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nLet me begin by trying to answer Justice Scalia's question.\nThe question here, Justice, is, Are we offering two products, or are we offering two ingredients that come together to form a separate product?\nAnd I would submit that if you go back and read paragraph 120 of the Computer II order, 1980, that's exactly what Congress said was happening.\nWhat Congress said is, when you take... not Congress, I'm sorry; the FCC, of course... when you take the communications component and the data-processing component and combine them, they are ingredients into what is a new offering, and a new and unregulated offering.\nThey said,\n\"We can't separate them. \"\n\"It's not useful to try to separate them. \"\n\"And we view them as two ingredients, forming a product that is a distinct product. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1026.964, 1037.635, 1042.365, 1055.176, 1065.415, 1080.278, 1080.79, 1082.478, 1084.978], "stop_times": [1037.635, 1042.365, 1055.176, 1065.415, 1080.278, 1080.79, 1082.478, 1084.978, 1089.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1026.964}, "reply_to": "23513__0_068", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_001", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "What is the... what is the data-processing part?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1089.55], "stop_times": [1092.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1089.55}, "reply_to": "23513__1_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__1_002", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "In the case of cable modem service, Your Honor, it's a number of things.\nIt's the ability to, for example, retrieve information from a server that somebody has on the Web--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1092.541, 1096.62], "stop_times": [1096.62, 1104.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1092.541}, "reply_to": "23513__1_001", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_003", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "So I guess, on that one, if, in fact, you had a telephone system, and, at the other end of the wire, Joe Smith, your friend, had recorded a message,--\nand when you rang the call, the service simply picked up the message and played it to you, wouldn't it still be a telephone system?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1104.587, 1114.922], "stop_times": [1114.922, 1123.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.587}, "reply_to": "23513__1_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__1_004", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Well, I think in your situation... in the hypothetical you give, Your Honor, that would be somebody using just a regular transmission-only path to hear what the other person--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1123.833], "stop_times": [1134.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1123.833}, "reply_to": "23513__1_003", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_005", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "And how is this different?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1134.632], "stop_times": [1136.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1134.632}, "reply_to": "23513__1_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__1_006", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Well, because here, in the example that I used, for example... it's certainly not the only one... it is the capacity to retrieve information that is stored otherwise.\nAnd that follows, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1136.099, 1144.67], "stop_times": [1144.67, 1145.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1136.099}, "reply_to": "23513__1_005", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_007", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Information that other people have stored otherwise?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1145.646], "stop_times": [1149.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1145.646}, "reply_to": "23513__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__1_008", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Yes.\nAnd not... and not necessarily--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1149.144, 1149.624], "stop_times": [1149.624, 1151.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1149.144}, "reply_to": "23513__1_007", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_009", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Well, why isn't that even more telecommunications than my answering service?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1151.709], "stop_times": [1155.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1151.709}, "reply_to": "23513__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__1_010", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1155.907], "stop_times": [1156.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1155.907}, "reply_to": "23513__1_009", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_011", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "You know, I pick up my messages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1156.771], "stop_times": [1158.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1156.771}, "reply_to": "23513__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__1_012", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--I would say, Your Honor, for one thing, it fits squarely within the definition of information service, which says--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1158.067], "stop_times": [1163.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1158.067}, "reply_to": "23513__1_011", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_013", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Well, yes, of course it does, and so does my answering service.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1163.368], "stop_times": [1166.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1163.368}, "reply_to": "23513__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__1_014", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1166.227], "stop_times": [1168.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1166.227}, "reply_to": "23513__1_013", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_015", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "I got... what about the next one?\nYou were going to... what I want to do is write down a list--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1168.387, 1170.072], "stop_times": [1170.072, 1172.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.387}, "reply_to": "23513__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__1_016", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1172.163], "stop_times": [1172.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1172.163}, "reply_to": "23513__1_015", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_017", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--of those things that are not telecommunications.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1172.648], "stop_times": [1175.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1172.648}, "reply_to": "23513__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__1_018", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "It's the ability to engage in... to use your e-mail, it's the ability--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1175.581], "stop_times": [1183.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1175.581}, "reply_to": "23513__1_017", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_019", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Well, the ability to engage or use my e-mail is an ability to access messages that other people, who don't work for you, have left for me.\nNow, again, I keep thinking of my answering machine--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1183.475, 1193.635], "stop_times": [1193.635, 1197.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1183.475}, "reply_to": "23513__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__1_020", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1197.208], "stop_times": [1197.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1197.208}, "reply_to": "23513__1_019", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_021", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--and it doesn't seem very different.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1197.854], "stop_times": [1199.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.854}, "reply_to": "23513__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__1_022", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1199.555], "stop_times": [1200.643], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1199.555}, "reply_to": "23513__1_021", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_023", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "But, anyway, what's the third one?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1200.643], "stop_times": [1201.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1200.643}, "reply_to": "23513__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__1_024", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Well, it's anything that allows you to browse the World Wide Web and to... and to retrieve information from the World Wide Web.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1201.661], "stop_times": [1212.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1201.661}, "reply_to": "23513__1_023", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_025", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Yes, indeed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1212.071], "stop_times": [1213.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1212.071}, "reply_to": "23513__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__1_026", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1213.047], "stop_times": [1213.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1213.047}, "reply_to": "23513__1_025", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_027", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "What it is, is a system where I pick up the phone, and what my phone does is... let's say it had the ability to survey a number of possible people who wanted to talk to me.\nWould that suddenly change it from a phone to a computer or an information system?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1213.409, 1225.674], "stop_times": [1225.674, 1232.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1213.409}, "reply_to": "23513__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__1_028", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1232.944], "stop_times": [1233.28], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1232.944}, "reply_to": "23513__1_027", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_029", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Because the other people are leaving the information; it's not the phone that's doing it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1233.28], "stop_times": [1236.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1233.28}, "reply_to": "23513__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__1_030", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Your Honor, the ability to retrieve information that is stored somewhere out on a server is not the raw transmission functionality.\nIt is more than that.\nIt is what the Congress has said it is, it is the ability to retrieve information.\nIt is not simply sending bits over a line and having those bits not changed and not interfered with.\nWhen you retrieve something from a server, you have to take it in form it is on the server, you have to then put it through the transmission system, and you have to reconvert it back into what you want to see.\nIt's an interactive process that is more than just sending information.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1236.708, 1245.582, 1246.67, 1252.009, 1257.859, 1267.71], "stop_times": [1245.582, 1246.67, 1252.009, 1257.859, 1267.71, 1271.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1236.708}, "reply_to": "23513__1_029", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_031", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Rather like when I phone Europe, and they take the message and turn it into electronic packets, and they send it all over the world and on computers and so forth, and it comes back to me eventually, sounds a lot like my brother-in-law.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1271.31, 1282.243], "stop_times": [1282.243, 1282.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1271.31}, "reply_to": "23513__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__1_032", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Yeah, I guess... look, Your Honor, I am not disputing that an information service has a component of it that's communications.\nIt may, indeed, have a component of it that's communication.\nBut what the FCC said in Computer II is that when you combine the... you combine the communications with, for example, the data-retrieval function, that that combination of things is no longer the two separate products, it is a new enhanced service that is beyond Title II.\nAnd, Justice Scalia, part of the evidence that these are not two separate products is, if they were, then Congress never could have said if enhanced services were outside of Title II.\nComputer II would have to be wrong and overruled, even though it's now 20--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1282.456, 1291.09, 1294.049, 1313.415, 1325.025], "stop_times": [1291.09, 1294.049, 1313.415, 1325.025, 1329.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1282.456}, "reply_to": "23513__1_031", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_033", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "The FCC--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1329.393], "stop_times": [1330.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1329.393}, "reply_to": "23513__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__1_034", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Yeah, I'm sorry, I keep saying Congress; I meant the FCC.\nThe FCC could not have said that, because it would have been forced... if, as the theory goes, the enhanced service has in it the separate product of communications and has a separate status, then they wouldn't have been able to take it out of Computer II.\nBut let me suggest, stepping back for a second... and, by the way, I should add that in this case, in the paragraph 39 of the order under... below, the FCC said the two were not separable.\nOkay?\nI understand that to mean they are ingredients intertwined, they are not separate products.\nBut the basic thing that the agency did here was to decide which of two things is happening.\nAre these two separate products?\nIs this communications and Chicken McNuggets being bundled together?\nOr are these two ingredients that are so interwoven, as they said in Computer II, as to form a distinct product +/?\nis a classic example of what an agency does, and it's really not one that this Court, I think, would be likely to secondguess.\nIt is, indeed, in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1330.086, 1332.326, 1346.848, 1358.368, 1359.247, 1362.709, 1367.354, 1369.211, 1372.912, 1378.901, 1387.221], "stop_times": [1332.326, 1346.848, 1358.368, 1359.247, 1362.709, 1367.354, 1369.211, 1372.912, 1378.901, 1387.221, 1388.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1330.086}, "reply_to": "23513__1_033", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_035", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "But the... I mean, I think the difficulty that we're having is that it says it in the cable context, and then it doesn't say it in the wire context.\nAnd you can say it just as intelligibly in the wire context.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1388.192, 1395.093], "stop_times": [1395.093, 1397.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.192}, "reply_to": "23513__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23513__1_036", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1397.94], "stop_times": [1398.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1397.94}, "reply_to": "23513__1_035", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_037", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "It's just that you haven't been saying it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1398.308], "stop_times": [1400.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1398.308}, "reply_to": "23513__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23513__1_038", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Let me try to clarify that, Justice Souter.\nThe reason why DSL meets the definition of \"telecommunications service\" and we don't is because the telephone companies do, in fact, provide the transmission-only component.\nNow, the reason they do that, Justice Souter, is, as Mr. Hungar said, historical, though it wasn't without basis in reasons in history, but they do, in fact, provide it separately.\nThey do, because Congress required them to do it through a separate subsidiary in Computer II.\nThere were reasons for that.\nThey wanted to avoid cross-subsidies, they were the only platform, they were worried about discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1400.345, 1402.312, 1415.283, 1427.725, 1432.232, 1433.048], "stop_times": [1402.312, 1415.283, 1427.725, 1432.232, 1433.048, 1437.427], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1400.345}, "reply_to": "23513__1_037", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_039", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "So is that really the nub of the difference?\nIt's Congress that is requiring them to do it separately, and Congress doesn't have a comparable requirement with respect to cable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1437.427, 1439.854], "stop_times": [1439.854, 1446.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1437.427}, "reply_to": "23513__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23513__1_040", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "I would... I read the statute this way.\nCongress takes the world as it comes.\nIf you are providing it as a common carrier, then you fall within... you're providing it separately... then you fall within the definition of \"telecommunications service\".\nThe DSL guys are.\nIf you are not, and we are not, then you don't fall within--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1446.877, 1448.776, 1451.208, 1459.902, 1461.197], "stop_times": [1448.776, 1451.208, 1459.902, 1461.197, 1465.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1446.877}, "reply_to": "23513__1_039", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_041", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Yeah, but that begs the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1465.08], "stop_times": [1466.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.08}, "reply_to": "23513__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23513__1_042", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Your Honor, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1466.094], "stop_times": [1466.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1466.094}, "reply_to": "23513__1_041", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_043", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "It begs the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1466.627], "stop_times": [1469.245], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1466.627}, "reply_to": "23513__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23513__1_044", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--It just says that it's for someone else to decide the second prong of the NARUC test, which is, Should you be compelled?\nOkay?\nThe Congress doesn't decide that.\nIt's crazy to think that Congress decided, forever and ever and ever, that everybody who came in would be a common carrier, no matter what the market looked like.\nCongress, instead, took the world as it came, and it relies on the FCC to decide whether you should be compelled, under the second prong of NARUC, to be a common carrier.\nThey have declined, in this case, to extend that to us.\nThat, I would say, is... you know, that's entitled to the utmost deference.\nIt's a... deciding not to extend their own rules.\nAnd there are perfectly fine reasons for that.\nThe reasons that pushed them to do it in 1980 to the telephone companies, about cross-subsidies, have no application to us.\nAnd the discrimination justifications back then, when there was only one platform, had no application to us.\nNow, you may say, Is this an odd result that it comes out differently at the end?\nWell, it is, and it is being dealt with.\nThe FCC is in the process of reconsidering, in the wireline order, Wireline NPRM, whether it still makes sense to use Computer II to impose a common-carrier obligation, an obligation to do it separately, to provide the communications separately, on the telephone companies.\nIf they decide that no longer is the case and that they don't have to provide it separately, and the telephone companies stop doing that, they will no longer fall within the definition of \"telecommunications service\" under the statute.\nIn other words, the statute asks, What are you, in fact, doing?\nThere are two ways you could be providing it separately: if you choose to it or if you're forced to do it.\nWe've done neither.\nThe telephone companies have been forced to do it.\nCongress has... and they've decided we shouldn't be forced to do it, and they're entitled to deference on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1469.245, 1554.353, 1477.757, 1478.897, 1485.27, 1493.488, 1496.384, 1500.16, 1502.518, 1504.517, 1510.837, 1516.292, 1519.902, 1522.594, 1538.759, 1550.594, 1555.383, 1559.724, 1561.041, 1563.478], "stop_times": [1554.353, 1477.757, 1478.897, 1485.27, 1493.488, 1496.384, 1500.16, 1502.518, 1504.517, 1510.837, 1516.292, 1519.902, 1522.594, 1538.759, 1550.594, 1555.383, 1559.724, 1561.041, 1563.478, 1568.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1469.245}, "reply_to": "23513__1_043", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_045", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Basically, you're saying interstitial lawmaking, like other kinds of lawmaking, can be reasonable without being absolutely consistent at a given moment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1568.842], "stop_times": [1577.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1568.842}, "reply_to": "23513__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23513__1_046", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1577.338], "stop_times": [1578.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1577.338}, "reply_to": "23513__1_045", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_047", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--That still doesn't explain... it still doesn't explain, to my satisfaction, why it becomes a different product--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1578.016], "stop_times": [1585.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1578.016}, "reply_to": "23513__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__1_048", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Okay, let me try--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1585.851], "stop_times": [1587.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1585.851}, "reply_to": "23513__1_047", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_049", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--a different product when you're selling it separately, and it is not a different product when you're not selling it separately.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1587.659, 1593.386], "stop_times": [1593.386, 1593.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1587.659}, "reply_to": "23513__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__1_050", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Because, Your Honor, it's whether the words \"offering telecommunications\" are ambiguous.\nIf I... if I bake cakes, and someone was to say,\n\"If you offer cakes, you don't offer butter. \"\nthere's nothing in the English language, Justice Scalia, that makes that unreasonable, that a person who offers cakes to the public does not offer butter to the public.\nAnd if you believe that example is correct, then you have to uphold the FCC, because what it says is, the offer of the final product is not offering, to the public, the ingredient.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1593.536, 1597.6, 1601.418, 1603.797, 1613.125], "stop_times": [1597.6, 1601.418, 1603.797, 1613.125, 1621.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1593.536}, "reply_to": "23513__1_049", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_051", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Unless you also sell butter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1621.577], "stop_times": [1623.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1621.577}, "reply_to": "23513__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__1_052", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Separately.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1623.679], "stop_times": [1625.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1623.679}, "reply_to": "23513__1_051", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_053", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "If you sell butter--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1625.391], "stop_times": [1626.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1625.391}, "reply_to": "23513__1_052", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__1_054", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Separately.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1626.036], "stop_times": [1626.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1626.036}, "reply_to": "23513__1_053", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_055", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--separately, then when you sell a cake--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1626.451], "stop_times": [1627.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1626.451}, "reply_to": "23513__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__1_056", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "But, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1627.89], "stop_times": [1628.018], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1627.89}, "reply_to": "23513__1_055", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_057", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--you're selling butter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1628.018], "stop_times": [1628.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1628.018}, "reply_to": "23513__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23513__1_058", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--The ILECs do, we don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1628.855], "stop_times": [1629.9], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1628.855}, "reply_to": "23513__1_057", "speaker": "paul_t_cappuccio"}
{"id": "23513__1_059", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Cappuccio.\nMr. Goldstein, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1629.9, 1632.342], "stop_times": [1632.342, 1634.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1629.9}, "reply_to": "23513__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23513__2_000", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Court will want to have handy, I think, the red brief of the Respondents Earthlink, et al., because I will repeatedly take you to the text of the statute, which is reproduced at the appendix to that brief.\nMr. Chief Justice, cable modem service refers to the bundled sale, purely for marketing reasons, of two different things: highspeed telecommunications over cable wires, and computer software, like e-mail, that you can access over that highspeed telecommunications.\nThe Commission admits... and it is a critical admission... that the standalone sale of the telecommunications piece is a telecommunications service, notwithstanding that it is on cable wires rather than telephone wires.\nThe Ninth Circuit correctly held that it makes no difference that cable companies market the telecommunications with e-mail and the like.\nCongress cannot have intended to empower carriers to deregulate themselves through the nicety of adding some further feature to their common carriage.\nAnd I think we can demonstrate that through the text of the statute.\nI'd like to take you to two provisions at the outset.\nThe first one is on 2a of the appendix, and it goes, Justice Souter, to the question of whether there's some difference that Congress has adopted between telephone wires and cable wires.\nAnd the answer to that question is, no.\nSubparagraph 46, the definition of \"telecommunications service\", this is the provision that leads to common-carrier regulation.\nThe term \"telecommunications service\" means\n\"the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public. \"\n--and here is the critical clause... \"regardless of the facilities used\".\nCongress made quite clear it was not drawing any distinction based on cable wire versus telephone.\nI'd like to point you to two other provisions.\nThey are not reproduced, because they're in the cable... separate cable provisions, but they will be relevant to your question.\nThat is 47 USC 541(d) and 522.\nThose specifically contemplate that cable companies will be common carriers.\nNow, that's the answer to the question, Is there a difference between a cable wire and a telephone wire?\nLet me now step back to what the FCC said in its ruling.\nThe FCC backed into its decision here, and it will turn on the definition of 1a of the appendix.\nIt said this.\nLook, cable modem service fits within the definition of an \"information service\".\nIt's this bundled thing.\nAnd we construe the definition of an \"information service\" to be mutually exclusive of a telecommunications service.\nAnd that is legal error.\nAnd let me take you through the definition.\nSubparagraph 20, information service.\nThe term \"information service\" means the offering of a capability for, in a variety of things... generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information... via telecommunications.\nThat is not language of exclusivity; it is language of dependence.\nThere has to be telecommunications involved.\nIf you all came to the court today via car, or I came via metro, there was a car or a train involved.\nNow, I want to contrast that with another series of statutory provisions.\nAnd what these provisions do is demonstrate, beyond peradventure, that Congress address the problem you are now facing.\nIt said,\n\"We recognize that there are definitional provisions that might otherwise fall within the definition of \"common carriage\". \" And if we don't want it to be a common carrier, we will tell you expressly.\nThere are four of them.\nThey are reproduced.\nAgain at 1A, the definition of a \"common carrier\".\nIt's the exclusion that appears at the bottom of the definition, three lines from the bottom,\n\"But a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, insofar as such person is so engaged, be deemed a common carrier. \"\nThere's nothing like that for \"information services\".\nThere's going to be one specific table that I think will be particularly illustrative.\nThe next one, the definition of a \"telecommunications carrier\".\nIt's at 2a.\nThere's a specific exclusion.\nTelecommunications carrier, these are the people that are common carriers.\nThe term \"telecommunications carrier\" means\n\"any provider of telecommunications services except. \"\n--so Congress drew this out...\n\"except that such term does not include aggregators of telecommunications services. \"\nThe next two, and they are the final two, are at 8a, one that deals with private mobile services... it's denoted subparagraph 2...\n\"A person engaged in the provision of a service that is a private mobile service shall not, insofar as such person is so engaged, be treated as a common carrier for any purposes under this Act. \"\nThere's a definitional category of \"private mobile service\".\nWe don't want it to be common carriage.\nAnd the final one is the cable one, and I think it's very illustrative... right below that, subparagraph c...\n\"Any cable system shall not be subject to regulation as a common carrier or utility by reason of providing any cable service. \"\nNothing at all about an information service.\nJustice Scalia, you are quite right, this is a case about a statute, and the language has none of the indications that the Commission is relying on here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1634.998, 1643.798, 1656.507, 1675.654, 1690.086, 1698.166, 1709.292, 1712.406, 1715.143, 1726.24, 1728.054, 1737.43, 1740.011, 1748.863, 1753.098, 1758.874, 1761.113, 1766.628, 1771.593, 1775.455, 1779.332, 1783.246, 1790.877, 1791.629, 1796.114, 1797.25, 1804.236, 1805.606, 1807.522, 1810.908, 1824.082, 1827.393, 1829.468, 1835.648, 1839.185, 1845.712, 1846.059, 1857.445, 1858.634, 1859.696, 1863.328, 1868.618, 1876.133, 1878.565, 1882.256, 1885.648, 1886.719, 1888.884, 1892.208, 1895.375, 1898.302, 1899.929, 1904.569, 1914.045, 1925.043, 1927.362, 1928.931, 1934.883, 1942.856, 1945.256], "stop_times": [1643.798, 1656.507, 1675.654, 1690.086, 1698.166, 1709.292, 1712.406, 1715.143, 1726.24, 1728.054, 1737.43, 1740.011, 1748.863, 1753.098, 1758.874, 1761.113, 1766.628, 1771.593, 1775.455, 1779.332, 1783.246, 1790.877, 1791.629, 1796.114, 1797.25, 1804.236, 1805.606, 1807.522, 1810.908, 1824.082, 1827.393, 1829.468, 1835.648, 1839.185, 1845.712, 1846.059, 1857.445, 1858.634, 1859.696, 1863.328, 1868.618, 1876.133, 1878.565, 1882.256, 1885.648, 1886.719, 1888.884, 1892.208, 1895.375, 1898.302, 1899.929, 1904.569, 1914.045, 1925.043, 1927.362, 1928.931, 1934.883, 1942.856, 1945.256, 1954.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1634.998}, "reply_to": "23513__1_059", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "23513__2_001", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Well, it does have this, that what... if you look at the definition of \"telecommunications\", it means\n\"transmitting information without change in the form or content of the information. \"\nNow, in respect to some of their services... not, maybe, a lot, but in response to some... they certainly change the content and the form.\nE-mail, for example, does.\nAnd there are a number of others that do.\nSo the language, says the FCC... I look to \"telecommunications service\".\nThey provide telecommunications service sometimes, and sometimes this other thing, as well, and it's all bundled.\nAnd we read the word \"offering\" to mean \"offering separately\".\nAnd so, therefore, a person who offers only a bundled service is not a person who's offering a telecommunications service.\nThat's how I read it, as trying to understand their argument.\nAnd it seemed to me that argument is logical, and it fits the language.\nNow, why is it... are... do you agree that it is logical and fits the language, and at least get them that far, or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [1954.199, 1962.263, 1967.719, 1976.956, 1979.143, 1981.719, 1987.186, 1994.29, 1999.346, 2006.94, 2010.898, 2016.274], "stop_times": [1962.263, 1967.719, 1976.956, 1979.143, 1981.719, 1987.186, 1994.29, 1999.346, 2006.94, 2010.898, 2016.274, 2022.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1954.199}, "reply_to": "23513__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__2_002", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2022.882], "stop_times": [2023.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2022.882}, "reply_to": "23513__2_001", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "23513__2_003", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2023.234], "stop_times": [2023.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.234}, "reply_to": "23513__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__2_004", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "All right, let me take you through both parts.\nTelecommunications... we're going to talk about the definition of \"telecommunications\" and what it is to \"offer\".\nThey are wrong in suggesting that there is not telecommunications here, and I can prove it two ways.\nThe first is, remember, \"telecommunications\" is the phrase in the definition of \"information service\", as well.\nLet me take you back to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2023.756, 2025.638, 2030.395, 2035.808, 2041.814], "stop_times": [2025.638, 2030.395, 2035.808, 2041.814, 2042.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2023.756}, "reply_to": "23513__2_003", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "23513__2_005", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "xxx--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2042.662], "stop_times": [2043.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2042.662}, "reply_to": "23513__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__2_006", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "1a.\nThe term \"information service\" means\n\"the offering of a capability for xxx via telecommunications. \"\nThey're categorizing this thing as an information service, so they have to be acknowledging there's telecommunications involved.\nSo, obviously, cable modem service--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2043.366, 2047.179, 2048.826, 2053.397, 2058.859], "stop_times": [2047.179, 2048.826, 2053.397, 2058.859, 2061.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2043.366}, "reply_to": "23513__2_005", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "23513__2_007", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "No, no, but they're saying if telecommunications and something else is involved, and that's what you offer, you are not offering a telecommunications service.\nThat's their definition of \"offer\", as \"offer telecommunications service separately\".\nIt would be obvious, for example, if you service were by phone, to connect with the Library of Congress and you owned the Library of Congress, as well as owning the dedicated line.\nThen what you're doing is selling information across the line.\nSo they say that's what they're doing, but just not as much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2061.472, 2072.308, 2078.138, 2089.775, 2093.373], "stop_times": [2072.308, 2078.138, 2089.775, 2093.373, 2096.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2061.472}, "reply_to": "23513__2_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23513__2_008", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Let me explain why I answered them separately.\nBecause the Commission's argument... if this... Chenery... you have to review a Commission decision... the Commission's argument was that there was no telecommunications involved.\nThis is a different argument from the fact that there is no offering.\nThat appears in the Solicitor General's reply brief.\nSo I wanted to bracket, set aside.\nIt says,\n\"That can't be right. \"\n\"The Commission is ruling based on a pure legal error. \"\nLet me turn to \"offering\".\nWe're the only ones that have provided a straightforward dictionary definition of \"offering\".\nAn \"offering\" is to make something available.\nAnd you say,\n\"All right, is the bundle making available the telecommunications? \"\nThe answer to that question is, yes.\nAt the very least, it's yes in the context of this statute, which is a common-carriage statute.\nImagine the following hypotheticals, Justice Breyer.\nPick any form of common carriage you want.\nIf someone said,\n\"I'm not just giving you the railroad bridge, but I'm also selling you... you have to buy from me the train that's running on it and the grain that's in the train. \"\nYou couldn't avoid common carriage by forcing your customers to buy the unified package together.\nThe second point is that, remember, the great, great, great majority of communications have nothing to do with their information services.\nI have cable modem service.\nLots of people do.\nWhat do I do?\nI get up in the morning, and I go to [newyorktimesDOTcom,] I go to [supremecourtusDOTgov.]\nYou'll be pleased.\nI--\n[Laughter]\nAnd that has nothing to do with what they're offering.\nI don't use the e-mail program that's offered to me by Star Power.\nI have my own e-mail program.\nIt's true, they've given me some extra stuff, but one thing that you know for sure is that doesn't deny that they have given me, fundamentally, the capability to send the information back and forth.\nNothing changes.\nAnd I can illustrate this for you.\nRemember the concession that I started with.\nThey admit that if they sell it alone, then that's a telecommunications service.\nThey say it makes it different... a difference that you market them together.\nBut if I get one bill for that or two bills for that, it works just the same.\nI send the information back and forth, over and over again.\nThere is absolutely no difference.\nNow, Justice Souter, I want to come back to history, because that's... seems to me the leg that they hope that they have to stand on.\nI certainly don't think they have a textual leg to stand on.\nLet me make some points about the history.\nThe context for this is the Computer Inquiries and the modified final judgement under AT&T, and they are simply misdescribing the history.\nAnd I will take you to the actual quotes for what happened.\nFirst, let me take you to the definition of a 23 of our brief.\nAnd the point I'm going to make through this is... what the Commission said over and over and over again under the Computer Inquiries... is this, if you have a telecommunications piece, we're going to call it a \"basic service\".\nIf you add information processing on top of that, we're going to call the whole thing an \"enhanced service\".\nSo far, everybody's on the same page.\nBut the piece that they're leaving out is that they made different decisions, policy decisions, Justice Scalia, about how, ultimately, to regulate them, but the definition never changed.\nIf you added the enhancement on it, just like you add the e-mail on top of it, you still had the basic service.\nSo here's the quote.\nIt's at 23 of our brief.\n\"We find that basic service is limited to the common-carrier offering. \"\n--they're picking... Congress is picking up precisely the words in the Computer Inquiries...\n\"of transmission capacity for the movement of information; whereas, enhanced service combines basic service with computer-processing applications. \"\nThe basic service remained.\nAnd then the Commission and the D.C. Circuit confronted just the problem you are.\nWhat happened is that providers, under the Computer Inquiries and under the modified final judgement, tried to combine the two things and say, \"We're no longer regulated\".\nThey said,\n\"Yeah, I know we had telecommunications, but now we want to add something onto it. \"\nAnd I can take you to what the courts said and what the Commission said, and that is at pages 24 to 25.\nAnd I think it's exactly what Congress would think if it were confronted with this problem under the plain definitions.\nThe second block quote on 24.\nThis is when the Commission was confronted with this problem.\nIt said that the argument that they're accepting now would allow circumvention of the Computer II and Computer III basic enhanced framework.\nAT&T would be able to avoid Computer II and Computer III, unbundling--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2096.239, 2098.036, 2106.9, 2109.604, 2111.705, 2112.957, 2113.298, 2114.125, 2116.423, 2117.526, 2121.617, 2124.023, 2124.508, 2129.772, 2131.74, 2137.313, 2139.889, 2141.542, 2142.156, 2149.639, 2155.794, 2176.775, 2165.698, 2166.604, 2167.383, 2171.543, 2171.969, 2172.69, 2174.012, 2178.055, 2181.778, 2183.319, 2195.179, 2195.932, 2197.457, 2199.659, 2203.958, 2206.54, 2211.75, 2215.174, 2216.817, 2222.598, 2225.382, 2227.217, 2236.79, 2239.77, 2251.823, 2263.241, 2268.451, 2270.386, 2280.241, 2286.15, 2287.003, 2288.368, 2293.403, 2296.235, 2305.163, 2307.077, 2311.694, 2320.175, 2320.666, 2324.788, 2330.456, 2335.816, 2338.179, 2340.889, 2348.121], "stop_times": [2098.036, 2106.9, 2109.604, 2111.705, 2112.957, 2113.298, 2114.125, 2116.423, 2117.526, 2121.617, 2124.023, 2124.508, 2129.772, 2131.74, 2137.313, 2139.889, 2141.542, 2142.156, 2149.639, 2155.794, 2176.775, 2165.698, 2166.604, 2167.383, 2171.543, 2171.969, 2172.69, 2174.012, 2178.055, 2181.778, 2183.319, 2195.179, 2195.932, 2197.457, 2199.659, 2203.958, 2206.54, 2211.75, 2215.174, 2216.817, 2222.598, 2225.382, 2227.217, 2236.79, 2239.77, 2251.823, 2263.241, 2268.451, 2270.386, 2280.241, 2286.15, 2287.003, 2288.368, 2293.403, 2296.235, 2305.163, 2307.077, 2311.694, 2320.175, 2320.666, 2324.788, 2330.456, 2335.816, 2338.179, 2340.889, 2348.121, 2352.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.239}, "reply_to": "23513__2_007", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "23513__2_009", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Well, can't the Commission change its mind, Mr. Goldstein?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2352.611], "stop_times": [2356.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2352.611}, "reply_to": "23513__2_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23513__2_010", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Mr. Chief Justice, on this question, the answer is, no, because Mr. Hungar has conceded, and the Commission conceded below, that Congress was adopting a definitional framework.\nI agree, Mr. Chief Justice, that the Commission can change its policy judgement about how it wants to regulate within the definitional framework that Congress adopted.\nSo you've pointed me to a critical point, and that is to reinforce--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2356.82, 2365.587, 2374.782], "stop_times": [2365.587, 2374.782, 2377.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2356.82}, "reply_to": "23513__2_009", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "23513__2_011", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Well, I'm glad I did.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2377.022, 2378.457], "stop_times": [2378.457, 2380.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2377.022}, "reply_to": "23513__2_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23513__2_012", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--and that is to reinforce this.\nOur position is that the Computer Inquiries and the AT&T MFJ had definitions: What's a basic service?\nWhat's an enhanced service?\nCongress adopted those for the purposes of the definition of a \"telecommunications service\" and an \"information service\".\nNow, you can make policy judgements about how to regulate, although you're going to have to do it under the forbearance regime adopted in a response to Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court in MCI.\nBut, nonetheless, the definitions are what they are.\nThis is a statute that's being interpreted.\nSo, let me come back.\nSo, what did the Commission say under those definitions?\nAT&T would be able to avoid Computer II and Computer III unbundling and tariff requirements for any basic service that it could combine with an enhanced service.\nYou know, we've got the telecommunications, like we're going to tack e-mail onto it.\nThis is obviously an undesirable and unintended result.\nThe D.C. Circuit, faced with precisely the same question under the framework that Congress intended to adopt, that is on the next page, on page 25, right below the block quote.\nThe block quote sets up the problem.\nThe D.C. Circuit, however, rejected that conclusion, the one that's being proposed here by the Commission, as a strained interpretation of the language of the decree that could not have been intended because it would allow the BOCs to, quote, \"create an enormous loophole\" in the core restriction of the decree.\nSo, Justice O'Connor, this comes back to your point in the first half of the argument, and that is, it becomes completely circular.\nIf the point is that you will only be subject to common-carrier regulation when you decide to provide telecommunications service, nobody ever will.\nEverybody will always bundle.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2380.568, 2382.168, 2387.998, 2388.995, 2395.042, 2404.306, 2406.915, 2408.61, 2409.747, 2412.136, 2420.808, 2423.933, 2427.517, 2437.596, 2438.908, 2452.786, 2459.527, 2469.036], "stop_times": [2382.168, 2387.998, 2388.995, 2395.042, 2404.306, 2406.915, 2408.61, 2409.747, 2412.136, 2420.808, 2423.933, 2427.517, 2437.596, 2438.908, 2452.786, 2459.527, 2469.036, 2470.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2380.568}, "reply_to": "23513__2_011", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "23513__2_013", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--No, but they say we have the authority, if they... if there is a bundled service, by looking at the competitive necessity, market power, the need to protect consumers, to insist that an offeror of bundled service split the bundle and then be regulated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2470.828], "stop_times": [2491.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.828}, "reply_to": "23513__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__2_014", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "I agree.\nThere are five xxx where the Solicitor General, sort of, pulls the ripcord here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2491.435, 2492.32], "stop_times": [2492.32, 2495.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2491.435}, "reply_to": "23513__2_013", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "23513__2_015", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2495.168], "stop_times": [2495.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2495.168}, "reply_to": "23513__2_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__2_016", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "First, they have a Chenery problem; and that is, this doesn't appear anywhere in the Commission's ruling.\nWhat they said in the Commission's ruling is that they could take a Title I information service and regulate it as common carriage.\nThis is an entirely different animal.\nThis is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2495.46, 2500.717, 2506.739, 2508.723], "stop_times": [2500.717, 2506.739, 2508.723, 2509.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2495.46}, "reply_to": "23513__2_015", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "23513__2_017", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "No, but they're replying to your argument, and they're saying it's really not right that this means no regulation.\nAnd the reason it means no regulation is because they've long had the authority to do this, and then they cite some references where that is pretty much what the Commission said.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2509.144, 2516.039], "stop_times": [2516.039, 2526.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2509.144}, "reply_to": "23513__2_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__2_018", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--I still this is covered by Chenery, but let's go to that.\nAnd so, here's the proposition.\nThe proposition is that the Commission has the untethered authority to force someone to provide a telecommunications service.\nAnd my question back to the other side is, Where in the world in the statute is that?\nThere is no textural foundation for it whatsoever.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2526.226, 2528.765, 2530.034, 2537.079, 2541.303], "stop_times": [2528.765, 2530.034, 2537.079, 2541.303, 2544.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2526.226}, "reply_to": "23513__2_017", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "23513__2_019", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Well, if you take them as having a broad... if you take the statute as throwing this whole problem in the lap of the Commission--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2544.242], "stop_times": [2551.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2544.242}, "reply_to": "23513__2_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__2_020", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2551.297], "stop_times": [2551.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2551.297}, "reply_to": "23513__2_019", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "23513__2_021", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--and then you say they have authority, broadly, to interpret this term \"offer\", they could give functional reasons, as in some circumstances, to interpret the word \"offer\" to mean \"offer telecommunications separately\", and, in other circumstances, because they're functional differences, to take a different position.\nNow, either they do or they don't.\nIf they don't, they're being inconsistent, and that's the subject of a different legal proceeding.\nIf they do, so be it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2551.734, 2574.614, 2576.624, 2582.571], "stop_times": [2574.614, 2576.624, 2582.571, 2584.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2551.734}, "reply_to": "23513__2_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__2_022", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Let me deal with the premise that Congress threw this into the lap of the FCC, and also how it is they propose to deal with it, on that assumption.\nThe answer is, they did not throw it into the lap of the FCC.\nThe '96 Act enacted these definitions, which are very carefully calibrated, for which there is no text... textual support.\nI will come back to \"offering\".\nBut Congress did enact a specific provision in MCI versus AT&T. It addressed not only the concern of the majority, but also the concerns of the dissenters, that the Commission needed some flexibility.\nAnd it told the Commission how to address this problem.\nIt said, in the forbearance procedures,\n\"Here are the rules that you will apply in deciding to lift regulation. \"\nThey're quite detailed.\nThey're... now, let me take you to them again... they're at the end of our... I'm sorry, they are at... in our appendix, at 3a.\nThis is what Congress said.\nCongress said,\n\"We recognize the Commission needs some flexibility, but there are going to be rules, and there are going to be rules so courts can, for example, review, later on, whether or not you're actually applying what we... doing what you want... what we wanted you to do. \"\nAnd here's what the Commission has to do, according to Congress.\nAnd it's what the Commission did not do here.\nI'm going to start with the indented paragraphs, 1, 2, and 3, and then subparagraph b.\nIt told the Commission to look at whether or not the former regulation is not necessary to ensure that the charges... and skipping again... are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory.\nParagraph 2, they have to make sure it's not necessary for the protection of consumers, that it's in the public interest, and that the competitive effects will be positive rather than negative.\nThe Commission did none of this, notwithstanding that Congress specifically directed them to.\nNow, let me then turn to the question of whether or not this is a reasonable interpretation of \"offering\".\nNow, in different contexts, I admit, it's conceivable to come up with different meanings of \"offerings\", but this is a context, and I think if you take any example where Congress actually... I've given you the common carrier.\nI don't think the railroad could ever get away with saying it.\nI gave you the examples of the Computer Inquiries and the AT&T MFJ, which are on point.\nBut take anything that Congress regulates.\nTake, for example, the fact that we regulate offering of cigarettes to children.\nNow, a merchandiser couldn't come along and say,\n\"I'm not offering cigarettes. \"\n\"What I've done is, I've created a smoking service. \"\n\"I've taken the cigarettes, and I've put a lighter in it, and you've just got one bill that you have to pay for it. \"\nThe idea that that would evade what Congress is concerned about is loopy.\nThink about what Congress is concerned about with common-carriage regulations.\nThere are three principal consequences to being a telecommunications service.\nAnd imagine if any of them changed a whit, except to favor us, when you bundle the e-mail with it.\nFirst, nondiscrimination.\nWould Congress want you to have to charge just and reasonable rates to a competitor any less when you're selling e-mail with the telecommunications than the telecommunications alone?\nNo.\nInterconnection.\nWould Congress want a cable modem service network to be less interconnected with all the other networks simply because it has e-mail or a Web browser on it?\nI don't know why, I suppose Congress would want to be more sure, because there are more messages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2584.96, 2592.821, 2595.664, 2603.113, 2604.052, 2615.226, 2618.217, 2621.747, 2627.261, 2628.302, 2640.408, 2642.386, 2643.011, 2655.468, 2658.406, 2660.432, 2666.427, 2677.105, 2686.064, 2690.48, 2695.151, 2708.169, 2710.472, 2714.974, 2716.968, 2720.812, 2722.679, 2723.837, 2725.98, 2730.434, 2734.509, 2737.831, 2741.469, 2747.026, 2748.508, 2759.943, 2760.86, 2761.878, 2770.363], "stop_times": [2592.821, 2595.664, 2603.113, 2604.052, 2615.226, 2618.217, 2621.747, 2627.261, 2628.302, 2640.408, 2642.386, 2643.011, 2655.468, 2658.406, 2660.432, 2666.427, 2677.105, 2686.064, 2690.48, 2695.151, 2708.169, 2710.472, 2714.974, 2716.968, 2720.812, 2722.679, 2723.837, 2725.98, 2730.434, 2734.509, 2737.831, 2741.469, 2747.026, 2748.508, 2759.943, 2760.86, 2761.878, 2770.363, 2774.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2584.96}, "reply_to": "23513__2_021", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "23513__2_023", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "But the Congress apparently wanted to go in the direction of deregulation here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2774.623], "stop_times": [2780.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2774.623}, "reply_to": "23513__2_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23513__2_024", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, it's a fair point, and it is basically... aside for the, sort of, nod at history, it... Mr. Hungar started with that.\nAnd our point is that Congress told them how to deregulate, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2780.526, 2788.078], "stop_times": [2788.078, 2791.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2780.526}, "reply_to": "23513__2_023", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "23513__2_025", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Well, what about Congress thinking, quite honestly, if they... people do think about it.\nI have no idea how broadband service will be provided 20 years from now.\nThere may be a thousand competitors.\nThere may be wireless.\nPeople may be broadcasting it through their teeth.\nI don't know--\n[Laughter]\n--what it's going to be.\nBut since I don't know and have really no idea whether it should or should not be regulated, because I don't know the competitive situation, let's leave it up to the FCC.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2791.598, 2796.861, 2801.105, 2803.111, 2804.05, 2806.711, 2807.719, 2807.787, 2808.726], "stop_times": [2796.861, 2801.105, 2803.111, 2804.05, 2806.711, 2807.719, 2807.787, 2808.726, 2818.378], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2791.598}, "reply_to": "23513__2_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__2_026", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--It did that, but with a critical concession.\nIt said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2818.378, 2820.544], "stop_times": [2820.544, 2821.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2818.378}, "reply_to": "23513__2_025", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "23513__2_027", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "It sort of it did that in broadcasting, didn't it?\nI guess they could have written it to say that\n\"the FCC shall regulate common-carrier communications in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. \"\nwhich would put the FCC in the same situation with regard to this, as it's in with regard to broadcasting.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2821.077, 2822.879, 2825.071, 2832.708], "stop_times": [2822.879, 2825.071, 2832.708, 2838.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2821.077}, "reply_to": "23513__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23513__2_028", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--I think it's a very fair comparison.\nBut also, Justice Breyer, I think... you know, I think we're all on the same page about what Congress intended, and that is, first of all, Congress was aware of cable modem service.\nThat's said expressly in the Court's opinion in Gulf Power.\nIt was emphasized by the cable industry in Gulf Power itself.\nThere is... there are several statutory provisions that refer to cable companies being common carriage.\nBut, Justice Breyer, what they said is this,\n\"We have broad encompassing definitions, and that is, it's not going to make a difference if you combine two things together. \"\n\"But, Commission, you go make those. \"\n--Justice Breyer, all the findings you're talking about are listed in the section 10 forbearance proceedings.\nNow, imagine the world as the Commission sees it.\nIt says that forbearance applies to telecommunications service.\nBut when it comes to things that aren't telecommunications service, it's \"Katie bar the door\".\nWe don't have any rules.\nWhat kind of logical regulatory scheme is that?\nAnd that is that the Commission is constrained with respect to its expertise.\nBut things that are information services that are outside telecommunications, it can do whatever it wants.\nJustice Breyer, I did want to make one additional point, and that is, again, there is a statutory provision here that addresses their claim that they can force you to provide telecommunications service, and that is the definition of a \"telecommunications carrier\".\nAnd it is on 2a.\nI read the exception, so now I'm dealing with the second sentence of the definition,\n\"A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this Act only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services. \"\nThis lines up perfectly with this Court's decision in Midwest Video.\nThere was a constraint on what it... what regulation you could impose on broadcasters.\nThis one says,\n\"You are only going to be a common carrier if you're providing a telecommunications service. \"\nBut the FCC has this vision that it can, sort of, solve all the problems through its raw discretion and to force someone to provide common carriage.\nBut the statute's very clear, if you are not providing a telecommunications service, you are not going to be a telecommunications carrier; and, therefore, you are not going to be providing common carriage.\nAnd, as I've said, I don't understand how it is, even if one looked at this particular context, you could decide that Congress thought the bundle made regulation less regulated... less necessary, rather than more regulated... more necessary.\nI want, next, if I could, to talk about the notion that you can self-deregulate, and how utterly implausible this is, how is it that the Commission could imagine that Congress created the following regime.\nAnd that is, if you want to provide common carriage, you'll be subject to this regulation; but if you don't feel like it, well, that's okay.\nThat will render the definition of \"telecommunications service\"... if you just want to tack e-mail onto the thing, that will render the definition of \"telecommunications service\"... in the Internet, you're a dead letter, because who in the world would ever do it?\nIf it's up to the regulated entity, why in the world would anyone provide common carriage?\nI think this has, actually, a remarkable parallel to the Court's decision in the Oneida Indian Nation case, where the Court rejected the suggestion that what you could do is... that it would be up to the Indians to decide whether or not they would be able to get property back.\nThis is what the Court said,\n\"If OIN may unilaterally reassert sovereign control and remove those parcels from the local tax rolls, little would prevent the tribe from initiating a new generation of litigation to free the parcels. \"\n--remember, they're free from all regulation at all...\n\"free the parcels from land zone... local zoning or other regulatory controls that protect all landowners in the area. \"\nAnd then, Justice Ginsburg, the opinion goes on to talk about section 465, which is exactly like section 10 forbearance,\n\"Recognizing these practical concerns, Congress has provided a mechanism for the acquisition of the lands. \"\n\"The regulations implementing section 465 are sensitive to the complex interjurisdictional concerns that arise when the tribe seeks to retain... regain sovereign control over territory. \"\n\"The Secretary must consider. \"\n--and it lists a whole series of things.\nAnd the parallel, I think, is exact.\nYou can't have Congress enacting a scheme that tells you how to do it.\nNow, let me return to, then, Mr. Cappuccio's suggestion, Justice Scalia, that this is an ingredient, it's not a product.\nThe straightforward answer is, there's no mention of ingredients or products in the statute.\nIt says \"telecommunications service\".\nAnd the question under the definition of \"telecommunications service\" is, Are you providing telecommunications?\nYeah, the information's going back and forth.\nIs it to the public?\nSure, anybody can buy it.\nIs there a fee?\nYou bet, it's kind of expensive, actually.\nAnd that's all that Congress cared about.\nNow, this is not a question of whether or not there's butter in a cake, because you... it... there are two reasons.\nThe first is, fundamentally, the telecommunications is the same; it hasn't been \"cooked\" into something else.\nAnd the second--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [2838.703, 2840.894, 2848.499, 2851.309, 2856.476, 2862.055, 2863.783, 2868.87, 2871.254, 2876.507, 2878.639, 2882.207, 2886.031, 2887.616, 2889.909, 2894.842, 2900.501, 2914.884, 2916.234, 2922.239, 2930.42, 2934.697, 2938.728, 2939.694, 2944.045, 2952.471, 2962.017, 2975.665, 2990.753, 2998.006, 3010.945, 3016.305, 3030.693, 3031.653, 3042.47, 3044.4, 3049.999, 3056.682, 3062.425, 3072.399, 3073.753, 3075.492, 3077.423, 3080.862, 3088.28, 3092.259, 3094.343, 3098.562, 3100.28, 3101.427, 3102.835, 3103.544, 3105.101, 3107.773, 3115.116, 3119.67], "stop_times": [2840.894, 2848.499, 2851.309, 2856.476, 2862.055, 2863.783, 2868.87, 2871.254, 2876.507, 2878.639, 2882.207, 2886.031, 2887.616, 2889.909, 2894.842, 2900.501, 2914.884, 2916.234, 2922.239, 2930.42, 2934.697, 2938.728, 2939.694, 2944.045, 2952.471, 2962.017, 2975.665, 2990.753, 2998.006, 3010.945, 3016.305, 3030.693, 3031.653, 3042.47, 3044.4, 3049.999, 3056.682, 3062.425, 3072.399, 3073.753, 3075.492, 3077.423, 3080.862, 3088.28, 3092.259, 3094.343, 3098.562, 3100.28, 3101.427, 3102.835, 3103.544, 3105.101, 3107.773, 3115.116, 3119.67, 3120.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2838.703}, "reply_to": "23513__2_027", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "23513__2_029", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "There's butter on the cake, not in the cake.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [3120.715, 3122.303], "stop_times": [3122.303, 3122.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3120.715}, "reply_to": "23513__2_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23513__2_030", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "--Right.\nThe second is, the reason all those hypotheticals are... wheels and cars and those sorts of things... don't make any sense here is that they assume a few things.\nThe first is, they're assuming a first sale that gets regulated.\nSomebody buys the butter, somebody buys the tires and gets regulated.\nBut under their rules it's never regulated at all.\nThe telecommunications just, poof, escapes all regulation.\nAnd the second is that, in the car example, it's because there's... the reason it has intuitive appeal is that there's a regulatory scheme about cars.\nSo Congress has decided how all the inputs will be regulated together.\nBut, again, remember the consequence of sticking this into the unregulated \"information services\" box is, it's all gone.\nThere's no regulation of it whatsoever.\nIt's just not a scheme that makes any sense.\nIf there are no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [3122.581, 3123.045, 3132.132, 3135.295, 3139.412, 3142.676, 3146.201, 3152.873, 3156.767, 3163.914, 3165.946, 3168.052], "stop_times": [3123.045, 3132.132, 3135.295, 3139.412, 3142.676, 3146.201, 3152.873, 3156.767, 3163.914, 3165.946, 3168.052, 3169.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3122.581}, "reply_to": "23513__2_029", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "23513__2_031", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Goldstein.\nMr. Hungar, you have four minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [3169.807, 3171.961], "stop_times": [3171.961, 3174.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3169.807}, "reply_to": "23513__2_030", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23513__3_000", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nTurning first to the question of the regulatory history, Respondents continue to rely on the fact that, under Computer II, the FCC required telephone common carriers to separate out and separately offer the basic transmission component.\nBut, importantly, and what refutes Respondent's attempts to rely on history, Congress did not... excuse me... the FCC did not impose that requirement on enhanced service providers.\nThere were entities called \"value-added networks\" that obtained the telecommunications functionality, bundled it together with information servicing protocol conversion-type computer functions, and offered that bundled service as an enhanced service.\nAnd the Commission said, in Computer II,\n\"That is an unregulated enhanced-service offering, it is not subject to Title II of the Act, because we don't think Congress intended Title II, which is aimed at traditional telephone communications, to deal with this new form of intermingled integrated service. \"\nIt is not regulated, even though it is true that there was a communications component.\nAnd, under Respondent's rationale, that offer or that value-added network should have been required to make it file a tariff and comply with all the regulations of Title II of the Act.\nAnd footnote 5 of our reply brief cites the orders discussing this fact.\nAnd in addition, under Computer II, the Commission required AT&T and, later, the Regional Bell Operating Companies, if they were going to offer enhanced services, to offer them separately through subsidiaries, unregulated subsidiaries, even though they were offering bundles of enhanced service and telecommunications, the telecommunications, which they obtained under tariff from their parent corporation.\nBut the entire bundled offering was unregulated.\nAnd that's been true for 25 years.\nAnd, again, Congress, in 1996, gave no indication that it was overturning this well-established situation in which enhanced services, now information services, were not regulated.\nAnd to suggest that Congress, in an act that talks about preserving the hands-off approach to the Internet, in fact, regulated all Internet Service Providers in a way that they had never been regulated before, we submit, is certainly an unlikely interpretation of the act, and clearly demonstrates that the FCC was reasonable in rejecting that position.\nJustice Breyer, you asked about voicemail or similar type systems that would preserve a message.\nIf provided by a computer functionality, that service is an information service.\nVoicemail is an information service.\nBut the FCC has at least suggested that voicemail and basic telecommunications... if a telephone company tried to offer it... say,\n\"We're going to offer this bundled, and we don't think it's regulated. \"\ntelephone companies try that sort of thing from time to time, and then the FCC is faced with a decision, in its discretion, of whether that should be viewed as an integrated offering or, instead, as really two things that have just been added together but aren't really... that are really two distinct services.\nAnd the FCC has suggested, in that context, that telephone service and voicemail service, even if they're bundled together, are two distinct services.\nAnd there's an important difference, I think, between that type of offering and the one here.\nYou can use your... even if your telephone company offers you voicemail, obviously, you... a lot of your use of the telephone system has nothing to do with the voicemail; it's pure telephony, pure telecommunications; whereas, with cable modem service, every time you use it, essentially, you are utilizing at least some of the data-processing, computer-enhanced functionality that is being provided by your... by your Internet Service Provider... the domain-name system, as we discussed, caching.\nFor instance, Mr. Goldstein says he goes to [supremecourtusDOTgov] every morning.\nI suspect he doesn't actually go to this Court's computer.\nHe probably gets at least the first page off of the cache, which provided by the ISP.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [3174.41, 3179.731, 3195.069, 3206.418, 3221.852, 3223.986, 3238.748, 3243.063, 3253.329, 3258.459, 3281.323, 3284.544, 3286.192, 3296.65, 3316.954, 3323.316, 3329.95, 3331.55, 3341.997, 3344.578, 3357.846, 3365.473, 3369.296, 3396.447, 3399.583, 3403.364], "stop_times": [3179.731, 3195.069, 3206.418, 3221.852, 3223.986, 3238.748, 3243.063, 3253.329, 3258.459, 3281.323, 3284.544, 3286.192, 3296.65, 3316.954, 3323.316, 3329.95, 3331.55, 3341.997, 3344.578, 3357.846, 3365.473, 3369.296, 3396.447, 3399.583, 3403.364, 3408.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3174.41}, "reply_to": "23513__2_031", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "23513__3_001", "conversation_id": "23513", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Hungar.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-277", "start_times": [3408.629, 3409.78], "stop_times": [3409.78, 3410.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3408.629}, "reply_to": "23513__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22508__0_000", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 02-1028, the Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. James N. Kirby.\nMr. Phillips.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [0.0, 8.795], "stop_times": [8.795, 10.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22508__0_001", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nMy inclination is to start with the question that the Court asked for supplemental briefing on on Monday and analyze the question of which law applies, Federal or State law, and then examine the issue of why the judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [10.857, 12.965], "stop_times": [12.965, 26.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 10.857}, "reply_to": "22508__0_000", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_002", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Mr. Phillips, I'm glad you're doing that.\nThis is a suit, a diversity suit, between an Australian entity and a Virginia company about a rail accident on land, and why do you think Federal law applies?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [26.673, 27.454], "stop_times": [27.454, 40.829], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 26.673}, "reply_to": "22508__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22508__0_003", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, I think the primary reason under... with respect to the Hamburg Sud bill of lading is that that is incorporated into a tariff that's filed with the Federal Maritime Commission under the Shipping Act of 1984, and it's long been settled that the interpretation of tariff and obligations arising out of tariff filings are questions of Federal law.\nSo, therefore, in deciding what the bill of lading by the ocean carrier... what effect it has in terms of binding the actual owner of the property in operating through a freight forwarder, that would be a question of Federal law, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [40.829, 58.54], "stop_times": [58.54, 72.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 40.829}, "reply_to": "22508__0_002", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_004", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Was... was the question waived by the respondent below?\nHow... how did you all proceed on this assumption?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [72.658, 78.331], "stop_times": [78.331, 81.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 72.658}, "reply_to": "22508__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22508__0_005", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, we... the parties clearly litigated this issue from... essentially from day one as a question of Federal law, and I think you could, in fact, simply accept that as the case comes to the Court without resolving the question of whether Federal or State law--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [81.657], "stop_times": [96.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 81.657}, "reply_to": "22508__0_004", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_006", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, the difficulty with that was we would be deciding a highly hypothetical case without knowing that Federal law governed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [96.889], "stop_times": [103.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 96.889}, "reply_to": "22508__0_005", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22508__0_007", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Well, it's... it's not as hypothetical as it might be in some contexts because it's absolutely clear that there are going to be lots of instances in which ocean-based carriers are going to be issuing bills of lading and which... and which the responsibilities or duties that arise out of those bills of lading, as they apply against the actual owner in operating against the freight forwarder, are going to arise, and there's not going to be any serious question in that context.\nIt's purely a matter of Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [103.167, 124.753], "stop_times": [124.753, 126.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 103.167}, "reply_to": "22508__0_006", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_008", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I... I want you... I think the whole bench wants you... to talk about State versus Federal, but as just one preliminary question... I don't mean to... if it's State law, do we know what the answer is?\nWe don't seem to know the answer under Federal law.\nDo we know the answer under--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [126.694, 138.128, 141.062], "stop_times": [138.128, 141.062, 142.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 126.694}, "reply_to": "22508__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22508__0_009", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, I'm quite sure--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [142.298], "stop_times": [143.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 142.298}, "reply_to": "22508__0_008", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_010", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Alabama law applies.\nIs it then clear that one side or the other prevails?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [143.374, 144.117], "stop_times": [144.117, 146.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 143.374}, "reply_to": "22508__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22508__0_011", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--No, it's not clear at all.\nThere's no argument ever been made by the respondents.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [146.612, 147.605], "stop_times": [147.605, 150.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 146.612}, "reply_to": "22508__0_010", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_012", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I was afraid that would be your answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [150.372], "stop_times": [150.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 150.372}, "reply_to": "22508__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22508__0_013", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I apologize.\nI do think it is quite clear that if you were looking at the ICC bill of lading and you only looked at State law or any other law that the... the ultimate conclusion is inescapable because the language of that contract says that these conditions, the limits on liability, apply whenever claims are made against any other person, including any independent contractors, whose services have been used in order to perform the contract.\nThat's at joint appendix page 93.\nThat... that language is so absolutely crystal clear and it arises in the context of a through bill of lading, which made it absolutely clear to Kirby, as the owner of the goods, that this property was going to be shipped overland that there is no way to interpret that language under State, Federal, Australian, or anybody else's law as not extending to this situation except because of the rather peculiar interpretation the Eleventh Circuit adopted based on this Court's decision in Robert N. Herd.\nAnd I think if you recognize that the Herd decision is not meant either to create a magic words exception or to otherwise impose extraordinary obligations on parties who enter into contracts, and that in fact what we're looking for is what was the parties' intent as measured by the language of the agreement, I would suggest to you that under Federal or State law, it is absolutely clear that the ICC bill of lading has to be interpreted to extend to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [150.743, 152.146, 173.694, 175.719, 202.468], "stop_times": [152.146, 173.694, 175.719, 202.468, 224.859], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 150.743}, "reply_to": "22508__0_012", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_014", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "What about the question of Federal... Federal or State law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [224.859], "stop_times": [227.338], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 224.859}, "reply_to": "22508__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22508__0_015", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Well, I... I think that on the Hamburg Sud bill, again the easy way to answer that is it's incorporated into a tariff, and if it's incorporated into a tariff, that means it's a question of Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [227.338], "stop_times": [239.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 227.338}, "reply_to": "22508__0_014", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_016", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "But it is not necessarily true that the law that applies to the second bill of lading also applies to the first.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [239.105], "stop_times": [242.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 239.105}, "reply_to": "22508__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__0_017", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "It wouldn't necessarily be the same.\nI think in... in this context it makes sense that they both ought to be resolved as a matter of Federal law.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [242.836, 245.065, 249.712], "stop_times": [245.065, 249.712, 251.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 242.836}, "reply_to": "22508__0_016", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_018", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [251.531], "stop_times": [251.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 251.531}, "reply_to": "22508__0_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__0_019", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--but it's absolutely clear that the first bill of lading ought to be interpreted as a matter of Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [251.903], "stop_times": [255.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 251.903}, "reply_to": "22508__0_018", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_020", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Is... is your argument that if you don't interpret the second one under Federal law, you're, in effect, going to undercut the significance or the... the efficacy of Federal law in interpreting the... the first, the... the Hamburg Sud?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [255.33], "stop_times": [265.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 255.33}, "reply_to": "22508__0_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__0_021", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I don't think it necessarily undermines the efficacy of the... of the Federal uniformity of the Hamburg Sud bill because if you enforce that one, then the second one in some respects becomes irrelevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [265.444], "stop_times": [276.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 265.444}, "reply_to": "22508__0_020", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_022", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Yes.\nBut I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [276.59, 276.961], "stop_times": [276.961, 277.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 276.59}, "reply_to": "22508__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__0_023", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "But... but I do think it... it interferes with--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [277.499], "stop_times": [279.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 277.499}, "reply_to": "22508__0_022", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_024", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--is going to be different in another case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [279.318], "stop_times": [280.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 279.318}, "reply_to": "22508__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__0_025", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--It might be different in another case, and I do think it obviously interferes with the kind of uniformity you would ordinarily expect when you're dealing with essentially maritime commerce.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [280.721], "stop_times": [289.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 280.721}, "reply_to": "22508__0_024", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_026", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Mr. Phillips, I hope maybe you make... you're going to make this point later, but it seems to me it's very important which contract controls because the Government has made an argument, as you know, that the COGSA limit, the $500 per package, would not apply under the ICC contract, that the number there would be $450,000.\nIt's... so I hope you will explain to us why... if you think that the Government is wrong, why they are wrong in saying if it's the ICC contract with Kirby, then the appropriate limit is not COGSA but the $450,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [289.554, 317.668], "stop_times": [317.668, 337.935], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 289.554}, "reply_to": "22508__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22508__0_027", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I want to be clear that obviously in our view the... there's no question about the Hamburg Sud bill.\nThat one has a $500 COGSA limit.\nIt's embodied in there.\nThere's no dispute about that.\nSo, again, to the extent the Court decides this case on the basis of the Hamburg Sud bill, there's no question that you have to worry about the meaning of the ICC bill.\nWith respect to the meaning of the ICC bill, I think the United States is correct that you can certainly read that contract as... as including a higher limit.\nThe problem, of course, is that was not the way the case was litigated in the district court and it was not the way the case was litigated in order to obtain interlocutory review in the court of appeals.\nThe parties specifically stipulated to the court of appeals that the way this case would be resolved most rapidly was by immediate review because the amount in controversy would be the $500 COGSA limit.\nSo I think there is a very strong argument, Justice Ginsburg, that that issue has been waived by the respondents prior to the time it got to this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [337.935, 344.167, 346.562, 347.511, 348.504, 356.882, 365.593, 376.739, 389.454], "stop_times": [344.167, 346.562, 347.511, 348.504, 356.882, 365.593, 376.739, 389.454, 397.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 337.935}, "reply_to": "22508__0_026", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_028", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "So what's your view of that?\nBecause if you're right on that ICC bill of lading and the limit is the same, we don't have to reach the other question, which I think is much harder.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [397.999, 399.114], "stop_times": [399.114, 407.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 397.999}, "reply_to": "22508__0_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__0_029", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "There's no question that that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [407.742], "stop_times": [409.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 407.742}, "reply_to": "22508__0_028", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_030", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "All right.\nSo what are we... what are we supposed to do?\nWhat do I look up to find out whether you're right about this and we don't have to reach the other question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [409.478, 409.666, 410.797], "stop_times": [409.666, 410.797, 415.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 409.478}, "reply_to": "22508__0_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__0_031", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Well, in the... in the appendix to the petition, you'll find both the district court and the court of appeals orders granting interlocutory review, and they are very explicit in identifying the $500 COGSA limit as the justification by which the parties decided to take the case on an interlocutory basis.\nHaving obtained a benefit by making a representation to the court of appeals, I think there's a... that the Court, this Court, ought to say they are estopped to... to argue another limit at this point.\nIndeed, in our... in our petition, we argue explicitly for the $500 COGSA limit because we took that straight from the district court's own treatment of this issue, and the respondents, in their opposition to the petition for certiorari, did not assert anything to the contrary.\nSo I would argue, under this Court's prior decisions, that the issue is waived at the score as well.\nSo it seems to me the... the more sensible way... and... and I agree with you, the somewhat cleaner and easier way for this Court to resolve this case, is to recognize that the plain language of the ICC bill of lading unquestionably extends here, that the parties have litigated this case on the assumption that that's a question of Federal law, and that the parties have litigated this case on the assumption that the COGSA limit of $500 per container applies to this particular case.\nThat said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [415.96, 431.397, 442.005, 456.388, 461.324, 483.948], "stop_times": [431.397, 442.005, 456.388, 461.324, 483.948, 484.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 415.96}, "reply_to": "22508__0_030", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_032", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "But now, for instance, we... we do not accept stipulations on questions of law.\nWe accept stipulations on questions of fact.\nYou're saying it was litigated on the assumption of... isn't that pretty much like a stipulation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [484.691, 490.014, 492.697], "stop_times": [490.014, 492.697, 497.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 484.691}, "reply_to": "22508__0_031", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22508__0_033", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Are you talking about on... on the question of whether Federal law--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [497.527], "stop_times": [500.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.527}, "reply_to": "22508__0_032", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_034", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [500.499], "stop_times": [500.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 500.499}, "reply_to": "22508__0_033", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22508__0_035", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--or State applies?\nI mean, I don't know that it was a... I mean, it wasn't a stipulation that Federal law applies.\nIt was a stipulation in order to obtain interlocutory review as to the $500 limitation... cargo limitation.\nSo that... that strikes me as a somewhat different issue for the Court to resolve.\nAnd it's not the issue that's been posed for this Court to decide in any event.\nIt seems to me at a minimum if you simply accept the case as having come to you with the understanding of a $500 limit and reverse on the basis of either of the other two... on the basis on the two court of appeals errors, either one of them, and the case goes back to the lower courts, they can fight over the question of whether or not that issue has... has been properly preserved.\nBut I think the answer is clearly that it has not.\nNow, that said, while I agree with Justice Breyer's assessment that in some respects the ICC bill of lading is potentially a simpler way of resolving the case, I also believe, frankly, that the Hamburg Sud bill of lading is in some ways a more important basis on which the Court ought to decide this question.\nThe... the issue of what effect an ocean carrier's bill of lading has on the conduct of the... of the owner of the property is an issue that, as a matter of common carriage law, this Court has resolved since before the Civil War.\nAnd the clearest case in which to my... from my perspective is the Great Northern opinion where the... where this Court specifically said that the owner of the goods who operate through a freight forwarder is bound by the bill of lading issued by the railroad whether as a... an agent or as a freight forwarder.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [500.615, 501.708, 505.816, 513.413, 516.635, 520.2, 539.957, 542.27, 557.335, 572.939], "stop_times": [501.708, 505.816, 513.413, 516.635, 520.2, 539.957, 542.27, 557.335, 572.939, 590.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 500.615}, "reply_to": "22508__0_034", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_036", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "That was before Erie against Tompkins.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [590.483], "stop_times": [592.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 590.483}, "reply_to": "22508__0_035", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22508__0_037", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, I understand that, and... and all I'm saying is what is the Federal rule.\nAnd what this Court said as a matter of what is the Federal rule is that you don't apply strictly agency principles when you're dealing in the area of common carrier relationships and liabilities.\nAnd again, remember, from my perspective, the easiest way for this Court to reach the... this question as a matter of Federal law is because this is embodied in a tariff, and the filed rate doctrine has long recognized that when you're enforcing the rights and obligations arising out of a tariff, it's a question of Federal law.\nSo the real issue, Mr. Chief Justice, is what is the rule of law that should be applied in this context.\nThis Court announced that rule of law in Great Northern.\nIt actually announced it before the Civil War in York.\nIt had announced it again in Acme Fast Freight.\nAnd it has consistently held, as a matter of carrier relationships and as a matter of an efficient method of moving goods in interstate and international commerce, that you must hold the owner of the goods strictly to the... to the tariff arrangements in the bill of lading when... with or without the use of a freight forwarder.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [592.712, 597.542, 609.142, 625.572, 630.486, 633.951, 636.18, 638.946], "stop_times": [597.542, 609.142, 625.572, 630.486, 633.951, 636.18, 638.946, 659.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 592.712}, "reply_to": "22508__0_036", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_038", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Now, what is the significance, if any, of COGSA in... in your analysis in coming to that conclusion?\nYou're talking about pre-COGSA cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [659.093, 664.415], "stop_times": [664.415, 666.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 659.093}, "reply_to": "22508__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__0_039", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I don't think COGSA directly affects that particular analysis other than by enforcing the bill of lading.\nThat is the only mechanism by which you get COGSA incorporated into the international scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [666.523, 677.025], "stop_times": [677.025, 682.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 666.523}, "reply_to": "22508__0_038", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_040", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "If you didn't have the prior cases, what would the significance of COGSA be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [682.392], "stop_times": [684.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.392}, "reply_to": "22508__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__0_041", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, COGSA says that there are $500 limits on the bill of lading, but it doesn't necessarily tell you the question of what's the relationship between the owner or the freight forwarder and the... and the ocean carrier in this particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [684.993], "stop_times": [699.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 684.993}, "reply_to": "22508__0_040", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_042", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "What is... what is the efficacy of the COGSA limit if... if in fact the... the tariff is... the bill of lading is not enforced as a matter of Federal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [699.194], "stop_times": [708.293], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 699.194}, "reply_to": "22508__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__0_043", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Then COGSA has no role at all, which is why it's very important, if COGSA is to have a meaningful--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [708.293], "stop_times": [713.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 708.293}, "reply_to": "22508__0_042", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_044", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "That's... that's what I was trying to get at.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [713.19, 715.131], "stop_times": [715.131, 715.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 713.19}, "reply_to": "22508__0_043", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__0_045", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--I was trying to get there too.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [715.503], "stop_times": [716.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 715.503}, "reply_to": "22508__0_044", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_046", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Yes, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [716.618], "stop_times": [716.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 716.618}, "reply_to": "22508__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__0_047", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "But I was getting there pretty slow.\nI apologize.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [716.768, 717.915], "stop_times": [717.915, 718.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 716.768}, "reply_to": "22508__0_046", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_048", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "What about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [718.37], "stop_times": [718.62], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.37}, "reply_to": "22508__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__0_049", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "If I understand it, you'd say COGSA doesn't give you the substantive answer, but COGSA makes it a Federal question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [718.62], "stop_times": [723.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 718.62}, "reply_to": "22508__0_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22508__0_050", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "COGSA, yes.\nThat's one ground on which you can get there as a Federal question.\nThe Shipping Act I think also makes a... a Federal question, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [723.737, 725.057, 727.369], "stop_times": [725.057, 727.369, 730.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 723.737}, "reply_to": "22508__0_049", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_051", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Why is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [730.509], "stop_times": [731.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 730.509}, "reply_to": "22508__0_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__0_052", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--ultimately you'd say the maritime statute makes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [731.418], "stop_times": [732.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 731.418}, "reply_to": "22508__0_051", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_053", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Why is it?\nNow, this is maybe only me, but I don't think it is.\nWhat... the basic question, in my mind anyway, in respect to the Hamburg Sud bill of lading is one I would have thought would have been answered in the law clearly.\nI said the Supreme Court cases aren't clear because they don't say what the theory behind them is.\nI read all these amicus briefs.\nThey don't really seem to me to come to the point.\nYou have a shipper of some goods.\nHe goes to an independent freight forwarder who then enters into a series of contracts.\nI don't care if they were ships or trains or whatever.\nAnd something happens to the goods.\nMaybe they weren't shipped.\nMaybe that independent freight forwarder went bankrupt.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [732.904, 733.276, 735.838, 749.501, 754.702, 757.303, 759.076, 762.959, 770.268, 773.156, 776.417, 777.698], "stop_times": [733.276, 735.838, 749.501, 754.702, 757.303, 759.076, 762.959, 770.268, 773.156, 776.417, 777.698, 781.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 732.904}, "reply_to": "22508__0_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__0_054", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [781.535], "stop_times": [782.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 781.535}, "reply_to": "22508__0_053", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_055", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "And the... Mr. Shipper wants to sue one of these carriers.\nWell, he didn't sign the contract, and the person who signed it was an independent freight forwarder, not wholly his agent.\nOkay.\nCan he do it or not do it?\nI have all about the law of France in one of these briefs, except they just don't tell you the answer to that question.\nThey just don't tell you whether in France, Sweden, or Finland or some other place, when the shipper wants to go and sue one of those carriers, he can recover.\nThere's a... there's a limit... liability limitation in the contract.\nThe contract is enforceable.\nThere could be 100 situations where it comes up.\nWhat's the answer?\nI'm amazed that that's never been answered in 200,000... 2,000 years of people shipping things.\nAll right.\nSo... so why is this so unclear?\nWhy can't I get an answer?\nAnd I just can't find it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [782.716, 787.851, 796.479, 797.222, 799.246, 804.448, 816.086, 819.43, 820.794, 823.024, 824.426, 829.998, 830.659, 833.176, 834.474], "stop_times": [787.851, 796.479, 797.222, 799.246, 804.448, 816.086, 819.43, 820.794, 823.024, 824.426, 829.998, 830.659, 833.176, 834.474, 835.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 782.716}, "reply_to": "22508__0_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__0_056", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I think there are three theories that have been put forward in the past.\nOne I think is embedded in this Court's decisions, and particularly Great Northern where the Court talks about because necessities, and in York where the Court recognizes that the carrier doesn't know the difference between a freight forwarder and a shipper and it's unreasonable to allow the shipper to get off the hook when the shipper chooses the freight forwarder and can structure a better--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [835.793, 839.946], "stop_times": [839.946, 860.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 835.793}, "reply_to": "22508__0_055", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_057", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I agree it's very unreasonable.\nBut even I can't say there's a general rule of law against behaving unreasonably.\nSo, therefore, I look for a theory.\nWhat's the legal basis?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [860.63, 861.66, 866.574, 868.653], "stop_times": [861.66, 866.574, 868.653, 870.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.63}, "reply_to": "22508__0_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__0_058", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Well, the legal basis is that because the carrier is obliged to take the goods and cannot discriminate, that he has no choice but to accept the person, and that the courts are not going to impose an obligation on him to look behind who shows up with the goods in order to determine the rights or obligations of the... of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [870.039], "stop_times": [887.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 870.039}, "reply_to": "22508__0_057", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_059", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Is that the first of your three... you said there are three... three theories.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [887.462], "stop_times": [889.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 887.462}, "reply_to": "22508__0_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22508__0_060", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Yes, that's the first of my three theories.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [889.486], "stop_times": [890.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 889.486}, "reply_to": "22508__0_059", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_061", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "All right.\nAnd the second?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [890.562, 890.734], "stop_times": [890.734, 891.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 890.562}, "reply_to": "22508__0_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22508__0_062", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "The... the second one is a bailment theory, and we... we spent a little bit of time on that in the reply brief.\nBut if you look at English common law, English common law uses a combination of bailment and sub-bailment to get to exactly the same result where the owner of the goods is bound.\nAnd then the final theory is one that comes out of the Restatement of Agency, and it's the limited power theory, that it's not a true agent.\nAnd I understand the reason why there is some reluctance to call this a true agency relationship because if you impose agency duties, you may expose the owner to significantly more expansive liability than he otherwise would have reasonably undertaken, which is why this Court, I think, has wisely... and I think most of the courts have wisely... said, no, it's not a pure agency relationship.\nIt's a common carrier, bailment, limited power type of a relationship which imposes you... which allows you to go downstream under your contracts.\nYou can sue us under the contract, but just as you can sue us pursuant to the contract, you're also bound at the end of that process by the liability limitations that are embedded in that same agreement.\nI think those are the three theories that lead you to the right conclusion in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [891.189, 895.609, 905.101, 912.366, 931.851, 941.139, 952.573], "stop_times": [895.609, 905.101, 912.366, 931.851, 941.139, 952.573, 955.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 891.189}, "reply_to": "22508__0_061", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_063", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "One... one brief does take quite a clear position on this.\nI don't know if it's right or wrong, but respondents tell us that there's nowhere in the world except Venezuela where the cargo owner, Kirby here, would be bound by a bill of lading that the ocean carrier issues to the... a non-vessel-owning common carrier.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [955.917, 958.6], "stop_times": [958.6, 978.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 955.917}, "reply_to": "22508__0_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22508__0_064", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "As I... as I recall the way that amicus brief reads, it's a little cagier than that because it says of the law that we have evaluated in this brief, nowhere else.\nAnd I'm telling you that, one, in UK it's... clearly the rule is to the opposite.\nAnd I don't believe there was anything in there about Japanese law.\nI mean, what's really missing in this case is none of our trading partners came in here and argued that this is a... that there's a problem in the interpretation that we've put forward.\nI would, frankly, dismiss out of hand the position of the law professors.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [978.951, 988.572, 993.069, 995.259, 1002.607], "stop_times": [988.572, 993.069, 995.259, 1002.607, 1006.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 978.951}, "reply_to": "22508__0_063", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_065", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "May I ask you a question that just troubles me as I read all the papers?\nHas ICC ever been sued?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1006.693, 1009.127], "stop_times": [1009.127, 1011.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1006.693}, "reply_to": "22508__0_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__0_066", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Yes.\nICC was sued in Australia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1011.273, 1012.638], "stop_times": [1012.638, 1013.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1011.273}, "reply_to": "22508__0_065", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_067", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "It was sued in Australia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1013.957], "stop_times": [1015.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1013.957}, "reply_to": "22508__0_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__0_068", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1015.693], "stop_times": [1016.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1015.693}, "reply_to": "22508__0_067", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_069", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "And for the maximum... what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1016.315], "stop_times": [1018.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1016.315}, "reply_to": "22508__0_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__0_070", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "It was settled, so I don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1018.005], "stop_times": [1019.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1018.005}, "reply_to": "22508__0_069", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_071", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1019.491], "stop_times": [1020.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.491}, "reply_to": "22508__0_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__0_072", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I mean, they made the... the full claim.\nIf there are no further questions, I'd save the rest of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1020.4, 1021.31], "stop_times": [1021.31, 1024.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1020.4}, "reply_to": "22508__0_071", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__0_073", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Very well, Mr. Phillips.\nMr. Hungar.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1024.199, 1025.435], "stop_times": [1025.435, 1027.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1024.199}, "reply_to": "22508__0_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22508__1_000", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nUnless corrected by this Court, the erroneous rules of law announced by the court of appeals will produce substantial inefficiencies and frustrate longstanding and important congressional policies in the ocean transportation arena.\nWith respect to the question of Federal or State law, Mr. Chief Justice, in response to your questions, it would not be hypothetical or... or an inappropriate acceptance of a stipulation on a question of law to decide this case on the basis of the parties' implicit agreement that it is governed by Federal law because parties are always permitted to... to agree to choice of law, which is all we would be talking about here.\nThere's no jurisdictional problem because jurisdiction is clearly present.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1027.459, 1036.664, 1051.07, 1073.239], "stop_times": [1036.664, 1051.07, 1073.239, 1076.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1027.459}, "reply_to": "22508__0_073", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_001", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Yes, but I think we would have some reservation about... excuse me... about deciding a case where one of the principal points in issue was simply assumed rather than decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1076.416], "stop_times": [1089.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1076.416}, "reply_to": "22508__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22508__1_002", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, first of all, Your Honor, with respect to the Hamburg Sud bill of lading, as we've argued in our brief, that is unquestionably covered by Federal law because of the application of the Shipping Act and the tariff regime and the nondiscrimination principle that requires enforcement of the terms of the bill of lading, which is incorporated into the tariff.\nAnd even with respect to the ICC bill of lading, where parties have agreed on choice of law, it's appropriate for a court to accept that agreement, and it's not hypothetical because it's unquestionable that there will be many circumstances in which the very... in which the question presented here and the analysis of the court of appeals will be implicated in purely maritime context--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1089.686, 1107.707], "stop_times": [1107.707, 1128.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1089.686}, "reply_to": "22508__1_001", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_003", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Suppose there had been... been no agreement by the parties.\nWhat would your position be as to the law that controls the construction of the ICC Kirby contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1128.717, 1132.804], "stop_times": [1132.804, 1139.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1128.717}, "reply_to": "22508__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22508__1_004", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Your Honor, that's an open question, and we've argued in our supplemental brief that it would be appropriate, if the Court felt it necessary to address that question.\nWe don't think it is necessary, but if the Court felt it necessary to address that question, we think it would be appropriate to conclude that in the specific context we have here in a multimodal bill of lading for transportation internationally by ship and also by land carrier, where the clause in issue, the Himalaya clause, is applicable, we submit, to both by its terms, to both maritime players and land carriers, read in accordance with its terms, where you're interpreting a clause that has application clearly in the maritime as well as the inland context, it is appropriate to apply the established maritime rules of construction to that clause because this is a maritime bill of lading and uniformity in this area is extremely important.\nAnd this Court has recognized that while the borders between the Federal maritime law and State law are very unclear and it's a flexible analysis where... where uniformity is important, Federal maritime law will govern.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1139.946, 1149.688, 1195.098], "stop_times": [1149.688, 1195.098, 1205.788], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1139.946}, "reply_to": "22508__1_003", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_005", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "What... what if the overseas... this maritime part of the shipping was 500 miles and the land part was 2,000 miles?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1205.788], "stop_times": [1214.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1205.788}, "reply_to": "22508__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22508__1_006", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, we think it would be... we think it would be inappropriate to do a mileage analysis.\nI mean, here the... here obviously I think the... the mileage--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1214.045, 1219.208], "stop_times": [1219.208, 1221.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1214.045}, "reply_to": "22508__1_005", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_007", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, I'm asking you to do a mileage analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1221.975], "stop_times": [1224.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1221.975}, "reply_to": "22508__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22508__1_008", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Well, we would submit that it... it would be inappropriate to adopt a rule in which the... the applicability of Federal law depends on the relative mileage because that would create uncertainty and confusion, although here, if one were to apply such a rule, it would suggest application of Federal maritime law, given the distance, more than 10,000 miles versus 366 miles.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1224.288], "stop_times": [1244.926], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1224.288}, "reply_to": "22508__1_007", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_009", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "You're talking not my hypothetical, but about the facts of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1244.926], "stop_times": [1248.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1244.926}, "reply_to": "22508__1_008", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22508__1_010", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I'm sorry, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1248.724], "stop_times": [1249.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1248.724}, "reply_to": "22508__1_009", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_011", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I said, you're not talking about the 500 miles ocean/2,000 miles land.\nYou're talking about the facts of the case we're arguing now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1249.756, 1255.988], "stop_times": [1255.988, 1258.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1249.756}, "reply_to": "22508__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22508__1_012", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nBut in your hypothetical, again I think that if this Court were to agree with our submission that Federal law... Federal maritime law would govern if you have a through bill, an intermodal bill of lading involving maritime transportation in the international context, which would be subject to maritime law, we think it would be appropriate to apply maritime in construing the Himalaya clause.\nBut again, the Court need not reach that question.\nWe think if the Court does consider the application of Federal law and Federal interpretative principles to the ICC bill of lading, the answer is clear.\nThe... the plain text of the bill of lading, of the Himalaya clause--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1258.468, 1258.923, 1279.068, 1281.214, 1291.04], "stop_times": [1258.923, 1279.068, 1281.214, 1291.04, 1294.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1258.468}, "reply_to": "22508__1_011", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_013", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Would you just clarify one thing for me?\nSuppose in this case, instead of having a through bill of lading from the sea all through the... through the railroad, there had been a delivery at the port to the freight forwarder or somebody else on behalf of the shipper and then a new bill of lading was issued to the railroad.\nWould the liability then be different for the railroad?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1294.96, 1297.106, 1311.595], "stop_times": [1297.106, 1311.595, 1314.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.96}, "reply_to": "22508__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__1_014", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Yes, it would because in that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1314.733], "stop_times": [1316.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1314.733}, "reply_to": "22508__1_013", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_015", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "And then if... would the rate be different in that instance?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1316.508], "stop_times": [1320.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1316.508}, "reply_to": "22508__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__1_016", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Well, it would be if it... a through rate... by definition, if you have a through bill, you have a through rate.\nIt's one rate offered by the ocean carrier that encompasses the whole--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1320.595, 1327.615], "stop_times": [1327.615, 1330.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1320.595}, "reply_to": "22508__1_015", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_017", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I'm trying to find out whether the railroad would have a different liability under my hypothetical.\nI'm wonder if it would have charged a different amount for the freight.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1330.753, 1335.916], "stop_times": [1335.916, 1338.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1330.753}, "reply_to": "22508__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__1_018", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--The record doesn't reveal that, but... but it would have been a different negotiation obviously, subject to different terms, and it seems likely that the rate would have been different.\nWhether higher or lower is unclear but... because in that circumstance, the... depending on the terms of the... of the contract between the... the railroad and the shipper, it might have been subject to the Carmack Amendment which provides a different liability limitation regime--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1338.638, 1346.607], "stop_times": [1346.607, 1362.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1338.638}, "reply_to": "22508__1_017", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_019", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Should we assume that the railroad probably gave a special bargain to the shipper in this case because it had a lesser exposure for liability?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1362.127], "stop_times": [1372.075], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1362.127}, "reply_to": "22508__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__1_020", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Yes, that seems appropriate to assume.\nHamburg Sud is a major ocean carrier and Norfolk Southern is a... a major rail carrier.\nAnd it seems appropriate to assume that in their negotiations, they would address questions such as limitation of liability.\nThe... the record here is clear.\nBoth the district court and the court of appeals said that Hamburg... that... that Norfolk Southern carried under the terms of the Hamburg Sud bill of lading, and it is reasonable to assume they were relying on that, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1372.075, 1373.849, 1380.415, 1385.532, 1386.935], "stop_times": [1373.849, 1380.415, 1385.532, 1386.935, 1397.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1372.075}, "reply_to": "22508__1_019", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_021", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "But the record doesn't actually tell us whether the rate was, in fact, different than it otherwise would have been.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1397.588], "stop_times": [1402.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.588}, "reply_to": "22508__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__1_022", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1402.622], "stop_times": [1403.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1402.622}, "reply_to": "22508__1_021", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_023", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Mr. Hungar, the railroad industry has been deregulated.\nAs a result, I suppose the nondiscrimination policy doesn't apply.\nIt may end at the water's edge.\nSo how would there be any preemption?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1403.16, 1409.226, 1414.799, 1417.194], "stop_times": [1409.226, 1414.799, 1417.194, 1420.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1403.16}, "reply_to": "22508__1_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22508__1_024", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Justice O'Connor, the railroad industry has been deregulated, but the shipping industry has not.\nAnd the tariff requirement specifically requires an ocean carrier like Hamburg Sud to file its tariff and its bill of lading for through routes covering the entire through route that is the subject of the transportation being offered and provided.\nSo in that sense, it's true that normally the nondiscrimination principle would not apply, but in... in the context of a through bill, which this is, issued by an ocean shipper, an ocean carrier, the nondiscrimination principle is applicable, and that's under section 1707(a)(1) of the Shipping Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1420.25, 1425.046, 1439.857], "stop_times": [1425.046, 1439.857, 1455.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1420.25}, "reply_to": "22508__1_023", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_025", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1455.339], "stop_times": [1455.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1455.339}, "reply_to": "22508__1_024", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22508__1_026", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "The tariff... with respect to, Mr. Chief Justice, your question about Great Northern, Great Northern, although decided pre-Erie, is not a... it was not decided under diversity jurisdiction.\nIt was a case that came out of the Supreme Court of Minnesota.\nSo Swift v. Tyson would not have been applicable.\nAnd more importantly, although the Court was perhaps not as clear as we would have liked in explaining the rationale for its holding, it's clear that it was relying, at least in part, on Federal tariff regulations, essentially the same as those at issue here.\nThe Court said... and this is on page 515 of its opinion... so long as the tariff rate, based on value, remained operative, it was binding upon the shipper and carrier alike and was to be enforced by the courts in fixing the rights and liabilities of the parties.\nAnd that's exactly what the Court did in that case, and we submit that's exactly what the Court should do in this case as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1455.915, 1468.425, 1470.405, 1472.634, 1487.29, 1502.894], "stop_times": [1468.425, 1470.405, 1472.634, 1487.29, 1502.894, 1508.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1455.915}, "reply_to": "22508__1_025", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_027", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "And might not that have been a matter of contract law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1508.65], "stop_times": [1510.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1508.65}, "reply_to": "22508__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22508__1_028", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "No, Your Honor, because it's very... it's very clear that... that tariff rates are enforceable... federally filed or federally published tariff rates are enforceable as a matter of Federal law, and liability limits are part of that, as this Court said in precedents that the... that are cited in the petitioner's brief.\nAnd the... that's a Federal law question, not merely a question of State law, when there is a Federal tariff regime in place.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1510.696, 1529.272], "stop_times": [1529.272, 1536.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1510.696}, "reply_to": "22508__1_027", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_029", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Is it clear that they're applicable... the tariff as a matter of law... to a shipper that hires an independent freight forwarder to arrange for the shipment?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1536.702], "stop_times": [1547.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1536.702}, "reply_to": "22508__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__1_030", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, that's exactly the facts in Great Northern.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1547.726], "stop_times": [1550.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1547.726}, "reply_to": "22508__1_029", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_031", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1550.698], "stop_times": [1551.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1550.698}, "reply_to": "22508__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__1_032", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "In Great Northern, the shipper hired the Boyd Transfer Company to... to ship the goods, which in turn hired the railroad, and then the shipper tried to sue the railroad, and the Court said you can't do that and... and clearly relied, at least in part, on the tariff regime, as well as the... the whole history of... of the Federal common carrier law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1551.07], "stop_times": [1567.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1551.07}, "reply_to": "22508__1_031", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_033", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Does it make any difference that we have this division between freight forwarders who act as agent for the cargo owner and the so-called NVOCC that... that act as principal vis-a-vis the ocean carrier?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1567.128], "stop_times": [1583.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1567.128}, "reply_to": "22508__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22508__1_034", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe... again, in Great Northern, the Court was presented with that issue.\nThe... the plaintiff in that case argued that the transfer company was not its agent and therefore it wasn't bound.\nThey argued that in their brief in this Court, and this Court essentially said it doesn't matter.\nWhether agent or forwarder, the railroad there, the... the carrier that actually carried the goods is entitled to rely on its bill of lading, its tariff as against in a suit brought by the... the shipper, the owner of the goods.\nThat's... that's precisely the fact situation at issue here.\nThe Court felt it unnecessary to resolve the dispute about whether the... the forwarder in that context was an agent forwarder or a full-fledged common carrier forwarder.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1583.846, 1584.589, 1587.561, 1593.977, 1597.758, 1611.217, 1614.189], "stop_times": [1584.589, 1587.561, 1593.977, 1597.758, 1611.217, 1614.189, 1623.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1583.846}, "reply_to": "22508__1_033", "speaker": "thomas_g_hungar"}
{"id": "22508__1_035", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Hungar.\nMr. Frederick, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1623.393, 1625.456], "stop_times": [1625.456, 1627.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1623.393}, "reply_to": "22508__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22508__2_000", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nI'd like to start at the beginning in this litigation because the district court ruled erroneously, on page 38a of the petition appendix, that the Hamburg Sud bill of lading controlled and allowed Norfolk Southern to limit its liability.\nThe Hamburg Sud bill of lading is the wrong bill of lading.\nSo when we took an interlocutory appeal... and the reason it's the wrong bill of lading is because Kirby was not a party to that bill of lading.\nAnd our theory all along has been we are not bound to the Hamburg Sud bill of lading.\nWe weren't a party to it, and ICC was not our agent for purposes of entering into that bill.\nWe took an interlocutory appeal, saying the district court was wrong.\nIt applied the wrong bill of lading.\nThat bill of lading provides for the COGSA limit f $500.\nIt shouldn't have applied that limit.\nIt is wrong as a matter of law.\nVery importantly, when we filed a motion for interlocutory appeal, we did not state that Federal substantive law governs.\nThat is nowhere in the interlocutory appeal petition.\nWe cited five cases, three from the Second Circuit, two from the Ninth Circuit.\nFour of those cases involved clearly the application of State substantive law.\nThey're contract interpretation cases in which Federal courts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1627.647, 1638.709, 1653.791, 1657.573, 1665.003, 1670.288, 1676.604, 1681.888, 1684.406, 1688.287, 1690.516, 1692.374, 1704.801, 1708.555, 1714.953, 1721.723], "stop_times": [1638.709, 1653.791, 1657.573, 1665.003, 1670.288, 1676.604, 1681.888, 1684.406, 1688.287, 1690.516, 1692.374, 1704.801, 1708.555, 1714.953, 1721.723, 1725.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1627.647}, "reply_to": "22508__1_035", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_001", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Can you point to the record anyplace where you took the position below that Federal law could not and did not apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1725.15], "stop_times": [1733.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1725.15}, "reply_to": "22508__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22508__2_002", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nWe... the parties never argued what substantive law applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1733.695, 1734.15], "stop_times": [1734.15, 1737.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1733.695}, "reply_to": "22508__2_001", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_003", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, why shouldn't we just say you both assumed it was going to be decided under Federal law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1737.51], "stop_times": [1743.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1737.51}, "reply_to": "22508__2_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22508__2_004", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "This Court would be making precedent, Your Honor, on the basis of the wrong legal theory for what substantive law controls.\nAnd this is a very important point.\nThe question--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1743.354, 1752.355, 1754.417], "stop_times": [1752.355, 1754.417, 1754.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1743.354}, "reply_to": "22508__2_003", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_005", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, now, the parties presumably could agree among themselves in the contract what law to apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1754.872], "stop_times": [1761.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1754.872}, "reply_to": "22508__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22508__2_006", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--True, Your Honor, but that isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1761.726], "stop_times": [1764.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1761.726}, "reply_to": "22508__2_005", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_007", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "So is it a step to say they can implicitly agree the same thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1764.698], "stop_times": [1769.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1764.698}, "reply_to": "22508__2_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22508__2_008", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Well, that... there's no agreement here, and that's our point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1769.489], "stop_times": [1772.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1769.489}, "reply_to": "22508__2_007", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_009", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "There's no objection.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1772.5], "stop_times": [1773.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1772.5}, "reply_to": "22508__2_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22508__2_010", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "We're objecting now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1773.326], "stop_times": [1775.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1773.326}, "reply_to": "22508__2_009", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_011", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Yes, but it's a little late.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1775.101], "stop_times": [1776.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1775.101}, "reply_to": "22508__2_010", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22508__2_012", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "It's not late, Your Honor, because the... the question here... this is a diversity case.\nAnd we brought a tort action, and under the normal rules that have been applied ever since the... the 1941 decision of this Court in Claxson is that you look to the State law to be applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1776.92, 1781.788], "stop_times": [1781.788, 1798.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1776.92}, "reply_to": "22508__2_011", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_013", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Mr. Frederick, there are diversity cases in which Federal maritime law has applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1798.606], "stop_times": [1803.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1798.606}, "reply_to": "22508__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22508__2_014", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1803.352], "stop_times": [1803.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1803.352}, "reply_to": "22508__2_013", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_015", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "So it doesn't follow like the night, the day, that because it's brought under the heading of diversity, that therefore State law applies.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1803.958], "stop_times": [1811.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.958}, "reply_to": "22508__2_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22508__2_016", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "That's true, Justice Ginsburg, and that's why it's important that you understand what their theory is for applying Federal maritime law.\nThis Court's decision in Victory Carriers said, you do not apply Federal maritime law until you establish that there is admiralty jurisdiction.\nThe Constitution, article III, section 2 says the judicial power extends to cases of admiralty jurisdiction.\nSo you look first to determine is there admiralty jurisdiction.\nNow, there's no claim here that the tort, the train derailment, is a maritime tort.\nThat would be an absurd argument.\nTheir only argument is that the multimodal through bill of lading, because it covers partly ocean carriage, has to be a maritime contract.\nThat theory is wrong, and it's been rejected by virtually every court that we've been able to find, including cases that the Government cites in their brief on page 7.\nWhat the courts have held is that with a mixed--\n1 contract that has part maritime and part non-maritime obligations, the admiralty jurisdiction of the court is defeated.\nAnd that is the uniform holding of all of the cases.\nAnd... and Judge Friendly in the Leathers Best case in 1971 set this out very clearly, and what he said was when you have a mixed contract, you cannot apply admiralty jurisdiction under this Court's precedent in the Eclipse case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1811.017, 1818.075, 1826.786, 1833.64, 1837.272, 1842.474, 1843.671, 1853.824, 1863.483, 1867.116, 1876.654, 1880.119], "stop_times": [1818.075, 1826.786, 1833.64, 1837.272, 1842.474, 1843.671, 1853.824, 1863.483, 1867.116, 1876.654, 1880.119, 1896.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1811.017}, "reply_to": "22508__2_015", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_017", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Where does that... I mean, and... and assuming from that, that it follows that this isn't Federal jurisdiction and so on... Federal rule, where does that leave the... sort of the... the carrier in the middle?\nIs the carrier in the middle in a position to know what the result will be on your analysis and therefore in a position to know whether he can rely upon a Federal rule or is taking his chances with respect to any State rule that may apply because of a railroad at the end of the... the trip?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1896.094, 1906.83], "stop_times": [1906.83, 1923.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1896.094}, "reply_to": "22508__2_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__2_018", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Justice Souter, our position is that this is simply a matter of contract interpretation.\nAnd the reason why Federal courts have not looked at the State substantive versus Federal substantive law question is they simply looked at the words in the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1923.465, 1927.923], "stop_times": [1927.923, 1936.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1923.465}, "reply_to": "22508__2_017", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_019", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, it's... it's a matter of contract interpretation, but the... the significance for... for an understanding of the contract liability, which the shipper in the middle is undertaking, may be enormous.\nAnd my question I guess is, if we follow your rule and... and we say that because the... this isn't admiralty, therefore there's no... there's no Federal rule of decision, where does that leave the... the carrier in the middle?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1936.718, 1949.1], "stop_times": [1949.1, 1965.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1936.718}, "reply_to": "22508__2_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__2_020", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "The carrier has uniformly been... the... the issue is a question of contract interpretation.\nWhat do the words mean?\nAnd the carrier in all these cases imposes a limitation of liability in the contract.\nAnd the question is one of interpretation as to does that limitation apply.\nWe cited a number of cases, Justice Souter, where it's clear that issue is decided as a matter of State substantive law, even when the shipment starts in Korea, lands--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1965.612, 1973.62, 1974.734, 1979.647, 1985.387], "stop_times": [1973.62, 1974.734, 1979.647, 1985.387, 1995.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1965.612}, "reply_to": "22508__2_019", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_021", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "But... but that's... that's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1995.668], "stop_times": [1996.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1995.668}, "reply_to": "22508__2_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__2_022", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I'm not following.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1996.616], "stop_times": [1998.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.616}, "reply_to": "22508__2_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22508__2_023", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1998.64], "stop_times": [1999.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1998.64}, "reply_to": "22508__2_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__2_024", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I'm not sure it's... it's just a matter of contract interpretation.\nThe... the contract is clear that there's a limitation of liability.\nThe question is whether that limitation of liability applies to someone who is not privy to the contract.\nThat's... that's not an issue of... of contract interpretation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [1999.012, 2001.778, 2006.608, 2012.636], "stop_times": [2001.778, 2006.608, 2012.636, 2016.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1999.012}, "reply_to": "22508__2_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22508__2_025", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Well, respectfully, yes, it is, Justice Scalia, because you have to look at who was within the clause.\nBut the way the courts have treated this, under the mixed contract doctrine, which we set out in our supplemental brief, is to look at whether the maritime obligations are separable from the non-maritime obligations, and where they are separable, then you would apply the maritime law to that part of it, which is a maritime obligation, here the sea carriage, and you would apply non-maritime law to the inland carriage.\nAnd here there's no question that a train derailment would be non-maritime because it is... involves a locus on the land and not at sea.\nNow, based on this Court's decisions and the application of the mixed contract doctrine, you would be deciding a question of State substantive law, which you are clearly empowered to do.\nThe question is, as a matter of precedent, you should not assume that Federal maritime law applies here because to do that would make the multimodal industry subject to the Federal maritime law.\nAnd that's what the Government has just suggested, extending the Jenson line not just from the water's edge, but inland.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2016.101, 2022.667, 2049.25, 2059.159, 2073.315, 2090.012, 2097.092], "stop_times": [2022.667, 2049.25, 2059.159, 2073.315, 2090.012, 2097.092, 2097.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2016.101}, "reply_to": "22508__2_024", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_026", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "But the Jenson line may make real sense in... in its application to intermodal bills of lading like this which occur all the time.\nIt seems so strange that a carrier like Hamburg Sud would have to spend a lot of time and money finding out if they're contracting with an intermediary who has other contracts or what's going on.\nI mean, these are things that happen all the time, and I wonder if the Jenson line isn't the correct line to look to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2097.919, 2108.61, 2122.067], "stop_times": [2108.61, 2122.067, 2130.779], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2097.919}, "reply_to": "22508__2_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22508__2_027", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, if Congress makes that decision, that's certainly an appropriate thing for discussion for legislation.\nOur submission is that this Court, as a matter of judge-made law where the parties have not litigated this until 10 days before the oral argument, should not be decided in this case to doctrinally extend the Jenson line to a place where it has never before existed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2130.779, 2139.074], "stop_times": [2139.074, 2155.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2130.779}, "reply_to": "22508__2_026", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_028", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Why not?\nI mean, all over the world, people ship with these bills of lading.\nThe shipper simply gets a piece of paper.\nIt says it's a bill of lading and it's going to be sent to anyone of 5 billion destinations.\nFour billion of the 5 billion will involve some little bit of inland travel.\nNow, if suddenly the laws of 50 States were to apply to all those bill of ladings, wouldn't it be an all-time mess?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2155.793, 2156.33, 2159.469, 2162.108, 2168.136, 2172.14], "stop_times": [2156.33, 2159.469, 2162.108, 2168.136, 2172.14, 2179.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2155.793}, "reply_to": "22508__2_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_029", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2179.281], "stop_times": [2179.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2179.281}, "reply_to": "22508__2_028", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_030", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Because?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2179.941], "stop_times": [2180.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2179.941}, "reply_to": "22508__2_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_031", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Because most of them have choice of law provisions that States respect and as did the ICC bill of lading which applied for the country's law of shipment to govern.\nThat's in the last clause of the ICC bill of lading.\nSo most--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2180.563, 2190.981, 2194.514], "stop_times": [2190.981, 2194.514, 2196.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2180.563}, "reply_to": "22508__2_030", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_032", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Is there anything I can read that would help me decide if it really would be a mess or wouldn't be a mess?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2196.0], "stop_times": [2200.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2196.0}, "reply_to": "22508__2_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_033", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Well, yes.\nI can point you to several court of appeals decisions, and in particular, I would point you to Judge Cabranes' decision in the Hartford Insurance case, which we have cited.\nI would cite you to Judge Diane Wood's opinion for the Seventh Circuit just last year in the Insurance v. Hanjin Shipping case.\nAnd importantly, I would point you to Judge Friendly's seminal decision in Leathers Best, a decision decided in 1971.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2200.187, 2201.656, 2212.513, 2221.635], "stop_times": [2201.656, 2212.513, 2221.635, 2229.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2200.187}, "reply_to": "22508__2_032", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_034", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "If you're right, Mr. Frederick, that it's State law that controls, then why should we decide anything beyond that choice of law question?\nBecause if State law controls, then Louisiana could do it one way, Mississippi could do it the other way.\nWhy should we be concerned what the substantive answer would be if State law controls?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2229.065, 2240.022, 2245.578], "stop_times": [2240.022, 2245.578, 2250.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2229.065}, "reply_to": "22508__2_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22508__2_035", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, the substantive answer, as I think Norfolk Southern has basically conceded on the agency point, there's no question that if... if that is decided as a matter of contract interpretation, we win.\nThey've never disputed that the words do not create an agency.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2250.985, 2262.381], "stop_times": [2262.381, 2265.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2250.985}, "reply_to": "22508__2_034", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_036", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Whatever.\nIf there's contract determination under State law, why should this Court be resolving the question, however clear it may be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2265.725, 2265.975], "stop_times": [2265.975, 2272.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2265.725}, "reply_to": "22508__2_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22508__2_037", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "We submitted that the Court should dismiss as improperly granted, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2272.995], "stop_times": [2276.728], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 2272.995}, "reply_to": "22508__2_036", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22508__2_038", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "We've opposed certiorari.\nWe've put... used every line of every brief that we've been able to submit in this case.\nThis is an interlocutory appeal of a tort brought in diversity where there's a contract interpretation issue raised as a defense.\nOur position all along has been that this Court should not decide the case.\nBut if I could turn to the merits--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2276.728, 2277.947, 2283.231, 2291.61, 2296.811], "stop_times": [2277.947, 2283.231, 2291.61, 2296.811, 2300.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2276.728}, "reply_to": "22508__2_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22508__2_039", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "May I ask just one... one last question?\nWould your position be the same if the defendant were a longshoreman rather than a railroad?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2300.155, 2302.755], "stop_times": [2302.755, 2309.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2300.155}, "reply_to": "22508__2_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__2_040", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "With respect to which question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2309.154], "stop_times": [2312.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2309.154}, "reply_to": "22508__2_039", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_041", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Assume the accident occurred not in the shipment by rail carrier but unloading cargo at the... and the negligence was on the part of a stevedore.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2312.831], "stop_times": [2321.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.831}, "reply_to": "22508__2_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__2_042", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Our position with respect to the Hamburg Sud bill of lading stays the same, that the Hamburg Sud bill of lading does not control for the same agency reason that we set forth in our briefs.\nWith respect to the Himalaya clause issue, which I'm assuming you're asking about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2321.043, 2331.035], "stop_times": [2331.035, 2335.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2321.043}, "reply_to": "22508__2_041", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_043", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, and also whether it's a matter of State or Federal law too.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2335.372], "stop_times": [2337.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2335.372}, "reply_to": "22508__2_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__2_044", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Well, I think Victory Carriers answered the question.\nIt would depend on how the accident happened.\nIf the... if the... and this is the confusion that is raised in the cases that we cited to the court of appeals.\nIn one of them, a Ninth Circuit case, the stevedore dropped the cargo in the hold of the vessel, and that's the only maritime law case that we think would be governed by substantive maritime law.\nAll of the other cases involved the stevedore committing a tort on land--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2337.888, 2340.943, 2343.339, 2350.027, 2362.863], "stop_times": [2340.943, 2343.339, 2350.027, 2362.863, 2368.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2337.888}, "reply_to": "22508__2_043", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_045", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2368.147], "stop_times": [2368.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2368.147}, "reply_to": "22508__2_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__2_046", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--and therefore would fall on the land side of the locus jurisdiction.\nSo those are the... the three cases that we cited in our petition to the... from the Second Circuit.\nOne of them, the Scheiss case, the Finlander, in footnote 2, makes it very clear there that it was dealing with State law, and that's because the stevedore there committed the tort on land.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2368.519, 2373.97, 2379.997], "stop_times": [2373.97, 2379.997, 2391.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2368.519}, "reply_to": "22508__2_045", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_047", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Mr. Frederick, just as a practical matter, why isn't the client satisfied with suing ICC for damages, which I understand has... has been done?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2391.681], "stop_times": [2402.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2391.681}, "reply_to": "22508__2_046", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22508__2_048", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Your Honor, the... there was a limitation of liability in the ICC bill of lading.\nAnd Justice Breyer, it's set forth in clause 8.3 that two special drawing rights per kilogram gross weight would be applied.\nTo translate that for you, that's the Hague-Visby limits which dramatically increase the limits from the Hague rules which Australia has adopted in its Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2402.593, 2408.128, 2416.401, 2428.523], "stop_times": [2408.128, 2416.401, 2428.523, 2428.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2402.593}, "reply_to": "22508__2_047", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_049", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, that doesn't answer my question.\nI... I understood that Kirby collected insurance and sued ICC.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2428.773, 2430.175], "stop_times": [2430.175, 2436.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.773}, "reply_to": "22508__2_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22508__2_050", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--The insurer here, Justice O'Connor, is the real party in interest because it subrogated interests.\nIt paid its insurance--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2436.036, 2442.435], "stop_times": [2442.435, 2443.716], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2436.036}, "reply_to": "22508__2_049", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_051", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "And it wants now to collect money from Norfolk.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2443.716], "stop_times": [2446.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2443.716}, "reply_to": "22508__2_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22508__2_052", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--It wants to collect against the wrong... the... the wrongdoer here, which is Norfolk Southern.\nAnd I want to point out that... that there's been this comment by the government, which is strange, about efficiencies.\nIf you look at the maritime cases that are decided, a very high proportion of them are brought by insurance companies to bring claims against negligent wrongdoers.\nThat's how you keep premiums down.\nIf a wrongdoer commits a tort--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2446.029, 2450.608, 2456.636, 2468.07, 2470.465], "stop_times": [2450.608, 2456.636, 2468.07, 2470.465, 2472.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2446.029}, "reply_to": "22508__2_051", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_053", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "But I mean, the... the argument, which I'm really interested in your addressing, is that overall, naturally any insurance company would like to get the money if it could.\nBut overall, a system that's developed where the shippers buy first party insurance and get their money if they're hurt and the carriers all know their tort liability is limited in contract liability is one that overall avoids lawyers, avoids lawsuits, avoids tremendous expense, and has led to lower rates and better service.\nOkay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2472.694, 2481.572, 2508.943], "stop_times": [2481.572, 2508.943, 2509.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.694}, "reply_to": "22508__2_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_054", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--But that's not the system, Justice Breyer, and that's important for you to understand.\nThat is not the system that we have because we have insurance companies bringing subrogated claims all the time against negligent wrongdoers, and they do that in order to get recoveries for losses that they have to pay out.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2509.264, 2512.408, 2525.866], "stop_times": [2512.408, 2525.866, 2526.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2509.264}, "reply_to": "22508__2_053", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_055", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "All right.\nThis happens all the time.\nIf it happens all the time that the subrogated insurer goes and sues someone down the line with whom the shipper himself did not enter into a liability limiting contract, why, after reading these briefs, do I feel I can't find a case in point--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2526.775, 2526.942, 2527.685], "stop_times": [2526.942, 2527.685, 2546.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2526.775}, "reply_to": "22508__2_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_056", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Hartford Insurance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2546.3], "stop_times": [2547.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2546.3}, "reply_to": "22508__2_055", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_057", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--but for, arguably, this old case of the Supreme Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2547.665], "stop_times": [2549.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2547.665}, "reply_to": "22508__2_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_058", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Read Hartford Insurance.\nJudge Cabranes lays this all out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2549.522, 2550.758], "stop_times": [2550.758, 2553.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2549.522}, "reply_to": "22508__2_057", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_059", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Hartford Insurance, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2553.237], "stop_times": [2553.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2553.237}, "reply_to": "22508__2_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_060", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "And he explains it very clearly why an insurance company would bring a subrogated claim, and that claim would be decided by State substantive law, notwithstanding--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2553.709], "stop_times": [2562.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2553.709}, "reply_to": "22508__2_059", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_061", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "All right.\nSo maybe that is what's happened.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2562.525, 2562.897], "stop_times": [2562.897, 2564.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2562.525}, "reply_to": "22508__2_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_062", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--through bill of lading.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2564.178], "stop_times": [2564.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2564.178}, "reply_to": "22508__2_061", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_063", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Now, let me ask you.\nIs it necessarily going to be true that if we agree with you and shippers in general did want to have first party insurance and did want to contract for these lower rates, et cetera, you just couldn't create the system because carriers down the line would look back and see that the independent freight forwarder was the party in interest at the first contract for transportation would have no idea whether, behind that independent freight forwarder, there stood another independent shipper or there did not, and thus would not know whether his liability was really limited or not, and therefore would have to charge a price that in fact reflected a liability regime where he might have to pay up?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2564.633, 2565.459], "stop_times": [2565.459, 2622.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2564.633}, "reply_to": "22508__2_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_064", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Justice Breyer, the answer to your question is reflected in the marketplace.\nThe insurance rates are going to be set on the basis of loss recoveries with the idea of deterring negligent conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2622.84, 2629.117], "stop_times": [2629.117, 2638.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2622.84}, "reply_to": "22508__2_063", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_065", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "But I'm now taking your answer to my question is your--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2638.116], "stop_times": [2640.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2638.116}, "reply_to": "22508__2_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_066", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "And--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2640.263], "stop_times": [2640.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2640.263}, "reply_to": "22508__2_065", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_067", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--No, there is no way to do it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2640.718], "stop_times": [2642.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2640.718}, "reply_to": "22508__2_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_068", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--I... I haven't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2642.947], "stop_times": [2643.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2642.947}, "reply_to": "22508__2_067", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_069", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--if in fact... all right.\nIf there is a way to do it, I want to find out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2643.569, 2644.85], "stop_times": [2644.85, 2646.624], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2643.569}, "reply_to": "22508__2_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_070", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--The UNCITRAL process has negotiated this very point, Justice Breyer.\nAs we point out in our brief in opposition to cert, it involves very delicate compromises among a whole range of maritime and non-maritime interested parties.\nWe submit, as a matter of common law, for this Court to drop in and make a decision in this case would have only one small piece of the puzzle that is being negotiated internationally to deal with this kind of issue.\nAnd our submission is the international parties and the 12 professors that Mr. Phillips said should be given no weight, as the amicus brief points, are virtually all the representatives of their countries at these UNCITRAL negotiations.\nAnd they're telling you that international uniformity would be served by affirming the Eleventh Circuit decision and... and reflecting what parties understand--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2646.624, 2651.992, 2661.939, 2677.339, 2692.86], "stop_times": [2651.992, 2661.939, 2677.339, 2692.86, 2703.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2646.624}, "reply_to": "22508__2_069", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_071", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "The problem with the professors was I thought not all, but most of the cases they cite, they're citing for the proposition that the person, i.e., the independent freight forwarder, is indeed independent and not the agent of the shipper.\nI... I got that.\nBut what I wonder, of course, is whether that fact translates in their law into the conclusion that therefore the carrier ultimately is... that he cannot assert a liability limitation.\nThat's the ultimate question.\nAnd there were one or two that did seem to say that, but most of them just didn't seem to talk about that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2703.884, 2718.102, 2719.178, 2734.122, 2735.198], "stop_times": [2718.102, 2719.178, 2734.122, 2735.198, 2739.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2703.884}, "reply_to": "22508__2_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_072", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--The two cases that I'm familiar with, Justice Breyer, are from Japan and Korea, and the Japan case actually deals with this bill of lading and comes to exactly the same conclusion that we urge upon the Court here.\nWhat the scholars have said, though, is that because the shipper would not be bound by the non-vessel-operating carrier's subsequent subcontract, that there would be no basis for applying a different limitation of liability other than the one the cargo owner entered into in that contract with the non-vessel-operating carrier.\nAnd that's clear from Professor Ramberg's treatise on the law of freight forwarding, his amicus brief which sets this out clearly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2739.695, 2751.916, 2778.787], "stop_times": [2751.916, 2778.787, 2786.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2739.695}, "reply_to": "22508__2_071", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_073", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Britain does it differently though, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2786.589], "stop_times": [2788.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2786.589}, "reply_to": "22508__2_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_074", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--I beg your pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2788.53], "stop_times": [2789.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2788.53}, "reply_to": "22508__2_073", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_075", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Britain does it differently in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2789.561], "stop_times": [2790.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2789.561}, "reply_to": "22508__2_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_076", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "No.\nBritain... well, Britain does it differently to this extent.\nBritain applies a concept called bailment on terms, which again Norfolk has introduced as a totally new theory in their reply brief on the merits.\nBut they misapply the bailment on terms argument.\nThe bailment on terms concept applies when the bailee, the carrier, is having control of the goods and damages those goods, and there's a suit brought against that carrier, and he says, I get to carry it on my terms.\nThere's no concept in the law of bailment for a sub-bailee to say, well, I don't like my terms.\nI want to use a different carrier's terms.\nAnd that's what Norfolk Southern is arguing here.\nThey don't want to apply their terms of carriage because their terms of carriage provide a $250,000 per container limit, which would more than amply satisfy the damage caused to Kirby's goods.\nThey want to rely on a different bailee's terms.\nAnd they cite no case and there is none that we're aware of that applies the bailment on terms concept in that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2790.776, 2790.942, 2792.866, 2801.533, 2804.672, 2820.852, 2828.449, 2830.594, 2833.483, 2845.91, 2849.747], "stop_times": [2790.942, 2792.866, 2801.533, 2804.672, 2820.852, 2828.449, 2830.594, 2833.483, 2845.91, 2849.747, 2858.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2790.776}, "reply_to": "22508__2_075", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_077", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Are there cases where the owner of the goods sues the forwarder for making improvident contracts for... for shipping it with liability limits that are too low?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2858.171], "stop_times": [2868.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2858.171}, "reply_to": "22508__2_076", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22508__2_078", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Only when the forwarder was the agent of the owner.\nThe cases that I'm familiar with have been thrown out where the forwarder was in fact a carrier and therefore had--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2868.406, 2872.66], "stop_times": [2872.66, 2879.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2868.406}, "reply_to": "22508__2_077", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_079", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "No, but I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2879.985], "stop_times": [2880.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2879.985}, "reply_to": "22508__2_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22508__2_080", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--no fiduciary duty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2880.523], "stop_times": [2881.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2880.523}, "reply_to": "22508__2_079", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_081", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--I don't know that... that answer would help you because then you... you would say that the... under... under your view that the cargo owner simply has... has no recourse whatever against whatever the forwarder does.\nThe forwarder--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2881.266, 2896.021], "stop_times": [2896.021, 2896.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2881.266}, "reply_to": "22508__2_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22508__2_082", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "If you were to conclude, Justice Kennedy, in this case that ICC is the sort of quasi-agent, whatever their... however you want to characterize Norfolk's theory here, that wouldn't be applicable in Australia, which would apply its own precedents to say, no, it isn't.\nIt's a carrier.\nAnd as a carrier, it owes no fiduciary duty and cannot bind Kirby because Kirby did not consent to be bound by the terms.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2896.271, 2911.625, 2912.618], "stop_times": [2911.625, 2912.618, 2921.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2896.271}, "reply_to": "22508__2_081", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_083", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--Well, you'd have to say... I mean, you'd have to say that Northern case rests on the principle that the agent... he's not an agent for most purposes, but he is an agent for the purpose of... of entering into a liability limitation.\nAnd that's not unheard of in the law.\nIt... it's an agency type power that's given to a person who isn't an agent.\nAnd the argument would be, well, that's the precedent here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2921.496, 2935.309, 2936.767, 2941.391], "stop_times": [2935.309, 2936.767, 2941.391, 2944.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2921.496}, "reply_to": "22508__2_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_084", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I would like to address the O'Connor case because I think that has been badly misunderstood and represented by the other side in this case.\nWe went back and looked at the trial record, and in the trial record, one of the instructions to the jury stipulated that the freight forwarder was the owner's agent.\nAs a matter of fact, the forwarder was Mrs. O'Connor's agent in that case, and the case proceeded all the way up on the assumption that as a matter of fact the forwarder was serving as the agent.\nNow, our submission is simple.\nYou can't read that and say that that announces some common law rule when the jury is being stipulated and both sides agree that Boyd is her agent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2944.447, 2951.422, 2964.508, 2981.227, 2982.63], "stop_times": [2951.422, 2964.508, 2981.227, 2982.63, 2992.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2944.447}, "reply_to": "22508__2_083", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_085", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Did this Court know that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2992.372], "stop_times": [2993.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2992.372}, "reply_to": "22508__2_084", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__2_086", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "We believe that the fair way to read Mrs. O'Connor's brief in the case... and we cite it in our... our brief... is that yes, it did.\nThe... the Minnesota Supreme Court opinion in that case said the instructions were not objected to.\nIt is clear Mrs.... Boyd is O'Connor's agent, and we think it is the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [2993.57, 3001.827, 3007.787], "stop_times": [3001.827, 3007.787, 3013.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2993.57}, "reply_to": "22508__2_085", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_087", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Yes, but that... I mean, that's ambiguous on... on the point, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3013.36], "stop_times": [3015.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3013.36}, "reply_to": "22508__2_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__2_088", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--I don't think so, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3015.839], "stop_times": [3017.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3015.839}, "reply_to": "22508__2_087", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_089", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I mean, it... it may be that it's clear because it was clear as... as... on the basis of some legal principle.\nIt may be clear because... I'm not quite sure what this means, but because they said as a matter of fact, there's an agency relationship.\nBut this... this Court doesn't know that.\nThe... the Minnesota opinion is ambiguous on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3017.612, 3023.739, 3031.441, 3033.216], "stop_times": [3023.739, 3031.441, 3033.216, 3035.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3017.612}, "reply_to": "22508__2_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__2_090", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "No.\nJustice Souter, the jury charge is in the Supreme Court record.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3035.695, 3035.9], "stop_times": [3035.9, 3038.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3035.695}, "reply_to": "22508__2_089", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_091", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Oh, it is.\nOkay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3038.312, 3038.934], "stop_times": [3038.934, 3039.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3038.312}, "reply_to": "22508__2_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__2_092", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "That's where we found it.\nAnd... and even if you were to assume that there was something else different, the Interstate Commerce Act passed filed tariff requirements that under the act, as a statutory matter, the cargo owner was assumed to understand, and that's how the railroad law developed.\nNow, the Government makes the leap that because O'Connor did that in the rail context, the same answer has to apply here in the Shipping Act context, but that is completely flawed.\nThey give you some of the statutory provisions in an appendix to their supplemental brief, but they leave out the most important one.\nAnd that is the provision that says, if a vessel carrier enters into a service contract, it can be done confidentially and would not be subject to the normal tariff requirements.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3039.321, 3039.776, 3056.865, 3065.949, 3073.379], "stop_times": [3039.776, 3056.865, 3065.949, 3073.379, 3087.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3039.321}, "reply_to": "22508__2_091", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_093", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "This is the Shipping Act you're talking about?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3087.125], "stop_times": [3087.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3087.125}, "reply_to": "22508__2_092", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22508__2_094", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Yes.\nI'm talking about the Shipping Act, and the provision is 1707(c)(1).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3087.951, 3088.151], "stop_times": [3088.151, 3093.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3087.951}, "reply_to": "22508__2_093", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_095", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "May I ask a question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3093.235], "stop_times": [3095.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.235}, "reply_to": "22508__2_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__2_096", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Why, if that's right... let... just why... as a simple, empirical question, if... if this is so, you know, fairly clear, he's not an agent, independent, you can't enforce the liability thing, why aren't the case books filled or the... the reports filled with cases where an insurer went... and it subrogated, went and sued somebody down the line and they asserted a liability limitation and people laughed and said it's not... you can't assert that, he never entered into a contract with you?\nWhy isn't that true in all these eight foreign countries?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3095.054, 3121.182], "stop_times": [3121.182, 3123.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3095.054}, "reply_to": "22508__2_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_097", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3123.594], "stop_times": [3123.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3123.594}, "reply_to": "22508__2_096", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_098", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Why can't we find those cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3123.76], "stop_times": [3125.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3123.76}, "reply_to": "22508__2_097", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_099", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--The proposition has been so clear that no one has had the audacity to argue it for a railroad.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3125.329, 3129.87], "stop_times": [3129.87, 3130.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3125.329}, "reply_to": "22508__2_098", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_100", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "To find judgments.\nNo, I'm sorry.\nWe would find in insurance records, for example... insurance companies... they're proud of the money they get back.\nIt would be easy to locate lots of instances where insurance companies did recover, subrogated, from carriers down the line who were unable to assert liability limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3130.103, 3130.186, 3130.641, 3136.38], "stop_times": [3130.186, 3130.641, 3136.38, 3151.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3130.103}, "reply_to": "22508__2_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22508__2_101", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Justice Breyer, I don't want to create work for your law clerks, but if you did a... a search for Himalaya clause, your law clerk will find 400 cases decided since the Robert C. Herd decision, most of which will have been brought by insurance companies.\nAnd the reason is that the insurance companies are bringing this against non-maritime parties.\nIt's long been understood that Himalaya clauses are intended to protect only maritime parties.\nThere is no reported court of appeals decision--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3151.734, 3164.449, 3169.529, 3174.48], "stop_times": [3164.449, 3169.529, 3174.48, 3176.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3151.734}, "reply_to": "22508__2_100", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_102", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "May I ask a question referring to the... the matter you quoted a moment ago?\nAfter the shipment arrives in the... on shore and there is an outstanding maritime bill of lading that has the COGSA limits in it, is the railroad entitled to rely on that bill of lading in quoting a rate to the maritime shipper?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3176.875, 3181.91], "stop_times": [3181.91, 3196.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3176.875}, "reply_to": "22508__2_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__2_103", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--I'm glad you asked that question of me, Justice Stevens, because it... it may but that isn't what happens.\nTheir own rail circular has no mention of ocean bills of lading.\nTheir own rail circular says we... you accept our terms and you do it on the basis of our rates.\nAnd their rates for damage at--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3196.278, 3201.767, 3205.482, 3211.715], "stop_times": [3201.767, 3205.482, 3211.715, 3215.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3196.278}, "reply_to": "22508__2_102", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_104", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "But what you're saying, if I understand it, they did not do so in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3215.392], "stop_times": [3218.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3215.392}, "reply_to": "22508__2_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__2_105", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--And there's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3218.114], "stop_times": [3218.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3218.114}, "reply_to": "22508__2_104", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_106", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "But would it be open to them, as a matter of law, to say, whenever we get a joint bill of lading like this, we're going to give a different rate because we have a different liability exposure?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3218.94], "stop_times": [3228.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3218.94}, "reply_to": "22508__2_105", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__2_107", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--They certainly have contractual freedom to alter their relations in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3228.062], "stop_times": [3232.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3228.062}, "reply_to": "22508__2_106", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_108", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "But... but in doing that, can they rely on the limits in the joint bill of lading?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3232.232], "stop_times": [3234.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3232.232}, "reply_to": "22508__2_107", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__2_109", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "They don't do that and they haven't done that.\nAnd we found no evidence of industry practice that, in fact, they do do that.\nIn fact, the best evidence of that, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3234.628, 3236.857, 3240.405], "stop_times": [3236.857, 3240.405, 3242.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3234.628}, "reply_to": "22508__2_108", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_110", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "But you're asking us to hold that they may not do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3242.263], "stop_times": [3243.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3242.263}, "reply_to": "22508__2_109", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__2_111", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--No.\nOur position is that they have to come forward with some indication that in fact that's what they did, and they haven't done that.\nAnd there's no reason to think that they did because they contracted with a different party.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3243.999, 3245.401, 3254.151], "stop_times": [3245.401, 3254.151, 3259.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3243.999}, "reply_to": "22508__2_110", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_112", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Mr. Frederick, you... you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3259.314], "stop_times": [3259.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3259.314}, "reply_to": "22508__2_111", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22508__2_113", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "But if they did, would there be a different result in the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3259.485], "stop_times": [3261.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3259.485}, "reply_to": "22508__2_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22508__2_114", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I don't think so, and the reason is that each of these carriers in their own subcontracts are having a contractual relation with the party with whom they deal.\nAnd if that means that if that party wanted to break through the limit, they would be bound by the contract.\nThat wouldn't necessarily mean that an upstream harmed party would be bound by it.\nThat's the Herd case.\nI mean, in Herd, it's very important that you understand the very last paragraph of the Court's opinion because the Court there relied on an Australian High Court opinion in which it said... and if I could just substitute the parties and read... Hamburg Sud was engaged by ICC and by nobody else.\nICC had no authority whatever to bind Kirby by contract with Hamburg Sud, and no principle of law compels the inference of any contract between Kirby and Hamburg Sud.\nThat's the very last paragraph of this Court's decision in Herd as understood through the lens of what our... our case is here.\nSo, Your Honor, I think that the... the point is contractual privity would determine the relationships between the parties with whom there's a contract, and where there isn't contractual privity, if they are not a third party beneficiary of the contract, they would be liable for full damages, as the stevedore was in the Herd case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3261.21, 3271.219, 3279.043, 3284.327, 3285.359, 3303.07, 3316.528, 3324.823], "stop_times": [3271.219, 3279.043, 3284.327, 3285.359, 3303.07, 3316.528, 3324.823, 3343.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3261.21}, "reply_to": "22508__2_113", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_115", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "I... I thought you... clarify this for me.\nI thought you were saying a moment ago they would have to be a third party beneficiary and they would have, in fact, to have relied upon the... the limitation upstream.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3343.482, 3346.825, 3356.856], "stop_times": [3346.825, 3356.856, 3357.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3343.482}, "reply_to": "22508__2_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__2_116", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Well, I don't think that... I don't think reliance necessarily has to be... establishes a legal requirement.\nAll I'm saying is that there is no reliance in this case and there's no reliance in the industry that I'm aware of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3357.433, 3362.635], "stop_times": [3362.635, 3367.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3357.433}, "reply_to": "22508__2_115", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_117", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "But that's... that's... basically to your central argument, that's neither here nor there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3367.176], "stop_times": [3370.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3367.176}, "reply_to": "22508__2_116", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22508__2_118", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--That's right.\nThe question is are they a third party beneficiary.\nAnd Norfolk Southern clearly is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3370.687, 3371.18, 3373.287], "stop_times": [3371.18, 3373.287, 3374.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3370.687}, "reply_to": "22508__2_117", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_119", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "--What... what does govern their liability in your view?\nYou referred to this circular a couple of times.\nThat's not a tariff.\nIs... is your position they were negligent and whatever the damages you proved?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3374.652, 3376.631, 3379.026, 3380.845], "stop_times": [3376.631, 3379.026, 3380.845, 3388.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3374.652}, "reply_to": "22508__2_118", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22508__2_120", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Yes.\nThat's the hold of the Herd case.\nThe stevedore was not allowed to claim the limits of the ocean carrier and was liable for the full tort.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3388.025, 3388.397, 3389.883], "stop_times": [3388.397, 3389.883, 3396.736], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3388.025}, "reply_to": "22508__2_119", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_121", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "So what does the... what does the circular have to do with anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3396.736], "stop_times": [3397.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3396.736}, "reply_to": "22508__2_120", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22508__2_122", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "That... could I answer this question, Justice... Mr. Chief Justice?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3397.851], "stop_times": [3401.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3397.851}, "reply_to": "22508__2_121", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_123", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Briefly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3401.361], "stop_times": [3401.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3401.361}, "reply_to": "22508__2_122", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22508__2_124", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "It would be going to a bailment on terms argument.\nIf you were to find that Norfolk Southern is entitled to rely on its own terms as a bailee, their rail circular would govern.\nOur position is we get full damages under that too.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3401.377, 3404.333, 3411.93], "stop_times": [3404.333, 3411.93, 3414.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3401.377}, "reply_to": "22508__2_123", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "22508__2_125", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Frederick.\nMr. Phillips, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3414.819, 3416.016], "stop_times": [3416.016, 3418.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3414.819}, "reply_to": "22508__2_124", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22508__3_000", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nLet me start by trying to clarify the Herd holding.\nHerd did not involve the Himalaya clause since there was no question about downstream liability or the limits on liability, and so what the Court said there is if your agreement extends to carriers, it doesn't extend on to stevedores.\nOur agreements extend well beyond carriers under these circumstances, and we're asking to have them applied in this particular context.\nJustice Stevens, with respect to your question about the rate flexibility that we had.\nThere is no question that the protections of the Hamburg Sud bill, which we... which we accepted for these purposes, carries with it rates that we... there are limitations on liability that Norfolk Southern was intimately familiar with, relied upon in setting the rate.\nYou could... you could have assumed that based on the Court's analysis in Great Northern, but the reality is that, of course, entities that engage in these kinds of operations and the kind of common enterprises know what their rates are and they set the rates.\nAnd if you had broken this rate... this transportation down, it would have required a different rate setting regime, and the... and the circumstances would have been fundamentally different.\nThe basic point here is that there is a reliance and interest that is implicated here.\nMr. Frederick, with all due respect, has described to you a world that is not the world in which ocean... ocean carriers and rail carriers and shippers ordinarily operate.\nThe world in which we operate is one in which we say either declare the value of the goods or live with the limitation on liability.\nThey never declared any value of the goods.\nThere's no way for the freight forwarder to declare the value if the shipper doesn't do that in the first instance.\nAnd all of the limits of liability flow directly from that.\nIt's not unfair.\nIt doesn't unduly limit the remedies available for the owner of the goods.\nHe always has the opportunity to take advantage of the option of declaring the goods, making us the insurer under those circumstances, and we never do it.\nThe fact that there are no such cases, Justice Breyer, strikes me as the clearest evidence that the rule of law, as we've described it in our briefs and as our amicus have described it, is the standard that has applied to the worldwide carriage.\nOne... two last points.\nJustice Breyer, you asked me for a couple of theories about how to get to the right answer.\nOne other theory is the entrustment of the goods creates an implied consent to be bound.\nThat's a... an argument that's been made.\nAnd then finally, Mr. Chief Justice, you asked about the diversity jurisdiction.\nAcme Fast Freight is a post-Erie case, along with Great Northern is itself obviously a decision that comes out of the Minnesota Supreme Court.\nAnd then finally, with respect to Great Northern, I would urge the Justices to read the brief.\nIt's absolutely clear.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3418.7, 3422.226, 3424.522, 3438.019, 3445.616, 3450.567, 3464.851, 3477.937, 3486.937, 3491.312, 3502.707, 3511.541, 3513.975, 3519.071, 3522.536, 3523.612, 3527.903, 3536.737, 3549.08, 3550.937, 3555.107, 3559.936, 3562.044, 3566.419, 3575.457, 3580.742, 3581.485], "stop_times": [3422.226, 3424.522, 3438.019, 3445.616, 3450.567, 3464.851, 3477.937, 3486.937, 3491.312, 3502.707, 3511.541, 3513.975, 3519.071, 3522.536, 3523.612, 3527.903, 3536.737, 3549.08, 3550.937, 3555.107, 3559.936, 3562.044, 3566.419, 3575.457, 3580.742, 3581.485, 3582.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3418.7}, "reply_to": "22508__2_125", "speaker": "carter_g_phillips"}
{"id": "22508__3_001", "conversation_id": "22508", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Phillips.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_02-1028", "start_times": [3582.395, 3584.335], "stop_times": [3584.335, 3585.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3582.395}, "reply_to": "22508__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22539__0_000", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "We will now hear argument in Orff against the United States.\nMr. Smiland.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [0.0, 4.93], "stop_times": [4.93, 6.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__0_001", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThe relevant language of the 1963 contract, as illuminated in the surrounding circumstances, was confirmed in the express terms of the 1986 stipulated judgment which commanded the district and the United States to perform the contract.\nIn particular, the first sentence of paragraph 4.2, which is at joint appendix page 111, states... and I quote... the district acknowledges that it entered into the 1963 contract for the benefit of Areas 1A and 1B.\nThat's the premerger--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [6.194, 9.743, 29.888, 53.749], "stop_times": [9.743, 29.888, 53.749, 54.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6.194}, "reply_to": "22539__0_000", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_002", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Mr. Smiland, do you mind telling us why the petitioners never filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [54.829], "stop_times": [61.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 54.829}, "reply_to": "22539__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22539__0_003", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nThere's a long history of litigation here.\nIt began with the first suit in 1979.\nWe were in the district court there.\nThere were administrative and constitutional and equitable issues as well, and we were able in that initial case to combine all those forms of relief in the district court.\nAnd then, of course, we got this judgment that I began to read from.\nAnd from then on, we had four or five other cases all in the district court.\nWe do acknowledge that on the breach of contract, there is concurrent jurisdiction under the Tucker Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [61.672, 63.613, 67.207, 71.581, 74.47, 87.185, 90.445, 97.216], "stop_times": [63.613, 67.207, 71.581, 74.47, 87.185, 90.445, 97.216, 105.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 61.672}, "reply_to": "22539__0_002", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_004", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Is it concurrent?\nI mean, the... the statute I'm reading, the one you brought is consent is given to join the United States as a necessary party defendant.\nIs that what happened here?\nThey were joined as a necessary party defendant?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [105.306, 106.588, 117.566, 119.152], "stop_times": [106.588, 117.566, 119.152, 121.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 105.306}, "reply_to": "22539__0_003", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__0_005", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Well, we think so, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [121.736], "stop_times": [123.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 121.736}, "reply_to": "22539__0_004", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_006", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "They were?\nI... I think that's... isn't that... what rule of... I thought there's a... a Rule of Federal Procedure.\nI can't remember what... what's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [123.76, 124.315, 129.721], "stop_times": [124.315, 129.721, 131.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 123.76}, "reply_to": "22539__0_005", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__0_007", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Rule 19(s)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [131.373], "stop_times": [132.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 131.373}, "reply_to": "22539__0_006", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_008", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Yes.\nIs that what they were joined under?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [132.488, 132.943], "stop_times": [132.943, 134.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 132.488}, "reply_to": "22539__0_007", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__0_009", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "That... that procedure was not invoked here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [134.058], "stop_times": [139.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 134.058}, "reply_to": "22539__0_008", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_010", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "No.\nWell, all right.\nWere they... there's technical phrase well known in the law to be joined as a necessary party defendant.\nGiven the normal meaning in the law of that technical phrase, is that what happened here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [139.092, 139.63, 140.29, 148.008], "stop_times": [139.63, 140.29, 148.008, 154.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.092}, "reply_to": "22539__0_009", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__0_011", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "No.\nWhat happened... what happened--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [154.12, 154.963], "stop_times": [154.963, 156.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 154.12}, "reply_to": "22539__0_010", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_012", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "No, okay.\nIf it did not happen, then how could you possibly sue in that court rather than the Court of Claims where the statute says you can sue on any implied, as well as express, contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [156.632, 156.765], "stop_times": [156.765, 170.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 156.632}, "reply_to": "22539__0_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__0_013", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Because the waiver of sovereign immunity statute says in any suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [170.75], "stop_times": [175.851], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 170.75}, "reply_to": "22539__0_012", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_014", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "It doesn't mean in any suit in sentence 2 of the kind referred to in sentence 1?\nDoes it mean any suit in the universe?\nAny suit in the world?\nAny tort suit?\nI would have thought that sentence 2 refers to sentence 1.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [175.851, 182.705, 184.685, 186.421, 187.823], "stop_times": [182.705, 184.685, 186.421, 187.823, 191.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 175.851}, "reply_to": "22539__0_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__0_015", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Well, it... it does and that case was litigated against the United States by my clients and... and we won in the Peck case.\nAnd we think that should have ended the matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [191.538, 201.281], "stop_times": [201.281, 206.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 191.538}, "reply_to": "22539__0_014", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_016", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "But don't... how can we, if we have... if... if I read this... this as meaning technically what it says and it's a jurisdictional matter, how could I do anything other than say, go to the Court of Claims, you're in the wrong court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [206.483], "stop_times": [223.323], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 206.483}, "reply_to": "22539__0_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__0_017", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Any suit is also in the first sentence, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [223.323], "stop_times": [227.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 223.323}, "reply_to": "22539__0_016", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_018", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Yes.\nIt says--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [227.409, 227.864], "stop_times": [227.864, 228.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 227.409}, "reply_to": "22539__0_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__0_019", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "And... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [228.485], "stop_times": [229.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 228.485}, "reply_to": "22539__0_018", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_020", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--in any suit you can join the United States as a necessary party.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [229.35], "stop_times": [234.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 229.35}, "reply_to": "22539__0_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__0_021", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--The... the... in the sue and be sued cases, this Court construes that very broadly, and this is the same root word and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [234.097], "stop_times": [244.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 234.097}, "reply_to": "22539__0_020", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_022", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Well, but we don't give broad construction to waivers of sovereign immunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [244.128], "stop_times": [249.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 244.128}, "reply_to": "22539__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22539__0_023", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [249.345], "stop_times": [249.529], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 249.345}, "reply_to": "22539__0_022", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_024", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Quite the reverse.\nAnd it says to join the U.S. as a necessary party defendant in a suit to adjudicate, confirm, validate, or decree the contractual rights of a contracting entity in the United States regarding any contract executed pursuant.\nNow, I guess the farmers were not technically the contracting entity.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [249.529, 250.777, 270.134], "stop_times": [250.777, 270.134, 276.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 249.529}, "reply_to": "22539__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22539__0_025", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--They were not the signing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [276.079], "stop_times": [277.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 276.079}, "reply_to": "22539__0_024", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_026", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [277.193], "stop_times": [277.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 277.193}, "reply_to": "22539__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22539__0_027", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--party.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [277.648], "stop_times": [278.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 277.648}, "reply_to": "22539__0_026", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_028", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "So you've got more problems.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [278.574], "stop_times": [280.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 278.574}, "reply_to": "22539__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22539__0_029", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Our... our argument... and again, this has been resolved in the lower courts against the Government.\nBut our... our view is that by the nature of the intended beneficiary doctrine, the duty is owed to the third party, as well as to the promisee, and it's enforceable by the third party, as well as the promisee.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [280.582, 285.987], "stop_times": [285.987, 300.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 280.582}, "reply_to": "22539__0_028", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_030", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "If you... if the lower courts were of this view, why did the district court in this case give you three opportunities to have your contract claim transferred to the Claims Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [300.022], "stop_times": [318.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 300.022}, "reply_to": "22539__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22539__0_031", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Once the determination was made that we were not intended third party beneficiaries, that was the law of the case, and had it been transferred to the Claims Court, we... we would have been bound by that determination.\nWe felt we had to bring to a final resolution the... the intended beneficiary issue before we could proceed in the Claims Court either.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [318.392, 335.195], "stop_times": [335.195, 346.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 318.392}, "reply_to": "22539__0_030", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_032", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "But it does suggest that the district court had at least some concern whether the case... your claim had been lodged in the right court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [346.545], "stop_times": [357.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 346.545}, "reply_to": "22539__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22539__0_033", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Yes, although again that... that court had been hearing these matters for many years in... in numerous cases without this issue ever having come up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [357.607], "stop_times": [369.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 357.607}, "reply_to": "22539__0_032", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_034", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Well, but it's a... see, I want to know what I'm supposed to do.\nAs I read the language, you're out.\nAs I understand the purpose of the statute, it makes sense to me if you're out, and it doesn't make sense to me if you're in.\nAnd maybe there's some lower court precedent to the contrary, which I'd certainly read, but is there any Supreme Court precedent to the contrary that supports you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [369.208, 372.634, 374.863, 382.749], "stop_times": [372.634, 374.863, 382.749, 392.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 369.208}, "reply_to": "22539__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__0_035", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Just the... the language of in any suit definitely is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [392.242], "stop_times": [398.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 392.242}, "reply_to": "22539__0_034", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_036", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "No, no.\nBut that isn't the limiting part.\nThe limiting part is in any suit of a certain kind.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [398.929, 399.012, 400.498], "stop_times": [399.012, 400.498, 403.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 398.929}, "reply_to": "22539__0_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__0_037", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [403.759], "stop_times": [404.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 403.759}, "reply_to": "22539__0_036", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_038", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "What they give consent to is joinder as a necessary party.\nAnd that is not what happened here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [404.38, 408.589], "stop_times": [408.589, 410.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 404.38}, "reply_to": "22539__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__0_039", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Only the... the general principle that language should be read in its ordinary meaning--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [410.901], "stop_times": [417.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 410.901}, "reply_to": "22539__0_038", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_040", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "It's ordinary meaning, you're out because the ordinary meaning of joinder as a necessary party is you weren't joined as a necessary--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [417.876], "stop_times": [422.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 417.876}, "reply_to": "22539__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__0_041", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--There... there at least is no evidence that Congress had rule 19 in mind when it enacted either the '52 statute or the '82 statute that we... we stand on.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [422.956], "stop_times": [433.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 422.956}, "reply_to": "22539__0_040", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_042", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Well, it's something that I hadn't concentrated on before now, but your position that, well, if you're transferred to the Court... to the Court of Claims, that you bring with you all of the previous rulings of the United States district court in California and that those are somehow binding because of the law of the case... what is the authority for that?\nThe... the court that's transferred has to accept all the rulings that have been made previous to the transfer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [433.83, 462.992], "stop_times": [462.992, 470.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 433.83}, "reply_to": "22539__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22539__0_043", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "I... our understanding is if, obviously--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [470.117], "stop_times": [472.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 470.117}, "reply_to": "22539__0_042", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_044", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "I mean, what's the authority for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [472.262], "stop_times": [473.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 472.262}, "reply_to": "22539__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22539__0_045", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--I can't cite you authority, Your Honor, but I... we were very concerned about that.\nIf there was no waiver of sovereign immunity in the first instance, then the lower court's ruling on intended third party beneficiary I would think should be vacated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [473.583, 478.002], "stop_times": [478.002, 489.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 473.583}, "reply_to": "22539__0_044", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_046", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Could I... I... I guess I'm not following this.\nI don't know why, Mr. Smiland, you... you have not referred to the last sentence of... of what you assert was the waiver of sovereign immunity, which says any suit pursuant to this section may be brought in any United States district court in the State in which the land involved is situated.\nWhy isn't that what you're relying on?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [489.186, 493.235, 512.674], "stop_times": [493.235, 512.674, 515.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 489.186}, "reply_to": "22539__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__0_047", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "It is and... and when I was talking about in any suit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [515.897], "stop_times": [521.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 515.897}, "reply_to": "22539__0_046", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_048", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--How does that help you?\nBecause it says any suit pursuant to this section, and of course, this section starts off by talking about addition of a person as a necessary party.\nSo how does the last sentence help you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [521.059, 521.682, 530.72], "stop_times": [521.682, 530.72, 532.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 521.059}, "reply_to": "22539__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__0_049", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [532.949], "stop_times": [534.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 532.949}, "reply_to": "22539__0_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__0_050", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Well, it... it... if the words, join necessary, limit any suit and the language that Justice Scalia referred to, then... then maybe we're in trouble.\nBut otherwise--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [534.518, 552.146], "stop_times": [552.146, 552.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 534.518}, "reply_to": "22539__0_049", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_051", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--I... I take that to mean that when you sue one defendant and you also sue the United States as a necessary party defendant, that suit... any... that would be a suit pursuant to this section.\nI... I don't know what other meaning that... that sentence could have.\nWhen you sue two parties, one of whom is the United States, by reason of the fact that it's a necessary party defendant, that suit is a suit pursuant to this section and it can be brought in any United States district court in the State in which the land involved is situated.\nI... I don't know what... what other suit that... that sentence could refer to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [552.639, 568.614, 572.951, 590.634], "stop_times": [568.614, 572.951, 590.634, 595.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 552.639}, "reply_to": "22539__0_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__0_052", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "You... you agree with that.\nI... you're caught in between us here, and I understand.\n[Laughter]\nAnd I guess we have to figure out what is the right meaning of that initial phrase.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [595.918, 597.776, 600.831, 601.037], "stop_times": [597.776, 600.831, 601.037, 605.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 595.918}, "reply_to": "22539__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__0_053", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Perhaps you can explain.\nThis was not your suit originally.\nYou intervened.\nRight?\nThis was started out by the water district.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [605.495, 608.195, 610.862, 612.265, 613.008], "stop_times": [608.195, 610.862, 612.265, 613.008, 615.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 605.495}, "reply_to": "22539__0_052", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22539__0_054", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--The district sued the United States.\nWe intervened.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [615.526, 617.012], "stop_times": [617.012, 618.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 615.526}, "reply_to": "22539__0_053", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_055", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "And then after some, I think, 2 years--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [618.021], "stop_times": [623.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 618.021}, "reply_to": "22539__0_054", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22539__0_056", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [623.511], "stop_times": [624.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 623.511}, "reply_to": "22539__0_055", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_057", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--the water district bows out.\nIt has settled its case.\nIt's a mystery what it settled for.\nAt least, I didn't see it in any of the briefs.\nWhy did the water district, having brought this case, then say, we're satisfied, we're out?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [624.071, 626.937, 629.15, 632.866, 636.042], "stop_times": [626.937, 629.15, 632.866, 636.042, 642.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 624.071}, "reply_to": "22539__0_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22539__0_058", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "The record is very sparse, Your Honor.\nThere is the district's motion which says pretty much what it said in its brief, that there was a... a thing called the principles between it and the United States and various parties.\nAnd as a result of those principles, which are not in the record, although they are a matter of public record, the... the district in its discretion elected to dismiss the case.\nWe opposed that.\nWe would have hoped the district would have kept going.\nWe lost that opposition.\nThe district was dismissed, and we were allowed to proceed on our own.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [642.897, 646.816, 660.48, 673.937, 674.863, 678.563, 681.079], "stop_times": [646.816, 660.48, 673.937, 674.863, 678.563, 681.079, 684.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 642.897}, "reply_to": "22539__0_057", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_059", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Mr. Smiland, can I ask this question?\nIf Justice Breyer is... the thrust of his question is right, I... I think the district itself could not have brought the suit under his reading of the sovereign immunity.\nAnd I just wonder, has the United States ever taken the position that the district could not have initiated this litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [684.711, 687.395, 697.26], "stop_times": [687.395, 697.26, 702.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 684.711}, "reply_to": "22539__0_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__0_060", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Not to my knowledge, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [702.916], "stop_times": [704.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 702.916}, "reply_to": "22539__0_059", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_061", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Could... could we hear your argument on... on the sovereign immunity point as opposed to the venue point?\nWhat... on what ground do you say the United States has waived its... its immunity from suit in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [704.735, 712.537], "stop_times": [712.537, 720.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 704.735}, "reply_to": "22539__0_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__0_062", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "There are two statutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [720.377], "stop_times": [722.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 720.377}, "reply_to": "22539__0_061", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_063", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "May... may we just back up to the question... your answer to Justice Stevens?\nI thought that this wasn't a suit initially on the part of the water district for money damages.\nI thought they were seeking declaratory relief against the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [722.318, 726.738, 735.321], "stop_times": [726.738, 735.321, 740.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.318}, "reply_to": "22539__0_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22539__0_064", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "They pled both, Your Honor.\nAlthough at that time the water still was available for delivery, it hadn't flowed to the ocean.\nAnd the money had not yet been collected and spent.\nSo the focus initially was on equitable relief to stop--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [740.484, 741.803, 749.789, 752.966], "stop_times": [741.803, 749.789, 752.966, 757.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 740.484}, "reply_to": "22539__0_063", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_065", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Because one could... one could read the words, suit to adjudicate, confirm, validate, or decree the contractual rights, as a suit for declaratory relief but not encompassing damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [757.241], "stop_times": [775.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 757.241}, "reply_to": "22539__0_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22539__0_066", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Both statutes we cite say that judgments can be entered in the same manner, to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, language I believe from the Federal Tort Claims Act.\nAgain, both in the 491 F. Supp. decision under the McCarran Act and in the Peck case, the district court held that money damages were encompassed by that.\nSo both statute... statutes on which we rely have language in it taken from other sources of law, with which this Court is very familiar and has opined on several times.\nThe... the only unique parts of... of either of the two statutes that we stand on are... are the rights.\nOne refers to administering a previously adjudicated right to the use of water, and the other is the contract language we've discussed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [775.817, 790.639, 806.076, 823.704, 831.999], "stop_times": [790.639, 806.076, 823.704, 831.999, 842.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 775.817}, "reply_to": "22539__0_065", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_067", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Can you turn to sovereign immunity now?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [842.485], "stop_times": [844.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 842.485}, "reply_to": "22539__0_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__0_068", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [844.509], "stop_times": [844.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 844.509}, "reply_to": "22539__0_067", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_069", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "And... and let me make... make it easy for you.\nDo you know of any case, other than cases decided by this friendly district judge, in which a suit has been allowed against the United States based on nothing more than the status as a third party beneficiary of a contract to which the United States has... on which the United States has agreed to be sued?\nIs... is there any such case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [844.964, 847.126, 872.95], "stop_times": [847.126, 872.95, 874.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.964}, "reply_to": "22539__0_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__0_070", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [874.147], "stop_times": [874.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 874.147}, "reply_to": "22539__0_069", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_071", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "And... and you think it's clear that... as our sovereign immunity law requires, that such a third party beneficiary can sue the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [874.686], "stop_times": [887.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 874.686}, "reply_to": "22539__0_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__0_072", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "For example, in the U.S. v. District Court case decided by this Court in 1971, under the McCarran Act, that fact situation was not before you, but the Court did say that the rights to which the statute referred were all inclusive.\nIt read it broadly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [887.196, 904.408], "stop_times": [904.408, 906.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 887.196}, "reply_to": "22539__0_071", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_073", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "I... I don't understand that.\nThe rights were all inclusive.\nAs... as I understand the law of third party beneficiaries, it... it used to be... and... and perhaps at the time this statute was enacted still was... quite... quite restrictive.\nIt's only in more recent... I don't agree with the Government's argument that... that you have to, in an ordinary contract, explicitly refer to the third party beneficiary's rights.\nBut when sovereign immunity is at issue, it's... it's a different question, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [906.448, 908.844, 910.063, 921.209, 933.486], "stop_times": [908.844, 910.063, 921.209, 933.486, 939.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 906.448}, "reply_to": "22539__0_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__0_074", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Well, we have explicit rights here and... and it would seem to me that if... if... and this was certainly the legislative history behind section 221, not... not behind McCarran.\nBut if... if the same duty is owed by the promisor to the third party that it owes to the promisee, and if the third party has the same rights of enforcement as it does under 304 of the Restatement that the promisee would have, why should it be any different?\nWhy would Congress have intended to exclude that?\nAnd it used the word contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [939.868, 956.792, 977.02, 980.735], "stop_times": [956.792, 977.02, 980.735, 983.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 939.868}, "reply_to": "22539__0_073", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_075", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Because... because we have a rule that says when Congress wants the United States to be sued, it... it must say so clearly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [983.336], "stop_times": [989.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 983.336}, "reply_to": "22539__0_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__0_076", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "You also have the rule that the word contract means the law of contract and not parts of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [989.818], "stop_times": [996.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 989.818}, "reply_to": "22539__0_075", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_077", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "But yes, isn't it arguable, though, that in this case the Government probably thought that it would be efficient to have the district represent all the farmers for whatever their... to the extent their interests were shared with one another, rather than having every individual have the same right to bring... bring a lawsuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [996.051], "stop_times": [1013.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 996.051}, "reply_to": "22539__0_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__0_078", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Efficient in... in collecting land assessments and water charges, but there's no evidence in the... either the language of the statute, I submit, or the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1013.679], "stop_times": [1025.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1013.679}, "reply_to": "22539__0_077", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_079", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Except for the fact that the district is the party to the contract, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1025.689], "stop_times": [1027.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1025.689}, "reply_to": "22539__0_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__0_080", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Nothing was said about litigation, let alone intended third party beneficiary--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1027.917], "stop_times": [1034.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1027.917}, "reply_to": "22539__0_079", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_081", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Well, but the... the whole point of the district... correct if I'm wrong.\nThis is your area.\nThe whole point of the district was to make it easier for the United States to know with whom it was dealing to have an efficient system, and if you say, well, that doesn't include lawsuits for damages, it seems to me that destroys much of the purpose of the formation of the district.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1034.317, 1037.166, 1038.076], "stop_times": [1037.166, 1038.076, 1052.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1034.317}, "reply_to": "22539__0_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22539__0_082", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--There's a lot of legislative history there, and it talks a great deal, as you say, Your Honor, about efficiency and... and the convenience.\nBut it's not talking at all about litigation, about remedies, about rights once there's a breach.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1052.854, 1065.009], "stop_times": [1065.009, 1072.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1052.854}, "reply_to": "22539__0_081", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_083", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "But you haven't really achieved very much efficiency if you simply get the United States out of the business of collecting the payments and of keeping track of the payments but leave the United States subject to suit when the person who has authority to do... do these things goofs.\nI mean, what... what trouble has the United States saved itself?\nIt would still have to ride herd over... over the person with... with whom it's dealing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1072.544, 1090.916, 1095.374], "stop_times": [1090.916, 1095.374, 1100.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.544}, "reply_to": "22539__0_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__0_084", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Well, it... this is a transaction between a water seller and many water buyers.\nYes, in 1926 districts were put in the middle, but it's also true in 1939 in... in the section 9(e), Congress authorized the particular type of contracts we have here, so called water service contracts, and it doesn't mention district.\nAnd as a matter of fact, the Ninth Circuit has held that the bureau had the discretion administratively to deal with individuals.\nSo throughout the history of the reclamation program, you... you have the... the core transaction is... is a water sale from the Government to... to farmers.\nAnd that's was the case on day one in 1902 and it still is.\nAnd I'd just like to remind the Court that paragraph 3 of the stipulated judgment at page 110 of the joint appendix is in our view dispositive here.\nThis was a... an agreement by the United States and the district, approved by a court after formal settlement notice was dispatched to two formal classes, and it says, any appropriate relief may be obtained against the Federal parties by the filing of a new action for violation of any contract arising independently of this judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1100.325, 1108.477, 1129.304, 1137.106, 1153.453, 1157.418, 1181.111], "stop_times": [1108.477, 1129.304, 1137.106, 1153.453, 1157.418, 1181.111, 1209.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1100.325}, "reply_to": "22539__0_083", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_085", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "But the... the Justice Department has no authority to... to consent to suit which... which Congress has not consented to.\nI don't see how this strengthens your case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1209.43, 1216.611], "stop_times": [1216.611, 1218.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1209.43}, "reply_to": "22539__0_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__0_086", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Again, if... if this Court should hold that neither of the two statutes on... on which we stand waive sovereign immunity, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1218.718], "stop_times": [1230.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1218.718}, "reply_to": "22539__0_085", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_087", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "And this alone wouldn't... wouldn't remedy the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1230.607], "stop_times": [1235.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1230.607}, "reply_to": "22539__0_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__0_088", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Then... then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1235.641], "stop_times": [1236.384], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1235.641}, "reply_to": "22539__0_087", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_089", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--the absence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1236.384], "stop_times": [1237.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1236.384}, "reply_to": "22539__0_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__0_090", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--the decision that we're not intended beneficiaries should be vacated and we should have a chance to go to the court... Claims Court.\nI'd like to reserve, Your Honor, 3 minutes, if I may.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1237.044, 1244.353], "stop_times": [1244.353, 1254.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1237.044}, "reply_to": "22539__0_089", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__0_091", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "You may, indeed, Mr. Smiland.\nMr. Minear, I think you're up next.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1254.939, 1256.425], "stop_times": [1256.425, 1260.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1254.939}, "reply_to": "22539__0_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__1_000", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nPetitioners cannot maintain this suit for breach of the Westlands contract because the Westlands contract is itself subject to the rules of sovereign immunity.\nAnd section 390uu authorizes only a limited waiver of sovereign immunity.\nIt does not authorize suits by incidental beneficiaries for money damages.\nFor many of the points that have already been raised by Justice Breyer, Justice Kennedy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1260.657, 1264.953, 1275.522, 1281.383, 1286.585], "stop_times": [1264.953, 1275.522, 1281.383, 1286.585, 1290.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1260.657}, "reply_to": "22539__0_091", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_001", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Mr. Minear, do you think it does waive sovereign immunity for suits brought by the district?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1290.671], "stop_times": [1295.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1290.671}, "reply_to": "22539__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__1_002", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--In one circumstance, Your Honor.\nThis suit allows a district that has been sued by individual water users to join the United States in the ongoing suit and, in fact, remove the case to Federal court if necessary, so there can be a determination of all the rights in those--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1295.046, 1296.82], "stop_times": [1296.82, 1312.052], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1295.046}, "reply_to": "22539__1_001", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_003", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Did this suit begin as a suit by a water user against the district and then you were joined later?\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1312.052, 1315.85], "stop_times": [1315.85, 1316.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1312.052}, "reply_to": "22539__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__1_004", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--No, it did not, but that did occur in the Barcellos & Wolfsen litigation that ran between 1978 and 1980.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1316.305], "stop_times": [1322.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1316.305}, "reply_to": "22539__1_003", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_005", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Well, in this suit, did not the district bring it against the United States?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1322.621], "stop_times": [1325.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1322.621}, "reply_to": "22539__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__1_006", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1325.593], "stop_times": [1326.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1325.593}, "reply_to": "22539__1_005", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_007", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "And was that a... was that jurisdiction proper at that time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1326.336], "stop_times": [1329.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1326.336}, "reply_to": "22539__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__1_008", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "That suit was brought under the APA, and the district brought the suit on that basis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1329.68], "stop_times": [1335.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1329.68}, "reply_to": "22539__1_007", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_009", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "But was it properly brought is what I'm asking you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1335.874], "stop_times": [1337.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1335.874}, "reply_to": "22539__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__1_010", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "That suit was properly brought.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1337.482], "stop_times": [1339.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1337.482}, "reply_to": "22539__1_009", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_011", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1339.051], "stop_times": [1339.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1339.051}, "reply_to": "22539__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__1_012", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "But it was not brought under 390uu.\nInstead, there was an allegation that the United States had acted unlawfully and the Westlands relied on the Administrative Procedure Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1339.877, 1341.651], "stop_times": [1341.651, 1349.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1339.877}, "reply_to": "22539__1_011", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_013", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "And no money damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1349.043], "stop_times": [1349.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.043}, "reply_to": "22539__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__1_014", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "And no money damages as well, and that's what distinguishes this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1349.99], "stop_times": [1353.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1349.99}, "reply_to": "22539__1_013", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_015", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "So that... so your view... I mean, what... what makes sense to me is that the section means what it says, that consent is given to join the United States.\nThat means join them in an ongoing suit.\nAnd it makes sense because what the United States wants is anyone who sues them for money damages goes to the Court of Claims.\nBut of course, where you have an ongoing suit between two other people, we'll make an exception because there it's already in another district and we'll let you bring the United States in as a necessary party.\nThe other exception is when you don't sue for money damages.\nThat's in section 702 of the APA.\nNow, that to me makes a lot of sense and it's consistent with the language.\nIs that your view or do you have a different view?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1353.418, 1363.078, 1365.678, 1375.671, 1387.764, 1391.563, 1394.451, 1398.993], "stop_times": [1363.078, 1365.678, 1375.671, 1387.764, 1391.563, 1394.451, 1398.993, 1402.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1353.418}, "reply_to": "22539__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__1_016", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Yes, that is our view, and let me supplement your comments in this regard.\nSection--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1402.17, 1405.802], "stop_times": [1405.802, 1406.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1402.17}, "reply_to": "22539__1_015", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_017", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "May I... may I... has that always been your view throughout?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1406.424, 1409.396], "stop_times": [1409.396, 1409.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1406.424}, "reply_to": "22539__1_016", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22539__1_018", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--It has been our view under 390uu when section 390uu has been... has been raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1409.633], "stop_times": [1414.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1409.633}, "reply_to": "22539__1_017", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_019", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "But throughout the litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1414.347], "stop_times": [1415.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1414.347}, "reply_to": "22539__1_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22539__1_020", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Throughout this litigation?\nI can't... I can't be sure that we've maintained a consistent position, but ultimately this is a question of sovereign immunity.\nSo the importance is that we get the issue right here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1415.833, 1418.312, 1423.43], "stop_times": [1418.312, 1423.43, 1426.319], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1415.833}, "reply_to": "22539__1_019", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_021", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "There has to be an ongoing suit.\nYou think this section does... does not permit somebody to initiate suit against one party and at the same time against the United States as a necessary party.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1426.319, 1428.176], "stop_times": [1428.176, 1439.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1426.319}, "reply_to": "22539__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__1_022", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Your Honor, let me explain why that's the case, and there was an answer--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1439.693], "stop_times": [1443.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1439.693}, "reply_to": "22539__1_021", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_023", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Why what is the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1443.12], "stop_times": [1443.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1443.12}, "reply_to": "22539__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__1_024", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Why there's a necessity for an ongoing suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1443.658], "stop_times": [1446.63], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1443.658}, "reply_to": "22539__1_023", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_025", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "You... that is to say, there's a suit between only two individuals and then the United States is brought in.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1446.63], "stop_times": [1452.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1446.63}, "reply_to": "22539__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__1_026", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Your Honor, this... this provision was enacted in response to a specific problem that's illustrated by the Barcellos & Wolfsen litigation.\nIndividual farmers sued an irrigation district.\nThe irrigation district was concerned that it might be subject to inconsistent liability to the farmers on the one hand and the Federal Government on the other, and it sought to join the United States.\nThere was no mechanism in 1978 for that type of suit.\nCongress acted--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1452.119, 1459.838, 1462.993, 1472.637, 1475.813], "stop_times": [1459.838, 1462.993, 1472.637, 1475.813, 1477.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1452.119}, "reply_to": "22539__1_025", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_027", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "I understand that.\nThat's one situation that this provision could cover, but there are other situations that this provision could... could cover.\nLet's say a farmer wants to bring suit against the district, but it doesn't really know whether the fault is with the district or whether the district was... was compelled to do what it did by the United States.\nSo it sues the district and just in case the United States was... was responsible, it joins the United States.\nWhy doesn't the language entirely permit that kind of a suit?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1477.011, 1477.588, 1484.154, 1494.861, 1501.615], "stop_times": [1477.588, 1484.154, 1494.861, 1501.615, 1504.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1477.011}, "reply_to": "22539__1_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__1_028", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--The language could be construed to allow that, but... but waivers of sovereign immunity are construed narrowly, and the language I think is more properly construed, as Justice Breyer has suggested, to allow joinder as a necessary party.\nAnd in fact, it was enacted in specific reaction to that problem in the Barcellos & Wolfsen litigation where we did have ongoing litigation and there was a sense by the irrigation district they needed to join the United States so they would not be subject to inconsistent suits.\nSo although I think that the language can bear the... the interpretation that you're suggesting, Justice Scalia, nevertheless, I think the better interpretation is the more narrow one that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1504.709, 1516.12, 1531.048], "stop_times": [1516.12, 1531.048, 1539.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1504.709}, "reply_to": "22539__1_027", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_029", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Then... then how do you explain the last... the last sentence of that provision, which is any suit pursuant to this section?\nThe only suit that the section refers to is a suit in which the United States is joined as a necessary party defendant.\nThat's the subject of the section.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1539.51, 1545.455, 1552.429], "stop_times": [1545.455, 1552.429, 1553.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1539.51}, "reply_to": "22539__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__1_030", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Yes, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1553.832], "stop_times": [1554.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1553.832}, "reply_to": "22539__1_029", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_031", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "And... and the last sentence says, any suit pursuant to this section may be brought in any United States district court.\nAnd I read that to mean if you want to sue the United States as a necessary party initiating a suit, you can bring it in... in any district court in which the land involved is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1554.742, 1561.884], "stop_times": [1561.884, 1571.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1554.742}, "reply_to": "22539__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__1_032", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Your Honor, we read that as allowing removal in those circumstances when the United States is joined later.\nIn any event, I have to say that with regard to... to this disagreement, it does... it's not dispositive or even affect the case here.\nThe fact is that this waiver of sovereign immunity under no circumstances would allow this suit to go forward.\nApart from the money damages aspect, which itself is... is... would preclude this type of suit, these parties are not intended beneficiaries, and without being intended beneficiaries, there's... in no circumstances could they ever evoke these provisions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1571.05, 1576.556, 1583.865, 1589.642], "stop_times": [1576.556, 1583.865, 1589.642, 1602.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1571.05}, "reply_to": "22539__1_031", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_033", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Mr. Minear, when you say... when you say not money damages, do you read the words that I read to Mr. Smiland restrictively or do you think they accommodate money damages, that is, suit to adjudicate, confirm, validate, or decree the contractual rights of a contracting entity?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1602.934], "stop_times": [1625.597], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1602.934}, "reply_to": "22539__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22539__1_034", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "We think that under your cases, such as Pena v. Lane, there needs to be a specific reference to money damages.\nThis simply is referencing declaratory relief, and so we do not believe it would allow an award of money damages.\nRather, the party must go to the Claims Court if they're seeking money damages.\nAnd in fact, the waiver of sovereign immunity there is somewhat broader.\nIt does, as mentioned before, allow implied or express contracts.\nSo this suit is simply in the wrong court.\nBut I would like to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1625.597, 1631.791, 1637.364, 1640.995, 1643.967, 1647.395, 1649.252], "stop_times": [1631.791, 1637.364, 1640.995, 1643.967, 1647.395, 1649.252, 1650.488], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1625.597}, "reply_to": "22539__1_033", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_035", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "So money damages... waiver always used the word money damages.\nWhen it says adjudicate the rights under the contract, that doesn't include money damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1650.488, 1654.537], "stop_times": [1654.537, 1659.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1650.488}, "reply_to": "22539__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22539__1_036", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--No, I do not think in this context it would.\nI think there needs to be something more specific.\nWe're really talking about declaring rights here and not providing a specific remedy.\nAnd this Court has always taken the view that the Claims Court jurisdiction is the appropriate forum for deciding money damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1659.199, 1661.817, 1663.658, 1667.29], "stop_times": [1661.817, 1663.658, 1667.29, 1673.856], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1659.199}, "reply_to": "22539__1_035", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_037", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "What about the second sentence?\nThe United States, when a party, shall be deemed to have waived any right to plead that it is not amenable thereto by reason of its sovereignty and shall be subject to judgments, orders, and decrees of the court having jurisdiction and may obtain review thereof in the same manner and to the same extent?\nIt's subject to the judgments, orders, and decrees of the court to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.\nWhy isn't that enough to... to say that the court can... can award damages?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1673.856, 1675.009, 1691.893, 1698.786], "stop_times": [1675.009, 1691.893, 1698.786, 1703.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1673.856}, "reply_to": "22539__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__1_038", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Your Honor, I think that simply refers back to the previous sentence, which refers to adjudicate, confirm, validate, or decree.\nNow, if you interpret that to include money damages, then the second sentence would follow, but I... I think the two have to be construed together.\nAnd in our view simply allowing a party to adjudicate, confirm, validate, or decree in these circumstances would not allow award of money damages.\nCertainly I think Congress would be much clearer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1703.616, 1709.932, 1717.24, 1726.173], "stop_times": [1709.932, 1717.24, 1726.173, 1728.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1703.616}, "reply_to": "22539__1_037", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_039", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Yes, but if contractual rights include a right to be paid for something, why wouldn't you get a money judgment in a case like that?\nThat first sentence certainly covers the possibility of a contractual right to be paid something.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1728.014, 1732.594], "stop_times": [1732.594, 1738.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1728.014}, "reply_to": "22539__1_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__1_040", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Your Honor, again, waivers of sovereign immunity are construed narrowly.\nNow, let's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1738.045, 1742.419], "stop_times": [1742.419, 1742.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1738.045}, "reply_to": "22539__1_039", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_041", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "That's pretty clear language.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1742.669], "stop_times": [1743.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1742.669}, "reply_to": "22539__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__1_042", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--I have to say that the language... you're saying that the language... yes, could it conceivably be... be interpreted in... on... that broadly.\nBut that's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1743.905, 1749.478], "stop_times": [1749.478, 1750.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1743.905}, "reply_to": "22539__1_041", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_043", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Certainly if it were not a... a United States and were a private individual, it would include money damages.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1750.471], "stop_times": [1755.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1750.471}, "reply_to": "22539__1_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__1_044", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--That might well be, but this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1755.051], "stop_times": [1756.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1755.051}, "reply_to": "22539__1_043", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_045", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "And... and the next sentence, as Justice Scalia points out, says the United States shall be treated just like a private party.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1756.62], "stop_times": [1761.244], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1756.62}, "reply_to": "22539__1_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__1_046", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Yes.\nBut Your Honor, ultimately I think that we have to focus on that this is a waiver of sovereign immunity.\nAnd... and so far we have not touched on the question of whether these parties--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1761.244, 1761.783, 1768.032], "stop_times": [1761.783, 1768.032, 1771.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1761.244}, "reply_to": "22539__1_045", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_047", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Well, I think you've got a very strong argument when you talk about an incidental third party beneficiary not being a contracting party, but now you're asking for a much broader holding than really necessary to dispose of this case, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1771.481], "stop_times": [1782.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1771.481}, "reply_to": "22539__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__1_048", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Your Honor, I think I started with that point, that an incidental beneficiary cannot invoke this... this provision.\nAnd I'd like to... to continue with that point because the party here is merely an incidental beneficiary and not an intended beneficiary.\nUnder any of the... the tests that have been applied for third party beneficiaries, the party here would not qualify as an intended beneficiary.\nMost importantly, the contracting parties here, the United States and Westlands, expressed no intent to give this party enforcement rights.\nWhat's more, the contract does not provide that performance would be rendered to... to the petitioners in this case.\nThe contract is quite clear that performance is rendered to Westlands.\nThis is a contract in which the United States furnishes a specified amount of water to Westlands and Westlands pays money for it.\nWestlands then has a separate obligation with regard to the farmers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1782.521, 1790.8, 1798.109, 1805.372, 1812.598, 1819.779, 1823.948, 1830.924], "stop_times": [1790.8, 1798.109, 1805.372, 1812.598, 1819.779, 1823.948, 1830.924, 1835.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1782.521}, "reply_to": "22539__1_047", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_049", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Separate from... where does that... that obligation come from?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1835.011], "stop_times": [1838.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1835.011}, "reply_to": "22539__1_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__1_050", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "That arises from the regulations that the Westlands Water District has enacted that provides for the delivery of water from Westlands to the individual farmers.\nThe United States' obligation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1838.726, 1848.097], "stop_times": [1848.097, 1849.666], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1838.726}, "reply_to": "22539__1_049", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_051", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "That's a State... a State-created obligation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1849.666], "stop_times": [1851.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1849.666}, "reply_to": "22539__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__1_052", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--That's right.\nThat is... and Westlands has the... has the option of either engaging in contracts with the individual farmers or distributing the water through regulation, and it has opted for regulations.\nNow, Westlands itself is a governmental unit.\nIt is comprised of the... of the very farmers here, among others, who have brought this suit.\nAnd it has the authority to act in a representative capacity on behalf of all its members.\nAnd that is why the United States enters into contracts with irrigation districts precisely because it allows them to reach accord and agreement and to resolve their disputes.\nNow, the fact is that the United States and Westlands agree on a great many things.\nSometimes they disagree, but when we disagree, we're able to... to speak to one another as two governments representing constituencies and hammer out our differences.\nAnd that would be impossible if these types of third party beneficiary suits were allowed.\nAnd I think that goes to the crux of what the United States' real concern here is.\nWhen there are contracts between one government and another, just as in the context of treaties or compacts among the States, it's vital that the two governmental units be able to deal with one another as governments and to be assured that if they can reach accord on behalf of their representatives... on behalf of the parties they represent, that that will resolve the issue.\nIf it were otherwise, this type of distribution of water--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1851.812, 1852.267, 1862.192, 1864.86, 1870.721, 1876.416, 1886.818, 1891.36, 1902.217, 1906.303, 1910.596, 1930.452], "stop_times": [1852.267, 1862.192, 1864.86, 1870.721, 1876.416, 1886.818, 1891.36, 1902.217, 1906.303, 1910.596, 1930.452, 1933.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1851.812}, "reply_to": "22539__1_051", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_053", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Well, you don't take the position, do you, that Westlands could have agreed with the United States that it wouldn't enforce its new laws that deprived the farmers of water?\nYou don't take that position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1933.608, 1944.261], "stop_times": [1944.261, 1947.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1933.608}, "reply_to": "22539__1_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22539__1_054", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--But let's look at what would happen, Your Honor, if that did happen.\nThe individual farmers would sue Westlands, claiming that Westlands was not living up to its contract obligations.\nWestlands would invoke 390uu and join the United States in that suit.\nAnd the question of the legal rights would be determined on that basis.\nSo the mechanism that... that we've specified and the way that we interpret it deals precisely with the problem that you've... you've addressed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1947.066, 1949.666, 1955.611, 1960.169, 1963.208], "stop_times": [1949.666, 1955.611, 1960.169, 1963.208, 1969.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1947.066}, "reply_to": "22539__1_053", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_055", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Yes, but you can't... the... presumably the Federal Government can't negotiate away the Endangered Species Act or something.\nThe fact is that new laws were passed after these contracts were entered into with Westlands.\nIsn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1969.661, 1977.613, 1984.135], "stop_times": [1977.613, 1984.135, 1984.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1969.661}, "reply_to": "22539__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22539__1_056", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "That's correct.\nAnd again, I think it's instructive to see what happened in this case.\nWhen those laws were enacted, the United States reacted to those.\nWestlands brought a suit under the APA challenging the interpretation of the statutes.\nWestlands was entitled to do that under the APA.\nThe United States and Westlands reached an accord, together with the environmental intervenors in this group, that was satisfactory to those parties.\nAnd it simply would be very disruptive of the system if a minority of farmers in the Westlands District could then bring a suit and upset that agreement and that accord that had been reached.\nFinally, I'd like to make a brief--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [1984.673, 1985.416, 1988.676, 1992.557, 1997.099, 1999.45, 2006.675, 2017.366], "stop_times": [1985.416, 1988.676, 1992.557, 1997.099, 1999.45, 2006.675, 2017.366, 2019.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1984.673}, "reply_to": "22539__1_055", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_057", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Can the district get damages from the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2019.595], "stop_times": [2022.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.595}, "reply_to": "22539__1_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22539__1_058", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Technically yes, but their damages are limited by the terms of the contract.\nWestlands could sue the United States in Claims Court for a breach of the contract, but the contract itself says that any damages that are... that the sole liability of the United States in these circumstances would be an adjustment of the account.\nIn other words, there are not consequential damages.\nRather, if we do not provide Westlands with the water that Westlands believes it's entitled to, then we stand liable for an adjustment in the payments that Westlands would make to us.\nThe suit that is being brought here is asking for consequential damages, and we believe that the contract here does not allow consequential damages.\nThat, of course, is a merits question that there's no need for the Court to reach, but that is the way it would be resolved in Claims Court in... in our view.\nI'd like to also raise the question of property rights since that has... has come up, that one of the arguments that has been made by Westlands is that they're entitled to status of a third party beneficiary because they claim they have water rights in these circumstances.\nThe fact is that the United States, the State of California, and Westlands, as well as the California Water Resources Board and the first tier of California courts, have all concluded they do not have the... the water rights that they claim.\nBut in any event, our view is that that issue is irrelevant to the inquiry here.\nRather, the question of third party beneficiary status turns on the intent of the contracting parties.\nDid they or did they not intend to give enforceable rights to the third party?\nHere there's not a shred of evidence that that was an intent... there was an intent to create enforceable rights in that third party.\nQuite to the contrary.\nThe only reference of third parties, the farmers, in the contract here is directed to limitations on what the district can do once it receives its water.\nIt doesn't create rights in them... the individual farmers.\nWhat it does it restricts the ability of the district in order to protect the United States' interests, to make sure the United States will be paid for the water that it ultimately provides to the district.\nThe central point that I would like to leave you with, though, here at the end is the importance of protecting the relationship between the United States and Westlands.\nBut although we disagree on some matters, we are able to reach accommodation and agreement, and when we're able to do that, it's to the good of all concerned.\nThe contracts and the laws here are structured to allow those types of agreements to be reached, and we think that allowing third party beneficiary suits would be very disruptive of that... that operation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2022.113, 2028.595, 2043.251, 2045.397, 2055.178, 2064.177, 2070.289, 2087.395, 2099.843, 2103.641, 2109.298, 2114.333, 2135.898, 2123.044, 2132.72, 2137.095, 2146.572, 2157.429, 2164.942], "stop_times": [2028.595, 2043.251, 2045.397, 2055.178, 2064.177, 2070.289, 2087.395, 2099.843, 2103.641, 2109.298, 2114.333, 2135.898, 2123.044, 2132.72, 2137.095, 2146.572, 2157.429, 2164.942, 2175.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2022.113}, "reply_to": "22539__1_057", "speaker": "jeffrey_p_minear"}
{"id": "22539__1_059", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Minear.\nMr. Somach, will you tell us what the district's views on this whole matter are?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2175.14, 2177.202], "stop_times": [2177.202, 2184.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2175.14}, "reply_to": "22539__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__2_000", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nJustice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nWestlands Water District has argued in its brief that petitioners are not intended third party beneficiaries with enforceable rights under the 1963 contract.\nI want to make two points from the perspective of the district why this must be so.\nFirst, allowing a direct right of action by petitioners is not practical or consistent with the district's need and ability to function as a governmental entity and to allocate all of the water that it receives under contract to all of the landowners within the... the district.\nThis is a scarce and valuable resource, and these types of third party lawsuits jeopardize the district's ability to be able to provide water pursuant to California Water Code provisions to all of the landowners within the district.\nSecond, the laws of the State of California and reclamation law, working in harmony one with the other--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2184.633, 2186.407, 2188.803, 2199.882, 2204.983, 2223.642, 2240.899], "stop_times": [2186.407, 2188.803, 2199.882, 2204.983, 2223.642, 2240.899, 2246.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2184.633}, "reply_to": "22539__1_059", "speaker": "stuart_l_somach"}
{"id": "22539__2_001", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Excuse me.\nCould you expand on the first point a little bit?\nI mean, you say you don't want to be bothered with lawsuits.\nIs... is that... is that all that it amounts to?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2246.965, 2247.996, 2249.854, 2253.941], "stop_times": [2247.996, 2249.854, 2253.941, 2256.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2246.965}, "reply_to": "22539__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__2_002", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--No.\nI... I think quite on the contrary.\nYou know, and unfortunately, the... the history of this contract and these... these issues has been anything other than the district avoiding litigation.\nThe... the whole concept of a water district is not to individualize or incrementalize the water and interests in water in any one group of landowners or any one landowner.\nThe idea is that the rights of all of the landowners to all of the water under the contract are to be treated as a whole and allow the district to provide protection to all of the landowners within the district as a whole, the point there being that the water doesn't belong to any one landowner or a group of landowners.\nIt belongs to the whole.\nAnd in fact, the way the district operates, the way it has to operate is in the context of the whole.\nBonds are issued.\nEncumbrances on lands are... are incurred, all based upon not individual rights to water but rather broad rights of water throughout the district.\nTo allow a small group of landowners to decide how to administer the contract, how to enforce the contract in any one given situation leaves decisions that are critical to all of the landowners solely in the hands of an unaccountable small group of... of landowners.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2256.048, 2256.436, 2258.399, 2269.878, 2282.176, 2305.665, 2307.69, 2314.664, 2316.811, 2328.245], "stop_times": [2256.436, 2258.399, 2269.878, 2282.176, 2305.665, 2307.69, 2314.664, 2316.811, 2328.245, 2351.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2256.048}, "reply_to": "22539__2_001", "speaker": "stuart_l_somach"}
{"id": "22539__2_003", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Can't... can't such a suit be brought in State court?\nI can't believe that this district can do whatever it wants with the water.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2351.279, 2353.302], "stop_times": [2353.302, 2356.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2351.279}, "reply_to": "22539__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__2_004", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Oh, absolutely not.\nYes, it... yes, it can.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2356.292, 2356.663], "stop_times": [2356.663, 2358.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2356.292}, "reply_to": "22539__2_003", "speaker": "stuart_l_somach"}
{"id": "22539__2_005", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Really?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2358.049], "stop_times": [2359.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2358.049}, "reply_to": "22539__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__2_006", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "No.\nWhat I meant to say was yes, you are right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2359.164, 2359.618], "stop_times": [2359.618, 2361.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2359.164}, "reply_to": "22539__2_005", "speaker": "stuart_l_somach"}
{"id": "22539__2_007", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2361.476], "stop_times": [2362.136], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2361.476}, "reply_to": "22539__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__2_008", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "And absolutely not.\nIt can't do just anything it wants to do.\nIt is subject, as a governmental entity, to all the strict requirements of California water law and governmental law, for that matter.\nIf, for example, these petitioners decide for whatever reason they don't like a decision of the... of the board... and in fact, that is an example that exists emanating out of the facts of this case.\nWhen the district decided that it was better to settle the litigation, these landowners first petitioned the... the governing body of the... of the district and sought to... to have them not proceed in that manner, the way any other group of citizens or constituents with any other governmental entity would have proceeded.\nThe district decided, however, that it was in the best interests of all of the landowners within the district to settle the litigation.\nNow, at that point in time certainly, these petitioners had the normal and ordinary rights that any... any constituent within the district has to be able to challenge a decision that has been made by the district.\nThat includes, for example, writ proceedings, to argue that the decision of the board was arbitrary, capricious, otherwise unlawful, and that it should... should be mandated to... to proceed in some other fashion.\nIf the issue were damages, this district is subject, like any other governmental entity within the State of California, to the government Tort Claims Act if... if they're tortious type damages.\nAnd if we have arguable impairment of property rights, this district is subject to the California constitution, the United States Constitution, and the government code provisions that provide for litigation with respect to those broader types of... of damages.\nAnd quite frankly, this is a governmental body and it is very susceptible to the political process.\nIt is not an easy thing for... for the district to be standing up here and telling you that its landowners aren't entitled to receive what they want.\nThat's a very difficult for the district to... to do.\nBut in dealing with the rights of the entire district, it's an absolute essential thing to do.\nIf these landowners had exercised their prerogatives under California law, they could have, assuming they were the majority, controlled the decisions of the board of directors in the way that any majority constituency controls the director... the... the direction and the decisions of a... of a governing board.\nYou know, this... this lawsuit is instructive in... in a number of ways in terms of these practical concerns that we have in terms of how in the world are we going to be able to administer a contract like this one.\nHow are we going to do all of the things that the Water Code has told us that we have to do if, at any given time, a landowner, a small group of landowners is able to go into Federal district court and independently decide that it wants to administer the contract that the district has with the United States or to enforce terms of the contract that it has with the United States in a manner that's inconsistent or different than the way--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2362.136, 2363.705, 2366.305, 2376.874, 2389.961, 2413.7, 2421.169, 2433.512, 2447.508, 2462.407, 2478.92, 2484.864, 2497.952, 2501.788, 2507.361, 2530.19, 2544.763], "stop_times": [2363.705, 2366.305, 2376.874, 2389.961, 2413.7, 2421.169, 2433.512, 2447.508, 2462.407, 2478.92, 2484.864, 2497.952, 2501.788, 2507.361, 2530.19, 2544.763, 2574.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2362.136}, "reply_to": "22539__2_007", "speaker": "stuart_l_somach"}
{"id": "22539__2_009", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "I don't really understand why that's any greater burden than the fact they can sue you in State court anyway.\nThey... they can always bring litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2574.029, 2579.147], "stop_times": [2579.147, 2580.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2574.029}, "reply_to": "22539__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__2_010", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Well, it... it really requires the district to, in a sense, race to the courthouse with the... with the petitioners in order to be there first in order to have its views of the contract--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2580.922], "stop_times": [2598.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2580.922}, "reply_to": "22539__2_009", "speaker": "stuart_l_somach"}
{"id": "22539__2_011", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Well, the suit in State court, I assume, would... would only be... the claim would be that you were acting arbitrarily, and so long as your interpretation of the contract was a reasonable one, the suit would fail.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2598.549], "stop_times": [2610.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2598.549}, "reply_to": "22539__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__2_012", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2610.316], "stop_times": [2611.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2610.316}, "reply_to": "22539__2_011", "speaker": "stuart_l_somach"}
{"id": "22539__2_013", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Whereas, this suit here... it doesn't matter how reasonable it is.\nIf it's wrong, it's wrong.\nI mean, it's quite a different--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2611.059, 2613.864, 2614.896], "stop_times": [2613.864, 2614.896, 2616.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2611.059}, "reply_to": "22539__2_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__2_014", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "No.\nI think it is a different situation, and I agree with what you... what you have said, Your Honor.\nI do, however, want to... to not avoid the concern that may be expressed here, and... and that is, that... that what it does is it... it forces the district into a situation of chasing its landowners, in essence, around from one litigation forum to another in order to ensure that its means of controlling and... and administering the contract is not jeopardized.\nThe fact that the landowners... if the landowners can move forward independently with litigation with respect to the contract, what it really does is create in a sense a... the contract becomes this very interesting moving target where the district has its views about what the contract is and how it should be administered, how it should be enforced, and then it proceeds in one direction as, for example, it did with the settlement in this litigation, deciding that that was the best way to protect the interests of the district.\nHad these petitioners on the merits in a hypothetical situation prevailed with a totally different result, that would have substantially affected and impacted the district's ability to be able to maintain the obligations and the commitments that it made to the other settling parties.\nThat destabilizes the ability of the district to actually act in other governmental forums, in forums with the United States, with the State of California, with other districts in the context of attempting to say we control the contract, we enforce its terms, and we can make commitments.\nAnd when we make those commitments, we can abide by and we can live up to those commitments in a way that... that governments ought to be able to do when they're... when they're making those types of commitments.\nHaving the landowners being able to come or... and here, I want to make certain.\nWhen I use the word landowners, I'm not saying that the landowners are not beneficiaries of the contract.\nThey certainly are.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2616.648, 2618.034, 2622.864, 2650.356, 2683.133, 2704.393, 2726.768, 2737.003, 2742.305, 2749.142], "stop_times": [2618.034, 2622.864, 2650.356, 2683.133, 2704.393, 2726.768, 2737.003, 2742.305, 2749.142, 2750.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2616.648}, "reply_to": "22539__2_013", "speaker": "stuart_l_somach"}
{"id": "22539__2_015", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "What about the provision in the judgment at page 110 that was... that was cited to us, that... that the parties may obtain other appropriate relief by the filing of a new action?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2750.174], "stop_times": [2761.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2750.174}, "reply_to": "22539__2_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22539__2_016", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Yes.\nI... I think that that... that phrase is actually begun as a proviso, and I view it as not limiting the ability of the area I landowners in the Barcellos & Wolfsen judgment that you're... that you're quoting from from being able to act in any other way.\nIt was a nonlimiting provision.\nThe... the first part of the... the part that you read deals with what their rights to enforce were.\nThe second part was a proviso that simply said notwithstanding this, whatever else you're able to do, you may do.\nThank you for your time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2761.895, 2762.638, 2782.617, 2784.641, 2795.499, 2801.936], "stop_times": [2762.638, 2782.617, 2784.641, 2795.499, 2801.936, 2803.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2761.895}, "reply_to": "22539__2_015", "speaker": "stuart_l_somach"}
{"id": "22539__2_017", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Somach.\nMr. Smiland, you have 9 minutes remaining, but you do not have to use it all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2803.051, 2803.672], "stop_times": [2803.672, 2809.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.051}, "reply_to": "22539__2_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22539__3_000", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nWhat happened here is that the United States sold half the water it was obligated to sell under the contract.\nIt doubled the price it was permitted to charge on the other half.\nIt was a massive harm to the farmers.\nI'm sure you understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2809.467, 2810.582, 2820.203, 2825.814, 2829.901], "stop_times": [2810.582, 2820.203, 2825.814, 2829.901, 2831.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2809.467}, "reply_to": "22539__2_017", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__3_001", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Well, you say under the contract.\nI thought there was a provision in the contract that said that the United States will not be responsible for under deliveries, and I think it listed the drought and the last thing was any other cause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2831.099, 2831.266], "stop_times": [2831.266, 2846.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2831.099}, "reply_to": "22539__3_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22539__3_002", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Well, that's what we were about to go to trial on, Your Honor.\nThat's a merits issue.\nThe Ninth Circuit has abstained on whether there was a mandatory statutory duty to cut off this water, and I urge the Court not to... to dive into that pool.\nWe're trying to get in the courthouse doors.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2846.126, 2849.098, 2850.418, 2863.316], "stop_times": [2849.098, 2850.418, 2863.316, 2866.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2846.126}, "reply_to": "22539__3_001", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__3_003", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "But you were saying there's... there's a right under this contract to recover from the United States for an under delivery.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2866.393], "stop_times": [2872.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2866.393}, "reply_to": "22539__3_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22539__3_004", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "We have massive cross summary judgment motions on that issue and we were entitled to go to trial on that... on our claim of liability.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2872.876], "stop_times": [2885.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2872.876}, "reply_to": "22539__3_003", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__3_005", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "What--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2885.507], "stop_times": [2886.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2885.507}, "reply_to": "22539__3_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22539__3_006", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "If--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2886.083], "stop_times": [2886.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2886.083}, "reply_to": "22539__3_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__3_007", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--No, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2886.455], "stop_times": [2887.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2886.455}, "reply_to": "22539__3_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22539__3_008", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--No.\nI've asked a lot of questions.\nGo on.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2887.448, 2887.531, 2888.357], "stop_times": [2887.531, 2888.357, 2888.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2887.448}, "reply_to": "22539__3_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__3_009", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "What do you make... excuse me.\nWhat do you make of the argument for reasonable construction of the contract that in fact you just simply cannot have a system that would promise the chaos that... that you are promising?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2888.812, 2890.836], "stop_times": [2890.836, 2899.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2888.812}, "reply_to": "22539__3_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22539__3_010", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "I... I don't make much of it.\nThe parties here and... and the parties in the West fully understood for 20 years, after Allen Orchards, that the farmers were intended third party beneficiaries.\nThat's... we settled in 1986 with that understanding, and this parade of horribles just has not come to pass.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2899.297, 2901.626, 2915.206], "stop_times": [2901.626, 2915.206, 2925.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2899.297}, "reply_to": "22539__3_009", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__3_011", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Is... is it correct, as Justice Scalia suggested earlier, that so far as State litigation is concerned, it would be limited simply to arbitrary, unreasonable behavior?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2925.525], "stop_times": [2936.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2925.525}, "reply_to": "22539__3_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22539__3_012", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "That's true.\nAnd even more fundamentally, the United States breached the contract.\nThe district didn't do anything wrong.\nWhy would we sue the district when the United States cut off the water and doubled the charge?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2936.366, 2936.82, 2941.279, 2943.053], "stop_times": [2936.82, 2941.279, 2943.053, 2948.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2936.366}, "reply_to": "22539__3_011", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__3_013", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Well, I think it's arbitrary not to... not to... for an agency, of which you're... you're in some sense at least the beneficiary, not to insist upon its contract rights, just as a shareholder can insist that the... that a corporation enforce its contracts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2948.255], "stop_times": [2963.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2948.255}, "reply_to": "22539__3_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__3_014", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "We had a little mini trial on that in front of the... in front of the district court, and... and I made that argument, Your Honor, and the district court rejected it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2963.941], "stop_times": [2972.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2963.941}, "reply_to": "22539__3_013", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__3_015", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "No, he was wrong.\nThat was--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2972.115, 2972.858, 2973.435], "stop_times": [2972.858, 2973.435, 2974.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2972.115}, "reply_to": "22539__3_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22539__3_016", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "I agree.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2974.139], "stop_times": [2974.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2974.139}, "reply_to": "22539__3_015", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__3_017", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "I guess the reason that you would sue the district would be if you didn't have any enforceable promise from the United States that they didn't... wouldn't do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2974.799], "stop_times": [2983.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2974.799}, "reply_to": "22539__3_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__3_018", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Well, we... we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2983.837], "stop_times": [2984.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2983.837}, "reply_to": "22539__3_017", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__3_019", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Now, you think you do.\nThat's the issue in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2984.459, 2986.028], "stop_times": [2986.028, 2987.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2984.459}, "reply_to": "22539__3_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__3_020", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--We had a stipulated judgment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2987.226], "stop_times": [2988.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2987.226}, "reply_to": "22539__3_019", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__3_021", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "And so therefore... therefore, I'm looking for where that promise is.\nAnd you started out by citing a page, which wasn't a page of the contract.\nIt was a page of some kind of settlement, and that page said that the district agrees that they entered into the contract with helping the farmers in mind.\nI'm sure they did.\nSo what.\nI mean, I might buy a house with the idea of helping of my child.\nI'm going to give it to him.\nThat doesn't mean he can enforce the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [2988.796, 2991.851, 2995.688, 3005.802, 3007.372, 3008.236, 3012.489, 3013.688], "stop_times": [2991.851, 2995.688, 3005.802, 3007.372, 3008.236, 3012.489, 3013.688, 3015.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2988.796}, "reply_to": "22539__3_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__3_022", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "German Alliance, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [3015.917], "stop_times": [3017.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3015.917}, "reply_to": "22539__3_021", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__3_023", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "You mean my child can enforce a contract I enter into with another... I buy a house and I say I intend to give it to my daughter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [3017.236], "stop_times": [3024.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3017.236}, "reply_to": "22539__3_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__3_024", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "If the contract--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [3024.955], "stop_times": [3026.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3024.955}, "reply_to": "22539__3_023", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__3_025", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "And then she can enforce the contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [3026.152], "stop_times": [3027.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3026.152}, "reply_to": "22539__3_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__3_026", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--If the contract says--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [3027.267], "stop_times": [3028.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3027.267}, "reply_to": "22539__3_025", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__3_027", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Yes.\nIf the contract says.\nNow, that's why I was interested that you didn't cite language in the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [3028.548, 3029.041, 3030.527], "stop_times": [3029.041, 3030.527, 3034.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3028.548}, "reply_to": "22539__3_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__3_028", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--Oh, yes, we did, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [3034.037], "stop_times": [3035.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3034.037}, "reply_to": "22539__3_027", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__3_029", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "You... well, I mean, you started out by referring me to page 110 or 111--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [3035.357], "stop_times": [3040.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3035.357}, "reply_to": "22539__3_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__3_030", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [3040.065], "stop_times": [3040.641], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3040.065}, "reply_to": "22539__3_029", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__3_031", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--which doesn't.\nNow, what is the language in the contract--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [3040.641, 3041.18], "stop_times": [3041.18, 3043.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3040.641}, "reply_to": "22539__3_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__3_032", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Articles--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [3043.614], "stop_times": [3044.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3043.614}, "reply_to": "22539__3_031", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__3_033", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--that helps you the most?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [3044.357], "stop_times": [3045.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3044.357}, "reply_to": "22539__3_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22539__3_034", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "--15 and 29(b) of the '63 contract and also the 1965 contract explicitly refers to benefit, and probably most dramatically, the recordable contracts that were signed actually with my clients and the United States said that they were made in consideration of the direct and indirect benefits that those farmers would gain from the 1963 contract.\nNow, paragraph 4.2 in the judgment, which came some years later, reconfirmed that.\nWhat was new and different about the judgment is that for the first time it made explicit... we think it was implied earlier, but explicit that there was enforceable rights in the farmers, and we've argued it under your German Alliance test that's not required, but if it was required, we bargained for, we got it.\nThe... the court approved that and the Congress approved that.\nAnd I... I... personally I've looked at all of these cases in recent months.\nIt's very rare for an intended beneficiary to have language like that.\nIn any case, as I was saying, my clients have suffered massive losses.\nThey've been litigating these claims for 25 years.\nEveryone has assumed there was waiver of sovereign immunity.\nEveryone assumed they're intended beneficiaries.\nAnd we think we should have a forum and a remedy and a right to our day in court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [3045.1, 3076.391, 3082.623, 3104.626, 3108.508, 3114.286, 3120.48, 3130.732, 3134.615, 3138.701, 3141.18], "stop_times": [3076.391, 3082.623, 3104.626, 3108.508, 3114.286, 3120.48, 3130.732, 3134.615, 3138.701, 3141.18, 3146.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3045.1}, "reply_to": "22539__3_033", "speaker": "william_m_smiland"}
{"id": "22539__3_035", "conversation_id": "22539", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Smiland.\nThe case is taken under advisement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1566", "start_times": [3146.958, 3149.354], "stop_times": [3149.354, 3151.044], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3146.958}, "reply_to": "22539__3_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21652__0_000", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "We'll hear argument in Pace against the... the warden.\nMr. Wycoff.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [0.0, 5.906], "stop_times": [5.906, 8.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21652__0_001", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nMr. Pace, at age 17, was sentenced to life without possibility of parole after being misled by his lawyer and the court.\nHis right to Federal habeas review depends entirely upon whether his State post-conviction proceedings tolled the AEDPA statute of limitations.\nThis Court should--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [8.439, 50.61, 58.662, 67.511], "stop_times": [50.61, 58.662, 67.511, 68.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8.439}, "reply_to": "21652__0_000", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_002", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, he... he had a prior round of hearings at the State level on these same claims, did he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [68.61], "stop_times": [76.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 68.61}, "reply_to": "21652__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21652__0_003", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--On different claims, Your Honor.\nHe had a first, a... under what was called the PCHA in Pennsylvania.\nThe tolling question here is whether the PCRA petition--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [76.123, 77.526, 81.157], "stop_times": [77.526, 81.157, 84.706], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 76.123}, "reply_to": "21652__0_002", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_004", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "I know, but the substance of it, saying it isn't fair to give me life without parole because of what happened, I didn't understand the plea... he raised that in State court before.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [84.706], "stop_times": [96.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 84.706}, "reply_to": "21652__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21652__0_005", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--He raised it in the first proceeding an ineffective--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [96.678], "stop_times": [98.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 96.678}, "reply_to": "21652__0_004", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_006", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [98.497], "stop_times": [98.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 98.497}, "reply_to": "21652__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21652__0_007", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--assistance of counsel claim--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [98.907], "stop_times": [99.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 98.907}, "reply_to": "21652__0_006", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_008", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [99.916], "stop_times": [100.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 99.916}, "reply_to": "21652__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21652__0_009", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--related to that and some other claims related to that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [100.305], "stop_times": [102.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 100.305}, "reply_to": "21652__0_008", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_010", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [102.517], "stop_times": [102.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 102.517}, "reply_to": "21652__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21652__0_011", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--in the second proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [102.788], "stop_times": [103.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 102.788}, "reply_to": "21652__0_010", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_012", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "And he... he essentially wants to relitigate the substance of those previous claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [103.82], "stop_times": [109.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 103.82}, "reply_to": "21652__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21652__0_013", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nHe actually... the first petition raised only an ineffectiveness claim.\nThe second petition raised a due process challenge to the colloquy, which was not exhausted in the first, raised new evidence to support the claim which Pennsylvania law allowed him to do, and raised a constitutional and State law challenge to the legality of his sentence.\nThere were new claims in the second proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [109.021, 110.674, 114.018, 130.381], "stop_times": [110.674, 114.018, 130.381, 132.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 109.021}, "reply_to": "21652__0_012", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_014", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--of both claims was, however he dressed it up in... in due process, that I wasn't told at the time of my sentencing that life meant life without parole.\nThat was the essence, the core of his complaint the first time around, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [132.594, 152.034], "stop_times": [152.034, 156.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 132.594}, "reply_to": "21652__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21652__0_015", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes, that his lawyer misled him was the first claim, that by telling him he'd be out in 10 to 15 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [156.743], "stop_times": [161.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 156.743}, "reply_to": "21652__0_014", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_016", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "But the... but the essence of it was I wasn't told that life meant I would never get out of prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [161.944], "stop_times": [167.517], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 161.944}, "reply_to": "21652__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21652__0_017", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [167.517], "stop_times": [167.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 167.517}, "reply_to": "21652__0_016", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_018", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Both times.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [167.938], "stop_times": [169.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 167.938}, "reply_to": "21652__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21652__0_019", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "In... in the second he raised that plus that the colloquy itself was defective and that the sentence, the life without parole sentence, was illegal and unconstitutional, apart from the misinformation aspect.\nSo they were different claims.\nLet me start with statutory tolling.\nSection 2244(d)(2) of AEDPA provides tolling during properly filed applications for State post-conviction review.\nUnder this Court's unanimous decision in Artuz, Mr. Pace's PCRA petition was properly filed.\nIn fact, the PCRA time bar functions in all material ways like the New York State procedural bar rules at issue in Artuz.\nNow, Artuz also identified some types of rules that would prevent an application from being properly filed, for example, the AEDPA successive bar which makes you go to the court of appeals first and get permission before you can actually file in the district court, and it has a screening mechanism to make sure that only petitions with a prima facie chance get filed.\nThe PCRA time bar is nothing like that at all.\nIt's like the State court procedural bar rules in Artuz.\nThere's no condition to filing.\nYou can go and file at any time.\nThe court, as a matter of law, has to take your petition, has to give it judicial review... yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [169.424, 181.85, 183.792, 186.392, 194.482, 201.708, 209.427, 231.468, 234.894, 238.405, 239.807, 241.293], "stop_times": [181.85, 183.792, 186.392, 194.482, 201.708, 209.427, 231.468, 234.894, 238.405, 239.807, 241.293, 248.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 169.424}, "reply_to": "21652__0_018", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_020", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Mr. Wycoff, are you taking the position that this... that Artuz... I thought, frankly, that Artuz had classified within properly filed timely filed and then had a footnote, and it says that there might be some exceptions to a timely filing rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [248.558], "stop_times": [268.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.558}, "reply_to": "21652__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21652__0_021", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [268.992], "stop_times": [269.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 268.992}, "reply_to": "21652__0_020", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_022", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--rule.\nAnd they're not taking a position about that.\nBut you quickly said this time limitation falls under the procedural bar label.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [269.242, 269.901, 272.13], "stop_times": [269.901, 272.13, 281.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 269.242}, "reply_to": "21652__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21652__0_023", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "I'm sorry, Your Honor.\nYes.\nThis... Artuz said that a time limit without exception, say, in 30 days you must file in 30 days, no exception, or in 1 year, no exceptions... that's what Artuz called a condition to filing and that you're either in or you're out in that rule.\nAnd Artuz, though, reserved the question presented here of whether a time bar with exceptions, like the PCRA time bar... whether that could be properly filed.\nAnd so obviously, Artuz reserved the exact question here.\nBut what... the analysis of Artuz controls here and shows that this petition was properly filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [281.706, 284.018, 284.49, 299.046, 307.796, 312.542], "stop_times": [284.018, 284.49, 299.046, 307.796, 312.542, 318.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 281.706}, "reply_to": "21652__0_022", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_024", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, it depends on what the exceptions are.\nIf... if... as... here I understand there are three exceptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [318.132, 320.056], "stop_times": [320.056, 323.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 318.132}, "reply_to": "21652__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_025", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [323.316], "stop_times": [324.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 323.316}, "reply_to": "21652__0_024", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_026", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "And they're all spelled out in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [324.142], "stop_times": [324.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 324.142}, "reply_to": "21652__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_027", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "They're similar to the AEDPA exceptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [324.885], "stop_times": [326.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 324.885}, "reply_to": "21652__0_026", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_028", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes.\nAnd... and if you do not plead any of those exceptions when you... when you file, it seems to me it's not properly filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [326.577, 326.743], "stop_times": [326.743, 336.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 326.577}, "reply_to": "21652__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_029", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, there are a couple of responses to that, Your Honor.\nFirst of all, in... in terms of Mr. Pace, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has said it wasn't at all clear before, roughly, December of 1999 that you actually need to plead those exceptions in your petition.\nNow they say you should plead them in your petition, but at the time it wasn't clear.\nCertainly the... the form that the prison provides--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [336.996, 339.225, 352.023, 356.193], "stop_times": [339.225, 352.023, 356.193, 359.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 336.996}, "reply_to": "21652__0_028", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_030", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "I don't care what the Pennsylvania law is.\nI mean, it... it seems to me if you have a statute that says it's untimely unless one of these three exceptions apply, and... and you... you simply file and you don't say... and it's clearly out of time without one of the exceptions, and you simply file and don't say but this exception applies, it seems to me that's not properly filed, whatever the rule in... in Pennsylvania was.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [359.675, 361.516], "stop_times": [361.516, 383.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 359.675}, "reply_to": "21652__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_031", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--If... in terms of... to go to Artuz' analysis, you would have to look at each... the exceptions are... go claim by claim.\nYou would have to look at each claim and see did you plead the exception for this claim, yes or no; this claim, yes or no.\nSo again--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [383.99, 393.345, 399.051], "stop_times": [393.345, 399.051, 399.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 383.99}, "reply_to": "21652__0_030", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_032", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "But you haven't pleaded any of them, none at all.\nYou just file it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [399.798, 402.228], "stop_times": [402.228, 403.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 399.798}, "reply_to": "21652__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_033", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--In that case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [403.209], "stop_times": [404.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 403.209}, "reply_to": "21652__0_032", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_034", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--several years out of time.\nYou... you make no assertion that any one of the... of the three specific exceptions applies.\nI don't see how that could possibly be considered properly filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [404.035, 405.727, 411.383], "stop_times": [405.727, 411.383, 414.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 404.035}, "reply_to": "21652__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_035", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Because the court still accepts it, reviews it to see if any of the exceptions apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [414.355], "stop_times": [418.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 414.355}, "reply_to": "21652__0_034", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_036", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Ah, that... that's your theory that... that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [418.608], "stop_times": [419.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 418.608}, "reply_to": "21652__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_037", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "And... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [419.723], "stop_times": [421.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 419.723}, "reply_to": "21652__0_036", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_038", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Unless it can be rejected by the clerk--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [421.375], "stop_times": [423.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 421.375}, "reply_to": "21652__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_039", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Not at all, Your Honor.\nIt's not that... that theory at all.\nIn... in Pennsylvania, the court accepts it and gives it judicial review and reviews it claim by claim to see if any of the exceptions apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [423.521, 424.431, 425.667], "stop_times": [424.431, 425.667, 434.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 423.521}, "reply_to": "21652__0_038", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_040", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--But you haven't made the claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [434.545], "stop_times": [435.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 434.545}, "reply_to": "21652__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_041", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, that's what the court would determine.\nAnd presumably in a case like that, the court would be able to dispose of it quickly and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [435.577, 437.556], "stop_times": [437.556, 442.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 435.577}, "reply_to": "21652__0_040", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_042", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "What... what does the Pennsylvania court... law now say with respect to claim-by-claim pleading of the exceptions?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [442.18], "stop_times": [448.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 442.18}, "reply_to": "21652__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__0_043", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--The Pennsylvania Supreme Court now has said you should plead in the PCRA petition the exceptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [448.208], "stop_times": [456.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 448.208}, "reply_to": "21652__0_042", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_044", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Claim by claim?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [456.398], "stop_times": [457.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 456.398}, "reply_to": "21652__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__0_045", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "For each... any claim that you're raising, yes.\nIt goes claim by claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [457.618, 460.113], "stop_times": [460.113, 461.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 457.618}, "reply_to": "21652__0_044", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_046", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "This problem couldn't arise again in Pennsylvania, couldn't it, because they have a 1-year statute of limitations?\nSo there would be no way that you could be untimely filing within the 1 year that you have to go to Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [461.212, 466.989], "stop_times": [466.989, 477.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 461.212}, "reply_to": "21652__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__0_047", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "It... it can arise again, Your Honor, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [477.02], "stop_times": [480.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 477.02}, "reply_to": "21652__0_046", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_048", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "It can?\nHow could it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [480.364, 480.614], "stop_times": [480.614, 480.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 480.364}, "reply_to": "21652__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__0_049", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Yes, it can arise again and... and will many times arise again because consider someone who's already had his or her AEDPA year pass and then discovers, say, a Brady claim and wants to go back and litigate that.\nUnder AEDPA, you would have a year to get back into court with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [480.735, 493.904], "stop_times": [493.904, 497.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 480.735}, "reply_to": "21652__0_048", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_050", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--You do.\nI thought AEDPA you had to file within a year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [497.454, 497.825], "stop_times": [497.825, 500.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 497.454}, "reply_to": "21652__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__0_051", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [500.016], "stop_times": [500.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 500.016}, "reply_to": "21652__0_050", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_052", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "And then if you miss the year, you're out of luck.\nPeriod.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [500.426, 501.723], "stop_times": [501.723, 502.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 500.426}, "reply_to": "21652__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__0_053", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "That's... yes, but under State law, you only have 60 days to get that.\nSo someone in Pennsylvania who finds a Brady claim, say, has to get back into State court within 60 days of discovering that.\nSo his... he... he could go into State court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [502.095, 506.06, 513.34], "stop_times": [506.06, 513.34, 515.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 502.095}, "reply_to": "21652__0_052", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_054", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "I see.\nSo in other words, he... his conviction is final.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [515.719, 516.107], "stop_times": [516.107, 518.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 515.719}, "reply_to": "21652__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__0_055", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [518.691], "stop_times": [519.739], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 518.691}, "reply_to": "21652__0_054", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_056", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "60 days runs after his final conviction and then between the 60th day and the 365th day, he has discovered his Brady claim and has not got into court within 60 days.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [519.739], "stop_times": [533.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 519.739}, "reply_to": "21652__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__0_057", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Or he finds it in what he thinks is within 60 days of when he should have found it.\nHe files his State post-conviction application.\nAfter years of litigation, the court says, you know, you really should have found it 59 days ago, not 60.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [533.552, 538.093, 540.816], "stop_times": [538.093, 540.816, 547.503], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 533.552}, "reply_to": "21652__0_056", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_058", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "And Justice Scalia's question... I'm interested in this.\nIt couldn't arise.\nThat is, a person who files his State collateral petition more than 365 days after the finality of the State court direct review, that person is out of luck under anybody's interpretation because more than a year has passed since it became final, i.e., the State direct review.\nAm I right or wrong about that?\nThat's what's puzzling me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [547.503, 550.27, 551.856, 580.94, 582.137], "stop_times": [550.27, 551.856, 580.94, 582.137, 583.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 547.503}, "reply_to": "21652__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__0_059", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "It... it depends on if there's a new... if... if there has not been a new triggering date, other than the finality for the AEDPA date, then you will be out of time for AEDPA.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [583.252], "stop_times": [592.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 583.252}, "reply_to": "21652__0_058", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_060", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "But AEDPA... it doesn't say 1 year and that's it.\nAEDPA has exceptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [592.457, 595.8], "stop_times": [595.8, 597.537], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 592.457}, "reply_to": "21652__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21652__0_061", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes, it does, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [597.537], "stop_times": [598.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 597.537}, "reply_to": "21652__0_060", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_062", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "The exemptions still could be the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [598.213], "stop_times": [600.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 598.213}, "reply_to": "21652__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__0_063", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes.\nAnd in fact, everyone now who has, say, a Brady claim is going to have... under Third Circuit law as it is now, is going to have to come into Federal court and file a protective habeas petition because the odds are very likely that more than a... the AEDPA year is going to run while they litigate this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [600.509, 601.418], "stop_times": [601.418, 617.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 600.509}, "reply_to": "21652__0_062", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_064", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes.\nWe would have to breathe life back into the stay and abey--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [617.393, 617.559], "stop_times": [617.559, 620.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 617.393}, "reply_to": "21652__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__0_065", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [620.16], "stop_times": [621.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 620.16}, "reply_to": "21652__0_064", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_066", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--But let me ask you this.\nReturning to our earlier discussion about pleading a specific exemption--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [621.108, 622.677], "stop_times": [622.677, 628.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 621.108}, "reply_to": "21652__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__0_067", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [628.25], "stop_times": [629.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 628.25}, "reply_to": "21652__0_066", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_068", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--are there States, do you know, where that is not required and the State court will go through the exceptions even if you haven't pled them?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [629.382], "stop_times": [639.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 629.382}, "reply_to": "21652__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__0_069", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, Pennsylvania actually does that and certainly did it at the time Mr. Pace was litigating.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [639.396], "stop_times": [644.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.396}, "reply_to": "21652__0_068", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_070", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, but I thought you said Pennsylvania law had changed now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [644.225], "stop_times": [646.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 644.225}, "reply_to": "21652__0_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__0_071", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "They have said now you should plead them at the petition... in the petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [646.25], "stop_times": [650.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 646.25}, "reply_to": "21652__0_070", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_072", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "But my... my question is do you know if there are other States where they say, we don't care if you plead these--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [650.065], "stop_times": [654.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 650.065}, "reply_to": "21652__0_071", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__0_073", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [654.302], "stop_times": [655.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 654.302}, "reply_to": "21652__0_072", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_074", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--exemptions specifically or not?\nWe're going to look through it and find it for ourselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [655.249, 656.281], "stop_times": [656.281, 658.305], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 655.249}, "reply_to": "21652__0_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__0_075", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--I... I don't know the answer to that.\nI know that was the practice.\nIn... in fact, Pennsylvania courts still do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [658.305, 659.625, 660.739], "stop_times": [659.625, 660.739, 663.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 658.305}, "reply_to": "21652__0_074", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_076", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "And you say that if that's the case, you can file a... a State... a State claim that is plainly no good and until the State court finally gets around to... to telling you that it's no good, your... your AEDPA claim is tolled.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [663.051], "stop_times": [684.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 663.051}, "reply_to": "21652__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_077", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes, while you're... and the State could easily prevent that by setting up some kind of prefiling requirement for--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [684.866], "stop_times": [690.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 684.866}, "reply_to": "21652__0_076", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_078", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "But that's, in... in effect, saying that there is no... that the properly filed, given the Pennsylvania procedure, does not include timely filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [690.272], "stop_times": [700.303], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 690.272}, "reply_to": "21652__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21652__0_079", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--The... the question of whether it was timely or not is not actually determined until the end of the litigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [700.303], "stop_times": [707.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 700.303}, "reply_to": "21652__0_078", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_080", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "But... but you have just said that the... the court will look on its own to see if there are these exceptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [707.833], "stop_times": [715.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 707.833}, "reply_to": "21652__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21652__0_081", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [715.247], "stop_times": [717.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 715.247}, "reply_to": "21652__0_080", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_082", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "So that there would be no case of an untimely filing in this period when the court was... even if you raised no exception, was going through them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [717.393], "stop_times": [725.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 717.393}, "reply_to": "21652__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21652__0_083", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [725.528], "stop_times": [726.437], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 725.528}, "reply_to": "21652__0_082", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_084", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "There would be no case in which an untimely filing would be included in properly filed because the very fact that the court itself would go through the petition to look for exceptions would take it out of the category.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [726.437], "stop_times": [745.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 726.437}, "reply_to": "21652__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21652__0_085", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, and exactly the same could be said about Artuz, the procedural bar rules in Artuz, whether someone pled--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [745.673], "stop_times": [753.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 745.673}, "reply_to": "21652__0_084", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_086", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "But the... the difference was that Artuz ranked timely filing as an ingredient of properly filed, and you say but not in Pennsylvania the way it's set up.\nTimely filing is not an ingredient of properly filed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [753.475, 764.721], "stop_times": [764.721, 768.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 753.475}, "reply_to": "21652__0_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21652__0_087", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Because the State court lets you file it and gives it judicial review and applies it claim by claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [768.419], "stop_times": [773.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 768.419}, "reply_to": "21652__0_086", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_088", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "But don't... don't you have a... a... sort of a second prong to... to your response?\nAnd I... I wanted to get into this.\nYou... you have said Pennsylvania will let you file even though ultimately it, you know, may well determine that you... you were out of time and you don't fall within any of the exceptions.\nWell, that's... that's an answer.\nI'm not sure it's a strong enough answer to respond to Artuz.\nBut I thought you had a second part to the answer, and I thought your second part to the answer was in that kind of situation, the Third Circuit practice, the Third Circuit rule is that unless we go through the Pennsylvania process, even if we know from day one that we're out of time, we think we have a... an excuse, but even though we... we think from day one we're out of time, unless we exhaust the Pennsylvania process, they will throw us out for nonexhaustion.\nAnd the reason they will throw us out from nonexhaustion, as opposed to going directly to the question whether there is an excuse for nonexhaustion, is because Pennsylvania will actually let us litigate this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [773.787, 778.384, 779.853, 791.991, 794.631, 797.686, 831.055], "stop_times": [778.384, 779.853, 791.991, 794.631, 797.686, 831.055, 844.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 773.787}, "reply_to": "21652__0_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21652__0_089", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [844.309], "stop_times": [844.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 844.309}, "reply_to": "21652__0_088", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_090", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--and not determine it as a threshold matter.\nSo... so your answer, as I understand it, is Pennsylvania let's you litigate it, and the Third Circuit requires you to litigate it so that the only reasonable thing for us to do is to litigate it even if you may say in the abstract it's a purely threshold time question.\nAnd for that reason, there should be tolling.\nIsn't that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [844.664, 847.226, 864.388, 867.205], "stop_times": [847.226, 864.388, 867.205, 868.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 844.664}, "reply_to": "21652__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21652__0_091", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nAnd it's... it's connected to the statutory language.\nAEDPA says we'll toll for properly filed applications.\nThat... AEDPA is keyed to how much process the State post-conviction courts will give you.\nIn a... in a State where they say anyone who comes after a year, we won't give you any review and you're just out of court, AEDPA says when... that's not... we're not going to consider that properly filed.\nWe won't toll, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [868.32, 868.757, 871.319, 875.239, 881.267, 891.791], "stop_times": [868.757, 871.319, 875.239, 881.267, 891.791, 892.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 868.32}, "reply_to": "21652__0_090", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_092", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "This is putting such a... I mean, the system is not going to work.\nIt... it's a rare State system that has an absolute statute of limitation with no exceptions.\nYou're almost going to have to inquire into exceptions.\nSo you're saying this is a way to avoid... avoid AEDPA endlessly, just keep filing claims that are out of time, and until the court finally gets around to saying it's out of time, your... your AEDPA time is tolled--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [892.7, 896.228, 903.641, 907.395], "stop_times": [896.228, 903.641, 907.395, 919.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 892.7}, "reply_to": "21652__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_093", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [919.738], "stop_times": [920.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 919.738}, "reply_to": "21652__0_092", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_094", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--by which time you file another one that's clearly out of time.\nAnd until that one is resolved... I... this couldn't be what AEDPA was... was meant to establish.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [920.277, 923.536], "stop_times": [923.536, 929.026], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 920.277}, "reply_to": "21652__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_095", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "And... and if you're tempted to answer, well, people want to get out so they're not going to sit around forever, then we'd ask you what about the death cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [929.026], "stop_times": [935.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 929.026}, "reply_to": "21652__0_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__0_096", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Okay, and that was what I was tempted to answer, and since you said it, I'll go straight to the death cases.\nIn Pennsylvania, certainly there's no... a death-sentence prisoner can get nowhere by filing what he knows to be an untimely PCRA petition because Pennsylvania law requires the Governor to sign warrants when the conviction is final and then at every break in the litigation basically after that.\nAnd the PCRA courts cannot grant a stay of execution until after they find that the petition is both timely and meritorious.\nSo it's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [935.88, 940.998, 958.559, 966.428], "stop_times": [940.998, 958.559, 966.428, 967.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 935.88}, "reply_to": "21652__0_095", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_097", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "I'm not sure that would apply to other States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [967.171], "stop_times": [968.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 967.171}, "reply_to": "21652__0_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__0_098", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--That's true.\nAnd I mean, each State can set up a system to... to satisfy its needs.\nPennsylvania could set up a system like the AEDPA successor bar to say you're not going to be filed at all until we give you permission.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [968.74, 969.938, 974.396], "stop_times": [969.938, 974.396, 981.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 968.74}, "reply_to": "21652__0_097", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_099", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Under your rule that filing is sufficient, are there any instances of... of frivolous petition where your rule would not apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [981.455], "stop_times": [996.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 981.455}, "reply_to": "21652__0_098", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__0_100", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, I think all the courts of appeal that have... have talked about that have thought... have said that you really shouldn't start figuring out whether it was a frivolous assertion or meritorious--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [996.787], "stop_times": [1008.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 996.787}, "reply_to": "21652__0_099", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_101", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, then Justice Scalia's prediction is... is right.\nYou just keep filing and filing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1008.493, 1013.405], "stop_times": [1013.405, 1015.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.493}, "reply_to": "21652__0_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__0_102", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Presumably you could and if there's someone who wants to do that, which is going to be a rare--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1015.347], "stop_times": [1020.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1015.347}, "reply_to": "21652__0_101", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_103", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Suppose you lost on that one.\nSuppose that you wanted some kind of a... suppose that the majority wanted a standard that would prevent absolutely frivolous filings on the basis of... of statute of limitations.\nWould you... what standard would... what... what's our choice of standards there?\nCould we... one, obviously, that the prisoner has to be in good faith.\nAnother could be he has to be in good faith and there has to be a reasonable argument that it hasn't run.\nMaybe there are others that you've thought of.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1020.464, 1021.784, 1035.409, 1039.7, 1042.805, 1047.048], "stop_times": [1021.784, 1035.409, 1039.7, 1042.805, 1047.048, 1049.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1020.464}, "reply_to": "21652__0_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__0_104", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--I think that going down that path is going to open up just a nightmare of... of litigation in Federal court about... if you start talking about good faith and are you... if the State courts deny it, can you still say it was nonfrivolous?\nI think all the courts just across the board have tried to avoid that type of thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1049.277, 1062.902], "stop_times": [1062.902, 1067.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1049.277}, "reply_to": "21652__0_103", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_105", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Try... try this simple rule.\nWhere you're dealing with a statute of limitations that has exceptions, it's not properly filed if you do not assert the existence of one of those exceptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1067.36, 1069.339], "stop_times": [1069.339, 1081.106], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1067.36}, "reply_to": "21652__0_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_106", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Two... I have two things to say about that.\nOne is it creates a problem with Artuz because that type of rule... assuming the exceptions are like the PCRA exceptions which go claim by claim, that's a claim-by-claim rule which would then create the anomaly that Artuz shied away from, that you look to whether it was a properly filed application, not to whether it was an application with properly filed claims.\nThe second point is that... is that for Mr. Pace, whatever the merits of that rule may be going forward, it... it can't be used against Mr. Pace because there was no such requirement in Pennsylvania.\nI mean, presumably the... I assume the Federal courts are not going to make up this rule, that it's going to be up to the State courts to say what their filing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1081.106, 1084.2, 1106.824, 1119.76], "stop_times": [1084.2, 1106.824, 1119.76, 1127.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1081.106}, "reply_to": "21652__0_105", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_107", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Why... why not?\nWe make up a lot of stuff.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1127.296, 1128.039, 1129.525], "stop_times": [1128.039, 1129.525, 1131.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1127.296}, "reply_to": "21652__0_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_108", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Well, Artuz talks about you look to the State's procedural filing requirements.\nThis is a Federal statute and properly filed is given a Federal meaning, but you presumably look to the State filing requirements, as you did in Artuz, to determine what that means.\nNow, all of these concerns about delay and so on are the exact same concerns, where there in Artuz someone could file successive petition after successive petition in New York if they want to delay.\nIt's just not... it's not a... it's certainly not a problem for noncapital cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1131.177, 1135.718, 1146.659, 1158.669], "stop_times": [1135.718, 1146.659, 1158.669, 1162.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1131.177}, "reply_to": "21652__0_107", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_109", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "I thought the whole purpose of AEDPA was... was to prevent delay.\nI mean, that's... that's what's... it seems to me counter-intuitive about the position you're... you're urging upon us.\nHere is a statute that was meant to stop these things from dragging on endlessly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1162.385, 1166.183, 1173.613], "stop_times": [1166.183, 1173.613, 1179.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1162.385}, "reply_to": "21652__0_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_110", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1179.436], "stop_times": [1180.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1179.436}, "reply_to": "21652__0_109", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_111", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "And you tell us don't worry about these things dragging on endlessly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1180.012], "stop_times": [1183.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1180.012}, "reply_to": "21652__0_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_112", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "I'm not... I'm saying AEDPA says come to Federal court within a year.\nWe'll toll when you're in State court if it's properly filed.\nProperly filed, if the States let you file a lot of stuff, we're going to... comity requires us to allow that, and we'll toll.\nIf the States don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1183.44, 1188.269, 1191.735, 1198.316], "stop_times": [1188.269, 1191.735, 1198.316, 1199.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1183.44}, "reply_to": "21652__0_111", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_113", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "That's unrealistic if the States allow you to file a lot of stuff.\nYou're... you're saying the only way the States can stop this thing from going on and on and on is to adopt an absolute rigid statute of limitations, no exceptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1199.908, 1202.963], "stop_times": [1202.963, 1211.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1199.908}, "reply_to": "21652__0_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_114", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--That's one way or a prefiling requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1211.386], "stop_times": [1213.82], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1211.386}, "reply_to": "21652__0_113", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_115", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Give me another way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1213.82], "stop_times": [1214.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1213.82}, "reply_to": "21652__0_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_116", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "The AEDPA prefiling requirement where you go to the court and you say, I'd like to file this petition, tell me if I can, and the court says, 30 days later, yes or no.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1214.275, 1223.645], "stop_times": [1223.645, 1224.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1214.275}, "reply_to": "21652__0_115", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_117", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Oh, but if it takes a year a later, then we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1224.594], "stop_times": [1229.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.594}, "reply_to": "21652__0_116", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__0_118", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Well, yes.\nIf... the AEDPA--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1229.052, 1230.871], "stop_times": [1230.871, 1232.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1229.052}, "reply_to": "21652__0_117", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_119", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Then you just repeat the process one step backward.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1232.107], "stop_times": [1234.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1232.107}, "reply_to": "21652__0_118", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__0_120", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nI think the courts are... are... the Federal courts are capable of telling the difference between an application for State post-conviction relief on the one hand and a motion for leave to file an application on the other hand.\nIn fact, the Seventh Circuit in... in the Smith v. Walls case and the Tinker v. Ward case that we cited in our brief had exactly that distinction between an Indiana rule which had a prefiling requirement and an Illinois rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1234.419, 1235.163, 1247.34], "stop_times": [1235.163, 1247.34, 1263.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1234.419}, "reply_to": "21652__0_119", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_121", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "What about a... a rule requiring good faith or reasonable argument in death cases?\nIn all the other cases, there's no incentive to do this endless filing, and in death cases, there is.\nSo in those death cases, we would insist that it is not properly filed if it's out of time unless the prisoner in good faith and with a plausible argument, a reasonable argument thought it was in time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1263.604, 1270.678, 1277.721], "stop_times": [1270.678, 1277.721, 1291.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1263.604}, "reply_to": "21652__0_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__0_122", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--I suppose that... I mean, that could be a construction of the statute as long as you let people... people are going to come to Federal court first and get... for stay abeyance if you do that.\nIf you don't know until the outcome years later whether you were tolling or not, that's going to cause everyone to file protective filings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1291.55, 1301.664], "stop_times": [1301.664, 1309.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1291.55}, "reply_to": "21652__0_121", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_123", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Do you think that's a reasonable interpretation of properly filed and... and what I proposed to you is not a reasonable interpretation of properly filed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1309.012], "stop_times": [1315.866], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1309.012}, "reply_to": "21652__0_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_124", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, I was just--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1315.866], "stop_times": [1318.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1315.866}, "reply_to": "21652__0_123", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_125", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "How can you... how can you tease that elaborate system out of... out of the words properly filed but you cannot tease out of it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1318.3], "stop_times": [1326.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1318.3}, "reply_to": "21652__0_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_126", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1326.845], "stop_times": [1327.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1326.845}, "reply_to": "21652__0_125", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_127", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--simply showing on its face that there's either an absolute statute or that one of the exceptions to the statute exists?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1327.216], "stop_times": [1336.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1327.216}, "reply_to": "21652__0_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_128", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--The problem with that in terms... is that it conflicts with Artuz' idea that the... any rule that's a condition to filing has to go to the application as a whole.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1336.315], "stop_times": [1346.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1336.315}, "reply_to": "21652__0_127", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_129", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, I don't think it actually... I mean, in... I think they're about equal, aren't they, in respect to language?\nAnd the argument against the other one is that prisoners are going to get mixed up about it.\nThey... they don't know exactly what they're supposed to put.\nThe argument against the one I proposed is it adds complexity of decision-making.\nSort of between the two, it's rather hard to see.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1346.058, 1350.788, 1356.444, 1358.961, 1363.791], "stop_times": [1350.788, 1356.444, 1358.961, 1363.791, 1366.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1346.058}, "reply_to": "21652__0_128", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__0_130", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Just--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1366.309], "stop_times": [1367.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1366.309}, "reply_to": "21652__0_129", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_131", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "They each have their problems.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1367.219], "stop_times": [1368.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1367.219}, "reply_to": "21652__0_130", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__0_132", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Just in terms of... of policy, I think any rule you adopt that's not mechanical and doesn't let people know on the front end whether they're tolling or not, there's going to be floods of protective filings.\nNow, the... the rule like... a rule which is... which... where they know going in and whether they're going to be tolled or not, then they can say plead... litigate in State court becoming... before coming to Federal court.\nAnd Duncan v. Walker was very clear that the court doesn't want lots of people filing prematurely.\nIf I could, I'd like to turn to equitable tolling.\nAs Chief District Judge Giles found, that it would be an extraordinary deprivation of rights and patently unfair to deny tolling in Federal review here, he found... Judge Giles found that if Mr. Pace had filed a Federal habeas petition instead of his PCRA petition, Judge Giles would have dismissed it and required him to do exactly what he did, which is to seek State remedies under the PCRA.\nAs Judge Giles found, Mr. Pace acted diligently and appropriately under the circumstances.\nIt seems this is a clear case for equitable tolling.\nThis is a case where--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1368.909, 1380.965, 1393.679, 1400.777, 1404.203, 1428.641, 1433.804, 1437.64], "stop_times": [1380.965, 1393.679, 1400.777, 1404.203, 1428.641, 1433.804, 1437.64, 1438.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1368.909}, "reply_to": "21652__0_131", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_133", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "The circumstances included the fact that he sat on this thing for 3 years.\nHe could have brought it 3 years earlier, couldn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1438.262, 1442.015], "stop_times": [1442.015, 1444.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1438.262}, "reply_to": "21652__0_132", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_134", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--You're talking about the time from the first PCRA--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1444.616], "stop_times": [1448.126], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1444.616}, "reply_to": "21652__0_133", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_135", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "The claim, yes, that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1448.126], "stop_times": [1448.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1448.126}, "reply_to": "21652__0_134", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_136", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1448.347], "stop_times": [1448.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1448.347}, "reply_to": "21652__0_135", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_137", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "So... when... when you... when you fold that into the circumstances, it doesn't seem to me an overwhelming case for equitable tolling.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1448.885], "stop_times": [1457.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1448.885}, "reply_to": "21652__0_136", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_138", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "I have, I think, four responses to that.\nFirst, Mr. Pace was not sitting on his hands for these 4 years.\nThis is a man who entered prison at age 17, barely educated, barely literate, drug-addled.\nThis is not someone who was prepared to litigate on his own when he came into prison.\nThis is someone who... whose legal papers were destroyed by the prison.\nThis is someone who was without counsel for that entire time that you're talking about.\nThis is someone who had very limited access to a law library throughout that time.\nMr. Pace spent those years teaching himself how to do law which he--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1457.801, 1460.13, 1463.374, 1469.895, 1474.332, 1478.44, 1482.777, 1487.607], "stop_times": [1460.13, 1463.374, 1469.895, 1474.332, 1478.44, 1482.777, 1487.607, 1493.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1457.801}, "reply_to": "21652__0_137", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_139", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--take a whole lot to figure out that you have a claim where your lawyer told you... you weren't going up for life and it turned out you were sent up for life.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1493.551], "stop_times": [1503.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.551}, "reply_to": "21652__0_138", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_140", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--In fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1503.043], "stop_times": [1504.036], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1503.043}, "reply_to": "21652__0_139", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_141", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "I mean, what does it take if... can a 17-year-old figure that something has gone wrong here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1504.036], "stop_times": [1508.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1504.036}, "reply_to": "21652__0_140", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__0_142", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Well, in fact, that... that claim was litigated... litigated in the first petition, and in fact, he didn't think of that.\nIf you look at his pro se PCHA petition, he didn't know that was a claim.\nIt's a... it's a form that he filled out and handed in and appointed counsel came up with that claim in the first post-conviction proceeding.\nThis is much more complex than that.\nIf you look at his briefs, which are in the joint appendix, Pennsylvania had a very complex system of law here where they had statutory bar rules but they had judicial exceptions to those rules.\nAnd it's not an easy matter for someone to figure that out.\nMr. Pace educated himself.\nJust compare the pro se pleading filed in 1992 to what he filed in 1996, and you can see what he did during these 4 years.\nThe other... the other... just... my light is on, but just the other things I'd like to mention about that are that keep in mind, during this time there were no time limits on filing in either State or Federal court.\nThe commonwealth has never alleged any prejudice from this time, and there's never been any allegation that Mr. Pace acted in bad faith and with any... any intent to delay.\nIn fact, this is someone who wanted to get his claims heard, wanted to figure out how to do it right, and did figure out how to do it right in the end.\nI would like to reserve the rest of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1508.783, 1514.477, 1518.73, 1526.278, 1528.068, 1538.792, 1541.764, 1545.851, 1553.737, 1566.119, 1576.111, 1583.58], "stop_times": [1514.477, 1518.73, 1526.278, 1528.068, 1538.792, 1541.764, 1545.851, 1553.737, 1566.119, 1576.111, 1583.58, 1585.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1508.783}, "reply_to": "21652__0_141", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_143", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "You may.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1585.438], "stop_times": [1586.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1585.438}, "reply_to": "21652__0_142", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21652__0_144", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1586.06], "stop_times": [1586.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1586.06}, "reply_to": "21652__0_143", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__0_145", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Mr. Eisenberg.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1586.924], "stop_times": [1590.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1586.924}, "reply_to": "21652__0_144", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21652__1_000", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nI'd like to address the structure of the Pennsylvania filing deadlines for post-conviction review because I think they shed some light and need some discussion here.\nWhat Pennsylvania did was to establish a 1-year, flat time limit that applies to everybody.\n1 year from conviction.\nIt's automatic.\nIt doesn't matter what the nature of your claims are.\nIt doesn't matter when you discovered your claim.\nIn order to comply with that time limit, all you have to do is file a post-conviction petition within 1 year of finality.\nThe rest of the statute is essentially a separate set of filing deadlines for petitioners, for successive petitioners, for people who either have already had one round of post-conviction review or who haven't bothered to pursue it.\nThose people, said the legislature, are only going to be entitled to further post-conviction review, to additional rounds of post-conviction review if they fall into a particular class of claim that couldn't have been raised earlier.\nAnd... and the legislature identified three classes that mirror the three provisions in the Federal statute of limitations.\nAnd if the petitioner falls within any of those classes, he then has 60 days from the time that that claim arose in order to come into court.\nNow, if a petitioner files a post-conviction petition and he's within a year of finality, those so-called exceptions don't come into play.\nThey don't apply.\nHe doesn't need to meet them.\nThose are for the second petitioner.\nSo what Pennsylvania really has is a two-level system of statutes of... of filing limitations.\nAnd of course, in order for the court to determine whether the petitioner has met the filing deadline, he has to look at these three classes for someone who has passed 1 year from finality.\nThat's not an exception in the way I think that the petitioner and some of the lower courts have used the term at all.\nThese are simply different kinds of filing limits.\nAnd of course, the court has to look at the statute and the nature of the claims to see whether review is available and to see whether the petitioner has sought review within the proper time.\nNothing about that system makes those so-called exceptions not time limits.\nThey're still time limits, and if you don't file in time and come within one of those classes, then the second petition, successive petition time limits don't apply to you and you're out of time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1590.639, 1594.149, 1603.52, 1609.647, 1611.61, 1612.065, 1613.923, 1616.235, 1622.634, 1637.04, 1649.838, 1656.814, 1665.481, 1676.133, 1677.148, 1678.65, 1680.591, 1687.4, 1698.424, 1706.226, 1709.114, 1719.906, 1724.552], "stop_times": [1594.149, 1603.52, 1609.647, 1611.61, 1612.065, 1613.923, 1616.235, 1622.634, 1637.04, 1649.838, 1656.814, 1665.481, 1676.133, 1677.148, 1678.65, 1680.591, 1687.4, 1698.424, 1706.226, 1709.114, 1719.906, 1724.552, 1735.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1590.639}, "reply_to": "21652__0_145", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_001", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, but if we accept your position, it seems to me that the State prisoners are going to have to go once to Federal court and then they're... they're going to run into an exhaustion requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1735.205], "stop_times": [1745.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1735.205}, "reply_to": "21652__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__1_002", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, they're not going to run into an exhaustion requirement, Your Honor, because if they've already been through one round of State post-conviction review, then they are unlikely to be able to exhaust more claims because there's a... there's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1745.152], "stop_times": [1758.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1745.152}, "reply_to": "21652__1_001", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_003", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, we're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1758.527], "stop_times": [1759.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1758.527}, "reply_to": "21652__1_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__1_004", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--1-year time limit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1759.104], "stop_times": [1759.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1759.104}, "reply_to": "21652__1_003", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_005", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--we're assuming a late-discovered claim that's within AEDPA.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1759.476], "stop_times": [1763.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1759.476}, "reply_to": "21652__1_004", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__1_006", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "That's right.\nAnd so the question is whether... and what petitioner is really saying is that the AEDPA 1-year time limit should be suspended essentially indefinitely as long as the petitioner wants to argue that he may have some late-discovered claim in State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1763.069, 1763.691], "stop_times": [1763.691, 1778.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1763.069}, "reply_to": "21652__1_005", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_007", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "It... it's my... I still have a feeling that this is a limited universe.\nNow, my reason for thinking that is that the Federal statute says you have to file within a year of... and then it lists four dates.\nAnd the middle two are special new cases, unusual probably.\nThe first one and the fourth one are the important ones.\nThe first one is final in the State courts, your first round, and the fourth one is newly discovered evidence.\nNow, my guess is most States also allow you for collateral... to file collateral relief in those two circumstances.\nAnd in most States probably you get nearly a year from the same kind of event.\nSo if you go after the year, you're out of luck in Federal court.\nIf you're within the year, you're probably okay for the State.\nBut there are a few States that have... maybe Pennsylvania... just 60 days from one of the events, newly discovered evidence, but a year for the Federal.\nSo we're talking about people who file between 2 and 12 months.\nThat... that must be a pretty limited class.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1778.096, 1781.523, 1792.092, 1796.467, 1799.439, 1805.672, 1813.557, 1819.956, 1824.431, 1827.963, 1837.623, 1842.331], "stop_times": [1781.523, 1792.092, 1796.467, 1799.439, 1805.672, 1813.557, 1819.956, 1824.431, 1827.963, 1837.623, 1842.331, 1845.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1778.096}, "reply_to": "21652__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__1_008", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "It's... it's not, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1845.591], "stop_times": [1846.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1845.591}, "reply_to": "21652__1_007", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_009", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "It's not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1846.789], "stop_times": [1847.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1846.789}, "reply_to": "21652__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__1_010", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "And... and the reason that it's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1847.282], "stop_times": [1848.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1847.282}, "reply_to": "21652__1_009", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_011", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "But have I got it right?\nHave I got this complicated thing right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1848.934, 1850.049], "stop_times": [1850.049, 1851.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1848.934}, "reply_to": "21652__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__1_012", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Only... it's... that is true only for successive petitioners.\nFor people who aren't satisfied with the round of direct appeal and a round of first... of post-conviction review in State court.\nAnd so the question is whether the Federal statute should be interpreted in a way that essentially writes off the State's time requirements for the successive petitioner so that we can make sure that the successive petitioner can exhaust whatever new claims he wants to come up with in State court before he comes to Federal Circuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1851.907, 1855.706, 1862.515], "stop_times": [1855.706, 1862.515, 1880.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1851.907}, "reply_to": "21652__1_011", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_013", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Now, let's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1880.348], "stop_times": [1880.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1880.348}, "reply_to": "21652__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__1_014", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "What do I do it in a State where there is a plausible close question of whether or not the successive petition is barred in the State court?\nAnd I interrupted Justice Breyer, but I... I think it's along the same line.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1880.598, 1889.43], "stop_times": [1889.43, 1894.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1880.598}, "reply_to": "21652__1_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__1_015", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "The... the general rule... and this is implicit I think in the fact that Congress passed a statute of limitations.\nThe general rule is that the petitioner is entitled to whatever he automatically gets in State court in order to exhaust a universe of claims, not all possible claims, but whatever claims can be exhausted within those guaranteed rounds of review.\nAt that point, he should go to Federal court.\nIf new claims arise after that, then Congress specifically provided for them in the second and successive petition procedure that it has in the Federal statute.\nThe way that would interact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1894.073, 1900.0, 1912.382, 1914.239, 1923.173], "stop_times": [1900.0, 1912.382, 1914.239, 1923.173, 1924.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1894.073}, "reply_to": "21652__1_014", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_016", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "But no... there's still an exhaustion requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1924.353], "stop_times": [1926.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1924.353}, "reply_to": "21652__1_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__1_017", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--The way that would interact with... for exhaustion purposes with a State like Pennsylvania is this.\nThe petitioner finishes his direct review.\nHe finishes his post-conviction review.\nHe has a set of clearly exhausted claims.\nHe files a fully exhausted petition in Federal court.\nNo Rose v. Lundy problem.\nIf a new claim arises at that point, then he has to go to State court and try to exhaust that claim in State court.\nHe can do that while a Federal petition is pending or even after a first Federal petition has already been disposed of.\nIn fact, he may have to because the claim may not arise before the end of litigation in Federal court.\nWhen he gets to State court, he's either going to be deemed timely or not.\nActually the fact that we have a 60-day time limit as opposed to a whole year helps him because it helps make it clear to him that he's got to come to State court at a point where he's really got a long time left to deal with Federal court because he's going to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1926.954, 1931.246, 1934.08, 1936.176, 1938.677, 1942.27, 1944.332, 1951.474, 1958.012, 1963.28, 1967.367], "stop_times": [1931.246, 1934.08, 1936.176, 1938.677, 1942.27, 1944.332, 1951.474, 1958.012, 1963.28, 1967.367, 1979.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1926.954}, "reply_to": "21652__1_016", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_018", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "But isn't there a wrinkle to this?\nIsn't the wrinkle that even in cases in which you and I might say patently he's going to be out of time if he goes back to Federal court, the Third Circuit is requiring him to go there anyway, go through the formality of formal exhaustion, if you will, before they'll consider it?\nAnd isn't that a basis at least for equitable tolling?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [1979.877, 1981.13, 2000.327], "stop_times": [1981.13, 2000.327, 2003.504], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1979.877}, "reply_to": "21652__1_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21652__1_019", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--With respect to your argument, the answer is absolutely not.\nFirst of all, as you have just observed, that's really an argument that goes to equitable tolling.\nEven petitioner doesn't bring in the Third Circuit law with respect to statutory tolling, with respect to understanding the... the language of the statute.\nAs to equitable tolling, however, the factual premise is wrong.\nIt's not true that the Third Circuit forces the defendant to go back to State court no matter what.\nIn fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2003.504, 2005.611, 2010.108, 2017.417, 2020.965, 2026.621], "stop_times": [2005.611, 2010.108, 2017.417, 2020.965, 2026.621, 2026.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2003.504}, "reply_to": "21652__1_018", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_020", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Okay.\nHelp me... help me out here because I... I just don't remember well enough.\nI thought that's what Judge Giles was getting at when he said, you know, he would have been thrown out if he hadn't gone through the State procedure.\nSo help me out.\nIs that what he was getting at or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2026.871, 2027.093, 2030.336, 2037.767, 2038.304], "stop_times": [2027.093, 2030.336, 2037.767, 2038.304, 2039.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2026.871}, "reply_to": "21652__1_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21652__1_021", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--That is what he was getting at but at a limited point in time, and the whole question for equitable tolling purposes was at what point in time.\nNobody argues that the Third Circuit still is making everybody go back and do it no matter what.\nWhat the petitioner argued was that the Third Circuit case law, as of 1997 when he was first starting his second round of post-conviction review in State court, as of that time, he says, the Third Circuit case law said you have to go back no matter what even though Pennsylvania has a... this new statute of limitations.\nThat's not what the Third Circuit says, though.\nAnd all the cases that the petitioner relies on primarily... he cites a... a case called Doctor, a case called Banks, a case called Lambert.\nAll of those cases were decided before the Pennsylvania courts began applying the new jurisdictional time bar in State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2039.873, 2046.477, 2052.05, 2071.248, 2073.226, 2081.4], "stop_times": [2046.477, 2052.05, 2071.248, 2073.226, 2081.4, 2090.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2039.873}, "reply_to": "21652__1_020", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_022", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "If that means the petitioner was wrong, doesn't it also mean that Judge Giles is wrong, and if Judge Giles can't figure it out, isn't there a pretty good argument that the petitioner ought to get equitable tolling?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2090.317], "stop_times": [2098.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2090.317}, "reply_to": "21652__1_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21652__1_023", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, there are a number of problems with the equitable tolling, Your Honor.\nBut even taking that main one, that the petitioner made a mistake of law, that he didn't figure out correctly whether he was supposed to go back to State court, even on that point, Your Honor, that's not grounds for equitable tolling.\nYou take a risk when you make a legal argument that it will fail.\nThis legal argument was controlled entirely by State law, and what the Third Circuit, as opposed to Judge Giles who was reversed by the Third Circuit said, is that you have to look back to State law.\nWhat the Third Circuit has said... and the... one of the cases cited in our brief at page 49 is Walker v. Frank.\nChief Judge Becker said no, we're not going to give equitable tolling to these defendants because at the very latest... at the very latest... they had to know by December of 1997 that they were going to be time-barred in State court.\nThis petitioner filed--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2098.945, 2102.084, 2112.941, 2116.656, 2127.097, 2132.92, 2147.492], "stop_times": [2102.084, 2112.941, 2116.656, 2127.097, 2132.92, 2147.492, 2148.607], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2098.945}, "reply_to": "21652__1_022", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_024", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "But... but Judge Giles didn't understand it either.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2148.607], "stop_times": [2151.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.607}, "reply_to": "21652__1_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21652__1_025", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Judge Giles didn't say that... that the State law would never in the future be applied to these defendants.\nHe said at this early time it was still unclear whether it would be applied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2151.125, 2157.069], "stop_times": [2157.069, 2161.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2151.125}, "reply_to": "21652__1_024", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_026", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "So far as this case is concerned, yes.\nAnd... and so if Judge Giles got it wrong, isn't there a pretty good argument for equitable tolling when the petitioner gets it wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2161.694, 2162.892], "stop_times": [2162.892, 2171.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2161.694}, "reply_to": "21652__1_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21652__1_027", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "What there is is an argument that he had an argument to make in Federal court that he was not... that he was still going to have the opportunity to go back to State court.\nBut the problem is that Federal courts can't decide for the States how their time bars are going to be applied.\nAnd if instead they said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2171.47, 2180.353, 2186.048], "stop_times": [2180.353, 2186.048, 2187.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2171.47}, "reply_to": "21652__1_026", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_028", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "But... but this argument is not trying to decide for the States.\nThis argument basically is if nobody can figure it out, including a Federal district judge, at least give me the benefit of the doubt with equitable tolling.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2187.784, 2190.589], "stop_times": [2190.589, 2198.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2187.784}, "reply_to": "21652__1_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21652__1_029", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--It's not true that nobody could figure it out, Your Honor.\nIn fact, all the cases that the petitioner cites in his brief from Federal district court judges who were sending defendants back to State court during this period because they said, well, maybe you'll get exhaustion anyway, maybe you'll be able to exhaust claims, of those cases that are cited in the brief, most of them are from the same one judge who kept saying the same thing over and over.\nSeveral of the other cases didn't even talk about the State time bar, and at that same period of time, there were other district judges who weren't sending defendants back, who were saying there's a new State time bar, you're barred in State court, and therefore, if you want to raise this claim in Federal court, you can, but you face procedural default.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2198.929, 2201.075, 2220.206], "stop_times": [2201.075, 2220.206, 2238.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2198.929}, "reply_to": "21652__1_028", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_030", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "But if he had gone into the Federal court he went into, and he had not gone through this State procedure, he would have been turfed out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2238.022], "stop_times": [2247.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2238.022}, "reply_to": "21652__1_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21652__1_031", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "You can't get equitable tolling, Your Honor, our position would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2247.431], "stop_times": [2250.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2247.431}, "reply_to": "21652__1_030", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_032", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, answer that question--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2250.199], "stop_times": [2251.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2250.199}, "reply_to": "21652__1_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21652__1_033", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2251.414], "stop_times": [2251.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2251.414}, "reply_to": "21652__1_032", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_034", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--before you tell me what the consequence is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2251.768], "stop_times": [2253.254], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2251.768}, "reply_to": "21652__1_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21652__1_035", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "No.\nThat's what Judge Giles said many years after the fact.\nDo we know that's what Judge Giles would have ruled at the time?\nPerhaps.\nBut there are other judges, Federal judges, who were ruling otherwise at the time, and the Third Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2253.254, 2253.337, 2256.105, 2258.667, 2259.243], "stop_times": [2253.337, 2256.105, 2258.667, 2259.243, 2264.073], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2253.254}, "reply_to": "21652__1_034", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_036", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, I mean, don't... don't we have to take Judge Giles' statement as being a statement in good faith unless there is a pretty darned good reason not to?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2264.073], "stop_times": [2271.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.073}, "reply_to": "21652__1_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21652__1_037", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--The point is, Your Honor, that that's not the test for equitable tolling.\nThere are all sorts of arguments that a defendant can make about why the law is unclear.\nIt wouldn't have had to depend on the Federal court's understanding of this particular State law.\nA defendant could come along and he could say, well, I'm unclear about the application of (d)(2).\nI've got circuits like the Ninth Circuit who tell me that even if my petition is blatantly untimely in State court, it still tolls.\nI filed, knowing I was untimely in State court, because the Ninth Circuit tells me that I'm still going to get tolling, and now you tell me I'm not going to get tolling?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2271.875, 2275.673, 2279.927, 2283.575, 2288.965, 2295.531], "stop_times": [2275.673, 2279.927, 2283.575, 2288.965, 2295.531, 2303.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2271.875}, "reply_to": "21652__1_036", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_038", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--All right.\nLet's suppose to get away from it... can I go... are you finished with equitable tolling because I want to go back to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2303.826, 2304.197], "stop_times": [2304.197, 2308.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2303.826}, "reply_to": "21652__1_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__1_039", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, I... I have... there are some... really some... some threshold problems with equitable tolling that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2308.284], "stop_times": [2312.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2308.284}, "reply_to": "21652__1_038", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_040", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--I... I have a general question which is not Pennsylvania.\nI've looked up or got a rough idea of the statute of limitations for a first petition in many States, and most of them are a year or more.\nSo there's no problem.\nBut 11 have less than a year, and in particular, Oklahoma has 3 months apparently.\nAnd Oklahoma is... a lot of death cases come out of Oklahoma.\nSo what rule would... where I have to have... I focus on Oklahoma for the reason that I think this has bite only in death cases because I don't see why anybody would want to abuse the system except in a death case.\nBut there are a lot there.\nNow, am I supposed to say in Oklahoma which has the 90 days but exceptions, that where somebody has filed a petition in State court, let's say, on the 180th day, and he thinks an exception applies, is he supposed to also run to Federal court and file a protective petition which could well have been dismissed on exhaustion grounds?\nWhat's he supposed to do and how is he supposed to know what to do?\nAnd one system that might work is Justice Scalia's idea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2312.825, 2316.54, 2325.168, 2326.283, 2331.772, 2335.654, 2349.317, 2350.986, 2375.035, 2378.295], "stop_times": [2316.54, 2325.168, 2326.283, 2331.772, 2335.654, 2349.317, 2350.986, 2375.035, 2378.295, 2382.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.825}, "reply_to": "21652__1_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__1_041", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Well, it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2382.465], "stop_times": [2383.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2382.465}, "reply_to": "21652__1_040", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_042", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Another that might work is... is requiring in death cases that it be a... a plausible ground or something like that.\nI want to know your opinion of how to deal with that circumstance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2383.125, 2389.729], "stop_times": [2389.729, 2392.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2383.125}, "reply_to": "21652__1_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__1_043", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--It certainly shouldn't be a plausible ground test, and even the petitioner agrees with that position, Your Honor.\nAnd it certainly would work if we adopted, as I think Congress did, a system like the one that Justice Scalia spelled out because then the defendant knows.\nAnd I'd like to get back, as I was discussing with Justice Kennedy, to what the defendant knows.\nHe knows that if he's outside the time that he's guaranteed automatic review, whether direct appeal or State review, State post-conviction review, that his chances of exhausting more claims in State court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2392.33, 2396.5, 2405.045, 2409.791], "stop_times": [2396.5, 2405.045, 2409.791, 2420.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2392.33}, "reply_to": "21652__1_042", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_044", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Actually most prisoners are not represented, I don't think, at this stage.\nThey... they haven't a clue about the word exhaustion, and they haven't a clue about the statute of limitations.\nSo they file a... a paper in... in the State court, and they say this roughly is what my problem is.\nIs that what happens, or are they all quite educated?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2420.898, 2424.818, 2431.051, 2437.45], "stop_times": [2424.818, 2431.051, 2437.45, 2439.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2420.898}, "reply_to": "21652__1_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__1_045", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Your Honor, the... the Congress that passed this statute of limitations is the same Congress that made the decision about whether habeas petitioners would be appointed counsel or not.\nSo to say that we can't really apply the statute of limitations because it would be unfair as to those petitioners who are unrepresented would be essentially to undercut the statute of limitations--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2439.679, 2451.568], "stop_times": [2451.568, 2461.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2439.679}, "reply_to": "21652__1_044", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_046", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "I'm trying to get from you what is your opinion of a practical approach to this problem in Oklahoma, say.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2461.144], "stop_times": [2466.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2461.144}, "reply_to": "21652__1_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21652__1_047", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--The practical approach to the problem is to look at the statute that says you have a year.\nIf you file your petition within that year, whatever you've got at the end of that year, you can take to Federal court and be confident that it's exhausted.\nIf you want to do something after that year, you can't be confident anymore.\nAll you have to do is... is count a year.\nNow, if something comes up after that time, you're supposed to go to State court first, even if you've got something in Federal court.\nThis statute of limitations isn't supposed to be interpreted in order to make the Federal successive petitions standard moot and unnecessary.\nIt exists for a reason.\nSo if a... if a claim arises at a later point, after you have finished your guaranteed review in State court, go back to State court, whether or not you've got something pending in Federal court.\nDon't put that new claim in with your old claims in Federal court because then you have a mixed petition.\nIf you get exhaustion in State court, whether you're timely or untimely, you're going to exhaust.\nYou can then go back to Federal court with a request for a successive petition.\nIt... that's what you have to do and that's appropriate because that's how Congress set up the statute, with the 1-year filing deadline and... and a provision for successive petitions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2466.884, 2470.887, 2478.705, 2482.609, 2485.664, 2492.723, 2500.404, 2501.602, 2511.921, 2517.288, 2522.035, 2526.122], "stop_times": [2470.887, 2478.705, 2482.609, 2485.664, 2492.723, 2500.404, 2501.602, 2511.921, 2517.288, 2522.035, 2526.122, 2536.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2466.884}, "reply_to": "21652__1_046", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_048", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "May I ask how you would handle a case that is a successive petition, a late... a recently found claim, and the... filed beyond the statute of limitations but the State has three exceptions to the statute, but it does not require that the... the petitioner identify the exception in the petition?\nIt just allows it for the judge to decide.\nWould there be tolling during the period in which the judge decided whether or not the petition was timely in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2536.524, 2554.523, 2557.041], "stop_times": [2554.523, 2557.041, 2563.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2536.524}, "reply_to": "21652__1_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21652__1_049", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "No, Your Honor, because all the court is doing is deciding whether the time bar applies, and in order... in a State that has those kind of categories, what the court is, in effect, doing is deciding what kind of time limit applies to this particular petition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2563.811], "stop_times": [2577.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2563.811}, "reply_to": "21652__1_048", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_050", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "And even if it takes a year or so to make that decision, you'd say no tolling.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2577.27], "stop_times": [2580.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.27}, "reply_to": "21652__1_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21652__1_051", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Your Honor, that's really true of every kind of statute of limitations issue that can come up.\nTake away those three exceptions.\nJust have the 1-year flat time bar.\nDoes that mean that the State court isn't going to have to take some time to look at it and decide?\nWhat if there's a prisoner mailbox question?\nWhat if there's an amendment question of the type that this Court just granted cert on last month in Mayle v. Felix?\nWhat if there's a question about how to compute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2580.818, 2584.616, 2586.308, 2588.331, 2592.623, 2594.731, 2600.425], "stop_times": [2584.616, 2586.308, 2588.331, 2592.623, 2594.731, 2600.425, 2602.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2580.818}, "reply_to": "21652__1_050", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_052", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "And in all of those questions, you'd say there would be no tolling in order to find out whether it was timely or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2602.383], "stop_times": [2606.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.383}, "reply_to": "21652__1_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21652__1_053", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--That's right because during that time, the State court is deciding on timeliness, and if it's untimely, it was untimely as of the point of filing.\nThat's what makes it a filing requirement.\nYou take your claim and you file it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2606.803, 2614.066, 2616.108], "stop_times": [2614.066, 2616.108, 2617.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2606.803}, "reply_to": "21652__1_052", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_054", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "But what about the reasoning in Artuz that the application was... if it turns out later it was timely, it would have been properly filed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2617.698], "stop_times": [2625.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2617.698}, "reply_to": "21652__1_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21652__1_055", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nI... I think I understand Artuz to have said that if the application was untimely, then it was not properly filed and it was not properly filed from the get-go, Your Honor.\nThe question that was reserved in Artuz is whether something about exceptions changes that statement in Artuz.\nAnd my response is that certainly nothing about the kind of exceptions that were present in this case changed the response.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2625.212, 2627.608, 2635.531, 2642.136], "stop_times": [2627.608, 2635.531, 2642.136, 2647.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2625.212}, "reply_to": "21652__1_054", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_056", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "No, but if I understand you correctly, you're saying that even if it takes the judge 6 months to decide whether it was timely, if he ends up with the conclusion that it was not timely, there would be no tolling for that 6-month period.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2647.709], "stop_times": [2658.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2647.709}, "reply_to": "21652__1_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21652__1_057", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nNow, in Pennsylvania, of course, all you have to do to be timely is file within the 1 year.\nAnd whatever you've exhausted is done.\nThat... I'd like to go from that into expanding more on the equitable tolling because I think that that plays in here.\nThis defendant had two rounds.\nThe first round was 4 years, not even just 3, but I believe closer to 4 years before there was a filing deadline in either State court or Federal court.\nNow, when you decide to wait... he didn't have a filing deadline, but when you decide to wait, you take your chances.\nThere's a rule that's even more immutable than time limits or jurisdiction, and it is that things change.\nWhen you wait, you take the risk that your evidence may change, the facts may change, the law may change.\nThat's what happened to this defendant while he sat and did nothing.\nHe says he was learning the law during that period.\nWell, then would it... is it just 4 years?\nWhat if it had taken him 8 years or 12 years to learn the law?\nHe had the filing deadline that came up.\nHe never claimed that he didn't understand what it was.\nHe could have beaten any of those filing deadlines in State or Federal court.\nHe says, I have no incentive for delay.\nI'm not a capital defendant.\nAll I wanted was a speedy resolution of my claims.\nBut in that case, he didn't need a filing deadline to make himself come to court.\nThe fact is that there are thousands of cases in which noncapital defendants file these kinds of late petitions, and the State courts are trying to deal with them.\nAnd this is the way that Pennsylvania chose to try to deal with the problem in State court, in its State courts, not just for capital cases, but for noncapital cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2658.566, 2659.476, 2663.867, 2666.285, 2672.684, 2674.913, 2682.632, 2688.742, 2693.672, 2698.857, 2701.929, 2704.18, 2706.12, 2709.192, 2711.982, 2714.089, 2717.554, 2719.662, 2721.148, 2723.87, 2727.957, 2736.768], "stop_times": [2659.476, 2663.867, 2666.285, 2672.684, 2674.913, 2682.632, 2688.742, 2693.672, 2698.857, 2701.929, 2704.18, 2706.12, 2709.192, 2711.982, 2714.089, 2717.554, 2719.662, 2721.148, 2723.87, 2727.957, 2736.768, 2745.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2658.566}, "reply_to": "21652__1_056", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_058", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Why... why are there thousands of cases in which noncapital defendants file this type of case?\nWhat... what incentives do noncapital defendants have to drag it on?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2745.13, 2752.643], "stop_times": [2752.643, 2757.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2745.13}, "reply_to": "21652__1_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21652__1_059", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "The incentive that they have to drag it on is that they may come up with a new legal theory that attracts a... a court that they didn't present before, that new facts may come up, may arise that they try to argue.\nThat's what this defendant did, although they weren't really new.\nThey were facts that were available to him as of the... the day of his guilty plea in 1986.\nHe claimed that they were new.\nAnd if there's no cost to doing that, if in fact there may be a benefit to doing that, then why not?\nIf--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2757.018, 2768.164, 2770.576, 2774.851, 2776.254, 2782.177], "stop_times": [2768.164, 2770.576, 2774.851, 2776.254, 2782.177, 2782.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2757.018}, "reply_to": "21652__1_058", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_060", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "It seems... it seems intuitive also that the prosecution's witnesses will be difficult to locate and so forth.\nHas... has there been anything written about that, about prejudice to the prosecution from... from delay, or is it just something we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2782.57, 2787.855], "stop_times": [2787.855, 2793.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2782.57}, "reply_to": "21652__1_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__1_061", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Well, it's certainly something that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2793.716], "stop_times": [2795.535], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2793.716}, "reply_to": "21652__1_060", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_062", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--we take judicial notice of?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2795.535], "stop_times": [2796.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2795.535}, "reply_to": "21652__1_061", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21652__1_063", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--It's certainly something that any prosecutor would tell you, Your Honor.\nThis... this crime occurred 20 years ago in 1985.\nAnd this was a relatively simple case.\nA police officer came on to the scene while the defendant was bashing the head of the victim with a nightstick.\nBut even in a simple case, you're going to have problems of proof, and the party with the primary problems of proof is the party with the burden of proof, and that's the prosecution.\nSo, of course, there's going to be a problem for the prosecution, and that's why we adopt... one of the reasons that we adopt this kind time limit.\nEven once the petitioner did come back to State court, though, Your Honor... and this gets back to the questions that Justice O'Connor was raising initially... he raised essentially the same claims.\nHe says, well, this time around, I put them in a different guise, different facts in support of my claim about my guilty plea, different legal labels.\nYes, but all in the context of... of ineffective assistance because the only way he could get into court a second time for a second round of post-conviction review in Pennsylvania was to say that my lawyer at my first round of State post-conviction review was ineffective.\nHe didn't attach these affidavits from my mother and father.\nHe didn't call it due process instead of whatever else he called it.\nNow, petitioner could make those--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2796.316, 2798.728, 2802.343, 2805.315, 2811.177, 2819.516, 2826.592, 2837.366, 2845.707, 2860.589, 2863.372, 2867.005], "stop_times": [2798.728, 2802.343, 2805.315, 2811.177, 2819.516, 2826.592, 2837.366, 2845.707, 2860.589, 2863.372, 2867.005, 2868.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2796.316}, "reply_to": "21652__1_062", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_064", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, he also raised an... an entirely different claim, didn't he?\nI mean, it goes to ultimately the same point, but he raised the claim that the court had not engaged in an adequate colloquy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2868.491, 2871.274], "stop_times": [2871.274, 2876.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2868.491}, "reply_to": "21652__1_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21652__1_065", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--The reason the colloquy wasn't adequate is precisely for the same reason that he was attacking his lawyers, in the petitioner's view, that it didn't explain to him the meaning of a life sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2876.459], "stop_times": [2884.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2876.459}, "reply_to": "21652__1_064", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_066", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Right.\nBut that... the... I mean, it's a different claim.\nThe judge has an independent responsibility.\nIt's not the lawyer's responsibility.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2884.738, 2885.004, 2887.454, 2889.817], "stop_times": [2885.004, 2887.454, 2889.817, 2892.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2884.738}, "reply_to": "21652__1_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21652__1_067", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Your Honor, that's a claim that was waived if it was not presented in the first--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2892.911], "stop_times": [2896.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2892.911}, "reply_to": "21652__1_066", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_068", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "That... that may be, but it is a different claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2896.338], "stop_times": [2898.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2896.338}, "reply_to": "21652__1_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21652__1_069", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--But... but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2898.362], "stop_times": [2898.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2898.362}, "reply_to": "21652__1_068", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_070", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "It is not the claim of ineffective assistance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2898.938], "stop_times": [2901.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2898.938}, "reply_to": "21652__1_069", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21652__1_071", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--But the only way that the petitioner could exhaust that claim in State court on a second round of post-conviction review would be to put it in terms of ineffective assistance of first post-conviction counsel.\nAnd, of course, he can't then take that claim and come to Federal court because claims of the ineffectiveness of post-conviction counsel are not cognizable on Federal habeas review.\nSo not only did he wait 4 years when he had no filing deadline impediments to come to court, but he then raised in State court claims that he couldn't have turned into exhausted Federal claims anyway in order to add to what was available to him, to the universe of claims that were available to him after his initial round of State post-conviction review.\nAnd we're talking about equitable tolling for somebody who only has a problem because of his own inaction for 4 years and who even then spent another 3 years in State court on claims that he couldn't bring to State court, and even then, in the face of developing State law about the time bar, refused to look at it.\nSo not only did we have a statute that says you're in trouble, you're time-barred now--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2901.539, 2912.274, 2923.253, 2944.346, 2963.022], "stop_times": [2912.274, 2923.253, 2944.346, 2963.022, 2967.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2901.539}, "reply_to": "21652__1_070", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_072", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Just sa a matter of curiosity, is the transcript of the plea colloquy still available?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2967.176], "stop_times": [2971.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2967.176}, "reply_to": "21652__1_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21652__1_073", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nIt's in the appendix.\nAnd what the judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2971.013, 2971.55, 2972.665], "stop_times": [2971.55, 2972.665, 2973.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2971.013}, "reply_to": "21652__1_072", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_074", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "And was there the constitutional violation he alleges?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2973.78], "stop_times": [2976.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2973.78}, "reply_to": "21652__1_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21652__1_075", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--What the judge said three times is, you understand that your sentence will be life, and the petitioner said yes each time.\nNow, his claim later on... and he's right.\nHe didn't think that was his claim when he filed his first post-conviction review petition in 1986.\nHe just thought his claim was that his plea was involuntary.\nOnce he got counsel appointed, it turned out that his claim was, oh, my lawyer didn't specifically... neither my lawyer nor the judge specifically told me that by life they meant life as opposed to something less than life.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [2976.009, 2983.318, 2985.463, 2991.695, 2994.213], "stop_times": [2983.318, 2985.463, 2991.695, 2994.213, 3006.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2976.009}, "reply_to": "21652__1_074", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_076", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "The irony of this whole proceeding is it seems to me it would be a lot easier to decide the merits of that claim if the transcript is available than to get into all these issues--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [3006.102], "stop_times": [3013.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3006.102}, "reply_to": "21652__1_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21652__1_077", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Well, but, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [3013.904], "stop_times": [3014.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3013.904}, "reply_to": "21652__1_076", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_078", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--we have today.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [3014.441], "stop_times": [3015.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3014.441}, "reply_to": "21652__1_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21652__1_079", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nThat's what happened.\nThat claim was litigated on the first round of post-conviction review and the State courts rejected it because of the transcript of the colloquy.\nThe defendant could have taken that claim to Federal court in 1992.\nHe just didn't.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [3015.034, 3015.64, 3016.649, 3024.806, 3028.438, 3029.636], "stop_times": [3015.64, 3016.649, 3024.806, 3028.438, 3029.636, 3030.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3015.034}, "reply_to": "21652__1_078", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_080", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Of course, he's a 17-year-old without any learning in the law.\nHe probably didn't realize there's any requirement that these things have to appear in the transcript.\nI mean, that's understandable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [3030.395, 3032.98, 3037.188], "stop_times": [3032.98, 3037.188, 3038.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3030.395}, "reply_to": "21652__1_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21652__1_081", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "--He... he knew it appeared in the transcript.\nThat was the basis of his claim in... on State post-conviction review.\nHe had not one but two lawyers appointed for that review and he litigated it on up through the State highest court.\nBut even when he came back in 1996, he knew the statute was there.\nHe's never claimed he was confused by the new time bar.\nHe says, I thought I would get some exceptions to it.\nBut then the State court came and said, no, it's jurisdictional, no exceptions.\nDefendant didn't do anything.\nIt was 1997, still 2 years before he filed in Federal court.\nDidn't take note of that State... he took note of it.\nHe acknowledges in his pleadings that he knew about it, but he decided not to go to Federal court anyway.\nMore... more cases come out from the State courts, even the decision in his own court... in his own case from the State's highest court.\nEven when we get to July of 1999 and the State supreme court denies review on the timeliness question in his own case, the petitioner says, even then how was I supposed to know that I wasn't going to get some kind of exception to the State time bar?\nI didn't know that until the next month when another case came out from the State supreme court.\nThis was the third or the fourth from the State supreme court in somebody else's case.\nOnly then in August of 1999 did I finally know that I was time-barred, meaning I knew then that I had never been getting any tolling, that for the last 3 years, I didn't have 1 day of tolling on my Federal claims.\nAnd at that point did he then go to Federal court?\nEven then he didn't.\nEven in August 1999 when the petitioner says, finally I know that I've been out of luck for the last 3 years, that I'm 3 years late to Federal court, does he rush in then?\nNo.\nHe waits another 5 months after August of 1999 to finally come to Federal court and say here's my petition, here's the claims that I've been working on and that I have litigated in State court.\nThat's not equitable tolling, Your Honor.\nIt's not equitable tolling under the circumstances of the specific circumstances of this case, and it's not equitable tolling in general when a petitioner claims essentially I have a mistake of law, I thought that I would win, I knew there were arguments against me, I knew I might lose those arguments, but I really thought I could win, and therefore you should give me equitable tolling while I pursue them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [3038.181, 3039.667, 3043.011, 3048.062, 3052.132, 3054.378, 3056.59, 3060.472, 3062.163, 3065.424, 3068.729, 3073.187, 3080.079, 3095.145, 3100.662, 3104.412, 3116.693, 3120.12, 3121.351, 3131.077, 3131.67, 3144.269, 3146.31], "stop_times": [3039.667, 3043.011, 3048.062, 3052.132, 3054.378, 3056.59, 3060.472, 3062.163, 3065.424, 3068.729, 3073.187, 3080.079, 3095.145, 3100.662, 3104.412, 3116.693, 3120.12, 3121.351, 3131.077, 3131.67, 3144.269, 3146.31, 3166.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3038.181}, "reply_to": "21652__1_080", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_082", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Eisenberg.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [3166.189], "stop_times": [3168.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3166.189}, "reply_to": "21652__1_081", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21652__1_083", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [3168.701], "stop_times": [3168.805], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3168.701}, "reply_to": "21652__1_082", "speaker": "ronald_eisenberg"}
{"id": "21652__1_084", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Mr. Wycoff, you have about 4 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [3168.805], "stop_times": [3172.892], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3168.805}, "reply_to": "21652__1_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21652__2_000", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Several things.\nFirst of all, the respondent said that in the second petition Mr. Pace only presented State law, ineffective assistance of post-conviction claims, which are not Federal claims.\nThat's absolutely not true.\nHe presented the ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel as a waiver-overcoming mechanism not as a substantive claim for relief.\nThe substantive claims were due process claim, ineffective assistance of counsel, and new facts which needed to be exhausted under Third Circuit exhaustion law.\nSecond, respondent suggested and... and the Third Circuit also suggested that State law somehow became clear in mid-December 1997 when the Superior Court, which is Pennsylvania's intermediate court, decided a case called Alcorn.\nAlcorn was the first case to apply the time bar.\nBut the Third Circuit itself, after Alcorn in the Lambert case, held that the... the statutory language of the time bar is not dispositive and you have to exhaust even if you don't meet one of the statutory exceptions because the court may fashion judicial exceptions just like they did for all the other procedural bar rules.\nIn fact, Pennsylvania in the Lambert case, in their opposition to the certiorari petition in May of 1998, said that that's a correct statement of Pennsylvania law, that there are judicially created exceptions, including the miscarriage of justice exception which will probably apply to the time bar, just like they applied to the other statutory bars.\nSo Alcorn did not, even if it could have, since it's an intermediate court, it did not clear up the state of the law.\nThe law did not become clear as to the specific things that Mr. Pace alleged, which is the miscarriage of justice exception under Pennsylvania law and the illegal sentence exception, judicially created exceptions to bar, were not rejected by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court until July of... I'm sorry... August of 1999, which is... by that time Mr. Pace was already out of State court so those... the law became clear in State court after he was already done litigating.\nThe Third Circuit did not actually find the statutory language of the PCRA time bar dispositive of the exhaustion question until March of 2000.\nThe district courts, not just Judge Giles, Chief Judge Giles' 20 years experience on the bench, not just him, lots of district courts send people back to exhaust during this same time period.\nState law was unclear.\nState law appeared to provide remedies and possible merits review.\nBecause the State law was unclear, Third Circuit exhaustion law required petitioners like Mr. Pace to go back and exhaust.\nAnd he did exactly what the circuit law required of him.\nAs a matter of equity, the court cannot punish someone.\nA Federal court can't say, do X, and then after that person does it, say, sorry, you're out of court.\nIt's not fair and it shouldn't happen here.\nAs to statutory tolling, I just want to... the... the Court I think can just easily decide this case just by reaffirming the central holding of Artuz which is when a State court allows you to file, gives your filing judicial review, applies a bar rule on a claim-by-claim basis, that was a condition to obtaining relief on claims in the petition.\nIt's not a condition to filing the petition itself.\nAnd if the State court eventually holds all your claims are barred, as they did in Artuz, the petition is, nevertheless, properly filed and should toll AEDPA's statutory... under AEDPA's statutory tolling provisions.\nIf there are no further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [3172.892, 3176.69, 3187.381, 3188.95, 3196.009, 3204.282, 3220.241, 3223.418, 3244.761, 3263.542, 3269.215, 3299.663, 3309.877, 3319.892, 3321.749, 3325.669, 3333.183, 3336.239, 3339.415, 3345.731, 3347.506, 3370.873, 3373.512, 3385.484], "stop_times": [3176.69, 3187.381, 3188.95, 3196.009, 3204.282, 3220.241, 3223.418, 3244.761, 3263.542, 3269.215, 3299.663, 3309.877, 3319.892, 3321.749, 3325.669, 3333.183, 3336.239, 3339.415, 3345.731, 3347.506, 3370.873, 3373.512, 3385.484, 3387.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3172.892}, "reply_to": "21652__1_084", "speaker": "david_wycoff"}
{"id": "21652__2_001", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Wycoff.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [3387.424, 3388.373], "stop_times": [3388.373, 3388.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3387.424}, "reply_to": "21652__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21652__2_002", "conversation_id": "21652", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9627", "start_times": [3388.373], "stop_times": [3392.373], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3388.373}, "reply_to": "21652__2_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22964__0_000", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "We'll hear argument in the case of Pasquantino against the United States.\nMs. Brill?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [0.0, 6.77], "stop_times": [6.77, 9.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22964__0_001", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThere are five primary reasons why this prosecution is outside the scope of anything Congress has authorized.\nFirst, the government's interpretation of the wire fraud statute is inconsistent with the revenue rule.\nSecond, it turns the rule of lenity on its head by allowing the government to incarcerate petitioners for 57 months for conduct that has never given rise to civil liability in this country.\nThird, this prosecution contravenes our national policy of demanding reciprocity in matters of international tax enforcement.\nFourth, the government acknowledged below that it cannot bring this prosecution without disregarding another act of Congress, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, which is, as the name specifies, mandatory.\nAnd, fifth, under this Court's decisions in McNally and Cleveland, the wire fraud statute applies only to schemes aimed at defrauding a victim into relinquishing something that it holds as money or property.\nA sovereign's interest in an unassessed tax claim is neither money nor property.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [9.371, 12.51, 19.941, 26.256, 38.804, 47.887, 62.498, 76.987], "stop_times": [12.51, 19.941, 26.256, 38.804, 47.887, 62.498, 76.987, 83.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.371}, "reply_to": "22964__0_000", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_002", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, can you look at the interest of the government as one of not allowing U.S. territory to be used to carry out a smuggling scheme?\nI mean, why does it have to be viewed as one of trying to enforce some other nation's tax laws?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [83.303, 97.587], "stop_times": [97.587, 106.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 83.303}, "reply_to": "22964__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22964__0_003", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Justice O'Connor, the government's interest in prosecuting somebody does not define the scope of what the statute at issue proscribes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [106.049], "stop_times": [119.356], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 106.049}, "reply_to": "22964__0_002", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_004", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "It's a wire fraud statute dealing with the use of communications capacity in this country to carry out a scheme designed to enable smuggling of goods.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [119.356], "stop_times": [136.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 119.356}, "reply_to": "22964__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22964__0_005", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, if the... if the statute was not written as it is... the statute, as written, uses the words \"defraud\" and the word... the word \"property\", and both of those terms are terms that this Court has defined very narrowly.\nIn Nader, it defined a \"fraud\" as--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [136.867, 153.497], "stop_times": [153.497, 155.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 136.867}, "reply_to": "22964__0_004", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_006", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Ms. Brill, I thought your brief said that we have an anti-smuggling statute, which is directed precisely against smugglers, but it only applies to those countries that have similar protection for us.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [155.355], "stop_times": [169.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 155.355}, "reply_to": "22964__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__0_007", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Yes, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [169.844], "stop_times": [170.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 169.844}, "reply_to": "22964__0_006", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_008", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "And Canada does not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [170.959], "stop_times": [171.702], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 170.959}, "reply_to": "22964__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__0_009", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Yes, Justice Scalia, that's exactly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [171.702], "stop_times": [172.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 171.702}, "reply_to": "22964__0_008", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_010", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Now--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [172.983], "stop_times": [173.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 172.983}, "reply_to": "22964__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__0_011", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [173.354], "stop_times": [173.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 173.354}, "reply_to": "22964__0_010", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_012", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--the existence of that statute would seem to suggest... and a statute which is limited to countries that will do the same for us... would seem to suggest that we don't want to do this for Canada.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [173.81], "stop_times": [184.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 173.81}, "reply_to": "22964__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__0_013", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Yes, that's exactly... that's exactly right, Your Honor.\nThere--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [184.75, 187.245], "stop_times": [187.245, 187.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 184.75}, "reply_to": "22964__0_012", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_014", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "But it's also limited to vessels.\nIt's smuggling by water, not smuggling by--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [187.95, 189.353], "stop_times": [189.353, 193.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 187.95}, "reply_to": "22964__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22964__0_015", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--By automobile.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [193.894], "stop_times": [195.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 193.894}, "reply_to": "22964__0_014", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_016", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--vehicles, as is done here, so that we don't have any statute that covers smuggling on land.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [195.918], "stop_times": [202.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 195.918}, "reply_to": "22964__0_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22964__0_017", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Right.\nYes, Your Honor, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [202.976, 203.636], "stop_times": [203.636, 204.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 202.976}, "reply_to": "22964__0_016", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_018", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Is there something better about reciprocity for vessels and not reciprocity for land smuggling?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [204.751], "stop_times": [209.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 204.751}, "reply_to": "22964__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__0_019", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "I think it just evinces what Congress was concerned about most at the time, Justice Scalia, but it was... it is certainly the case that in any... any time that this country has endeavored to deal with matters of international tax enforcement, it has always demanded reciprocity.\nIt has done so through the smuggling statute, it has done so through the numerous tax treaties that the Second Circuit's RJR decision discusses at length.\nAnd one of the points the RJR decision makes is that, in 1951, at the very time that Congress was looking at the wire fraud statute and enacting it, the Senate was, at the same time, becoming concerned that this country had gone too far in extending reciprocity in connection with its tax treaties and was actually evincing a policy of cutting back on the degree to which we would assist other countries in tax enforcement.\nAnd so the issue is to look at... that the revenue rule must be used as a background principle of common law against which... against which the revenue... excuse me, against which the wire fraud statute is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [209.498, 231.312, 241.077, 270.055], "stop_times": [231.312, 241.077, 270.055, 283.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 209.498}, "reply_to": "22964__0_018", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_020", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, if we don't do view this case as involving some attempt to indirectly enforce Canada's tax laws... suppose we don't view it with that lens... then does that put it outside the so-called revenue--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [283.968], "stop_times": [301.635], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 283.968}, "reply_to": "22964__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22964__0_021", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Well, if it were not... if it did not serve the function... it doesn't matter what the government's intent is and what is in the mind of the prosecutor, but if it did not have any effect of enforcing a foreign government's revenue rule, then, yes, it would be outside; but there are numerous ways in which this prosecution does enforce a foreign government's revenue rule.\nCertainly, it deters future violations.\nThe sentence was based on the... an estimate of the intended loss, and there was no assessment or an adjudication in Canada to determine what the amount was that was owed.\nAnd so the District Court became, essentially, part of the tax enforcement apparatus of the Government of Canada by performing that assessment in the first instance.\nAnd so anytime that we impose criminal or civil liability in a manner that affects the tax policies of another country, we are enforcing that rule.\nIf we... whether we're requiring compliance with the... with the tax rule of a foreign country or punishing noncompliance.\nAll of those--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [301.635, 327.064, 330.696, 343.616, 355.688, 369.994, 377.053], "stop_times": [327.064, 330.696, 343.616, 355.688, 369.994, 377.053, 377.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 301.635}, "reply_to": "22964__0_020", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_022", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Is the rationale for the rule that enforcement of taxes is so unpopular that we want to minimize the exposure to... of our judges so that they... the only thing they have to do is enforce taxes that... paid to our own government?\nI'm serious about that?\nIs that the rationale?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [377.508, 390.511, 391.254], "stop_times": [390.511, 391.254, 392.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 377.508}, "reply_to": "22964__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22964__0_023", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Well, I think there's a certain amount of self-protection in some of the decision... decisions, surely; but the real... the underlying purpose of the revenue rule is a recognition that foreign... that taxes, in general, are a matter of policy.\nThey're inherently policy-based; they're not based on contract or other kinds of commerce.\nThey do not... they do not assist in resolving disputes between private parties.\nAnd often they're imposed... especially customs duties, are imposed to disadvantage other countries, and so the courts have said these are a peculiar type of law, they serve only the interest of the... of the foreign sovereign, and there's a particular... there's been a particular sensitivity about scrutinizing those foreign laws, potentially declaring them invalid under the foreign governments' own laws or pursuant to our own Constitution.\nAnd so revenue rules have historically been a categorical exclusion to general principles of comity through which we might otherwise recognize foreign laws or foreign judgements.\nAnd the rule has come to be so entrenched, and has been so well established, that there's a whole body of background law in the tax treatise of our country, and of many other countries, that is based on our non-recognition and our non-enforcement of foreign revenue laws.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [392.451, 411.687, 418.003, 424.857, 452.554, 465.725, 484.794], "stop_times": [411.687, 418.003, 424.857, 452.554, 465.725, 484.794, 485.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 392.451}, "reply_to": "22964__0_022", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_024", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "But if we did... if we did enforce even a tax judgement of another country, there would be no U.S. law that would be violated.\nYou're talking about a common law, no country enforces the taxes of another.\nBut, at least in the Restatement of Foreign Relations now, that's put in terms of... there's no requirement that any country enforce the tax claims or judgements of another; but neither is there any prohibition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [485.166, 496.849, 501.64], "stop_times": [496.849, 501.64, 517.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 485.166}, "reply_to": "22964__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22964__0_025", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Well, Justice Ginsburg, the current restatement is worded in... addresses judgement specifically.\nIt does not... it doesn't address un-adjudicated tax codes.\nBut there's always been a much greater suspicion, a much greater reluctance, to get into enforcing a claim brought by a foreign country, where that country's own processes have not been allowed to run their course and to have the initial determination.\nThere... the restate... the second Restatement of Foreign Relations law, which is... was... came out in 1965 and is closer to reflecting what the law was at the time Congress enacted the wire fraud statute, says, in Section 41, Comment L,\n\"Under the... under the foreign relations law of the United States, courts in the United States will generally refrain from taking action to give effect to the penal or revenue laws of other states, except as provided by international agreement. \"\nAnd so that... that was a statement by the... by the propounders of the... of the Restatement of what they... what they believed the law was at the time.\nNow, to the extent it's qualified, I think it's just to leave room for the fact that the Senate can promulgate treaties, or Congress can, by statute, command that courts recognize these laws.\nBut if--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [517.094, 524.691, 528.694, 542.917, 560.273, 575.777, 585.271, 600.753], "stop_times": [524.691, 528.694, 542.917, 560.273, 575.777, 585.271, 600.753, 601.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 517.094}, "reply_to": "22964__0_024", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_026", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "You don't... you don't assert that this... that it... that this couldn't be done, do you?\nYou just--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [601.003, 605.916], "stop_times": [605.916, 606.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 601.003}, "reply_to": "22964__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__0_027", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Not that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [606.842], "stop_times": [607.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 606.842}, "reply_to": "22964__0_026", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_028", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--assert that we shouldn't assert that we shouldn't interpret this statute to have done it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [607.835], "stop_times": [611.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 607.835}, "reply_to": "22964__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__0_029", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Exactly, Justice Scalia.\nIf Congress had written a different wire fraud statute that had said,\n\"You can't have a scheme to defraud the revenue, whether foreign or domestic. \"\nthat would have been a clear statement abrogating the revenue rule.\nBut we don't have any such clear statement, and the terms... the terms \"defraud\" and the terms \"property\" have to be read with the background rule in mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [611.838, 613.158, 617.782, 623.56, 627.897], "stop_times": [613.158, 617.782, 623.56, 627.897, 636.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 611.838}, "reply_to": "22964__0_028", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_030", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "May I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [636.192], "stop_times": [636.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 636.192}, "reply_to": "22964__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22964__0_031", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "But you would come to that conclusion even if we had a reciprocal enforcement agreement.\nIf this were Country X, where we did have a reciprocal enforcement agreement, you'd come to the same conclusion, no prosecution under this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [636.564, 639.719], "stop_times": [639.719, 646.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 636.564}, "reply_to": "22964__0_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22964__0_032", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Correct, Your Honor, because there wouldn't... this statute wouldn't have been written to take that into account.\nThis--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [646.285, 655.694], "stop_times": [655.694, 656.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 646.285}, "reply_to": "22964__0_031", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_033", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "So, in a sense, the revenue position is irrelevant to your... to your secondary or your... or your independent argument on statutory construction.\nThe revenue rule is irrelevant to it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [656.249, 665.975], "stop_times": [665.975, 667.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 656.249}, "reply_to": "22964__0_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22964__0_034", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--As to just whether an unassessed tax claim--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [667.666], "stop_times": [671.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 667.666}, "reply_to": "22964__0_033", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_035", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [671.464], "stop_times": [672.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 671.464}, "reply_to": "22964__0_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22964__0_036", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--is property, the revenue rule... the revenue rule adds a boost to it, but there are two... there are two dimensions to the property element.\nOne is that, as I said... and if a... if a tax claim is not... has not been subject to an assessment, that whatever interest the government may have in that is not in the nature of property; it is simply in the nature of law-enforcement power to collect.\nThey... some of these revenue rule cases talk about the power to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [672.29, 680.175, 698.585], "stop_times": [680.175, 698.585, 701.64], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 672.29}, "reply_to": "22964__0_035", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_037", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--So tax revenues are not property, in your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [701.64], "stop_times": [704.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 701.64}, "reply_to": "22964__0_036", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22964__0_038", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Once a tax is collected, once the government actually has money in its hands, and if there's a scheme to, let's say, obtain an illegal refund through a tax and... that would be a scheme to deprive a government body of money.\nBut a scheme to merely evade paying a tax is not something that falls within the statute, separate and apart from the revenue rule.\nBut the revenue rule... as a result of the revenue rule, it is also the case that no state court would have recognized any property interest in a foreign sovereign, even if it had reached the point of a judgement.\nAnd so it works in both ways.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [704.324, 722.445, 733.962, 748.347, 752.455], "stop_times": [722.445, 733.962, 748.347, 752.455, 753.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 704.324}, "reply_to": "22964__0_037", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_039", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--May I ask you, Ms. Brill, something that puzzled me about this case?\nIt is a rather peculiar use of our wire fraud statute.\nAre there any proceedings going on in Canada?\nHas there been any attempt to extradite these people?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [753.281, 759.597, 764.798, 767.771], "stop_times": [759.597, 764.798, 767.771, 771.736], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 753.281}, "reply_to": "22964__0_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22964__0_040", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, there was an indictment that Canada issued against the Petitioners.\nIt has charges under... for smuggling, under Canadian law, which is Customs Act, Section 159.\nIt charges unlawful possession of imported spirits under Excise Act 163(1)(b), disposing of goods illegally imported, in violation of Customs Act, Section 155.\nSo Canada has its own process.\nThere has... there has not been, to my knowledge, any request by Canada for extradition, but the treaty between the United States and Canada does include revenue violations, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [771.736, 777.969, 787.544, 801.086, 803.232], "stop_times": [777.969, 787.544, 801.086, 803.232, 816.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 771.736}, "reply_to": "22964__0_039", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_041", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Presumably, if we punish this person this way, Canada wouldn't... there's no double jeopardy, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [816.401], "stop_times": [823.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 816.401}, "reply_to": "22964__0_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__0_042", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [823.627], "stop_times": [824.492], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 823.627}, "reply_to": "22964__0_041", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_043", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "So we'd be punishing this person for violating Canadian law, and then Canada would punish this person for violating Canadian law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [824.492], "stop_times": [830.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 824.492}, "reply_to": "22964__0_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__0_044", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Yes, I haven't looked in detail at the statute of limitations provisions, but that could be the effect.\nAnd we could be punishing them much more severely than Canada would be.\nThey have their own means of balancing what they think the appropriate balance is for these things, and certainly the wire fraud statute, 57 months in our--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [830.89, 837.662, 843.689], "stop_times": [837.662, 843.689, 853.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 830.89}, "reply_to": "22964__0_043", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_045", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, I think the government has an interest in saying,\n\"Look, if you're going to smuggle, have your scheme up there in Canada; don't use our wire systems for fraudulent purposes. \"\n\"We don't like that here. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [853.099, 855.616, 862.637], "stop_times": [855.616, 862.637, 863.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 853.099}, "reply_to": "22964__0_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22964__0_046", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--And if they want to pass a law that says that, because of the... because there's a domestic--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [863.873], "stop_times": [870.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 863.873}, "reply_to": "22964__0_045", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_047", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, they... of course, they say that this covers it, and it seems to me that really the... that turns on the definition of \"property\"--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [870.81], "stop_times": [876.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 870.81}, "reply_to": "22964__0_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22964__0_048", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [876.383], "stop_times": [877.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 876.383}, "reply_to": "22964__0_047", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_049", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--which is an arguable point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [877.331], "stop_times": [878.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 877.331}, "reply_to": "22964__0_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22964__0_050", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "What if the... instead of a wire fraud case, it was assault and battery?\nSupposing the Canadian revenue agent got inside of New York and one of your clients beat him up, would we have... solely because he was mad at him for trying to interfere with his attempt to smuggle into Canada... would we have to say that you can't do that, we have no jurisdiction over the assault and battery?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [878.9, 884.39], "stop_times": [884.39, 901.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 878.9}, "reply_to": "22964__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22964__0_051", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "No, Justice Stevens.\nIt's... the question is whether you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [901.562, 902.777], "stop_times": [902.777, 904.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 901.562}, "reply_to": "22964__0_050", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_052", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "The only purpose would be just what the purpose is here, they're trying to, you know, facilitate the smuggling operation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [904.513], "stop_times": [909.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 904.513}, "reply_to": "22964__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22964__0_053", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Well, the assault and battery... whatever the assault and battery provisions are, you would be bringing the prosecution solely for that purpose; it does not have any... the effect of applying the assault and battery statute, if there was one--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [909.836], "stop_times": [927.297], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 909.836}, "reply_to": "22964__0_052", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_054", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Interfere with Canadian's collection of their taxes.\nThat's the only reason for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [927.297, 929.238], "stop_times": [929.238, 931.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 927.297}, "reply_to": "22964__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22964__0_055", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Well, I think it... in that case, it would be... it would be far too attenuated to reach that conclusion.\nThere could be... the motive of a person--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [931.179, 936.957], "stop_times": [936.957, 938.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 931.179}, "reply_to": "22964__0_054", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_056", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Why is that any more attenuated than a conspiracy carried out down here in Maryland using American assets to do the evil deed in Canada?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [938.609], "stop_times": [948.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 938.609}, "reply_to": "22964__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22964__0_057", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Well, but the motive of the person performing the assault and battery would be irrelevant to the prosecution as to whether they intended to do the improper touching and, in fact, carried it out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [948.74], "stop_times": [960.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 948.74}, "reply_to": "22964__0_056", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_058", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, why isn't the motive irrelevant here?\nWe don't want our facilities to be used for criminal activities--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [960.34, 961.993], "stop_times": [961.993, 966.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 960.34}, "reply_to": "22964__0_057", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22964__0_059", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "The question is whether--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [966.08], "stop_times": [967.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 966.08}, "reply_to": "22964__0_058", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_060", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--any more than in the... in the hypothetical we don't want citizens beaten up on our soil.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [967.687], "stop_times": [971.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 967.687}, "reply_to": "22964__0_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22964__0_061", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, the issue is whether... is what Congress had in mind in enacting the wire fraud statute.\nAnd, in general, we presume that Congress had domestic concerns in mind, not that we have incorporated vast bodies of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [971.774, 980.197], "stop_times": [980.197, 987.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 971.774}, "reply_to": "22964__0_060", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_062", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, but it used broad language,\n\"Any scheme to defraud by means of wire communications in interstate or foreign commerce. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [987.999, 989.363], "stop_times": [989.363, 999.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 987.999}, "reply_to": "22964__0_061", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22964__0_063", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--The wire... it is... the wire communications may be an interstate or foreign commerce, the word \"any\" modifies\n\"any scheme or artifice to defraud-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [999.477, 1011.283], "stop_times": [1011.283, 1014.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 999.477}, "reply_to": "22964__0_062", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_064", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Is this statute applied against people who defraud the United States Government in taxes?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1014.021], "stop_times": [1021.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1014.021}, "reply_to": "22964__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__0_065", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Your Honor, the government's position on that, I believe, is somewhat inconsistent.\nThe tax... the tax division and the Department of Justice U.S. Attorneys manual specifies that it is... they believe it is the intent of Congress that tax matters will be dealt with through the internal revenue code, not through other means.\nThere are... there have been some prosecutions brought in the case of an illegal... an illegal tax shelter, where there is truly an... a private party who is defrauded into giving up money in connection with--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1021.519, 1029.238, 1046.577], "stop_times": [1029.238, 1046.577, 1062.924], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1021.519}, "reply_to": "22964__0_064", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_066", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "But you don't... you don't know of any prosecutions under this fraud statute for depriving the Federal Government of property.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1062.924], "stop_times": [1069.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1062.924}, "reply_to": "22964__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__0_067", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Well, the Henderson case, which we have cited in the reply brief, is one from the Southern District of New York, where Judge Weinfeld said, when faced with a mail fraud prosecution of that type, this is outside the scope of anything that Congress intended.\nThe... I would like to get back to the issue of money or property so that it... to have it conceptually why an unassessed tax claim is not money or property.\nThere is no allegation that... in the indictment or anywhere... that the petitioners took any money out of Canada's treasury.\nSo money is not an issue.\nAt most, it was an effort to evade Canada's right to collect money, not any money it has--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1069.24, 1082.986, 1094.996, 1103.148, 1105.193], "stop_times": [1082.986, 1094.996, 1103.148, 1105.193, 1113.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1069.24}, "reply_to": "22964__0_066", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_068", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Ms. Brill, is this the same thing if it were a building fraud?\nSuppose there were contractors building a Canadian building for the Canadian Government and they had a big fraud scheme down here, and it was to deprive the Canadian Government of money?\nI think the statute would clearly apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1113.655, 1116.545, 1128.145], "stop_times": [1116.545, 1128.145, 1130.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1113.655}, "reply_to": "22964__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22964__0_069", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--The statute only applies... what McNally said is, any assistance a governmental body obtains from the statute must be in the capacity of property-holder.\nAnd so the... a scheme to defraud somebody out of their... out of a building, that's traditional property.\nThere's not... it is not the same thing.\nLet's have an... let's take an example of an interference with prospective economic advantage.\nSo there is a defendant who says to somebody else who's about to get a contract... I know my competitor is about to get a contract, and I say,\n\"Why don't you go out of town? \"\n\"There's a... there's a much bigger contract that you can get if you fly to Michigan. \"\nAnd, meanwhile, I go in, and I usurp the contract and take it for my own purposes.\nWell, I've interfered with that person's prospective economic advantage, and so there would be a tort, and the person could collect from me.\nBut I have not taken any money or property from that person that was in his possession.\nAnd what McNally and Cleveland plaintiffs to is whether there was money or property in the hands of the... of the victim.\nAnd Canada's interest... until there has been an assessment, Canada's interest is purely that of a... of a sovereign.\nIt is... it does not have a claim to any money that is in the bank account of somebody who owes it a debt.\nAnd the Johnston case, which we've cited in our reply brief, Your Honor, talks about... this Court talked about a statute in which there was a boxing promoter who collected fees for the boxing match and also collected taxes at the same time.\nAnd the U.S. Government could not bring an embezzlement action against that person for not paying the taxes, because those taxes were not... were not yet anything that qualified as governmental property.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1130.002, 1140.655, 1150.147, 1152.21, 1159.724, 1170.952, 1172.438, 1176.731, 1182.675, 1190.371, 1197.247, 1204.678, 1213.677, 1221.191, 1238.031], "stop_times": [1140.655, 1150.147, 1152.21, 1159.724, 1170.952, 1172.438, 1176.731, 1182.675, 1190.371, 1197.247, 1204.678, 1213.677, 1221.191, 1238.031, 1252.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1130.002}, "reply_to": "22964__0_068", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_070", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Ms. Brill, in the Court of Appeals, they treated the argument that this was not property as entirely separate from the revenue rule question.\nAnd I thought your petition for cert was confined to the first question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1252.232, 1260.034], "stop_times": [1260.034, 1260.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1252.232}, "reply_to": "22964__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22964__0_071", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, Your Honor... no, Your Honor, we talked about both in the petition for cert..\nAnd then the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1260.034, 1263.849], "stop_times": [1263.849, 1268.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1260.034}, "reply_to": "22964__0_070", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_072", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "But the question, itself, doesn't refer to the property issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1268.95], "stop_times": [1271.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1268.95}, "reply_to": "22964__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22964__0_073", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--It talks about the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1271.347], "stop_times": [1272.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1271.347}, "reply_to": "22964__0_072", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_074", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Was it... was it phrased the same way it is in your brief, in the petition?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1272.916], "stop_times": [1287.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1272.916}, "reply_to": "22964__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__0_075", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Yes.\nYes, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1287.072, 1287.61], "stop_times": [1287.61, 1288.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1287.072}, "reply_to": "22964__0_074", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_076", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, then the last part of it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1288.065], "stop_times": [1288.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1288.065}, "reply_to": "22964__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__0_077", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Right, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1288.991], "stop_times": [1289.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1288.991}, "reply_to": "22964__0_076", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_078", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--obviously covers it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1289.613], "stop_times": [1290.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1289.613}, "reply_to": "22964__0_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__0_079", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Yes, the last part talks about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1290.068], "stop_times": [1291.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1290.068}, "reply_to": "22964__0_078", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_080", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Oh, I see.\nI'm sorry, you're right.\nYeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1291.433, 1292.009, 1292.547], "stop_times": [1292.009, 1292.547, 1293.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1291.433}, "reply_to": "22964__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22964__0_081", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Yes, okay.\nBut to return... to return to the revenue rule... and thank you, Justice Stevens, for bringing me back to that... the government has acknowledged that there can be no restitution here.\nAnd that's in... that's in the joint appendix, at page 106.\nThey expressly waived it.\nThey said that even if there was a foreign judgement that Canada was trying to bring here, that would be unenforceable.\nThere could be no RICO actions, because that's unenforceable; and no proxy suits on behalf of a foreign government.\nAnd so the only thing that they say is, beyond... is not included... the only act of enforcement which they say is not included is, somehow, criminal enforcement.\nAnd under Section 14 of the... excuse me, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Congress has power to enforce that amendment, and it has done so both in enacting statutes for civil recovery, as well as criminal recovery... criminal punishment, excuse me.\nAnd so it's... the notion that somehow incarcerating someone is not... is not punishment is not something that makes much sense in that context.\nThe decisions of this Court have held that penalties are... monetary penalties count as punishment, and also that injunctions are... fall within the scope of the revenue rule.\nThat's in the Wisconsin versus Pelican Insurance case, which actually addresses the penal... the penal rule, which is the close corollary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1293.002, 1293.54, 1311.949, 1315.21, 1316.862, 1324.376, 1331.435, 1343.157, 1363.136, 1373.25, 1388.043], "stop_times": [1293.54, 1311.949, 1315.21, 1316.862, 1324.376, 1331.435, 1343.157, 1363.136, 1373.25, 1388.043, 1397.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1293.002}, "reply_to": "22964__0_080", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_082", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "May I ask you, when... now that we're getting into money, one of the things that the sentencing board had to do was to find out how much of a loss there was, and that involved determining what taxes would be due under Canadian law.\nAnd did that increase the sentence?\nDid the... did the sentence vary with the amount of taxes that they... we found due?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1397.194, 1418.864, 1422.762], "stop_times": [1418.864, 1422.762, 1429.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1397.194}, "reply_to": "22964__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22964__0_083", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Yes, Justice Ginsburg, it very much did.\nThe loss calculation was based on intended loss, and so they... what the District Court judge did was estimated the number of cases of liquor that were intended to be brought into Canada, and applied that number to the amount of the tax that Canada, he believed, would have applied to that... to that amount.\nAnd that ended up changing the sentence from six months to, in the case of the Pasquantino brothers, 57 months, and the... and, in the case of Mr. Hilts, 21 months.\nSo the bulk of the sentence was based on the Canadian tax law and our courts making that assessment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1429.161, 1431.474, 1455.622, 1466.129], "stop_times": [1431.474, 1455.622, 1466.129, 1474.303], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1429.161}, "reply_to": "22964__0_082", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_084", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "A judge making that assessment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1474.303], "stop_times": [1478.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1474.303}, "reply_to": "22964__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22964__0_085", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "The judge made the sentence... made the assessment at sentencing, yes.\nWhat the... what the... what the government did in this case was to submit, very self-consciously, all of the issues of Canadian tax law to the jury.\nAnd the assistant U.S. attorney said this to the Fourth Circuit en banc panel several times, that they were presenting these matters of Canadian tax law as factual issues for the jury to find.\nBut, ultimately, in sentencing, it was... it was the court that ended up imposing and elevating that sentence.\nIf there aren't further questions, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1478.307, 1484.417, 1496.511, 1510.052, 1516.656], "stop_times": [1484.417, 1496.511, 1510.052, 1516.656, 1520.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1478.307}, "reply_to": "22964__0_084", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__0_086", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Mr. Dreeben?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1520.454], "stop_times": [1523.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.454}, "reply_to": "22964__0_085", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22964__1_000", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nA prosecution for wire fraud based on defrauding a foreign government of taxes serves at least four distinct United States prosecutorial interests.\nThe first is that the creation of schemes to defraud frequently spawns collateral criminal conduct in the United States above and beyond the fraudulent scheme itself.\nHere, for example, one of the defendants was charged in the indictment with using a gun in relation to the charged wire fraud scheme.\nSecond--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1523.798, 1527.347, 1539.03, 1549.904, 1557.812], "stop_times": [1527.347, 1539.03, 1549.904, 1557.812, 1559.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1523.798}, "reply_to": "22964__0_086", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_001", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Where?\nUsing a gun where?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1559.631, 1560.374], "stop_times": [1560.374, 1561.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1559.631}, "reply_to": "22964__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22964__1_002", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--In the United States, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1561.61], "stop_times": [1563.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1561.61}, "reply_to": "22964__1_001", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_003", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, why didn't you prosecute him for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1563.651], "stop_times": [1565.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1563.651}, "reply_to": "22964__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_004", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "That crime depended upon the validity of the wire fraud charges, because the crime was use of a gun during... in relation to this wire fraud scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1565.408], "stop_times": [1573.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1565.408}, "reply_to": "22964__1_003", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_005", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "But that really doesn't get you anywhere, does it?\nI mean, if the United States says,\n\"We don't want this gun offense to be prosecuted unless there's a wire fraud prosecution. \"\nthat doesn't tell you anything as to whether there ought to be a wire fraud prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1573.582, 1576.349, 1577.585, 1582.704], "stop_times": [1576.349, 1577.585, 1582.704, 1585.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1573.582}, "reply_to": "22964__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22964__1_006", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, what it tells you, Justice Souter, is why the United States has an interest in enforcing a law that facially is written to cover schemes to defraud that are carried out using the United States wires.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1585.842], "stop_times": [1596.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1585.842}, "reply_to": "22964__1_005", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_007", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "But that's... but that's a reason for extending the statute to everything.\nTo everything.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1596.988, 1600.127], "stop_times": [1600.127, 1601.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1596.988}, "reply_to": "22964__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_008", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "No, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1601.28], "stop_times": [1602.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1601.28}, "reply_to": "22964__1_007", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_009", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "\"Property\" can mean anything at all.\nI mean, what you're saying is, the broader you read this statute, the more bad guys we're going to catch.\nI'll stipulate that.\nOf course it's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1602.273, 1603.509, 1607.49, 1609.536], "stop_times": [1603.509, 1607.49, 1609.536, 1610.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1602.273}, "reply_to": "22964__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_010", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Well, Justice Scalia, I'm starting from the proposition that the language of the wire fraud statute textually applies to this scheme, and Petitioner's argument is that, because of the common law revenue rule, the statute should be read to exclude schemes to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue.\nAnd the fact that a foreign government is defrauded of tax revenue does not mean that the United States does not have an independent interest in rooting out that scheme and prosecuting it.\nIn addition to the collateral criminal conduct that such schemes can spawn, the creation of such schemes indicates a criminal mind and a criminal group that can turn its techniques for used... using to smuggle into Canada, also to smuggle back into the United States or to victimize other victims in the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1610.362, 1626.338, 1636.453], "stop_times": [1626.338, 1636.453, 1655.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1610.362}, "reply_to": "22964__1_009", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_011", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "What about evading a Cuban tax law that we think... that many people would think is an unjust tax law?\nI mean, one of the things I'm worried about is that this gets us into foreign policy.\nAre you sure that we always want to enforce the tax laws of foreign countries through this fraud statute, no matter what those tax laws happen to be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1655.872, 1661.073, 1665.326], "stop_times": [1661.073, 1665.326, 1674.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1655.872}, "reply_to": "22964__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_012", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "The United States has prosecutorial discretion to determine when to invoke the statute and in what interests it should be served.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1674.076], "stop_times": [1682.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1674.076}, "reply_to": "22964__1_011", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_013", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "It may well, but when it comes here, this Court is going to have to decide... we'll just approve whatever you want to prosecute and let you not prosecute whatever you want?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1682.6], "stop_times": [1691.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1682.6}, "reply_to": "22964__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_014", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "There is no provision in the statute, Justice Scalia, for this Court to second-guess foreign-policy determinations that are made--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1691.971], "stop_times": [1698.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1691.971}, "reply_to": "22964__1_013", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_015", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, not just foreign policy.\nThe White Russians come here because they don't want to pay Lenin's taxes designed to equalize all individuals, in terms of property.\nCountry A has a tax law that makes everybody a criminal because nobody really ever pays all the taxes.\nCountry C has a set of laws that tax bibles.\nCountry D has a... I mean, you know, we can spin out the examples endlessly, and they're not farfetched.\nSo take all the arguments from last week, called \"any court arguments\", cross... or two days ago... just let's cross-reference them.\nThe problem is complexity of tax law.\nThe problem is many, many, many would be contrary to American policy.\nAnd the problem is, nobody really knows what they are; indeed, they don't even know what American tax law is, no single individual, I suspect.\nLet's put in Italy, France, Byelorussia, Belarus, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, and 35,000 others.\nEverybody becomes a criminal.\nAnd then we say,\n\"Don't worry, we'll only prosecute the real bad ones. \"\nThat's the argument, I think, on the other side, and I'd like to hear your perspective.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1698.37, 1699.939, 1711.373, 1718.765, 1722.685, 1729.472, 1738.001, 1741.838, 1747.494, 1754.819, 1764.273, 1765.843, 1766.791, 1769.474], "stop_times": [1699.939, 1711.373, 1718.765, 1722.685, 1729.472, 1738.001, 1741.838, 1747.494, 1754.819, 1764.273, 1765.843, 1766.791, 1769.474, 1773.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1698.37}, "reply_to": "22964__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_016", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Justice Breyer, I don't think there's any reason to assume that everyone becomes a criminal.\nWhat this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1773.189, 1776.533], "stop_times": [1776.533, 1776.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1773.189}, "reply_to": "22964__1_015", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_017", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "No, only people who come over here because they don't want to pay taxes in those countries.\nSometimes we would agree with them--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1776.905, 1783.842], "stop_times": [1783.842, 1787.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1776.905}, "reply_to": "22964__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_018", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Justice Breyer, in order to violate the wire fraud statute, you have to use deception in order to deprive another--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1787.019], "stop_times": [1794.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1787.019}, "reply_to": "22964__1_017", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_019", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Yes, they don't tell Lenin that they're coming--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1794.078], "stop_times": [1797.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1794.078}, "reply_to": "22964__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_020", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Well, that wouldn't involve the use of the United States wires--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1797.133], "stop_times": [1800.727], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1797.133}, "reply_to": "22964__1_019", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_021", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--and they write to each other.\nThey have a cousin, in Brooklyn, who forwards them the money to get out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1800.727, 1802.046], "stop_times": [1802.046, 1805.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1800.727}, "reply_to": "22964__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_022", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Justice Breyer, if one stipulates that that violates the wire fraud statute or that there's enough conduct that does, the question still comes down to whether the United States chooses to prosecute that case.\nThis is not a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1805.389, 1819.879], "stop_times": [1819.879, 1820.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1805.389}, "reply_to": "22964__1_021", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_023", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "So the question comes down to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1820.705], "stop_times": [1821.903], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1820.705}, "reply_to": "22964__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_024", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "The question comes down to whether this statute, which doesn't have to be read that way, ought to be read that way, whether it makes sense to read it that way.\nWhat about... does Canada have an income tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1821.903, 1828.218], "stop_times": [1828.218, 1830.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1821.903}, "reply_to": "22964__1_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_025", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--I'm not sure of Canadian tax law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1830.53], "stop_times": [1833.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1830.53}, "reply_to": "22964__1_024", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_026", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, let's assume--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1833.958], "stop_times": [1835.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1833.958}, "reply_to": "22964__1_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_027", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "In the context of this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1835.816], "stop_times": [1837.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1835.816}, "reply_to": "22964__1_026", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_028", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Canada has an income tax.\nWould you... would you prosecute a Canadian who files a deceptive Canadian income tax return?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1837.197, 1837.602], "stop_times": [1837.602, 1846.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1837.197}, "reply_to": "22964__1_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_029", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Not for using Canadian facilities to do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1846.469], "stop_times": [1852.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1846.469}, "reply_to": "22964__1_028", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_030", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "No, no, no, from this country.\nHe's... you know, he's a snow goose and is in Florida when he files his return.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1852.906, 1854.27], "stop_times": [1854.27, 1858.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.906}, "reply_to": "22964__1_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_031", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "He files it electronically.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1858.562], "stop_times": [1860.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1858.562}, "reply_to": "22964__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22964__1_032", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1860.131], "stop_times": [1860.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1860.131}, "reply_to": "22964__1_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_033", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "The wire fraud statute is applicable to schemes to defraud, generally speaking.\nThe questions in this case are whether there is a common law rule that should be read to provide background.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1860.669, 1866.697], "stop_times": [1866.697, 1872.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1860.669}, "reply_to": "22964__1_032", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_034", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--reason for it.\nI just... you don't seem to know completely about Canadian law.\nHow much do you know about the tax law of Vietnam?\nBecause Los Angeles is filled with Vietnamese refugees, many of communities of such people in the United States.\nDo we know how many of them perhaps might owe taxes under the law of Vietnam, and maybe are talking to each other about whether they really want to pay it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1872.27, 1873.179, 1876.068, 1879.14, 1886.016], "stop_times": [1873.179, 1876.068, 1879.14, 1886.016, 1895.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.27}, "reply_to": "22964__1_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_035", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "I don't think this is a realistic problem, Justice Breyer, that should require the court not to read a statute whose language--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1895.676], "stop_times": [1902.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1895.676}, "reply_to": "22964__1_034", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_036", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, what about the wealth tax in France?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1902.901], "stop_times": [1904.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1902.901}, "reply_to": "22964__1_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_037", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--There are a variety of taxing schemes all across the world.\nThe question that the United States has to make when it determines whether to prosecute a wire fraud scheme is whether it's in interest... in the interest--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1904.842, 1908.845], "stop_times": [1908.845, 1916.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1904.842}, "reply_to": "22964__1_036", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_038", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, at the beginning of your argument, you said there were four federal interests you were going to identify.\nYou've been able to identify one... you know, on running around with guns.\nWhat are the other three?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1916.07, 1920.157, 1923.146], "stop_times": [1920.157, 1923.146, 1924.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1916.07}, "reply_to": "22964__1_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22964__1_039", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--The other three are--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1924.077], "stop_times": [1925.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1924.077}, "reply_to": "22964__1_038", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_040", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Second--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1925.563], "stop_times": [1926.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1925.563}, "reply_to": "22964__1_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_041", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--The second one, which I began to allude to before hearing some questions about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1926.018], "stop_times": [1930.826], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1926.018}, "reply_to": "22964__1_040", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_042", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Before you were asked a brief question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1930.826], "stop_times": [1931.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1930.826}, "reply_to": "22964__1_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22964__1_043", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--are that people who engage in schemes in this country are capable of then using the same techniques against victims in this country.\nThe third reason is that the creation of international schemes to defraud, like the smuggling scheme in this case, poses independent threats to the United States Government because international criminal organizations are particularly difficult for the United States to deal with.\nAnd the fourth reason is that it is an offense to a foreign government, the United States Executive Branch may conclude, to allow our soil and our wires to be used to perpetrate a smuggling scheme against a foreign government with the United States doing nothing about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1931.857, 1941.705, 1955.823], "stop_times": [1941.705, 1955.823, 1969.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1931.857}, "reply_to": "22964__1_042", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_044", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, if we're concerned about offending the foreign country, then isn't the way to go, in fact, the way Congress has gone in this area, we negotiate treaties?\nI mean, one of the reasons why we go the treaty route are the kind of problems that Justice Breyer brought up, we want to have reciprocal treaties.\nWe want two things.\nWe want to make sure that it's a basically fair system that we're dealing with.\nOn the other hand, we want to say,\n\"If we do anything with respect to your taxes, we want to make sure that we get the same benefit from you with respect to ours. \"\nSo never mind the revenue rule, isn't it pervasive that... when it comes to enforcing tax claims, that the route that Congress has chosen to go, and the Executive, as well, has been the treaty route?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [1969.941, 1979.6, 1988.682, 1990.003, 1994.461, 1996.213, 2003.749], "stop_times": [1979.6, 1988.682, 1990.003, 1994.461, 1996.213, 2003.749, 2018.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1969.941}, "reply_to": "22964__1_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22964__1_045", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, those are tax treaties designed to mutually assist the countries to collect taxes.\nThis is a prosecution directed at fraud.\nThe collection of taxes in a cooperative, reciprocal manner between governments implicates very different interests than the United States has when it seeks to combat people who have intended to devise, or have devised, a scheme to defraud in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2018.116, 2025.668, 2029.195], "stop_times": [2025.668, 2029.195, 2043.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2018.116}, "reply_to": "22964__1_044", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_046", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "One of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2043.7], "stop_times": [2044.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2043.7}, "reply_to": "22964__1_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22964__1_047", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2044.222], "stop_times": [2044.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2044.222}, "reply_to": "22964__1_046", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_048", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--one of... one of the last interests that you mentioned, about offending foreign governments, well, on the face of this, it would seem, the one that... the country that's been done out of taxes is Canada, not the United States.\nSo, we should help Canada, if it's interested in collecting revenue from these people or trying them for a criminal offense, to do that.\nIt... I asked Ms. Brill, Have they been indicted in Canada?\nShe said yes, but she said it's... they had not... there has not been a request for extradition.\nIs that... is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2044.594, 2059.454, 2071.342, 2076.422, 2083.315], "stop_times": [2059.454, 2071.342, 2076.422, 2083.315, 2084.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.594}, "reply_to": "22964__1_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22964__1_049", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "That's my understanding, as well, Justice Ginsburg.\nAnd the pursuit of this prosecution by the United States reflects that when United States citizens engage in fraudulent conduct on our soil, our government has a distinct interest, from Canada's interest, in pursuing the prosecution of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2084.596, 2087.402], "stop_times": [2087.402, 2103.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2084.596}, "reply_to": "22964__1_048", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_050", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--How long has this statute been on the books, this wire fraud statute?\nPretty old statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2103.832, 2107.714], "stop_times": [2107.714, 2108.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2103.832}, "reply_to": "22964__1_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_051", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "1952.\nAnd its antecedents are the mail fraud statute, which was enacted in 1872.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2108.457, 2109.693], "stop_times": [2109.693, 2115.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2108.457}, "reply_to": "22964__1_050", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_052", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "How many prosecutions like this have there been?\nWhen was the first one?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2115.06, 2118.033], "stop_times": [2118.033, 2119.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2115.06}, "reply_to": "22964__1_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_053", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "This--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2119.807], "stop_times": [2120.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2119.807}, "reply_to": "22964__1_052", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_054", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "For, you know, using the mails or interstate commerce to defraud a foreign government of taxes?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2120.922], "stop_times": [2128.641], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.922}, "reply_to": "22964__1_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_055", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--This type of prosecution became more common in the 1980s when Canada greatly increased its taxes on importation of tobacco and alcohol.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2128.641], "stop_times": [2137.807], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2128.641}, "reply_to": "22964__1_054", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_056", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "More common, or didn't exist at all before the 19... do you know of any case before--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2137.807], "stop_times": [2141.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2137.807}, "reply_to": "22964__1_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_057", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "No, I'm not aware of any case before--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2141.688], "stop_times": [2143.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2141.688}, "reply_to": "22964__1_056", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_058", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--before the 1980s.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2143.053], "stop_times": [2143.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2143.053}, "reply_to": "22964__1_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_059", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2143.962], "stop_times": [2144.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2143.962}, "reply_to": "22964__1_058", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_060", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Doesn't that suggest to you that the statute isn't naturally read to cover stuff like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2144.334], "stop_times": [2149.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2144.334}, "reply_to": "22964__1_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_061", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "No, I think the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2149.535], "stop_times": [2150.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2149.535}, "reply_to": "22964__1_060", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_062", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "We didn't have smugglers before then?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2150.361], "stop_times": [2151.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2150.361}, "reply_to": "22964__1_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_063", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--No, of course there were smugglers before then, but the statute, on its face, is broad.\nAnd the only justification... the only two justifications for seeking to read it narrowly are, first, that there's a common law revenue rule that forms a backdrop for the construction of the statute.\nThat is wrong, the government submits, because there is no common law revenue rule that has ever been articulated that says one country cannot prosecute people in that country for defrauding a foreign government of tax--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2151.642, 2157.314, 2168.565], "stop_times": [2157.314, 2168.565, 2182.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2151.642}, "reply_to": "22964__1_062", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_064", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "What's the second reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2182.949], "stop_times": [2183.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2182.949}, "reply_to": "22964__1_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_065", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--The second reason is the claim that to deprive a foreign government of money by not paying tax revenues is not common law fraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2183.692], "stop_times": [2192.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2183.692}, "reply_to": "22964__1_064", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_066", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Okay.\nWell, and you have arguments against both of those two?\nWhich are arguments are at least... at least... arguable?\nWhat about the third rule, the rule of lenity?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2192.88, 2193.13, 2195.852, 2200.022], "stop_times": [2193.13, 2195.852, 2200.022, 2204.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.88}, "reply_to": "22964__1_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_067", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2204.58], "stop_times": [2206.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2204.58}, "reply_to": "22964__1_066", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_068", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "If we... if we are unsure, if it's a close question whether it's property, if it's a close question whether we're enforcing the tax laws of Canada by prosecuting somebody for violating the tax laws of Canada, if that's a closed question, why doesn't the rule of lenity apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2206.149], "stop_times": [2221.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2206.149}, "reply_to": "22964__1_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_069", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Well, if the Court concluded that the question was not susceptible of resolution by resort to the usual tools of statutory construction, then you would apply the rule of lenity.\nBut it's our submission that neither of these two theories--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2221.936, 2231.429], "stop_times": [2231.429, 2234.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2221.936}, "reply_to": "22964__1_068", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_070", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "But may I ask this question?\nI think you have conceded, in a footnote... and maybe you're... almost conceded... that if this were a RICO case, a civil RICO case, that the Congress enacted the RICO statute against this background rule and that perhaps the RICO case could not go forward.\nWhat if it were a federal RICO case and... the same facts... would the RICO statute be qualified by the revenue rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2234.363, 2235.394, 2251.203], "stop_times": [2235.394, 2251.203, 2258.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2234.363}, "reply_to": "22964__1_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22964__1_071", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--No, it would not, Justice Stevens, and that's because of the precise distinction that I drew in response to Justice Scalia's question.\nThis is a suit by the United States Government, as Plaintiff, not by a foreign government, as Plaintiff or prosecutor.\nThe revenue rule is essentially concerned with interests of sovereignty.\nOne foreign government should not be able to come into our courts and enforce its sovereign power by using our courts to collect taxes from our citizens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2258.921, 2265.57, 2272.462, 2277.68], "stop_times": [2265.57, 2272.462, 2277.68, 2287.134], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2258.921}, "reply_to": "22964__1_070", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_072", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "What about the other reasons underlying it, which is what I was trying to get at before?\nI see, literally, that the common law... you know, the enforcement... this is not literally enforcement.\nSo what I was driving at with my questions is, even though literally it's not, the problems of complexity, the problems of knowability, and the problems of there being so many, many foreign tax laws that we might think are basically unfair, that those considerations apply here, just as they do with the enforcement rule, and then add the fact that turning people into criminals under threat of prosecution by the Federal Government is really very much equivalent to enforcing the foreign rule in a court.\nI mean, that's the whole thing spelled out.\nAnd I meant it seriously, though I used foreign examples to, sort of, drive the point home.\nWhat is your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2287.134, 2291.138, 2297.537, 2336.38, 2338.321, 2345.025], "stop_times": [2291.138, 2297.537, 2336.38, 2338.321, 2345.025, 2346.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2287.134}, "reply_to": "22964__1_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_073", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, Justice Breyer, first of all, the complexity of foreign tax law is something that would defeat a federal prosecution in which we need to show specific intent to defraud if the law were not sufficiently clear for us to be able to meet that burden.\nThis case illustrates the kind of prosecution that will be brought.\nThere are taxes that are due upon the importation of alcohol.\nThe Petitioners arranged, through the wires, to bring alcohol from Maryland up to New York, and then they got it across the border by not answering questions when asked by customs officials and by not going to secondary inspection when they were asked.\nIn order to bring a criminal prosecution that requires specific intent to defraud, the government is not going to be relying on obscure systems.\nAs to the concern about the enforcement of tax systems that the United States may believe are... is unfair, that is the prerogative of the Executive Branch to determine in deciding whether a prosecution should be brought in a particular case.\nThis Court has repeatedly recognized that the Executive Branch is the preeminent branch in the area of foreign affairs--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2346.661, 2362.758, 2367.011, 2370.438, 2383.729, 2392.274, 2407.34], "stop_times": [2362.758, 2367.011, 2370.438, 2383.729, 2392.274, 2407.34, 2413.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2346.661}, "reply_to": "22964__1_072", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_074", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--To go to one more aspect of the statute which I don't think you've addressed, Congress said that... with respect to the wire fraud and mail fraud and, I think, other things... that restitution to the victim is mandatory, that it's not left up to the government to decide restitution or not.\nExcept here restitution sounds very much like enforcing Canada's taxes, so you have conceded no restitution.\nBut it seems to me that Congress thought of the wire/mail fraud statutes as cases in which there would be restitution, and that suggests that they didn't envision foreign taxes to be the object of the scheme to defraud.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2413.906, 2437.228, 2448.579], "stop_times": [2437.228, 2448.579, 2467.609], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2413.906}, "reply_to": "22964__1_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22964__1_075", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, the syllogism doesn't track, because the entire scope of the revenue rule, as defined in the common law cases that can be pointed to as the background principle, has to do with a foreign government, or someone acting on its behalf, coming into this country's courts to enforce its tax rules.\nHere what you have is the United States Government determining that it is in the interest of the United States to bring a criminal prosecution.\nNow, in this case, the prosecutor did concede below that restitution was not appropriately ordered.\nThat's not the position of the United States.\nThe position of the United States is that restitution under the mandatory statute should be ordered and it does not infringe the revenue rule.\nBut there are--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2467.609, 2488.414, 2496.01, 2502.16, 2504.655, 2512.274], "stop_times": [2488.414, 2496.01, 2502.16, 2504.655, 2512.274, 2513.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2467.609}, "reply_to": "22964__1_074", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_076", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Now, how could that be, because restitution is to the victim?\nThe victim is Canada.\nYou collect Congress... or Canada's tax, and you give it to Canada.\nIs there any other kind of restitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2513.284, 2516.361, 2517.437, 2521.812], "stop_times": [2516.361, 2517.437, 2521.812, 2524.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2513.284}, "reply_to": "22964__1_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22964__1_077", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--No, there isn't, Justice Ginsburg, but the revenue rule isn't of such a broad scope that it applies to efforts by the United States Government to secure punishment by... for a criminal conviction.\nBut, Justice Ginsburg, if the Court were to disagree with that and were to believe that restitution, even when it's been sought by the United States... not by a foreign government, in its own right, with the power to instigate a lawsuit... but that even when the United States does it, that somehow falls within the parameters of the common law revenue rule, then the answer to that problem would be to interpret the restitution statute against the background of the revenue rule, not to interpret the wire fraud statute against the background of the revenue rule and hold that a prosecution by the United States is wholly barred.\nThe Petitioner's submission here is really rather--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2524.179, 2536.961, 2572.46], "stop_times": [2536.961, 2572.46, 2574.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2524.179}, "reply_to": "22964__1_076", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_078", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "The restitution statute is not ambiguous at all; whereas, this statute has a number of ambiguities in it.\nAnd if I had to find my way out of the restitution problem, I would pick the ambiguous statute to get out, rather than simply saying,\n\"Well, though this restitution statute says this categorically, we will ignore it, because if we didn't ignore it, we would be enforcing the revenue laws of another country. \"\nThere's nothing against enforcing the revenue laws of another country, if we want to; this is just a question of statutory interpretation.\nShould this ambiguous statute be interpreted that way?\nIf Congress said,\n\"We're going to enforce Canada's tax laws. \"\nthere's nothing wrong with that.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2574.773, 2582.946, 2594.025, 2603.851, 2610.15, 2613.949, 2614.608, 2619.15, 2621.129], "stop_times": [2582.946, 2594.025, 2603.851, 2610.15, 2613.949, 2614.608, 2619.15, 2621.129, 2621.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2574.773}, "reply_to": "22964__1_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_079", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Justice Scalia--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2621.955], "stop_times": [2623.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2621.955}, "reply_to": "22964__1_078", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_080", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--So you have two statutes.\nOne of them seems to be quite ambiguous.\nThe other one is categorical, you get restitution in all cases.\nNow, how do I wiggle out of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2623.07, 2623.813, 2625.382, 2629.386], "stop_times": [2623.813, 2625.382, 2629.386, 2631.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2623.07}, "reply_to": "22964__1_079", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_081", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--There's a difference--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2631.409], "stop_times": [2632.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2631.409}, "reply_to": "22964__1_080", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_082", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Obviously, I wiggle out of it with the ambiguous statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2632.335], "stop_times": [2634.176], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2632.335}, "reply_to": "22964__1_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_083", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--there's a difference, Justice Scalia, between an ambiguous statute and a broad statute.\nThe wire fraud statute is unequivocally broad, and it has been so interpreted.\nIt's not ambiguous on the question of whether it applies to schemes to defraud that may involve foreign victims; it says \"any scheme to defraud\".\nAnd I think, as Justice Kennedy's questions pointed out earlier, if there were a scheme to defraud a foreign business interest in Canada or a foreign governmental interest in Canada relating to some commercial venture, the wire fraud statute would apply, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2634.176, 2638.718, 2643.464, 2651.926], "stop_times": [2638.718, 2643.464, 2651.926, 2667.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2634.176}, "reply_to": "22964__1_082", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_084", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "What about... what about a scheme--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2667.158], "stop_times": [2668.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2667.158}, "reply_to": "22964__1_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_085", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "But you haven't told me... you haven't told me how you get out of the restitution statute.\nThere's no ambiguity there, and it is not a rule of law that you can't... it's unconstitutional to enforce the tax laws of Canada.\nSince it's entirely feasible, and since the text is categorical, how do you get out of the restitution statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2668.273, 2672.154, 2681.609], "stop_times": [2672.154, 2681.609, 2687.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2668.273}, "reply_to": "22964__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_086", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Here is how I get out of it, Justice Scalia.\nIf you think, as I do not, that the revenue rule would bar restitution at the behest of the United States in a criminal prosecution, there is a background principle that says when there is an established rule of the common law, Congress legislates against that background, and unless it makes its intent clear and unequivocal to overcome that background rule of the common law, then the statute will not be interpreted to be in derogation of it.\nIt was that principle that formed the basis for the government's view that Canada cannot come in under the RICO statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2687.265, 2688.934, 2716.532], "stop_times": [2688.934, 2716.532, 2723.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2687.265}, "reply_to": "22964__1_085", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_087", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, that view is in... somewhat in tension with your view that the common law revenue rule doesn't stand in the way of this prosecution.\nBecause you have to interpret the statute in light of the general rule that one country doesn't mess with another country's taxes, absent a treaty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2723.691, 2732.757], "stop_times": [2732.757, 2741.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2723.691}, "reply_to": "22964__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22964__1_088", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Well, Justice Ginsburg, there is no common law rule that one country doesn't \"mess with\" another country's taxes.\nWhat there are, are a set of cases that deal with specific problems in which foreign taxes were at issue.\nAnd in all of the 20th century versions of this problem, what you had is a foreign government or an entity, acting at the behest of a foreign government, coming into another country seeking to use that country's courts to enforce its own tax rules.\nAnd in that context, the justifications for saying that one country will not enforce another country's revenue laws have to do with the sovereignty interests of the host country.\nOne country, when it seeks to obtain revenue to carry out its own governmental policies, is doing something fundamental to its sovereign existence, and there's no obligation of the United States to assist the foreign government in using its court system to achieve those independent sovereign aims.\nNo prohibition on it, either.\nAs Justice Scalia pointed out, it's not constitutional, if Congress wanted to allow it.\nBut countries, historically, have not.\nAnd that principle does form an important backdrop--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2741.218, 2747.179, 2754.388, 2770.774, 2782.912, 2800.867, 2802.519, 2807.061, 2809.412], "stop_times": [2747.179, 2754.388, 2770.774, 2782.912, 2800.867, 2802.519, 2807.061, 2809.412, 2812.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2741.218}, "reply_to": "22964__1_087", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_089", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Have countries also... just... here, I don't know, in respect to the principle... would it have been viewed as contrary to the principle if a country were to pass a law... say, England were to pass a law saying it is a crime in England not to pay French taxes?\nI'm not saying they couldn't do it; I'm just saying, Would a law like that, saying it is a crime in England not to pay French taxes... would it have been viewed as contrary to an abrogation of... or a... you know, whatever you call it... a derogation from the common law revenue rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2812.467, 2826.873], "stop_times": [2826.873, 2843.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2812.467}, "reply_to": "22964__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_090", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--I think that that's essentially the same question in this case, with the one significant difference that here there is a domestic--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2843.47], "stop_times": [2851.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2843.47}, "reply_to": "22964__1_089", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_091", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "But do you see why I want to characterize it?\nI mean, would you characterize... my criminal statute's absolutely clear... the clear is, it is a crime in England not to pay French taxes.\nNow, would you, or would scholars, or whoever, view about the common law revenue rule, would they have said,\n\"There is a derogation from the common law revenue rule. \"\nor would they have said,\n\"It has nothing to do with it? \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2851.393, 2852.674, 2861.796, 2867.247, 2870.423, 2871.993], "stop_times": [2852.674, 2861.796, 2867.247, 2870.423, 2871.993, 2872.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2851.393}, "reply_to": "22964__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_092", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Well, I don't know what scholars would have said about it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2872.82], "stop_times": [2875.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2872.82}, "reply_to": "22964__1_091", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_093", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "No, what would you have said?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2875.808], "stop_times": [2876.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2875.808}, "reply_to": "22964__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_094", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--but this is what I would say about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2876.43], "stop_times": [2877.506], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2876.43}, "reply_to": "22964__1_093", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_095", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2877.506], "stop_times": [2877.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2877.506}, "reply_to": "22964__1_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_096", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "When you're dealing with the principle that a statute of the United States will not be construed to be in derogation of a common law unless it's clear that that's its purpose, the court should be very careful in defining what the parameters of the common law are.\nThe court should not take a common law rule and treat it as some dynamic entity that has capability of growing a dimension that is not consistent with its purposes and that it had never assumed in any decided case as a means of telling Congress,\n\"You can't do what you have done. \"\nSo I would say, Justice Breyer--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2877.745, 2893.227, 2910.81, 2912.379], "stop_times": [2893.227, 2910.81, 2912.379, 2914.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2877.745}, "reply_to": "22964__1_095", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_097", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "We haven't told... no, no, no, no, no, no, we're not telling Congress,\n\"You can't do what you have done. \"\nWe're saying, \"Congress hasn't done this\".", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2914.198, 2916.716, 2918.118], "stop_times": [2916.716, 2918.118, 2921.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2914.198}, "reply_to": "22964__1_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_098", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Well, the only reason you would say that Congress hasn't done it, Justice Scalia, is if you concluded that... and I would ask the Petitioners what their best citations are, because I haven't been able to find them... what cases indicate that a country cannot bring the kind of prosecution that the United States did here to vindicate its own independent sovereign--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2921.311], "stop_times": [2941.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2921.311}, "reply_to": "22964__1_097", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_099", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Nobody says they can't do it.\nThat's why I asked you my question.\nMy question is simply whether you would consider an absolutely clear law...\n\"We will... we... it is a crime not to pay your French taxes. \"\nI'm asking whether you would consider that... I'm not saying they can't do it; I just want to know... would it be in derogation of the common law principle?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2941.373, 2942.366, 2943.868, 2948.615, 2954.088], "stop_times": [2942.366, 2943.868, 2948.615, 2954.088, 2962.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2941.373}, "reply_to": "22964__1_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_100", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--It would probably be in derogation of a more--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2962.361], "stop_times": [2964.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2962.361}, "reply_to": "22964__1_099", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_101", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "That's where--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2964.302], "stop_times": [2964.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.302}, "reply_to": "22964__1_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_102", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--fundamental principle.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2964.84], "stop_times": [2965.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2964.84}, "reply_to": "22964__1_101", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_103", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2965.683], "stop_times": [2966.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2965.683}, "reply_to": "22964__1_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_104", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Not the revenue rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2966.242], "stop_times": [2967.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2966.242}, "reply_to": "22964__1_103", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_105", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Not the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2967.44], "stop_times": [2967.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2967.44}, "reply_to": "22964__1_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_106", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--but a more fundamental principle that one country usually does not legislate with respect to extraterritorial acts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2967.811], "stop_times": [2974.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2967.811}, "reply_to": "22964__1_105", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_107", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--That would be another one, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2974.787], "stop_times": [2975.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2974.787}, "reply_to": "22964__1_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_108", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "But if you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2975.863], "stop_times": [2976.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2975.863}, "reply_to": "22964__1_107", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_109", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Because the... I... that's why I want to know--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2976.523], "stop_times": [2978.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2976.523}, "reply_to": "22964__1_108", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_110", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--But that's not applicable here, either, Justice Breyer, because the crime involves wire fraud in the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2978.957], "stop_times": [2984.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2978.957}, "reply_to": "22964__1_109", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_111", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Yeah, but why is it ethical, to the extent that there seems to be a mandatory obligation to order restitution?\nAnd it seems to me that the restitution that would be ordered would be just as much in derogation of the common law principle as the out-and-out collection in Justice Breyer's example.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [2984.984, 2991.483], "stop_times": [2991.483, 3002.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2984.984}, "reply_to": "22964__1_110", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22964__1_112", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Justice Souter, again, to say that it's in derogation of the common law principle assumes that the common law principle has applicability to one country seeking to vindicate interests of its--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3002.984], "stop_times": [3015.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3002.984}, "reply_to": "22964__1_111", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_113", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, but I... a moment ago, you said,\n\"Okay, we'll assume that there would be some derogation. \"\nin Justice Breyer's example.\nI don't see why you don't come to the same conclusion with respect to the restitution aspect here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3015.987, 3018.095, 3021.354, 3022.924], "stop_times": [3018.095, 3021.354, 3022.924, 3027.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3015.987}, "reply_to": "22964__1_112", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22964__1_114", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Because the derogation that I was talking about with respect to Justice Breyer is punishing conduct that occurs entirely extraterritorially.\nThis is not conduct that occurs entirely--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3027.754, 3035.678], "stop_times": [3035.678, 3038.816], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3027.754}, "reply_to": "22964__1_113", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_115", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Yeah, but the revenue... the revenue rule does not rest simply on the rationale of non-extraterritorial enforcement.\nIt has... it has other rationales: difficulty of understanding what the revenue rule is; the... you know, the problems of policy; there are lots of revenue rules in foreign countries that we certainly wouldn't want to enforce, and so on.\nIt's not just extraterritoriality.\nIn those... those policies would be just as much implicated by the... by the restitution as by the out-and-out enforcement in Justice Breyer's example.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3038.816, 3046.535, 3061.934, 3064.301], "stop_times": [3046.535, 3061.934, 3064.301, 3074.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3038.816}, "reply_to": "22964__1_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22964__1_116", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Well, Justice Souter, I think that the policies underlying the revenue rule are narrower than the ones that you have articulated; but, even more to the point, they are not justifications that found their way into any holdings that would leave a reasonable legislator in 1952, when the wire fraud statute was enacted, to conclude that this is a rule that I'm going to have to specifically--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3074.21], "stop_times": [3096.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3074.21}, "reply_to": "22964__1_115", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_117", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well, perhaps--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3096.024], "stop_times": [3096.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3096.024}, "reply_to": "22964__1_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_118", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3096.479], "stop_times": [3097.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3096.479}, "reply_to": "22964__1_117", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22964__1_119", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3097.017], "stop_times": [3097.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3097.017}, "reply_to": "22964__1_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_120", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3097.472], "stop_times": [3097.722], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3097.472}, "reply_to": "22964__1_119", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22964__1_121", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "No, no problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3097.722], "stop_times": [3098.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3097.722}, "reply_to": "22964__1_120", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_122", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "I was going to say, perhaps there were no specific holdings, because it would have been regarded as, kind of, a bizarre derogation of the rule in the first place.\nNobody had dreamed up this scheme earlier.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3098.344, 3109.611], "stop_times": [3109.611, 3111.923], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3098.344}, "reply_to": "22964__1_121", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22964__1_123", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "I was about to say the same... the same thing.\nYou keep saying there are no cases that do this.\nAre there... are there... are there cases, before 1980, which do what you want to do... that is, to use our fraud law, or something, to effectively enforce Canada's... or some foreign country's tax law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3111.923, 3114.64, 3116.564], "stop_times": [3114.64, 3116.564, 3130.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3111.923}, "reply_to": "22964__1_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_124", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--No, but what I would say about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3130.416], "stop_times": [3132.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3130.416}, "reply_to": "22964__1_123", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_125", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3132.085], "stop_times": [3132.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3132.085}, "reply_to": "22964__1_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22964__1_126", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--the revenue rule is that it is a shrinking principle of the common law, not one that has been growing.\nIt originally started out as a principle that allowed countries to avoid invalidating contracts that they believed were in furtherance of commerce.\nIt gradually came under attack, because what it said is that the United States will not notice that a foreign country's laws have been violated in the formation of a contract, and so the contract will be enforced.\nCommentators recognized that that was contrary to principles of comity and recognition that each country does have a reciprocal interest in acknowledging each other's laws.\nIn the 20th century, those contract cases completely drop out of the picture, and what becomes left are sovereignty cases where a country is seeking to exert its sovereign power inside the United States or inside a foreign country... the United States, itself, tried it once in Canada... to collect taxes.\nAnd countries said,\n\"We're not going to do that. \"\n\"We're going to leave it to the treaty process. \"\nBut the rationales that Justice Breyer and Justice Souter have articulated, about complexity of foreign law and odious foreign tax systems, have never been the driving force behind the revenue rule.\nIt's been--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3132.357, 3138.096, 3147.672, 3160.509, 3170.706, 3187.88, 3188.623, 3189.571, 3191.595, 3203.317], "stop_times": [3138.096, 3147.672, 3160.509, 3170.706, 3187.88, 3188.623, 3189.571, 3191.595, 3203.317, 3203.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3132.357}, "reply_to": "22964__1_125", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_127", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--I got your point.\nI think it is the... in my answer... in my clear example, you would say no, that's not in derogation for the reason that there's an independent local reason for doing it.\nIt's not being done to... whether it has that effect or not, it's not being done in order to collect the foreign tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3203.772, 3204.598, 3213.92], "stop_times": [3204.598, 3213.92, 3220.051], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3203.772}, "reply_to": "22964__1_126", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_128", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3220.051], "stop_times": [3220.573], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3220.051}, "reply_to": "22964__1_127", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_129", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "That's been your response throughout.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3220.573], "stop_times": [3221.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3220.573}, "reply_to": "22964__1_128", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_130", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3221.893], "stop_times": [3222.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3221.893}, "reply_to": "22964__1_129", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_131", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Okay, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3222.969], "stop_times": [3223.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3222.969}, "reply_to": "22964__1_130", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__1_132", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "What you have instead is a law of the United States that's enacted to serve perfectly valid interests that the United States Government has in rooting out fraud in this country and in dealing with schemes to defraud that are created here.\nAnd for the court to say that,\n\"We don't like these kinds of prosecutions, because we're concerned about really bad foreign tax systems, and we're concerned about complicated law, and we're concerned that some common law rule that had never actually assumed the scope that Petitioners ascribed to it, should be formed... read as the background principle for the interpretation of this statute. \"\nis not a principle that finds any support in the construction of federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3223.235, 3235.684, 3237.42, 3254.055], "stop_times": [3235.684, 3237.42, 3254.055, 3258.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3223.235}, "reply_to": "22964__1_131", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_133", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Mr. Dreeben, can I ask you... this is such a curious case.\nYou were very candid in telling us that when Canada put these astronomical taxes on tobacco and alcohol, that was almost an invitation to smugglers.\nDid we have any discussions with Canada... I mean, they do have that border, which is rather easy to cross... about what we were going to do when they put the taxes on liquor sky-high?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3258.142, 3261.364, 3272.054], "stop_times": [3261.364, 3272.054, 3285.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3258.142}, "reply_to": "22964__1_132", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22964__1_134", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--I am not aware, Justice Ginsburg, of what specific law enforcement conversations occurred, but I can tell you that there is extensive law enforcement cooperation with Canada, as a close neighbor, and that the interests of the United States very much do favor our policing against smuggling here, and Canada policing against smuggling there.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3285.817, 3305.946], "stop_times": [3305.946, 3306.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3285.817}, "reply_to": "22964__1_133", "speaker": "michael_r_dreeben"}
{"id": "22964__1_135", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Dreeben.\nMs. Brill, you have four-and-a-half minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3306.689, 3307.72], "stop_times": [3307.72, 3315.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3306.689}, "reply_to": "22964__1_134", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22964__2_000", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Thank you.\nThe common law cases universally say that it does not matter who is bringing the claim.\nIt can be the foreign government or it can be another person.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3315.234, 3315.977, 3327.987], "stop_times": [3315.977, 3327.987, 3332.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3315.234}, "reply_to": "22964__1_135", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__2_001", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Can I just ask you to tell us what your strongest case is?\nBecause they did raise that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3332.611, 3334.674], "stop_times": [3334.674, 3336.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3332.611}, "reply_to": "22964__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22964__2_002", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Sure.\nOn the... on the issue of the identity of the person bringing the claim, the contract cases, Holman and Boucher, stand for that proposition, and the Peter Buchanan case, which came down in 1950, just before the wire fraud statute was enacted... this was in the Appellate Court in Ireland... it says,\n\"It is not a question whether the plaintiff is a foreign state or the representative of a foreign state or its revenue authority. \"\n\"In every case, the substance of a claim must be scrutinized. \"\n\"And if it then appears that it is really a suit brought for the purpose of collecting the debts of a foreign revenue, it must be rejected. \"\nThat's at 1955 A.C. 529.\nAnd so with the... with the Mandatory Restitution Act, this clearly is something to collect the debts of a foreign nation.\nAnd the sentencing scheme that Justice Ginsburg alluded to earlier, in which the sentences were enhanced based on the intended loss, demonstrate that this is an enforcement action.\nStringam versus Dubois, which is an Alberta case from 1992, involving... the plaintiff there was an executor of a probate estate, and the court said,\n\"The identity of the plaintiff in the action is not vital if the action indirectly has the effect of enforcing revenue laws of a foreign country. \"\nThat's at 135 A.C. at page 70.\nAnd the way the revenue rule has been cited repeatedly is that it... what it prevents is not just direct enforcement, but direct or indirect enforcement.\nAnd so it is... the fact that there have not been criminal prosecutions, it clearly would have been in derogation of the common law for a... for England to pass a statute saying it is criminal in England to break the laws of France.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3336.698, 3337.086, 3356.101, 3362.993, 3366.519, 3374.51, 3379.644, 3387.513, 3398.204, 3409.433, 3417.402, 3420.95, 3431.269], "stop_times": [3337.086, 3356.101, 3362.993, 3366.519, 3374.51, 3379.644, 3387.513, 3398.204, 3409.433, 3417.402, 3420.95, 3431.269, 3446.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3336.698}, "reply_to": "22964__2_001", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__2_003", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "See, he's saying it isn't, for the reason that, he says, that if England did it for independent reasons, it wasn't doing it because it wanted to help France get it's money, that then it wouldn't have been in derogation.\nOf course, it would have been legal, either way, but he says it wouldn't have been in derogation, for that reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3446.584, 3457.154], "stop_times": [3457.154, 3462.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3446.584}, "reply_to": "22964__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22964__2_004", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Right.\nWell, it clearly would have.\nThere was no common law practice... we have... we have not found, in all the research... and the government has not found... any example of a criminal prosecution... not just in this country; anywhere in the world... to... deriving from the violation of a foreign government's tax.\nAnd so--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3462.271, 3462.521, 3463.94, 3479.361], "stop_times": [3462.521, 3463.94, 3479.361, 3480.187], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3462.271}, "reply_to": "22964__2_003", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__2_005", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "You're saying, in effect, that derogation is an effects test, not an intent test.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3480.187], "stop_times": [3483.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3480.187}, "reply_to": "22964__2_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22964__2_006", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nYes, Justice Souter.\nAnd the... in terms of what the government's interests are, there were no deceptive acts in this country.\nThe way the government gets a material misstatement is by a failure to disclose at the Canadian border, which only... even though they did not put in evidence of what the... that Canada even had a law requiring disclosure, the only way there could have been any kind of material misstatement would be if Canadian law required it, not if... not anything that happened in the United States.\nIn Cleveland, the court was very clear to point out... one of the reasons to adopt a rule of lenity in interpreting the mail fraud statute and the wire fraud statute is because violations serve as a predicate for RICO actions and for money-laundering violations.\nAnd so what the government's position is, is that we should carve out this ad-hoc exception and allow wire fraud prosecution, even though we would not allow any kind of a civil RICO action and even though we're going to have an ad-hoc exception for the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.\nBut what the court said in Cleveland is, the way we should do this is by adopting a proper interpretation in the first place, not by... of the wire fraud statute... not by having ad-hoc exceptions.\nAnd the reference to prosecutorial discretion that there should be faith that the government will only prosecute, I guess, what the government regards as exceptional cases is not something that can provide any business involved in an international transaction with any... with any comfort.\nAnd thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3483.614, 3485.555, 3486.67, 3496.617, 3521.237, 3539.919, 3557.175, 3567.494, 3586.237], "stop_times": [3485.555, 3486.67, 3496.617, 3521.237, 3539.919, 3557.175, 3567.494, 3586.237, 3588.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3483.614}, "reply_to": "22964__2_005", "speaker": "laura_w_brill"}
{"id": "22964__2_007", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "Thank you.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3588.011, 3588.754], "stop_times": [3588.754, 3589.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3588.011}, "reply_to": "22964__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22964__2_008", "conversation_id": "22964", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-725", "start_times": [3589.869], "stop_times": [3594.493], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3589.869}, "reply_to": "22964__2_007", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22383__0_000", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "We'll now... we'll now hear argument in Rhines against Weber.\nMr. Lange.\nYou may proceed, Mr. Lange.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [0.0, 5.739, 7.225], "stop_times": [5.739, 7.225, 43.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22383__0_001", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nStay and abeyance is the proper way to administer the total exhaustion rule under the unique facts of this case.\nSeveral Justices of this Court already have endorsed stay and abeyance, and seven of the eight circuit courts of appeals that have considered the issue have permitted stay and abeyance under similar circumstances.\nSection 2254 and the decisions of this Court in Granberry v. Greer and Strickland v. Washington make clear that exhaustion is not a jurisdictional requirement.\nDistrict courts have the inherent authority and the broad discretion to issue stays in cases within their jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [43.179, 46.318, 53.748, 66.38, 80.764], "stop_times": [46.318, 53.748, 66.38, 80.764, 90.49], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 43.179}, "reply_to": "22383__0_000", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_002", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "I think that's unquestionable.\nThe... the issue really is whether it's an abuse of that discretion to... to grant a stay and abeyance when the... the petitioner comes before the court for habeas without having exhausted in State court.\nI mean, that's the question.\nI think everybody will stipulate that there's power to... to stay proceedings, but is it an abuse of discretion to do so in these circumstances given the statute that... that wants a 1-year, prompt resort to the Federal courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [90.49, 92.386, 112.698, 114.101], "stop_times": [92.386, 112.698, 114.101, 133.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 90.49}, "reply_to": "22383__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__0_003", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Justice Scalia, I agree with your framing of the issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [133.975], "stop_times": [136.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 133.975}, "reply_to": "22383__0_002", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_004", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [136.476], "stop_times": [137.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 136.476}, "reply_to": "22383__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__0_005", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "And I also believe that a stay under these circumstances is appropriate under the statutes, section 2254 and 2244, and is consistent with those statutes.\nThere is nothing, as Justice Souter noted in his concurrence in Duncan v. Walker, that prohibits the... the granting of a stay under circumstances such as these.\nIndeed--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [137.052, 150.593, 161.655], "stop_times": [150.593, 161.655, 162.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 137.052}, "reply_to": "22383__0_004", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_006", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, there's no... there's no abuse of discretion here.\nWhy?\nBecause we have an interest in having all of the claims exhausted?\nIf... if it's no more... if it's as broad as that, then there's no AEDPA statute of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [162.232, 164.34, 164.916, 168.221], "stop_times": [164.34, 164.916, 168.221, 175.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 162.232}, "reply_to": "22383__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22383__0_007", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nI believe there is no abuse of the discretion here because if a stay had not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [175.319, 176.971], "stop_times": [176.971, 182.377], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 175.319}, "reply_to": "22383__0_006", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_008", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, why shouldn't... why shouldn't the petitioner for habeas have to first go to the State court and exhaust the State court claims?\nHere that wasn't done.\nThe petitioner eventually ended up in Federal court with a laundry list of 30-some unexhausted State claims, for goodness sakes.\nWhy shouldn't those have been presented in the first instance to the State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [182.377, 191.998, 193.977, 206.237], "stop_times": [191.998, 193.977, 206.237, 211.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 182.377}, "reply_to": "22383__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22383__0_009", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Well, in an ideal world, they would be presented in the first instance, but we're dealing with a... a world where 93 percent of petitioners are proceeding pro se.\nYour Honor, stay and abeyance does force a petitioner to present unexhausted claims in State court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [211.067, 220.826], "stop_times": [220.826, 229.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 211.067}, "reply_to": "22383__0_008", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_010", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "At the price of suspending the 1-year statute of limitations that Congress thought was central to AEDPA.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [229.15], "stop_times": [234.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 229.15}, "reply_to": "22383__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22383__0_011", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nI do not see this as a suspension of the statute of limitations.\nMr. Rhines met the AEDPA statute of limitations.\nHe filed when only, by the State's own admission, 8 to 14 days had run on his 1-year AEDPA statute of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [234.556, 235.959, 239.385, 242.646], "stop_times": [235.959, 239.385, 242.646, 251.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 234.556}, "reply_to": "22383__0_010", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_012", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, but it's a free ride if you say... so long as you get in within the 1-year period, the court can then give you another 3 years or as long as the court thinks is reasonable for you to go back and... and do what you were supposed to do before you arrived.\nI mean, that seems to me is a frustration of the 1-year statute of limitations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [251.728, 265.93], "stop_times": [265.93, 269.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 251.728}, "reply_to": "22383__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__0_013", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "I disagree that that is a free ride, and I do not see that as a frustration of the 1-year statute of limitations when a petitioner has met the 1-year statute of limitations.\nYour Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [269.645, 279.304], "stop_times": [279.304, 280.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 269.645}, "reply_to": "22383__0_012", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_014", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "But the petitioner--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [280.957], "stop_times": [282.071], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 280.957}, "reply_to": "22383__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22383__0_015", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "No, but the point--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [282.071], "stop_times": [282.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 282.071}, "reply_to": "22383__0_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22383__0_016", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--didn't go to the State court with this enormous laundry list of unexhausted claims.\nI mean, what do we do to encourage the procedure to be followed?\nCongress did want all this compressed and thought people should apply first to State court and, when those are exhausted, then within the time limit apply to Federal court.\nBut this... this scheme does something else, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [282.61, 289.707, 294.537, 306.963], "stop_times": [289.707, 294.537, 306.963, 311.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 282.61}, "reply_to": "22383__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22383__0_017", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Your Honor, Congress wanted to compress certainly the time between exhaustion of the State remedies and the time when the petitioner came to Federal court.\nHowever, Congress gave unlimited tolling while there is any proceeding going in... in State court.\nI... I see this stay and abeyance as a procedure that gets applied somewhat infrequently and at the discretion of a judge to... a district court judge to apply or not apply when it's appropriate to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [311.421, 319.883, 326.488], "stop_times": [319.883, 326.488, 341.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 311.421}, "reply_to": "22383__0_016", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_018", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Is there a difference... would you say there's a difference between a case where the petitioner comes into Federal court in the first instance with this laundry list or as, if I recall correctly, this case, goes first to the State court and then, when it's dismissed from the State court, comes to Federal court with the same basic list which has been exhausted, plus others which have not?\nWould you distinguish the case on the propriety of stay and abeyance of passing up the State court, going to Federal court first, going to State court with your pro se petition raising a bunch of claims but not all of them, and then coming to Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [341.227, 372.889], "stop_times": [372.889, 392.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 341.227}, "reply_to": "22383__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__0_019", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--I think it truly depends on the circumstances which of those two hypotheticals present a more compelling case for stay and abeyance.\nIn Mr. Rhines situation, he did go to State court first and exhausted the vast majority of the 35 separate claims that he has raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [392.041, 399.017], "stop_times": [399.017, 409.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 392.041}, "reply_to": "22383__0_018", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_020", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "How many... how many were not exhausted of that... that laundry list?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [409.048], "stop_times": [413.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 409.048}, "reply_to": "22383__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__0_021", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "The court... or the State challenged 12 of the claims as unexhausted.\nThe district court found eight of those claims to be unexhausted, Your Honor, and made that finding after Mr. Rhines' 1-year AEDPA period had run.\nThe finding... Mr. Rhines had filed in February of 2000 pro se.\nThe district court's conclusion that he had a mixed petition and that there were eight unexhausted claims was made in July of 2002.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [413.673, 417.304, 426.881, 432.265], "stop_times": [417.304, 426.881, 432.265, 440.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 413.673}, "reply_to": "22383__0_020", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_022", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "16 months.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [440.256], "stop_times": [441.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 440.256}, "reply_to": "22383__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__0_023", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "It's actually a little bit... it's longer than 16 months, Your Honor.\nThe district court referred to 16 months, but it's almost 2 and a half years, from February of 2000 to July of 2002, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [441.287, 445.168], "stop_times": [445.168, 453.137], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 441.287}, "reply_to": "22383__0_022", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_024", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "One of the problems is that the statute encourages prompt resolution in... in the Federal system as well, and under a stay and abey procedure, you could have a district judge who lets the matter sit for 9-10 months and all of a sudden issues a stay and abey.\nHow are we going to control that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [453.137, 469.773], "stop_times": [469.773, 471.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 453.137}, "reply_to": "22383__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22383__0_025", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Your Honor, I think the alternative that the State proposes presents an even more troubling illustration.\nA district court, of course, can proceed at its own... at its own rate, grant a stay, grant the terms of the stay as it sees fit, and I believe that takes care of the consideration that... that Your Honor's question indicated, Justice Kennedy.\nThe suggestion of the State sets up a situation where, according to the State, they want Rhines to purge his... his claim... his petition of the unexhausted claims and proceed in State court at the same time, which is unseemly to have Mr. Rhines proceeding on 27 exhausted claims in Federal court at the same time that he is proceeding on 8 claims in State court.\nNow, South Dakota is a little bit unique.\nIt... it allows a second State habeas action.\nThere's no time bar to a second State habeas action.\nIn fact, the South Dakota legislature has made a policy decision that indigent prisoners are entitled to representation of counsel in their first habeas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [471.175, 479.06, 493.466, 520.216, 522.695, 527.274, 530.33], "stop_times": [479.06, 493.466, 520.216, 522.695, 527.274, 530.33, 540.361], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.175}, "reply_to": "22383__0_024", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_026", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, so then he's protected in the State system, and if he needs Federal review, he can come here on direct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [540.361], "stop_times": [545.29], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 540.361}, "reply_to": "22383__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22383__0_027", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Your Honor, the problem is the eight claims that he is now exhausting in State court, if the State's approach is taken, he forever sacrifices, loses the right to Federal review of those eight claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [545.29], "stop_times": [561.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.29}, "reply_to": "22383__0_026", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_028", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "No.\nHe can come to... here... this Court on direct review.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [561.01, 561.176], "stop_times": [561.176, 564.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 561.01}, "reply_to": "22383__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22383__0_029", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Excuse me.\nUnder direct review?\nIs--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [564.437, 566.833, 567.863], "stop_times": [566.833, 567.863, 568.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 564.437}, "reply_to": "22383__0_028", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_030", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "He can come to this Court on certiorari after the State decision in the second... in the second habeas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [568.152], "stop_times": [574.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.152}, "reply_to": "22383__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22383__0_031", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Your Honor, as a matter of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [574.263], "stop_times": [579.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 574.263}, "reply_to": "22383__0_030", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_032", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "It's fair for you to say he loses his right to Federal review--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [579.602], "stop_times": [581.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 579.602}, "reply_to": "22383__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__0_033", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Right.\nYour--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [581.981, 582.187], "stop_times": [582.187, 582.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 581.981}, "reply_to": "22383__0_032", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_034", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--because we wouldn't necessarily take that case, whereas you say he'd have a right to go into Federal... Federal habeas.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [582.891, 589.328], "stop_times": [589.328, 589.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 582.891}, "reply_to": "22383__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__0_035", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Thank you for throwing me the life preserver.\nI--\n[Laughter]\nI understand this Court grants fewer than 1 percent of the cases, so as a practical matter, for there to be an independent review, as contemplated by section 2254(a), it does require a district court's involvement.\nAs a practical matter, this Court on... on cert can't be expected to... to conduct that review.\n2254(a), which is the statute that grants jurisdiction, does indicate that a Federal court shall entertain causes of this action.\nNow, 2254(b) does contain the exhaustion requirement in (b)(1) and makes clear in (b)(2) and (b)(3) that it is not jurisdictional.\nThe... the irony--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [589.867, 592.179, 592.401, 592.651, 608.748, 614.282, 624.23, 635.087], "stop_times": [592.179, 592.401, 592.651, 608.748, 614.282, 624.23, 635.087, 637.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 589.867}, "reply_to": "22383__0_034", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_036", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Would we have to... would we have to reverse in part Rose against Lundy to go with your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [637.521], "stop_times": [644.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.521}, "reply_to": "22383__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22383__0_037", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--I don't believe so anymore than you would have to reverse in part Rose v. Lundy to go with the State's view.\nAnd let me explain.\nThe approach of stay and abeyance is more consistent with the principles of Rose v. Lundy than the... than the State's position.\nIn Rose, this Court was concerned about comity and federalism.\nIt... it serves the interests of comity and federalism for a Federal court to suspend consideration of a Federal habeas case while a petitioner has a remedy and is actually pursuing it in State court.\nThe petitioner may be granted the remedy in State court, which in turn would render the Federal petition moot altogether.\nThere could be, between the competing State and Federal cases, competition for the transcript or even the exhibits.\nRose v. Lundy also contemplated a process that would not unreasonably impair the petitioner's right and would give the petitioner the choice of either purging the unexhausted claims or going back to State court, exhausting the claims, and then coming back to Federal court with one fully exhausted--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [644.042, 650.524, 652.67, 661.67, 666.416, 682.763, 689.368, 696.592], "stop_times": [650.524, 652.67, 661.67, 666.416, 682.763, 689.368, 696.592, 719.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 644.042}, "reply_to": "22383__0_036", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_038", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, that was at a time before the AEDPA enactment that tried to put limits, time limits, on these things.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [719.915], "stop_times": [726.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 719.915}, "reply_to": "22383__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22383__0_039", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--The only--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [726.314], "stop_times": [727.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 726.314}, "reply_to": "22383__0_038", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_040", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "That's what we run into here, is a total frustration almost of Congress' time limiting.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [727.428], "stop_times": [734.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 727.428}, "reply_to": "22383__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22383__0_041", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Your Honor, I... I would disagree that this is a total frustration of Congress' time limiting... time limiting.\nAgain, Congress granted unlimited tolling while a petitioner is pursuing remedies in State court.\nCongress was not attempting to frustrate or impede the petitioner's right to seek State court relief or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [734.365, 742.0, 748.399], "stop_times": [742.0, 748.399, 756.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 734.365}, "reply_to": "22383__0_040", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_042", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Yes, but Congress, I think under the scheme, envisioned having someone make all the State claims the first time around, gather them up and go to State court, and let them take as long as they like... no statute will run until that's complete... and then go to the Federal court.\nAnd this does an end run around that approach.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [756.74, 780.145], "stop_times": [780.145, 784.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 756.74}, "reply_to": "22383__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22383__0_043", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Your Honor, I don't believe this does an end run because this is different than... than tolling.\nFirst of all, in tolling it's automatic under a statute, and stay and abeyance is always discretionary with the court.\nThe court can grant or deny the stay and abeyance order, alter it, revoke it, or in this case, put time limits on the petitioner's right to go back and... and forth.\nAlso, Mr. Rhines has complied with the AEDPA period.\nHe did file.\nThe unusual situation that could result here is if you assume a prisoner B who's in Rhines' same position and files at the same time, when only approximately 9 days have elapsed on his AEDPA period.\nPetitioner B, let's assume, files three claims: one exhausted, one unexhausted, and one there's a dispute over whether it's exhausted or not.\nBecause petitioner B had a short trial perhaps or draws a different judge in the District of South Dakota, the judge can rule on that case perhaps within 100 days.\nIt gives petitioner B, under my scenario, 256 days to go to State court, exhaust his claims, and then come back into Federal court with one fully exhausted petition.\nRhines would be in the position of prisoner B in my scenario but for the fact that his claims are... are much more complicated.\nHe is serving a... a sentence of death.\nHe did have a long trial.\nAnd under that situation, it's simply unfair to someone in Rhines' place to have his right to a review of the eight unexhausted claims cut short because he had a complicated case or the district court was slow in getting to a decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [784.353, 793.641, 800.594, 812.217, 817.047, 817.668, 834.303, 845.282, 856.761, 873.124, 881.691, 884.558, 886.604], "stop_times": [793.641, 800.594, 812.217, 817.047, 817.668, 834.303, 845.282, 856.761, 873.124, 881.691, 884.558, 886.604, 904.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 784.353}, "reply_to": "22383__0_042", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_044", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--That... that happens often with time limits.\nI mean, it depends on when the court finishes its job and so forth.\nWhat do you do about... about our opinion in... in Duncan v. Walker where we refused to toll the limitation period during the pendency of a... of the Federal proceeding and... and said, in... in justification of that holding, by tolling the limitation period for the pursuit of State remedies and not during the pendency of applications for Federal review, 2244 provides a powerful incentive for litigants to exhaust all available State remedies before proceeding in the lower Federal courts?\nYou are now urging us to eliminate that incentive entirely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [904.975, 908.319, 911.784, 952.174], "stop_times": [908.319, 911.784, 952.174, 956.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 904.975}, "reply_to": "22383__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__0_045", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [956.532], "stop_times": [957.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 956.532}, "reply_to": "22383__0_044", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_046", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [957.647], "stop_times": [957.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 957.647}, "reply_to": "22383__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__0_047", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "I believe there's always a very powerful incentive to prisoners to exhaust in full because if they file a mixed petition, they're not going to have relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [957.897], "stop_times": [967.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 957.897}, "reply_to": "22383__0_046", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_048", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Sometimes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [967.185], "stop_times": [968.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 967.185}, "reply_to": "22383__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__0_049", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "(b)(1) says it shall not be granted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [968.216], "stop_times": [969.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 968.216}, "reply_to": "22383__0_048", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_050", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Well, you said... you said in your brief that... that it's always in the... with the possible exception of capital cases, it's always in the interest of a habeas applicant to get... get it decided as soon as possible.\nThat's not really true.\nSometimes it's... it's in his interest to delay it as much as possible.\nWitnesses will die.\nPeople will move away.\nAll sorts of... there are all sorts of reasons why he... he might want to delay the process.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [969.886, 979.817, 981.219, 984.934, 986.52, 988.112], "stop_times": [979.817, 981.219, 984.934, 986.52, 988.112, 992.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 969.886}, "reply_to": "22383__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__0_051", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "I think those illustrations are... are the... very much the exception rather than the rule, as this Court recognized in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [992.57], "stop_times": [999.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 992.57}, "reply_to": "22383__0_050", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_052", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Well, what about the exceptional case?\nI mean, how do we avoid the exceptional case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [999.629, 1001.115], "stop_times": [1001.115, 1003.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 999.629}, "reply_to": "22383__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22383__0_053", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Well, I think that's then the district court's task that has more familiarity with the particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1003.223], "stop_times": [1008.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1003.223}, "reply_to": "22383__0_052", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_054", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Which can do what?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1008.711], "stop_times": [1008.961], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.711}, "reply_to": "22383__0_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22383__0_055", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "The district court can refuse to issue a stay and abeyance order.\nIt can put tight deadlines on a stay and abeyance order.\nThe district court can revoke a stay and abeyance order.\nIt can alter it if there is delay.\nI believe that is a decision that should be left to the court that's closest to the facts, the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1008.961, 1013.435, 1016.596, 1019.668, 1022.457], "stop_times": [1013.435, 1016.596, 1019.668, 1022.457, 1028.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1008.961}, "reply_to": "22383__0_054", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_056", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Do you think the procedure should be any different between capital cases and noncapital cases?\nWe're basically talking about what would be an abuse of discretion, as you indicated at the outset.\nDo you think the same rule should apply to both, or do you think there might be... because there is a greater incentive to delay in the capital case than there is in the noncapital case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1028.195, 1033.109, 1037.733], "stop_times": [1033.109, 1037.733, 1046.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1028.195}, "reply_to": "22383__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22383__0_057", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "You're right, Justice Stevens.\nI... it's difficult to develop a rule that distinguishes between the two classes, but I do believe that's in the realm of the discretion of the district court.\nThe district court can set very tight deadlines on a petitioner returning to State court to exhaust remaining remedies like the Court here set a deadline of 60 days, and in the circuit courts, more commonly the deadline is 30 days to go back to State court and then 30 days to return once the State proceeding is... is completed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1046.568, 1048.508, 1059.571], "stop_times": [1048.508, 1059.571, 1080.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1046.568}, "reply_to": "22383__0_056", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_058", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "But you... you don't really think we can hold that line, giving less favorable treatment to somebody who's... who's trying to argue against a capital penalty, less favorable treatment to him than somebody who's... who just wants to avoid 10 years in jail?\nThat's just not going to work.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1080.459, 1095.897], "stop_times": [1095.897, 1097.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1080.459}, "reply_to": "22383__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__0_059", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "I'm not advocating less favorable treatment or more favorable treatment for that matter.\nI believe the rule has to be consistent between the two.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1097.261, 1102.213], "stop_times": [1102.213, 1106.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1097.261}, "reply_to": "22383__0_058", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_060", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Could you just replay the order of the proceedings?\nThe first petition is to the State court.\nWas the defendant in that first State habeas represented by counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1106.011, 1112.51, 1116.702], "stop_times": [1112.51, 1116.702, 1121.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1106.011}, "reply_to": "22383__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__0_061", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Yes, he was, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1121.986], "stop_times": [1123.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1121.986}, "reply_to": "22383__0_060", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_062", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "So he's been represented by counsel throughout.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1123.351], "stop_times": [1125.868], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1123.351}, "reply_to": "22383__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__0_063", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, he filed his Federal habeas petition pro se.\nThe counsel was appointed shortly afterwards, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1125.868, 1129.955], "stop_times": [1129.955, 1132.76], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1125.868}, "reply_to": "22383__0_062", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_064", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "But the... the State application that preceded that... he was represented there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1132.76], "stop_times": [1138.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1132.76}, "reply_to": "22383__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__0_065", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1138.416], "stop_times": [1139.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1138.416}, "reply_to": "22383__0_064", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_066", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "And then he lost his representation when he came to the Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1139.615], "stop_times": [1143.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1139.615}, "reply_to": "22383__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__0_067", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, a different lawyer gets appointed in the Federal court system than represented him in the... in the State court system.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1143.246], "stop_times": [1150.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1143.246}, "reply_to": "22383__0_066", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_068", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "How... how general is... is this problem?\nAnd... and to what extent is it tied to the fact that you can bring a second habeas in South Dakota?\nI mean, in... in most States, if this had happened, I presume, when you went back to the State court, the State court would say, you know, you didn't... you didn't put in these claims the last time around and they're procedurally barred.\nIsn't that what would happen in... in most other States?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1150.222, 1153.937, 1161.822, 1176.682], "stop_times": [1153.937, 1161.822, 1176.682, 1181.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1150.222}, "reply_to": "22383__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__0_069", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "I think that's an excellent point and on footnotes 9 and 10 of the yellow brief, there is a litany of the State procedural rules, and many States would bar a second habeas or would put a strict time limit that the petitioner could not meet.\nSouth Dakota is different in that regard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1181.141, 1197.655], "stop_times": [1197.655, 1199.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1181.141}, "reply_to": "22383__0_068", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_070", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1199.634], "stop_times": [1200.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1199.634}, "reply_to": "22383__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__0_071", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "South Dakota allows a second habeas and, indeed, allows a petitioner in a second habeas to show cause for a default by proving that he received ineffective assistance of habeas counsel, which is unique among the States.\nYes, many States that don't allow a second remedy would... would not... we would not be in this situation that we are here.\nHowever, South Dakota does.\nAnd in fairness to Mr. Rhines, it makes sense to stay the Federal petition and to allow him to exhaust his State court remedies on satisfaction of Rose and to come back with a fully exhausted claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1200.088, 1218.004, 1227.292, 1228.778], "stop_times": [1218.004, 1227.292, 1228.778, 1241.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1200.088}, "reply_to": "22383__0_070", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_072", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Unless what would happen in these other States as the... is that the court would grant the... the stay of proceedings in order to let him go back to the State court and be told after however long it takes that... that his... his claims are now procedurally barred.\nDo you think the Federal court would simply make its own determination that the claims would be rejected by the State court and therefore it would not stay?\nI don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1241.121, 1257.302, 1265.37], "stop_times": [1257.302, 1265.37, 1266.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1241.121}, "reply_to": "22383__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__0_073", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "I... I believe that would... could be and... and should be a factor in a district court's consideration of whether to grant stay and abeyance, Your Honor.\nThe State has expressed concerns about delay.\nThere are four reasons why those concerns are overstated.\nFirst, in the 3 and a half years since Duncan v. Walker was decided, there have been cases in circuit courts of appeals that have approved of the stay and abeyance procedure.\nNone of those cases evidence that it is being misused or is causing undue delay.\nSecond, the terms of the stay themselves can restrict a petitioner's delay, as I've already recounted the... the district court did here.\nThird, this Court in Slack v. McDaniel addressed very similar arguments to what the State is making now about delay through a second habeas filing.\nAnd this... this Court noted that the Rules of Civil Procedure vest courts with flexibility to prevent vexatious or delayed litigation and that there are other reasons why those concerns expressed in Slack v. McDaniel were... were overwrought.\nFourth and finally, on the prospect of delay, as already mentioned in answer to one of Justice Scalia's questions, the vast majority of petitioners are not under a capital sentence.\nIt is not hyperbole to say that 99.4 percent of Federal section 2254 habeas petitioners are not serving... are not under a capital penalty.\nThose are statistics from the year 2000 from the Department of Justice.\nAnd those, I think with the extremely rare exception, are people who believe rightly or wrongly that they're in prison because their constitutional rights have been violated and would not favor delay under any circumstance.\nSo the delay concern that the State raises is... is overwrought.\nUnless there are other questions, I'd reserve my remaining time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1266.59, 1274.353, 1280.419, 1284.301, 1295.818, 1301.967, 1313.484, 1325.168, 1340.151, 1353.237, 1365.664, 1370.122, 1386.181, 1390.472], "stop_times": [1274.353, 1280.419, 1284.301, 1295.818, 1301.967, 1313.484, 1325.168, 1340.151, 1353.237, 1365.664, 1370.122, 1386.181, 1390.472, 1396.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1266.59}, "reply_to": "22383__0_072", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__0_074", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Lang.\nGeneral Long, we'll hear from you, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1396.25, 1397.986], "stop_times": [1397.986, 1400.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1396.25}, "reply_to": "22383__0_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22383__1_000", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nCongress... excuse me.\nCongress carefully crafted a scheme designed to encourage State prisoners first to exhaust all of their State post-conviction remedies and then to file their habeas corpus petitions as soon as possible.\nThe congressional design includes three mutually dependent statutes, including a 1-year statute of limitations, a tolling provision, and a total exhaustion requirement, the combined effect of which is supposed to reduce delay, serve the principles of comity, finality, and federalism.\nHowever, stay and abeyance erodes each side of this triangular statutory design.\nStay and abeyance allows tolling in Federal court when Duncan said there should be none.\nIt extends the statute of limitations beyond 1 year, and it ignores the total exhaustion requirement of 2254(b).\nThe result is that State prisoners, especially capital prisoners, are encouraged to file mixed petitions and rewarded with delay if they do so.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1400.337, 1412.226, 1416.191, 1430.68, 1449.172, 1454.95, 1460.235, 1468.036], "stop_times": [1412.226, 1416.191, 1430.68, 1449.172, 1454.95, 1460.235, 1468.036, 1477.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1400.337}, "reply_to": "22383__0_074", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_001", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "What... what is your answer to... to your... your brother's answer on this, and... and that is, that the... the existence of stay and abey as a possibility is not a right to stay and abey?\nAnd... and if a district judges find that a... there is reason to believe that the defendant is gaming the system, because he's a capital defendant and wants to delay or wants delay for any other reason, there's... there's no requirement that... that there be a stay and... and abeyance order.\nAnd why... why doesn't that take care of what I... I think is a very legitimate issue that you raise?\nWhy isn't that a... a sufficient answer to it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1477.984, 1488.924, 1506.303, 1512.247], "stop_times": [1488.924, 1506.303, 1512.247, 1514.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1477.984}, "reply_to": "22383__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22383__1_002", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "I think that... I think that the... the answer is that Congress designed the system to resolve all those issues in State court first.\nI think one of the things that needs to be kept in mind is that an unexhausted claim is, by its very nature and by definition, a claim where there's an available remedy in State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1514.272, 1525.167], "stop_times": [1525.167, 1536.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1514.272}, "reply_to": "22383__1_001", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_003", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Oh, again, there's no question about that.\nAnd... and in a perfect... sort of in a perfect system, I think your objection would be unanswerable.\nThe trouble with the system we've got is... is the trouble that... that is... is undisputed here, and that is, that most of these petitions, the overwhelming number of them, are going to be pro se petitions.\nExhaustion can... can be tricky.\nThe... the statute of limitations is... is going to run and... and an individual can end up in the... in the situation that this one had.\nWhat... what he's asking for, in effect, is how do we tinker with the system, in effect, to prevent its being a... a very unfair burden on people who don't have the sophistication to help themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1536.85, 1539.823, 1545.562, 1557.451, 1561.371, 1574.745], "stop_times": [1539.823, 1545.562, 1557.451, 1561.371, 1574.745, 1588.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1536.85}, "reply_to": "22383__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22383__1_004", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "I don't think the system needs to be tinkered with, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1588.409], "stop_times": [1592.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1588.409}, "reply_to": "22383__1_003", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_005", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, I... I know but there's... what... what is your answer on the merits to the fact that most of the people who are going to ask for stay and abey are... are going to be pro ses, or at least have gotten into the mess that they're in as a result of pro se representation, and... and that... that exhaustion in close cases can be a very... very tricky issue?\nWhat... what's your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1592.662, 1614.704], "stop_times": [1614.704, 1615.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1592.662}, "reply_to": "22383__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22383__1_006", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "My response is in two parts.\nFirst of all, Your Honor, I agree with you that exhaustion can be a tricky issue, but it's... it's the most tricky in the question about whether or not the question has been fairly presented.\nThe less tricky portion of the question is whether or not the claim is unexhausted, having been... that means there's an available remedy in State court.\nThe easy way to sort that out is just to file your claim in State court.\nIf there is in fact an available remedy, then you get tolling, and that solves the problem.\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1615.984, 1617.676, 1629.443, 1638.935, 1643.272, 1649.421], "stop_times": [1617.676, 1629.443, 1638.935, 1643.272, 1649.421, 1649.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1615.984}, "reply_to": "22383__1_005", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_007", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "I'm not sure... I'm not sure it's... it's true, are you, that... that the reason people get into these situations is because they were pro se.\nThat wasn't the case here.\nI... I think they probably get into this situation very often because they have a better or at least a different lawyer at the Federal habeas stage than they had at the State habeas stage, and this new lawyer sees additional claims that... that he wants to make.\nIsn't... isn't that exactly what happened here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1649.876, 1658.254, 1660.029, 1682.692], "stop_times": [1658.254, 1660.029, 1682.692, 1685.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.876}, "reply_to": "22383__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__1_008", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--That's... I... I suspect that's the typical case in... in capital cases.\nMr. Rhines is currently--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1685.542, 1690.659], "stop_times": [1690.659, 1691.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1685.542}, "reply_to": "22383__1_007", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_009", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "It's typical.\nI mean, what I have in the statistics is that about 36 percent of all the habeases are dismissed for failure to exhaust, and 93 percent of all of the habeas petitioners are pro se.\nNow, the conclusions I draw for that is it's probably these pro se people... I mean, 93 percent are pro se... that get the procedural dismissals, and certainly a third or so, if we agree with you, of all of the habeas petitions filed in... in Federal court are going to be finished, terminated.\nThe door is closed because it takes a Federal court about 9 months on average to process a habeas.\nNow, you just take that and you say, we've closed the door of the Federal court to a third of all the habeas petitioners.\nAnd if I had thought that Congress wanted that, then I might say fine.\nBut I thought that Duncan... and I know I was on the other side of the case, but I felt the majority had a pretty good point on the language, to tell you the truth.\nBut what I didn't think they had such a... I mean, I couldn't find much of a congressional purpose one way or the other there.\nI thought the purpose of the statute of limitations is really to get people to file their petitions.\nOnce they file them, they have a year but it's tolled.\nYou know, I mean, you understand the thing.\nI... I'm really looking for you to tell me some tremendously strong congressional purpose that's served so strong that you want to knock a third of the petitioners out of Federal court forever.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1691.98, 1692.434, 1707.006, 1729.109, 1735.78, 1742.755, 1748.123, 1755.964, 1761.991, 1767.647, 1771.901, 1773.387], "stop_times": [1692.434, 1707.006, 1729.109, 1735.78, 1742.755, 1748.123, 1755.964, 1761.991, 1767.647, 1771.901, 1773.387, 1783.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1691.98}, "reply_to": "22383__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22383__1_010", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--I think it's less complicated than that, Your Honor.\nI think that it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1783.911, 1787.171], "stop_times": [1787.171, 1788.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1783.911}, "reply_to": "22383__1_009", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_011", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "That's pretty simple.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1788.452], "stop_times": [1789.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1788.452}, "reply_to": "22383__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22383__1_012", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1789.484], "stop_times": [1790.144], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1789.484}, "reply_to": "22383__1_011", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_013", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "The door is closed forever.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1790.144, 1792.084], "stop_times": [1792.084, 1792.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.144}, "reply_to": "22383__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22383__1_014", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--I disagree.\nI disagree with you, Justice Breyer.\nI... I think that even for a pro se petitioner, I do not think it is more difficult for him to find the door of the State courthouse than it is to find the door of the Federal courthouse.\nAnd the key, I think, to your argument is that claims are unexhausted by definition if there's an available State court remedy.\nTherefore, by definition, they ought to be going to the State courthouse rather than the Federal courthouse.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1792.91, 1793.449, 1796.049, 1806.285, 1819.205], "stop_times": [1793.449, 1796.049, 1806.285, 1819.205, 1824.656], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1792.91}, "reply_to": "22383__1_013", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_015", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1824.656], "stop_times": [1825.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1824.656}, "reply_to": "22383__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__1_016", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--They seem to have made a mistake here quite a lot.\nWhy do these statistics come out the way they do?\nI mean, it is just as easy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1825.399, 1827.833, 1830.35], "stop_times": [1827.833, 1830.35, 1832.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1825.399}, "reply_to": "22383__1_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22383__1_017", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "I... I can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1832.208], "stop_times": [1832.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1832.208}, "reply_to": "22383__1_016", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_018", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "I agree with you.\nWhy... why aren't they filing... why... why are they all filing so many, 36 percent filing in the wrong court?\nWhy is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1832.458, 1833.201, 1839.228], "stop_times": [1833.201, 1839.228, 1839.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1832.458}, "reply_to": "22383__1_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22383__1_019", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "You know, it... it could be, I suppose, that these people have nothing else to do sitting around in the jailhouse, and... and having written their State petition, they sit around for a few more months and they say, you know, there are a few more claims I could make.\nI think that's... it's as simple as that.\nAnd... and what the statute is designed to do, I... I think you're telling us, is to say, look it, be careful.\nMake all your claims in the State court the first time.\nThat doesn't seem to me to be too much to demand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1839.888, 1854.089, 1856.857, 1864.303, 1867.259], "stop_times": [1854.089, 1856.857, 1864.303, 1867.259, 1869.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1839.888}, "reply_to": "22383__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__1_020", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I think that's exactly what the statute... the statutes... the three read together and enforced together--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1869.2], "stop_times": [1876.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1869.2}, "reply_to": "22383__1_019", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_021", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--But they're all--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1876.713], "stop_times": [1877.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1876.713}, "reply_to": "22383__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__1_022", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "I take it... I take it that one of the answers to the observation that the Federal court is closed to a third of the claims is that that's not true with respect to the exhausted claims.\nThe... the petition can simply be purged as to unexhausted claims and as to the exhausted claims, the courthouse door remains open.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1877.373, 1889.8], "stop_times": [1889.8, 1896.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.373}, "reply_to": "22383__1_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22383__1_023", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Well, I agree with that.\nThe... let's... let's deal with the facts in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1896.115, 1898.55], "stop_times": [1898.55, 1902.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.115}, "reply_to": "22383__1_022", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_024", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--May I ask you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1902.515], "stop_times": [1903.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1902.515}, "reply_to": "22383__1_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__1_025", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Please.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1903.713], "stop_times": [1904.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1903.713}, "reply_to": "22383__1_024", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_026", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--with respect to this case?\nI thought this case was such a good illustration of the problem.\nIf claims came into the Federal court neatly labeled, exhausted, unexhausted, then I think that you would have a very strong argument.\nBut as this case illustrates, the question of whether it's been exhausted or not is something on which people can disagree.\nAnd I suppose why the district court took well over a year to decide this case is the petitioner says, I've exhausted everything, and the prosecutor says, you have not exhausted 12.\nAnd the district court is going by the... going over these one by one and says in the end, you're both wrong.\nMy list is eight.\nAnd it's that problem of has this claim been exhausted.\nNow, if it was a case of deliberately withholding a case from State court and bringing it up fresh in... in the Federal court, that would be a case where the Federal court should say, go away, you didn't even try.\nBut what do you do with these cases where it's really hard to tell whether the claim has been exhausted?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1904.206, 1905.237, 1908.831, 1921.424, 1931.001, 1946.976, 1954.778, 1957.75, 1964.187, 1977.934], "stop_times": [1905.237, 1908.831, 1921.424, 1931.001, 1946.976, 1954.778, 1957.75, 1964.187, 1977.934, 1984.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1904.206}, "reply_to": "22383__1_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__1_027", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "That was not the situation in this case, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1984.787], "stop_times": [1987.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1984.787}, "reply_to": "22383__1_026", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_028", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Then why did the... the district judge say four on the State's list have been exhausted?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1987.965], "stop_times": [1996.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1987.965}, "reply_to": "22383__1_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__1_029", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, the... factually the court... the court examined the amended petition and concluded that eight claims in the amended petition were unexhausted.\nThe problem is this... or... or at least the variance in the facts from what you suggest is this.\nMr. Rhines filed an amended petition in November of 2000 with counsel, after having been through all the record.\nHe admitted in his amended petition that four of the claims were unexhausted.\nHe still had 80 days left to run on the statute of limitations.\nSo he conceded in his amended petition in Federal court that he still had 80 days to run... while there was still 80 days to run on the statute of limitation, that four of the claims he submitted in the petition were unexhausted.\nThat's not difficult to sort out because defense counsel admitted it, as he pled them.\nAnd so there isn't any tricky question about whether there were unexhausted claims in this petition.\nNow, that was in November of 2000.\nHe waited until the court decided the decision in July of 2002 and didn't pursue his State court remedies until the court ordered him to do that in July of 2002.\nAnd he filed his State habeas to exhaust those admittedly unexhausted claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [1996.138, 2011.992, 2018.019, 2026.481, 2030.855, 2035.974, 2050.851, 2057.15, 2062.063, 2065.862, 2080.063], "stop_times": [2011.992, 2018.019, 2026.481, 2030.855, 2035.974, 2050.851, 2057.15, 2062.063, 2065.862, 2080.063, 2086.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1996.138}, "reply_to": "22383__1_028", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_030", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "So that... that would take care of the four claims.\nHow about the other four?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2086.174, 2087.864], "stop_times": [2087.864, 2089.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2086.174}, "reply_to": "22383__1_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__1_031", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, it doesn't make any difference at that point, Your Honor.\nIf there's a single, solitary unexhausted claim, the problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2089.351, 2091.58], "stop_times": [2091.58, 2095.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2089.351}, "reply_to": "22383__1_030", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_032", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2095.833], "stop_times": [2096.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2095.833}, "reply_to": "22383__1_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__1_033", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--is not... is not worse if there gets to be 12 or 15.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2096.221], "stop_times": [2099.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2096.221}, "reply_to": "22383__1_032", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_034", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--But those could be... those could be dropped out of the Federal complaint.\nThere you're saying, district judge, you would be abusing your discretion because admitting that he hadn't exhausted these, he should have gone immediately to do that.\nBut what about the other four?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2099.177, 2102.437, 2113.954], "stop_times": [2102.437, 2113.954, 2116.266], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.177}, "reply_to": "22383__1_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__1_035", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, if he... if he goes within the 80 days and immediately files to pursue in State court his unexhausted claims, the statute is tolled.\nHe doesn't lose the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2116.266, 2127.662], "stop_times": [2127.662, 2129.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2116.266}, "reply_to": "22383__1_034", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_036", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Even without going back to the State court, I don't see anything in this statute which indicates that Congress expected everybody who comes into Federal court with unexhausted claims to have time to remedy that defect by running back to State court and... and filing.\nThis statute doesn't give any such indication.\nAnd it's clear that will never happen if he files on the 364th day after the conclusion of the State proceedings.\nRight?\nI mean, his year is up already.\nEven if the judge decides the question the next morning, it's too late.\nSo I... I don't know why we have to be concerned about giving him some entitled second chance to go back to... to State court.\nI don't see anything in the statute that... that guarantees or that even envisions that.\nAnd I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2129.352, 2147.928, 2150.529, 2158.702, 2159.279, 2161.016, 2164.359, 2172.82, 2177.295], "stop_times": [2147.928, 2150.529, 2158.702, 2159.279, 2161.016, 2164.359, 2172.82, 2177.295, 2179.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2129.352}, "reply_to": "22383__1_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__1_037", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "I'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2179.507], "stop_times": [2182.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2179.507}, "reply_to": "22383__1_036", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_038", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "But I don't agree with that you were saying or you do agree with that, I know.\nThe... but the... the question that I would have is, is there anything the other way?\nI mean, in Duncan, you know, I was dissenting and the thing that sort of moved me is I couldn't imagine Congress really cared about this.\nI mean, what they do is they want to have you file within a year.\nAnd they say, well, but if you filed within a year and you're in State court, we don't care anymore.\nYou're being... if you file in the wrong State court, you're tolled.\nWe don't really care once you're proceeding.\nAnd now, however, if you go in... into Federal court by mistake instead of State court by mistake, well, you're out of luck on a random basis.\nSome judges will get you back in on time.\nOther judges won't.\nIs there anything in the history or anywhere... I... I'm interested in the history from your point of view, as much as the other.\nIs there anything that suggests that Congress cared about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2182.397, 2187.865, 2192.223, 2199.941, 2204.233, 2209.972, 2214.347, 2217.402, 2228.465, 2231.726, 2233.583, 2239.982], "stop_times": [2187.865, 2192.223, 2199.941, 2204.233, 2209.972, 2214.347, 2217.402, 2228.465, 2231.726, 2233.583, 2239.982, 2243.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2182.397}, "reply_to": "22383__1_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22383__1_039", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Not that I've found, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2243.409], "stop_times": [2245.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2243.409}, "reply_to": "22383__1_038", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_040", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Either way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2245.35], "stop_times": [2245.843], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.35}, "reply_to": "22383__1_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22383__1_041", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "If that's so, then why isn't a system like the one that the Second Circuit described the most reasonable thing to do, that is, to put very tight deadlines both on the petitioner and on the Federal court, that is, to deny... deny the stay and abey when the prisoner has not been diligent, to put a tight time line on when that prisoner has to go to State court, and a similarly tight line on returning to the Federal court after the State court is done?\nAnd you could check against repeatedly abusing this by saying, and you get only one opportunity to do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2245.843, 2286.505], "stop_times": [2286.505, 2296.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2245.843}, "reply_to": "22383__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__1_042", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "I think the answer to the question, Your Honor, is that in order to follow the Second Circuit as you've described, this Court would have to rewrite the interpretation of the exhaustion statute that they issued in Rose v. Lundy.\nThat's my belief because Rose v. Lundy... or the statute, as interpreted by Rose v. Lundy indicates that at a minimum, the unexhausted claims ought to be dismissed without prejudice and sent back for exhaustion in State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2296.37, 2311.852], "stop_times": [2311.852, 2327.844], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2296.37}, "reply_to": "22383__1_041", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_043", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "But Rose and Lundy also assumed that they could go back to State court and... and in... in fact this could be done without wiping out the claims.\nAnd the difference between the situation in Rose and Lundy and the situation we've got now is the difference which is focused, I think, in... in Justice Ginsburg's four claims as to which there was disagreement even between the district court and... and the State as to whether there was exhaustion.\nThere... there isn't a... a... as a... as a systemic matter across the United States, there simply isn't a way for most of these people to go back and litigate their State claims.\nRose and Lundy assumed there was.\nNow there isn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2327.844, 2336.206, 2353.295, 2366.753, 2368.695], "stop_times": [2336.206, 2353.295, 2366.753, 2368.695, 2369.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2327.844}, "reply_to": "22383__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22383__1_044", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Your Honor, if the petitioner is not capable of going back to litigate the State claim, the claim is not unexhausted by definition.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2369.825, 2379.773], "stop_times": [2379.773, 2381.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2369.825}, "reply_to": "22383__1_043", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_045", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "It may not be... it... it will be waived.\nI mean, if... if... on your theory, he... he jumps from the frying pan of nonexhaustion into the fire of waiver.\nThat's... that's no answer to the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2381.531, 2385.163, 2391.479], "stop_times": [2385.163, 2391.479, 2394.33], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2381.531}, "reply_to": "22383__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22383__1_046", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "See, you could... there are two things in Rose v. Lundy, and everybody agrees with the one, you must exhaust in State court.\nYou cannot have the Federal court take a first view at that question.\nYou... you must exhaust.\nAnd... but then Rose v. Lundy also said without prejudice, and your reading strikes out without prejudice not based on the defendant's conduct, not based on the petitioner's conduct, but because it took the district court more than the limitation period just to sort out which claims were exhausted and which weren't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2394.33, 2404.277, 2408.076, 2410.388], "stop_times": [2404.277, 2408.076, 2410.388, 2435.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2394.33}, "reply_to": "22383__1_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__1_047", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--I think there are two responses to that, Your Honor.\nFirst of all, the... the fact of whether it is without prejudice in fact or in law is driven by how much time is left on the statute of limitations.\nA dismissal without prejudice at the time the amended petition was filed in this case would have left 80 days on the statute and he could have pursued his... his remedy in State court and tolled the statute.\nNow, in the... in the more common situation with the habeas petitioner, I think the answer has to be Congress has changed the landscape.\nThey have changed the landscape relying upon the total exhaustion rule in... that they enacted and that this Court has interpreted.\nAnd they have added the statute of limitations and they've added the tolling provisions, and that has to be entered into the computation.\nNow, I think that that simply raises the bar for all petitioners to make doubly sure that if they have a claim, they have presented it to a State court judge because they... they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2435.197, 2438.456, 2449.026, 2462.522, 2473.008, 2483.244, 2490.403], "stop_times": [2438.456, 2449.026, 2462.522, 2473.008, 2483.244, 2490.403, 2505.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2435.197}, "reply_to": "22383__1_046", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_048", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, the... the troublesome thing is some petitioners will be able to do just what you said in South Dakota, go back to the State court a second time, because they had a swift district judge, and some won't because the district judge was slow.\nSo to treat identically situated petitioners differently not because of any lapse on the petitioner's part but solely because one had the luck to get before a swift district judge and the other, the bad luck to get before a procrastinator, that seems arbitrary and not anything that Congress built into the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2505.247, 2525.226], "stop_times": [2525.226, 2550.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.247}, "reply_to": "22383__1_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__1_049", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Your Honor, I... I struggle with the... one of the premises of your hypothetical, and the portion I struggle with is the... is the situation where the petitioner, through no fault of his own, either... and I think that's implied in your hypothetical... doesn't go to State court.\nI... I think that that is... I think that that's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2550.944, 2574.988], "stop_times": [2574.988, 2577.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2550.944}, "reply_to": "22383__1_048", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_050", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "No, did go.\nDid.\nEvery one of these cases, I say if they came rushing to the Federal court first, no Federal judge would even consider giving them a stay so they can go to the first... first time.\nBut these... these come up where someone has gone to the State court and then they come to the Federal court with a new petition and there's arguments about what they exhausted and what they didn't.\nI'm... I'm leaving out the person who never went to the Federal... State court at all.\nThat person is... is not the category that this case represents.\nThis case represents the one who goes to State court and comes to the Federal court and he has arguably some additional claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2577.693, 2578.332, 2578.808, 2592.554, 2607.126, 2613.731, 2624.3], "stop_times": [2578.332, 2578.808, 2592.554, 2607.126, 2613.731, 2624.3, 2633.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2577.693}, "reply_to": "22383__1_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__1_051", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--The... there's the... the difficulty in the stay and abeyance procedure, as it is currently practiced, I think, is that there is no set of standards, other than the three statutes that we've... that we have discussed, to guide the district court's discretion in when they give stay and abeyance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2633.217], "stop_times": [2668.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2633.217}, "reply_to": "22383__1_050", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_052", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--General Long, do... do those States that apply stay and abey make a distinction between whether the person who comes with unexhausted claims has exhausted some claims in State court and ones who haven't?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2668.14], "stop_times": [2685.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2668.14}, "reply_to": "22383__1_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__1_053", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, I think the predicate to getting stay and abeyance, Your Honor, is that there has to be at least the presence of one exhausted claim and one unexhausted--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2685.767], "stop_times": [2693.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2685.767}, "reply_to": "22383__1_052", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_054", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Why should that be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2693.115], "stop_times": [2693.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2693.115}, "reply_to": "22383__1_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__1_055", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Well, I think that that follows from... I think that follows from Rose v. Lundy which talked about a mixed petition and that's the... that's the factual background.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2693.941], "stop_times": [2705.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2693.941}, "reply_to": "22383__1_054", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_056", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "If you get a second bite, why shouldn't you get a first bite?\nI mean, I... I don't see... I don't see any reason for treating preferentially the... the person who files in State court but does not file new claims, which he should have known to file at that time, and treating the person who comes to the Federal court with those new claims but doesn't have... doesn't have even one that he took to State court.\nI... I don't see any reason to be merciful to one and not the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2705.913, 2707.975, 2728.492], "stop_times": [2707.975, 2728.492, 2732.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2705.913}, "reply_to": "22383__1_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__1_057", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, I think the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2732.291], "stop_times": [2735.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2732.291}, "reply_to": "22383__1_056", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_058", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "The... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2735.263], "stop_times": [2735.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2735.263}, "reply_to": "22383__1_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__1_059", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "But you're... but you're telling me the States do draw a distinction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2735.651], "stop_times": [2738.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2735.651}, "reply_to": "22383__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__1_060", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Well, I don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2738.523], "stop_times": [2739.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2738.523}, "reply_to": "22383__1_059", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_061", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "I mean... I mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2739.637], "stop_times": [2740.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2739.637}, "reply_to": "22383__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__1_062", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--it's not the States who draw a distinction.\nI'm sorry.\nThe Federal court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2740.009, 2741.329, 2741.784], "stop_times": [2741.329, 2741.784, 2742.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2740.009}, "reply_to": "22383__1_061", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_063", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Well, hasn't the second--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2742.61], "stop_times": [2743.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2742.61}, "reply_to": "22383__1_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__1_064", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "But the difference is that one of those petitions could be totally dismissed and the other one would not be.\nIf there were no exhaustion whatsoever, they... they'd plainly dismiss the Federal case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2743.52, 2747.152], "stop_times": [2747.152, 2751.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2743.52}, "reply_to": "22383__1_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22383__1_065", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--I think so, yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2751.239], "stop_times": [2752.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2751.239}, "reply_to": "22383__1_064", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_066", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Whereas, if there's one exhausted claim, they could... they could keep the Federal... petition in Federal court and stay it and let the unexhausted claim be exhausted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2752.603], "stop_times": [2760.981], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2752.603}, "reply_to": "22383__1_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22383__1_067", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, that's... that's the... it's the stay that we're having the problem with, Justice Stevens.\nBut... but if there is the presence of one unexhausted claim, the... the total exhaustion requirement--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2760.981, 2766.654], "stop_times": [2766.654, 2773.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2760.981}, "reply_to": "22383__1_066", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_068", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "And the judge could dismiss the others.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2773.53], "stop_times": [2776.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2773.53}, "reply_to": "22383__1_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22383__1_069", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--He... he can dismiss the unexhausted one and move forward.\nAnd... and, of course, what has happened in the... since the... the landscape has changed since 1982 and because now the 1-year statute and the tolling provisions, there is more sanction for that dismissal under the total exhaustion requirement than there used to be.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2776.296, 2778.814], "stop_times": [2778.814, 2796.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2776.296}, "reply_to": "22383__1_068", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_070", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "General Long, if you were designing a system to set standards to guide the Federal judge in deciding how to treat these, what standards would you set?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2796.564], "stop_times": [2807.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2796.564}, "reply_to": "22383__1_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22383__1_071", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "That's a hard question, Your Honor, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2807.876], "stop_times": [2811.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2807.876}, "reply_to": "22383__1_070", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_072", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Do your best.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2811.508, 2812.722], "stop_times": [2812.722, 2813.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2811.508}, "reply_to": "22383__1_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22383__1_073", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--I... I think this, Your Honor.\nI... I think the court, faced with a mixed petition, ought to first ask why have you not... if... if there is truly an unexhausted claim in this petition, why did you not present that claim previously in State court.\nAnd after that, if... if the... if the answer to that is not satisfactory, I think that the... I think that that ought to be tested on, for example, the cause and prejudice standard or the actual innocence or fundamental miscarriage of justice standards which this Court has announced to cure procedural defaults in extreme cases.\nBut in the absence of those type of standards, I think that stay and abeyance has been simply applied too broadly and this case is a classic example of the misapplication of stay and abeyance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2813.177, 2817.248, 2830.622, 2853.861], "stop_times": [2817.248, 2830.622, 2853.861, 2866.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2813.177}, "reply_to": "22383__1_072", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_074", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, are you suggesting then that we could have a rule, oh, somewhat like the grant of a preliminary injunction?\nIf it's a likelihood of success on the merits, if it's a fundamental right, if there's reason for maybe mistake and not having exhausted, then... then you'd allow us to innovate?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2866.781, 2872.232], "stop_times": [2872.232, 2883.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2866.781}, "reply_to": "22383__1_073", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22383__1_075", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2883.582], "stop_times": [2884.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2883.582}, "reply_to": "22383__1_074", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_076", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Because if you have that, we then have a new Gothic jurisprudence where we're reviewing discretion on a collateral issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2884.697], "stop_times": [2893.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2884.697}, "reply_to": "22383__1_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22383__1_077", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2893.12], "stop_times": [2893.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2893.12}, "reply_to": "22383__1_076", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_078", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Rococo I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2893.985], "stop_times": [2895.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2893.985}, "reply_to": "22383__1_077", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__1_079", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Well, the... the difficulty with the way it is now, Your Honor, is there is no review of the discretion of the district courts at all.\nI mean, they simply do it, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2895.554, 2901.498], "stop_times": [2901.498, 2904.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2895.554}, "reply_to": "22383__1_078", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_080", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, I suppose the suggestion I made--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2904.759], "stop_times": [2906.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2904.759}, "reply_to": "22383__1_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22383__1_081", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--and it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2906.784], "stop_times": [2906.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2906.784}, "reply_to": "22383__1_080", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_082", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--is preferable than the one I gave.\nWould you adopt that or would you insist just that there be no stay and abey at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2906.988, 2908.724], "stop_times": [2908.724, 2912.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2906.988}, "reply_to": "22383__1_081", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22383__1_083", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Well, our first position, obviously, is no stay and abey at all, that the unexhausted claims ought to be dismissed, as the Eighth Circuit said in this case.\nAnd if they... if they are truly unexhausted, then there is going to be a remedy in State court, and State courts are perfectly capable of identifying constitutional remedies and... and meting out the requirements.\nI've had... I've had South Dakota judges send murder cases back to me to try after 12 years, and it's... it's a burdensome thing, and those cases need to move forward.\nBut what I would envision, Justice Kennedy, is this, that the rule ought to be that... that the... the... that the case is sent back to State court if there is truly, as... as the name implies, an unexhausted claim, implying that there is an available State remedy.\nIf... if resolution in the State courts does not resolve it, if the case comes back in some fashion, then the court needs to apply some standards like cause and prejudice or fundamental miscarriage of justice, which... which is what is applied in... in procedural default cases, and... and deal with it on that basis.\nBut the... the current lack of discretion with reference to how stay and abeyance is applied is in my judgment the... that is the... that is the most fundamental problem with--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2912.189, 2919.702, 2931.963, 2941.418, 2961.701, 2985.09], "stop_times": [2919.702, 2931.963, 2941.418, 2961.701, 2985.09, 2999.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2912.189}, "reply_to": "22383__1_082", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_084", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--But again--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [2999.125], "stop_times": [3001.604], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2999.125}, "reply_to": "22383__1_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__1_085", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--stay and abeyances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3001.604], "stop_times": [3002.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3001.604}, "reply_to": "22383__1_084", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_086", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--I come... I come back to the... the Second Circuit tried to deal with that problem and why isn't that adequate?\nThey didn't leave the district judges to do whatever was their will.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3002.468, 3008.867], "stop_times": [3008.867, 3013.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3002.468}, "reply_to": "22383__1_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22383__1_087", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "The... well, the... the Second Circuit followed very closely to what the... what the district court did here, Your Honor, but what I did not see in the Second Circuit opinions and frankly haven't seen in any of the opinions except the Eighth Circuit opinion was any type of analysis about an explanation of why the petitioner hadn't been prudent and hadn't been diligent in State court.\nAnd... and in the absence of any kind of inquiry like that, I think that stay and abeyance simply is... is... it's unguided.\nThere are no standards.\nIf there are no questions, thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3013.78, 3043.047, 3056.338, 3057.332], "stop_times": [3043.047, 3056.338, 3057.332, 3063.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3013.78}, "reply_to": "22383__1_086", "speaker": "lawrence_e_long"}
{"id": "22383__1_088", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Thank you, General Long.\nMr. Lange, you have 7 minutes left, and normally I wouldn't intrude on your rebuttal time, but I would like to ask you to comment on one thought.\nDo you think it would be appropriate before a district judge ever grants a stay and... and abeyance procedure, to make some kind of a preliminary, not exactly a probable cause determination, but some kind of a determination as to whether or not there is arguable merit to the State claim that he wants to stay the proceedings to... to allow him to exhaust?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3063.563, 3064.156, 3075.18], "stop_times": [3064.156, 3075.18, 3094.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3063.563}, "reply_to": "22383__1_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22383__2_000", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Yes, I do, Justice Stevens.\nI believe that a district court, in evaluating a request for stay and abeyance, should look to make sure that the petition meets the standards of section 2254(b)(2) which is the provision that allows a district court to reach the merits of unexhausted claims to deny them.\nIt's similar to what the Court has now promulgated as rule 4 of the rules governing habeas corpus cases.\nI think it makes sense for the district court first to look at... at whether there's merit to the petition because there really is no sense to hold in abeyance, pending exhaustion in State court, claims that lack merit.\nObviously, to get stay and abeyance, the petitioner will have had to file timely within his AEDPA period, and the court will have had to have held the case either through the expiration of the AEDPA period or you can imagine some scenarios where on the 364th day--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3094.621, 3096.44, 3118.026, 3124.98, 3137.428], "stop_times": [3096.44, 3118.026, 3124.98, 3137.428, 3155.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3094.621}, "reply_to": "22383__1_088", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__2_001", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, it's one thing to say that there's... it's utterly without merit and he can deny it, which he's entitled to do under the statute.\nIt's another thing to say that there's a high probability of success on the merits.\nI'm afraid that most of the claims are going to fall in between.\nThe district judge just doesn't know absent testimony, et cetera, et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3155.511, 3160.712, 3166.118, 3169.007], "stop_times": [3160.712, 3166.118, 3169.007, 3173.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3155.511}, "reply_to": "22383__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22383__2_002", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Right, and those should be circumstances where the State court is left to judge whether the claim has merit while the Federal court proceedings are suspended, are abeyed or held in abeyance.\nIt makes sense, under the exhaustion norms of this Court, to let the State courts pass judgment first on claims that have sufficient merit where they can't be disposed of under rule 4 of the rules governing habeas corpus.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3173.837, 3186.18], "stop_times": [3186.18, 3201.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3173.837}, "reply_to": "22383__2_001", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__2_003", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Mr.... Mr. Lange, why... why isn't... gee, you have Lange and Long.\nWhy isn't Attorney General Long's assertion sensible?\nThat is to say, it's an extraordinary thing to have Federal district courts in all criminal cases reviewing the work of State supreme courts.\nWe... we got into this in an era when we couldn't trust State supreme courts, especially in racial cases.\nBut that's where we are now.\nBut why is it unreasonable to say, look, you get one shot at coming to Federal court?\nAnd if... if you... if you bungle that and you haven't exhausted first, we're not denying your claims.\nGo back to State court.\nWe're just not going to reintervene as Federal courts.\nYour... your claims are not dead.\nJustice is not denied.\nYou just have to go back through the State system and we're not going to blue pencil the work of the State system a second time.\nThat's all.\nWhy isn't that reasonable?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3201.497, 3208.555, 3215.076, 3223.332, 3228.822, 3231.134, 3236.335, 3243.228, 3245.086, 3249.173, 3250.659, 3252.766, 3259.454, 3259.947], "stop_times": [3208.555, 3215.076, 3223.332, 3228.822, 3231.134, 3236.335, 3243.228, 3245.086, 3249.173, 3250.659, 3252.766, 3259.454, 3259.947, 3261.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3201.497}, "reply_to": "22383__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22383__2_004", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, this is Mr. Rhines' one opportunity.\nCongress did give in section 2254(a) jurisdiction to the courts and said the Federal courts shall entertain petitions of this... of this nature.\nSo this is a... a right that Mr. Rhines has to have these entertained.\nHe filed timely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3261.227, 3264.033, 3274.314, 3278.606], "stop_times": [3264.033, 3274.314, 3278.606, 3280.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3261.227}, "reply_to": "22383__2_003", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__2_005", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, to have exhausted claims entertained.\nRight?\nIs there some... do you say there is some absolute right to have the Federal court hear unexhausted claims?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3280.38, 3282.692, 3283.231], "stop_times": [3282.692, 3283.231, 3291.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3280.38}, "reply_to": "22383__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22383__2_006", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, under (b)(1), a claim must be exhausted to support relief from a Federal court.\nThat is right, Your Honor.\nAnd these claims... if under the petitioner B scenario, the court had ruled promptly or the claims were less complex, allowing them to be disposed of earlier, Mr. Rhines could have had or... and should have all of his claims before the district court to be resolved.\nThe Court needs to be watchful here not to penalize Mr. Rhines and people who are in similar situations because they have complex claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3291.942, 3299.289, 3300.692, 3318.115], "stop_times": [3299.289, 3300.692, 3318.115, 3326.41], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3291.942}, "reply_to": "22383__2_005", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__2_007", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Well, this is not a pro se petitioner.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3326.41], "stop_times": [3328.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3326.41}, "reply_to": "22383__2_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22383__2_008", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "No.\nHe is represented by counsel, obviously, Your Honor.\nI... I think it inappropriate to draw lines between pro se and represented counsel, though, in the realm of habeas.\nThat I think invites trouble.\nSo the rule you formulate is obviously not only for Rhines but for pro se litigants as well that... that deserve consideration.\nThis exhaustion rule is not to be an... a trap for the unwary pro se petitioner.\nThe whole purpose of the exhaustion rule, as this Court said in Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, is to... not to erect a hurdle on the path to Federal habeas court, but to channel claims into an appropriate forum.\nAnd stay and abeyance does just that.\nIt prohibits further proceeding on a mixed petition in Federal court and channels, indeed requires, as a term of the order that the petitioner go and exhaust the remaining State remedy and come back to court with one exhausted claim.\nThat is what Rose v. Lundy contemplated and allowed with the dismissal without prejudice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3328.556, 3329.549, 3332.726, 3339.292, 3340.899, 3348.208, 3353.531, 3367.277, 3369.961, 3385.11], "stop_times": [3329.549, 3332.726, 3339.292, 3340.899, 3348.208, 3353.531, 3367.277, 3369.961, 3385.11, 3391.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3328.556}, "reply_to": "22383__2_007", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__2_009", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Earlier you... you suggested that in your view the district court could deny it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3391.963], "stop_times": [3397.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3391.963}, "reply_to": "22383__2_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22383__2_010", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "If under section 2254(b)(2) it does not meet the standard, yes.\nCongress has allowed, because exhaustion is not jurisdictional, for district courts to reach the merits, albeit it to deny exhausted claims.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3397.248, 3403.026, 3412.481], "stop_times": [3403.026, 3412.481, 3414.997], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3397.248}, "reply_to": "22383__2_009", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__2_011", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "Mr. Lange, you were appointed by the Court, and on behalf of the Court, I want to thank you for your services and for the quality of your services.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3414.997], "stop_times": [3421.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3414.997}, "reply_to": "22383__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22383__2_012", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3421.852], "stop_times": [3422.428], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3421.852}, "reply_to": "22383__2_011", "speaker": "roberto_a_lange"}
{"id": "22383__2_013", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3422.428], "stop_times": [3423.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3422.428}, "reply_to": "22383__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22383__2_014", "conversation_id": "22383", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until Tuesday, the eighteenth of January at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9046", "start_times": [3423.133], "stop_times": [3429.858], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3423.133}, "reply_to": "22383__2_013", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21880__0_000", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "We will now hear argument in Rompilla against Beard.\nMr. Nolas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [0.0, 4.949], "stop_times": [4.949, 6.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21880__0_001", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Mr. Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nProfound mitigating evidence concerning Mr. Rompilla's life history was not heard by the capital sentencing jury in this case because his trial counsel did not secure a single scrap of paper about his life history.\nAs to the trial prosecutor, his argument, what he elicited from the defense witnesses, and what he presented affirmatively sent the message to this jury of future dangerousness.\nWhen the jury inquired whether in Pennsylvania there is parole from a life sentence, they were not given the simple, straight answer that Pennsylvania law clearly indicates, no.\nInstead, they were told... instead, their question was not answered.\nWhat I would like to do, unless the Court has specific inquiries, is to make certain points about the ineffectiveness issue and then turn to the sentence issue.\nAs to the ineffectiveness issue, Your Honors, this Court has made very clear in Williams v. Taylor, in Wiggins v. Smith, reiterating the concept established originally in Strickland v. Washington, that a trial defense counsel has a duty to conduct a thorough investigation for mitigating evidence in a capital case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [6.346, 9.295, 22.634, 33.956, 45.445, 49.626, 56.783], "stop_times": [9.295, 22.634, 33.956, 45.445, 49.626, 56.783, 76.239], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6.346}, "reply_to": "21880__0_000", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_002", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, you're asking us, I suppose, to make a rule that you have to get paper records.\nWe've seen a number of capital cases, you know... as you know.\nThis counsel seemed to me to be quite articulate and... and had a very sound theory of... to argue to the jury for mitigation.\nIt didn't work, of course.\nI... I just don't know what constitutional rule you want to ask us for, that you have to look at record evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [76.239, 80.595, 85.257, 95.977, 96.686], "stop_times": [80.595, 85.257, 95.977, 96.686, 102.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 76.239}, "reply_to": "21880__0_001", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21880__0_003", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "We are not asking the Court to set a constitutional rule that a capital defense counsel must obtain records in every capital case.\nWe are asking this Court to apply the rule articulated in Strickland v. Washington itself where the Court indicated that counsel has a duty to make a reasonable investigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [102.719, 111.582], "stop_times": [111.582, 120.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 102.719}, "reply_to": "21880__0_002", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_004", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, you had three forensic experts, outside experts, and they didn't seem to think the papers were relevant either.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [120.676], "stop_times": [127.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 120.676}, "reply_to": "21880__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21880__0_005", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nAnd as to the experts themselves... and that's actually... the experts and the family are the core of respondent's argument against Mr. Simmons' claim.\nThe simplest answer is to look at Wiggins v. Smith where this Court held very clearly that the retention of mental health experts sheds no light on the reasonableness of counsel's life history investigation.\nThat is especially appropriate in this case because in this case the counsel who had contact with the experts testified very clearly at the post-conviction hearing that the experts were never asked... never asked... to develop life history mitigating evidence.\nAnd as my friend, Ms. Zapp, indicates in her brief at page 43, there was no tactical decision in this case by counsel to not pursue life history mitigating evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [127.39, 128.136, 135.838, 148.153, 164.377], "stop_times": [128.136, 135.838, 148.153, 164.377, 174.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 127.39}, "reply_to": "21880__0_004", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_006", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, counsel... counsel did make use of several relatives of the defendant who testified.\nI... I think weren't there about four relatives who testified?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [174.19, 180.712], "stop_times": [180.712, 183.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 174.19}, "reply_to": "21880__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21880__0_007", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, including his son.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [183.863], "stop_times": [184.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 183.863}, "reply_to": "21880__0_006", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_008", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "And he talked to all of them and talked to the defendant as well.\nSo would a reasonable person think that's enough to find out family history and... and the concerns that you had?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [184.604, 188.742], "stop_times": [188.742, 200.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 184.604}, "reply_to": "21880__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21880__0_009", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "This Court made very clear in Strickland and Williams and in Wiggins that an assessment of counsel's representation must be done from counsel's perspective at the time.\nCounsel's perspective at the time, as Ms. Dantos clearly testified at the hearing, was that the family were not good sources of information for petitioner's life history.\nShe gave three reasons for that.\nShe said, number one, whenever life history was pursued with them, they did not want to deal with it because they thought he was innocent.\nNumber two, whenever they were--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [200.118, 209.91, 218.971, 220.48, 227.419], "stop_times": [209.91, 218.971, 220.48, 227.419, 229.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 200.118}, "reply_to": "21880__0_008", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_010", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "That... that seems to me an... an extraordinary non sequitur.\nI don't understand.\nThey didn't want to deal with it because they thought he was innocent.\nI... how does that make any sense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [229.279, 233.268, 233.845, 236.618], "stop_times": [233.268, 233.845, 236.618, 239.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 229.279}, "reply_to": "21880__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_011", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--That... that's what she testified to, Your Honor.\nI'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [239.994, 241.855], "stop_times": [241.855, 242.517], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.994}, "reply_to": "21880__0_010", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_012", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "What she testified to makes no sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [242.517], "stop_times": [244.34], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.517}, "reply_to": "21880__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_013", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--She gave a second reason which was that counsel, when they pursued life history mitigation, the family would respond, we hardly know him.\nHe was in juvenile facilities as a youth, and then he was in prison as an adult.\nWe don't have any knowledge of his life history.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [244.34, 251.327, 254.874], "stop_times": [251.327, 254.874, 257.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 244.34}, "reply_to": "21880__0_012", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_014", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, the... the portions of his life history that... that are the most appealing are the portions from his youth, before he went into the... into the juvenile institutions, and they were certainly with him during that period.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [257.305], "stop_times": [270.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 257.305}, "reply_to": "21880__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_015", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "And third and most significantly, Justice Scalia, she testified that they were not willing to provide life history mitigating... facts about his life history because of, quote, whatever else was going on with them, unquote.\nOr as Mr. Charles, the other attorney, put it, these were not the type of family that would provide information when asked.\nBear in mind, both of these counsel knew what the respondent's post-conviction rebuttal psychologist testified to, that when you're dealing with abuse, neglect, a dysfunctional home, people don't want to talk about that.\nThey want to withhold that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [270.74, 283.417, 289.513, 303.342], "stop_times": [283.417, 289.513, 303.342, 304.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 270.74}, "reply_to": "21880__0_014", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_016", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Let me... let me take you back to the... to the experts.\nYou say he did not specifically ask the experts to go... to go into his childhood problems.\nYou know, I can imagine when the expert comes on the stand, the first question being asked is, now, Mr. Expert, were you told by counsel to look into the childhood problems?\nYou know, as though counsel were planting in the expert's mind what the expert should say.\nWhat would anyone who hires a psychologist or a psychiatrist... what would anyone expect him to look into in... in determining whether the person is... is mentally injured but... but the childhood?\nDo you really think counsel could not have expected with total assurance that these people would do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [304.702, 306.787, 314.423, 327.117, 332.749, 350.242], "stop_times": [306.787, 314.423, 327.117, 332.749, 350.242, 357.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 304.702}, "reply_to": "21880__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_017", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Sure, because counsel themselves testified to that at the post-conviction hearing and the experts themselves said... now, let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [357.533], "stop_times": [364.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 357.533}, "reply_to": "21880__0_016", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_018", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Mr. Nolas?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [364.316], "stop_times": [365.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 364.316}, "reply_to": "21880__0_017", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__0_019", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [365.02], "stop_times": [365.612], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 365.02}, "reply_to": "21880__0_018", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_020", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Wasn't it the case that those experts were hired not primarily or even secondarily for mitigation purposes?\nThey were hired in connection with the possibility of a defense at the guilt stage, number one, that he was insane at the time he committed the crime, in which case what he was when he was a child would be irrelevant, and number two, that he was presently incompetent to stand trial.\nSo they were asked specifically to inquire into his present mental situation, and their testimony was relevant to the guilt phase of the trial.\nSo that's the instruction.\nNaturally they... what... why are we engaging you?\nWe're engaging you to tell us do we have a basis for an insanity plea, do we have a basis for an incompetent to stand trial plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [365.612, 374.475, 394.614, 407.51, 408.678, 412.006], "stop_times": [374.475, 394.614, 407.51, 408.678, 412.006, 420.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 365.612}, "reply_to": "21880__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__0_021", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, and the... the respondents use the word mitigation that Ms. Dantos used in her testimony.\nI only ask the Court to look at the joint appendix at page 472 where Ms. Dantos says very clearly, I explained to them the purpose for my contacting them, and the purpose was to initially see if there was any issue of mental infirmity or mental insanity for the guilt phase and subsequently to possibly use in mitigation any mental infirmity if it... if the jury came back first degree.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [420.811, 427.749], "stop_times": [427.749, 450.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 420.811}, "reply_to": "21880__0_020", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_022", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Was there any indication that after the guilt phase was over and before the sentencing phase began... I take it it was just a matter of hours or almost days till the sentencing... till the sentencing phase began.\nWas there any contact with the psychiatrists or with experts after the sentencing phase and the... pardon me... after the guilt phase and before the sentencing phase?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [450.581, 462.228], "stop_times": [462.228, 469.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.581}, "reply_to": "21880__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21880__0_023", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe record is very clear that the experts were asked, as Justice Ginsburg indicated, about mental infirmity at the time of the offense.\nThey reported back that they could provide no assistance in that regard, and then there was not further contact with them.\nThey were also asked about competency, which is not at issue before the Court.\nThe... the key thing to bear in mind is you can look through Ms. Dantos' entire testimony and look... you could look through Mr. Charles' entire testimony at the hearing.\nNowhere do they say we asked the experts to develop life history mitigating information.\nThis isn't the case where the lawyers say to the doctor, Doctor, I'm looking into this man's life history, go investigate it.\nTell me what there is.\nTell--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [469.662, 470.1, 477.235, 482.59, 486.605, 494.622, 499.992, 506.92, 507.923], "stop_times": [470.1, 477.235, 482.59, 486.605, 494.622, 499.992, 506.92, 507.923, 508.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 469.662}, "reply_to": "21880__0_022", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_024", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "I thought what you just quoted said that they... that they would intend it to be used in the mitigating phase.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [508.329], "stop_times": [513.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.329}, "reply_to": "21880__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_025", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Mental infirmity at the time of the offense at the penalty phase, not life history mitigation, not how did he do in school, was there abuse in the home, was there neglect in the home, was their mistreatment in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [513.164], "stop_times": [524.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 513.164}, "reply_to": "21880__0_024", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_026", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Doesn't... doesn't all that bear upon mental infirmity at the time of the offense?\nIsn't the reason that... that one considers these factors mitigating is that they reduce the guilt at the time of the offense?\nI... I thought that that's the whole--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [524.515, 527.464, 537.453], "stop_times": [527.464, 537.453, 539.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 524.515}, "reply_to": "21880__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_027", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nThat is... with all due respect, that is too constricted a view of what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [539.144, 539.81], "stop_times": [539.81, 543.068], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 539.144}, "reply_to": "21880__0_026", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_028", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--We... we just let him off because we're... we're sympathetic to his present state?\nI thought that mitigation means that it reduces the guilt of the offense at the time that he commits it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [543.068, 547.857], "stop_times": [547.857, 554.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 543.068}, "reply_to": "21880__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_029", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--It's... it's not let him off, Your Honor.\nIt's a... a request to the jury, that was out for over 12 hours, that this man receive a life sentence.\nAnd you've already resolved this issue in Wiggins v. Smith.\nIn Wiggins v. Smith, counsel hired a mental health expert, provided that expert 200 pages of DSS records, provided a PSI, had the expert interview all of Mr. Wiggins' family members, had the expert report back on, quote/unquote, mitigating evidence, and this Court found that counsel had failed to provide reasonably diligent effective assistance because counsel had not developed life history mitigating evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [554.508, 556.806, 562.838, 565.905], "stop_times": [556.806, 562.838, 565.905, 591.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 554.508}, "reply_to": "21880__0_028", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_030", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Mr. Nolas, you haven't mentioned it, but didn't one of the three experts suggest that there be a... a follow-up inquiry into the... the abuse of alcohol by the defendant?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [591.184], "stop_times": [601.297], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 591.184}, "reply_to": "21880__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__0_031", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Dr. Gross suggested that there be a follow-up inquiry into... into alcohol, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [601.297], "stop_times": [605.707], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 601.297}, "reply_to": "21880__0_030", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_032", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "My understanding is that nothing was done in response to that.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [605.707, 608.709], "stop_times": [608.709, 609.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 605.707}, "reply_to": "21880__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__0_033", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--In response to that, the reasonable thing would be why did this man's parole records indicate that he should abstain from alcohol.\nLet's look into his alcohol history.\nAnd to back to... to your question, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [609.546, 615.55, 617.588], "stop_times": [615.55, 617.588, 620.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.546}, "reply_to": "21880__0_032", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_034", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Which... which you're saying they did not do.\nI mean, just to get it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [620.046, 621.16], "stop_times": [621.16, 622.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 620.046}, "reply_to": "21880__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__0_035", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--They testified that what they did they asked... they asked the other experts to look into it.\nAnd bear in mind, all of the experts in this case had less than the expert in Wiggins.\nAll of the experts in this case had less than the expert in Williams.\nWhat these lawyers gave the expert is a client that they themselves said is not a reliable source of information, a client who did not want to discuss his life history, a client who misled counsel, a client who these lawyers said we can't rely on... on this fellow.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [622.408, 626.702, 631.789, 635.719], "stop_times": [626.702, 631.789, 635.719, 649.266], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 622.408}, "reply_to": "21880__0_034", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_036", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Mr. Nolas, there were some records that the prosecution sought and used.\nWas it... the records that were in the very courthouse.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [649.266, 655.606], "stop_times": [655.606, 659.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 649.266}, "reply_to": "21880__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__0_037", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, and that was, I guess, the simplest way to respond to Justice Kennedy's original question, which is what is the duty that these lawyers have.\nWell, at its simplest, in Wiggins this Court said counsel has a duty to conduct a thorough investigation for mitigating evidence, a thorough investigation into the aggravation.\nThe trial prosecutor tells these counsel, I'm going to use that information in that file against your client.\nThe file was maintained in the same courthouse in which this case was tried.\nCounsel never goes and looks at that file.\nWhen the prosecutor brings it to the penalty phase, they complain, we've never seen this file before.\nIn that file--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [659.164, 667.435, 676.428, 682.353, 686.373, 689.824, 694.262], "stop_times": [667.435, 676.428, 682.353, 686.373, 689.824, 694.262, 695.429], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 659.164}, "reply_to": "21880__0_036", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_038", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "What did the prosecution use?\nThe fact of early... early conviction and the details of the crime.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [695.429, 696.507, 699.883], "stop_times": [696.507, 699.883, 700.165], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.429}, "reply_to": "21880__0_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21880__0_039", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--And the transcript that's included of... in that trial of the prior offense victim's testimony.\nBut the thing is what if these lawyers what... what I... I hope this Court would expect any lawyer to do when the prosecutor says, I'm going to use that folder against you.\nYou go and you open up the folder.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [700.165, 705.364, 713.546], "stop_times": [705.364, 713.546, 715.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 700.165}, "reply_to": "21880__0_038", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_040", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--And what would they have found?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [715.14], "stop_times": [716.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 715.14}, "reply_to": "21880__0_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__0_041", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "They would have found achievement test scores in that prior conviction case file indicating that Mr. Rompilla had never progressed beyond the third grade, indicating that he functions below 96 percent of the population.\nHe lived a nomadic life.\nHe... and... and test results indicating that he was elevated on scales for schizophrenia, paranoia, neurosis, indicating that he grew up in a slum environment, and that he was an alcoholic, bearing in mind Dr. Gross' original inquiry.\nThese are also lawyers who knew that Mr. Rompilla had a juvenile history and had a prior adult criminal history.\nAnd Pennsylvania lawyers know... we've discussed this in the brief... that PSI records, presentence reports in Pennsylvania, and juvenile records are very special things compared to such records in other States.\nIn--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [716.511, 727.993, 729.87, 745.186, 751.832, 763.368], "stop_times": [727.993, 729.87, 745.186, 751.832, 763.368, 764.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 716.511}, "reply_to": "21880__0_040", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_042", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Mr. Nolas, are you telling us that all that information would have... was in the file that described the... the criminal history that the prosecutor used in his case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [764.099], "stop_times": [773.699], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 764.099}, "reply_to": "21880__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21880__0_043", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Yes, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [773.699], "stop_times": [774.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 773.699}, "reply_to": "21880__0_042", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_044", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "And they didn't even look at that file?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [774.434], "stop_times": [775.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 774.434}, "reply_to": "21880__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21880__0_045", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Yes, Justice Stevens, what I just read to you.\nNow, Pennsylvania lawyers--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [775.639, 777.361], "stop_times": [777.361, 779.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 775.639}, "reply_to": "21880__0_044", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_046", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Is this the document that's on the lodging at page 31-34?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [779.11], "stop_times": [784.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 779.11}, "reply_to": "21880__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21880__0_047", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--If I may have Your Honor's indulgence for a moment.\nYes, Your Honor.\nThat... because in this case, that prior conviction court file contained records that were produced when Mr. Rompilla was evaluated for that prior conviction.\nOne point that I don't want to escape this Court's attention is in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Pennsylvania... the Pennsylvania statutes indicate that presentence investigation reports and juvenile records have to contain information relating to, quote, educational history, psychological history, marital history, family history, military history--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [784.479, 788.483, 789.033, 799.396], "stop_times": [788.483, 789.033, 799.396, 820.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 784.479}, "reply_to": "21880__0_046", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_048", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "You... you want us to adopt a constitutional rule that at least in Pennsylvania counsel have to consult these... these records--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [820.185], "stop_times": [829.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 820.185}, "reply_to": "21880__0_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_049", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--When--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [829.161], "stop_times": [830.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 829.161}, "reply_to": "21880__0_048", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_050", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--as a constitutional matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [830.046], "stop_times": [831.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 830.046}, "reply_to": "21880__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_051", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Justice Scalia, when State law tells you that what you're going to find in juvenile and adult records is exactly what the ABA standards say capital lawyers should pursue, it's not diligent to ignore the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [831.282], "stop_times": [843.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 831.282}, "reply_to": "21880__0_050", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_052", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "So your... your answer is yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [843.761], "stop_times": [844.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 843.761}, "reply_to": "21880__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_053", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [844.882], "stop_times": [846.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 844.882}, "reply_to": "21880__0_052", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_054", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "You want a constitutional rule that in Pennsylvania counsel must look into these records.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [846.06], "stop_times": [850.289], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 846.06}, "reply_to": "21880__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_055", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Yes, plus.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [850.289], "stop_times": [851.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 850.289}, "reply_to": "21880__0_054", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_056", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "What about a rule that says you must consult the file of the case that's being used by the prosecutor to produce seriously aggravating circumstance, at least where that file is readily available, and you must follow up indications in that file that suggest a significant mitigating defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [851.072], "stop_times": [877.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 851.072}, "reply_to": "21880__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21880__0_057", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [877.06], "stop_times": [877.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 877.06}, "reply_to": "21880__0_056", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_058", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [877.93], "stop_times": [878.538], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 877.93}, "reply_to": "21880__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21880__0_059", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "And--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [878.538], "stop_times": [879.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 878.538}, "reply_to": "21880__0_058", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_060", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "And that's nothing special to Pennsylvania if you know that the prosecutor is going to use a certain file.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [879.316], "stop_times": [884.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 879.316}, "reply_to": "21880__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__0_061", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--The... the only that's special to Pennsylvania is what Pennsylvania law tells you you're going to find in those files.\nThat makes it different than, say, Georgia where there's no provision for having that material in those files.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [884.307, 890.018], "stop_times": [890.018, 895.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 884.307}, "reply_to": "21880__0_060", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_062", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "What... what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [895.101], "stop_times": [895.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 895.101}, "reply_to": "21880__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__0_063", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "For what purpose did the prosecution use the files?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [895.698], "stop_times": [898.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 895.698}, "reply_to": "21880__0_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_064", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "The prosecution told counsel I'm going to use these files as part of my case and eventually use them for aggravation purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [898.006], "stop_times": [904.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 898.006}, "reply_to": "21880__0_063", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_065", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Use them for... he did use them for aggravation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [904.438], "stop_times": [906.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 904.438}, "reply_to": "21880__0_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_066", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [906.63], "stop_times": [907.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 906.63}, "reply_to": "21880__0_065", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_067", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "In... in what respect?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [907.121], "stop_times": [908.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 907.121}, "reply_to": "21880__0_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_068", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "He put on... he... he had an assistant district attorney take the stand and read the transcript of the victim's testimony in the prior case, which was included in that folder.\nHe also used information about when Mr. Rompilla incarcerated, paroled, et cetera that was reflected by that folder.\nSo plainly these lawyers knew that that trial was going to be used because the prosecutor told them.\nOne other factor on... on the duty of the counsel.\nThese counsel testified that they knew that Mr. Rompilla had problems in school and left school early.\nThe school administration building in Allentown is across the street from the capital case courthouse.\nMs. Zapp will confirm this.\nIt says school administration building.\nYou walk by it when you go into this courthouse.\nThey knew he had problems in school.\nThey never walked in there and asked somebody, let me look at the file.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [908.486, 918.956, 925.734, 930.859, 933.265, 938.348, 944.855, 946.332, 948.001, 951.062, 953.233], "stop_times": [918.956, 925.734, 930.859, 933.265, 938.348, 944.855, 946.332, 948.001, 951.062, 953.233, 957.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 908.486}, "reply_to": "21880__0_067", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_069", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "I... I don't like to either direct your own argument or the questions from my colleagues, but the Simmons issue here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [957.271], "stop_times": [964.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 957.271}, "reply_to": "21880__0_068", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21880__0_070", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [964.027], "stop_times": [964.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 964.027}, "reply_to": "21880__0_069", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_071", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--it seems to me is important and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [964.145], "stop_times": [965.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 964.145}, "reply_to": "21880__0_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21880__0_072", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, I will turn to that.\nI will to turn to that with more sentence on the ineffective issue, and that sentence is that the respondent's argument in this case misstates, with all due respect to... to my friend, Ms. Zapp... misstates the holding of Wiggins.\nThe respondent reads Wiggins as holding only that when counsel has a lead, counsel should pursue a thorough life history investigation.\nI... I think it's pretty clear these lawyers here had leads, but even if they didn't, the holding of Simmons... the first holding of Simmons is that counsel has a duty to conduct a thorough life history mitigation investigation and cannot rely on rudimentary knowledge from a narrow set of sources.\nThese counsel had less of a rudimentary knowledge than the counsel in Simmons because they relied upon--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [965.953, 967.446, 980.725, 989.247, 1004.699], "stop_times": [967.446, 980.725, 989.247, 1004.699, 1010.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 965.953}, "reply_to": "21880__0_071", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_073", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Wiggins.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1010.949], "stop_times": [1011.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1010.949}, "reply_to": "21880__0_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__0_074", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--In Wiggins.\nI'm sorry, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1011.332, 1011.95], "stop_times": [1011.95, 1012.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1011.332}, "reply_to": "21880__0_073", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_075", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Wiggins.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1012.447], "stop_times": [1013.05], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1012.447}, "reply_to": "21880__0_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__0_076", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Because they relied upon what they themselves knew was a remarkably set of sources, a family and a client who were not willing to discuss the information when they knew records were available that would have discussed the life history.\nTurning to the Simmons issue, Justice Kennedy, the core of the Simmons issue, the core debate before the Court, is what does Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion in Simmons mean.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1013.05, 1025.214, 1038.756], "stop_times": [1025.214, 1038.756, 1039.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1013.05}, "reply_to": "21880__0_075", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_077", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--If there had been no questions from the jury, it seems to me that you wouldn't have had an argument at all because the counsel was allowed... the counsel was allowed to argue this to the jury and did argue it to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1039.487], "stop_times": [1051.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1039.487}, "reply_to": "21880__0_076", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21880__0_078", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--The... the questions are very significant, Your Honor.\nMy... my instinct would be there would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1051.15, 1054.755], "stop_times": [1054.755, 1057.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1051.15}, "reply_to": "21880__0_077", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_079", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Would you... would you agree that but for the questions from the jury, Simmons was complied with?\nThe counsel argued the point to the jury--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1057.117, 1062.215], "stop_times": [1062.215, 1065.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1057.117}, "reply_to": "21880__0_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21880__0_080", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1065.703], "stop_times": [1066.338], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1065.703}, "reply_to": "21880__0_079", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_081", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--without being... without being contradicted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1066.338], "stop_times": [1068.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1066.338}, "reply_to": "21880__0_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21880__0_082", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, the caveat is that the court instructed the jury that the arguments of counsel are not evidence and that the law would come from the court.\nAnd in that context, how much weight did they give on the passing reference in Ms. Dantos' closing argument?\nYou don't have to reach that issue in this case because we know what the jury was concerned about.\nThey were concerned about parole and they were concerned about that because the prosecutor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1068.242, 1075.217, 1081.484, 1086.22], "stop_times": [1075.217, 1081.484, 1086.22, 1089.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1068.242}, "reply_to": "21880__0_081", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_083", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "No.\nSo now... now we have a situation where the case, by my suggestion in any event, was properly presented to the jury, and the only question is what the constitutional obligation is once the jury brings in a question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1089.659, 1089.782], "stop_times": [1089.782, 1102.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1089.659}, "reply_to": "21880__0_082", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21880__0_084", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--The constitutional obligation under Simmons itself would be to say is there something here or in... in the words of Justice O'Connor, did the State put future dangerousness in issue.\nAnd in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1102.88, 1115.046], "stop_times": [1115.046, 1116.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1102.88}, "reply_to": "21880__0_083", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_085", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, it didn't expressly.\nI mean, there... there were arguments about his behavior, but the problem I think we have with the Simmons claim here is that the Kelly case had not yet been decided, and you now have the AEDPA situation of trying to show that the State court's resolution was objectively unreasonable.\nAnd prior to Kelly, that's a pretty tough road for you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1116.453, 1118.198, 1145.2], "stop_times": [1118.198, 1145.2, 1153.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.453}, "reply_to": "21880__0_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21880__0_086", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--And that may be... that would have been the case, Your Honor, had the Pennsylvania Supreme Court not adopted the very interpretation of Your Honor's concurrence in Simmons that Kelly adopted.\nThe Pennsylvania Supreme Court three times said Simmons means you get a life without parole instruction in Pennsylvania when the State puts future dangerousness at issue.\nThe construction that the respondent gives to Simmons and that the court of appeals below gave to Simmons, specifically that it only applies when the prosecutor argues that the death penalty should be imposed because of future dangerousness, not only is not to be found in Justice O'Connor's concurrence, but it is not to be found anywhere in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's opinion in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1153.36, 1164.485, 1174.485], "stop_times": [1164.485, 1174.485, 1196.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1153.36}, "reply_to": "21880__0_085", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_087", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "And what's the best argument you have that future dangerousness was an issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1196.565], "stop_times": [1200.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1196.565}, "reply_to": "21880__0_086", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21880__0_088", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "There are several factors in that regard, Your Honor.\nAs to the argument itself, the prosecutor called Mr. Rompilla a very strong individual, a very violent individual.\nHe asked the jury, isn't it frightening the similarity between his past crime and this crime?\nHe sent the clear signal to the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1200.197, 1203.647, 1211.838, 1216.943], "stop_times": [1203.647, 1211.838, 1216.943, 1218.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1200.197}, "reply_to": "21880__0_087", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_089", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, of course, that also bears on the... on the fact of his depravity, that he was just... he just didn't learn.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1218.836], "stop_times": [1224.664], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1218.836}, "reply_to": "21880__0_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21880__0_090", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--He... he sent the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1224.664], "stop_times": [1226.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1224.664}, "reply_to": "21880__0_089", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_091", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "I don't know if that's necessarily future dangerousness or... it's equally blameworthiness.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1226.089], "stop_times": [1229.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1226.089}, "reply_to": "21880__0_090", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21880__0_092", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, he sent the clear signal to the jury that this is a violent, frightening man, and then he tied it all together with this comment.\nAnd I think he learned a lesson from his prior... prior crime, and that lesson was don't leave any witnesses.\nDon't leave anybody behind that can testify against you.\nDon't leave any eyewitness.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1229.565, 1236.163, 1242.536, 1245.939], "stop_times": [1236.163, 1242.536, 1245.939, 1248.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1229.565}, "reply_to": "21880__0_091", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_093", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, that goes to his blameworthiness.\nHe didn't learn anything in prison.\nI... I suppose future dangerousness is... in a sense is always in question, but I think our precedents say it has to be specifically or... or clearly implied.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1248.216, 1248.349, 1249.826], "stop_times": [1248.349, 1249.826, 1260.343], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1248.216}, "reply_to": "21880__0_092", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21880__0_094", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "I would submit to the Court that that argument indicates to a reasonable jury future dangerousness as much as the argument in Simmons itself--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1260.343], "stop_times": [1271.234], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1260.343}, "reply_to": "21880__0_093", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_095", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Can you imagine any capital case, if we accept that argument, in which future dangerousness is not at issue?\nBecause whenever you show the depravity of the defendant, what a horrible crime it was, you're going to be able to make the same argument.\nAny jury is going to be frightened of this man and think he's going to be dangerous in the future.\nIf that's all... if that's all that Simmons means, we should just say in all capital cases, you assume that it's at issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1271.234, 1278.221, 1285.949, 1290.951], "stop_times": [1278.221, 1285.949, 1290.951, 1297.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1271.234}, "reply_to": "21880__0_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_096", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--And... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1297.49], "stop_times": [1297.958], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1297.49}, "reply_to": "21880__0_095", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_097", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "And that seems to be not what we've said.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1297.958], "stop_times": [1299.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1297.958}, "reply_to": "21880__0_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_098", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--And, Justice Scalia, that's not, however, the issue before the Court.\nWhat this prosecutor told the jury is this man learned a lesson that when he commits his repeated crimes, he shouldn't leave any witnesses behind.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1299.451, 1302.25], "stop_times": [1302.25, 1309.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1299.451}, "reply_to": "21880__0_097", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_099", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "But... but that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1309.333], "stop_times": [1309.999], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1309.333}, "reply_to": "21880__0_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_100", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1309.999], "stop_times": [1310.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1309.999}, "reply_to": "21880__0_099", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_101", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--that goes... I... I would make that argument to show how... how horrible this crime was.\nHe killed this person specifically in order to prevent testimony, which makes the... the crime worse.\nI don't think it necessarily goes to future dangerousness any more than any of the element... other elements of depravity or... or the horribleness of the crime goes... goes to future dangerousness.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1310.116, 1315.114, 1321.3], "stop_times": [1315.114, 1321.3, 1332.153], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1310.116}, "reply_to": "21880__0_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_102", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--And... and this is in the context of a prosecutor who elicited that Mr. Rompilla had been paroled 3 and a half months before the offense, that his niece and nephew were scared of him, that he could not rehabilitate yourself.\nIndeed, I... I urge the Court to read the cross examination of the defense witnesses at the penalty phase.\nIt's short, it's narrow, and it focuses on this guy couldn't rehabilitate himself.\nThis guy was just paroled 3 and a half months and then goes and commits this brutal murder.\nAnd this guy's niece and nephew are afraid of him.\nThat's the context.\nAlso, the prior victim--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1332.153, 1343.629, 1348.109, 1352.541, 1357.037, 1360.504, 1361.709], "stop_times": [1343.629, 1348.109, 1352.541, 1357.037, 1360.504, 1361.709, 1364.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1332.153}, "reply_to": "21880__0_101", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_103", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "And... and you... you expect us in all future cases to read the prosecution's argument and... and say, well, has it gone over the line from just his depravity into he's future... you know, he's going to be dangerous in the future?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1364.227], "stop_times": [1377.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1364.227}, "reply_to": "21880__0_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_104", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--But--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1377.799], "stop_times": [1378.307], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1377.799}, "reply_to": "21880__0_103", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_105", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "I think that puts too much of a burden on... on the Federal courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1378.307], "stop_times": [1381.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1378.307}, "reply_to": "21880__0_104", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_106", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--But, Justice Scalia, it's not just the depravity argument.\nThe argument is he learned a lesson to leave no witnesses behind.\nAnd the... the simplest answer to your question is to compare the argument in Simmons to the argument in this case.\nYou quoted the argument in Simmons in your Simmons dissent.\nIt was the... this is the prosecutor in Simmons.\nThe defense in this case as... the defense in this case as to the sentence is a diversion.\nIt's putting the blame on society, on his father, on his grandmother, on whoever else he can, spreading it out to avoid his personal responsibility.\nBut we are not concerned about how he got shaped.\nWe are concerned about what to do with him now that he is within our midst.\nAnd that was the argument that Justice O'Connor and the plurality in Simmons cited as bringing future dangerousness to the jury's attention.\nTo put it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1381.384, 1384.712, 1387.516, 1393.767, 1396.578, 1398.77, 1403.858, 1412.178, 1414.711, 1418.776, 1426.637], "stop_times": [1384.712, 1387.516, 1393.767, 1396.578, 1398.77, 1403.858, 1412.178, 1414.711, 1418.776, 1426.637, 1427.533], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1381.384}, "reply_to": "21880__0_105", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_107", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "This... this prosecutor also said, before he got into isn't it frightening, I'm not asking you for vengeance.\nSo if he's not putting it on for vengeance or the bad acts that he did, then what else could it be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1427.533, 1434.764], "stop_times": [1434.764, 1447.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1427.533}, "reply_to": "21880__0_106", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__0_108", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Future dangerousness is... is what we would submit to the Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1447.191], "stop_times": [1450.759], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1447.191}, "reply_to": "21880__0_107", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_109", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "How about justice?\nI mean, is that the only alternative to vengeance, is... is future dangerousness?\nI don't think so at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1450.759, 1451.334, 1457.946], "stop_times": [1451.334, 1457.946, 1459.696], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1450.759}, "reply_to": "21880__0_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__0_110", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "When you tell a jury that a person is a violent recidivist who learns the lesson... he's a recidivist.\nHe's going to commit more crimes if he's out.\nThe lesson he learns is when he commits those more crimes, don't leave anybody behind.\nI... I see that as an argument that... that is far beyond Simmons itself as to future dangerousness.\nIn future dangerousness, Justice Scalia, you... you argued in the dissent that the future dangerousness... that what the plurality and Justice O'Connor construed as a future dangerousness argument could have had another purpose.\nOnly in a State like Texas where you have a pure future dangerousness argument, in every State where you have other aggravators before the jury, of course you can construe it for another--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1459.696, 1466.539, 1468.277, 1473.125, 1480.335, 1491.307], "stop_times": [1466.539, 1468.277, 1473.125, 1480.335, 1491.307, 1503.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1459.696}, "reply_to": "21880__0_109", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_111", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "I thought that there was no problem in any State but Pennsylvania because now all of them... when the jury wants to know does life mean life, the judge says yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1503.647], "stop_times": [1513.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1503.647}, "reply_to": "21880__0_110", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__0_112", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--In all of them except Pennsylvania, Your Honor.\nI'm not saying it's a problem, but in response to Justice Scalia's question, only in a pure future dangerousness State will you have a pure future dangerousness argument.\nAnd just one final comment on Simmons.\nAs a prosecutor, if I'm putting on a future dangerousness case, I do it just like this prosecutor do it.\nI put on this man's significant violent criminal history.\nI tell the jury the lessons he learned from that history is to be violent and to not leave anybody behind.\nAnd I tell the jury that's what he's like.\nThat's what he learned from his prior crimes.\nThat's the message of future dangerousness you send to the jury.\nThat's the message that this prosecutor sent, exactly how you would do it if you were arguing future dangerousness.\nYou know from the jury's question they got that message.\nIf I may, I'd reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1513.689, 1515.588, 1524.633, 1526.937, 1533.06, 1537.268, 1543.683, 1546.078, 1548.286, 1552.009, 1558.057, 1561.774], "stop_times": [1515.588, 1524.633, 1526.937, 1533.06, 1537.268, 1543.683, 1546.078, 1548.286, 1552.009, 1558.057, 1561.774, 1564.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1513.689}, "reply_to": "21880__0_111", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_113", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Yes, you may reserve your time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1564.569], "stop_times": [1564.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1564.569}, "reply_to": "21880__0_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21880__0_114", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Your Honor, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1564.776], "stop_times": [1565.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1564.776}, "reply_to": "21880__0_113", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__0_115", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Ms. Zapp.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1565.502], "stop_times": [1570.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1565.502}, "reply_to": "21880__0_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21880__1_000", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nI'll address first the Simmons issue and then move on to the ineffectiveness issue, which will also be addressed by the Solicitor General's office.\nThe ruling of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in this case, which denied the petitioner relief under Simmons v. South Carolina, was objectively reasonable and therefore did not provide a basis for habeas relief.\nSimmons could reasonably be understood to require an instruction about parole ineligibility only in situations where the prosecution had argued that the defendant posed a future danger when it was asking the jury to sentence him to death.\nSimmons was a narrow exception to the abiding practice of this Court to allow the States to make decisions about what types of information the sentencing jury should receive with respect to the potential for early release.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1570.579, 1574.227, 1583.891, 1596.984, 1613.89], "stop_times": [1574.227, 1583.891, 1596.984, 1613.89, 1626.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1570.579}, "reply_to": "21880__0_115", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_001", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, do you... do you take the position that the... that the argument that the prosecutor makes has got to refer explicitly to future dangerousness, a kind of talismanic words criterion so that we'll have a bright line rule and everyone will know where... where he stands?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1626.988], "stop_times": [1646.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1626.988}, "reply_to": "21880__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__1_002", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, I think Simmons could be understood... and in fact did establish a bright line rule that the prosecutor had to actually argue it had to invite the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1646.7], "stop_times": [1655.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1646.7}, "reply_to": "21880__1_001", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_003", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "No.\nBut has... has the prosecutor got to use a phrase like future dangerousness or a synonym for that phrase?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1655.063, 1655.142], "stop_times": [1655.142, 1661.888], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1655.063}, "reply_to": "21880__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__1_004", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--I think he had to use words that communicated that.\nI'm not sure there's any one particular phrase, but a prosecutor can certainly put that into issue--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1661.888, 1665.013], "stop_times": [1665.013, 1670.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1661.888}, "reply_to": "21880__1_003", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_005", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1670.011], "stop_times": [1670.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1670.011}, "reply_to": "21880__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__1_006", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--using different... different words.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1670.512], "stop_times": [1671.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1670.512}, "reply_to": "21880__1_005", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_007", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--if we... if we don't adopt that kind of explicit words criterion, do you deny that the... that the argument that the prosecutor made, particularly the... by... by introducing the... the evidence of... of the prior crime for purposes of the aggravating factor and the argument that he made about how the defendant had learned from his prior crime... do you... do you deny that... that those were in fact, not with the talismanic words, but that those in fact were... were arguments that suggested future dangerousness?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1671.951], "stop_times": [1710.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1671.951}, "reply_to": "21880__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__1_008", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "I do, Your Honor.\nAnd my... my reason for that is when you look to the argument itself, those words were used in a very controlled situation.\nThey... they did not by their tone or the overall tenor of the argument or their content tell the jury to take the... the defendant's future dangerousness into account.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1710.016, 1710.757, 1718.537], "stop_times": [1710.757, 1718.537, 1729.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1710.016}, "reply_to": "21880__1_007", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_009", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "But I... I don't see how the... I... I guess my... my point is I don't see how you can avoid it.\nThe... the argument... I think we would all agree that the argument was this person has committed repeated crimes.\nWe're asking you to bear that in mind for the purposes of applying one of the three aggravating factors.\nIn the course of committing repeated crimes, he has learned from past mistakes; i.e., he knows this time not to leave any witnesses.\nHow can you divide the tendency of that argument, repeated crimes for purposes of aggravation, from the tendency of that argument to say repeated crimes in the future if he gets a chance?\nThis is the kind of guy we're dealing with.\nHow can you draw that line?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1729.896, 1735.576, 1743.037, 1750.013, 1761.624, 1775.56, 1777.458], "stop_times": [1735.576, 1743.037, 1750.013, 1761.624, 1775.56, 1777.458, 1778.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1729.896}, "reply_to": "21880__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__1_010", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, I think this Court has said that you can draw that line because... and you have to draw that line because in this situation... because in every situation, every capital situation, the evidence that necessarily has to be discussed as part of sentencing can be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1778.802], "stop_times": [1794.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1778.802}, "reply_to": "21880__1_009", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_011", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "No, but this is... this is a special case.\nThis is not a general argument to the effect that this is a very bad person and we can expect bad persons to be bad in the future.\nThis is a more specific argument.\nThis is an argument that says he's now done it twice.\nThis is the second crime and he's getting better at it as he goes along because now he kills the witnesses.\nThis isn't just generalized badness.\nThis is criminal repetitiveness.\nIt is recidivism.\nAnd it seems to me that that is a much clearer argument.\nIt is much closer to the explicit argument that he will do it in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1794.622, 1795.865, 1805.054, 1807.401, 1811.967, 1818.282, 1820.735, 1824.079, 1825.023, 1829.118], "stop_times": [1795.865, 1805.054, 1807.401, 1811.967, 1818.282, 1820.735, 1824.079, 1825.023, 1829.118, 1833.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1794.622}, "reply_to": "21880__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__1_012", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--I... I don't think so in the specific context of this case, Your Honor, and that's again because the evidence in this situation really did not show a continuing sequence of... of conduct and only talked about two episodes.\nAnd the fact that there was evidence in... or there were remarks in this case about how the violence had escalated did not, again, go to... suggest and... and clearly the tone of the prosecutor did not suggest that the jury should draw from that a conclusion that the defendant would be dangerous.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1833.465, 1848.574], "stop_times": [1848.574, 1867.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1833.465}, "reply_to": "21880__1_011", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_013", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "What--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1867.23], "stop_times": [1867.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1867.23}, "reply_to": "21880__1_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__1_014", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Ms. Zapp, I guess... I guess I'm confused about your case.\nI had thought that you were not arguing that Simmons requires a talismanic word or even that it requires much more than existed here.\nI thought what you were arguing is simply that Simmons could at that time have been interpreted that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1867.23, 1870.045, 1881.523], "stop_times": [1870.045, 1881.523, 1889.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1867.23}, "reply_to": "21880__1_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__1_015", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "We are, Your Honor, and... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1889.939], "stop_times": [1892.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1889.939}, "reply_to": "21880__1_014", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_016", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "So you're not... you're not making the argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1892.387], "stop_times": [1894.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1892.387}, "reply_to": "21880__1_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__1_017", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--We are not making the argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1894.488], "stop_times": [1896.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1894.488}, "reply_to": "21880__1_016", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_018", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "But you're saying the argument could have been made at... at the time of this trial--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1896.216], "stop_times": [1900.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1896.216}, "reply_to": "21880__1_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__1_019", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1900.189], "stop_times": [1900.69], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1900.189}, "reply_to": "21880__1_018", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_020", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--and before our later jurisprudence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1900.69], "stop_times": [1902.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1900.69}, "reply_to": "21880__1_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__1_021", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1902.317], "stop_times": [1903.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1902.317}, "reply_to": "21880__1_020", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_022", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--And why would that argument have been reasonable?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1903.485], "stop_times": [1907.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1903.485}, "reply_to": "21880__1_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__1_023", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1907.554], "stop_times": [1908.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1907.554}, "reply_to": "21880__1_022", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_024", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "In other words, why... why would we... why would it be reasonable to assume that this Court had... had established a constitutional rule going to jury instruction that rested on a kind of talismanic criterion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1908.999], "stop_times": [1924.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1908.999}, "reply_to": "21880__1_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__1_025", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Well, because the concurring opinion, which provides the... this precise holding, identified that specific conduct as triggering and could be understood at the time to require that specific conduct to trigger an instruction in these circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1924.193], "stop_times": [1941.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1924.193}, "reply_to": "21880__1_024", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_026", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "What... what specific words in... in the concurring opinion gets to the talismanic point?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1941.201], "stop_times": [1946.309], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1941.201}, "reply_to": "21880__1_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__1_027", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "The specific words were the... the Court's instruction that an... about a charge on all ineligibility had to be supplied, and I'm going to quote from the Court's opinion where... where the prosecution argues that the defendant will pose a threat to... to society in the future.\nThat... that opinion... and just a few lines earlier it also said, again... and I'm going to quote the words... if the prosecution does not argue future dangerousness, the State may appropriately decide that parole is not a proper issue for the jury's consideration even if the only sentencing alternative to death is life in prison without the possibility of parole.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1946.309, 1967.296], "stop_times": [1967.296, 1991.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1946.309}, "reply_to": "21880__1_026", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_028", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "And... and you're... you're depending on the word, in effect, argue as... as requiring... or as... as being a basis to say the argument has got to use talismanic words.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [1991.658], "stop_times": [2002.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1991.658}, "reply_to": "21880__1_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__1_029", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Not... not that... not that it has to use talismanic--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2002.325], "stop_times": [2005.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2002.325}, "reply_to": "21880__1_028", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_030", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "You're saying it has to be argued.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2005.802], "stop_times": [2006.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2005.802}, "reply_to": "21880__1_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__1_031", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Exactly, that has to be argument as opposed to some other form of communication--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2006.505], "stop_times": [2010.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2006.505}, "reply_to": "21880__1_030", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_032", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Not... not just intimated, not just suggested, but the jury... you have to argue that this person--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2010.249], "stop_times": [2014.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2010.249}, "reply_to": "21880__1_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__1_033", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--But by--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2014.836], "stop_times": [2015.609], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2014.836}, "reply_to": "21880__1_032", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_034", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--is dangerous in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2015.609], "stop_times": [2016.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2015.609}, "reply_to": "21880__1_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__1_035", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--But by contrast--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2016.42], "stop_times": [2017.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2016.42}, "reply_to": "21880__1_034", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_036", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "That's a reasonable interpretation of it I would think.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2017.386], "stop_times": [2019.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2017.386}, "reply_to": "21880__1_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__1_037", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2019.135], "stop_times": [2019.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2019.135}, "reply_to": "21880__1_036", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_038", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "And on that interpretation, why wasn't it an argument within the meaning of... of your point, when the prosecutor here got up and said, isn't it frightening, he has, in effect, learned from his past experience, now he knows enough to kill the witnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2019.61], "stop_times": [2038.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.61}, "reply_to": "21880__1_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__1_039", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, first of all, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2038.751], "stop_times": [2040.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2038.751}, "reply_to": "21880__1_038", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_040", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Wasn't that an argument which... which goes to future dangerousness?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2040.404], "stop_times": [2043.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2040.404}, "reply_to": "21880__1_039", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__1_041", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Well, first of all, Your Honor, he did not make that argument.\nHe never asked if it was frightening that he had learned from this.\nThe word frightening... again, this has been used out of context by my... my learned colleague... went to... strictly went to the discussion of similarities between the crimes, not the defendant.\nAnd in this situation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2043.966, 2047.209, 2050.69, 2063.529], "stop_times": [2047.209, 2050.69, 2063.529, 2065.784], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2043.966}, "reply_to": "21880__1_040", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_042", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Ah, but what immediately follows... first he said it's absolutely frightening twice.\nBut there is one difference, one major difference, and the difference is that he has learned to leave no witnesses.\nThat is tightly connected.\nHe says this is an absolutely frightening crime, but there's something more.\nHe's learned not to leave any witnesses.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2065.784, 2070.726, 2078.438, 2080.545, 2084.833], "stop_times": [2070.726, 2078.438, 2080.545, 2084.833, 2087.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2065.784}, "reply_to": "21880__1_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__1_043", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--But... but again, Justice Ginsburg, that goes to the idea that the defendant has ratcheted up his crime, that instead of taking the opportunity to reform his life, he's gone further and that makes this crime worse and... and more worthy of harsher treatment from a punishing standpoint.\nIt is our position that in 1998 when the State courts ruled, it was entirely reasonable for the Supreme Court to view Simmons as requiring that issues of future dangerousness be generated by the prosecution's argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2087.058, 2103.559], "stop_times": [2103.559, 2120.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2087.058}, "reply_to": "21880__1_042", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_044", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "I... I know you want to get to the other issue in this case, but let me ask you.\nYou've, I assume, read these cases.\nIn... in other States where this instruction is given, is the prosecutor free to say, well, sure, there's life without parole, but that can change?\nWe don't know what the law will be like 3 years from now, 5.\nHave there been any problems along that... along those lines?\nHave there been any problems generally in giving this instruction to the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2120.941, 2124.065, 2126.22, 2139.458, 2141.617, 2145.777], "stop_times": [2124.065, 2126.22, 2139.458, 2141.617, 2145.777, 2151.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.941}, "reply_to": "21880__1_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21880__1_045", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I'm not sure of the practice in other States, but I can tell you that in Pennsylvania... and this is a point I need to correct from my opponent's argument.\nThe answer to the question about parole eligibility is not a simple no.\nAnd that... our supreme court has said that.\nWe have a statutory prohibition in granting the... granting parole to someone who's sentenced to life, but we also have a constitutional provision that allows the sentence to be commuted to, among other things, parole or other forms of early release.\nOur State supreme court has said you... in order to be entirely accurate for sentencing jury, you've got to communicate both of those conducts.\nAnd... and the second part that has over the years... and this goes to respond to your question... has caused our court some pause in why we retain the rule.\nAnd that is they are very concerned.\nOur courts have expressed the view that by letting the jury know that the operation of the constitutional provision which can theoretically... and, in fact, in the past often has resulted in a life sentence being commuted... it may be skewing the jury's perception of the punishments adversely to a defendant.\nIt's one of the reasons why they have made a decision not to introduce sentencing information into... early release information into the sentencing process in Pennsylvania, the concern that if a jury hears that there's some theoretical possibility or learns that it has been... been actual... there's been actual early release in the past, that it may... may, out of an exercise of caution, automatically choose a death sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2151.596, 2159.159, 2163.879, 2166.572, 2179.309, 2185.895, 2193.447, 2195.26, 2213.127], "stop_times": [2159.159, 2163.879, 2166.572, 2179.309, 2185.895, 2193.447, 2195.26, 2213.127, 2236.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2151.596}, "reply_to": "21880__1_044", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_046", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "And that explains why your State is the only holdout.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2236.482], "stop_times": [2238.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2236.482}, "reply_to": "21880__1_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__1_047", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, I'm sorry.\nWell, that it's... they... they have serious concerns, Your Honor, that... that this is something that is necessary to the integrity of the process.\nAnd there are two other concerns they've also mentioned too.\nThey're... they're concerns that... that the jury be deflected from the specific process that we have under law which... which is... which is specified in our law for... for imposing a sentence and not be distracted by undue speculation about whether or not the defendant is ever going to be released from prison.\nAnd the second... or excuse me.\nThe third point that they're worried about is that a sentencing jury who, for whatever reason, becomes reluctant to... to carry out its duties may see this as an opportunity to shift the sentencing burden to somebody like a parole board or... or other sentencing authority.\nAnd so that's why they have... they've enforced this rule because they just see it as underscoring the integrity of the process.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2238.764, 2240.603, 2248.144, 2250.444, 2268.897, 2271.414, 2287.157], "stop_times": [2240.603, 2248.144, 2250.444, 2268.897, 2271.414, 2287.157, 2294.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2238.764}, "reply_to": "21880__1_046", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_048", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "May I ask you a question about the competence of counsel issue?\nOne... I'm... I'm very sympathetic to the problems of busy lawyers who have so much to do and they're preparing for a penalty hearing.\nBut one... one aspect of this case... I hope you'll comment... and that is, the fact that the prosecutor had told the defense they were going to use certain aggravating circumstances, and the files in those... relating to those circumstances were available in the courthouse.\nAnd as I understand... and you correct me if I'm wrong... counsel did not examine those files, and had he examined those files, he would have opened the door to a wealth of information.\nIsn't that a fairly serious mistake by the lawyer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2294.896, 2306.095, 2312.462, 2327.565, 2336.926], "stop_times": [2306.095, 2312.462, 2327.565, 2336.926, 2340.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2294.896}, "reply_to": "21880__1_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21880__1_049", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Not in this circumstance, Justice Stevens, and... and for this reason.\nThe information that is typically contained in those files... and... and again, I... I want to add some additional information for the... for the Court on this point.\nAs Mr. Nolas says, Pennsylvania law does require preparation of records, including certain types of information.\nBut as... as is often the case, the... the... in... in practical... and the practical realities are not necessarily all records are equal.\nSo as a matter of practice, in Pennsylvania attorneys cannot necessarily... or would not automatically have reason to think these may give them a wealth of information.\nBut in this situation we had counsel seeking to obtain that very same information, in fact, had previously discussed that sort of thing with the family members.\nAnd so they at that point would have reasonably expected that they had a fair picture of the defendant's formative years--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2340.962, 2345.101, 2355.026, 2361.997, 2372.632, 2382.466, 2391.762], "stop_times": [2345.101, 2355.026, 2361.997, 2372.632, 2382.466, 2391.762, 2400.211], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2340.962}, "reply_to": "21880__1_048", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_050", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, maybe they... assume that's all true.\nThey thought they knew everything--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2400.211, 2401.703], "stop_times": [2401.703, 2402.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2400.211}, "reply_to": "21880__1_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21880__1_051", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2402.839], "stop_times": [2402.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2402.839}, "reply_to": "21880__1_050", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_052", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--they needed to know.\nBut still, if you say to me I'm going to put on certain exhibits, A, B, and C, and the defense says I'm not even going to even take a look at them before you put them on, I find that quite unusual.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2402.968, 2403.97], "stop_times": [2403.97, 2414.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2402.968}, "reply_to": "21880__1_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21880__1_053", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, they knew from interviewing their client what his criminal history was, and at that... this point, they had every reason to believe they possessed a fair and accurate assessment of his background, and the decision not to... to go... to... to take a look at this was... was reasonable under the circumstances.\nCounsel thought they already had that information and no reason to expect there was anything else in there based on their discussions with their own client.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2414.466, 2431.239], "stop_times": [2431.239, 2437.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2414.466}, "reply_to": "21880__1_052", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_054", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "They thought they had... it was reasonable when they, on their own, suspected that this man might not even be competent at the moment to stand trial, that he... that they might have a... a basis for an insanity plea, that it was reasonable for them to rely just on what he told them without looking at the record that was in the prosecutor's hands?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2437.463], "stop_times": [2457.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2437.463}, "reply_to": "21880__1_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__1_055", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Oh, no, Justice Ginsburg.\nAnd again, we're talking about the sequence of events here.\nThe... this... this came up relatively later on in the proceedings after counsel had already expended much of their time gathering information in the... the information about what was going to be introduced.\nIt... it happens, in... in terms of the time line of this case, relatively late, after counsel has already talked to experts and obtained information, talked to family members and... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2457.009, 2459.024, 2461.659, 2474.284], "stop_times": [2459.024, 2461.659, 2474.284, 2485.771], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2457.009}, "reply_to": "21880__1_054", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_056", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "I understand that.\nYou're repeating that point which... so I might ask this question on this very point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2485.771, 2486.225], "stop_times": [2486.225, 2489.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2485.771}, "reply_to": "21880__1_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21880__1_057", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Could... could I find out what she said came late?\nI... I didn't understand.\nYou said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2489.729, 2492.385, 2493.137], "stop_times": [2492.385, 2493.137, 2493.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2489.729}, "reply_to": "21880__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__1_058", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--The... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2493.532], "stop_times": [2494.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2493.532}, "reply_to": "21880__1_057", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_059", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--it came... what came relatively late?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2494.257], "stop_times": [2495.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2494.257}, "reply_to": "21880__1_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__1_060", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--The... I'm sorry.\nThe... the file itself, the... the information the file was going to be used.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2495.366, 2495.483], "stop_times": [2495.483, 2499.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2495.366}, "reply_to": "21880__1_059", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_061", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Came up late.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2499.115], "stop_times": [2500.406], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2499.115}, "reply_to": "21880__1_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__1_062", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Comparatively late over the course of this case.\nThe counsel had already done things in that respect that would have led them to conclude that there would be no profit in... in searching out additional records.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2500.406, 2502.944], "stop_times": [2502.944, 2512.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2500.406}, "reply_to": "21880__1_061", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_063", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "My question is this, that I take it on page L31 is the record that existed in this horrendous rape '74 case with Jo, whatever, the woman, the bartender.\nAnd the prosecution was making an enormous amount out of that.\nWe've just heard about it.\nThat's true, isn't it?\nAm I right about the case?\nHave I got that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2512.021, 2526.623, 2530.003, 2531.172, 2532.873, 2534.894], "stop_times": [2526.623, 2530.003, 2531.172, 2532.873, 2534.894, 2535.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2512.021}, "reply_to": "21880__1_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21880__1_064", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "This is the record that did exist.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2535.758], "stop_times": [2540.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2535.758}, "reply_to": "21880__1_063", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_065", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Yes.\nThis is... I'm thinking of it correctly, that this is the record in the case that the prosecution made a lot out of.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2540.516, 2540.889], "stop_times": [2540.889, 2547.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2540.516}, "reply_to": "21880__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21880__1_066", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "I believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2547.764], "stop_times": [2549.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2547.764}, "reply_to": "21880__1_065", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_067", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "I'm... I'm back with Justice Stevens then and I wonder how it's possible a lawyer wouldn't look at the record in that very case if only to see if the prosecutor is characterizing the situation accurately.\nAnd had he done so, he would have seen on the next page, alcohol problems.\nHe would have seen a complete list of siblings, and he would have seen, four pages later, a one-page list of criminal behavior with identification of crimes that took place when he was a child.\nThat's all true.\nNow, if he had then noticed these early criminal records when he was a 17-year-old and simply gotten the record in that one, he would have come across the document that is on page L44 and L45 which says, among other things, Ronald comes from the notorious Rompilla family.\nAnd then there is a list of why they are called the notorious Rompilla family which is fairly horrendous.\nNow, I do not understand how any person, getting the first record, wouldn't have been led to the second, and I do not understand how any person who read pages 44 and 45 of the second would not have thought what the siblings are telling me is wrong.\nI better go check on a few more siblings who happen to have their names and addresses here right in the pieces of paper he's looking at.\nAnd he would then have discovered this absolutely horrendous background that Judge Sloviter mentions.\nSo I do not understand why that one incident, leaving aside all the other ones, but I do not understand why that one failure to consult the record that is being used by the prosecutor horrendously against him is not a failure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2549.679, 2561.699, 2567.496, 2582.536, 2584.296, 2607.09, 2615.853, 2633.629, 2643.176, 2650.104], "stop_times": [2561.699, 2567.496, 2582.536, 2584.296, 2607.09, 2615.853, 2633.629, 2643.176, 2650.104, 2667.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2549.679}, "reply_to": "21880__1_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21880__1_068", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Well, Your... Your Honor, in response to that, I would say this.\nIt's clear from the testimony of counsel in the State post-conviction proceedings that they had interviewed their client in great detail about his prior conviction, that they were aware of what had... what it had involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2667.976, 2672.973], "stop_times": [2672.973, 2686.545], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2667.976}, "reply_to": "21880__1_067", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_069", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "This sounds to me like a constitutional argument for serendipity.\nYou're held to be negligent if you don't look at the record for... for one purpose and... and discover by accident something that's there for another purpose.\nI... I don't know what the logic of that is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2686.545, 2689.756, 2698.373], "stop_times": [2689.756, 2698.373, 2700.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2686.545}, "reply_to": "21880__1_068", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21880__1_070", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Do you agree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2700.971], "stop_times": [2702.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2700.971}, "reply_to": "21880__1_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21880__1_071", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, I think there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2702.507], "stop_times": [2704.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2702.507}, "reply_to": "21880__1_070", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_072", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "No.\nWe don't... you agree with that or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2704.294, 2704.71], "stop_times": [2704.71, 2706.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2704.294}, "reply_to": "21880__1_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21880__1_073", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Well, I think there's... there is an element.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2706.155], "stop_times": [2707.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2706.155}, "reply_to": "21880__1_072", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_074", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "You either agree with Justice Kennedy or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2707.867], "stop_times": [2709.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2707.867}, "reply_to": "21880__1_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21880__1_075", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "I can agree with... I do agree with it in part.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2709.92], "stop_times": [2712.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2709.92}, "reply_to": "21880__1_074", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_076", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "You do agree.\nAll right.\nNow, if you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2712.532, 2712.65, 2712.767], "stop_times": [2712.65, 2712.767, 2713.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2712.532}, "reply_to": "21880__1_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21880__1_077", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "I... I do agree that there is... that there is certainly that involved in... in this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2713.652], "stop_times": [2718.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2713.652}, "reply_to": "21880__1_076", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_078", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--I mean, my question, obviously, is, is not the reason that you want to examine the criminal record in the case that is being used horrendously against your client is to find out both as to what happened at the time and also the background that would be relevant in respect to your client?\nFor example, alcohol abuse, which happened to be checked.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2718.979, 2740.947], "stop_times": [2740.947, 2744.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2718.979}, "reply_to": "21880__1_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21880__1_079", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "But... but, Justice Breyer, yes, certainly looking at a record would serve those purposes.\nBut again, the information in those records was available from other sources.\nIt was not the only source.\nAnd... and the question that we have to look at here was did counsel set out on a plan to try to get the same information, which clearly they did, and they... they sought to get it from people who ostensibly knew that information.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2744.91, 2751.171, 2754.707, 2756.601, 2770.061], "stop_times": [2751.171, 2754.707, 2756.601, 2770.061, 2771.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2744.91}, "reply_to": "21880__1_078", "speaker": "amy_zapp"}
{"id": "21880__1_080", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Zapp.\nMs. Lovitt.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2771.604, 2777.096], "stop_times": [2777.096, 2777.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2771.604}, "reply_to": "21880__1_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21880__2_000", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nPetitioner's ineffectiveness argument seems to be hinging on four things which are the court records in the aggravation case, the charge to the expert, the family members' level of cooperation, and the petitioner's level of cooperation.\nBut a fair reading of the record demonstrates that counsel was reasonable with respect to all.\nBut I want to start with the court records because that appears to be what's concerning the Court.\nI think there's a misperception here that counsel did nothing to prepare for the aggravation case.\nThe record, fairly read, reflects that they received through the discovery process the rap sheet and everything they needed to know in order to challenge the... the aggravation case, and that's at JA664 and 667, is Attorney Charles testifying that he received the rap sheet through discovery and that the prosecutor, in order to try and induce a plea, was very, very clear about what he intended to do in aggravation and what the aggravation case would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2777.811, 2781.187, 2795.081, 2799.843, 2803.694, 2809.533], "stop_times": [2781.187, 2795.081, 2799.843, 2803.694, 2809.533, 2836.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2777.811}, "reply_to": "21880__1_080", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_001", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "But a rap sheet and so forth will not have normally what this person is like.\nYou're dealing with a client who has serious problems of some kind as the crimes themselves reveal.\nThey're terrible.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2836.168, 2841.602, 2848.401], "stop_times": [2841.602, 2848.401, 2849.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2836.168}, "reply_to": "21880__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21880__2_002", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "I... I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2849.874], "stop_times": [2850.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2849.874}, "reply_to": "21880__2_001", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_003", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "And... and so I... don't you think it's a reasonable... or do you think it's a reasonable constitutional requirement to say that where cases of prior history of the client are being used by the prosecution to say what a terrible person he is... and he may be... that you... the... the lawyer in a capital case at least should look at the court records in that case to learn something about what this human being is like and why?\nBecause court records, but not rap sheets do contain that kind of thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2850.594, 2879.921], "stop_times": [2879.921, 2884.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.594}, "reply_to": "21880__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21880__2_004", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--I think there are two answers to that question.\nFirst is that counsel was, in fact, looking at the testimony that would be read at... during the aggravation and sentencing case to determine how to challenge that, how best to challenge that.\nAnd second, the assumption of the question is that the court records were somehow superior to the sources that counsel actually looked to.\nAnd I don't think on the record of this case, that's objectively true.\nCounsel is... has... has hired three independent experts, all of whom are specifically trained--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2884.257, 2887.164, 2898.684, 2906.956, 2910.923], "stop_times": [2887.164, 2898.684, 2906.956, 2910.923, 2916.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2884.257}, "reply_to": "21880__2_003", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_005", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Experts that were hired primarily to say what is his present mental condition, not what happened in the past.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2916.779], "stop_times": [2923.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2916.779}, "reply_to": "21880__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__2_006", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--No, Justice Ginsburg, and I'm glad you brought this up because I'd like to point the Court to JA1069 and 1079 which is where Dr. Cooke testifies, as Justice Scalia anticipated, that he was, in fact, asked to... asked to look at the mitigation evidence, and he did look at mitigation evidence.\nDr. Sadoff has the same testimony--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2923.371, 2939.194], "stop_times": [2939.194, 2941.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2923.371}, "reply_to": "21880__2_005", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_007", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "What was the primary reason that those experts were engaged?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2941.519], "stop_times": [2945.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2941.519}, "reply_to": "21880__2_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__2_008", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Dr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2945.017], "stop_times": [2945.369], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2945.017}, "reply_to": "21880__2_007", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_009", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "The primary reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2945.369], "stop_times": [2946.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2945.369}, "reply_to": "21880__2_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__2_010", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Dr. Cooke's and... Drs.\nCooke and Sadoff testified that they were given an open-ended charge to look at mitigation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2946.275, 2947.827], "stop_times": [2947.827, 2953.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2946.275}, "reply_to": "21880__2_009", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_011", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Where... where is this?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2953.858], "stop_times": [2954.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2953.858}, "reply_to": "21880__2_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__2_012", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--First, Dr. Cooke is at JA1079 and 1069.\nDr. Sadoff is at 1105 and 1122.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2954.47, 2960.001], "stop_times": [2960.001, 2964.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2954.47}, "reply_to": "21880__2_011", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_013", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "I thought it was not contested that in fact the primary reason why these doctors were engaged was that the defense attorney wanted to see if there was a basis for a plea of insanity.\nHe wanted to see if there was a basis to claim that his client was incompetent to stand trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2964.743, 2977.457], "stop_times": [2977.457, 2982.086], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.743}, "reply_to": "21880__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__2_014", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "That is... that is definitely contested with respect to Drs.\nCooke and Sadoff.\nWith respect to Dr. Gross, who was the first expert that was hired, he testified that his marching orders were fairly limited, and I think that's where this idea is coming across that all the experts were only charged to look for competency to stand trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [2982.086, 2985.03, 2986.129], "stop_times": [2985.03, 2986.129, 3000.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 2982.086}, "reply_to": "21880__2_013", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_015", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "And Dr. Gross is the one who... who in his report suggested a follow-up on alcoholism I think.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3000.972], "stop_times": [3009.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3000.972}, "reply_to": "21880__2_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__2_016", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3009.184], "stop_times": [3010.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3009.184}, "reply_to": "21880__2_015", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_017", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "And one way, at least a kind of a threshold step to follow up on alcoholism, would have been to look at the... the personal history report in the file of the prior case.\nIf they had done so, they would have found something on that subject.\nSo even... even if we forget the question of the... the scope of the expert's original brief and we look to Dr. Gross' suggestion and we look to the failure to look in an obvious place, i.e., the... the personal history report and... and the case file, which the State said it was going to use, don't we have a problem with competence of counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3010.208, 3020.81, 3024.309], "stop_times": [3020.81, 3024.309, 3046.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3010.208}, "reply_to": "21880__2_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__2_018", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "No, because counsel looked... followed up in an objectively reasonable place.\nTheir testimony was that they hired two more experts to look at this issue, and Dr. Gross did not conclude--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3046.927, 3052.595], "stop_times": [3052.595, 3059.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3046.927}, "reply_to": "21880__2_017", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_019", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "The... the two other psychiatrists or psychologists?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3059.374], "stop_times": [3061.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3059.374}, "reply_to": "21880__2_018", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__2_020", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--The two... the two other psychiatrists.\nBecause the issue wasn't alcoholism.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3061.171, 3061.588], "stop_times": [3061.588, 3063.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3061.171}, "reply_to": "21880__2_019", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_021", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Wel, were they... were they hired to... to look into alcoholism?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3063.337], "stop_times": [3065.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3063.337}, "reply_to": "21880__2_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21880__2_022", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "No.\nDr. Gross' report says he might have a violent reaction to alcohol.\nAnd he testified that was... I was throwing that out as a theory.\nI have no idea.\nI had ruled out alcoholism.\nI had ruled out blackouts.\nAnd so the question to me was maybe there's something out there about violent chemical reactions to alcohol.\nCounsel testified that the... that they followed up on that by hiring experts who they thought could examine that issue, and they both concluded that there was nothing there.\nThis is not an instance where you have, you know, open inquiries that counsel didn't follow up on.\nEvery court in this case has recognized--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3065.667, 3066.083, 3070.856, 3074.12, 3075.565, 3076.984, 3079.011, 3085.053, 3095.335, 3100.509], "stop_times": [3066.083, 3070.856, 3074.12, 3075.565, 3076.984, 3079.011, 3085.053, 3095.335, 3100.509, 3102.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3065.667}, "reply_to": "21880__2_021", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_023", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Would you tell me again?\nI'm... I'm just afraid I missed it before.\nWhat is your justification for failing to look at the... at the criminal files?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3102.983, 3103.537, 3105.313], "stop_times": [3103.537, 3105.313, 3109.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3102.983}, "reply_to": "21880__2_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21880__2_024", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--That they received everything they needed to challenge the aggravation case through discovery.\nAnd there's a little bit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3109.388, 3113.504], "stop_times": [3113.504, 3114.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3109.388}, "reply_to": "21880__2_023", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_025", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "So even if they did, would it... you still think it would be prudent not even to look at the file?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3114.748], "stop_times": [3118.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3114.748}, "reply_to": "21880__2_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21880__2_026", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--They had everything they needed to challenge the aggravation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3118.784], "stop_times": [3122.389], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3118.784}, "reply_to": "21880__2_025", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_027", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, they didn't have as much as they would have had if they'd looked at the file.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3122.389], "stop_times": [3124.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3122.389}, "reply_to": "21880__2_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21880__2_028", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--But the Sixth Amendment question--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3124.07], "stop_times": [3125.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3124.07}, "reply_to": "21880__2_027", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_029", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Do you agree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3125.536], "stop_times": [3126.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3125.536}, "reply_to": "21880__2_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21880__2_030", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--I... I think that they had... obviously, in retrospect, the court files would have been helpful, but they had nothing to signal that the court files would give them more information.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3126.367], "stop_times": [3135.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3126.367}, "reply_to": "21880__2_029", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_031", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, I understand that.\nI'm just... I'm just asking you whether, as a matter of routine preparation for a contested hearing, it is not the duty of counsel to take... at least glance at the exhibits that the other side is going to offer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3135.07, 3135.193], "stop_times": [3135.193, 3146.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3135.07}, "reply_to": "21880__2_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21880__2_032", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "They did.\nThey received them through discovery.\nAnd this is... there's some testimony during... during the court proceedings, Attorney Dantos does not have the transcript with her, and she clarified in the testimony at post-conviction--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3146.883, 3147.705, 3149.566], "stop_times": [3147.705, 3149.566, 3159.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3146.883}, "reply_to": "21880__2_031", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_033", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "You're saying they did get copies of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3159.753], "stop_times": [3160.697], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3159.753}, "reply_to": "21880__2_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21880__2_034", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Yes, yes, and that's her testimony at JA506 to 508.\nShe says, we received it in discovery and I had it and I've looked it, but I didn't have it with me at that moment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3160.697, 3164.526], "stop_times": [3164.526, 3171.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3160.697}, "reply_to": "21880__2_033", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_035", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "What is the it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3171.601], "stop_times": [3172.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3171.601}, "reply_to": "21880__2_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__2_036", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "The it being the transcripts of the proceedings that were used in the aggravation case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3172.379], "stop_times": [3177.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3172.379}, "reply_to": "21880__2_035", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_037", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "But not everything that was in that file.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3177.866], "stop_times": [3180.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3177.866}, "reply_to": "21880__2_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__2_038", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "But they did not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3180.485], "stop_times": [3181.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3180.485}, "reply_to": "21880__2_037", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_039", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "There was a lot more than just the transcript of the proceedings in that file.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3181.359], "stop_times": [3184.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3181.359}, "reply_to": "21880__2_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__2_040", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Exactly.\nBecause they had conducted an objectively reasonable investigation into anything else that might be in that file.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3184.425, 3185.23], "stop_times": [3185.23, 3191.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3184.425}, "reply_to": "21880__2_039", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_041", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, the serious question to me is... is... in many of these cases which we see, there are horrendous child abuse histories, and child abuse is a terribly difficult thing to get at and it's something that might not convince most juries of anything because they're all over the place.\nBut nonetheless, counsel should have to make a reasonable decision about whether to take the child abuse route or to take some other route.\nAnd would it cause constitutional harm, that is, would it cause harm even from a prosecutorial point of view, if you just said, well, you should follow up and look at records of prior cases being used against you to see if you get a clue there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3191.486, 3207.757, 3215.762], "stop_times": [3207.757, 3215.762, 3230.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3191.486}, "reply_to": "21880__2_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21880__2_042", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Well, the testimony is clear.\nCounsel knew about the abuse denial dynamic and they did follow up on it by hiring three experts who were charged to ferret this out.\nAnd it would do constitutional harm to say, notwithstanding the fact that you did that, you still have to go to records because as Strickland recognizes, counsel, even where you have diligent, devoted counsel, as here, have to make decisions about resource and time allocation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3230.471, 3232.365, 3239.852], "stop_times": [3232.365, 3239.852, 3257.687], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3230.471}, "reply_to": "21880__2_041", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_043", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "But Strickland was about a strategic decision to pursue one kind of defense rather than another.\nThe Government's brief, I must say, was candid and, I think, useful.\nI'm talking about footnote 5 on page 22 where you say the Federal public defenders in Federal death penalty cases... they get a mitigation specialist and the mitigation specialist, of course, gets records.\nWhat records?\nExactly what we're talking about in this case.\nGets records, birth, schools, social welfare, employment, jail, medical, and other records.\nAnd here, not one of those... not one... was sought.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3257.687, 3262.16, 3269.025, 3288.203, 3288.912, 3291.467, 3298.182], "stop_times": [3262.16, 3269.025, 3288.203, 3288.912, 3291.467, 3298.182, 3303.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3257.687}, "reply_to": "21880__2_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__2_044", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "But this was the current... this is the current Federal practice.\nI think Attorney Charles testifies at length that the prevailing practice in 1988 in Pennsylvania was not to get records, that it was, as the ABA guidelines and even the Goodpaster article suggests, to first sit down with your client, have an extensive conversation with your client, get a relationship of trust, talk to family members, talk to friends, get experts, and then get a game plan together about what records to go to.\nAnd in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3303.53, 3306.293, 3330.974], "stop_times": [3306.293, 3330.974, 3332.447], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3303.53}, "reply_to": "21880__2_043", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_045", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "About what records to go to, and here they went to none.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3332.447], "stop_times": [3335.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3332.447}, "reply_to": "21880__2_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21880__2_046", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Because that objectively reasonable investigation affirmatively indicated that the records would contain nothing.\nIn hindsight, we have the benefit of hindsight to know that they did contain something, but at that point you have three experts, siblings who bracket petitioner in age and were living in the same household that... during the time that's at issue here, and you have extended family members, including an ex-wife, who aren't subject to an abuse denial dynamic, and they're all saying the same thing.\nThere's no abuse.\nThere's no alcohol problem with either him or the family.\nAnd the experts are telling you he's not mentally retarded.\nAnd you have experts who are specifically charged to look at the mitigation case and they're not finding anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3335.033, 3342.579, 3366.116, 3367.46, 3371.198, 3374.969], "stop_times": [3342.579, 3366.116, 3367.46, 3371.198, 3374.969, 3380.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 3, "timestamp": 3335.033}, "reply_to": "21880__2_045", "speaker": "traci_l_lovitt"}
{"id": "21880__2_047", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--Thank you, Ms. Lovitt.\nMr. Nolas, you have about 4 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3380.638, 3382.42], "stop_times": [3382.42, 3389.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3380.638}, "reply_to": "21880__2_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21880__3_000", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Yes, Your Honors.\nThank you very much.\nJustice Kennedy, you asked a question about serendipity.\nThat's why you conduct an investigation.\nThat's why you look into records.\nThat's why this Court has said counsel has a duty to conduct a thorough, diligent investigation.\nWhen I go and I look at a prior conviction court file, I don't know if it's going to say that my client is the worst person on the face of the earth or, as in this case, that it's going to provide evidence leading to mental retardation, significant mental disturbance, and a critically abusive childhood.\nYou do that investigation because the prior conviction court file may contain information that reduces the weight of the aggravating factor.\nIn this case, had counsel gotten that court file, as Justice Breyer summarized, they would have had evidence that not only would have reduced the weight of that prior aggravating factor that... but that would have provided something mitigating for this jury.\nIndeed, Ms. Zapp quotes at page 41 the 1980 ABA standards that very clearly say, please, for mercy, do not substitute for an actual thorough investigation of mitigating evidence and presentation of mitigating evidence.\nAnd all these lawyers ended up with was an unconnected plea for mercy because they didn't take the steps that reasonable counsel take in a capital case.\nI also urge this Court not to be misled by... by some commentary today about the testimony of the lawyers.\nAt page 506, Ms. Dantos very clearly says that she's read the transcript of the penalty phase when that prior conviction court file is brought in by the trial prosecutor.\nAnd at that point, Mr. Charles, her co-counsel, says, I object.\nI've never seen that before.\nAnd the trial prosecutor says, you could have walked down the hall and gotten it just like I did.\nThat's... that's what's she referring to at page 506.\nAs far as the doctors are concerned, I'll just read to Your Honors just from Ms. Dantos herself.\nShe has read at pages 473 and 474 what Dr. Gross had said.\nI only looked at mental state at the time of the offense.\nIs that the purpose of the... is that what the purpose of the evaluation was?\nYes, that's what it was as to Dr. Gross.\nThen at page 475, Dr. Cooke, the second guy.\nDid the same evaluation?\nYes, the same evaluation.\nAt page 476, Dr. Sadoff, the third doctor.\nAnd is that also what Dr. Sadoff did?\nYes.\nPage 476.\nAll three of the mental health professionals looked at Mr. Rompilla's mental state at the time of the commission of the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3389.694, 3390.233, 3390.713, 3394.819, 3399.054, 3400.713, 3405.581, 3421.783, 3431.58, 3445.938, 3460.711, 3468.994, 3476.578, 3489.34, 3493.35, 3494.971, 3499.414, 3502.945, 3508.508, 3513.095, 3515.537, 3520.14, 3522.646, 3526.028, 3527.372, 3529.329, 3533.057, 3535.148, 3535.585, 3536.94], "stop_times": [3390.233, 3390.713, 3394.819, 3399.054, 3400.713, 3405.581, 3421.783, 3431.58, 3445.938, 3460.711, 3468.994, 3476.578, 3489.34, 3493.35, 3494.971, 3499.414, 3502.945, 3508.508, 3513.095, 3515.537, 3520.14, 3522.646, 3526.028, 3527.372, 3529.329, 3533.057, 3535.148, 3535.585, 3536.94, 3543.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3389.694}, "reply_to": "21880__2_047", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__3_001", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Only?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3543.649], "stop_times": [3544.513], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3543.649}, "reply_to": "21880__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__3_002", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "That's the lawyer herself saying what she asked the doctors to do.\nAnd if you look at--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3544.513, 3547.904], "stop_times": [3547.904, 3549.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3544.513}, "reply_to": "21880__3_001", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__3_003", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "I think it's uncontested that all three looked into that, but the point that has been made is that the last two went beyond that.\nDo you disagree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3549.04, 3555.882], "stop_times": [3555.882, 3557.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3549.04}, "reply_to": "21880__3_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21880__3_004", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "--I disagree with that, Your Honor, and you should look at those pages from Ms. Dantos and then look at the pages from Dr. Cooke and Dr. Sadoff.\nThis is Dr. Sadoff at page 1105.\nI would have examined him, Rompilla, for competency to stand trial.\nI would have examined him for criminal responsibilities, and I would have examined him for possibility of mitigating circumstances at the time of the commission of the crime.\nThere is a universal difference between that type of mental health examination and a life history mitigation examination that looks to are there factors in your life that the jury should consider as mitigating.\nWas there abuse?\nWas there neglect?\nWas there mistreatment in the home?\nWas there all the stuff that is in the records about this case that these counsel did not obtain?\nNot one piece of paper.\nJustice Kennedy, not even to rebut the aggravating factor, not even to do that.\nA basic duty.\nEven if you put a spin over mitigation, I as a lawyer want to rebut that aggravating factor.\nThe prosecutor tells me that's the file to go look at.\nI go look at it.\nAny reasonable lawyer, I would think, would do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3557.775, 3563.486, 3566.409, 3571.102, 3581.801, 3593.747, 3594.718, 3595.363, 3596.894, 3602.468, 3604.425, 3608.974, 3610.03, 3615.256, 3617.747, 3618.904], "stop_times": [3563.486, 3566.409, 3571.102, 3581.801, 3593.747, 3594.718, 3595.363, 3596.894, 3602.468, 3604.425, 3608.974, 3610.03, 3615.256, 3617.747, 3618.904, 3621.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3557.775}, "reply_to": "21880__3_003", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__3_005", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Nolas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3621.869], "stop_times": [3623.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3621.869}, "reply_to": "21880__3_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21880__3_006", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "Your Honors, thank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3623.357], "stop_times": [3623.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3623.357}, "reply_to": "21880__3_005", "speaker": "billy_h_nolas"}
{"id": "21880__3_007", "conversation_id": "21880", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-5462", "start_times": [3623.485], "stop_times": [3624.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3623.485}, "reply_to": "21880__3_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22435__0_000", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 03-633, Donald Roper v. Christopher Simmons.\nMr. Layton.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [0.0, 8.339], "stop_times": [8.339, 9.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__0_001", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThough bound by Stanford v. Kentucky, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected both its holding and its rationale.\nThis Court should stay the course it set in Stanford, leaving in the hands of legislators a determination as to the precise minimum age for capital punishment within the realm of Thompson v. Oklahoma, and leaving to jurors responsibility for determining the culpability of individual defendants above that minimum age.\nThe Missouri court justified its departure from Stanford on Atkins v. Virginia, but the result it reached is quite different from the result in Stanford.\nIn that... excuse me... in Atkins.\nIn that case, the Court was addressing mental ability, itself a component of culpability.\nThe Court announced a principle based on that characteristic, that is, that the mentally retarded are not to be eligible for capital punishment, but then it left to the States the determination of the standard and the means of implementing that principle.\nThe Missouri Supreme Court, by contrast, jumped beyond the question of maturity, which is an element of culpability analysis, to the arbitrary distinction of age.\nIt drew a line based purely on age, which is necessarily over-inclusive, and then it gave that line constitutional status, thus depriving legislators and juries of the ability to evaluate the maturity of 17-year-old defenders.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [9.166, 12.239, 18.659, 37.318, 46.894, 48.752, 54.203, 67.782, 76.782], "stop_times": [12.239, 18.659, 37.318, 46.894, 48.752, 54.203, 67.782, 76.782, 90.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 9.166}, "reply_to": "22435__0_000", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_002", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, we didn't leave it up to the States entirely.\nI mean, you... you mean the States could adopt any definition of mental retardation they want?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [90.983, 94.903], "stop_times": [94.903, 100.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 90.983}, "reply_to": "22435__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_003", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "No.\nThe States certainly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [100.764, 101.302], "stop_times": [101.302, 102.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 100.764}, "reply_to": "22435__0_002", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_004", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "So there's... there's some minimal level of mental retardation.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [102.871, 105.1], "stop_times": [105.1, 105.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 102.871}, "reply_to": "22435__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_005", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--There is some minimal level.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [105.366], "stop_times": [106.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 105.366}, "reply_to": "22435__0_004", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_006", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "And isn't that necessarily over-inclusive, just as picking any single age is necessarily over-inclusive?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [106.481], "stop_times": [111.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 106.481}, "reply_to": "22435__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_007", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [111.766], "stop_times": [111.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 111.766}, "reply_to": "22435__0_006", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_008", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Surely there will be some people who... who, although they have that level of mental retardation, with regard to the particular crime in question, are deserving of the death penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [111.932], "stop_times": [122.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 111.932}, "reply_to": "22435__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_009", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I... I don't agree that it would be over-inclusive, given the Court's analysis in Atkins.\nThe Court said that someone who has that level of mental retardation is simply not sufficiently culpable by definition.\nThat certainly would not be true here.\nThere are 17-year-olds who are equally culpable with those who are 18, 20, 25, or some other age.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [122.912, 127.991, 134.057, 136.081], "stop_times": [127.991, 134.057, 136.081, 142.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 122.912}, "reply_to": "22435__0_008", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_010", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "But the age 18 is set even for such things as buying tobacco.\nThe... the dividing line between people who are members of the community, the adult community, is pervasively 18, to vote, to sit on juries, to serve in the military.\nWhy should it be that someone is death-eligible under the age of 18 but not eligible to be an adult member of the community?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [142.481, 151.23, 163.407], "stop_times": [151.23, 163.407, 174.886], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 142.481}, "reply_to": "22435__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22435__0_011", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I think that legislators would be surprised, when they adopted those statutes, that they were affecting their criminal law.\nIn fact, many of those statutes have individualized determinations, the military being one of them.\n17-year-olds can enlist.\nThere is an individualized determination, albeit by parents, not the Government.\n17-year-olds may be serving in Iraq today.\nThat... the other kinds of examples that you cite, for example, tobacco--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [174.886, 180.459, 185.698, 187.927, 191.437, 193.75], "stop_times": [180.459, 185.698, 187.927, 191.437, 193.75, 197.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 174.886}, "reply_to": "22435__0_010", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_012", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "But with parental... they are wards of their parents.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [197.715], "stop_times": [200.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 197.715}, "reply_to": "22435__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22435__0_013", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [200.52], "stop_times": [200.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 200.52}, "reply_to": "22435__0_012", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_014", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "So their parents... the same thing with marriage.\nA 17-year-old can marry but not without parental consent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [200.892, 202.832], "stop_times": [202.832, 207.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 200.892}, "reply_to": "22435__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22435__0_015", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Although in most instances can marry if they go to a court and demonstrate they are sufficiently mature, again contemplating individualized determination, which the Missouri Supreme Court says does not exist as to 17-year-olds with regard to capital punishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [207.085], "stop_times": [219.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 207.085}, "reply_to": "22435__0_014", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_016", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Why pick... why pick on the death penalty?\nI mean, if you're going to say that somehow people under 18 are juveniles for all purposes, why... why just pick on the death penalty?\nWhy... why not say they're immune from any criminal penalty?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [219.633, 221.491, 229.21], "stop_times": [221.491, 229.21, 232.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 219.633}, "reply_to": "22435__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_017", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, I... I must assume that if we... if the Court says they are immune from the... from capital punishment that someone will come and say they also must be immune from, for example, life without parole.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [232.432], "stop_times": [242.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 232.432}, "reply_to": "22435__0_016", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_018", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I'm sure that... I'm sure that would follow.\nI... I don't see where there's a logical line.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [242.379, 244.98], "stop_times": [244.98, 247.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 242.379}, "reply_to": "22435__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_019", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "No.\nThe... the problem with adopting the... the 18-year-old line is that it is essentially arbitrary.\nIt's the kind of line that legislators and not courts adopt.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [247.542, 247.952, 253.419], "stop_times": [247.952, 253.419, 257.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 247.542}, "reply_to": "22435__0_018", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_020", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "But didn't... didn't we adopt a 16-year-old line in our earlier case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [257.035], "stop_times": [260.954], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 257.035}, "reply_to": "22435__0_019", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__0_021", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "In... in Thompson, the Court in a 4-1-4 decision struck a 15-year-old... a 15-year-old execution, and the States have taken, including Missouri through its General Assembly, have taken that to mean that there is a 16-year-old line.\nAnd today, in fact, I think it's true that there is a consensus nationally with regard to the 16-year-old line, not because it has some biological or psychological magic, but because perhaps--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [260.954, 274.968], "stop_times": [274.968, 287.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 260.954}, "reply_to": "22435__0_020", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_022", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, but... but there was... it's about the same consensus that existed in the retardation case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [287.411], "stop_times": [296.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 287.411}, "reply_to": "22435__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22435__0_023", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Absolutely, that's true.\nIf you look at the... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [296.41, 297.608], "stop_times": [297.608, 298.351], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 296.41}, "reply_to": "22435__0_022", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_024", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "And... and so are we somehow required to at least look at that?\nI mean, the statistics of how many States have approved 18 years as the line is about the same as those in the retardation case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [298.351, 303.363], "stop_times": [303.363, 314.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 298.351}, "reply_to": "22435__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22435__0_025", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--The... the Court has kind of three groups of cases with regard to the number of States.\nOn one extreme, are Enmund and Coker where you have three and eight States.\nOn the other extreme, are Penry and Stanford where you have 24 and 34 States.\nAnd then there's this middle group, which isn't just Atkins and this case.\nIt's also Tison, which is also almost exactly the same number.\nThe Court in Atkins had to find a way of distinguishing Tison, to the extent the Court relied on that... that counting process, and the... the Court concluded that there was kind of an inexorable trend with regard to the mentally retarded.\nWe don't have that kind of trend here.\nIn--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [314.592, 318.695, 321.917, 326.547, 329.181, 332.896, 344.867, 346.725], "stop_times": [318.695, 321.917, 326.547, 329.181, 332.896, 344.867, 346.725, 347.302], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 314.592}, "reply_to": "22435__0_024", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_026", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, we... we have a different kind of trend.\nWhat do you make... you spoke of a consensus, but what do you make of the fact that over the last, I guess, 10 or 12-year period, the actual imposition of the death penalty for... for those whose crimes were... were under 18 has... has steadily been dropping.\nI think 10 years ago, there were 13.\nLast year, I... I think the figures were that there were two.\nThe... the consensus seems to be eroding, and yet as... as the counsel on the other side pointed out, this has been occurring at a time when... when treating juvenile crime seriously has not, in fact, been eroding at all.\nWhat... what are we supposed to make of that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [347.302, 349.326, 365.301, 367.075, 370.586, 389.078], "stop_times": [349.326, 365.301, 367.075, 370.586, 389.078, 390.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 347.302}, "reply_to": "22435__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22435__0_027", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Well, two things.\nNumber one is that capital sentences have been dropping for all ages, not just for those under 18.\nSo it... you have to take that into account.\nThe second is that although the last--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [390.936, 392.134, 399.852, 402.414], "stop_times": [392.134, 399.852, 402.414, 404.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 390.936}, "reply_to": "22435__0_026", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_028", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Has... has the... has the rate of attrition been the same?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [404.56], "stop_times": [409.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 404.56}, "reply_to": "22435__0_027", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22435__0_029", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--It is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [409.223], "stop_times": [410.959], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 409.223}, "reply_to": "22435__0_028", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_030", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "13 to 2 is pretty spectacular.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [410.959], "stop_times": [412.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 410.959}, "reply_to": "22435__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22435__0_031", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--It is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [412.035], "stop_times": [412.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 412.035}, "reply_to": "22435__0_030", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_032", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I don't think we've seen that, or maybe we have seen that, for... for death imposition generally.\nIs that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [412.407, 416.948], "stop_times": [416.948, 417.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 412.407}, "reply_to": "22435__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22435__0_033", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--It is certainly greater, but part of the problem is we're dealing with such small numbers for the... the juveniles, those under 18, that the difference of one or two makes a huge difference in how the numbers come out.\nBut if you look over the last 10 years, in fact, it has gone up and down and currently is in a down trend, but the down trend--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [417.486, 428.093], "stop_times": [428.093, 434.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 417.486}, "reply_to": "22435__0_032", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_034", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, it went up once I think, didn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [434.203], "stop_times": [435.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 434.203}, "reply_to": "22435__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22435__0_035", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--It... it went up once within... since... since Stanford and then came back down.\nNow, whether this... this period in which it comes back down is going to remain that way or whether we'll go back up to where we were 10 years ago I don't know.\nThat's entirely hypothetical to suggest that... that this very recent trend is more dispositive than the trends over the last 10 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [435.856, 439.322, 447.428], "stop_times": [439.322, 447.428, 455.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 435.856}, "reply_to": "22435__0_034", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_036", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "So... so you're basically--\n--You're... you're basically saying that the... the time is too short, the numbers are too small--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [455.23, 455.48], "stop_times": [455.48, 461.219], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 455.23}, "reply_to": "22435__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22435__0_037", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [461.219], "stop_times": [461.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 461.219}, "reply_to": "22435__0_036", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_038", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--to infer anything.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [461.59], "stop_times": [462.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 461.59}, "reply_to": "22435__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22435__0_039", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Right, and the time is too short on the legislative side as well.\nWe're only talking about the States that have adopted new legislation having done so, one of them in 1999 and the others simply in 2002 and 2004.\nIf we were to look at the history of... of capital punishment in the United States, there are many times when States have abolished capital punishment and then returned.\nAnd Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [462.583, 465.117, 474.1, 482.767], "stop_times": [465.117, 474.1, 482.767, 483.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.583}, "reply_to": "22435__0_038", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_040", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "You... you were in the midst of telling us why the... there is a consensus now that it's inappropriate to execute anyone under 16, and I... I... you weren't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [483.676], "stop_times": [498.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 483.676}, "reply_to": "22435__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__0_041", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--No.\nIt--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [498.703, 498.969], "stop_times": [498.969, 499.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 498.703}, "reply_to": "22435__0_040", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_042", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--You couldn't finish that answer.\nI want to know it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [499.275, 500.018], "stop_times": [500.018, 500.556], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 499.275}, "reply_to": "22435__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__0_043", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Since... since Stanford, we have had no executions under 16 even though it is possible to read Justice O'Connor's opinion in that case as allowing a State to adopt a statute that specifically says 15.\nNo one has tried that.\nEveryone seems to have taken Thompson and Stanford together to mean there is a 16-year-old line.\nTwo States have adopted 16 by statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [500.556, 512.9, 514.186, 519.47], "stop_times": [512.9, 514.186, 519.47, 521.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 500.556}, "reply_to": "22435__0_042", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_044", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "And... and so you say there's... there's not so much as a consensus as an understanding of what that decision means.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [521.782], "stop_times": [526.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 521.782}, "reply_to": "22435__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__0_045", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I... I think that that's right.\nThere are States that have adopted it specifically and others have simply implemented it.\nIf I were a prosecutor today, I... it's hard to imagine that I would... even in a State where I could find a statute saying I could prosecute someone under age 16, that I would try such a thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [526.002, 527.272, 532.268], "stop_times": [527.272, 532.268, 543.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 526.002}, "reply_to": "22435__0_044", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_046", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Let... let me ask you this.\nI... I don't yet have the... the record showing the full closing argument of... of both sides, but we do have the portion where the prosecutor says, isn't this scary?\nCan adolescence ever be anything but mitigating?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [543.209, 544.34, 556.045], "stop_times": [544.34, 556.045, 562.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 543.209}, "reply_to": "22435__0_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__0_047", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I... I don't know how it could be anything but mitigating.\nBut what we have in that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [562.732, 567.107], "stop_times": [567.107, 568.222], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.732}, "reply_to": "22435__0_046", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_048", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "But that's not how the prosecution presented it to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [568.222], "stop_times": [571.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.222}, "reply_to": "22435__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__0_049", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--In that statement, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [571.527], "stop_times": [572.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 571.527}, "reply_to": "22435__0_048", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_050", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "He said... he... he almost made it aggravating.\nIsn't that scary?\nI don't have the... I don't have the full argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [572.353, 576.523, 577.721], "stop_times": [576.523, 577.721, 580.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 572.353}, "reply_to": "22435__0_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__0_051", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--No.\nWhat... what he's facing is... is 18 pages of transcript that occupied the... the defense counsel's argument.\nOf those 18 pages, 4 pages are dedicated purely to Mr. Simmons' youth, and throughout the rest of the argument, he uses terms to reinforce that.\nHe refers to him repeatedly as a 17-year-old.\nHe calls him a kid.\nHe does things to reinforce with the jury that he's very young.\nSo then we come back and in a few pages of rebuttal, we have a couple of words... I shouldn't say that... two sentences in which the prosecutor is trying to respond to that particular lengthy theme and argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [580.283, 580.488, 586.516, 596.175, 598.155, 599.148, 602.574], "stop_times": [580.488, 586.516, 596.175, 598.155, 599.148, 602.574, 617.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 580.283}, "reply_to": "22435__0_050", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_052", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "It was pretty clear.\nThe... the words in question were: Think about age.\n17 years old.\nIsn't that scary?\nDoesn't that scare you?\nMitigating?\nQuite the contrary I submit.\nQuite the contrary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [617.102, 618.217, 622.841, 623.955, 626.185, 627.588, 628.619, 631.22], "stop_times": [618.217, 622.841, 623.955, 626.185, 627.588, 628.619, 631.22, 632.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 617.102}, "reply_to": "22435__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22435__0_053", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "And if we were here because Mr. Simmons said that was improper and the Missouri Supreme Court said that was improper, well, we wouldn't be here.\nWe wouldn't have asked for certiorari.\nThe Court wouldn't have granted it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [632.706, 639.848, 641.417], "stop_times": [639.848, 641.417, 642.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 632.706}, "reply_to": "22435__0_052", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_054", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "But the question is, can... is... is age, youth inevitably mitigating, and here is a prosecutor giving the answer no, it can be aggravating.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [642.449], "stop_times": [653.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 642.449}, "reply_to": "22435__0_053", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22435__0_055", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "The Missouri statute requires that an instruction be given that says that age is a mitigator, and the... the instruction was given here.\nAnd the jury heard argument concerning that particular claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [653.594, 661.851], "stop_times": [661.851, 664.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 653.594}, "reply_to": "22435__0_054", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_056", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, what's... what's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [664.989], "stop_times": [666.038], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 664.989}, "reply_to": "22435__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_057", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, that's somewhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [666.038], "stop_times": [666.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 666.038}, "reply_to": "22435__0_056", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__0_058", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--What is the contrary of... of mitigating?\nI... I would assume--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [666.864, 669.753], "stop_times": [669.753, 670.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 666.864}, "reply_to": "22435__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_059", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Aggravating, but aggravating--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [670.846], "stop_times": [672.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 670.846}, "reply_to": "22435__0_058", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_060", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Is it?\nI... I would assume it's not mitigating.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [672.127, 672.432], "stop_times": [672.432, 674.001], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 672.127}, "reply_to": "22435__0_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_061", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Well, you're right, Your Honor, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [674.001], "stop_times": [676.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 674.001}, "reply_to": "22435__0_060", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_062", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Maybe the opposite of mitigating is aggravating, but it... it's perfectly good English to say, mitigating?\nQuite the contrary--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [676.313, 683.826], "stop_times": [683.826, 684.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 676.313}, "reply_to": "22435__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_063", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--It is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [684.448], "stop_times": [684.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 684.448}, "reply_to": "22435__0_062", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_064", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--It's not at all mitigating.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [684.752], "stop_times": [685.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 684.752}, "reply_to": "22435__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_065", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Yes.\nAnd... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [685.578, 686.138], "stop_times": [686.138, 686.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 685.578}, "reply_to": "22435__0_064", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_066", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "So I don't know why you give that one away.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [686.51], "stop_times": [688.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 686.51}, "reply_to": "22435__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_067", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Certainly aggravating circumstances are defined in the Missouri statute, and they were defined in the instructions.\nSo this was not to be considered by the jury as an aggravator.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [688.012, 693.175], "stop_times": [693.175, 695.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 688.012}, "reply_to": "22435__0_066", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_068", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Let... let's focus on the word unusual.\nForget cruel for the moment, although they're both obviously involved.\nWe've seen very substantial demonstration that world opinion is... is against this, at least as interpreted by the leaders of the European Union.\nDoes that have a bearing on what's unusual?\nSuppose it were shown that the United States were one of the very, very few countries that executed juveniles, and that's true.\nDoes that have a bearing on whether or not it's unusual?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [695.608, 698.309, 702.024, 717.24, 723.101, 731.646], "stop_times": [698.309, 702.024, 717.24, 723.101, 731.646, 734.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.608}, "reply_to": "22435__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__0_069", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "No more than if we were one of the very few countries that didn't do this.\nIt would bear on the question of unusual.\nThe decision as to the Eighth Amendment should not be based on what happens in the rest of the world.\nIt needs to be based on the mores of... of American society.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [734.246, 738.062, 740.275, 744.854], "stop_times": [738.062, 740.275, 744.854, 748.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 734.246}, "reply_to": "22435__0_068", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_070", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Have the countries of the European Union abolished the death penalty by popular vote?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [748.448], "stop_times": [752.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 748.448}, "reply_to": "22435__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_071", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I don't know how they've done that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [752.468], "stop_times": [754.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 752.468}, "reply_to": "22435__0_070", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_072", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I thought they did it by reason of a judgment of a court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [754.697], "stop_times": [758.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 754.697}, "reply_to": "22435__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_073", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, in fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [758.207], "stop_times": [758.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 758.207}, "reply_to": "22435__0_072", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_074", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--which required all of them to abolish it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [758.884], "stop_times": [760.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 758.884}, "reply_to": "22435__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_075", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--I... I believe that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [760.453], "stop_times": [761.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 760.453}, "reply_to": "22435__0_074", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_076", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "And I thought that some of the public opinion polls in... in a number of the countries support the death penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [761.568], "stop_times": [767.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 761.568}, "reply_to": "22435__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_077", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--I believe that there are countries in Europe who abolish it because of their membership in the European Union--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [767.678], "stop_times": [772.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 767.678}, "reply_to": "22435__0_076", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_078", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I... I acknowledged that in... in my question.\nI recognize it is the leadership in many of these countries that objects to it.\nBut let us... let us assume that it's an accepted practice in most countries of the world not to execute a juvenile for moral reasons.\nThat has no bearing on whether or not what we're doing is unusual?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [772.22, 774.821, 777.914, 788.483], "stop_times": [774.821, 777.914, 788.483, 792.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 772.22}, "reply_to": "22435__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__0_079", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--I... I can't concede that it does because it's unimaginable to me that we would be willing to accept the alternative, the flip side of that argument.\nIt does seem to me, however, that that goes to a particular... back to the aspect where I began--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [792.282, 800.084], "stop_times": [800.084, 804.708], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 792.282}, "reply_to": "22435__0_078", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_080", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Is there... is there any on... on that?\nIs there any indication?\nI mean, I've never seen any either way, to tell you the truth, but... that Madison or Jefferson or whoever, when they were writing the Constitution, would have thought what happened elsewhere, let's say, in Britain or in the British... they were a British colony.\nThey did think Blackstone was relevant.\nDid any... that they would have thought it was totally irrelevant what happened elsewhere in the world to the word unusual.\nIs there any indication in any debate or any of the ratification conventions?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [804.708, 805.989, 807.659, 824.482, 826.878, 833.565], "stop_times": [805.989, 807.659, 824.482, 826.878, 833.565, 837.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 804.708}, "reply_to": "22435__0_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22435__0_081", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Nothing that I have seen has suggested that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [837.735], "stop_times": [839.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 837.735}, "reply_to": "22435__0_080", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_082", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "So if Lincoln--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [839.676], "stop_times": [839.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 839.676}, "reply_to": "22435__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22435__0_083", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--one way or the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [839.893], "stop_times": [840.719], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 839.893}, "reply_to": "22435__0_082", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_084", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Abraham Lincoln used to study Blackstone and I think he thought that the Founding Fathers studied Blackstone, and all that happened in England was relevant, is there some special reason why what happens abroad would not be relevant here?\nRelevant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [840.719, 853.639], "stop_times": [853.639, 854.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.719}, "reply_to": "22435__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22435__0_085", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "There's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [854.094], "stop_times": [854.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 854.094}, "reply_to": "22435__0_084", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_086", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I'm not saying controlling.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [854.26], "stop_times": [855.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 854.26}, "reply_to": "22435__0_085", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22435__0_087", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--There's a special reason why Blackstone would be relevant because that was the law from which they were operating when they put this language into the Constitution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [855.209], "stop_times": [862.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 855.209}, "reply_to": "22435__0_086", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_088", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Absolutely, and they, I guess, were looking at English practices, and would they have thought it was wrong to look abroad as a relevant feature?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [862.639], "stop_times": [869.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 862.639}, "reply_to": "22435__0_087", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22435__0_089", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "And... and I don't know the answer to that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [869.121], "stop_times": [871.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 869.121}, "reply_to": "22435__0_088", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_090", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Do we... do we ever take the position that what we do here should influence what people think elsewhere?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [871.245], "stop_times": [877.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 871.245}, "reply_to": "22435__0_089", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__0_091", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I... I have not seen that overtly in any of the Court's opinions, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [877.932], "stop_times": [881.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 877.932}, "reply_to": "22435__0_090", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_092", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "You... you think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [881.381], "stop_times": [881.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 881.381}, "reply_to": "22435__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_093", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "You... you thought that Mr. Jefferson thought that what we did here had no bearing on the rest of the world?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [881.919], "stop_times": [886.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 881.919}, "reply_to": "22435__0_092", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__0_094", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Oh, I... I think Mr. Jefferson thought that.\nI think many of the Founders thought that they were leading the world, and I have no objection to us leading the world, but Mr. Jefferson's lead of the world was through the legislature not through the courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [886.582, 888.44], "stop_times": [888.44, 896.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 886.582}, "reply_to": "22435__0_093", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_095", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "But did he not also say that to... to lead the world, we would have to show a decent respect for the opinions of mankind?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [896.696], "stop_times": [907.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 896.696}, "reply_to": "22435__0_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22435__0_096", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "That... that may well be.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [907.759], "stop_times": [909.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 907.759}, "reply_to": "22435__0_095", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_097", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--What did John Adams think of the French?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [909.411, 914.696], "stop_times": [914.696, 915.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 909.411}, "reply_to": "22435__0_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_098", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I read a biography of John Adams recently.\nI recall that he didn't think highly of them.\n[Laughter]\nThe... Missouri, in order to implement the principle that those who are immature should not be subject to capital punishment, has adopted an approach that, first off, excludes anyone age 16 and under from capital punishment; second, requires certification by the juvenile court for anyone who is 16, but otherwise turns the matter over to the jury and defines it as a statutory mitigator.\nThe kind of evidence that is discussed in Mr. Simmons' brief at some length could have been applied... could have been presented during the penalty phase of Mr. Simmons' trial.\nIt has been reflected in decisions of this Court as far back as Eddings where there was evidence of mental and emotional development.\nIn Penry, there was evidence of mental age and social maturity.\nAnd here, in the post-conviction proceeding, Mr. Simmons presented such evidence regarding his impulsivity, his susceptibility to peer pressure, and his immaturity.\nBut he didn't present that at trial.\nThere is a mechanism in Missouri for him to do that and he chose not to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [915.189, 923.734, 925.758, 926.213, 952.341, 961.712, 969.06, 972.941, 983.177, 985.657], "stop_times": [923.734, 925.758, 926.213, 952.341, 961.712, 969.06, 972.941, 983.177, 985.657, 990.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 915.189}, "reply_to": "22435__0_097", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_099", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Before you go off on this, the one statistic that interested me... and I'd like you to discuss its relevance really... is if we look back 10 years, I have only three States executing a juvenile: Texas, 11; Virginia, 3; and Oklahoma, 2.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [990.031], "stop_times": [1008.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 990.031}, "reply_to": "22435__0_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22435__0_100", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1008.441], "stop_times": [1008.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1008.441}, "reply_to": "22435__0_099", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_101", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "And those three States account for about 11 percent of the population of the country, 11.3 percent.\nNow, if we go back a few more years to Stanford, we get three others in there: Louisiana, 1; Georgia, 1; and Missouri, 1.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1008.691, 1014.757], "stop_times": [1014.757, 1021.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1008.691}, "reply_to": "22435__0_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22435__0_102", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "And if you go to the convictions rather than the executions, then Alabama goes into that mix.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1021.899], "stop_times": [1026.457], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1021.899}, "reply_to": "22435__0_101", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_103", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "We have a very different number.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1026.457], "stop_times": [1026.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1026.457}, "reply_to": "22435__0_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22435__0_104", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1026.729], "stop_times": [1026.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1026.729}, "reply_to": "22435__0_103", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_105", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "So the reason that I thought arguably it's more relevant to look at the convictions is there are a lot of States.\nSay, New Hampshire, I think, for example... when I was in the First Circuit, there were several States that on the books permitted the death penalty, but nobody ever had ever been executed.\nAnd... and that's true across the country.\nThere are a number of States like that.\nSo if we look at the States that actually execute people, it's 10 years, say, 11 percent of the population are in such States.\nYou go back 15 years, and you get these three other States, which raises the percentage.\nHow... how should I understand that?\nI'm interested in both sides--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1026.895, 1032.839, 1041.468, 1043.613, 1045.098, 1053.561, 1058.658, 1060.953], "stop_times": [1032.839, 1041.468, 1043.613, 1045.098, 1053.561, 1058.658, 1060.953, 1062.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1026.895}, "reply_to": "22435__0_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22435__0_106", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Frankly, we don't know what those numbers mean because we don't know to what extent juveniles are committing capital level murders.\nWe... and there is no way in current social science to make that determination.\nIt's interesting that among the three States... two of the three States that are on that list that Justice Breyer mentioned are States in which there is a specific instruction to the jury, or indeed, in Texas, a requirement, that the jury evaluate future dangerousness.\nThat is, the argument that was referred to by opposing... or that counsel made, the State's counsel made, the prosecutor made, in the... in the trial here, there's actually an instruction in some of those States.\nAnd that may play into the manner in which this... those States... the reason those States have additional convictions and additional executions.\nBut Missouri doesn't have that.\nWe don't require that the jury find future dangerousness, and although that may come up in the course of a mitigation and aggravation argument in the penalty phase, it isn't highlighted like it is in those States.\nAnd that may be more problematic than the system that Missouri has created.\nIf the kind of evidence, psychosocial evidence, that is cited in Mr. Simmons' brief had been presented at the penalty phase, of course there would have been an opportunity to rebut it, to question it.\nInstead, what we have in this case is the marshaling of untested evidence from various cause groups and some dispassionate observers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1062.273, 1071.023, 1075.648, 1090.053, 1100.91, 1109.083, 1111.191, 1123.656, 1127.305, 1138.35], "stop_times": [1071.023, 1075.648, 1090.053, 1100.91, 1109.083, 1111.191, 1123.656, 1127.305, 1138.35, 1148.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1062.273}, "reply_to": "22435__0_105", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_107", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "At what point was this inserted into the record, Mr. Layton?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1148.753], "stop_times": [1152.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1148.753}, "reply_to": "22435__0_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__0_108", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "The... the kind of... well, as to Mr. Simmons specifically, it came in in the post-conviction proceeding, and then was also present in the habeas record.\nIn this case, the... the lengthy litany of scientific studies appeared for the first time in his brief in this Court.\nThere were references to a few of them before, but nothing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1152.429, 1160.064, 1167.412], "stop_times": [1160.064, 1167.412, 1169.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1152.429}, "reply_to": "22435__0_107", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_109", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "It was never... never tested in the trial court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1169.353], "stop_times": [1171.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1169.353}, "reply_to": "22435__0_108", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__0_110", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Oh, no.\nOh, no, because he never made the argument in the trial court during his trial that... that scientifically he was too immature to be culpable to the degree that would merit capital punishment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1171.582, 1171.954], "stop_times": [1171.954, 1181.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1171.582}, "reply_to": "22435__0_109", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_111", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, at least to the extent that he's simply quoting public sources, you had a chance to quote public sources in... in return.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1181.863], "stop_times": [1189.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1181.863}, "reply_to": "22435__0_110", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22435__0_112", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1189.498], "stop_times": [1190.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1189.498}, "reply_to": "22435__0_111", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_113", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "So I think you're... you're even on that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1190.407], "stop_times": [1191.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1190.407}, "reply_to": "22435__0_112", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22435__0_114", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1191.356], "stop_times": [1191.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1191.356}, "reply_to": "22435__0_113", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_115", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--or at least your opportunity is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1191.978], "stop_times": [1192.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1191.978}, "reply_to": "22435__0_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22435__0_116", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I... and I think the reason that we did that and we cited the difficulties in our reply brief with what he cited is to highlight that the precise age is a legislative question based on legislative type facts.\nLegislatures can evaluate this series of studies and then pick what is essentially an arbitrary age.\nThere is no study in anything that Mr. Simmons cites that... that justifies that particular day, 18.\nThey talk about adolescence.\nThey talk about young adolescence, old adolescence.\nThey talk about adolescence continuing until the mid-20's.\nNothing justifies the age of 18.\nThat makes it the kind of fact that a legislature ought to be evaluating, not a court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1192.842, 1203.328, 1210.675, 1217.712, 1219.181, 1221.615, 1224.05, 1226.916], "stop_times": [1203.328, 1210.675, 1217.712, 1219.181, 1221.615, 1224.05, 1226.916, 1231.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1192.842}, "reply_to": "22435__0_115", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_117", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Does adolescence as a scientific term... does it always occur on the same day for... for all individuals?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1231.48], "stop_times": [1238.539], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1231.48}, "reply_to": "22435__0_116", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__0_118", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "No.\nThe... the studies point out that adolescence is... well, they don't agree on what adolescence means, and they don't... and they point out that it begins and ends on different times for different people.\nSo we don't know what adolescence means in the studies, and we don't know what it would mean were the Court to base a decision on the... this concept of adolescence.\nI'd like to reserve the rest of my time, if there are no other questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1238.539, 1238.91, 1248.448, 1256.705], "stop_times": [1238.91, 1248.448, 1256.705, 1264.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1238.539}, "reply_to": "22435__0_117", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__0_119", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Very well, Mr. Layton.\nMr. Waxman, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1264.507, 1265.826], "stop_times": [1265.826, 1267.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1264.507}, "reply_to": "22435__0_118", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_000", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nEveryone agrees that there is some age below which juveniles can't be subjected to the death penalty.\nThe question here is where our society's evolving standards of decency now draw that line.\n15 years ago, this Court found insufficient evidence to justify a bright line at 18, but since Stanford, a consensus has evolved and new scientific evidence has emerged, and these developments change the constitutional calculus for much the same reasons the Court found compelling in Atkins.\nAs was noted--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1267.767, 1275.569, 1281.968, 1289.315, 1312.144], "stop_times": [1275.569, 1281.968, 1289.315, 1312.144, 1313.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1267.767}, "reply_to": "22435__0_119", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_001", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Can the constitutional calculus ever move in the other direction?\nI mean, once we hold that, you know, 16 is the age, if there's new scientific evidence that shows that some people are quite mature at 18 or at... at 17-and-a-half or if... if there is a... a new feeling among the people that youthful murderers are, indeed, a serious problem and... and deterrence is necessary, can we ever go back?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1313.425, 1316.602], "stop_times": [1316.602, 1342.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1313.425}, "reply_to": "22435__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__1_002", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Well, there is a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1342.421], "stop_times": [1343.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1342.421}, "reply_to": "22435__1_001", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_003", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "It's sort of a one-way ratchet.\nIsn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1343.702, 1344.778], "stop_times": [1344.778, 1345.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1343.702}, "reply_to": "22435__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__1_004", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--There is a one-way ratchet here as there is whenever this Court draws a constitutional line; that is, whenever this Court determines that the Constitution preempts the ability of legislatures to make--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1345.117], "stop_times": [1355.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1345.117}, "reply_to": "22435__1_003", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_005", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, but what... what if a State legislature decides that, sure, the Supreme Court said in the Simmons case that you can't execute anybody under 18, but we think there's kind of a tendency the other way, we're going to pass a statute and see what happens in court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1355.974], "stop_times": [1372.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1355.974}, "reply_to": "22435__1_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_006", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Well, you could... you could have, I guess, what I refer to as the Dickerson v. United States phenomenon.\nIt could come up.\nBut what's... what's really interesting... I think what's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1372.488, 1377.605, 1378.348], "stop_times": [1377.605, 1378.348, 1380.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1372.488}, "reply_to": "22435__1_005", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_007", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Is it... is that a closed book?\nI mean, granted, you may lose the argument, but is it a permissible argument that the standards have evolved the other way?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1380.949, 1383.55], "stop_times": [1383.55, 1390.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1380.949}, "reply_to": "22435__1_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_008", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--It... it certainly would be a permissible... permissible argument.\nWhat's... what's notable here, Justice Scalia and Mr. Chief Justice, is how robust this consensus is.\nWe're talking not only about the whole variety of ways in which our society has concluded that 18 is the bright line between childhood and adulthood and that 18 is the line below which we preserve... presume immaturity.\nBut the line with respect to executions, the trend is very robust and it is very deep.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1390.403, 1394.035, 1401.011, 1418.101], "stop_times": [1394.035, 1401.011, 1418.101, 1424.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1390.403}, "reply_to": "22435__1_007", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_009", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "We don't... we don't use 18 for everything.\nAren't there States that... that allow adolescents to drive at the age of 16?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1424.871, 1426.44], "stop_times": [1426.44, 1433.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1424.871}, "reply_to": "22435__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__1_010", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "There are nine States that allow adolescents to drive at the age of 16 without their parents' consent.\nThat... driving, of course, is the classic example, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1433.788, 1440.104], "stop_times": [1440.104, 1444.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1433.788}, "reply_to": "22435__1_009", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_011", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "With their parents' consent--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1444.191], "stop_times": [1444.645], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1444.191}, "reply_to": "22435__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__1_012", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1444.645], "stop_times": [1444.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1444.645}, "reply_to": "22435__1_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_013", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--With their parents' consent, how many?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1444.911], "stop_times": [1446.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1444.911}, "reply_to": "22435__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__1_014", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--To... to... there are 41 States that require parental consent below 18.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1446.647], "stop_times": [1452.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1446.647}, "reply_to": "22435__1_013", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_015", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "But they can drive.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1452.22], "stop_times": [1452.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1452.22}, "reply_to": "22435__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__1_016", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "But they can drive if their parents agree.\nMy... my--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1452.879, 1455.108], "stop_times": [1455.108, 1455.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1452.879}, "reply_to": "22435__1_015", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_017", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "If it's okay with the parents, it's okay with the State.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1455.563], "stop_times": [1456.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1455.563}, "reply_to": "22435__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__1_018", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--My point here is that with respect to the death penalty, we have a substantial consensus within the United States, as it happens, exactly the same lineup as existed in... as existed in... was true in Atkins.\nWe have not just a worldwide consensus that represents the better view in Europe.\nThere are 194 countries--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1456.223, 1473.767, 1479.523], "stop_times": [1473.767, 1479.523, 1482.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1456.223}, "reply_to": "22435__1_017", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_019", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, how does one... how does one determine what is the better view?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1482.085], "stop_times": [1484.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1482.085}, "reply_to": "22435__1_018", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_020", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--I was... I was referring to the implication that it has often been said that because the European Union thinks something, we should, therefore, presume that the world views it that way.\nWe're now talking about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1484.603, 1499.297], "stop_times": [1499.297, 1500.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1484.603}, "reply_to": "22435__1_019", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_021", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Are you suggesting that we adopt that principle?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1500.373], "stop_times": [1502.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1500.373}, "reply_to": "22435__1_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_022", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--To the contrary.\nMy point is we are not talking about just what a particular European treaty requires.\nWe... the... the eight States that... that theoretically... that have statutes that theoretically permit execution of offenders under 18 are not only alone in this country, they are alone in the world.\nEvery country in the world, including China and Nigeria and Saudi Arabia and the... and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, every one has agreed formally and legislatively to renounce this punishment, and the only country besides the United States that has not is Somalia, which as this Court was reminded yesterday, has no organized government.\nIt is incapable--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1502.269, 1503.65, 1510.997, 1524.538, 1549.635], "stop_times": [1503.65, 1510.997, 1524.538, 1549.635, 1550.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1502.269}, "reply_to": "22435__1_021", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_023", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "They have a lot of customs that we don't have.\nThey don't allow most... almost all of them do not allow... have trial by jury.\nShould we... and they think it's not only more efficient, it is fairer because juries are, you know, unpredictable and whatnot.\nShould we yield to the views of the rest of the world?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1550.628, 1551.947, 1557.974, 1566.436], "stop_times": [1551.947, 1557.974, 1566.436, 1569.863], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1550.628}, "reply_to": "22435__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__1_024", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Of course not, but this is a... this is a standard which... a constitutional test that looks to evolving standards of moral decency that go to human dignity.\nAnd in that regard, it is... it is notable that we are literally alone in the world even though 110 countries in the world permit capital punishment for one purpose... for one crime or another, and yet every one... every one formally renounces it for juvenile offenders.\nAnd, Justice Kennedy, my submission isn't that that that's set... you know, game, set, and match.\nIt's just relevant, and I think it is relevant in terms of the existence of a consensus.\nThere was reference made by my opponent to the fact that there are four States that set the age at 17 and four States that set the age at 16.\nNo... in terms of movement, no one has suggested that any of those States or any other State has ever lowered the age.\nIn fact, if you look at those particular... those eight States, a number of them legislated an age that represented raising the number over what had previously been permitted.\nThe movement, as this Court addressed, talked about in Atkins, has all been in one direction, and it's not as if that movement, in and of itself, answers the question.\nBut where you have the type of consensus that exists here, as it did in Atkins, and where you have a scientific community that in Stanford was absent... the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the major medical and scientific associations, were not able in 1989, based on the evidence, to come to this Court and say there is scientific, empirical validation for requiring that the line be set at 18.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1569.863, 1580.843, 1600.616, 1605.341, 1610.564, 1618.904, 1628.647, 1639.543, 1650.955], "stop_times": [1580.843, 1600.616, 1605.341, 1610.564, 1618.904, 1628.647, 1639.543, 1650.955, 1686.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1569.863}, "reply_to": "22435__1_023", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_025", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, in fact, the American Psychological Association is not your brief.\nYou're not accountable for inconsistencies there.\nBut I... I would like your comment.\nThey came to us in Hodgson v. Minnesota, as I think the State quite correctly points out, and said that with reference to the age for determining whether the child could have an abortion without parental consent, that adults... that they... that they were risk... that they could assess risk, that they had rational capacity, and they completely flip-flop in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1686.044, 1687.818, 1691.412, 1693.374], "stop_times": [1687.818, 1691.412, 1693.374, 1713.519], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1686.044}, "reply_to": "22435__1_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__1_026", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1713.519], "stop_times": [1713.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1713.519}, "reply_to": "22435__1_025", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_027", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Is that just because of... is that just because of this modern evidence?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1713.891], "stop_times": [1716.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1713.891}, "reply_to": "22435__1_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__1_028", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--No, no, no.\nI don't... I think it's... it may be in small part to that, Justice Kennedy, but I think the main point is that what their brief looked to... what the argument was was our... are adolescents cognitively different than adults.\nAnd the answer is, as we... our brief concedes, is generally no.\nAnd what was at issue in the abortion cases was competency to decide.\nAnd just as we allow the mentally retarded the ability to decide whether or not to obtain an abortion but not to be subject to a penalty that is reserved for the tiny fraction of murderers that are so depraved that we call them the worst of the worst, here competency to decide here, as with the mentally retarded, isn't the issue.\nChristopher Simmons was found, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have committed this offense with the specific intent necessary to do it, just as the mentally retarded can be.\nThe issue in Hodgson was cognitive ability to be able to make a competent decision.\nAnd so I don't... I didn't represent the APA then and I don't now, but I don't, with respect, think there's an inconsistency.\nIn fact, the difference here goes to the factors that Atkins identified about why overwhelmingly the mentally retarded... and here adolescents... are less morally capable.\nThey are much, much less likely to be sufficiently mature to be among the worst of the worst.\nAnd here, even more than with the mentally retarded, the few 16 and 17-year-olds who might, if we could even determine it, be... we could determine were in fact so depraved that they were among the worst of the worst, there is no way reliably to identify them and there's no way reliably to exclude them.\nAnd it is in this respect that science I think changes.\nAt the time of Stanford, everybody on this Court, of course, knew what all of us as adults intuitively know, which is that adolescents... and... and here we're talking about... I agree that when adolescence starts and when it ends is undefined.\nBut every scientific and medical journal and study acknowledges that 16 and 17-year-olds are the heartland.\nNo one excludes them.\nAnd what we know from the science essentially explains and validates the consensus that society has already developed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1716.203, 1717.029, 1730.653, 1734.696, 1740.268, 1764.5, 1774.819, 1782.25, 1788.953, 1803.798, 1811.023, 1833.619, 1837.485, 1852.057, 1859.337, 1860.64], "stop_times": [1717.029, 1730.653, 1734.696, 1740.268, 1764.5, 1774.819, 1782.25, 1788.953, 1803.798, 1811.023, 1833.619, 1837.485, 1852.057, 1859.337, 1860.64, 1870.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1716.203}, "reply_to": "22435__1_027", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_029", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "If all of this is so clear, why can't the State legislature take it into account?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1870.011], "stop_times": [1875.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1870.011}, "reply_to": "22435__1_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__1_030", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, one could have said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1875.008], "stop_times": [1877.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1875.008}, "reply_to": "22435__1_029", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_031", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I mean, if it's such an overwhelming case that... that we can prescribe it for the whole country, you would expect that the number of States that... that now permit it would not permit it.\nAll you have to do is bring these facts to the attention of the legislature, and they can investigate the accuracy of the studies that the American Psychological Association does or other associations in a manner that we can't.\nWe just have to read whatever you put in front of us.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1877.032, 1887.23, 1899.035], "stop_times": [1887.23, 1899.035, 1901.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.032}, "reply_to": "22435__1_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__1_032", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Justice Scalia, the number of States that engage in these executions is very small, and if it were all of the States, none of this Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence would ever have to come... would ever have to be developed.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1901.757, 1916.497], "stop_times": [1916.497, 1916.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1901.757}, "reply_to": "22435__1_031", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_033", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "But that's precisely because the jury considers youthfulness as one of the mitigating factors.\nIt doesn't surprise me that the death penalty for 16 to 18-year-olds is rarely imposed.\nI would expect it would be.\nBut it... it's a question of whether you leave it to the jury to evaluate the person's youth and take that into account or whether you adopt a hard rule that nobody who is under 18 is... is... has committed such a heinous crime with such intent that he... that he deserves the death penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1916.952, 1922.441, 1927.909, 1929.212], "stop_times": [1922.441, 1927.909, 1929.212, 1947.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1916.952}, "reply_to": "22435__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__1_034", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Justice... Justice Scalia, there's no doubt... and the jury was instructed... that age is a mitigating factor although, Justice Kennedy, in response to your question, our brief points out prosecutors, in the context of future dangerousness, which is relevant, argue it all the time and jurors intuitively think it all the time.\nBut the fact that he could have made an individualized mitigating case or argued that he was only... that he was young, as he did, doesn't address the constitutional problem.\nThe constitutional problem is that overwhelmingly 16 and 17-year-olds, for reasons of the... the developmental reasons relating to their psychosocial character--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1947.955, 1966.364, 1977.221], "stop_times": [1966.364, 1977.221, 1988.821], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1947.955}, "reply_to": "22435__1_033", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_035", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, Mr. Waxman, was that in evidence that you referred to from these various associations?\nWas that introduced at trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1988.821, 1995.137], "stop_times": [1995.137, 1996.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1988.821}, "reply_to": "22435__1_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_036", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--The... about the character--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1996.912], "stop_times": [1999.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1996.912}, "reply_to": "22435__1_035", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_037", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [1999.967], "stop_times": [2000.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1999.967}, "reply_to": "22435__1_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_038", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--No.\nThe trial was... I'm making an observation just as in... as in Atkins--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2000.71, 2001.453], "stop_times": [2001.453, 2005.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.71}, "reply_to": "22435__1_037", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_039", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, but I... I would think if you want to rely on evidence like that, it ought to be introduced at trial and subject to cross examination rather than just put in amicus briefs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2005.79], "stop_times": [2016.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2005.79}, "reply_to": "22435__1_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_040", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Oh, no, Mr. Chief Justice.\nI'm not making an argument about the character or maturity of this defendant, which would have been the only thing that would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2016.192, 2017.14], "stop_times": [2017.14, 2022.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2016.192}, "reply_to": "22435__1_039", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_041", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "No.\nBut you're making an argument that science says people this age are simply different, and it seems to me you... if that's to be an argument, it ought to be introduced at trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2022.879, 2023.167], "stop_times": [2023.167, 2032.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2022.879}, "reply_to": "22435__1_040", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_042", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--I... I... it's an argument about what the Constitution prohibits.\nIt's an argument about where a constitutional line should be drawn.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2032.372, 2036.337], "stop_times": [2036.337, 2039.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2032.372}, "reply_to": "22435__1_041", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_043", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, but you're... you're talking facts basically and facts ordinarily are adduced at trial for cross examination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2039.681], "stop_times": [2044.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2039.681}, "reply_to": "22435__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_044", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, I am not aware of any instance in which legislative facts, as you will call them, that is, facts that go to where a line should be drawn, whether it's by this Court because the Constitution ought to be so interpreted or a legislation should change, would be properly introduced to a jury that is supposed to accept the law, that has required to accept the law as is given by a judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2044.51], "stop_times": [2071.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2044.51}, "reply_to": "22435__1_043", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_045", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, how about in the... how about in the habeas proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2071.647], "stop_times": [2073.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2071.647}, "reply_to": "22435__1_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_046", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--In the habeas proceeding, it's... it's... an argument could have been made and, indeed, was made in this case that the line... that under Atkins juvenile offenders are the same and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2073.86], "stop_times": [2089.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2073.86}, "reply_to": "22435__1_045", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_047", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, was this evidence adduced at the habeas proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2089.092], "stop_times": [2091.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2089.092}, "reply_to": "22435__1_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_048", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--The habeas... if you're talking about the... the scientific studies--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2091.859], "stop_times": [2096.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2091.859}, "reply_to": "22435__1_047", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_049", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2096.855], "stop_times": [2097.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2096.855}, "reply_to": "22435__1_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_050", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--in peer-reviewed journals, it was not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2097.226], "stop_times": [2098.918], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2097.226}, "reply_to": "22435__1_049", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_051", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well... well, surely at the trial, you could have had a psychiatrist testify to all the things that are in your... in your brief, and in fact the... it would be another argument, but maybe the... maybe the finding was deficient on that ground as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2098.918], "stop_times": [2110.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2098.918}, "reply_to": "22435__1_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__1_052", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, we certainly could have had a psychiatrist argue that in... generally speaking, adolescents are less mature and on a range of psychosocial factors, they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2110.568], "stop_times": [2122.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2110.568}, "reply_to": "22435__1_051", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_053", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, he could have cited all the... all the authorities you cite in your brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2122.623], "stop_times": [2125.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.623}, "reply_to": "22435__1_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__1_054", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Right.\nBut, Justice Kennedy, I... I concede that.\nThe issue for this Court is whether the Constitution requires that as a matter of law, not as a matter of the application of law to a particular defendant, the line has to be drawn this way, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2125.429, 2125.801, 2127.537], "stop_times": [2125.801, 2127.537, 2140.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2125.429}, "reply_to": "22435__1_053", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_055", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Suppose... suppose that all of the things set forth in your brief were eloquently set forth by a psychiatrist to the jury.\nCould the jury then weigh these things that you're telling us?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2140.89, 2146.196], "stop_times": [2146.196, 2149.147], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2140.89}, "reply_to": "22435__1_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__1_056", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--The jury could have weighed these things, but there is no way, even for a psychiatrist or a psychologist, much less a juror to... to be confident because of the inherent, documented transiency of the adolescent personality.\nNo psychiatrist and no juror can say with confidence that the crime that was committed by a 16 or 17-year-old, on the average 2 years ago... and this is the key point... proceeded from enduring qualities of that person's character as opposed to the transient aspects of youth, and therefore--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2149.147, 2164.279], "stop_times": [2164.279, 2184.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2149.147}, "reply_to": "22435__1_055", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_057", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "But now, that... that itself is a purported scientific fact, what you just said, and it seems to me if we're... if we're to rely on that, it ought to have been tested in the way most facts are.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2184.813], "stop_times": [2195.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2184.813}, "reply_to": "22435__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_058", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--What the jury... perhaps I'm not understanding your point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2195.281], "stop_times": [2201.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2195.281}, "reply_to": "22435__1_057", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_059", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, you're... you're relying on factual... the statement you just made was... was a factual statement about the enduring character, et cetera.\nNow, if... if we are to take that as a fact, it ought to have been tested somewhere rather than just given to us in a brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2201.059, 2208.822], "stop_times": [2208.822, 2215.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2201.059}, "reply_to": "22435__1_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_060", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, the... the... an argument to the jury that regardless of what a psychiatrist or a psychologist would have said about Christopher Simmons, as a group, 16 and 17-year-olds have such labile personalities that it is impossible to know whether they're... the crime that they committed reflected an enduring character is an argument that could have been made to spare this particular defendant, but it need not have been credited or given dispositive weight, particularly since at sentencing... and this Court has acknowledged this in cases like Pate v. Robinson and Drope v. Illinois... the jury is evaluating somebody, determining their moral blameworthiness 2 years later.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2215.881], "stop_times": [2263.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2215.881}, "reply_to": "22435__1_059", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_061", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "But... but if you're reluctant to give it dispositive weight in an individual case, then you come in and ask us to give it dispositive weight as a general rule, that seems to me inconsistent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2263.601], "stop_times": [2273.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2263.601}, "reply_to": "22435__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__1_062", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, no.\nWhat I'm... what I'm asking you to do... what I'm suggesting is that the weight of scientific and medical evidence of which the Court can take judicial notice and should take judicial notice and did take judicial notice in cases like Atkins and Thompson and Stanford explains and validates the consensus that society has drawn.\nWe're not arguing that the science or what a particular neurobiologist or developmental psychologist says dictates the line of 18.\nThe question is we have a consensus.\nIt's even more robust than it was in Atkins.\nLooking at proportionality and reliability with respect to that consensus, is there a good, objective, scientific reason to credit the line that society has drawn?\nAnd I'm suggesting two things.\nNumber one, that although one could posit that there are 16 and 17-year-olds whose antisocial traits are characterological rather than transient, we know it is impossible... we know this from common sense and it's been validated by science, of which the Court can take note, that it is impossible to know whether the crime that was committed by a 16 or 17-year-old is a reflection of his true, enduring character or whether it's a manifestation of traits that are exhibited during adolescence.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2273.345, 2273.678, 2298.487, 2307.319, 2309.881, 2313.346, 2326.516, 2328.252, 2365.032], "stop_times": [2273.678, 2298.487, 2307.319, 2309.881, 2313.346, 2326.516, 2328.252, 2365.032, 2365.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2273.345}, "reply_to": "22435__1_061", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_063", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, suppose... suppose I... I were not convinced about your scientific evidence was conclusive and I don't identify a clear consensus.\nDo you lose the case, or can you then make the same argument you just made appealing to some other more fundamental principle that Stanford was just wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2365.654, 2374.57], "stop_times": [2374.57, 2383.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.654}, "reply_to": "22435__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__1_064", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Here... no.\nWell... no.\nHere's what I would appeal to.\nI... there are three relevant factors that this Court has to look at.\nThere's the determination of consensus.\nIs there enough of a one or isn't there?\nThere's the determination of proportionality, and then there's the issue identified in Lockett and in Atkins, which is how reliable is the individualized sentencing process.\nHow reliably... when we're talking about picking the tiny few who are the worst of the worst, how reliably can we do that?\nWe think that with respect to each of those, we have demonstrated that the Eighth Amendment requires recognizing 18.\nBut I will take as a posit your hypothetical question that I haven't convinced you on number one, number two, or perhaps individually on all three.\nThis is truly a case, Justice Kennedy, in which the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.\nTaken together, the fact that it's impossible for a jury to know whether the crime of an adolescent was really the feature of an enduring character, since we know, as in Atkins, that many of the characteristics that manifest themselves in mental retardation also affect the inability of adolescents to communicate with their attorneys, to express remorse, that 2 years later when this person is on trial, physically, emotionally it's not the same person that the jury is looking at and being asked to evaluate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2383.402, 2384.062, 2384.973, 2386.066, 2389.697, 2392.403, 2394.594, 2405.673, 2412.26, 2421.093, 2430.093, 2437.607], "stop_times": [2384.062, 2384.973, 2386.066, 2389.697, 2392.403, 2394.594, 2405.673, 2412.26, 2421.093, 2430.093, 2437.607, 2472.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2383.402}, "reply_to": "22435__1_063", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_065", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "So that... that's... that last point was what I thought the scientific evidence was getting at, that it simply confirmed what common sense suggests, that when you execute a person 15 or sometimes 20 years later, a problem always is that that person isn't the same person who committed the trial in a meaningful sense.\nAnd it's specially true of 16 and 17-year-olds who, observation would suggest, have a lot of changing to do because their personality is not fully formed.\nNow, I thought that the... the scientific evidence simply corroborated something that every parent already knows, and if it's more than that, I would like to know what more.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2472.158, 2491.106, 2506.338], "stop_times": [2491.106, 2506.338, 2517.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2472.158}, "reply_to": "22435__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22435__1_066", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Well, it's... I think it's... it's more than that in a couple of respects.\nIt... it explains, corroborates, and validates what we sort of intuitively know, not just as parents but in adults that... that... who live in a world filled with adolescents.\nAnd... and the very fact that science... and I'm not just talking about social science here, but the important neurobiological science that has now shown that these adolescents are... their character is not hard-wired.\nIt's why, for example... here's a... here's an interesting and relevant scientific fact.\nPsychiatrists under the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which is their Bible, are precluded from making a diagnosis of antisocial personality before the age of 18 precisely because before the age of 18, personality and character are not fixed even with respect to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2517.734, 2521.653, 2535.954, 2551.269, 2556.182], "stop_times": [2521.653, 2535.954, 2551.269, 2556.182, 2576.987], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2517.734}, "reply_to": "22435__1_065", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_067", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Mr. Waxman, I... I thought we punish people, criminals, for what they were, not for what they are.\nI mean, you know, if you have someone who commits a heinous crime and by the time he's brought to trial and convicted, he's come to Jesus, we don't let him off because he's not now what he was then.\nIt seems to me we punish people for what they were.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2576.987, 2584.046, 2596.185], "stop_times": [2584.046, 2596.185, 2599.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2576.987}, "reply_to": "22435__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__1_068", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--We--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2599.361], "stop_times": [2600.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2599.361}, "reply_to": "22435__1_067", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_069", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "And to say that adolescents change, everybody changes, but that doesn't justify eliminating the... the proper punishments that society has determined.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2600.104], "stop_times": [2608.938], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2600.104}, "reply_to": "22435__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__1_070", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--I think, with respect, Justice Scalia, I'm not... I think that there is an interesting question about... with respect to death, whether what they are and what they will become is totally irrelevant.\nBut accepting the premise of your question, my point is that science has confirmed what we intuitively know, which is that when the jury gets around to evaluating what the character was that manifested that horrible crime, they can't tell because of the passage of age and because of a number of confounding factors and because psychologists and psychiatrists can't tell themselves whether the crime that occurred 2 years ago or 2 weeks ago was the manifestation of an enduring character or transient psychosocial traits that rage in adolescence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2608.938, 2620.333], "stop_times": [2620.333, 2663.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2608.938}, "reply_to": "22435__1_069", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_071", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Is part of your answer based on the length of time between the killing and the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2663.817], "stop_times": [2669.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2663.817}, "reply_to": "22435__1_070", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_072", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Only part, Mr. Chief Justice.\nPart of it is that the jury, of course, is looking at the defendant, and we have laid before the Court peer-reviewed scientific studies that show that they... that people are... frequently equate maturity and psychosocial development with race and with physical appearance.\nIn addition, because the adolescent personality is transient and the lapse of time for trial is 2 years, in a very real sense psychosocially as opposed to... in addition to physically, the person that the jury is judging is not the... is not a manifestation of the person who committed the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2669.867, 2672.096, 2691.293], "stop_times": [2672.096, 2691.293, 2713.872], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2669.867}, "reply_to": "22435__1_071", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_073", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, what if... what if a State said I see the problem, so we'll bring this person to trial in 6 weeks?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2713.872], "stop_times": [2719.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2713.872}, "reply_to": "22435__1_072", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_074", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Even if it were in 6 weeks, Mr. Chief Justice, we believe that the process is... is sufficiently... that would just make the youth the same as the mentally retarded, because the mentally retarded have stable personalities and stable characters, and yet, what this Court said in Atkins was we have two things to say.\nOne is that overwhelmingly as a group the mentally retarded are unlikely to be among the very worst of the worst, and the very deficits that they have... that you called deficits in reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, makes the jury... the process of the jury evaluating the moral culpability, the moral blameworthiness unreliable.\nAnd it's on the basis of those two things that we think that the consensus that's otherwise reflected is validated.\nAnd here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2719.529, 2740.456, 2768.874, 2776.493], "stop_times": [2740.456, 2768.874, 2776.493, 2777.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2719.529}, "reply_to": "22435__1_073", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_075", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I have... I have one other question I'd like to ask because it's been troubling me and I want your comment.\nA number of juveniles run in gangs and a number of the gang members are over 18.\nIf we ruled in your favor and this decision was given wide publicity, wouldn't that make 16-, 17-year-olds subject to being persuaded to be the hit men for the gangs?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2777.115, 2781.777, 2788.26], "stop_times": [2781.777, 2788.26, 2802.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2777.115}, "reply_to": "22435__1_074", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__1_076", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2802.582], "stop_times": [2803.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2802.582}, "reply_to": "22435__1_075", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_077", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I'm... I'm very concerned about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2803.408], "stop_times": [2805.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.408}, "reply_to": "22435__1_076", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__1_078", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--I... I am also concerned about it, and I... I have thought about this.\nFirst of all, if they are enlisted by people over the age of 18 to do that, the... the precise degree of culpability goes to the people who are over 18, and juries ought to consider whether people who are over the age of 18 have so enlisted them.\nBut even... but with respect to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2805.555, 2808.815, 2825.988], "stop_times": [2808.815, 2825.988, 2827.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2805.555}, "reply_to": "22435__1_077", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_079", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I'm talking about the deterrent value of the existing rule insofar as the 16 and 17-year-old.\nIf... if we rule against you, then the deterrent remains.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2827.929, 2832.554], "stop_times": [2832.554, 2836.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2827.929}, "reply_to": "22435__1_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__1_080", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Well, I think... I think, as with the mentally retarded, or in fact, even more than with the mentally retarded, adolescents... the... the role of deterrence has even less to say, precisely because they weigh risks differently and they don't see the future and they are impulsive and they're subject to peer pressure.\nAnd in fact, if you look at what happened in this case, it's as good an example as any.\nThe State says, well, okay, you know, he... you know, this guy, according to the State's witness, the person, who was over 18 and described as the Fagin of this group of juveniles, testified to the court, well, Christopher Simmons says, let's do it because, quote, we can get away with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2836.391, 2855.15, 2860.556], "stop_times": [2855.15, 2860.556, 2877.629], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2836.391}, "reply_to": "22435__1_079", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_081", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, there were a number... a number of cases in the Alabama amicus brief, which is chilling reading... and I wish that all the people that sign on to the amicus briefs had at least read that before they sign on to them... indicates that often the 17-year-old is the ringleader.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2877.629], "stop_times": [2893.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2877.629}, "reply_to": "22435__1_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22435__1_082", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well, the 17-year-old may be the ringleader, and even if you posit that Christopher Simmons was the ringleader here, he... he wasn't under any illusions.\nHe wasn't making a statement about being executed.\nHe said, we could get away with it, which speaks volumes about the... the extent to which... this guy was subject to life without parole, which is, Justice Scalia, fundamentally different than death.\nThis Court has said that only when the penalty is death, do you look at the character of the defendant as opposed to the nature of the crime and the act.\nBut the data shows... and I think this Court has acknowledged... it acknowledged in Thompson in any event... that the... that adolescents like the... the mentally retarded are much less likely to be deterred by the prospect of an uncertain, even if probable, very substantial penalty.\nThe... no mature adult would have thought, as Chris Simmons reportedly said, I can get away with this because I'm 17 years old, when the mandatory punishment for him would have been life in prison.\nIt's... it is not... eliminating the death penalty as an option, which is... which is imposed so rarely as to be more freakish than the death penalty was in Furman... three States in the last 10 years, one--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2893.233, 2902.854, 2906.03, 2917.753, 2925.888, 2947.846, 2962.335], "stop_times": [2902.854, 2906.03, 2917.753, 2925.888, 2947.846, 2962.335, 2977.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2893.233}, "reply_to": "22435__1_081", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_083", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "But of course, the death penalty was not a deterrent for any of the crimes described in the Alabama brief because those are all... crimes all occurred in States which execute people under 18.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2977.09], "stop_times": [2987.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2977.09}, "reply_to": "22435__1_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22435__1_084", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Yes, and I... and I... the... the examples in the Alabama brief are horrifying.\nBut if you look at those examples, the very first one, this is a kid who went on a killing spree, including his father, because he felt he was unjustly deprived use of the family truck.\nAnd there... I can go through the other examples, but these are posited as people who a jury could, with a degree of reliability that the Constitution requires, say acted out of a stable, enduring character rather than transient aspects of youth?\nI think that's a poster child for us.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [2987.477, 2991.935, 3003.202, 3020.375], "stop_times": [2991.935, 3003.202, 3020.375, 3022.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2987.477}, "reply_to": "22435__1_083", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_085", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Whereas if it had been done by an 18-year-old, a jury could have said that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3022.937], "stop_times": [3024.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3022.937}, "reply_to": "22435__1_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__1_086", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3024.878], "stop_times": [3025.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3024.878}, "reply_to": "22435__1_085", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_087", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "If an 18-year-old did the same thing, you say, well, he's certainly stable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3025.416], "stop_times": [3028.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.416}, "reply_to": "22435__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22435__1_088", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--May I answer?\nBriefly.\nThe line... the science shows what common sense understands which is that development is a continuum, but the line, 18, is one that has been drawn by society.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3028.881, 3030.905, 3031.193], "stop_times": [3030.905, 3031.193, 3043.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3028.881}, "reply_to": "22435__1_087", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_089", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3043.908], "stop_times": [3044.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3043.908}, "reply_to": "22435__1_088", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__1_090", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3044.984], "stop_times": [3045.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3044.984}, "reply_to": "22435__1_089", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "22435__1_091", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Mr. Layton, you have 8 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3045.139], "stop_times": [3047.706], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3045.139}, "reply_to": "22435__1_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22435__2_000", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Mr. Simmons, of course, was found by the jury to be the ringleader.\nAnd in essence, that creates a contrast with the Lee Malvo case where we had something like what Justice Kennedy referred to, adults influencing a juvenile, and the jury was able to make that distinction in the Virginia Lee Malvo case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3047.706, 3052.081], "stop_times": [3052.081, 3064.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3047.706}, "reply_to": "22435__1_091", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__2_001", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "May I ask this question, Mr. Layton?\nThis case kind of raises a question about the basic State interests that are involved here, and the State interests that justify the death penalty include deterrence and also retribution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3064.963, 3067.025], "stop_times": [3067.025, 3077.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3064.963}, "reply_to": "22435__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22435__2_002", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3077.678], "stop_times": [3077.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3077.678}, "reply_to": "22435__2_001", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__2_003", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Which, if either, of those do you think is the primary State interest you seek to vindicate today?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3077.861], "stop_times": [3082.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3077.861}, "reply_to": "22435__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22435__2_004", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "I... I think that they are of equal weight in the minds of the legislators in the State of Missouri.\nThe... Mr. Simmons' counsel comes to the edge of asking this Court to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3082.962, 3086.594], "stop_times": [3086.594, 3093.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3082.962}, "reply_to": "22435__2_003", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__2_005", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "May I just ask one further?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3093.281], "stop_times": [3094.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.281}, "reply_to": "22435__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22435__2_006", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3094.19], "stop_times": [3094.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3094.19}, "reply_to": "22435__2_005", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__2_007", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Is there any evidence that the death penalty for those under 18 or even above has, in fact, had any deterrent value?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3094.396], "stop_times": [3101.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3094.396}, "reply_to": "22435__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22435__2_008", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "From all that I have read, the evidence both directions is inconclusive, Your Honor, and thus, subject to legislators' determination.\nMr. Simmons' counsel comes to the edge of asking the Court to elevate proportionality to be equivalent to... to a consensus.\nBut let me just highlight two aspects of the non-capital case proportionality jurisprudence of this Court.\nJustice Kennedy, in... in Harmelin recently cited by the plurality in Ewing, pointed out that two of the considerations in proportionality review in those instances are the primacy of the legislature and the nature of the Federal system.\nWhat we should have here is a principle that is a principle dealing with immaturity, and the States, within the Federal system, should be able to make the determination as to how to implement it.\nAs pointed out, this Court's jurisprudence in Eighth Amendment areas has proven to be a one-way ratchet, and because of that, the Court has to be very wary of leading rather than reflecting societal norms.\nNow, there are some States, of course, that have raised the age, the minimum age, for capital punishment, but at least in some instances, such as Missouri, that is a reaction to this Court's jurisprudence, that is, a reaction to Thompson and Stanford.\nOther States have left 18 for other purposes, and yet there still is a role by this Court.\nPornography is an example.\nI am confident that but for this Court's First Amendment jurisprudence, the Missouri General Assembly would adopt a statute that said that pornography should not be allowed at ages much higher than 18 and not because of maturity, but because of their opposition to pornography.\nIn many of the instances cited by Mr. Simmons, the kind of statutes that he cites, gambling and others, it is a compromise in the legislative arena, not necessarily based on maturity or immaturity, that leads to the selection of the age of 18.\nMany States have, of course, individualized determinations with regard to those statutes.\nThere was a discussion of driver's licenses.\nIn Missouri, of course, we allow people to drive at age 15.\nThey have to have parental consent, yes, but there also is a test.\nThat is, there is an individualized determination before we do that, and that's what the State requests here.\nMr. Simmons' counsel points out that in Atkins the Court took judicial notice of psychosocial evidence, and that's true.\nThe Court did.\nBut remember that what the Court had before it in Atkins was not a proxy for a... a factor that plays into culpability.\nIt was, in fact, the factor itself, that is mental capacity.\nAnd what they want here is not a determination as to the maturity or the capacity of individuals.\nThey want a bright line test that is based purely on age.\nThis Court should adopt, as it did in Atkins, a principle and leave it to the States to act.\nThat's what the Court did in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3101.083, 3112.228, 3120.13, 3125.686, 3138.029, 3148.599, 3160.609, 3174.272, 3180.467, 3181.581, 3197.928, 3212.333, 3218.361, 3220.135, 3224.056, 3227.194, 3232.395, 3240.403, 3241.024, 3248.455, 3253.739, 3259.229, 3262.201, 3268.35], "stop_times": [3112.228, 3120.13, 3125.686, 3138.029, 3148.599, 3160.609, 3174.272, 3180.467, 3181.581, 3197.928, 3212.333, 3218.361, 3220.135, 3224.056, 3227.194, 3232.395, 3240.403, 3241.024, 3248.455, 3253.739, 3259.229, 3262.201, 3268.35, 3269.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3101.083}, "reply_to": "22435__2_007", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__2_009", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Of course, one... one of the objections in... in Atkins was we needed a bright line test.\nWe'd have difficulty determining which ones are mentally retarded.\nHere we don't have that problem at all.\nI guess everybody knows whether or not the defendant is over or under 18.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3269.465, 3273.43, 3277.078, 3278.919], "stop_times": [3273.43, 3277.078, 3278.919, 3282.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3269.465}, "reply_to": "22435__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22435__2_010", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "--Well, if that's the bright line.\nWe don't know whether they're mature or immature, and we have to measure that somehow.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3282.922, 3284.12], "stop_times": [3284.12, 3288.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3282.922}, "reply_to": "22435__2_009", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__2_011", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "But the... but the purpose of a bright line test is to avoid litigation over the borderline cases, and you just have completely avoided that in this category.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3288.744], "stop_times": [3296.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3288.744}, "reply_to": "22435__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22435__2_012", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Because the... having a bright line test means that the individual who murders at age 17, 364 days is treated differently than a more... a less mature individual who is 2 days older.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3296.38], "stop_times": [3306.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3296.38}, "reply_to": "22435__2_011", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__2_013", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "But it's an equally arbitrary line if it's 16, 17, or 15.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3306.661], "stop_times": [3309.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3306.661}, "reply_to": "22435__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22435__2_014", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Yes, it is, and it's an arbitrary line that the legislatures have set because it's a legislative type determination based on what even Mr. Waxman called legislative facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3309.633], "stop_times": [3319.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3309.633}, "reply_to": "22435__2_013", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__2_015", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "May I ask one... have you read the brief of the former U.S. diplomats in the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3319.414], "stop_times": [3323.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3319.414}, "reply_to": "22435__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22435__2_016", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3323.501], "stop_times": [3324.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3323.501}, "reply_to": "22435__2_015", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__2_017", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Do you think we should give any credence whatsoever to the arguments they make?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3324.039], "stop_times": [3327.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3324.039}, "reply_to": "22435__2_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22435__2_018", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "No.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3327.466, 3328.042], "stop_times": [3328.042, 3328.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3327.466}, "reply_to": "22435__2_017", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__2_019", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "The respect of other countries for our country is something we should totally ignore.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3328.581], "stop_times": [3333.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3328.581}, "reply_to": "22435__2_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22435__2_020", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "That's not for this Court to decide.\nCongress should consider that.\nThe legislatures should consider that.\nIt's an important consideration, but it is not a consideration under the Eighth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3333.698, 3335.351, 3336.754, 3338.156], "stop_times": [3335.351, 3336.754, 3338.156, 3342.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3333.698}, "reply_to": "22435__2_019", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__2_021", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "We should leave it up to the legislature of the State of Missouri to resolve those questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3342.576], "stop_times": [3346.103], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3342.576}, "reply_to": "22435__2_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22435__2_022", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Within the parameters of... of Thompson and Stanford, yes.\nYes.\nThe Missouri Supreme Court... the Atkins v. Virginia... in Atkins v. Virginia, this Court did not authorize the Missouri Supreme Court to reject Stanford.\nThe Court should refuse to... to sanction such activity by the lower courts and continue the course it set in that decision.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3346.103, 3349.429, 3350.628, 3361.523, 3368.377], "stop_times": [3349.429, 3350.628, 3361.523, 3368.377, 3368.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3346.103}, "reply_to": "22435__2_021", "speaker": "james_r_layton"}
{"id": "22435__2_023", "conversation_id": "22435", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Layton.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-633", "start_times": [3368.954, 3370.69], "stop_times": [3370.69, 3371.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3368.954}, "reply_to": "22435__2_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "22799__0_000", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "We'll hear argument in the case of Rousey against Jacoway.\nMs. Karlan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [0.0, 6.619], "stop_times": [6.619, 7.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22799__0_001", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nYesterday in Koons Buick against Nigh, this Court emphasized once again that statutory interpretation is a holistic process based on common sense, that the reading of the statute should look at all the words to avoid a passing strange or an anomalous result when the text does not dictate it and the statutory history suggests otherwise.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [7.826, 11.353], "stop_times": [11.353, 33.231], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7.826}, "reply_to": "22799__0_000", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_002", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That was a case I dissented in, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [33.231], "stop_times": [34.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 33.231}, "reply_to": "22799__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_003", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes, but actually, Justice Scalia, I think even you will find our case more appealing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [34.947], "stop_times": [39.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 34.947}, "reply_to": "22799__0_002", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_004", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes, but... but it is true you have a strong textual--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [39.444], "stop_times": [43.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 39.444}, "reply_to": "22799__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22799__0_005", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "We have an excellent textual argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [43.625], "stop_times": [45.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 43.625}, "reply_to": "22799__0_004", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_006", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--I was a little bit surprised at your opening because it seems to me you have a strong textual argument you're now defending.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [45.808], "stop_times": [48.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 45.808}, "reply_to": "22799__0_005", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22799__0_007", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "We do.\nA holistic reading of the text shows that section 522(d)(10)(E) of the Bankruptcy Code--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [48.734, 48.962], "stop_times": [48.962, 53.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 48.734}, "reply_to": "22799__0_006", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_008", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "What does a holistic reading mean?\nCan you stay within the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [53.873, 55.024], "stop_times": [55.024, 56.034], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 53.873}, "reply_to": "22799__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22799__0_009", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [56.034], "stop_times": [56.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 56.034}, "reply_to": "22799__0_008", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_010", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--text and still be holistic?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [56.913], "stop_times": [57.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 56.913}, "reply_to": "22799__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22799__0_011", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I'm not going to look outside the text at all.\nA holistic reading of section 522(d)(10)(E) of the Bankruptcy Code, which is on... in the petitioners' brief at pages 1 through 2--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [57.599, 58.573], "stop_times": [58.573, 65.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 57.599}, "reply_to": "22799__0_010", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_012", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "What does the word holistic mean?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [65.998, 66.626], "stop_times": [66.626, 67.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 65.998}, "reply_to": "22799__0_011", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22799__0_013", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--I think it means read all the words in the sense that makes the most sense to you rather than plucking words at random or rather than looking at a word artificially.\nFor example, when you look at a phrase like on account of in the Bankruptcy Code, as the Court did in North LaSalle, account means a lot of different things, but there it clearly meant because of, as it does in this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [67.389, 78.615], "stop_times": [78.615, 90.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 67.389}, "reply_to": "22799__0_012", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_014", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "So the antonym would be parsimonious or something like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [90.386], "stop_times": [93.08], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 90.386}, "reply_to": "22799__0_013", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22799__0_015", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I think it'd be partial, but I'm not sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [93.08], "stop_times": [95.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 93.08}, "reply_to": "22799__0_014", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_016", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well, let... let me ask--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [95.455], "stop_times": [96.315], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 95.455}, "reply_to": "22799__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22799__0_017", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [96.315], "stop_times": [96.735], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 96.315}, "reply_to": "22799__0_016", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_018", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--ask you this.\nThe... the statute does say that the right to receive a payment is on account of age, and that seems to me to be an argument somewhat in respondent's favor because the... the payment has to be triggered by the age, if you read it that way, and it seems to me that's a fair way to read it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [96.735, 97.529], "stop_times": [97.529, 117.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 96.735}, "reply_to": "22799__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22799__0_019", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes, and I think payments are triggered by age because section 522(d)(10)(e) is a statute eminently about the protection in bankruptcy of retirement payments.\nFor individuals--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [117.849, 126.676], "stop_times": [126.676, 128.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 117.849}, "reply_to": "22799__0_018", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_020", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well, the problem for the court below was that the person covered can ask for it in a lump sum and pay a penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [128.116], "stop_times": [137.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 128.116}, "reply_to": "22799__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22799__0_021", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Right, and that's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [137.525], "stop_times": [139.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 137.525}, "reply_to": "22799__0_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22799__0_022", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "And... and that isn't then on the basis of age.\nAm I right?\nIs that... that was the problem the court had below.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [139.501, 142.252, 144.1], "stop_times": [142.252, 144.1, 146.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.501}, "reply_to": "22799__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22799__0_023", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Yes, that's the problem the court had below.\nI think it's an illusory problem for the following reason.\nIt's clear that the right to receive full enjoyment of payments under an IRA does not attach until one of the triggering events occurs.\nThe trigger events are age 59 and a half, disability, illness, or for the estate, death.\nAnd that's the right that we're talking about here, and that's why--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [146.956, 148.621, 151.32, 160.425, 165.972], "stop_times": [148.621, 151.32, 160.425, 165.972, 168.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 146.956}, "reply_to": "22799__0_022", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_024", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well, when you say full enjoyment, you... you think when... when I'm taxed on something, I... I don't have full enjoyment of it?\nThe only thing triggered by age, as far as I can tell... the only thing triggered by age... is your obtaining of a tax benefit.\nThat's all.\nOnce you reach a certain age, you can withdraw it without... without paying the 10 percent tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [168.842, 175.27, 182.67, 183.281], "stop_times": [175.27, 182.67, 183.281, 188.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 168.842}, "reply_to": "22799__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_025", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--That's correct, but the 10 percent tax here is designed and does, in fact, operate as a deterrent and a penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [188.681], "stop_times": [194.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 188.681}, "reply_to": "22799__0_024", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_026", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well, I'm sure it does, but... but it's... it's hard to accept the notion that simply because after a certain age I get a tax benefit, I'm receiving the money on account of my age.\nThat doesn't make any sense to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [194.574, 208.035], "stop_times": [208.035, 209.278], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 194.574}, "reply_to": "22799__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_027", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia, the way that I would view that is prior to 59 and a half, you pay a penalty.\nAnd Congress put that penalty in there because the holistic sense, the full reading of section 522(d)(10)(e) is it is designed to protect retirement savings, replacement income of the elderly, the disabled, or ill people, once they get to the point where those triggering events, which are in 522(d)(10)(e), occur.\nThose are the same triggering events--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [209.278, 215.286, 234.863], "stop_times": [215.286, 234.863, 236.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 209.278}, "reply_to": "22799__0_026", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_028", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Ms. Karlan, the... as long as this money was in the plan, it was shielded from bankruptcy, and there are... there was not unlimited access even with the penalty when it was in the plan.\nOne thing that I don't know and may be of some significance, did the Rouseys have a chance, even though they lost their employment, to keep their money in the plan where it would be shielded from bankruptcy or did they have to roll it over?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [236.686, 254.243], "stop_times": [254.243, 274.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.686}, "reply_to": "22799__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__0_029", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Northrop Grumman's policy is to require individuals who leave the company's employment to roll their pension plans into an IRA.\nThe Rouseys tried to get work in Arkansas when they moved there.\nHad they gotten a job there that they were able to keep, which they were unable to do because of their health, they could have rolled that money back into an undeniably, completely exemptible pension plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [274.169, 282.008, 285.829], "stop_times": [282.008, 285.829, 297.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 274.169}, "reply_to": "22799__0_028", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_030", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Another employer's plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [297.183], "stop_times": [297.988], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 297.183}, "reply_to": "22799__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__0_031", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [297.988], "stop_times": [298.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 297.988}, "reply_to": "22799__0_030", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_032", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "But they could not have kept it in this employer's plan?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [298.483], "stop_times": [301.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 298.483}, "reply_to": "22799__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__0_033", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "No.\nThis employer did not permit individuals to keep the money in the plan.\nThey were told they had to remove the money when they lost their jobs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [301.425, 301.795, 305.903], "stop_times": [301.795, 305.903, 308.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 301.425}, "reply_to": "22799__0_032", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_034", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That was a term of the plan that it... you can remain in it only so long as you're employed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [308.597], "stop_times": [313.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 308.597}, "reply_to": "22799__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__0_035", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Apparently so.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [313.502], "stop_times": [314.364], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 313.502}, "reply_to": "22799__0_034", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_036", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Are there any other plans that are... are entities clearly covered by the statute in which the only effect of age is to enable you to avoid a tax?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [314.364], "stop_times": [331.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 314.364}, "reply_to": "22799__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_037", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [331.815], "stop_times": [333.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 331.815}, "reply_to": "22799__0_036", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_038", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "All right.\nWell, then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [333.286, 333.794], "stop_times": [333.794, 334.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 333.286}, "reply_to": "22799__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_039", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Let me give you a couple--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [334.304], "stop_times": [335.309], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 334.304}, "reply_to": "22799__0_038", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_040", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--then you might persuade me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [335.309], "stop_times": [335.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 335.309}, "reply_to": "22799__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_041", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Let me give you a couple of examples--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [335.729], "stop_times": [337.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.729}, "reply_to": "22799__0_040", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_042", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [337.174], "stop_times": [337.402], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 337.174}, "reply_to": "22799__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_043", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--that I think will be quite familiar.\nA 401(k) plan allows you to get access to money before you turn 59 and a half on account of hardship, and you pay a 10 percent tax penalty if you do so.\nThe Federal Government's thrift savings plan for Federal employees allows you to take a loan out of the plan and to pay the interest back into your own account before you turn 59 and a half, thereby essentially giving you free use of the money.\nIf you don't pay the loan back, it's then treated as a... as a distribution, and you pay the 10 percent tax penalty on it.\nSo that if you read this statute to... not to include IRA's, to deny exemption to IRA's, you read this statute to deny exemption to virtually all of the modern forms of defined contribution pension plans or savings plans.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [337.402, 339.486, 349.0, 363.754, 370.413], "stop_times": [339.486, 349.0, 363.754, 370.413, 384.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 337.402}, "reply_to": "22799__0_042", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_044", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes.\nThat was what I was going... aren't most of the pension profit-sharing, stock bonus plans, and annuities similar to the IRA's in terms of allowing withdrawal on the payment of a penalty?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [384.908, 385.098], "stop_times": [385.098, 396.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 384.908}, "reply_to": "22799__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22799__0_045", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [396.867], "stop_times": [398.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 396.867}, "reply_to": "22799__0_044", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_046", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes.\nI thought they were all in the same boat.\nSo what the effect of this rule is... of the Ninth Circuit is that they would all fail to qualify under the bankruptcy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [398.013, 398.201, 399.594], "stop_times": [398.201, 399.594, 411.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 398.013}, "reply_to": "22799__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22799__0_047", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes, that's correct.\nYou would render section 522(d)(10)(e) essentially a nullity.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [411.039, 411.277], "stop_times": [411.277, 415.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 411.039}, "reply_to": "22799__0_046", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_048", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Oh, it's the Eighth Circuit.\nExcuse me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [415.247, 416.26], "stop_times": [416.26, 416.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 415.247}, "reply_to": "22799__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22799__0_049", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes.\nI... I can see why you might have thought it was the Ninth Circuit.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [416.874, 417.449, 420.579], "stop_times": [417.449, 420.579, 421.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 416.874}, "reply_to": "22799__0_048", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_050", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "It... it might be wrong anyway.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [421.339, 423.222], "stop_times": [423.222, 424.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 421.339}, "reply_to": "22799__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_051", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [424.123], "stop_times": [424.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 424.123}, "reply_to": "22799__0_050", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_052", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "What is the percentage amount of the payments that are taken out of all IRA plans before people are 59 and a half?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [424.95], "stop_times": [434.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 424.95}, "reply_to": "22799__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__0_053", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well, in the Cilek case from the Seventh Circuit, which is cited in our brief, the court there cited statistics that suggested it was between 1.2 and 1.7 percent of funds in IRA's were removed early under the penalty process.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [434.304], "stop_times": [448.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 434.304}, "reply_to": "22799__0_052", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_054", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "And the... the payment here... it says... the statute uses the word payment.\nSo suppose you simply have an IRA plan but you don't take money out of it.\nThen is it exempt from bankruptcy?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [448.634, 452.844, 457.035], "stop_times": [452.844, 457.035, 459.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 448.634}, "reply_to": "22799__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__0_055", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "It would be because it's the right to the future payments and not just the present payments, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [459.335], "stop_times": [465.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 459.335}, "reply_to": "22799__0_054", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_056", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "So... so... but I'm trying... what I'm trying to figure out is if a person were to take... just reading it in English, it sounds as if a person were to take the plan out before he's 59 and a half and pay the penalty, that that amount that he took out would not be a... a payment because of age, but one that he took out after he's 59 and a half and didn't pay the penalty would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [465.113], "stop_times": [487.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 465.113}, "reply_to": "22799__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__0_057", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's correct, Justice Breyer.\nBut in order to protect the ability to take money out after someone turns 59, you have to protect the corpus of the IRA now because otherwise, when he turns 59 and a half, there won't be any money there for him to take out.\nAnd that's why the exemption extends not just to present payments, as the Third Circuit erroneously held, but also to the corpus when it is necessary for the support of the debtor.\nAnd I can't emphasize--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [487.194, 488.94, 500.939, 510.814], "stop_times": [488.94, 500.939, 510.814, 511.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 487.194}, "reply_to": "22799__0_056", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_058", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Ms. Karlan, let me ask something about that very point because the statute says that to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor it's allowable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [511.849], "stop_times": [526.709], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 511.849}, "reply_to": "22799__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22799__0_059", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Yes, Justice O'Connor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [526.709], "stop_times": [528.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 526.709}, "reply_to": "22799__0_058", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_060", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Are you aware of cases where the bankruptcy court has said, well, you don't need all that money?\nThat's a big plan.\nYou don't need all that.\nWe'll just let you deduct X amount.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [528.521, 533.998, 535.156, 536.104], "stop_times": [533.998, 535.156, 536.104, 538.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 528.521}, "reply_to": "22799__0_059", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22799__0_061", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Absolutely, Justice O'Connor.\nWe cite a number of them in both the opening brief and in the yellow brief on pages 19 through... to 20, I think is where we... where we talk about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [538.584, 540.091], "stop_times": [540.091, 554.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 538.584}, "reply_to": "22799__0_060", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_062", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Can we take this concrete case?\nHers was something over $12,000; his, something over $42,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [554.777, 556.32], "stop_times": [556.32, 562.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 554.777}, "reply_to": "22799__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__0_063", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [562.025], "stop_times": [562.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 562.025}, "reply_to": "22799__0_062", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_064", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "What was the claim here as to... was part or all of that... it would be some $54,000.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [562.367], "stop_times": [571.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 562.367}, "reply_to": "22799__0_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__0_065", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "The claim was all that all of that was necessary.\nIf I could give an example that I think Justice O'Connor might find instructive here.\nWhen a debtor, for example, is 40 years old, they generally require turnover of the entire IRA because people have time to earn the money back again.\nWhen the debtor has other retirement savings, for example, in a case from Virginia called Abate, because the person also had a 401(k) plan, they were required to turn over the entire IRA.\nWhen a debtor is able to work, even if the debtor is in his or her 50's, courts will often require exclusion of at... will also require turnover of at least part of the IRA.\nIn this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [571.434, 573.875, 577.885, 586.005, 597.456, 608.055], "stop_times": [573.875, 577.885, 586.005, 597.456, 608.055, 608.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 571.434}, "reply_to": "22799__0_064", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_066", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--What... what do the courts do if they say, well, my client might be ill or something like that?\nIt seems to me--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [608.919, 612.4], "stop_times": [612.4, 613.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 608.919}, "reply_to": "22799__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22799__0_067", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Well, if the client is ill now, they get to keep it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [613.207], "stop_times": [615.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 613.207}, "reply_to": "22799__0_066", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_068", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--No, no.\nThey... they say my client is able-bodied now, but we... we need something because... I don't know... there's a history of family illness or something.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [615.042, 615.316], "stop_times": [615.316, 621.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 615.042}, "reply_to": "22799__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22799__0_069", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--There isn't a reported case that talks about the possibility of future illness as a reason of exempting the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [621.183], "stop_times": [628.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 621.183}, "reply_to": "22799__0_068", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_070", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "It's... I'm trying to figure out how... how... what the theory is.\nIs... you say I have a right to receive payments because of age.\nAnd you say, well, here I have a body of money and 99 percent comes out of it after you're 60.\n1 percent comes out before.\nSo it's very tempting to say that that corpus there, of course, is a body of money that you're going to have a right to receive because of age because the practical effect of the 10 percent is... is... stops the... the younger person getting the money.\nSo does the case then turn on that?\nI mean, suppose... suppose it were a 3 percent penalty and 40 percent of the people took out the money before they were 60 or a 1 percent penalty and 80 percent did it.\nThen should I reach the other result?\nI'm just trying to think of how does this analysis work.\nWhat's the right analysis?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [628.46, 632.441, 635.971, 642.459, 644.813, 657.157, 659.492, 670.871, 672.129, 674.725], "stop_times": [632.441, 635.971, 642.459, 644.813, 657.157, 659.492, 670.871, 672.129, 674.725, 675.827], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 628.46}, "reply_to": "22799__0_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__0_071", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I would say at the 1 percent and 80 percent of the people are taking the money out, it wouldn't operate really as a retirement plan anymore.\nBut if I can give another statistic that might be helpful in thinking about this.\n18 percent of the participants in large 401(k) plans who are under the age of 50 are taking loans out against those plans today.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [675.827, 681.905, 685.228], "stop_times": [681.905, 685.228, 694.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 675.827}, "reply_to": "22799__0_070", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_072", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "What percent?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [694.77], "stop_times": [695.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 694.77}, "reply_to": "22799__0_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__0_073", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "18 percent in one of the surveys.\nAnd yet, those plans are undeniably, absolutely exempt under the bankruptcy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [695.345, 697.44], "stop_times": [697.44, 702.117], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 695.345}, "reply_to": "22799__0_072", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_074", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well, they're taking out loans against it.\nThey're... they're not withdrawing the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [702.117, 703.386], "stop_times": [703.386, 705.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 702.117}, "reply_to": "22799__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_075", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Well, but the loans because... for example, in the Federal thrift savings plan, the interest is being paid back into your own account, it's essentially as close to taking out the money as you can get.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [705.056], "stop_times": [715.207], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 705.056}, "reply_to": "22799__0_074", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_076", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I still don't have your answer to the problem that bothered me at the first.\nHow... how do you reconcile your positions with on account of language?\nIf the... if your clients can take the money... just take the money out of the IRA at any time, then why is it on account of age?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [715.207, 719.449, 722.905], "stop_times": [719.449, 722.905, 733.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 715.207}, "reply_to": "22799__0_075", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22799__0_077", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "It... it's not the... if you look at the statute... and let me just work my way through it with you.\nIt's the right to a payment under a stock bonus, profit-sharing, annuity, or similar plan on account of illness.\nAnd the question is what does on account of modify there.\nI think the most natural and sensible reading of the statute is a plan that is because of age, a plan that is because of disability, and the like.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [733.126, 738.542, 744.657, 747.114], "stop_times": [738.542, 744.657, 747.114, 755.701], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 733.126}, "reply_to": "22799__0_076", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_078", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "So you say that payment doesn't... on account of doesn't modify payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [755.701], "stop_times": [759.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 755.701}, "reply_to": "22799__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22799__0_079", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I don't... I don't think you need to read it that way, and I think the most sensible reading here, especially given that the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [759.778], "stop_times": [764.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 759.778}, "reply_to": "22799__0_078", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_080", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well, I... I think the logical reading is that it... it modifies payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [764.444], "stop_times": [767.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 764.444}, "reply_to": "22799__0_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22799__0_081", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Well, I... I'm not sure that it does, but even if it did, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [767.585], "stop_times": [771.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 767.585}, "reply_to": "22799__0_080", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_082", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "It's too holistic for me.\nWhat... what does it... what does it modify?\nI mean, if you had to diagram it, on account of goes to what noun?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [771.349, 772.282, 775.348], "stop_times": [772.282, 775.348, 779.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 771.349}, "reply_to": "22799__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_083", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Well, this is again... I know you dissented yesterday, but this is a less than meticulously crafted statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [779.425], "stop_times": [784.089], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 779.425}, "reply_to": "22799__0_082", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_084", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "No.\nI thought I was being holistic yesterday, to tell you the truth.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [784.089, 784.404, 786.004], "stop_times": [784.404, 786.004, 786.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 784.089}, "reply_to": "22799__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_085", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [786.409], "stop_times": [787.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 786.409}, "reply_to": "22799__0_084", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_086", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "But--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [787.32], "stop_times": [787.791], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 787.32}, "reply_to": "22799__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_087", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [787.791], "stop_times": [788.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 787.791}, "reply_to": "22799__0_086", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_088", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--but what does on account of modify?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [788.229], "stop_times": [789.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 788.229}, "reply_to": "22799__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_089", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--I think what on account of modifies here is the kind of plan out of which the payment is coming.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [789.931], "stop_times": [795.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 789.931}, "reply_to": "22799__0_088", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_090", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Where... where is that noun?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [795.546], "stop_times": [797.501], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.546}, "reply_to": "22799__0_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_091", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "There are a variety of plans, stock bonus, pension--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [797.501], "stop_times": [801.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.501}, "reply_to": "22799__0_090", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_092", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "The right to receive a payment under a stock bonus, pension--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [801.399], "stop_times": [805.004], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 801.399}, "reply_to": "22799__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_093", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [805.004], "stop_times": [805.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 805.004}, "reply_to": "22799__0_092", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_094", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--profit sharing, annuity, or similar plan or... or contract.\nIt's a plan on account of illness, an annuity?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [805.244, 808.202], "stop_times": [808.202, 810.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 805.244}, "reply_to": "22799__0_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_095", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Plans--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [810.93], "stop_times": [811.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 810.93}, "reply_to": "22799__0_094", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_096", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Why... why isn't it a right on account of?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [811.145], "stop_times": [813.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 811.145}, "reply_to": "22799__0_095", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__0_097", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "It's the right on account of.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [813.561], "stop_times": [814.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.561}, "reply_to": "22799__0_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_098", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Well, I think you can read it either way and you'll get to exactly the same result.\nSo let me read it the way that you've been reading it, which is if you want to protect the ability of people who have IRA's to withdraw money on account of age, you have to protect the IRA now or there will be no money in it for them to exercise their right to withdraw on account of age.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [814.806, 817.546], "stop_times": [817.546, 834.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 814.806}, "reply_to": "22799__0_097", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_099", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes, but... but there still is a right to take payments at any time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [834.512], "stop_times": [837.087], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 834.512}, "reply_to": "22799__0_098", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22799__0_100", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Justice... Justice Kennedy, we don't believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [837.087], "stop_times": [839.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 837.087}, "reply_to": "22799__0_099", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_101", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "So... so then you're... you're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [839.953], "stop_times": [840.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 839.953}, "reply_to": "22799__0_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22799__0_102", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--that that's actually a right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [840.507], "stop_times": [841.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 840.507}, "reply_to": "22799__0_101", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_103", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Under that, you're giving the... the language that follows it no meaning.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [841.189], "stop_times": [844.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 841.189}, "reply_to": "22799__0_102", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22799__0_104", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "No, Justice Kennedy, I don't think that's what I'm doing here, and the reason I don't think that's what I'm doing is because this statute clearly refers to IRA's by name as one of the plans that's entitled to exemption.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [844.069], "stop_times": [859.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 844.069}, "reply_to": "22799__0_103", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_105", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "But as purely English... as purely English, I read it as saying it's a right.\nWhat is that right?\nThe right is a right to receive a payment on account of age.\nThat's the... a plan.\nThat's the right.\nNow, your argument, I take it, was... is that yes, it's true you also have a right under certain conditions to take it without respect to age.\nSo what we have here is a plan that gives you both kind of rights.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [859.934, 864.912, 866.599, 870.303, 872.255, 873.085, 882.622], "stop_times": [864.912, 866.599, 870.303, 872.255, 873.085, 882.622, 886.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 859.934}, "reply_to": "22799__0_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__0_106", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [886.252], "stop_times": [887.434], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 886.252}, "reply_to": "22799__0_105", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_107", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "It's a kind that gives you a right to take it with a penalty and a right to take it because of age without a penalty.\nAnd thus, the question is, is that kind of plan which gives you both kind of rights covered?\nAnd the language doesn't answer it.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [887.434, 892.988, 897.455, 899.314], "stop_times": [892.988, 897.455, 899.314, 899.819], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 887.434}, "reply_to": "22799__0_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__0_108", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "But under Justice Breyer's hypothetical, that's just like a savings account.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [899.819], "stop_times": [902.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 899.819}, "reply_to": "22799__0_107", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22799__0_109", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [902.66], "stop_times": [903.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.66}, "reply_to": "22799__0_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_110", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [903.11], "stop_times": [903.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 903.11}, "reply_to": "22799__0_109", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_111", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "No, because the savings account doesn't have... I mean, the savings account doesn't have the... the penalty.\nIsn't your argument that you've got to read the right as meaning a right without penalty, because if you don't read it that way, then every one of these other retirement instruments is likewise going to fail?\nIsn't that your... your strong point?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [903.62, 908.431, 921.667], "stop_times": [908.431, 921.667, 923.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 903.62}, "reply_to": "22799__0_110", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__0_112", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's your strong point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [923.552], "stop_times": [923.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 923.552}, "reply_to": "22799__0_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_113", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's correct.\nThat's... that's our strong point and we're sticking with it.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [923.879, 924.252, 926.925], "stop_times": [924.252, 926.925, 927.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 923.879}, "reply_to": "22799__0_112", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_114", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Right.\nRight... it's not a right if you have to pay a penalty for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [927.589, 928.141], "stop_times": [928.141, 932.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 927.589}, "reply_to": "22799__0_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_115", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's correct.\nIt's not a right, as we say in the reply brief, to park on the sidewalk because if you pay the parking ticket, you can park there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [932.223, 932.994], "stop_times": [932.994, 940.524], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 932.223}, "reply_to": "22799__0_114", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_116", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [940.524], "stop_times": [940.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 940.524}, "reply_to": "22799__0_115", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_117", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "And I think no matter how--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [940.884], "stop_times": [942.48], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 940.884}, "reply_to": "22799__0_116", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_118", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's a good argument.\nI like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [942.48, 942.895], "stop_times": [942.895, 943.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 942.48}, "reply_to": "22799__0_117", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_119", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Thank you.\n[Laughter]\nNo matter how you read the statute, it's designed to cover IRA's, and any reading of the statute that ends up not covering IRA's will also not cover many of the other--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [943.429, 944.192, 944.45], "stop_times": [944.192, 944.45, 956.24], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 943.429}, "reply_to": "22799__0_118", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_120", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Why didn't Congress just put in IRA's along with the other things?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [956.24], "stop_times": [960.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 956.24}, "reply_to": "22799__0_119", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__0_121", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--They did, Justice Ginsburg.\nThey did in the last line of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [960.571, 962.422], "stop_times": [962.422, 964.97], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 960.571}, "reply_to": "22799__0_120", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_122", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes, but that's sort of an oblique way to get it there.\nI mean, why didn't they put it together with the other string of plans?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [964.97, 967.331], "stop_times": [967.331, 971.008], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 964.97}, "reply_to": "22799__0_121", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__0_123", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well, my best guess as to why they didn't do that is they started drafting the exemptions statute in 1973 and they enacted IRA's in 1974, so they stuck it in at the end of the list.\nThat's my best guess.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [971.008, 982.188], "stop_times": [982.188, 983.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 971.008}, "reply_to": "22799__0_122", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_124", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "What--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [983.363], "stop_times": [983.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 983.363}, "reply_to": "22799__0_123", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__0_125", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "What your... what your opponents say is that the... the thing at the end doesn't prove anything because they're willing to acknowledge that some IRA's can be so structured that you cannot withdraw until... until you reach a certain age.\nAnd if they're structured that way, they would be covered.\nSo you had to mention 408 in the... in the exceptions.\nWhat's wrong with that argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [983.732, 1000.561, 1004.002, 1007.233], "stop_times": [1000.561, 1004.002, 1007.233, 1008.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 983.732}, "reply_to": "22799__0_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_126", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well, what's wrong with that, Justice Scalia, is that all IRA's are designed and they're administered on forms that the Internal Revenue Service sets out and you buy the forms to allow for early withdrawal.\nSo under their theory, there has... there is not now and there has never been a single IRA anywhere in the United States--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1008.628, 1021.898], "stop_times": [1021.898, 1029.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1008.628}, "reply_to": "22799__0_125", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_127", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1029.55], "stop_times": [1030.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1029.55}, "reply_to": "22799__0_126", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__0_128", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--that had that inability to take the money out subject to penalty prior to the age 59 and a half.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1030.49], "stop_times": [1036.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1030.49}, "reply_to": "22799__0_127", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_129", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Do... do we know that?\nI mean, couldn't someone... I... I don't think this is a very plausible basis for construing the statute, but just as a technical matter, couldn't someone go to the bank or brokerage firm and say I want to set up an IRA, but I want the IRA to be, in... in effect, like an irrevocable trust in which withdrawals can only be made on certain, specific conditions?\nAnd couldn't someone, using both the IRA mechanism and a State irrevocable trust document, create an IRA that would be as restricted as... as the circuit suggested it might be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1036.398, 1037.172, 1062.506], "stop_times": [1037.172, 1062.506, 1077.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1036.398}, "reply_to": "22799__0_128", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__0_130", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I don't necessarily think so for the following reason.\nIRA's are off-the-rack products.\nThey're a basic consumer product that 40 million people buy.\nPeople don't usually negotiate the terms.\nIf you did negotiate the terms, though, here's the second problem.\nAnytime you deviate from the form that the Internal Revenue Service gives you, which also gives you these rights to withdraw early subject to penalty, you run the risk that your plan will then be held to be a nonqualifying plan under section 408 of the tax code.\nYou then lose the ability to deduct the contributions going in.\nYou then lose the ability to defer the payments on the income as it accrues in the account.\nNow, to answer the last part of your question, one of the things that has occurred over the last, say, 5 to 10 years is more and more States are passing laws that essentially protect IRA's in bankruptcy and out, as a matter of State law, from any attachment by creditors.\nWhy do they do that?\nBecause they recognize that IRA's are a fundamental piece of the retirement system today.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1077.774, 1081.445, 1084.765, 1088.196, 1090.816, 1094.385, 1108.736, 1111.972, 1120.321, 1135.037, 1136.375], "stop_times": [1081.445, 1084.765, 1088.196, 1090.816, 1094.385, 1108.736, 1111.972, 1120.321, 1135.037, 1136.375, 1141.221], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1077.774}, "reply_to": "22799__0_129", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_131", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "And some don't.\nThe... the State systems vary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1141.221, 1141.761], "stop_times": [1141.761, 1144.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1141.221}, "reply_to": "22799__0_130", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__0_132", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's correct, but only four States offer no protection to IRA's from creditors the other--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1144.271], "stop_times": [1150.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1144.271}, "reply_to": "22799__0_131", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_133", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "As opposed to how many who do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1150.598], "stop_times": [1152.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1150.598}, "reply_to": "22799__0_132", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__0_134", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--46 States offer some kind of protection.\n23 States protect them without limit in bankruptcy and out.\n6 of them protect them inside of bankruptcy using the State exemptions as long as the amount is reasonable and necessary for the debtor's support.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1152.177, 1154.496, 1158.589], "stop_times": [1154.496, 1158.589, 1166.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1152.177}, "reply_to": "22799__0_133", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_135", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well, that's what... with the purpose that we're talking about now--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1166.196], "stop_times": [1168.221], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1166.196}, "reply_to": "22799__0_134", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__0_136", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1168.221], "stop_times": [1168.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1168.221}, "reply_to": "22799__0_135", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_137", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--if it's only 6 that, faced with a bankruptcy, would shelter the IRA.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1168.459], "stop_times": [1173.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.459}, "reply_to": "22799__0_136", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__0_138", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "No.\nNo. 23 of them would protect all IRA's.\n6 would protect all IRA's if the money in them is necessary to the debtor's support, an additional 6.\n6 more would protect all the money in an IRA as long as it was deposited 120 days or a year or 3 years before the debtor filed for bankruptcy.\n3 of them will protect all IRA's up to a dollar amount.\nIn Nevada, the dollar amount is $500,000.\n8 States use, as their State exemption law, an IRA that... a statute that has exactly the same language as the Federal statute.\n6 of those State statutes have been interpreted by Federal courts to protect IRA's.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1173.775, 1174.92, 1177.53, 1183.331, 1192.236, 1195.458, 1198.181, 1207.262], "stop_times": [1174.92, 1177.53, 1183.331, 1192.236, 1195.458, 1198.181, 1207.262, 1212.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1173.775}, "reply_to": "22799__0_137", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_139", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "But here there was no choice of picking up on the State?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1212.418], "stop_times": [1215.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1212.418}, "reply_to": "22799__0_138", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__0_140", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "There's a... there's a weird anomaly in Arkansas, Your Honor, which is Arkansas law does, in fact, protect IRA's, but the Federal bankruptcy courts in Arkansas have interpreted that law only to protect the IRA up to $500 because of a provision in the Arkansas constitution, article 9, section 2, that means that you can only save up to $500.\nSo any bankrupt person in Arkansas who wants to keep any money in his... in his IRA has to elect the Federal exemptions rather than electing the State exemptions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1215.783, 1237.9], "stop_times": [1237.9, 1247.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1215.783}, "reply_to": "22799__0_139", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_141", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "And one train that we didn't finish before.\nYou were explaining that in this case the entire $55,000... that entire sum would be needed... would be necessary for the support of the debtors.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1247.004, 1250.288], "stop_times": [1250.288, 1263.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1247.004}, "reply_to": "22799__0_140", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__0_142", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's correct.\nThe bankruptcy court did not rule on our claim that it was all reasonably necessary because they decided first that IRA's didn't come within the meaning of section 522.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1263.87, 1264.506], "stop_times": [1264.506, 1272.751], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1263.87}, "reply_to": "22799__0_141", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_143", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "But you... that was your claim, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1272.751], "stop_times": [1274.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1272.751}, "reply_to": "22799__0_142", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__0_144", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1274.603], "stop_times": [1275.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1274.603}, "reply_to": "22799__0_143", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_145", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--How did you come to that conclusion, that the entire amount?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1275.277], "stop_times": [1282.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1275.277}, "reply_to": "22799__0_144", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__0_146", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well, if you take, say, $55,000 and you ask what sort of annuity could you purchase when you hit age 59 and a half with that money, it will be an annuity that, I would guess... you know, I... I hate to do math in my head like this.\nI'd guess it would throw off a couple of hundred dollars a month in additional income.\nAnd so if you ask will the Rouseys need that money for their support, I think the answer is yes because their only other support--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1282.058, 1295.216, 1299.263], "stop_times": [1295.216, 1299.263, 1307.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1282.058}, "reply_to": "22799__0_145", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_147", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Oh, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1307.409], "stop_times": [1308.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1307.409}, "reply_to": "22799__0_146", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__0_148", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--is Social Security and a $2,000 a month defined benefit plan that will never go up and against which their Social Security will be offset.\nSo when they start becoming eligible, as Mr. Rousey is about to be, for Social Security, that defined benefit plan reduces their benefits.\nSo if the Rouseys are to have an old age in which they can afford to live in any kind of reasonable circumstance at all, they need this money.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1308.336, 1316.439, 1324.837], "stop_times": [1316.439, 1324.837, 1331.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1308.336}, "reply_to": "22799__0_147", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_149", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "May I go back and just nail down one lose end in... in an answer that you... you gave to my question, can you set up a kind of irrevocable?\nI assume clearly from what you say is that there is not only no statute, but no IRS reg or ruling to the effect that you can make your IRA terms more restrictive without jeopardizing your qualification.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1331.978, 1343.36], "stop_times": [1343.36, 1356.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1331.978}, "reply_to": "22799__0_148", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__0_150", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I was unable to find one, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1356.778], "stop_times": [1358.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1356.778}, "reply_to": "22799__0_149", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_151", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1358.371], "stop_times": [1358.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1358.371}, "reply_to": "22799__0_150", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__0_152", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1358.912], "stop_times": [1360.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1358.912}, "reply_to": "22799__0_151", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_153", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Why didn't the Government come in here, just as a matter of curiosity?\nWe don't have an amicus brief here from the Government, do we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1360.316, 1362.297], "stop_times": [1362.297, 1364.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1360.316}, "reply_to": "22799__0_152", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_154", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I... no, we do not have one, and I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1364.869], "stop_times": [1367.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1364.869}, "reply_to": "22799__0_153", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_155", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "The Government has no position on the matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1367.064], "stop_times": [1368.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1367.064}, "reply_to": "22799__0_154", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_156", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Well, I... I don't think they've taken a position here.\nI will say that in Patterson against Shumate, they referred to IRA's in a footnote in their brief, I believe, as pension plans under section 408.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1368.353, 1370.594], "stop_times": [1370.594, 1377.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1368.353}, "reply_to": "22799__0_155", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_157", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "There... they never go bankrupt, so the position they usually take is against any exemption from the--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1377.691, 1382.897], "stop_times": [1382.897, 1383.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1377.691}, "reply_to": "22799__0_156", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__0_158", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well... well, that's correct.\nThe United States trustee may have wanted them to... I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1383.067, 1383.46], "stop_times": [1383.46, 1388.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1383.067}, "reply_to": "22799__0_157", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__0_159", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Ms. McKiever.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1388.265], "stop_times": [1394.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.265}, "reply_to": "22799__0_158", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22799__1_000", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Justice Stevens, may it please the Court:\nPursuant to section 522(d)(10)(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor's right to receive a payment is not exempt unless two requirements are met.\nFirst, the right to receive the payment must be on account of illness, disability, death, age or length of service, and the right must come from a specified similar plan or contract.\nBecause neither of those elements is satisfied in this case, the petitioners' IRA's are not exempt.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1394.017, 1396.764, 1406.005, 1417.306], "stop_times": [1396.764, 1406.005, 1417.306, 1422.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1394.017}, "reply_to": "22799__0_159", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_001", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Is it... is it the case that other plans that are clearly covered by the text of this statute also permit early withdrawal for certain reasons?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1422.696], "stop_times": [1438.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1422.696}, "reply_to": "22799__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_002", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes and no, and let me explain that.\nYes, they do permit withdrawals based upon certain factors.\nThose are enumerated based... based upon each individual plan.\nHowever, they do not permit withdrawals for any reason at any time for any purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1438.246, 1440.741, 1446.282, 1450.681], "stop_times": [1440.741, 1446.282, 1450.681, 1457.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1438.246}, "reply_to": "22799__1_001", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_003", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Not a single one of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1457.549], "stop_times": [1458.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1457.549}, "reply_to": "22799__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_004", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Not a single one of them.\nNow, of course, I've not read every plan ever created, but none of the plans that I have ever seen, as the specified plans, the pension plans, the profit-sharing plans, any of those, allow withdrawal for any reason at any time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1458.57, 1459.413], "stop_times": [1459.413, 1472.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1458.57}, "reply_to": "22799__1_003", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_005", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "And you'd say that if one of them did, it would also not be covered.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1472.787], "stop_times": [1476.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1472.787}, "reply_to": "22799__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_006", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's correct.\nIt... it is thought--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1476.3, 1477.312], "stop_times": [1477.312, 1478.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1476.3}, "reply_to": "22799__1_005", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_007", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "What... what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1478.639], "stop_times": [1480.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1478.639}, "reply_to": "22799__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__1_008", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I take it... in... in answering Justice Scalia, I take it from what you didn't say that none of the... we'll call them kind of the paradigm example plans are, however, as... as restricted as the language in this... the statute would suggest that it had to be if you read it in a... in a very literal way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1480.162], "stop_times": [1501.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1480.162}, "reply_to": "22799__1_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__1_009", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--There are--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1501.374], "stop_times": [1503.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1501.374}, "reply_to": "22799__1_008", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_010", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "In other words, they're all a little bit sinful, at least, even if they're not as sinful as... as you say the... the 401... the... the IRA is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1503.449], "stop_times": [1511.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1503.449}, "reply_to": "22799__1_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__1_011", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--That... that is correct.\nThe... there probably are plans out there... once again, there are so many plans.\nAnd those are created by financial institutions, by employers, by different entities.\nSo therefore there are thousands of variations of those.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1511.521, 1513.889, 1518.639, 1525.581], "stop_times": [1513.889, 1518.639, 1525.581, 1528.581], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1511.521}, "reply_to": "22799__1_010", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_012", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Now, why?\nOkay.\nOnce you're down that road, you have conceded, as you must, that a plan that says you get the money because of age but you also can get the money without respect to age in certain circumstances can be a plan covered by the act.\nNow, that's the kind of a plan that's right in front of you.\nSo, therefore, literally it falls just as much within the language as the other that you want to say even though that is literally true, this plan is very different from the others in terms of the purposes of the act.\nThat's what I would like to hear because to me, I'm not so moved by holistic as I am by purposes, which is part of holistic.\nSo... so the... the point that I would like to know is why, since ordinary people think of IRA's as pensions... I do.\nI think of it that way.\nI don't know much about it.\nIt's designed to help in the future, help when you're old and sick.\nBut there is this extra thing in it which you point to.\nSo why, in terms of purposes is this different from the others?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1528.581, 1529.905, 1530.232, 1550.147, 1553.854, 1567.947, 1575.518, 1584.487, 1585.458, 1586.546, 1591.146, 1594.497], "stop_times": [1529.905, 1530.232, 1550.147, 1553.854, 1567.947, 1575.518, 1584.487, 1585.458, 1586.546, 1591.146, 1594.497, 1598.686], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1528.581}, "reply_to": "22799__1_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__1_013", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "This is different because this is the only kind of plan where you can access the funds at any time for any purpose.\nIt is also--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1598.686, 1605.466], "stop_times": [1605.466, 1606.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1598.686}, "reply_to": "22799__1_012", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_014", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I know that, but... but... and you do it with a penalty.\nWe agree about the facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1606.439, 1608.664], "stop_times": [1608.664, 1610.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.439}, "reply_to": "22799__1_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__1_015", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1610.076], "stop_times": [1610.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1610.076}, "reply_to": "22799__1_014", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_016", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "But I want to know why that difference makes a difference in a world where only 1 or less 2 percent of the people do access it before they're 60, 59 and a half.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1610.395], "stop_times": [1621.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1610.395}, "reply_to": "22799__1_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__1_017", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Because the right to... to receive the payment, the right to access the money at any time exists no matter if it is exercised or not, and it does not meet the language of the statute.\nThe statute very specifically--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1621.415, 1631.869], "stop_times": [1631.869, 1633.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1621.415}, "reply_to": "22799__1_016", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_018", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "No, no.\nI... you've missed my point and I'm sorry.\nI put you on the wrong track with my following up.\nI shouldn't have.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1633.495, 1633.835, 1635.905, 1638.785], "stop_times": [1633.835, 1635.905, 1638.785, 1639.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1633.495}, "reply_to": "22799__1_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__1_019", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1639.27, 1639.811], "stop_times": [1639.811, 1640.236], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1639.27}, "reply_to": "22799__1_018", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_020", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "My question is we all agree that there can be plans where you can get the money not having to do with age, and they fall within the language of the act, and indeed, you say some are covered.\nBut this one you say is worse than the others in terms of the purposes of the act, and that's what I want to hear why.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1640.236, 1655.007], "stop_times": [1655.007, 1662.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.236}, "reply_to": "22799__1_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__1_021", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Because there is no causal connection between any of the factors that are enumerated in the statute and the right to receive the money.\nAnd that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1662.487, 1670.435], "stop_times": [1670.435, 1671.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1662.487}, "reply_to": "22799__1_020", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_022", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1671.176], "stop_times": [1672.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1671.176}, "reply_to": "22799__1_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_023", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "May I ask this question?\nSupposing instead of a 10 percent penalty, there was an absolute prohibition, would you agree... on getting the money before you're 59 and a half, would then that qualify?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1672.181, 1673.556], "stop_times": [1673.556, 1682.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1672.181}, "reply_to": "22799__1_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22799__1_024", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Absolutely, yes, it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1682.867], "stop_times": [1684.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1682.867}, "reply_to": "22799__1_023", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_025", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Now, what if there were a 50 percent penalty?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1684.764], "stop_times": [1686.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.764}, "reply_to": "22799__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22799__1_026", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Clearly, there's a point at which it would qualify as a prohibition more than just--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1686.249], "stop_times": [1692.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1686.249}, "reply_to": "22799__1_025", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_027", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "And what is it that makes it a prohibition?\nIs it... is it because the purpose is to deter withdrawals, or it is that it becomes economically unacceptable?\nWhat... what is the reason for drawing the line somewhere above 10 percent?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1692.244, 1693.915, 1700.871], "stop_times": [1693.915, 1700.871, 1705.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1692.244}, "reply_to": "22799__1_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22799__1_028", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--The reason for drawing the line is because at 10 percent, as the Eighth Circuit has stated in... in the Huebner case, it... it said that it's a minimal penalty.\nHowever, there is still the unfettered access that's available.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1705.365, 1714.525], "stop_times": [1714.525, 1718.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1705.365}, "reply_to": "22799__1_027", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_029", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "But what is the purpose of imposing any penalty at all?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1718.401], "stop_times": [1720.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1718.401}, "reply_to": "22799__1_028", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22799__1_030", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I would assume as a disincentive to... to withdraw, but it's clearly not a prohibition, such as the... the parking--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1720.759], "stop_times": [1728.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1720.759}, "reply_to": "22799__1_029", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_031", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "But 50 percent would not be a prohibition and neither would 90 percent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1728.635], "stop_times": [1732.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1728.635}, "reply_to": "22799__1_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22799__1_032", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--It would not be a prohibition, but it would operate more as a prohibition than 10 percent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1732.191], "stop_times": [1737.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1732.191}, "reply_to": "22799__1_031", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_033", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "So it's a matter of degree rather than a difference in kind.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1737.227], "stop_times": [1739.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1737.227}, "reply_to": "22799__1_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22799__1_034", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Clearly that... it's a very difficult line to draw.\nI... I can't make that call at this moment, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1739.347, 1741.806], "stop_times": [1741.806, 1747.819], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1739.347}, "reply_to": "22799__1_033", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_035", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "It seems to me the easiest black letter rule is no tax or some tax.\nI mean, if it was totally free like an ordinary bank account, then you'd be dead right.\nBut the fact that for a... an important purpose there is a 10 percent penalty put in seems to me puts it into the category of things that are... you're not supposed to have an absolute right to get.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1747.819, 1751.685, 1755.929], "stop_times": [1751.685, 1755.929, 1766.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1747.819}, "reply_to": "22799__1_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22799__1_036", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--But the... the hallmark difference here is that it... it is the only type of account that you can access paying the penalty for any reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1766.875], "stop_times": [1775.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1766.875}, "reply_to": "22799__1_035", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_037", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--I assume--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1775.616], "stop_times": [1776.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1775.616}, "reply_to": "22799__1_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_038", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--regardless of the specified reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1776.11], "stop_times": [1777.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1776.11}, "reply_to": "22799__1_037", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_039", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--that... that your answer to Justice Breyer as to why that makes a difference with regard to the purpose of the statute is that the purpose of the statute is to make sure that people have money for their retirement, and that if you can withdraw it for any reason whatever, there is no security that that money will be there for their retirement; whereas if you limit the reasons to sickness and... and a certain other number of emergency reasons, the chances the money will be there for the retirement are much higher.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1777.095], "stop_times": [1807.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.095}, "reply_to": "22799__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_040", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well, that... that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1807.127], "stop_times": [1808.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1807.127}, "reply_to": "22799__1_039", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_041", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Isn't that the answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1808.032], "stop_times": [1808.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1808.032}, "reply_to": "22799__1_040", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_042", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "But if that's the answer, excellent.\nSo now we have--\n[Laughter]\n--let's say--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1808.492, 1810.343, 1810.989, 1811.159], "stop_times": [1810.343, 1810.989, 1811.159, 1811.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1808.492}, "reply_to": "22799__1_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__1_043", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Thank you, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1811.782], "stop_times": [1813.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1811.782}, "reply_to": "22799__1_042", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_044", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Let's try... let's try a million percent tax and nobody in history has ever withdrawn the money.\nNow, would... that you would say would fall within this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1813.768, 1819.799], "stop_times": [1819.799, 1822.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1813.768}, "reply_to": "22799__1_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__1_045", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1822.687], "stop_times": [1824.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1822.687}, "reply_to": "22799__1_044", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_046", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Fine, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1824.615], "stop_times": [1824.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1824.615}, "reply_to": "22799__1_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__1_047", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1824.991], "stop_times": [1825.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1824.991}, "reply_to": "22799__1_046", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_048", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Okay.\nNow, if that would fall within this, going back to Justice Stevens, because that operates as a bar to prevent the bad world that Justice Scalia mentioned, why doesn't a tax that operates as a bar that's good enough to stop 98.5 percent of the people from withdrawing their money and having nothing left for old age... why isn't that just as good as the million percent tax in a world that is imperfect?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1825.171, 1825.624], "stop_times": [1825.624, 1853.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1825.171}, "reply_to": "22799__1_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__1_049", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Because clearly the... the access of money and the ability to use it prior to retirement, just as... as Justice Scalia just stated, that allows the... the debtors to... to access freely for any purpose, clearly not showing that... that it would be for retirement purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1853.196], "stop_times": [1872.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1853.196}, "reply_to": "22799__1_048", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_050", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "But attachment of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1872.306], "stop_times": [1872.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.306}, "reply_to": "22799__1_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__1_051", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "All right, but it's acquired.\nSay... say retirement, not old age.\nI mean, you know, 60... it's not that bad--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1872.681, 1873.13, 1875.333, 1877.603], "stop_times": [1873.13, 1875.333, 1877.603, 1877.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1872.681}, "reply_to": "22799__1_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_052", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "93.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1877.852], "stop_times": [1879.167], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.852}, "reply_to": "22799__1_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__1_053", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--If... if that is going to be your criterion, the... the total freedom for any purpose, then why, if we accept your argument, why... why don't we face sort of a daunting run or the courts face sort of daunting future?\nBecause the... the question then is going to be, well, what purposes are sufficiently close to old age to... to allow for a continued exemption and how free may the purposes be before a plan falls into the IRA category.\nYou told us a few moments ago... and I'm sure you... you were right... that the kind of the paradigm example plans vary enormously depending on the terms in which employers set them up.\nSo if... if we say that the... the dividing line is going to be between plans under which withdrawal can be for any purpose versus plans in which withdrawal is going to be somehow limited, then we're going to have to litigate an awful lot of plans.\nAren't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1879.167, 1895.462, 1915.038, 1925.967, 1943.807], "stop_times": [1895.462, 1915.038, 1925.967, 1943.807, 1944.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1879.167}, "reply_to": "22799__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__1_054", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Not necessarily.\nThe... the line that we're really looking to is that there has to be a direct causation factor between one of the five specified factors such as on... on account of factors, age, disability, death, length of service, and the right to receive the payment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1944.369, 1946.385], "stop_times": [1946.385, 1962.29], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1944.369}, "reply_to": "22799__1_053", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_055", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well, but typically these plans like 401(k) plans permit hardship withdrawals, and other plans that are mentioned in the act allow withdrawals for medical reasons or to buy housing or something like that.\nI mean, you... we would just have endless cases trying to figure out what qualifies and what doesn't.\nIt seems like such a hard line for you to try to draw here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1962.29, 1977.552, 1984.182], "stop_times": [1977.552, 1984.182, 1988.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1962.29}, "reply_to": "22799__1_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22799__1_056", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1988.63], "stop_times": [1989.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1988.63}, "reply_to": "22799__1_055", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_057", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "And every plan that I know of allows withdrawal if you terminate employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1989.481], "stop_times": [1995.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1989.481}, "reply_to": "22799__1_056", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22799__1_058", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--And that's typically--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1995.13], "stop_times": [1996.433], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1995.13}, "reply_to": "22799__1_057", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_059", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "In fact, that's what happened to these people.\nSo I just don't see how your argument is going to work.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [1996.433, 1997.795], "stop_times": [1997.795, 2003.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1996.433}, "reply_to": "22799__1_058", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22799__1_060", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Well, the... the ability to access the funds, oftentimes with termination, has to do with the length of service, the years in service because they accumulate and oftentimes are not payable at the full percentage.\nThey're not fully vested until that time.\nAlso, with the... when there are multiple factors existing in the right to receive the payments, each multiple factor can be a cause of the... of the ability to reach the money.\nWhen there are no meaningful factors imposed, though--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2003.47, 2018.03, 2020.037, 2031.27], "stop_times": [2018.03, 2020.037, 2031.27, 2034.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2003.47}, "reply_to": "22799__1_059", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_061", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Isn't it simpler to just recognize that these plans are covered despite the right to withdraw and then rely on the provision in the statute that only permits the deduction to the extent reasonably necessary for the support?\nI mean, that... that seems to me a fall-back position that's provided for in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2034.513, 2053.646], "stop_times": [2053.646, 2060.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2034.513}, "reply_to": "22799__1_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22799__1_062", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--I understand that... that may appear to be correct, but the problem with that is that as... taxpayer status is not the hallmark in this case of if it is or is not exempt.\nTherefore, all types of accounts, whether they are truly retirement accounts or... or if they're just savings accounts, could potentially qualify under this statute.\nIf... if you want to open it up and... and allow all kinds of accounts to be exemptible under 522(d)(10)(e), the problem is that there is no limit on what can be potentially exempt under that statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2060.647, 2072.192, 2081.524], "stop_times": [2072.192, 2081.524, 2095.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2060.647}, "reply_to": "22799__1_061", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_063", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "No.\nWell, obviously, it's... it's governed by the statutory provision that it has to be a stock bonus, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, or similar plan or contract on account of, and so on.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2095.411, 2095.619], "stop_times": [2095.619, 2107.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2095.411}, "reply_to": "22799__1_062", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22799__1_064", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2107.018], "stop_times": [2107.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2107.018}, "reply_to": "22799__1_063", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_065", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "And it includes IRA's apparently because of the last provision in the statute referring back to individual retirement acts under section 408 of the Internal Revenue Code.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2107.794], "stop_times": [2121.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2107.794}, "reply_to": "22799__1_064", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22799__1_066", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "The section 408 reference is... does not in any way expand the exemption.\nIn fact, it is a further condition to place on the... the exemption.\nFirst of all, section 408 sets out only the minimum requirements for an IRA to qualify as a... as a tax-favored plan.\nThat--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2121.206, 2127.34, 2132.539, 2141.65], "stop_times": [2127.34, 2132.539, 2141.65, 2142.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.206}, "reply_to": "22799__1_065", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_067", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Ms.... Ms. Karlan says she doesn't know of any... of any IRA that did place a... a restriction which would bring it within that exemption even though the ordinary IRA wouldn't be within the exemption.\nDo you know of any IRA, a single IRA that... that has a provision in it restricting withdrawal?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2142.479, 2157.889], "stop_times": [2157.889, 2164.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2142.479}, "reply_to": "22799__1_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_068", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Absolutely.\nThose are customizable plans.\nAny person can go into--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2164.441, 2165.777, 2167.41], "stop_times": [2165.777, 2167.41, 2169.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.441}, "reply_to": "22799__1_067", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_069", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "They can, but do... do you know that there's... there's one out there?\nI don't know--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2169.2, 2172.084], "stop_times": [2172.084, 2172.727], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2169.2}, "reply_to": "22799__1_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_070", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--I... I do know of several out there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2172.727], "stop_times": [2174.554], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2172.727}, "reply_to": "22799__1_069", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_071", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--You didn't just draw one up for this case, did you?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2174.554, 2176.422], "stop_times": [2176.422, 2176.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.554}, "reply_to": "22799__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_072", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I did not create one for this case.\nNo, I did not.\nBut they... they definitely exist.\nIn fact, in the Andersen case out of the Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the debtor had an annuity and prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition, she elected that she would only receive periodic payments based upon her age, and that was found to be exempt by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel because that qualified.\nThe payments were based upon her age, and it was then a similar plan because she could not access the funds at any time but only for the specified reason such as age.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2176.643, 2178.173, 2179.092, 2181.584, 2201.012], "stop_times": [2178.173, 2179.092, 2181.584, 2201.012, 2210.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2176.643}, "reply_to": "22799__1_071", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_073", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Was that... was that an IRA that she had?\nIt was an IRA?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2210.146, 2211.593], "stop_times": [2211.593, 2212.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2210.146}, "reply_to": "22799__1_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_074", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "My understanding is, yes, it was under section 408(b) was... that's my understanding based upon that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2212.498], "stop_times": [2219.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.498}, "reply_to": "22799__1_073", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_075", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Let me... let me ask you.\nMaybe this is irrelevant, but were... were these restrictive IRA's that you're aware of set up under those terms in contemplation of bankruptcy?\nIf the answer is no, why would anyone so restrict his... his IRA?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2219.339, 2220.928, 2231.456], "stop_times": [2220.928, 2231.456, 2236.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2219.339}, "reply_to": "22799__1_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__1_076", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I... I do not know if that one specifically was, but no.\nThese have not been set up through--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2236.104, 2240.357], "stop_times": [2240.357, 2243.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2236.104}, "reply_to": "22799__1_075", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_077", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "But why... why would anyone do that?\nThey're... they're qualified without these restrictions.\nWhy would anyone want to cut off his... his rights to... to withdraw?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2243.576, 2245.428, 2248.208], "stop_times": [2245.428, 2248.208, 2253.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2243.576}, "reply_to": "22799__1_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__1_078", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Clearly to protect the money potentially for retirement and... and just as--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2253.257], "stop_times": [2257.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2253.257}, "reply_to": "22799__1_077", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_079", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "In other words, like setting up a personal spendthrift trust?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2257.058], "stop_times": [2259.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.058}, "reply_to": "22799__1_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__1_080", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2259.783], "stop_times": [2260.65], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2259.783}, "reply_to": "22799__1_079", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_081", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I... I want to make it tough so that I... I will not be tempted to withdraw.\nIs that the motivation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2260.65, 2263.608], "stop_times": [2263.608, 2264.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2260.65}, "reply_to": "22799__1_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__1_082", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Well, that would potentially be a motivation because clearly the money is there readily accessible at any time to... to buy anything that the debtor chooses throughout their life.\nSo someone who's 30 or 40 years old can liquidate their... their IRA account, whereas with a pension or profit-sharing plan, they don't have that kind of access--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2264.636, 2273.527], "stop_times": [2273.527, 2282.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2264.636}, "reply_to": "22799__1_081", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_083", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Should we put any weight on the title, on the name?\nI mean, I... I can't but thinking it's an individual retirement account.\nWas Congress trying to fool people?\n[Laughter]\nWas the Federal Trade Commission?\nShould they investigate?\nWhat... I mean, the... the... I think of it as an account that's basically aimed, at least Congress thought it was aimed, at retirement, which has usually to do with age.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2282.438, 2285.33, 2289.887, 2292.107, 2292.94, 2295.26, 2296.156], "stop_times": [2285.33, 2289.887, 2292.107, 2292.94, 2295.26, 2296.156, 2306.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2282.438}, "reply_to": "22799__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__1_084", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Well, the... the name is clearly not determinative.\nAlso, Congress in the... in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2306.729, 2310.623], "stop_times": [2310.623, 2312.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2306.729}, "reply_to": "22799__1_083", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_085", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I'm reading the statute and if I were voting on it and put in the 408 reference and think of the word individual retirement account, is there any... I would have thought, knowing not that much about it, that of course, they'd be included.\nNow, is there any indication, when people passed this, that they didn't think they would be?\nAny... any reference in the terrible words, legislative history, that might shed light on it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2312.972, 2327.186, 2331.763], "stop_times": [2327.186, 2331.763, 2339.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.972}, "reply_to": "22799__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22799__1_086", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Yes.\nFirst of all, Congress did historically reject, first of all, just tax-favored status overall, such as what an IRA account is.\nAn IRA account is set up just for tax-favored status.\nCongress set forth, instead, the (d)(10)(e)... 522(d)(10)(e) requirements that... that are much more stringent in the requirements of the traditional IRA.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2339.745, 2340.543, 2348.474, 2351.736], "stop_times": [2340.543, 2348.474, 2351.736, 2361.92], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.745}, "reply_to": "22799__1_085", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_087", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well, are they?\nBecause there was one statement... I think it was in Ms. Karlan's brief... that the Fifth Circuit said profit-sharing plans permit participants to withdraw up to the entire amount on payment of the penalty.\nSo a profit-sharing plan, which was one of the ones on the list, seems to be substantially identical if you can also take out, whenever you like, as long as you're willing to pay the penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2361.92, 2364.561, 2378.998], "stop_times": [2364.561, 2378.998, 2391.735], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2361.92}, "reply_to": "22799__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__1_088", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's a misnomer that that's a... a right to payment.\nThat is rather the right to borrow as a loan.\nAnd a loan is very different than a right to payment.\nThey have the right to borrow the funds.\nHowever... for example, in the New York Police Department pension plan, which she referenced in the reply brief, the police officers can borrow up to 90 percent of their pension plan funds.\nHowever, they... as long as they're employed there, they have to continue to repay that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2391.735, 2395.385, 2398.038, 2402.156, 2404.082, 2416.264], "stop_times": [2395.385, 2398.038, 2402.156, 2404.082, 2416.264, 2421.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2391.735}, "reply_to": "22799__1_087", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_089", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "What... what if they don't repay it?\nWhat's the sanction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2421.883, 2423.865], "stop_times": [2423.865, 2424.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2421.883}, "reply_to": "22799__1_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__1_090", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "There is a 10 percent penalty.\nHowever, as the bankruptcy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2424.675, 2426.945], "stop_times": [2426.945, 2429.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2424.675}, "reply_to": "22799__1_089", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_091", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "But what... where... where would the... where would the principal repayment come from?\nI assume it would come from deducting whatever the balance was from the... the person's account.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2429.15, 2434.231], "stop_times": [2434.231, 2439.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2429.15}, "reply_to": "22799__1_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__1_092", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--That would be correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2439.369], "stop_times": [2441.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2439.369}, "reply_to": "22799__1_091", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_093", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I mean, we call it... the... the loan feature then boils down to a... a withdrawal subject to a periodic repayment obligation, but if that obligation is not satisfied, the bottom line will be exactly like a withdrawal because they will simply deduct whatever the balance is from the person's rights under the plan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2441.185], "stop_times": [2461.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2441.185}, "reply_to": "22799__1_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__1_094", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Plus 10 percent you say.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2461.342], "stop_times": [2463.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2461.342}, "reply_to": "22799__1_093", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_095", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's correct.\nHowever--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2463.115, 2464.142], "stop_times": [2464.142, 2464.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2463.115}, "reply_to": "22799__1_094", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_096", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "So it's just... just like an IRA.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2464.818], "stop_times": [2465.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.818}, "reply_to": "22799__1_095", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_097", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--But... but this is in the bankruptcy context, which makes it completely different.\nThe bankruptcy filing of a chapter VII bankruptcy is a picture in time.\nAt the time that the debtor files the bankruptcy petition, you look to the assets that the debtor has possession of and the interest that the debtor has at that moment.\nThere's also, for some things, a 1-year look-back period.\nBut because it's a picture in time, it's what the... the debtor can reach is what the... the bankruptcy trustee looks to, the types of assets that... that the debtor owns.\nThis is very different than the pension plan which, of course, the debtor could not have... have exhausted to pay the creditors prior to filing the bankruptcy, but any other type of account would be there, would be present at the retirement.\nBut because they could have liquidated their IRA's to pay off their creditors prior to filing the bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee steps into the shoes of that debtor and has the ability to reach the funds that the debtor can potentially reach.\nThere are other exemptions, of course, set forth in... in section 522(d), you know, for a home or jewelry, but the assets that are not exempt are readily available to repay creditors, for... for the benefit of the creditors.\nTherefore, that... that makes it significantly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2465.927, 2470.067, 2474.491, 2484.358, 2487.627, 2498.013, 2512.748, 2526.439, 2541.378], "stop_times": [2470.067, 2474.491, 2484.358, 2487.627, 2498.013, 2512.748, 2526.439, 2541.378, 2544.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2465.927}, "reply_to": "22799__1_096", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_098", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Subject to the 10 percent if the bankruptcy trustee does that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2544.277], "stop_times": [2547.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2544.277}, "reply_to": "22799__1_097", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__1_099", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--That's correct.\nThat's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2547.415, 2548.515], "stop_times": [2548.515, 2549.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2547.415}, "reply_to": "22799__1_098", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_100", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "The... the penalty still has to be paid even if it's the trustee who takes money out to pay the creditors, on your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2549.56], "stop_times": [2555.26], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2549.56}, "reply_to": "22799__1_099", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22799__1_101", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's correct.\nYes, they do.\nThey do.\nAdditionally, the petitioners' IRA's are... by allowing unfettered access, are unlike any of the other plans because the petitioners' standard IRA is much more like a savings account.\nIt's not any form of deferred compensation.\nThey can't look to that to fill a salary void after they retire because the money may not be there.\nUnlike in the pension plans or a profit-sharing plan, they could have liquidated those funds prior to their reaching any age or any illness that... that may befall them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2555.26, 2555.941, 2556.668, 2557.231, 2575.16, 2577.068, 2582.89], "stop_times": [2555.941, 2556.668, 2557.231, 2575.16, 2577.068, 2582.89, 2593.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2555.26}, "reply_to": "22799__1_100", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_102", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "But there... there is no penalty attached to withdrawing from a savings account, and there's also no limit on the annual contribution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2593.83], "stop_times": [2602.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.83}, "reply_to": "22799__1_101", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__1_103", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's correct.\nThat is correct.\nBut the... the key here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2602.336, 2604.289, 2605.381], "stop_times": [2604.289, 2605.381, 2609.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2602.336}, "reply_to": "22799__1_102", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_104", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Let me just get... get straight what... what the... what the universe of plans we have in front of us here.\nDo you assert that there are no other plans, clearly covered by this statute, that permit withdrawal for any reason but with a penalty?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2609.148, 2615.531], "stop_times": [2615.531, 2630.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2609.148}, "reply_to": "22799__1_103", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_105", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--That's correct.\nNone of the specified plans listed, the... the ones enumerated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2630.751, 2633.147], "stop_times": [2633.147, 2637.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2630.751}, "reply_to": "22799__1_104", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_106", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Would permit withdrawal for any reason whatever provided that a penalty is paid.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2637.21], "stop_times": [2640.837], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2637.21}, "reply_to": "22799__1_105", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_107", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2640.837], "stop_times": [2641.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2640.837}, "reply_to": "22799__1_106", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_108", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "None of them is like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2641.404], "stop_times": [2642.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2641.404}, "reply_to": "22799__1_107", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_109", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "None of them is like that.\nThey all have specific factors.\nThere has to be a causal connection between the ability to access the money.\nAdditionally, it's very important that... that an account or plan that qualifies under the statute... it has to be determined on a case-by-case basis.\nAnd there's no question that there are definitely IRA's that... that could and do qualify for this exemption.\nIt is, instead, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2642.627, 2643.708, 2645.466, 2649.161, 2659.551, 2665.686], "stop_times": [2643.708, 2645.466, 2649.161, 2659.551, 2665.686, 2668.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2642.627}, "reply_to": "22799__1_108", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_110", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Do... do you disagree with Ms. Karlan that this is... this is a standardized product so the people, the Rouseys of this world, really couldn't get a tailor-made IRA?\nThey would have to take the standard product.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2668.636, 2680.553], "stop_times": [2680.553, 2683.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2668.636}, "reply_to": "22799__1_109", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__1_111", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--That's not... that's not correct.\nThere are many customizable products that are... are out there.\nIn fact, for example, when employers set up different kinds of plans for their employees, they go and they can choose from many different options.\nFor example, they can choose if they even have a... a loan provision built into a... a 401(k) or a pension plan, just like the IRA.\nThey... they can be customized because section 408 only sets forth the minimum requirements for it to qualify for tax-favored status.\nThat... that is an Internal Revenue Code section, and it does not in any way prohibit additional factors being placed into the plan.\nRather, it allows the... the individual or the employer because some... there are two different types of IRA's that can be set up by an employer... to go and customize those so that they could potentially meet the statutory requirements.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2683.492, 2686.052, 2689.493, 2698.252, 2706.534, 2713.206, 2722.241], "stop_times": [2686.052, 2689.493, 2698.252, 2706.534, 2713.206, 2722.241, 2736.147], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2683.492}, "reply_to": "22799__1_110", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_112", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "These... these other plans that allow you to withdraw for certain reasons but not for any reason... what happens if you withdraw for any reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2736.147], "stop_times": [2745.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2736.147}, "reply_to": "22799__1_111", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_113", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2745.808], "stop_times": [2748.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2745.808}, "reply_to": "22799__1_112", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_114", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "What is the sanction against... I mean, you just go in.\nYou withdraw the money for... for a reason that is not allowed by the employer plan.\nWhat... what is the sanction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2748.467, 2751.494, 2756.963], "stop_times": [2751.494, 2756.963, 2758.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2748.467}, "reply_to": "22799__1_113", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__1_115", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--My understanding is that... is that you cannot access the funds for a reason not allowed by those plans, that that is prohibited.\nAnd that... that is similar to Ms. Andersen's IRA in the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel case.\nShe could no longer reach the funds in the... she could no longer reach the corpus of the account.\nThe... the lump sum of money was there for her retirement years.\nWhereas, in the IRA situation, the money is not protected at any time.\nThere's no prohibition at all whatsoever on withdrawing the funds from the account other than the payment of the penalty.\nBut whether an account or plan qualifies under the statute, it... it... you look at the language of the plan on a plan-by-plan basis.\nThe petitioners' argument renders the terms of the statute superfluous because, first of all, it is dissimilar from the enumerated plans, and secondly, it is not on account of any factors that the money can be reached.\nThe right to receive the payment is not based upon any factor other than the... the account holder wanting to withdraw the funds.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2758.432, 2765.974, 2771.784, 2776.712, 2780.667, 2786.523, 2793.463, 2801.692, 2816.069], "stop_times": [2765.974, 2771.784, 2776.712, 2780.667, 2786.523, 2793.463, 2801.692, 2816.069, 2823.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2758.432}, "reply_to": "22799__1_114", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_116", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well, but the right to receive 100 percent is... is dependent on a factor, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2823.333], "stop_times": [2827.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2823.333}, "reply_to": "22799__1_115", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22799__1_117", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes, it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2827.914], "stop_times": [2830.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2827.914}, "reply_to": "22799__1_116", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_118", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Yes.\nAt least as to the 10 percent that would be penalty, there's no right to get that money unless you have a certain age.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2830.817, 2830.995], "stop_times": [2830.995, 2837.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2830.817}, "reply_to": "22799__1_117", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22799__1_119", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's correct.\nUnless you have... or another factor such as for education or for a home loan, something like that.\nThere are several different reasons that you can... you can reach the money and not pay a penalty.\nHowever, the penalty is not... is not the deciding factor.\nIt's their ability to access the funds at any time that... that makes that a right of payment.\nIt's not a right of payment without a penalty.\nIt's just that the right to payment exists at all times.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2837.049, 2838.209, 2842.867, 2848.979, 2852.157, 2857.31, 2859.86], "stop_times": [2838.209, 2842.867, 2848.979, 2852.157, 2857.31, 2859.86, 2862.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2837.049}, "reply_to": "22799__1_118", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_120", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "You don't dispute that... that a very small percentage of people who have IRA's, in fact, exercise the right to withdraw, given the penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2862.399], "stop_times": [2877.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2862.399}, "reply_to": "22799__1_119", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__1_121", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That... that... that is... appears to be correct.\nI don't have those exact statistics, but yes, that... that appears to be correct, that they have... that they may not exercise that at... in great numbers.\nFirst of all, going back to the causation factor about the... the ability of the debtors to withdraw the funds for any reason or no reason, this Court in the 203 North LaSalle case determined that on account of must mean because of, and that... that is a key point here because if the debtors can reach the funds for any reason, it is not because of any other factor.\nAnd in the LaSalle case, this Court found that that reading, the because of reading, absolutely applies to this section of the... the Bankruptcy Code, that means that the result is that a direct causal connection is required between the right to receive the payment in the on account of requirements.\nIn... in this case there is no causal connection whatsoever between the right to receive the payments and... and any of the factors enumerated in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2877.568, 2882.195, 2891.541, 2933.233, 2951.515], "stop_times": [2882.195, 2891.541, 2933.233, 2951.515, 2960.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2877.568}, "reply_to": "22799__1_120", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_122", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Of course, the words, on account of, in this... this statute are sort of unusual, no matter how you construe them, because really the payment is on account of the years of service or it's on account of a lot of things.\nYou may become eligible at a certain time.\nIt would be better if it said a payment for which you became eligible for one of these reasons because the payment isn't really on account of all of these things.\nYou may get the same amount whether you're disabled or not depending on what the terms of the plan are.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2960.74, 2970.21, 2972.606, 2980.671], "stop_times": [2970.21, 2972.606, 2980.671, 2985.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2960.74}, "reply_to": "22799__1_121", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22799__1_123", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "That's correct.\nThere are, of course, always some other factors, such as you have to first deposit the money, you have to become eligible.\nBut once those barriers are passed, then... then the right to receive the payment has to be at least... one of the causes must be one of these factors.\nAnd it has to be enumerated in the plan.\nIt cannot be for any reason, but must be an enumerated reason in the plan.\nAnd the... with the penalty, only the avoidance of a penalty is based upon the... the age of the debtor or the... or any of the factors.\nIt's... section 522(d)(10)(e) is void of any reference to the tax status or to the right to receive the payment without penalty.\nIt's only the right to receive the payment overall.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [2985.79, 2987.08, 2992.21, 3002.331, 3004.193, 3008.534, 3019.397, 3028.535], "stop_times": [2987.08, 2992.21, 3002.331, 3004.193, 3008.534, 3019.397, 3028.535, 3030.81], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2985.79}, "reply_to": "22799__1_122", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_124", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Does your argument draw a ring around IRA's?\nIt was suggested that if your argument prevails, then these other plans would be affected as well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3030.81, 3039.067], "stop_times": [3039.067, 3047.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3030.81}, "reply_to": "22799__1_123", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22799__1_125", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Only to the extent that... that they are not payable for any of the reasons enumerated in the statute.\nIf... if they are available for payment at any time for any reason, then... then they would not qualify.\nBut the specified accounts, so long as they're payable for... for one of the factors and that there's a direct nexus between the right to receive the payment and... and the factors, then... then they would qualify for the exemption.\nIt is not, by any stretch, all IRA's.\nIt is just the types that... currently that the petitioners would have or that people would have that would allow the access at any time for any purpose.\nSo it's not that the trustee is looking to have IRA's not be eligible for exemption.\nIt's just the types of accounts from which all the funds can be withdrawn at any time for any purpose.\nThere are many qualifying IRA's that do exist, that can exist.\nIt's just that people have set these up from standard plans allowing them access.\nWhether they access the funds or not is not the key, but the ability to access the money because it doesn't meet the statutory requirements.\nThere are several IRA's, though, that can and do meet the statutory requirements.\nIt's just that the petitioners' don't.\nThe case law in the Eighth Circuit was well settled, prior to the filing of this bankruptcy, that for approximately 12 years, that the definition of similar plan or contract did not include IRA's such as this, and that the on account of factors had to be satisfied to claim this exemption.\nThe... the debtors knew or... or potentially should have known that... that their IRA's were likely not exempt out of Eighth Circuit at the time that they filed because of the way that... that these had been construed for a long period of time.\nSo that they could have set up accounts that did qualify for such exemption, but... but they did not restrict their access in that way.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3047.357, 3053.305, 3060.277, 3072.267, 3075.496, 3084.015, 3090.475, 3095.854, 3100.034, 3105.196, 3113.321, 3117.185, 3118.814, 3136.223, 3147.437, 3155.634], "stop_times": [3053.305, 3060.277, 3072.267, 3075.496, 3084.015, 3090.475, 3095.854, 3100.034, 3105.196, 3113.321, 3117.185, 3118.814, 3136.223, 3147.437, 3155.634, 3159.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3047.357}, "reply_to": "22799__1_124", "speaker": "colli_c_mckiever"}
{"id": "22799__1_126", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Thank you, Ms. McKiever.\nMs. Karlan, you have about 7 minutes.\nYou're not required to use it all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3159.253, 3160.985, 3163.29], "stop_times": [3160.985, 3163.29, 3165.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3159.253}, "reply_to": "22799__1_125", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22799__2_000", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I'm going to retire early.\n[Laughter]\nThe... the first point is that there are two rights under IRA's: the right after age 59 and a half or upon death or disability or illness to withdraw the money without any kind of penalty; and there's a second little exercise, an entirely subsidiary right, which is the ability to withdraw money subject to a penalty earlier.\nThe existence of that second entirely subsidiary, almost never used right... and the statistic on this is in the green brief at page 23... means that the real essence of an IRA is it is a plan on account of age.\nThe second point.\nAs this Court said last year--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3165.611, 3167.446, 3168.135, 3189.416, 3202.365, 3203.616], "stop_times": [3167.446, 3168.135, 3189.416, 3202.365, 3203.616, 3205.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3165.611}, "reply_to": "22799__1_126", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__2_001", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "You don't really have a right to receive it on account of age.\nYou have a right to receive it without a penalty on account of age.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3205.634, 3207.561], "stop_times": [3207.561, 3210.3], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3205.634}, "reply_to": "22799__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__2_002", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Well, at the age of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3210.3], "stop_times": [3211.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3210.3}, "reply_to": "22799__2_001", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__2_003", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "It isn't the right to receive the money that depends on your age.\nIt's the right to receive the money without paying a tax.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3211.385, 3214.335], "stop_times": [3214.335, 3216.617], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3211.385}, "reply_to": "22799__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__2_004", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Well, that's a right that's very important because let me give you just a mathematical example of the difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3216.617], "stop_times": [3221.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3216.617}, "reply_to": "22799__2_003", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__2_005", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "It is a right that's important, but it's not what the statute says.\nThe statute says--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3221.746, 3224.071], "stop_times": [3224.071, 3224.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3221.746}, "reply_to": "22799__2_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__2_006", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "The statute gives that right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3224.777], "stop_times": [3225.577], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3224.777}, "reply_to": "22799__2_005", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__2_007", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--the right to receive a payment on account of, among other things, age.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3225.577], "stop_times": [3228.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3225.577}, "reply_to": "22799__2_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__2_008", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "And you do have that right.\nYou also have another right.\nBut the existence of that second right doesn't negate the first right.\nThe statute doesn't here, for example, as section 522 or section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code does, use the word solely to say you... a plan is eligible only if you have solely the right to receive on this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3228.344, 3229.467, 3230.747, 3233.688], "stop_times": [3229.467, 3230.747, 3233.688, 3245.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3228.344}, "reply_to": "22799__2_007", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__2_009", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "No, but it lists the other reasons: on account of illness, disability, death, age, or length of service.\nAnd... and, you know, when you have a list like that, you would think that the right to receive the money for some other reason doesn't... doesn't qualify.\nI mean, I would think that that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3245.347, 3251.724, 3261.785], "stop_times": [3251.724, 3261.785, 3264.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3245.347}, "reply_to": "22799__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__2_010", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--That might be your first thought, but then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3264.017], "stop_times": [3266.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3264.017}, "reply_to": "22799__2_009", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__2_011", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Or... or at least... at least some other reason that isn't closely related to those.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3266.313], "stop_times": [3269.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3266.313}, "reply_to": "22799__2_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__2_012", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Oh, but I think even if that were your first thought, you would then get to the implication that many of the Justices have been pressing today, which is the implication of that for all plans is tremendous because all plans give... well, I shouldn't say all plans, but I should say the vast majority of other plans, 401(k) plans, profit-sharing plans, and the like, do give you early access to your money, and that's valuable to you.\nThat's why in section--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3269.743, 3293.702], "stop_times": [3293.702, 3295.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3269.743}, "reply_to": "22799__2_011", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__2_013", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Is it true that none of them give unfettered access?\nThey're all qualified in some fashion.\nDo you agree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3295.149, 3298.931, 3301.221], "stop_times": [3298.931, 3301.221, 3302.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3295.149}, "reply_to": "22799__2_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22799__2_014", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--Well, the qualification of hardship has been interpreted by many employers to say, you want to buy a house and you can't otherwise?\nThat's a hardship.\nYou want to sent your kid to school and you can't otherwise?\nYou have huge, you know, consumer loans and you could consolidate that?\nSo it's not as if IRA's operate differently from everything else in the system.\nThat's why--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3302.093, 3317.301, 3308.752, 3312.083, 3318.432, 3323.922], "stop_times": [3317.301, 3308.752, 3312.083, 3318.432, 3323.922, 3324.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3302.093}, "reply_to": "22799__2_013", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__2_015", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Well, yes.\nYou... you don't have to make up a hardship.\nYou just say I want the money.\nOkay, you want the money?\nHere's the money.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3324.485, 3324.667, 3326.468, 3327.735, 3329.091], "stop_times": [3324.667, 3326.468, 3327.735, 3329.091, 3329.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3324.485}, "reply_to": "22799__2_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__2_016", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--I think that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3329.65], "stop_times": [3330.786], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3329.65}, "reply_to": "22799__2_015", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__2_017", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "I don't even have to lie about the hardship.\nI mean--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3330.786, 3332.334, 3332.74], "stop_times": [3332.334, 3332.74, 3333.35], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3330.786}, "reply_to": "22799__2_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__2_018", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--I need the money.\nI don't have the money.\nThat's a hardship.\nIf you... if all you have to say is the magic word hardship, I think that's why we would say IRA's are similar plans or contracts because this Court has made it clear similar is not the same thing as identical.\nSo if similar reasons allow you to withdraw, that's enough.\nAnd that's why in section--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3333.35, 3334.912, 3335.814, 3336.66, 3346.734, 3349.597], "stop_times": [3334.912, 3335.814, 3336.66, 3346.734, 3349.597, 3351.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3333.35}, "reply_to": "22799__2_017", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__2_019", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "In any of these other plans, can you get the money so long as you're willing to pay a penalty?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3351.111], "stop_times": [3356.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3351.111}, "reply_to": "22799__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__2_020", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--As I read the New York City--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3356.951], "stop_times": [3358.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3356.951}, "reply_to": "22799__2_019", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__2_021", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Without any qualification for disability, illness.\nNo.\nI just want the money.\nGive me the money and I'll pay you 10 percent.\nIs there any plan that works like that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3358.528, 3361.776, 3362.375, 3363.336, 3365.868], "stop_times": [3361.776, 3362.375, 3363.336, 3365.868, 3367.336], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3358.528}, "reply_to": "22799__2_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22799__2_022", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "--I don't know, but the New York City Police Department plan appears to work like that.\nYou can take the money out if you pay the 10 percent penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3367.336, 3372.695], "stop_times": [3372.695, 3375.956], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3367.336}, "reply_to": "22799__2_021", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__2_023", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Has any judge ever taken the view that... adopting Justice Scalia's approach, that while you can't put the whole IRA... exempt the whole IRA, but you can exempt 10 percent of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3375.956], "stop_times": [3387.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3375.956}, "reply_to": "22799__2_022", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22799__2_024", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Not to my knowledge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3387.134], "stop_times": [3389.206], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3387.134}, "reply_to": "22799__2_023", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__2_025", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "At least you ought to get that much, it seems to me, under his... his analysis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3389.206], "stop_times": [3392.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3389.206}, "reply_to": "22799__2_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22799__2_026", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "We'd be happier with 10 percent than nothing, but no judge has ever read the statute that way.\nThe second point is a point that comes out of this Court's decision last year in the Till case where the Court said, look, you want to pick a manageable line, a line that's straightforward and familiar.\nAnd here's one that I'll give you that comes directly from the text of section 522(d)(10)(e), which is you should hold that section 522(d)(10)(e) permits the exemption of all plans or contracts that qualify under section 401(a), section 403(a), section 403(b), or section 408 of the Internal Revenue Code, which IRA's do.\nAnd this may have led to some of the confusion, I think, between counsel in this case, which is in the Andersen case, although Ms. Andersen was receiving money under section 408, it was not a 408 individual retirement account.\nIt was, instead, under section 403(b), an individual retirement annuity.\nSo there are, as far as we know, no individual retirement accounts, the things you put money into while the money accumulates before you're ready to retire and you transfer it into an annuity that are customizable.\nAnd indeed, for the kinds of debtors who need the protections of section 522(d)(10)(e) the most, the unsophisticated people who are putting their money away in an IRA because their pension plan either doesn't exist at all or isn't adequate for their retirement, the idea that they would understand to go in and negotiate at a bank for a customizable IRA strikes me as quite implausible.\nThat's why we think the most sensible reading of the statute here is to exempt IRA's when the money in them is necessary for the support of the debtor.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3392.099, 3397.29, 3408.0, 3431.85, 3444.595, 3449.61, 3462.672, 3484.201, 3492.614], "stop_times": [3397.29, 3408.0, 3431.85, 3444.595, 3449.61, 3462.672, 3484.201, 3492.614, 3493.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3392.099}, "reply_to": "22799__2_025", "speaker": "pamela_s_karlan"}
{"id": "22799__2_027", "conversation_id": "22799", "text": "Thank you.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1407", "start_times": [3493.47, 3495.796], "stop_times": [3495.796, 3496.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3493.47}, "reply_to": "22799__2_026", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21681__0_000", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 04-340, San Remo Hotel v. the City and County of San Francisco.\nMr. Utrecht, is that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [0.0, 10.26], "stop_times": [10.26, 13.835], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21681__0_001", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.\nMr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe Ninth Circuit decision in this case should be reversed for three reasons.\nThe first reason is that the result is unfair and the rationale of the court is unfair.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [13.835, 14.443, 17.09, 21.43], "stop_times": [14.443, 17.09, 21.43, 27.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.835}, "reply_to": "21681__0_000", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_002", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, what are your... exactly what claims are... is your client now raising in Federal court?\nI mean, we don't take a case to just decide if something is unfair.\nWhat are the precise claims your client is raising now in Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [27.101, 35.216, 38.761], "stop_times": [35.216, 38.761, 44.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 27.101}, "reply_to": "21681__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21681__0_003", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "My client is making a facial and as-applied takings challenge to both the hotel conversion ordinance and the regulatory scheme of which it is a part.\nAnd that claim... that Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [44.862, 53.532], "stop_times": [53.532, 56.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 44.862}, "reply_to": "21681__0_002", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_004", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I somehow thought that your question had boiled down to whether there was issue preclusion here.\nAm I wrong?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [56.769, 62.691], "stop_times": [62.691, 63.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 56.769}, "reply_to": "21681__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21681__0_005", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--The issue before this Court is whether there's issue preclusion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [63.467], "stop_times": [66.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 63.467}, "reply_to": "21681__0_004", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_006", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I'm talking about the issues in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [66.799], "stop_times": [69.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 66.799}, "reply_to": "21681__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21681__0_007", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--Okay.\nThe issue in this Court is whether the Federal takings claim should be precluded under issue preclusion by a State court judgment that did not decide the Federal takings claim and could not have decided the Federal takings claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [69.281, 71.038], "stop_times": [71.038, 83.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 69.281}, "reply_to": "21681__0_006", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_008", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, as I understand, I... I would... I will grant you that there are moments in the... in the Ninth Circuit opinion in which there seems to be a shift back and forth in the rhetoric between claim preclusion and issue preclusion.\nBut as I understand what the Ninth Circuit held, it did not hold that your claim was necessarily out of court because of claim preclusion.\nIt held that your claim failed because of the effect of issue preclusion on elements that were common, factual elements common to both the claim in the State court and the claim that you sought to bring in the Federal court.\nAm... am I correct about that, about what the Ninth Circuit held?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [83.623, 95.764, 105.751, 122.265], "stop_times": [95.764, 105.751, 122.265, 126.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 83.623}, "reply_to": "21681__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21681__0_009", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "The Ninth Circuit did limit its holding to issue preclusion.\nIt did not rule on claim preclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [126.45, 130.195], "stop_times": [130.195, 131.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 126.45}, "reply_to": "21681__0_008", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_010", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [131.743], "stop_times": [132.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 131.743}, "reply_to": "21681__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21681__0_011", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "The other part of your question about whether it was based on factual determinations could not have been based on factual determinations.\nInstead, it was based on the prior State court determination that we did not state a claim... state a cause of action under California law for State compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [132.016, 138.9], "stop_times": [138.9, 147.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 132.016}, "reply_to": "21681__0_010", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_012", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, the Supreme Court of California decided only the State constitutional question, did it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [147.815], "stop_times": [155.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 147.815}, "reply_to": "21681__0_011", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21681__0_013", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "That's correct, Mr. Chief Justice.\nAnd because of that, we have never had an opportunity to have our Federal takings claim decided on the merits.\nWe believe that that undermines the Federal courts' primacy in deciding Federal questions, particularly Federal constitutional questions.\nWe also believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [155.326, 157.089, 164.89, 173.026], "stop_times": [157.089, 164.89, 173.026, 174.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 155.326}, "reply_to": "21681__0_012", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_014", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, it was this Court's decision in the Williamson County case that led you and I assume other lawyers in these takings cases to return to State court and try to litigate everything.\nIsn't that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [174.441, 188.649], "stop_times": [188.649, 189.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 174.441}, "reply_to": "21681__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21681__0_015", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--This Court in Williamson County said that before you could bring a Federal takings claim, you had to go to State court and seek compensation under State law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [189.464], "stop_times": [197.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 189.464}, "reply_to": "21681__0_014", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_016", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "And you haven't asked us to revisit that Williamson County case, have you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [197.021], "stop_times": [201.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 197.021}, "reply_to": "21681__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21681__0_017", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "We have not asked that this Court reconsider the decision in Williamson County.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [201.916], "stop_times": [205.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 201.916}, "reply_to": "21681__0_016", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_018", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Maybe you should have.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [205.368], "stop_times": [206.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 205.368}, "reply_to": "21681__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21681__0_019", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, at this point I don't think that we can.\nPerhaps we could have in 1998 when the Ninth Circuit applied the Williamson County case and ordered us to go to State court with our unripe Federal claims, unripe under this Court's holding in Williamson.\nBut I think that at this point the question before the Court is given that we've complied with the procedural requirements that this Court established in Williamson County, are we now precluded by issue preclusion in the second litigation that this Court ordered because of the State court compensation ruling.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [206.433, 210.209, 220.622], "stop_times": [210.209, 220.622, 237.201], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 206.433}, "reply_to": "21681__0_018", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_020", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Mr. Utrecht, you... you refer to the primacy of Federal courts.\nI'm... I'm not clear as to whether you are arguing for a different disposition where suit is first brought in Federal court erroneously because there's been no exhaustion and then the plaintiff is sent back to State court from the situation in which a plaintiff does the right thing and goes to State court immediately.\nNow, in that case, would... would you still argue for primacy of the Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [237.201, 240.534, 267.057], "stop_times": [240.534, 267.057, 271.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 237.201}, "reply_to": "21681__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21681__0_021", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Absolutely, Your Honor.\nI think that what this Court established in Williamson County is a two separate litigation scheme.\nThe first litigation concerns State compensation, and the second litigation concerns the Federal takings claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [271.451, 272.801, 279.089], "stop_times": [272.801, 279.089, 285.54], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 271.451}, "reply_to": "21681__0_020", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_022", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "So... so your case does not hinge on the fact that when the State court acted, there was a pending... a pending Federal case asking for the Federal constitutional question to be resolved by a Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [285.54], "stop_times": [297.679], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 285.54}, "reply_to": "21681__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21681__0_023", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "That's correct.\nI think that the Second Circuit got this issue correct in the Santini case when it concluded that whether you started in Federal court and were ordered to proceed to State court under Williamson County or you looked at the Williamson County case and said, I'm going to start in State court because that's what Williamson County says that I'm required to do, it doesn't matter.\nIt shouldn't matter for purposes of issue preclusion on the Federal takings claim once it has been made ripe under the procedures required by Williamson County.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [297.679, 299.144, 316.3], "stop_times": [299.144, 316.3, 324.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 297.679}, "reply_to": "21681__0_022", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_024", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Is it your position that issue preclusion doesn't apply at all, or that there was no issue decided in the State court proceeding that carries over into the Federal proceeding?\nWhich one is it?\nWhat... you suggested... you said, number one, no facts were found.\nThe question was whether there was sufficient statements to survive a 12(b)(6) or its counterpart dismissal motion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [324.669, 339.407, 342.52, 347.109], "stop_times": [339.407, 342.52, 347.109, 359.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 324.669}, "reply_to": "21681__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21681__0_025", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Our... our primary position is that issue preclusion does not apply for the same reasons that this Court found that issue preclusion did not apply in England when you were required to do two separate litigations.\nThe question of whether the Ninth Circuit correctly applied issue preclusion law... we also raise that as our last argument in our opening brief, but our primary argument here today is that issue preclusion should not apply at all to Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [359.093, 370.13], "stop_times": [370.13, 382.652], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 359.093}, "reply_to": "21681__0_024", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_026", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "And if it did... if it did apply, what issues would be precluded?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [382.652], "stop_times": [386.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 382.652}, "reply_to": "21681__0_025", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21681__0_027", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--In our position no issue should be precluded because under California law, which the Ninth Circuit was obligated to apply, only identical issues that are resolved under a different set of laws can be precluded in the second proceeding, and there was no identical issue finding by the Ninth Circuit.\nInstead, the Ninth Circuit applied its equivalent determination finding.\nBut I think that the... the real issue before this Court is not the California preclusion law question, but the real issue is whether this Court's decision in England should... or the rationale of this Court's decision in England should be applied to the very similar circumstances raised by--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [386.657, 406.186, 410.407], "stop_times": [406.186, 410.407, 427.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 386.657}, "reply_to": "21681__0_026", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_028", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Is... excuse me.\nIs... is it your position that there is an exaction here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [427.132, 429.281], "stop_times": [429.281, 431.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 427.132}, "reply_to": "21681__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21681__0_029", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [431.943], "stop_times": [432.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 431.943}, "reply_to": "21681__0_028", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_030", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "It... are... are you bound by a finding in the State court that there was no exaction, or was there no such finding?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [432.896], "stop_times": [442.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 432.896}, "reply_to": "21681__0_029", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21681__0_031", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I don't believe there was such a finding.\nI think that the California Supreme Court decided that the exaction met the State law compensation requirements and did not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [442.613, 444.702], "stop_times": [444.702, 455.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 442.613}, "reply_to": "21681__0_030", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_032", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Was the... was the Ninth Circuit wrong in indicating that there was no exaction?\nThat's the way I read its opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [455.107, 458.844], "stop_times": [458.844, 461.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 455.107}, "reply_to": "21681__0_031", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21681__0_033", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--I... I don't read the Ninth Circuit's opinion as saying there was no exaction.\nI think the Ninth Circuit held that the exaction was imposed by legislation rather than by an administrative proceeding, and because of that, it was subject to a different standard than exactions imposed in administrative proceedings.\nBut I think there's no question in this case that an... an exaction was imposed and was actually paid.\nThis is not a... this is not a case where there's an issue about whether the exaction was imposed.\nThe issues were what standard was used to review that exaction and whether the exaction was constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [461.876, 465.88, 478.134, 483.502, 487.962], "stop_times": [465.88, 478.134, 483.502, 487.962, 494.373], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 461.876}, "reply_to": "21681__0_032", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_034", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "But... but the Ninth Circuit seemed to think that Dolan doesn't apply, and I take it that you would say that it does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [494.373], "stop_times": [500.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 494.373}, "reply_to": "21681__0_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21681__0_035", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, I think this Court has not decided whether exactions imposed by legislation are treated differently than exactions imposed by administrative proceedings.\nThe State court in this case determined that under State compensation law that mattered.\nBut this Court has not decided that.\nThe Ninth Circuit seemed to indicate that it was in general agreement with the California Supreme Court, but again, because it didn't actually decide the merits, it just decided that there was an equivalent determination under State law, it didn't get to the final question of whether this was an exaction and what the proper standard was.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [500.104, 509.246, 514.118, 515.849], "stop_times": [509.246, 514.118, 515.849, 532.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 500.104}, "reply_to": "21681__0_034", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_036", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "And you don't want us get that... to that question either, whether Dolan applies or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [532.831], "stop_times": [537.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 532.831}, "reply_to": "21681__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21681__0_037", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I did want this Court to get to that question, but when this Court rejected question 2, I think this Court decided that it did not want to get to that question.\nBut we... and we did not brief that question because this Court did not grant certiorari on question number 2.\nBut we definitely did want this Court to decide that question, and obviously, if... since the Court can't decide it in this case, we would, obviously, want the Court to decide it in some other case, hopefully before this case is finally resolved in the courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [537.093, 544.311, 549.921], "stop_times": [544.311, 549.921, 563.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 537.093}, "reply_to": "21681__0_036", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_038", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Mr. Utrecht, if I understand the respondents' brief correctly, there is on pages 10 and 11 a whole list of issues that they say were determined... raised, litigated, and determined in the State court.\nSo, for example, that the HCO's housing replacement fees bear a reasonable relationship to loss of housing, the use of a defined historical measure... measurement point reasonably related to the HCO's... and it goes on for a paragraph, citing issues that respondents say that were raised, litigated, and decided in the California Supreme Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [563.076, 579.697], "stop_times": [579.697, 608.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 563.076}, "reply_to": "21681__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21681__0_039", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I think that technically what the California Supreme Court decided was that our facts did not state a cause of action under State law.\nWhat they cite here as findings are actually discussions of the legal issues raised by the State court complaint under State law.\nThey don't amount to a factual finding.\nThere was no trial.\nThere was no summary judgment motion.\nThere was no evidence presented on any of these points.\nThese are--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [608.355, 616.696, 626.61, 628.901, 629.877, 632.26, 634.433], "stop_times": [616.696, 626.61, 628.901, 629.877, 632.26, 634.433, 635.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 608.355}, "reply_to": "21681__0_038", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_040", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "How did the case go up?\nOn a motion to dismiss?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [635.321, 637.353], "stop_times": [637.353, 639.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 635.321}, "reply_to": "21681__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21681__0_041", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--The case in State court went up on a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the trial court, reversed by the State court of appeal, and then affirmed by the California Supreme Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [639.009], "stop_times": [648.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 639.009}, "reply_to": "21681__0_040", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_042", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "So, in effect, then maybe... are you saying this, that there is no issue preclusion here because the... the ruling that there was no statement of a cause of action was, in fact, a disposition of the claim without there being any resolution of any fact issue upon which the claim might depend.\nIs that what you're saying?\nAnd therefore... and... and that is the reason why there is no issue preclusion?\nIs that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [648.961, 671.574, 672.679, 677.346], "stop_times": [671.574, 672.679, 677.346, 677.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 648.961}, "reply_to": "21681__0_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21681__0_043", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "That's not the argument that we made in this Court.\nThat is an argument that we made in the lower courts.\nThe argument that we're making in this Court is rather that under the England case... or rather, the rationale of the England case, there shouldn't be any issue preclusion whether or not the State courts made any factual findings.\nI don't think that the question as framed by Your Honor is presented by the briefs.\nI mean, obviously, that was a contention of ours.\nWe think that's a correct statement of how the case should have been resolved by the Ninth Circuit, but the Ninth Circuit instead chose not to look at that issue or not to decide the case on that issue, but instead to decide under its prior precedents of Dodd and Palomar, that issue preclusion applied and then applied its own formulation of the equivalent--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [677.955, 680.253, 682.106, 693.759, 700.424, 703.248], "stop_times": [680.253, 682.106, 693.759, 700.424, 703.248, 722.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 677.955}, "reply_to": "21681__0_042", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_044", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "But... but isn't there an essential step to find out that there were issues?\nBecause I think the way you're phrasing the question, it says, if there were issues decided, they weren't precluded.\nBut if there are no issues, that's... that's not what's involved in this case.\nThe simplest ground on which you could knock out issue preclusion is that no issues were decided.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [722.976, 726.646, 734.5, 741.324], "stop_times": [726.646, 734.5, 741.324, 747.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 722.976}, "reply_to": "21681__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21681__0_045", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--That would be a simple route to knocking out the case.\nThe Ninth Circuit rejected that argument.\nThat question did not seem cert-worthy and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [747.187, 751.06, 753.309], "stop_times": [751.06, 753.309, 756.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 747.187}, "reply_to": "21681__0_044", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_046", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "What... what were the issues that the Ninth Circuit thought were decided?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [756.78], "stop_times": [759.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 756.78}, "reply_to": "21681__0_045", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21681__0_047", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--I can't quite tell.\nI think what the Ninth Circuit said was that because State law and Federal law on this question was similar, at least in the Ninth Circuit's understanding, that the State court determination was an equivalent determination.\nOnce they made that finding, that there was an equivalent determination under State law, the Ninth Circuit decided that the claim must be precluded by issue preclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [759.851, 762.026, 774.097], "stop_times": [762.026, 774.097, 783.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 759.851}, "reply_to": "21681__0_046", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_048", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, issue preclusion does extend to questions of law, as well as fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [783.013], "stop_times": [787.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 783.013}, "reply_to": "21681__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21681__0_049", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "It does extend to questions of law.\nThe problem, of course, is that the State court question of law that was decided was whether our... we were entitled to compensation under State compensation law.\nThe State court did not decide whether we were entitled to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [787.914, 790.206, 797.885], "stop_times": [790.206, 797.885, 803.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 787.914}, "reply_to": "21681__0_048", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_050", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I thought they said that their... their compensation law was congruent with ours?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [803.325], "stop_times": [809.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 803.325}, "reply_to": "21681__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21681__0_051", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "The California Supreme Court did say that its compensation law--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [809.608], "stop_times": [812.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 809.608}, "reply_to": "21681__0_050", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_052", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "What do you... what do you think that means?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [812.95], "stop_times": [814.162], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 812.95}, "reply_to": "21681__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21681__0_053", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--I think that means that the California Supreme Court would like to believe that its law is congruent with this Court's decisions.\nI think that, in fact, the California Supreme Court does not follow this Court's precedents in this area of law, and I think we actually argued the first time that we were in front of the Ninth Circuit, that it was futile to go to State court precisely for that reason.\nThat argument was also rejected by the Ninth Circuit.\nI think that it cannot be that the State courts are going to be the... our final arbiter of whether their law is in fact congruent with Federal law or not.\nIt left either to this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [814.162, 821.472, 834.365, 836.752, 847.187], "stop_times": [821.472, 834.365, 836.752, 847.187, 849.208], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 814.162}, "reply_to": "21681__0_052", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_054", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "What do you understand the word congruent to mean?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [849.208], "stop_times": [852.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.208}, "reply_to": "21681__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21681__0_055", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--I think congruent means that it's equivalent.\nI think... I think the Ninth Circuit's view of an equivalent determination is that it's close.\nIt's close enough for government work, perhaps.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [852.354, 858.444, 862.739, 865.587], "stop_times": [858.444, 862.739, 865.587, 866.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 852.354}, "reply_to": "21681__0_054", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_056", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "What... what is the claim you want to make?\nThat is, my reading of the California State court opinion says you came into their court and you said, look, this ordinance in San Francisco violates the Fifth Amendment, I guess, because it doesn't make any sense.\nThe... there's no good basis, no sound basis for requiring us to pay a fee in order to convert rooms.\nAnyway, the room isn't a house.\nAnyway, it makes no sense as applied to us.\nAnyway, they admit they just want to raise revenue.\nAnyway, we're going to give the tenant a place to live for the rest of his life.\nAll right.\nThose were the claims.\nAnd in each case, the California Supreme Court said you're wrong.\nYou're wrong because it does help preserve rooms, because it does have a reasonable purpose in a city that's crowded, because the tenant who's there for life might move out, and we want to keep the room even if he moves out because he dies.\nAnd anyway, it's not an issue of whether your case is special.\nThis makes sense as a general rule.\nAll right?\nThey decided it.\nYou raised it.\nNow, what else is it you want to raise in Federal court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [866.481, 871.984, 887.567, 895.181, 898.009, 901.671, 904.577, 912.199, 913.259, 913.813, 917.487, 932.785, 937.008, 939.673, 941.836, 941.207, 943.124], "stop_times": [871.984, 887.567, 895.181, 898.009, 901.671, 904.577, 912.199, 913.259, 913.813, 917.487, 932.785, 937.008, 939.673, 941.836, 941.207, 943.124, 946.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 866.481}, "reply_to": "21681__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21681__0_057", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I think that what's important is the very beginning of your question.\nYou said that we said in State court that it violated the Fifth Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [946.457, 949.749], "stop_times": [949.749, 952.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 946.457}, "reply_to": "21681__0_056", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_058", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I don't know if you said it.\nI just said that that is what I read in the California Supreme Court opinion that Justice Werdegar wrote.\nAnd so what I'm asking you is whether they should have or whether they shouldn't have, they did seem to decide those five issues.\nAnd so my question to you is, what else do you want to raise?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [952.957, 954.121, 960.318, 966.93], "stop_times": [954.121, 960.318, 966.93, 970.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 952.957}, "reply_to": "21681__0_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21681__0_059", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "The California Supreme Court decided whether those legal propositions were relevant under the State constitution and the State compensation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [970.274], "stop_times": [980.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 970.274}, "reply_to": "21681__0_058", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_060", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I thought it decided a different thing.\nI thought that it decided that in part that was the reason for their decision.\nBut the reason they reached their decision is they thought on each of those five matters that the City of San Francisco had a reasonable legislative purpose for its ordinance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [980.116, 981.231, 985.015], "stop_times": [981.231, 985.015, 995.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 980.116}, "reply_to": "21681__0_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21681__0_061", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--And they made that decision under State law.\nThey... they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [995.957, 999.445], "stop_times": [999.445, 1000.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 995.957}, "reply_to": "21681__0_060", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_062", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Just as, suppose, for example, they had decided that the hotel clerk or the temporary manager did speak English, and in fact, he was a scholar of English.\nAnd suppose that that had been the key matter for its decision of State law.\nI take it, if you came into Federal court, even if the issue were quite different, you would be bound by that factual determination.\nThat's why I'm asking you.\nIt seems to me here they have decided matters of whether there was a reasonable purpose or not for this particular ordinance and as applied to you.\nNow, what else do you want to raise in Federal court that was not encompassed by what I just described?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1000.757, 1011.85, 1017.495, 1025.938, 1027.482, 1040.549], "stop_times": [1011.85, 1017.495, 1025.938, 1027.482, 1040.549, 1047.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1000.757}, "reply_to": "21681__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21681__0_063", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--In the hypothetical that Your Honor gave of a factual determination that the clerk spoke English well, that fact under the England case and under England's rationale would be subject to relitigation in Federal court in the Pullman context.\nAnd we believe that there's no significant difference between our context and the Pullman context.\nI do recognize that that is contrary to the normal rules of res judicata.\nThe normal rules of res judicata are designed to prevent exactly what this Court decided should be... should happen--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1047.415, 1063.535, 1067.92, 1072.928], "stop_times": [1063.535, 1067.92, 1072.928, 1080.06], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1047.415}, "reply_to": "21681__0_062", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_064", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "No, but am I right?\nI'm just trying to narrow the issue in my mind.\nAm I right you want to raise one, two, three, four, or five of those issues that I just described and nothing more?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1080.06, 1080.832, 1082.838], "stop_times": [1080.832, 1082.838, 1091.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1080.06}, "reply_to": "21681__0_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21681__0_065", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--The factual claims--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1091.605], "stop_times": [1093.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1091.605}, "reply_to": "21681__0_064", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_066", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Am I right about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1093.283], "stop_times": [1093.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1093.283}, "reply_to": "21681__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21681__0_067", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nThe factual claims that we're making in Federal court are the same factual claims that we made in the State court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1093.864, 1094.63], "stop_times": [1094.63, 1100.379], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1093.864}, "reply_to": "21681__0_066", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_068", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, but is there precedent that what is reasonable for the State constitution is always reasonable for the Federal Constitution?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1100.379], "stop_times": [1107.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.379}, "reply_to": "21681__0_067", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21681__0_069", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--That--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1107.296], "stop_times": [1108.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1107.296}, "reply_to": "21681__0_068", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_070", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I mean, this is somewhat different than simply a specific factual finding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1108.23], "stop_times": [1112.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1108.23}, "reply_to": "21681__0_069", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21681__0_071", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--Well, in this particular case, they found that the facts that we alleged did not give rise to a right to compensation under State law.\nAnd this Court in Williamson said once you've been denied compensation in State court, once it's certain that the State courts will not provide you relief under State law, you have a ripe Federal takings claim.\nAt that point, the Federal courts must be able to look at the factual questions underpinning the Federal takings analysis, so that the questions of whether in fact this law substantially advances a legitimate government interest or it interferes unduly with the reasonable investment-backed expectations under Penn Central, which requires a detailed ad hoc factual analysis, that that must be done by the Federal courts and cannot be precluded by a State court determination that is not considering the Federal questions at the time or... and it cannot even under this Court's decision in Williamson County... cannot consider the Federal question that's at issue.\nThe... the city... the city contends that... that a decision in our favor would result in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1112.429, 1119.722, 1131.351, 1168.802], "stop_times": [1119.722, 1131.351, 1168.802, 1177.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1112.429}, "reply_to": "21681__0_070", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_072", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "May I interrupt?\nBecause I'm just not following one part of your argument.\nAre you saying that the Pennsylvania analysis, the ad hoc analysis, was not made in the State court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1177.226, 1178.72, 1180.762], "stop_times": [1178.72, 1180.762, 1187.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1177.226}, "reply_to": "21681__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21681__0_073", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--No, I'm not saying that it was not made.\nI'm saying that a State court disposed of that claim without doing a factual trial, but simply based on the allegations in the complaint.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1187.093, 1188.802], "stop_times": [1188.802, 1197.683], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1187.093}, "reply_to": "21681__0_072", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_074", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Why... now, why should that not be binding on you if your allegations were, in fact, insufficient under Penn Central?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1197.683], "stop_times": [1205.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.683}, "reply_to": "21681__0_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21681__0_075", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "The court did not find that they were insufficient under Penn Central.\nThe court found that under State compensation law, which it believed was congruent with this Court's decision in Penn Central--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1205.822, 1209.137], "stop_times": [1209.137, 1215.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1205.822}, "reply_to": "21681__0_074", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_076", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, I can understand how you should be free to argue that in fact the two rules are not congruent, that there's broader recovery under the Federal system.\nBut if we decided that the two... if we agreed with them that they were congruent, then why should not issue preclusion apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1215.57, 1222.403], "stop_times": [1222.403, 1230.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1215.57}, "reply_to": "21681__0_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21681__0_077", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--Issue preclusion should not apply because it prevents the Federal courts from deciding the Federal takings questions.\nIf--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1230.486, 1236.053], "stop_times": [1236.053, 1236.763], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1230.486}, "reply_to": "21681__0_076", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_078", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Yes, but... but it's just a conclusion from issues that have... have been resolved on which normally we would defer to the State court.\nNow, why... why shouldn't we defer here again?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1236.763, 1244.162], "stop_times": [1244.162, 1245.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1236.763}, "reply_to": "21681__0_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21681__0_079", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--You shouldn't defer here because in Williamson County, you required that parties go through two litigations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1245.856], "stop_times": [1250.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1245.856}, "reply_to": "21681__0_078", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_080", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1250.886], "stop_times": [1251.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1250.886}, "reply_to": "21681__0_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21681__0_081", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "And all the rules of res judicata are designed to prevent two litigations and to require a single litigation.\nIt makes no sense, in the context of a two-litigation system that this Court set up, to then impose issue preclusion.\nOtherwise, Federal--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1251.138, 1256.257, 1264.774], "stop_times": [1256.257, 1264.774, 1266.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1251.138}, "reply_to": "21681__0_080", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_082", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "But it isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1266.177], "stop_times": [1266.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1266.177}, "reply_to": "21681__0_081", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21681__0_083", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "That doesn't make sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1266.771], "stop_times": [1267.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1266.771}, "reply_to": "21681__0_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21681__0_084", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--It isn't clear from Williamson County that this Court envisioned two... two separate determinations of fact issues: one in State court and one in Federal.\nThat isn't clear from the face of Williamson County.\nThat was a case where it was thought, at least, by members of the Court that the claims in that case just weren't ripe yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1267.332, 1280.708, 1283.473], "stop_times": [1280.708, 1283.473, 1293.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1267.332}, "reply_to": "21681__0_083", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21681__0_085", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1293.322], "stop_times": [1294.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1293.322}, "reply_to": "21681__0_084", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_086", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "And I don't... I didn't understand it to set up parallel systems of factual determinations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1294.835], "stop_times": [1301.522], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1294.835}, "reply_to": "21681__0_085", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21681__0_087", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "It clearly set up parallel systems of litigation.\nIt did not discuss the question of what happens in the second litigation, but I think that this Court in England decided the proper solution to a situation where the Federal law requires--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1301.522, 1304.201], "stop_times": [1304.201, 1316.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1301.522}, "reply_to": "21681__0_086", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_088", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, England was an abstention case and had to deal with the effect of 28 U.S. Code 1738, the Full Faith and Credit Act.\nBut I didn't think that the England case just totally destroyed the notion of full faith and credit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1316.777, 1326.072], "stop_times": [1326.072, 1333.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1316.777}, "reply_to": "21681__0_087", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21681__0_089", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--The England case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1333.357], "stop_times": [1334.698], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1333.357}, "reply_to": "21681__0_088", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_090", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--as... as applied section 1738.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1334.698], "stop_times": [1337.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1334.698}, "reply_to": "21681__0_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21681__0_091", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--The England case held that when you're required to do two separate litigations, the first in State court and the second in Federal court as a result of Pullman abstention, that in the second case there would be no factual or legal issues that were decided in the State court that would be preclusive in deciding the Federal claims--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1337.77], "stop_times": [1356.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1337.77}, "reply_to": "21681__0_090", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_092", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "My--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1356.831], "stop_times": [1357.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1356.831}, "reply_to": "21681__0_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21681__0_093", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "This is not a... a Pullman abstention case here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1357.113], "stop_times": [1360.547], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1357.113}, "reply_to": "21681__0_092", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21681__0_094", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--As it comes to this Court, it is not a Pullman abstention case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1360.547], "stop_times": [1362.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1360.547}, "reply_to": "21681__0_093", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_095", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1362.765], "stop_times": [1363.118], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1362.765}, "reply_to": "21681__0_094", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21681__0_096", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "It is a case where Williamson County has held that before you can bring your Federal takings claim, you must first go to State court and obtain a determination of whether you're entitled to compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1363.118], "stop_times": [1373.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1363.118}, "reply_to": "21681__0_095", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_097", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I don't think that Williamson County ever contemplated that you would have to take your case all the way to the supreme court of the State.\nNow, it may be that you had no choice once you got into the State court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1373.61, 1384.666], "stop_times": [1384.666, 1390.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1373.61}, "reply_to": "21681__0_096", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21681__0_098", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I think that's correct, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThe Williamson County case says that you have to go to State court and use the State procedures available for State compensation.\nYou cannot do that without going through the appellate procedure provided by the State courts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1390.627, 1393.192, 1400.999], "stop_times": [1393.192, 1400.999, 1407.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1390.627}, "reply_to": "21681__0_097", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_099", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Do you think Williamson County by its terms spoke of going to State court and... rather than just a State administrative proceeding?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1407.113], "stop_times": [1418.445], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1407.113}, "reply_to": "21681__0_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21681__0_100", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--As... as I read the Williamson County opinion, it says that you have to use the State procedures that are available to obtain compensation.\nAnd the State procedures in California are an inverse condemnation claim under State law, i.e., a State compensation claim, which, as I read Williamson County... and I think all the other practitioners of takings law read Williamson County... means that you have to go to State court and ask for compensation before you can proceed to Federal court.\nNow, it is possible that a State could have an administrative procedure instead of a judicial procedure in order to decide takings claim... rather, to decide State compensation claims.\nIf there were such an administrative procedure for obtaining State compensation, then that perhaps is what Williamson County envisioned that you would follow.\nBut I think Williamson County says whatever procedure is provided by the State, you have to exhaust that and obtain a denial from the State of your right to compensation before you can proceed to Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1418.445, 1426.562, 1444.514, 1454.941, 1462.727], "stop_times": [1426.562, 1444.514, 1454.941, 1462.727, 1473.845], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1418.445}, "reply_to": "21681__0_099", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_101", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "If you... if you disagreed with the resolution of an issue by the State court, which issue would be determinative of your Federal claim, if we hold against you here?\nDo you think you would have a right to appeal that State court... State supreme court resolution of that issue to this Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1473.845, 1484.167], "stop_times": [1484.167, 1492.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1473.845}, "reply_to": "21681__0_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21681__0_102", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1492.049], "stop_times": [1493.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1492.049}, "reply_to": "21681__0_101", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_103", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "What... what strikes me as strange about this... this system is... is not leaving it to the State courts to make these decisions.\nThat's perfectly fine.\nWe do that all the time.\nBut these are decisions that are going to be conclusive on... on a Federal claim, and yet there's no way to... to appeal from the State supreme court here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1493.495, 1500.776, 1501.782, 1502.931], "stop_times": [1500.776, 1501.782, 1502.931, 1515.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1493.495}, "reply_to": "21681__0_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21681__0_104", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I think that's exactly the problem.\nThat was the problem we faced when the California Supreme Court did not decide our Federal claims.\nI think because they only decided our State claims, we were not able to seek certiorari on the merits from the State supreme court decision, and then I think the procedure contemplated by this Court in Williamson County was that you could return to Federal court with your Federal claim once the State compensation claim--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1515.236, 1517.14, 1520.956], "stop_times": [1517.14, 1520.956, 1537.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1515.236}, "reply_to": "21681__0_103", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_105", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Didn't you seek to reserve the Federal question in the... in the State court litigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1537.209], "stop_times": [1543.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1537.209}, "reply_to": "21681__0_104", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21681__0_106", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--We did reserve the Federal question in the State court litigation.\nI'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1543.562, 1546.869], "stop_times": [1546.869, 1549.118], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1543.562}, "reply_to": "21681__0_105", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__0_107", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Very well, Mr. Utrecht.\nMr. Waxman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1549.118, 1550.861], "stop_times": [1550.861, 1552.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1549.118}, "reply_to": "21681__0_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21681__1_000", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe respondents had a full and fair opportunity to litigate every issue relevant to their Federal claims.\nWhen they came to Federal court, they agreed that, with one exception, all of the relevant issues, both the ultimate issue of a reasonable relationship and all of the predicate issues that we recited, as Justice Ginsburg noted, at pages 10 and 11 of our brief, had already been litigated.\nThey said that they... there was one difference, which is that they claimed that under the Fifth Amendment, the level of scrutiny under a substantially advances claim, which is what they were litigating, was the Nollan/Dolan test of rough proportionality, not the more deferential standard of review that the California Supreme Court applied in its decision.\nAnd as to that issue, they received a full litigation and adjudication on the merits in the courts below.\nThey petitioned this Court on that substantive question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1552.558, 1562.024, 1569.676, 1589.392, 1614.11, 1621.823], "stop_times": [1562.024, 1569.676, 1589.392, 1614.11, 1621.823, 1625.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1552.558}, "reply_to": "21681__0_107", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_001", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "You say the courts below.\nAre you talking about the California State courts or the Ninth Circuit?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1625.225, 1627.871], "stop_times": [1627.871, 1634.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1625.225}, "reply_to": "21681__1_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21681__1_002", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, here I was referring to the district court and the Ninth Circuit following the California Supreme Court's decision.\nThey came to the courts and said there's one thing that's different.\nThere's one element that's different, and that is Nollan and Dolan.\nHeightened scrutiny should apply to a financial exaction of this sort.\nThe California Supreme Court disagreed under California law.\nWe want to litigate that issue here, and they did.\nThe district court ruled against them on the merits.\nThe Ninth Circuit ruled against them on the merits.\nThey petitioned this Court in question 2.\nThis Court denied review.\nIn all other respects, their claims... their case under their Federal claims, which were not claim-precluded, were, as the district court found, quote, based on the exact same facts and circumstances argued before the State courts.\nNow, they... their case here boils down... and it's quite clear from their reply brief, and Mr. Utrecht has reaffirmed it... to an argument that this Court's 1963 decision in England ought to be extended to the Williamson County context.\nNow, I believe that England is distinguishable... highly distinguishable from the facts or the circumstances of a Williamson County remand for any number of reasons that I can explain.\nBut ultimately my point is this.\nEngland is fatal to them.\nIf England were extended to this circumstance, they would lose, and that is because in England, the Court was entirely clear that as to the State law issue that the Supreme Court said should be presented to the Louisiana courts first for determination, there was no doubt that issue preclusion was going to apply to that.\nThe question was whether or not principles of preclusion would bar them from coming back to Federal court otherwise.\nIn other words, in England, the question... there was a challenge by chiropractors to a State law that said chiropractors have to go to medical school or something like that.\nA Federal complaint was raised under 1983, saying that violates our Fourteenth Amendment rights.\nThat's wrong.\nThe Supreme Court said, well, wait a minute.\nWe're not sure that the Louisiana law covers chiropractors, and if it doesn't, we can avoid the Federal constitutional question.\nSo we're going to, in effect, certify to the Louisiana courts the question, the State law question, whether chiropractors are covered.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1634.067, 1641.044, 1645.657, 1651.134, 1655.467, 1660.907, 1663.99, 1666.591, 1669.235, 1672.154, 1674.109, 1690.958, 1709.535, 1721.906, 1724.092, 1726.338, 1750.365, 1759.449, 1770.14, 1777.48, 1778.461, 1781.378, 1792.042, 1801.009], "stop_times": [1641.044, 1645.657, 1651.134, 1655.467, 1660.907, 1663.99, 1666.591, 1669.235, 1672.154, 1674.109, 1690.958, 1709.535, 1721.906, 1724.092, 1726.338, 1750.365, 1759.449, 1770.14, 1777.48, 1778.461, 1781.378, 1792.042, 1801.009, 1801.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1634.067}, "reply_to": "21681__1_001", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_003", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, I mean, they didn't really certify it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1801.96], "stop_times": [1804.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1801.96}, "reply_to": "21681__1_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21681__1_004", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--No.\nThey used... they... they abstained under the Pullman doctrine which, as this Court has explained, is a procedure that is akin to the certification process where States use it.\nBut in any event, no one... when... no one would have thought for a moment that having gone to litigate that State law issue in State court, if they had lost, England... the chiropractors could come back and say, okay, we think that we shouldn't have to comply with this law for two reasons: one, because we're not covered by the law even though the Louisiana courts thought so; and two, if we were, the Fourteenth Amendment would prohibit it.\nThey... the question on which you granted review is limited to those issues, and there is a fair question on the record in this case whether any of those issues are really before the Court now.\nBut as to those issues, for which Williamson County requires that a party resort first to State procedures, whether issue preclusion applies, and the... the extension of England by analogy to this would dictate the answer yes.\nIt may not apply if... if you extend England to all other types of issues that a party may litigate along with their Williamson County ripening exercise.\nBut the very determination that Federal law requires them to obtain under State law, prior to stating a ripe Federal constitutional claim, of course, gets issue preclusion.\nNow, the question was asked--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1804.525, 1804.787, 1815.738, 1843.491, 1856.688, 1873.589, 1886.597, 1901.212], "stop_times": [1804.787, 1815.738, 1843.491, 1856.688, 1873.589, 1886.597, 1901.212, 1903.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1804.525}, "reply_to": "21681__1_003", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_005", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Do you think it's open to us to reconsider aspects of Williamson County in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1903.625], "stop_times": [1913.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1903.625}, "reply_to": "21681__1_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21681__1_006", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--I don't think... well, I would have to take a very deep breath before I told the Court that it was not open to the Court to reconsider just about anything that touched on it.\nI think it would be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1913.21, 1924.398], "stop_times": [1924.398, 1925.186], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1913.21}, "reply_to": "21681__1_005", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_007", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "It... frankly, it isn't clear to me that the Court ever contemplated just cutting off any determination in Federal court of takings claims in the way that it seems to work out by application of Williamson County.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1925.186], "stop_times": [1939.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1925.186}, "reply_to": "21681__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21681__1_008", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--Let me explain why I think it would be imprudent for the Court to resolve it and then explain why I think it's fair to say that the Court didn't consider one way or the other principles of preclusion in application of the Full Faith and Credit Act in Williamson County.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1939.178], "stop_times": [1954.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1939.178}, "reply_to": "21681__1_007", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_009", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, it's clear we didn't.\nSo now we're faced with the consequences of that, and it looks to me like the lower courts have run pretty far with Williamson County.\nSo what's a takings claimant supposed to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1954.199, 1955.798, 1964.179], "stop_times": [1955.798, 1964.179, 1967.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1954.199}, "reply_to": "21681__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21681__1_010", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, I think it would be imprudent to decide... I... I think that the Court will have to elaborate on the Williamson County requirement and how the procedures work.\nI hope, after all the preparation for this argument, I'll be able to participate in some way in that debate because it's a really interesting question.\nBut it's not presented here because even if you were to reconsider Williamson County, even if you were to overrule it, it wouldn't affect the outcome here.\nWe know two things are true in this case, whatever Williamson County means doesn't mean or shouldn't mean.\nEvery issue relevant to the Federal constitutional claims was fully and fairly litigated in this case, and we also know that under--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [1967.841, 1979.306, 1986.606, 1995.898, 2003.545], "stop_times": [1979.306, 1986.606, 1995.898, 2003.545, 2014.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1967.841}, "reply_to": "21681__1_009", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_011", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, now, wait a minute.\nYou don't mean that the Fifth Amendment question was fully and fairly litigated in the Supreme Court of California.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2014.723, 2015.744], "stop_times": [2015.744, 2023.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2014.723}, "reply_to": "21681__1_010", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21681__1_012", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--No.\nThe Supreme Court of California said that it was not deciding the Federal... the Fifth Amendment Federal constitutional question.\nBut they... they concede that all of the issues that make up the... the Federal constitutional question were fully and fairly litigated in the California courts except the question of whether the Fifth Amendment, as opposed to the California takings provision, is entitled to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2023.894, 2024.362, 2032.937], "stop_times": [2024.362, 2032.937, 2054.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2023.894}, "reply_to": "21681__1_011", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_013", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2054.413], "stop_times": [2055.752], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2054.413}, "reply_to": "21681__1_012", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21681__1_014", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--to Nollan and Dolan.\nAnd that was litigated here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2055.752, 2056.179], "stop_times": [2056.179, 2057.452], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2055.752}, "reply_to": "21681__1_013", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_015", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--What preclusion law do you apply?\nThe Ninth Circuit apparently applied Oregon preclusion law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2057.452, 2059.614], "stop_times": [2059.614, 2064.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2057.452}, "reply_to": "21681__1_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21681__1_016", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "The... it's... the Full Faith and Credit Act requires that you... requires that you apply the preclusion law of the State that rendered the judgment to which--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2064.469], "stop_times": [2075.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2064.469}, "reply_to": "21681__1_015", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_017", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Which would be California.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2075.675], "stop_times": [2077.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2075.675}, "reply_to": "21681__1_016", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21681__1_018", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--Which would be California.\nAnd I do think, with respect, Mr. Chief Justice, that the California Supreme Court... I'm sorry... the Ninth Circuit made clear that it was applying California preclusion law.\nIt cited the California Supreme... a... California authorities, and it correctly recited the elements of the California preclusion law in this regard.\nIt did make reference to its prior determination in Dodd v. Hood River, which was an Oregon case, in which the Ninth Circuit decided that an England reservation in the Williamson County context was effective with respect to claim preclusion but not issue preclusion.\nAnd in that respect... and this I think goes back to Justice O'Connor's question about, you know, what... what could we have been thinking or not thinking in Williamson County... the... the Dodd case provides a pretty good example.\nAt the time this Court decided Williamson County, many, probably most States did not have a substantive takings jurisprudence that was akin to the Federal standard.\nFor example, California itself, New York didn't provide compensation for regulatory takings at all.\nIn those States, there would be no question of either claim or issue preclusion because in the course of deciding whether or not compensation was due under State law, there would be few, if any, common issues decided.\nNow, as the Ninth Circuit explained in Dodd v. Hood River, Oregon recognizes... in the context of regulatory takings, recognizes an Agins type claim, that is where you are completely denied all economic value to your... I'm sorry... a Lucas claim, but they don't recognize the Penn Central standard.\nThey don't provide compensation unless you are denied all economic value.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2077.312, 2078.196, 2088.328, 2099.379, 2120.865, 2134.072, 2144.897, 2151.331, 2169.919, 2191.236], "stop_times": [2078.196, 2088.328, 2099.379, 2120.865, 2134.072, 2144.897, 2151.331, 2169.919, 2191.236, 2196.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2077.312}, "reply_to": "21681__1_017", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_019", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Mr. Waxman, can I ask you this question?\nSupposing the California court had decided the Federal... the Federal Fifth Amendment question or in the... the England supposing the Louisiana State court had decided the Fourteenth Amendment question, would there be issue preclusion on that issue in... in that... in that sequence?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2196.039, 2196.793], "stop_times": [2196.793, 2213.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2196.039}, "reply_to": "21681__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21681__1_020", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Issue preclusion or claim preclusion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2213.313], "stop_times": [2216.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2213.313}, "reply_to": "21681__1_019", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_021", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Either one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2216.855], "stop_times": [2217.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2216.855}, "reply_to": "21681__1_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21681__1_022", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I think the answer is there... if England... if the England decision were extended to the Williamson County context, there would not be claim preclusion.\nWe think it shouldn't be extended, and therefore if they litigated both their State claim and their Federal claim in State court, we think they would be barred both by issue and claim preclusion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2217.348, 2228.932], "stop_times": [2228.932, 2242.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2217.348}, "reply_to": "21681__1_021", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_023", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Of course, they could have come up here, though.\nI mean, maybe that was their mistake in not making their Federal claim in the California court.\nThe California court would have denied their State claim, presumably denied their Federal claim, and... and both could have come up here I suppose.\nOr... or would the California's... would California's determination of the State questions preclude a separate determination of the Federal questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2242.566, 2243.615, 2248.455, 2255.353], "stop_times": [2243.615, 2248.455, 2255.353, 2266.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2242.566}, "reply_to": "21681__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21681__1_024", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I... I don't... I don't think so, Justice Scalia.\nI think it was certainly open to them and the... the Ninth Circuit, in its first opinion, made clear that it was open to them, when they went... when they did their Williamson County ripening, to also litigate the Federal constitutional question.\nAnd in that instance, if they lost in the California courts, of course, they could have petitioned.\nThey couldn't... if they lost on the State constitution, the court would have had to reach the Federal constitutional question as well.\nBut I think, Justice Scalia, more to your point about what actually happened here, I think that a very good argument... I... I don't think that there's really much doubt that if they had petitioned for certiorari from the California Supreme Court decision, you could easily have granted review under Zacchini and Michigan v. Long and Ruiz because the California Supreme Court said, to be sure we are deciding only the State constitutional question.\nWe are not ruling on the Fifth Amendment.\nBut they made very clear that, whatever congruent means... they made very clear that they looked to this Court's statements and expositions about the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to construe the claims the same.\nAnd as this Court said in Ohio v. Reiner, I think 2 years ago, when a State court's interpretation of State law has been influenced by an accompanying interpretation of Federal law, we may review.\nAnd in fact, if you think about it, think of almost every takings case that you've decided since Williamson County.\nWith the exception of the Tahoe compact cases, they are all from State court decisions.\nLucas, Palazzolo, First English, Nolan and Dollan, Yee, Pennell, McDonald, San Diego, they are all--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2266.744, 2268.481, 2282.615, 2289.045, 2294.763, 2323.088, 2326.359, 2341.153, 2354.82, 2363.758, 2370.817], "stop_times": [2268.481, 2282.615, 2289.045, 2294.763, 2323.088, 2326.359, 2341.153, 2354.82, 2363.758, 2370.817, 2378.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2266.744}, "reply_to": "21681__1_023", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_025", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Monterey... Monterey Dunes was from the United States district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2378.871], "stop_times": [2381.876], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2378.871}, "reply_to": "21681__1_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21681__1_026", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--Yes, because that was a case... that's the other one that I was thinking of this morning.\nThat was a case that was filed in the district court and litigated in the district court.\nAnd it raises a real anomaly about whether or not this case even really presents the question on which you granted review because their... the theory that they have pursued in State court and at this round in Federal court is that there is a takings violation under both the State and the Federal Constitution under the so-called substantially advances prong.\nTheir complaints allege a Penn Central violation, but their briefs in the lower court... in the lower Federal courts in this proceeding and in the State courts don't discuss Penn Central at all, as the California Supreme Court in footnote 14 of its opinion explained.\nSo if this is just a substantially advances claim, it raises the question, number one, whether in the context of legislation, there is a substantially advances prong in the Fifth Amendment, a question that you're... you're asked... that you are presumably addressing in Lingle v. Chevron.\nIf there is, it raises the separate question posed by this Court's decision in Yee whether that is a claim for compensation.\nIn other words, what this Court said in Yee is when you challenge, under the Fifth Amendment, legislation on the grounds that it doesn't substantially advance a legitimate government objective, this Court said, that's not a claim for compensation.\nThat is a claim that the ordinance be struck down and not applied.\nAnd that's what they're litigating here.\nNow, they have... and so the question is if it's not a claim for compensation, is it subject to Williamson County ripening?\nWhy should you have to go to State court?\nSo there are a lot of this... the Conference of State Chief Justices have filed an amicus brief in support actually of us in this case, saying we don't see that the facts of this case present the question on which you granted review.\nI think it's fairer to say it's not clear because the petitioners did challenge this ordinance not only on its face, but as applied.\nAnd although the district court below found that it wasn't a real as-applied challenge because they couldn't in any meaningful way distinguish themselves from the other 500 residential hotels in San Francisco, all of whom are concededly subject to the hotel conversion ordinance.\nAt least I suppose in theory, there is some claim for compensation for the temporary period in which they were subject to the hotel conversion ordinance.\nSo I... I don't know.\nI... you granted cert in the case.\nWe'd like to get the... the question answered, but I think the reason this long disquisition, Justice Kennedy, about Del Monte Dunes is in Del Monte Dunes, it was a substantially advance claim, and I think it was thought that there was no need to engage in Williamson County ripening.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2381.876, 2386.459, 2390.896, 2416.548, 2436.638, 2456.51, 2465.488, 2479.251, 2483.197, 2485.53, 2493.687, 2495.605, 2510.718, 2520.281, 2541.886, 2555.491, 2556.676, 2558.475], "stop_times": [2386.459, 2390.896, 2416.548, 2436.638, 2456.51, 2465.488, 2479.251, 2483.197, 2485.53, 2493.687, 2495.605, 2510.718, 2520.281, 2541.886, 2555.491, 2556.676, 2558.475, 2574.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2381.876}, "reply_to": "21681__1_025", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_027", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Let's take a... may I... may I, in effect, approach it with a simpler example, which... which is not this case, but I... I just want to know how... how the... the systems work together.\nLet's assume that, in fact, a... a Lucas kind of claim had been involved, and the... the State courts said we understand Lucas.\nWe're applying Lucas.\nAnd in point of fact, following the Lucas standard, there are plenty of uses that are still left on this land, so that there's no taking under... under Lucas.\nAnd let's assume that they... they go through the State system.\nThey lose.\nThey don't petition here for cert. Instead, they go into the... the district court with a Fifth Amendment claim.\nIs it open to them in the district court to make this argument?\nDon't apply issue preclusion to our Lucas claim.\nThe Lucas... to... to the... to the determinations, the reasonable use determination in... in Lucas.\nDon't do it because although the State court purported to be applying Lucas, it really was not.\nIt was not following the Lucas standard.\nIt was applying something much more favorable to the State.\nAnd therefore, any determination on that issue should not get preclusion here.\nWe ought to be able to litigate de novo even though, on the face of it, we seemed to have litigated the Lucas issue and the State court decided it.\nCould they make that argument?\nAnd... and if it were sound, would... would preclusion principles give way?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2574.467, 2584.794, 2596.543, 2597.815, 2608.672, 2612.831, 2613.585, 2619.324, 2623.179, 2629.29, 2637.263, 2644.344, 2647.258, 2650.267, 2656.616, 2667.01, 2668.872], "stop_times": [2584.794, 2596.543, 2597.815, 2608.672, 2612.831, 2613.585, 2619.324, 2623.179, 2629.29, 2637.263, 2644.344, 2647.258, 2650.267, 2656.616, 2667.01, 2668.872, 2674.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2574.467}, "reply_to": "21681__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21681__1_028", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "At most... I mean, they could certainly make the argument.\nAt most, preclusion would give way on the ultimate Lucas question, not all of the subsidiary issues that were resolved en route to that determination, issues akin to the ones that we recited at pages 10 and 11 of our brief.\nThat is, if the district... if the State court finds, you know, that the property is in such and such a place and on such and such a year, this thing happened or that the ordinance, as it applied, had this effect or that effect, there certainly would be no possible argument that issue preclusion wouldn't apply because they... those were necessary determinations and they had a full and fair opportunity to determine it.\nAs to the ultimate issue, this would be... the Full Faith and Credit Act directs the Federal court to ask what would the law of California say about this.\nIf they tried to then bring their Federal constitutional Lucas theory in State court, would issue preclusion or claim preclusion principles bar a second bite at the litigation apple?\nThe answer ordinarily... and you've asked me to assume that the tests that they have... they purport to be stating the Federal standard.\nOrdinarily the answer would be no if the argument simply is they made a mistake.\nI mean, that's... that's what happens in issue preclusion.\nThat's what in Allen v. McCurry and... and all of the cases in which this Court has applied full faith and credit, Kremer and... and... I'm forgetting the names of the other cases.\nThe argument was, yes, they thought they were adjudicating rights under the Fourth Amendment, but they were wrong, and issue preclusion shouldn't apply.\nI'm... I'm qualifying my answer a little bit because I do think that if you came to Federal court and said, look, this was a sham or they... they... their analysis was so skewed that it can't fairly be said that they were really applying the Federal standard, something like, you know, the... the AEDPA standard now that... that you get review if it's an... not just an incorrect determination, but a wholly unreasonable application of law or fact.\nThen I think you would look and see, well, would a State court say, well, that's right.\nI mean, if your allegation is that they were so far off the reservation that it really wasn't a determination of that issue, I think you get a new review.\nI mean, I do think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2674.002, 2676.767, 2693.813, 2718.121, 2728.902, 2742.727, 2751.676, 2758.573, 2761.667, 2773.345, 2781.998, 2813.048, 2818.213, 2828.103], "stop_times": [2676.767, 2693.813, 2718.121, 2728.902, 2742.727, 2751.676, 2758.573, 2761.667, 2773.345, 2781.998, 2813.048, 2818.213, 2828.103, 2829.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2674.002}, "reply_to": "21681__1_027", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_029", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, was there an allegation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2829.247], "stop_times": [2829.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.247}, "reply_to": "21681__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21681__1_030", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I guess in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2829.82], "stop_times": [2830.22], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.82}, "reply_to": "21681__1_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21681__1_031", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--at any point here... was there an allegation at any point here that the State procedures were inadequate to protect property rights?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2830.22], "stop_times": [2838.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2830.22}, "reply_to": "21681__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21681__1_032", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--No, to the contrary.\nNot only... there's no Pullman issue presented in this case, but the procedural posture of this case demonstrates, if anything, a full-throated appeal to the State courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2838.36, 2839.727], "stop_times": [2839.727, 2852.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2838.36}, "reply_to": "21681__1_031", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_033", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2852.578], "stop_times": [2852.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2852.578}, "reply_to": "21681__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21681__1_034", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "They--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2852.806], "stop_times": [2853.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2852.806}, "reply_to": "21681__1_033", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_035", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, it's not so much that weren't appellate procedures, but that the procedures and the variance procedures and... and a multiplicity of agencies here were just so complex that it amounted to an... inadequate remedies to protect against a taking.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2853.029], "stop_times": [2871.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2853.029}, "reply_to": "21681__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21681__1_036", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--There have been absolutely no such allegations made in this case.\nAnd I think a... I think that the San Remo would have to concede that although there was a plethora of litigation in the State courts and in the lower Federal courts about the zoning determinations and whether a conditional use permit was or wasn't required, the... the hotel conversion ordinance, the ordinance that requires the payment of this in lieu fee, applies across the board to all residential hotels based... wherever they're located in the city, whether they're in a historic district or not and whether they have to be rezoned or not.\nIt was a simple, straightforward question about whether an ordinance that says if you run a residential hotel or you have residential rooms that you have certified as of the date the ordinance was enacted and you want to change them permanently to full-time tourist use, you have to bring an equivalent number of units on line or you have to pay an in lieu fee to the city's building fund.\nAnd they made a challenge, like many people have, that substantively that violates the Federal and State takings clause.\nThat is a taking of private property without just compensation.\nBut it applies to all the residential hotels in the city wherever they're located, regardless of whether they need variances or... or anything like that.\nNow, in this case they went first to the Superior Court in San Francisco and they filed an administrative mandamus claim challenging the zoning determination that was made in their case because they're in a historic district.\nAnd at the same time, they went to the Federal court and they raised all of their takings claims with respect to the ordinance and the zoning issues.\nThey got a preliminary injunction in Federal court which was then... but then lost a summary... they had summary judgment issued against them on all the substantive... all the claims in their case.\nWhen they came to the Ninth Circuit, they asked the Ninth Circuit to abstain under Pullman because they had this municipal law question pending in the superior court.\nIt had been pending for 5 years, and that might somehow obviate or change the constitutional question.\nAnd they then went to... they... the... the Ninth Circuit noted that it was rather unusual for the plaintiff to be invoking Pullman abstention and certainly to be doing so for the first time on appeal after losing in the district court, but nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit said fine.\nAnd they then went to State court, and they pressed not only their pending municipal law question, but they also made their takings claims under Penn Central and under the substantially advance prong both as applied and both facial under the State constitution.\nAnd they received a full and fair hearing on those claims in the superior court, in the court of appeal where they won, and in the California Supreme Court where they ultimately lost 4 to 3.\nThere... I don't believe there is any argument made or available in this case that there was a denial of a full and fair opportunity to litigate those issues as to which preclusion is required.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [2871.857, 2876.244, 2915.239, 2940.803, 2949.826, 2954.227, 2963.783, 2980.395, 2989.492, 3004.142, 3016.1, 3023.051, 3041.7, 3062.234, 3074.847], "stop_times": [2876.244, 2915.239, 2940.803, 2949.826, 2954.227, 2963.783, 2980.395, 2989.492, 3004.142, 3016.1, 3023.051, 3041.7, 3062.234, 3074.847, 3088.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2871.857}, "reply_to": "21681__1_035", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_037", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "But they said there was no litigation because it was just decided.\nThey didn't plead enough to state a claim for relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3088.833, 3093.246], "stop_times": [3093.246, 3096.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3088.833}, "reply_to": "21681__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21681__1_038", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, the... the California Supreme Court decision makes clear at page 113a of the petition appendix that it decided the takings claims, the substantially advance claims, on a demurrer and that they decided it, therefore, based on the factual allegations of the complaint, matters subject to judicial notice, of which there were many, and facts and circumstances that were not disputed.\nI mean, it... there's no such thing, I don't believe, as the resolution of a legal claim in which no issues are decided.\nThere were plenty of issues decided in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3096.438, 3128.797, 3137.238], "stop_times": [3128.797, 3137.238, 3140.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3096.438}, "reply_to": "21681__1_037", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_039", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--Decided but not litigated.\nI mean, the... the problem is that... that claim preclusion normally assumes that the issue is, in fact, litigated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3140.202, 3141.879], "stop_times": [3141.879, 3148.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3140.202}, "reply_to": "21681__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21681__1_040", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3148.72], "stop_times": [3149.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3148.72}, "reply_to": "21681__1_039", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_041", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "And his... he's arguing it was not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3149.077], "stop_times": [3150.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3149.077}, "reply_to": "21681__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21681__1_042", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--The... the issue of whether or not the hotel... whether or not the... San Francisco's hotel conversion ordinance was reasonably related to the city's objective was litigated with a vengeance.\nIt was litigated to the point of dozens, if not hundreds of pages in the State court.\nThe State court... the State courts made a number of subsidiary findings leading to their conclusion that, both on its face and as applied, the hotel conversion ordinance was reasonably related to the city's legitimate objective of retaining low-cost rental housing for the elderly, the disabled, and the poor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3150.775, 3164.393, 3169.794], "stop_times": [3164.393, 3169.794, 3194.993], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3150.775}, "reply_to": "21681__1_041", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_043", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Tell me how that statement that you just made, fully litigated, squares with the fact that... I thought you said a moment ago it was decided on a demurrer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3194.993], "stop_times": [3203.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3194.993}, "reply_to": "21681__1_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21681__1_044", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "It's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3203.371], "stop_times": [3204.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3203.371}, "reply_to": "21681__1_043", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_045", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I'm... I'm confused here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3204.077], "stop_times": [3204.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3204.077}, "reply_to": "21681__1_044", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21681__1_046", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--It's the application of law to fact.\nWhat the Court decided... this Court said, I think in Yee--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3204.957, 3207.612], "stop_times": [3207.612, 3210.611], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3204.957}, "reply_to": "21681__1_045", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_047", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "But you're... you're saying that the facts were... were independently developed before the demurrer was filed and granted?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3210.611], "stop_times": [3218.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3210.611}, "reply_to": "21681__1_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21681__1_048", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--Yes.\nThe... the courts were asked to take judicial notice of a number of things.\nThey--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3218.512, 3219.233, 3223.015], "stop_times": [3219.233, 3223.015, 3223.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3218.512}, "reply_to": "21681__1_047", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_049", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "So it was not decided simply on pleadings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3223.51], "stop_times": [3224.871], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3223.51}, "reply_to": "21681__1_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21681__1_050", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3224.871], "stop_times": [3226.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3224.871}, "reply_to": "21681__1_049", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_051", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3226.085], "stop_times": [3226.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3226.085}, "reply_to": "21681__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21681__1_052", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "I mean, what the court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3226.612], "stop_times": [3228.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3226.612}, "reply_to": "21681__1_051", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_053", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "A demurrer--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3228.095], "stop_times": [3229.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3228.095}, "reply_to": "21681__1_052", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21681__1_054", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3229.177], "stop_times": [3230.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3229.177}, "reply_to": "21681__1_053", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_055", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "--A demurrer is decided on the pleadings, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3230.119], "stop_times": [3234.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3230.119}, "reply_to": "21681__1_054", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21681__1_056", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Well, it... what the court said... and I think this is a... what the California Supreme Court said at page... I think it was page 113a and they also reiterate this point at page 139a, footnote 12... is this is a demurrer.\nSo we take... we accept as true the allegations of the complaint.\nPlus, we take judicial notice of all the things that the parties asked us to take notice of, which are matters of public record, of which there were many, many, many in this case, including, for example, the fact that every year from 1990... well, every year from the... from 1983 on, when they took over operation of this property, they filed with the city an annual report that listed that, A, the determination that all 62 of their rooms were for residential use and then explained... and then stated out the exact number of rooms by quarter that were, in fact, used by... for long-term residences and those that, during the summer months, were used for tourist use.\nThe court took judicial notice of that, as it was appropriate, en route to its decision... this is a subsidiary issue I suppose... that the conversion of this hotel to full-time tourist use would, in fact, cause a loss in the stock of available affordable housing.\nThat was an issue that was determined in this case.\nAnd the ultimate question decided by the court was a mixed question.\nIt was the application of law to fact, as this Court explained, I think in Yee, is characteristic of substantially advances claims.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3234.156, 3248.786, 3252.811, 3301.106, 3321.435, 3325.437, 3330.303, 3337.75], "stop_times": [3248.786, 3252.811, 3301.106, 3321.435, 3325.437, 3330.303, 3337.75, 3339.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3234.156}, "reply_to": "21681__1_055", "speaker": "seth_p_waxman"}
{"id": "21681__1_057", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Waxman.\nMr. Utrecht, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3339.099, 3341.129], "stop_times": [3341.129, 3343.869], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3339.099}, "reply_to": "21681__1_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21681__2_000", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nThere's no question that Williamson County creates problems.\nThe Ninth Circuit in this case did not just issue a Pullman abstention order the first time we were there.\nThey dismissed our as-applied claims as unripe.\nIt dismissed our facial claim based on economic viability as unripe.\nSo we're squarely within the context contemplated by Williamson County; i.e., we proceeded in State court with our State compensation claim in order to ripen the Federal claim.\nThe city acknowledges, as a result of that, that there's no claim preclusion.\nAnd this Court's decision in Migra says that if there's a reason not to apply claim preclusion, there should also be a reason not to apply issue preclusion, that there should be an exception for both or an exception for neither.\nIn this case, in addition to acknowledging an exception for claim preclusion, Mr. Waxman also acknowledged that if the State court was, as I... my notes show, so far off the reservation, the Federal court could revisit the question.\nThe problem, of course, with so far off the reservation is that might be a good test for this Court to adopt, but if the city's position is correct, this Court does not have that opportunity.\nThis Court is stuck with whatever law the State imposes under issue preclusion.\nSo this Court is not free, if the city is correct, to create some special exception.\nI think the only basis for finding a separate exception in this case is the one that this Court set out in England.\nI see no reason that it shouldn't be extended to this circumstance.\nUnless there are any questions, I have nothing further.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3343.869, 3345.439, 3349.004, 3354.251, 3357.582, 3362.028, 3372.956, 3377.682, 3390.096, 3404.294, 3413.925, 3419.212, 3424.447, 3430.984, 3434.396], "stop_times": [3345.439, 3349.004, 3354.251, 3357.582, 3362.028, 3372.956, 3377.682, 3390.096, 3404.294, 3413.925, 3419.212, 3424.447, 3430.984, 3434.396, 3437.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3343.869}, "reply_to": "21681__1_057", "speaker": "paul_f_utrecht"}
{"id": "21681__2_001", "conversation_id": "21681", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Utrecht.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-340", "start_times": [3437.895, 3439.333], "stop_times": [3439.333, 3441.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3437.895}, "reply_to": "21681__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "23557__0_000", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "We will hear argument in Shepard against the United States.\nMs. Thompson.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [0.0, 5.106], "stop_times": [5.106, 56.765], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__0_001", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThis case involves the proper application of the categorical method of analysis that this Court prescribed in Taylor against United States, and it involves the application of that categorical method to what is described as ambiguous burglary convictions obtained under nongeneric burglary statutes with boiler plate complaints and a general finding of guilty following a plea proceeding.\nAt stake--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [56.765, 59.996, 88.468], "stop_times": [59.996, 88.468, 90.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 56.765}, "reply_to": "23557__0_000", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_002", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "What... what do you mean by a... just so we get our terms defined, what do you mean by a nongeneric burglary statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [90.119], "stop_times": [97.025], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 90.119}, "reply_to": "23557__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23557__0_003", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--In this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [97.025], "stop_times": [97.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 97.025}, "reply_to": "23557__0_002", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_004", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--and a generic burglary statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [97.932], "stop_times": [99.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 97.932}, "reply_to": "23557__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "23557__0_005", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--Well, a generic burglary statute, as... as defined in the Taylor case is one that criminalizes unlawful entry into a building or a structure with intent to commit another crime.\nThose are the three elements of generic burglary.\nThose apply if any... if a State statute covers those three, it's considered generic burglary and would then qualify as a predicate violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act.\nA nongeneric--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [99.514, 112.02, 114.78, 126.731], "stop_times": [112.02, 114.78, 126.731, 128.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 99.514}, "reply_to": "23557__0_004", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_006", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Now, do you... do you agree that all the papers showing the arrest and the investigation and so forth show that this was in fact a building--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [128.238], "stop_times": [138.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 128.238}, "reply_to": "23557__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__0_007", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [138.234], "stop_times": [139.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 138.234}, "reply_to": "23557__0_006", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_008", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--that was burglarized?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [139.26], "stop_times": [139.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.26}, "reply_to": "23557__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__0_009", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I do not.\nI... as this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [139.919, 140.619], "stop_times": [140.619, 142.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 139.919}, "reply_to": "23557__0_008", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_010", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Does it show it was a vehicle?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [142.549], "stop_times": [143.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 142.549}, "reply_to": "23557__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__0_011", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--It doesn't show that it was a vehicle.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [143.784], "stop_times": [145.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 143.784}, "reply_to": "23557__0_010", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_012", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Or a boat?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [145.42], "stop_times": [145.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 145.42}, "reply_to": "23557__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__0_013", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "It doesn't show that it was a boat.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [145.97], "stop_times": [147.45], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 145.97}, "reply_to": "23557__0_012", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_014", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Or a motorcycle?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [147.45], "stop_times": [148.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 147.45}, "reply_to": "23557__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__0_015", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "It doesn't show that it was a motorcycle.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [148.139], "stop_times": [149.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 148.139}, "reply_to": "23557__0_014", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_016", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "It shows nothing?\nNone of the supporting documentation shows what it was?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [149.274, 149.835], "stop_times": [149.835, 152.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 149.274}, "reply_to": "23557__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__0_017", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Those supporting documents do not play a role in the adjudication.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [152.872], "stop_times": [158.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 152.872}, "reply_to": "23557__0_016", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_018", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, that isn't my question.\nI asked you whether any of them show that it was, in fact, a building or a car or a boat.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [158.469, 159.702], "stop_times": [159.702, 165.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 158.469}, "reply_to": "23557__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__0_019", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "None of them shows that it was anything other than a building.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [165.589], "stop_times": [168.484], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 165.589}, "reply_to": "23557__0_018", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_020", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [168.484], "stop_times": [169.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 168.484}, "reply_to": "23557__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__0_021", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "The police reports and the complaint applications, but the statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [169.31], "stop_times": [173.574], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 169.31}, "reply_to": "23557__0_020", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_022", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, why... why are you resisting that the... that the police report gave an identified building?\nI mean, you're... you're saying that one mustn't look behind, in the case of a guilty plea, to find the police report or even the police application for complaint.\nBut there isn't any question, is there, that the police reports in fact gave addresses of particular buildings?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [173.574, 180.576, 192.155], "stop_times": [180.576, 192.155, 199.196], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 173.574}, "reply_to": "23557__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23557__0_023", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--There is no question of that.\nWhen you look at the police reports, if you read those police reports, some of which you can actually read, they do describe buildings and they describe addresses and hallways and things like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [199.196, 201.135], "stop_times": [201.135, 214.73], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 199.196}, "reply_to": "23557__0_022", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_024", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "So what... what you're saying is the conviction itself didn't show that, and so the question is whether you can look to documents that in fact showed it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [214.73], "stop_times": [221.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 214.73}, "reply_to": "23557__0_023", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23557__0_025", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "That's... that's correct, Justice Ginsburg.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [221.78], "stop_times": [224.282], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 221.78}, "reply_to": "23557__0_024", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_026", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "So the rule you would have us follow does result in a... a super technicality in a sense of what... what was on the record at the time of the plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [224.282], "stop_times": [237.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 224.282}, "reply_to": "23557__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__0_027", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, actually the district court established that this was not on the record at the time of the plea.\nThe district court took evidence on this issue.\nThe statutes to... that are underlying these convictions, to get back to Justice Scalia's question, are nongeneric, and they are nongeneric in the sense that they make it unlawful to break into structures other than buildings or in addition to buildings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [237.762, 244.5, 247.851], "stop_times": [244.5, 247.851, 264.318], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 237.762}, "reply_to": "23557__0_026", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_028", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Suppose... suppose in the earlier conviction, the police report is in the court.\nIt's not part of the record, and then the court says, I've read the police report.\nIs that accurate?\nAnd the client... or the defendant says, yes.\nThen later, can we go back and look at the police report even though it was not annexed as part of the record?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [264.318, 269.676, 274.116, 274.836, 277.727], "stop_times": [269.676, 274.116, 274.836, 277.727, 284.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 264.318}, "reply_to": "23557__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__0_029", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, that calls into question what kinds of documents can be examined in terms of making a... a determination as to whether this offense was categorically a crime of violence, that is, that it was generic burglary.\nIt's our position that there's a limitation, and the limitation is imposed by Taylor itself, that the question being answered be made a question of law, that it is a question of law, that it's a matter of law that you make the determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [284.405, 298.316], "stop_times": [298.316, 315.25], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 284.405}, "reply_to": "23557__0_028", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_030", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "But if the defendant at the plea colloquy had said, yes, I entered X building or even in the plea bargain had said that, even though the charge just read the boiler plate, the whole statute, buildings, vessels, et cetera, if he had admitted it either in the plea colloquy or in the plea bargain, wouldn't that be enough?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [315.25], "stop_times": [345.976], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 315.25}, "reply_to": "23557__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23557__0_031", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "If we had a contemporaneous record of the adjudication of this conviction that showed an actual admission to breaking into a building, I believe that that would satisfy a sort of modified Taylor categorical approach.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [345.976], "stop_times": [365.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 345.976}, "reply_to": "23557__0_030", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_032", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I... I don't understand your reading of Taylor.\nAs I've read that case many times, it seemed to me that that was making a perfectly sensible point.\nAt the end of the opinion, Justice Blackmun says, you know, there are some States like Massachusetts, for example, that instead of just saying burglary, they say burglary of a... of a ship or a car or a building.\nAnd that leads us to answer a more general question.\nWell, in context, that more general question is whether you ought to go look into how a particular burglary was committed to see if there was really violence or not.\nAnd he says no.\nJust look to the definition of the crime.\nThat's what he says.\nThat will end it.\nNow, he says we agree, because I started here, that we have a couple of States with some weird statutes, and what you have to do in those States is you won't know if it's a boat or a car or... so he says, for example, in a State like the one we have, if it shows it's charged us with a burglary and you have to find out, you know, here's what you do.\nIt says you may have to go beyond the mere fact of conviction.\nSo he says go look to the indictment or information and jury instructions.\nThat isn't a limiting phrase.\nThat's for example.\nHe just thought that in those cases, that's what... all you'll have to look to, for example.\nWe happen to have an unusual case where there are no jury instructions because he pled guilty.\nSo what's the harm of going looking to the documents that will show, in an uncontested way, just what the address on these pieces of paper show?\nThere are no boats, you know, in Watertown.\nIt's not a dock, I don't think, or at least not in that part of it.\nSo... so I mean, what's the problem here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [365.346, 367.077, 373.075, 387.087, 390.156, 398.695, 400.597, 403.236, 403.995, 405.148, 427.137, 430.436, 437.303, 438.817, 440.66, 446.557, 451.426, 460.595, 462.566, 465.994], "stop_times": [367.077, 373.075, 387.087, 390.156, 398.695, 400.597, 403.236, 403.995, 405.148, 427.137, 430.436, 437.303, 438.817, 440.66, 446.557, 451.426, 460.595, 462.566, 465.994, 469.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 365.346}, "reply_to": "23557__0_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_033", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [469.462], "stop_times": [470.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 469.462}, "reply_to": "23557__0_032", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_034", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Why is everyone so mixed up?\nI must be missing something.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [470.347, 471.848], "stop_times": [471.848, 472.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 470.347}, "reply_to": "23557__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_035", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--The example that's given, the charging document and jury instructions... let's suppose that instead of... of guilty pleas, Mr. Shepard was tried and he was tried on this nongeneric, boiler plate complaint, and there were no jury instructions available.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [472.986], "stop_times": [490.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 472.986}, "reply_to": "23557__0_034", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_036", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "What's the problem?\nI grant you I could imagine a case that could be a problem.\nMaybe it was a houseboat.\nOkay?\n[Laughter]\nOr maybe it's like a trailer.\nSo if we run into that case, we'll deal with it.\nYou know, I'm perfectly capable of thinking that if this is a charge where there is a dispute on the contested point, fine, we won't take that dispute into account, maybe decide it in the favor of the defendant, maybe.\nBut this is not that case.\nAnd by the way, if he's going to say, how do you know?\nI'd say, I know.\nI know Boston and I also know that breaking into a boat at least is unusual.\nSo if he thinks it wasn't that, let him say so.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [490.597, 492.263, 495.167, 496.777, 498.206, 498.744, 500.261, 503.779, 518.317, 520.77, 523.78, 524.9, 530.98], "stop_times": [492.263, 495.167, 496.777, 498.206, 498.744, 500.261, 503.779, 518.317, 520.77, 523.78, 524.9, 530.98, 533.768], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 490.597}, "reply_to": "23557__0_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_037", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "The district court did actually entertain this issue, Justice Breyer, and what they... what the district court found was there wasn't an opportunity, there wasn't a reason for Mr. Shepard to contest building or any other element of this offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [533.768], "stop_times": [552.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 533.768}, "reply_to": "23557__0_036", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_038", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "No, of course, there wasn't.\nSo all he has to do now is say, Judge, in my latest thing, you know, they say 30 Bremer Street.\n30 Bremer Street sounds like the address of a building, but by the way, unusually enough, it's the license plate of a car.\nNow, if in fact that's the case, he can come in and say it.\nThere's no Fifth Amendment problem.\nWe're talking about sentencing and what a prior conviction was.\nHe doesn't even have to say it.\nYou as his lawyer could tell us.\nNow, you know why I think you don't say it?\nBecause it isn't conceivably right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [552.113, 552.703, 559.383, 567.782, 572.874, 575.012, 578.354, 579.712, 581.414, 582.914], "stop_times": [552.703, 559.383, 567.782, 572.874, 575.012, 578.354, 579.712, 581.414, 582.914, 584.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 552.113}, "reply_to": "23557__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_039", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, and it also isn't in fact.\nAnd the question here is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [584.415, 586.884], "stop_times": [586.884, 588.688], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 584.415}, "reply_to": "23557__0_038", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_040", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "What do you mean it isn't right in fact?\nWhat is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [588.688, 589.901], "stop_times": [589.901, 590.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 588.688}, "reply_to": "23557__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_041", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--Is it in law--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [590.114], "stop_times": [590.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 590.114}, "reply_to": "23557__0_040", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_042", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [590.381], "stop_times": [590.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 590.381}, "reply_to": "23557__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_043", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--or in fact that we are trying to make this determination?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [590.731], "stop_times": [593.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 590.731}, "reply_to": "23557__0_042", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_044", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "We look to facts about what the prior convictions were about.\nThat's what Taylor says.\nThat, of course, is a fact, but it's a legal fact, what was this conviction for.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [593.015, 596.158, 597.703], "stop_times": [596.158, 597.703, 602.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 593.015}, "reply_to": "23557__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_045", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Taylor said you don't look at facts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [602.82], "stop_times": [605.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 602.82}, "reply_to": "23557__0_044", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_046", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I understand your reading of it.\nWhat I want to know is what's wrong with my reading of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [605.86, 607.447], "stop_times": [607.447, 609.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 605.86}, "reply_to": "23557__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_047", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--Because your reading of it requires a look at the underlying conduct.\nIt actually requires.\nAnd the document here that was selected to exhibit the underlying conduct is as far away as you can get from an adjudicatory document.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [609.657, 614.668, 616.295], "stop_times": [614.668, 616.295, 625.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 609.657}, "reply_to": "23557__0_046", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_048", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "All right.\nWhat... is... is your argument that we are likely, in effect, to... to violate some constitutional standard if we do what the Government wants, or is your argument as follows?\nThat Taylor says this is an offense-based not a fact-based determination.\nTaylor says that's what the statute is getting at.\nAnd if you go as far as the Government wants here, you basically will have gone beyond offense-based.\nYou will have gone... become fact-based and you will be violating the statute.\nSo my question is, is there something constitutionally we have to worry about which is the basis for your argument, or is it a violation of the statute that you think we ought to be worried about?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [625.097, 625.856, 641.636, 649.388, 652.695, 661.206, 665.656], "stop_times": [625.856, 641.636, 649.388, 652.695, 661.206, 665.656, 677.86], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 625.097}, "reply_to": "23557__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__0_049", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "In this case it's the statute that was violated, but you are correct, Justice Souter--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [677.86], "stop_times": [685.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 677.86}, "reply_to": "23557__0_048", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_050", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, I don't have a position.\nI can't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [685.709, 686.347], "stop_times": [686.347, 686.856], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 685.709}, "reply_to": "23557__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__0_051", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--that... no.\nYou are correct in representing that the Government's approach to this will take what is quintessentially a question of law, that is, a comparison of adjudicated elements of... adjudicated elements of conviction against... compared to the elements of generic burglary.\nThat's a question of law.\nDo they match?\nDo they not match?\nIt becomes a question of fact then, as the First Circuit put it in Shepard and in the Harris case, to determine what was actually in the mind of the defendant at the time he entered his plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [686.856, 687.505, 707.664, 709.067, 710.176, 711.165], "stop_times": [687.505, 707.664, 709.067, 710.176, 711.165, 725.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 686.856}, "reply_to": "23557__0_050", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_052", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--Well, aren't we asking that question in... in any case?\nThe question ultimately is, what did he mean when he said I am guilty?\nIf you've got a plea colloquy, as you admitted a moment ago, it's easy to find out what he meant because they would have gone into the factual basis for the plea.\nIf there's a written plea agreement, it's probably going to be easy to find out because, again, there would be a basis for the plea set out.\nHere, there isn't one of those documents.\nSo you're going one step further, but you're still asking the question what did he mean when he stood in that courtroom and said I am guilty.\nAnd yes, in... in one sense that's fact-based, but all of those questions are fact-based.\nThey're going to the same issue.\nWhat did he mean?\nWhat was pleading guilty to?\nIsn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [725.7, 728.78, 734.33, 744.41, 752.091, 754.632, 763.205, 769.562, 771.02, 771.897, 773.342], "stop_times": [728.78, 734.33, 744.41, 752.091, 754.632, 763.205, 769.562, 771.02, 771.897, 773.342, 774.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 725.7}, "reply_to": "23557__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__0_053", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, because it's based on an examination of the underlying conduct, which is forbidden by the Taylor decision--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [774.054], "stop_times": [783.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 774.054}, "reply_to": "23557__0_052", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_054", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, maybe, maybe not.\nThat's kind of the question we have, how... what gloss to put on Taylor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [783.649, 785.16], "stop_times": [785.16, 789.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 783.649}, "reply_to": "23557__0_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__0_055", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Suppose--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [789.93], "stop_times": [790.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 789.93}, "reply_to": "23557__0_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__0_056", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Do you join the amici in saying Almendarez-Torres has to be overruled?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [790.716], "stop_times": [796.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 790.716}, "reply_to": "23557__0_055", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__0_057", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--No, I do not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [796.018], "stop_times": [796.953], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 796.018}, "reply_to": "23557__0_056", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_058", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [796.953], "stop_times": [797.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 796.953}, "reply_to": "23557__0_057", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__0_059", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I do not join--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [797.174], "stop_times": [798.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.174}, "reply_to": "23557__0_058", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_060", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--But suppose--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [798.35], "stop_times": [798.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 798.35}, "reply_to": "23557__0_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__0_061", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "All right.\nSo we're looking--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [798.806, 799.036], "stop_times": [799.036, 799.528], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 798.806}, "reply_to": "23557__0_060", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__0_062", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--Taylor were not on the books.\nWhat... what would be the basis of your argument?\nYou say that it's all right to look at a plea colloquy, but it's not all right to look at an arrest report to which the judge referred.\nWhat's the basis for that distinction?\nWhat sense does it make?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [799.528, 800.062, 802.622, 808.302, 810.441], "stop_times": [800.062, 802.622, 808.302, 810.441, 811.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 799.528}, "reply_to": "23557__0_061", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__0_063", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--The sense it makes is this.\nWhat the Armed Career Criminal Act addresses and what this Court discussed in Taylor was the applicable term is conviction, that is, a conviction for a categorical offense.\nThe categorical offense is a crime of violence specifically described as burglary, arson, but there are specifically described crimes.\nThose are things that you can determine as a matter of law.\nDo the elements match the... the generically violent crime, or do they not match the generically violent crime?\nIf they do not match the generically violent crime, you might still be able to figure out, you might be able to surmise what the defendant actually had in his mind, if he had anything in his mind, about this at the time of the guilty plea.\nWell, one of the unique things about the... these nongeneric burglary statutes in Massachusetts is that they're really relatively petty offenses.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [811.332, 812.729, 825.128, 834.397, 837.421, 845.82, 861.509], "stop_times": [812.729, 825.128, 834.397, 837.421, 845.82, 861.509, 870.417], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 811.332}, "reply_to": "23557__0_062", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_064", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "But... but why can you look at what's in the plea colloquy that's in the record, but you cannot look at a document that the judge referred to, if that document isn't there?\nWhat's... what's the common sense argument that you're making?\nI... I don't understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [870.417, 880.739, 883.66], "stop_times": [880.739, 883.66, 884.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 870.417}, "reply_to": "23557__0_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__0_065", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, there is no evidence in this case that the judge referred to a police report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [884.705], "stop_times": [889.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 884.705}, "reply_to": "23557__0_064", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_066", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "No.\nThis is my little hypothetical case so that we can test your theory, just to see the reasons that you're advancing for... for us to rule in your favor.\nAnd I... I don't see any rationale that you've given us.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [889.271, 889.491, 899.675], "stop_times": [889.491, 899.675, 902.319], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 889.271}, "reply_to": "23557__0_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__0_067", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "If you can look at the colloquy and the judge, without incorporating it, has the defendant explicitly admit the facts that constitute the elements of generic burglary, it is our position that that... that conviction could be used to enhance.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [902.319, 920.317], "stop_times": [920.317, 921.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 902.319}, "reply_to": "23557__0_066", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_068", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Let me try the same question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [921.969], "stop_times": [922.941], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 921.969}, "reply_to": "23557__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_069", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "But... but why can't you go one step further and refer to the document that was not in the record but that the judge mentioned in his... in his findings at the first sentencing?\nWhy?\nI still haven't had a reason why.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [922.941, 933.166, 933.858], "stop_times": [933.166, 933.858, 935.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 922.941}, "reply_to": "23557__0_068", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__0_070", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--I agree that whether or not that document is in the record, if there is an explicit finding or an admission by the court that enters the judgment, that the defendant broke and entered a building, that that conviction should be able to qualify as a predicate under the Armed Career Criminal Act.\nIt is not a requirement that the underlying document be incorporated into the record, only that the admission be made or the facts be found by the fact-finder, whoever is taking the plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [935.804, 957.275], "stop_times": [957.275, 971.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 935.804}, "reply_to": "23557__0_069", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_071", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "May I ask you a question?\nAssume the case had been tried and you could not tell from either the indictment or the instructions to the jury whether it was a generic burglary or a nongeneric burglary.\nWould the... our decision permit us to look at the transcript of the trial to answer that question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [971.346, 972.685, 982.059], "stop_times": [972.685, 982.059, 987.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 971.346}, "reply_to": "23557__0_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__0_072", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Certainly not under Taylor.\nThe whole idea of Taylor was partly dictated by the words of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [987.316, 988.653], "stop_times": [988.653, 995.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 987.316}, "reply_to": "23557__0_071", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_073", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "So your argument is that this is comparable to using the transcript of the trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [995.995], "stop_times": [1000.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 995.995}, "reply_to": "23557__0_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__0_074", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "This is... it... well, I don't think it's comparable because the district court finding was that the documents that the Government relies on were not involved in the adjudication at all.\nSo it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1000.25, 1013.474], "stop_times": [1013.474, 1014.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1000.25}, "reply_to": "23557__0_073", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_075", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "So this is even farther removed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1014.275], "stop_times": [1015.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1014.275}, "reply_to": "23557__0_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__0_076", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--This is even farther removed than a plea colloquy, farther removed than a trial transcript looking into the evidence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1015.632], "stop_times": [1021.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1015.632}, "reply_to": "23557__0_075", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_077", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "But that's what I don't understand.\nWe're now talking about that part of Taylor which deals with a narrow statute where our object is not to find out what he's guilty of or anything.\nWe're just trying to find out what was the crime he was charged with.\nAnd there are two or three States which lump together in one statute crimes that are violent and nonviolent.\nBurglary of a structure is violent.\nBurglary of a car or a ship is not.\nSo all we want to know is what was the charge at issue.\nNow, do you... let me break the question into two parts.\nThe key sentence here, I think, is for example, in a State whose burglary statutes include entry of an automobile, as well as a building, if the indictment or information and jury instructions show that the defendant was charged only with burglary of a building, then it's going to be violent.\nNow, would you... would you agree with me or not that he could have written... Justice Blackmun... that same sentence to say if, for example, the indictment or information and jury instructions show?\nWould you be willing to add those two words, for example?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1021.922, 1023.299, 1033.47, 1037.701, 1046.715, 1049.566, 1052.819, 1058.2, 1061.67, 1081.025, 1094.156], "stop_times": [1023.299, 1033.47, 1037.701, 1046.715, 1049.566, 1052.819, 1058.2, 1061.67, 1081.025, 1094.156, 1098.295], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1021.922}, "reply_to": "23557__0_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_078", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--If, for example.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1098.295], "stop_times": [1101.694], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1098.295}, "reply_to": "23557__0_077", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_079", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "If, for example.\nI want to know how... how absolute you're making this.\nAnd the next question I'd ask would be if you agree for example, what are the things you can look to and what are the things you can't?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1104.133, 1101.694, 1105.265], "stop_times": [1101.694, 1105.265, 1112.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1104.133}, "reply_to": "23557__0_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_080", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "And I... I do agree that that's one of the questions presented by this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1112.257], "stop_times": [1116.668], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1112.257}, "reply_to": "23557__0_079", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_081", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Yes, but do you want add the for example or do you want to take it just categorically?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1116.668], "stop_times": [1120.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1116.668}, "reply_to": "23557__0_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_082", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, I do believe that the best reading is the categorical reading.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1120.893], "stop_times": [1124.866], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1120.893}, "reply_to": "23557__0_081", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_083", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1124.866], "stop_times": [1125.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1124.866}, "reply_to": "23557__0_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_084", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "But I'm willing to accept for example--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1125.329], "stop_times": [1126.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1125.329}, "reply_to": "23557__0_083", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_085", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Okay.\nThen what kinds of things would you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1126.635, 1127.234], "stop_times": [1127.234, 1128.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1126.635}, "reply_to": "23557__0_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_086", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--for purposes of argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1128.861], "stop_times": [1129.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1128.861}, "reply_to": "23557__0_085", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_087", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--let us look to and what kinds of things not?\nAll we're interested in is what was he charged with, which of these three things.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1129.638, 1130.997], "stop_times": [1130.997, 1135.43], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1129.638}, "reply_to": "23557__0_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23557__0_088", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "And all Taylor and the Armed Career Criminal Act are interested in is what was he convicted of.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1135.43], "stop_times": [1140.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1135.43}, "reply_to": "23557__0_087", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_089", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--No, no, no.\nI will get that later.\nLet me deal with the charge.\nIf he was charged with breaking into a boat, that's the end of this.\nOkay?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1140.778, 1141.38, 1143.378, 1145.221, 1148.506], "stop_times": [1141.38, 1143.378, 1145.221, 1148.506, 1148.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1140.778}, "reply_to": "23557__0_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_090", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "True.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1148.947], "stop_times": [1149.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1148.947}, "reply_to": "23557__0_089", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_091", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "So, fine.\nSo I want to know what he was charged with.\nLet me do that one.\nNow, what will you let me look to to see what he was charged with?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1149.597, 1150.496, 1152.076, 1153.047], "stop_times": [1150.496, 1152.076, 1153.047, 1155.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1149.597}, "reply_to": "23557__0_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_092", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "You can look to the charging document and the statute to see what he was charged with.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1155.847], "stop_times": [1163.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1155.847}, "reply_to": "23557__0_091", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_093", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "All right.\nSo what happens in the case where... Justice Blackmun let us go further than that.\nHe says the indictment... that's the charging document... or information and jury instruction.\nHe'll let us look to a jury instruction as if there's actually been a trial.\nSo he'll let us go further than you will.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1163.074, 1163.408, 1166.931, 1173.031, 1176.291], "stop_times": [1163.408, 1166.931, 1173.031, 1176.291, 1178.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1163.074}, "reply_to": "23557__0_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_094", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Not to determine what he was charged with.\nTo determine what he was convicted of.\nBecause the jury instructions are not going to be factually oriented.\nThe jury instructions are going to tell you what the element of the crime was, elements that were adjudicated.\nSo that if you have the person charged with a nongeneric document here... the nongeneric statute, a boat, a house, a whatever, and the jury instructions establish for you that he could not have been convicted by that jury without finding a house because that's the elements laid out in the jury instruction--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1178.157, 1180.419, 1182.291, 1187.342, 1194.048], "stop_times": [1180.419, 1182.291, 1187.342, 1194.048, 1214.567], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1178.157}, "reply_to": "23557__0_093", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_095", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "And what's the difference between that and a police report that makes it quite clear that in the circumstances there was no possibility of a boat or a car being involved?\nWhat's the difference between that and the police report?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1214.567, 1226.157], "stop_times": [1226.157, 1228.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1214.567}, "reply_to": "23557__0_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_096", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--The police report does not show you what the results of the adjudication was.\nIt does not establish--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1228.808, 1234.019], "stop_times": [1234.019, 1234.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1228.808}, "reply_to": "23557__0_095", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_097", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "No.\nWhat shows us that... what shows us that is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1234.883, 1235.075], "stop_times": [1235.075, 1236.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1234.883}, "reply_to": "23557__0_096", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_098", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--The elements.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1236.929], "stop_times": [1237.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1236.929}, "reply_to": "23557__0_097", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_099", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--is the check mark.\nNo.\nThe check mark on the form that says, for example, plea, admit sufficient facts.\nYou know, that's a check mark or it's on the form.\nIt says plea, guilty.\nI mean, you know, you could have different things checked.\nSo that's what established the guilt.\nAnd then the police report establishes whether... what kind of a thing was at issue.\nAnd I will agree with you that if it's at all contested, we shouldn't get into it.\nBut if it's not contested, there's no question.\nThere was no boat around there.\nIt's a city street.\nOr there was no car.\nIt's plain it was a building.\nThen that's just as good as the jury instruction.\nWhy not?\nTell me why not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1237.621, 1238.203, 1238.48, 1244.66, 1247.361, 1249.821, 1251.46, 1253.122, 1259.058, 1264.093, 1266.594, 1268.204, 1269.284, 1271.064, 1272.405, 1275.815, 1276.383], "stop_times": [1238.203, 1238.48, 1244.66, 1247.361, 1249.821, 1251.46, 1253.122, 1259.058, 1264.093, 1266.594, 1268.204, 1269.284, 1271.064, 1272.405, 1275.815, 1276.383, 1277.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1237.621}, "reply_to": "23557__0_098", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_100", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, I suggest that it doesn't tell you anything about what's actually been adjudicated.\nWhat it tells you, it's what's actually been charged.\nAnd here's one of the things that came up in the district court in front of Judge Gertner, and the Government brought up this as well as Judge... as the district court judge.\nWhat if Mr. Shepard went in and said, yes, I broke into the property of another person with intent to commit a crime?\nThat would be a factual basis that would be adequate for the... for any sentence that could be imposed under that statute.\nBecause the... because of the fact that the boat, the house, the car, and the vessel are all put on the same level, the operative fact is is it yours, Mr. Shepard.\nDoes that belong to you, Mr. Shepard?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1277.463, 1282.697, 1285.445, 1294.355, 1301.761, 1309.233, 1321.825], "stop_times": [1282.697, 1285.445, 1294.355, 1301.761, 1309.233, 1321.825, 1324.027], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1277.463}, "reply_to": "23557__0_099", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_101", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I mean, but that's always true.\nYou could have a... you could have a... a sheet that shows: admitted, assault, you know.\nAnd... and what the sheet says, it says: charge, assault; plea, guilty.\nIt's possible, for all we know, that when the actual colloquy took place, he was talking about some other thing.\nI don't know what he was talking about, but what you'd go upon is that there was a charge and he pleaded guilty to the charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1324.027, 1325.355, 1331.262, 1336.106, 1343.642], "stop_times": [1325.355, 1331.262, 1336.106, 1343.642, 1350.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1324.027}, "reply_to": "23557__0_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_102", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Which brings me to Henderson against Morgan.\nOne of the issues in Henderson against Morgan is whether or not you can infer guilt of an element that is not specifically charged even from overwhelming evidence, that that could be proved.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1350.542, 1355.694], "stop_times": [1355.694, 1371.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1350.542}, "reply_to": "23557__0_101", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_103", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I... I don't... good.\nAre you going to explain this?\nBecause I thought what we were supposed to do is just look to the sheet, charge; the plea, guilty.\nAnd that is what we do and it disposes of 98 percent of the cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1371.674, 1373.226, 1374.724, 1383.083], "stop_times": [1373.226, 1374.724, 1383.083, 1387.614], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1371.674}, "reply_to": "23557__0_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_104", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "It does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1387.614], "stop_times": [1388.508], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1387.614}, "reply_to": "23557__0_103", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_105", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "All right.\nSo... so are you talking about those 98 percent now?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1388.508, 1388.903], "stop_times": [1388.903, 1391.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1388.508}, "reply_to": "23557__0_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__0_106", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I'm talking about the... the 2 percent that are nongeneric burglary.\nAnd in those 2 percent that are nongeneric burglary, the issue that is raised, by the fact that it's nongeneric burglary, is you can't make a determination based on the face of the record of what was actually adjudicated, that this person was actually found guilty of each element of generic burglary.\nAnd when you cannot make that determination from record documents and contemporaneous documents with the adjudication, then you cannot make that determination under the Armed Career Criminal Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1391.184, 1395.338, 1415.804], "stop_times": [1395.338, 1415.804, 1428.684], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1391.184}, "reply_to": "23557__0_105", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_107", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Why can't you make the determination?\nIsn't the... the problem that your determination may not be as reliable?\nAnd I thought ultimately your argument would boil down to saying this.\nThe reason you will accept the plea colloquy or the plea agreement, if it sets out the facts, is that that is very reliable.\nIt is a reliable indication of what he was pleading guilty to and what the court was finding him guilty of.\nBut once you go beyond that and you start looking into police reports appended to complaints or whatnot, you're getting into an area of less reliability, and when we're dealing with sentence enhancements like this, we better be reliable.\nThat's why the statute based it on... on offense rather than facts.\nDon't get into a factual determination that is unreliable.\nI thought that was your argument ultimately.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1428.684, 1430.99, 1436.344, 1441.354, 1450.784, 1458.214, 1476.924, 1482.114, 1486.395], "stop_times": [1430.99, 1436.344, 1441.354, 1450.784, 1458.214, 1476.924, 1482.114, 1486.395, 1488.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.684}, "reply_to": "23557__0_106", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__0_108", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "That... that is part of the argument, and I... I think that we're just using different terms here.\nYou're using offense, and... and the Taylor court and the... and the Armed Career Criminal Act use conviction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1488.195, 1494.722], "stop_times": [1494.722, 1501.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1488.195}, "reply_to": "23557__0_107", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_109", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I... I'll accept that, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1501.949], "stop_times": [1503.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1501.949}, "reply_to": "23557__0_108", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__0_110", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Okay.\nAnd so when you're talking about a conviction, you're talking about something that has already been established, that you should be able to make a determination by looking at the contemporaneous documents.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1503.71, 1504.175], "stop_times": [1504.175, 1514.14], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1503.71}, "reply_to": "23557__0_109", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_111", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "But you... you still haven't given a reason, other than the one Justice Souter accepts.\nLook it.\nThis is a case where we all know what the truth is, but you want to argue that we shouldn't find that out.\nAnd it seems to me you have to give us a rationale for we shouldn't know the truth here.\nYou... you don't want us to find it, and there must be some reasons for that.\nAnd the law does that once in a while.\nWe all know that something happened, but the law is supposed to pretend it didn't.\nThat's why Justice has a blindfold on.\nI... I know that.\nBut you haven't given me one reason yet why I should adopt your theory.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1514.14, 1517.788, 1518.132, 1524.322, 1529.401, 1534.669, 1535.863, 1538.501, 1539.91, 1540.748], "stop_times": [1517.788, 1518.132, 1524.322, 1529.401, 1534.669, 1535.863, 1538.501, 1539.91, 1540.748, 1545.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1514.14}, "reply_to": "23557__0_110", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__0_112", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, the theory that I'm proposing is... is I believe the theory that's already been adopted by this Court, which is the... the one described in Taylor.\nIt's the categorical approach that says you cannot make a determination of what elements were adjudicated by looking at the underlying conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1545.92, 1555.081], "stop_times": [1555.081, 1563.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1545.92}, "reply_to": "23557__0_111", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_113", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "But why is a categorical determination important?\nI threw you a... a bone a second ago, and I said maybe it's because of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1563.365, 1566.186], "stop_times": [1566.186, 1571.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1563.365}, "reply_to": "23557__0_112", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__0_114", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "It's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1571.039], "stop_times": [1571.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1571.039}, "reply_to": "23557__0_113", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_115", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--a reliability concern.\nIs that it?\nIs that your point?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1571.504, 1572.264, 1573.205], "stop_times": [1572.264, 1573.205, 1574.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1571.504}, "reply_to": "23557__0_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__0_116", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--It is reliable and it's also not fact-based.\nOnce you start to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1574.224, 1578.088], "stop_times": [1578.088, 1579.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1574.224}, "reply_to": "23557__0_115", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_117", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "No, but is... is your point that once you get beyond the documents that you admit we can look at, there is a higher... an... an unacceptably high risk of unreliability?\nIs that your argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1579.585, 1589.785], "stop_times": [1589.785, 1590.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1579.585}, "reply_to": "23557__0_116", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__0_118", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--That is one of my arguments, Justice Souter, and the... and there's something that goes hand in glove with that and did in this case.\nThe burden shifts then to the defendant.\nThe burden shifts to the defendant to prove that he was not convicted of generic burglary, and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1590.713, 1596.675, 1599.333], "stop_times": [1596.675, 1599.333, 1606.704], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1590.713}, "reply_to": "23557__0_117", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_119", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, but that... that doesn't necessarily follow.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1606.704], "stop_times": [1608.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.704}, "reply_to": "23557__0_118", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__0_120", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--assignment--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1608.503], "stop_times": [1608.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1608.503}, "reply_to": "23557__0_119", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_121", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "But that doesn't necessarily follow from... from looking at a police report.\nIt may well be that we would say the burden never shifts, and he is simply in the position of any other party to a case.\nIf... if the other side has put in evidence that is... is against his interest and he does nothing, then he's in trouble.\nBut that isn't the same as shifting the burden.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1608.799, 1612.719, 1620.551, 1628.259], "stop_times": [1612.719, 1620.551, 1628.259, 1630.389], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1608.799}, "reply_to": "23557__0_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__0_122", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--Well, it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1630.389], "stop_times": [1632.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1630.389}, "reply_to": "23557__0_121", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_123", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "There's no... I guess all I'm saying is it doesn't follow from the argument that the Government is making that a burden of persuasion shifts.\nIsn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1632.615, 1639.726], "stop_times": [1639.726, 1641.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1632.615}, "reply_to": "23557__0_122", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__0_124", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--What shifts is the risk of being wrong.\nThe shifts... the risk of being wrong right now is on the Government.\nIf the Government cannot establish that the defendant was convicted of generic burglary, it bears that responsibility.\nIf the defendant cannot establish that back when he entered his plea--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1641.485, 1644.945, 1649.434, 1656.065], "stop_times": [1644.945, 1649.434, 1656.065, 1660.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1641.485}, "reply_to": "23557__0_123", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_125", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Yes, but the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1660.19], "stop_times": [1661.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1660.19}, "reply_to": "23557__0_124", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__0_126", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Ms. Thompson, you know your white light is on.\nSo if you want to save time, you should perhaps do so right now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1661.896, 1663.317], "stop_times": [1663.317, 1665.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1661.896}, "reply_to": "23557__0_125", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__0_127", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--I would.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1665.742, 1665.933], "stop_times": [1665.933, 1666.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1665.742}, "reply_to": "23557__0_126", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__0_128", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Mr. Elwood.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1666.608], "stop_times": [1675.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1666.608}, "reply_to": "23557__0_127", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_000", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nWhen a defendant has been convicted under a State statute that prohibits both burglary of a building and burglary of a car or some other item, the Court can still look to the conviction to determine whether it is an Armed Career Criminal Act predicate when, as here, the police report indicates the defendant was arrested for burglarizing a building rather than a ship or a car and the other documents in the file corroborate that the basis for the plea was the crime outlined in the police report.\nBecause two of the three elements of generic burglary... that is, breaking and entering and intent to commit a crime--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1675.471, 1677.742, 1703.972], "stop_times": [1677.742, 1703.972, 1710.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1675.471}, "reply_to": "23557__0_128", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_001", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "May I ask this question?\nSuppose the police report had been ambiguous and referred to both a boat and a house.\nWhat would... could... would it be... what would you do in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1710.769, 1711.616, 1717.157], "stop_times": [1711.616, 1717.157, 1720.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1710.769}, "reply_to": "23557__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_002", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--I think in a case where the police report was ambiguous about what it is that the person broke into, I think that you could not base the enhancement on that.\nWe are asking only when both the police report is unambiguous and the documents recording the guilty plea suggest--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1720.878, 1728.007], "stop_times": [1728.007, 1735.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1720.878}, "reply_to": "23557__1_001", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_003", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "But why... why couldn't you use it in the other case?\nCouldn't you ask the police officer what he... who conducted the investigation what the facts really were?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1735.527, 1737.489], "stop_times": [1737.489, 1742.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1735.527}, "reply_to": "23557__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_004", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--I think you might be able to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1742.628], "stop_times": [1744.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1742.628}, "reply_to": "23557__1_003", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_005", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "And you'd start out with the premise that 90 percent of these cases are really houses anyway, so there's a strong presumption in favor of the Government?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1744.355], "stop_times": [1750.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1744.355}, "reply_to": "23557__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_006", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--I... I think that you could talk about introducing extrinsic evidence of... of that sort.\nWe're not asking the Court to go that far, and I think in the run-up cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1750.355, 1756.285], "stop_times": [1756.285, 1759.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1750.355}, "reply_to": "23557__1_005", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_007", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "So the... the question in this case is whether a police report is extrinsic evidence, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1759.15], "stop_times": [1765.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1759.15}, "reply_to": "23557__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_008", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--I don't think so in this case because the police report is in... in a police file itself.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1765.19], "stop_times": [1770.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1765.19}, "reply_to": "23557__1_007", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_009", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, suppose that it was an assault and battery, for example, and you're trying to decide whether it was violent or not, and the police report was somewhat ambiguous.\nCould you... you couldn't look at it then.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1770.877, 1776.189], "stop_times": [1776.189, 1779.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1770.877}, "reply_to": "23557__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_010", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "No, and I don't think you could for an additional reason, which is that I don't think assault and battery is necessarily a... is a necessary element of the... of... of... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1779.105], "stop_times": [1788.977], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1779.105}, "reply_to": "23557__1_009", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_011", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "There's a distinction between violent assaults and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1788.977], "stop_times": [1792.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1788.977}, "reply_to": "23557__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_012", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Right, violent and nonviolent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1792.652], "stop_times": [1793.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1792.652}, "reply_to": "23557__1_011", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_013", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--nonviolent assaults.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1793.651], "stop_times": [1794.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1793.651}, "reply_to": "23557__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_014", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Exactly right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1794.036], "stop_times": [1794.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1794.036}, "reply_to": "23557__1_013", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_015", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "And you might want to find out which one it was and... and as here, it seems pretty easy.\nEverybody knows most burglaries are... are of houses.\nBut I'm just wondering if we're not trying to find out what the categorical rule is that... that is at stake here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1794.5, 1798.229, 1800.588], "stop_times": [1798.229, 1800.588, 1806.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1794.5}, "reply_to": "23557__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_016", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "The only rule we are advocating is that when we are talking about a necessary element of the offense that can be satisfied in different ways, that you can look to the police report to indicate which way it was met in this case if the rest of the file, the State court file, indicates that the police report was the... provided the factual basis or provided the basis for the conviction.\nAnd I think if you look at the file in this case, for example, for four of the defendant's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1806.838, 1826.707], "stop_times": [1826.707, 1831.938], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1806.838}, "reply_to": "23557__1_015", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_017", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, you say it provided the basis for the conviction.\nWas it presented to the court in each of these cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1831.938, 1834.318], "stop_times": [1834.318, 1837.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1831.938}, "reply_to": "23557__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_018", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--We believe that the record indicates that it was.\nFor four of the defendant's convictions, if you look at the document that records the guilty plea, it... it says... in addition to the notation of guilty, and as Justice Breyer averred, a check of admit sufficient facts or that there are sufficient facts present, it lists the same date of the offense, the same street address, the same arresting officer, and the same victim.\nAnd it is our submission that that implies certainly very strongly... it supports a very strong inference... that the crime of conviction was the very same crime that is described in the police report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1837.117, 1839.7, 1860.747], "stop_times": [1839.7, 1860.747, 1871.177], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1837.117}, "reply_to": "23557__1_017", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_019", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I thought Judge Gertner said she didn't know whether anybody had seen this police report.\nIt wasn't attached to the charge.\nI thought that was her position, that these are untested documents.\nWe don't know one way or another whether the judge that accepted the plea had seen them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1871.177, 1879.197, 1882.279, 1888.814], "stop_times": [1879.197, 1882.279, 1888.814, 1895.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1871.177}, "reply_to": "23557__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23557__1_020", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "To begin with, Judge Gertner looked only to... she didn't draw any inference based on the document recording the guilty plea and what happened.\nShe looked only to the direct evidence of what happened in the colloquy, i.e., the petitioner's affidavit.\nBut even more than that, her only finding was that the police report, as a police report, was not introduced at the plea colloquy.\nIt wasn't marked as an exhibit.\nIt wasn't attached to anything.\nIt wasn't introduced as that.\nI don't think that's inconsistent with the idea that as is often the case and is probably usually the case, that the police report was synopsized by the prosecutor and... and read at court, which would explain why the offense of conviction has the same offense date, same street address, same victim, same arresting officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1895.411, 1902.963, 1907.972, 1916.246, 1917.385, 1918.531, 1920.004], "stop_times": [1902.963, 1907.972, 1916.246, 1917.385, 1918.531, 1920.004, 1937.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1895.411}, "reply_to": "23557__1_019", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_021", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "But we don't have any colloquy.\nWe don't know what happened at the... you're saying it's... it's altogether likely that that happened, but we don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1937.697, 1938.814], "stop_times": [1938.814, 1945.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1937.697}, "reply_to": "23557__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23557__1_022", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "But we do know that under Massachusetts State law, that there... before a court can accept a guilty plea, there has to be a factual basis in the record.\nThere have to be facts in the record to support every element of the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1945.618, 1953.551], "stop_times": [1953.551, 1956.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1945.618}, "reply_to": "23557__1_021", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_023", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "So if the defendant says, yes, I plead guilty to this crime and the crime is described as ship, vessel, car, building, and that's... if that's all that happened is the boiler plate charge that just repeats the statute and the defendant says, yes, I did that, but nothing tells us did what, other than violate the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1956.31], "stop_times": [1981.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1956.31}, "reply_to": "23557__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23557__1_024", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "The requirement... the factual basis requirement requires a statement of the facts, not a statement of the legal conclusion, and simply reading the charging document as a legal conclusion about what it... about a boat, building, et cetera was broken into.\nWhat it requires is a narrative description of the underlying conduct so that the judge can satisfy him or herself to what the defendant is pleading guilty to is actually a crime.\nIf he just says, I agree with the charging document, if the underlying facts were he broke into a grocery cart or a... a refrigerator shipping box or something, it might not satisfy the elements of the crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [1981.214, 1994.307, 2002.116], "stop_times": [1994.307, 2002.116, 2013.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1981.214}, "reply_to": "23557__1_023", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_025", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "But couldn't the judge in that colloquy have said to him, did you break into a building, a car, or a boat?\nAnd he would have said yes, and wouldn't that have satisfied the element of the crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2013.062, 2019.621], "stop_times": [2019.621, 2022.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2013.062}, "reply_to": "23557__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_026", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I don't... I don't think it would have satisfied the factual basis requirement in that there has to be a narrative description of what the defendant did, like he showed up at that day and he broke into 258 Norwell Street.\nAnd I have yet to find a Massachusetts case where a... a guilty plea was accepted based on basically just a recitation of the charging document--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2022.96, 2032.922], "stop_times": [2032.922, 2040.855], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2022.96}, "reply_to": "23557__1_025", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_027", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Now, there's no record here of the colloquy at the plea?\nIs that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2040.855, 2044.213], "stop_times": [2044.213, 2044.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2040.855}, "reply_to": "23557__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__1_028", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--No.\nThere's... there's no facts... there's no... as is the case often in guilty pleas, which are not challenged on appeal, no colloquy was ever prepared and apparently the tape recording was destroyed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2044.893, 2045.068], "stop_times": [2045.068, 2054.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2044.893}, "reply_to": "23557__1_027", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_029", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "But your test is whether or not there's reliable record evidence?\nIs that... that the test?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2054.989, 2058.411], "stop_times": [2058.411, 2060.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2054.989}, "reply_to": "23557__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__1_030", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Yes, whether there's reliable record evidence that is reliable in describing what the offense was that was the subject of the plea colloquy.\nAnd in this case, we believe it is met both because the police report is unambiguous, as several of the members of the Court have averred to, and that the documents recording the guilty plea I think very clearly indicate that the thing that was at issue was the crime described in the police report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2060.248, 2068.893], "stop_times": [2068.893, 2085.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2060.248}, "reply_to": "23557__1_029", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_031", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Does it... does the plea refer to the police report?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2085.679], "stop_times": [2090.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.679}, "reply_to": "23557__1_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__1_032", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "No, it does not.\nIt doesn't in so many words refer to the police report, but it refers to... it... it, I think, unambiguously describes the crimes described in the police report and that it involves, as I said, the same date, the same street address, the same victim, and the same arresting officer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2090.228, 2091.29], "stop_times": [2091.29, 2105.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2090.228}, "reply_to": "23557__1_031", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_033", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Where do you draw the line?\nIs there some... I... I take it that you say certainly if the plea colloquy or the... or the judge's guilt determination refers to the police report, then the police report comes in.\nSuppose there's no reference to the police report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2105.718, 2106.998, 2117.586], "stop_times": [2106.998, 2117.586, 2120.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2105.718}, "reply_to": "23557__1_032", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__1_034", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I think that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2120.189], "stop_times": [2122.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.189}, "reply_to": "23557__1_033", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_035", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Can we still go find the police report and then where do we stop?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2122.294], "stop_times": [2125.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2122.294}, "reply_to": "23557__1_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__1_036", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--I think that if there's no reference to the police report and if the police report is not in the State court file, which it was in this case... the court indicated it was in the State court file... I... I think that you would probably have to have a stronger showing in order to say, well, he pleaded guilty to the police report such as a... a reference to the police report or more of an indication on the guilty plea form, a notation of... of what was entered or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2125.236], "stop_times": [2147.731], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2125.236}, "reply_to": "23557__1_035", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_037", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, you mentioned--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2147.731], "stop_times": [2148.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2147.731}, "reply_to": "23557__1_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__1_038", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--something that unambiguously indicated the police report provided the factual basis for the plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2148.14], "stop_times": [2152.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2148.14}, "reply_to": "23557__1_037", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_039", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--You... you mentioned the State file.\nIs... is the rule whatever is in the State file, even if there's no reference to it?\nYou had... you had two variables: one that there was reference to it; and two, that it was in State file.\nSuppose there's no reference, but it is in the State file.\nWhat... I'm... I'm not sure what rule you would draw?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2152.571, 2153.85, 2158.148, 2162.977, 2165.611], "stop_times": [2153.85, 2158.148, 2162.977, 2165.611, 2168.637], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2152.571}, "reply_to": "23557__1_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__1_040", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "The... if... I... I think that there has to be both an... that the police report is unambiguous and that there is reason to believe or that it is more likely than not that the police report provided the factual basis for the plea, and if it's... if there's no reference to it in so many words, I think the same could be said this... that the same could be said here in this case.\nIt doesn't say we look to the police report.\nYou just draw that inference from the fact that the crime described looks like the crime described in the police report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2168.637, 2190.056, 2191.881], "stop_times": [2190.056, 2191.881, 2198.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2168.637}, "reply_to": "23557__1_039", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_041", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "So what is your... what rule would you have here?\nThe question is, was he convicted of a crime of violence?\n98 percent of the cases, all you have to do is look to the crime charged, burglary, and the fact that he was convicted.\nHe pleaded guilty or didn't.\nBut there are these two... three States I guess that lump together in one code provision for breaking and entering into a ship or a car or a house.\nSo now we've got to know which of the three it is.\nIf they go to trial, it's easy.\nJust look to the jury instructions.\nIf they plead guilty, I guess your opponents would say that's the end of it.\nYou can't use it because we don't ever know from the charge itself which of the three it was that was at issue.\nWas a house at issue?\nWas a car at issue?\nWas a boat at issue?\nNow, you're going to say, but do a little investigating to find out what was at issue.\nLook at the police report.\nIs your view look at anything as long as it's uncontested and clear?\nTheir argument is no matter what you look into, once you go beyond that charging document, you're going to find I think Justice Souter's point.\nIt's going to be ambiguous sometimes.\nYou get into facts of things happened years ago.\nIt's just not worth it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2198.317, 2201.741, 2207.401, 2214.497, 2216.007, 2226.266, 2228.441, 2231.247, 2232.816, 2237.567, 2244.863, 2245.755, 2249.347, 2250.498, 2255.946, 2257.451, 2261.464, 2270.246, 2272.546, 2275.575], "stop_times": [2201.741, 2207.401, 2214.497, 2216.007, 2226.266, 2228.441, 2231.247, 2232.816, 2237.567, 2244.863, 2245.755, 2249.347, 2250.498, 2255.946, 2257.451, 2261.464, 2270.246, 2272.546, 2275.575, 2276.788], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2198.317}, "reply_to": "23557__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__1_042", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I think our argument... or the... the proposition that we are arguing for today is that when the documents and the State court file indicate that the defendant was arrested for only burglary of a building and there's no question that it wasn't a ship or a vehicle, that it will support the ACCA--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2276.788], "stop_times": [2292.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.788}, "reply_to": "23557__1_041", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_043", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Yes, but we're still going to have to write something.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2292.744], "stop_times": [2294.468], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2292.744}, "reply_to": "23557__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__1_044", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--Correct.\nWhen--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2294.468, 2294.864], "stop_times": [2294.864, 2295.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2294.468}, "reply_to": "23557__1_043", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_045", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "And what I want to know is what's your rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2295.151], "stop_times": [2296.049], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2295.151}, "reply_to": "23557__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__1_046", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--Right.\nWhen the other documents in the file indicate that it is more likely than not that the police report or that that description of events served as the basis for the guilty plea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2296.049, 2296.35], "stop_times": [2296.35, 2308.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2296.049}, "reply_to": "23557__1_045", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_047", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "May I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2308.019], "stop_times": [2308.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.019}, "reply_to": "23557__1_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_048", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "So... so we... are we going to decide... decide a lot of probate cases about incorporation by reference in wills and stuff?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2308.825], "stop_times": [2314.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2308.825}, "reply_to": "23557__1_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__1_049", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I... I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2314.668], "stop_times": [2316.244], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2314.668}, "reply_to": "23557__1_048", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_050", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I don't know what we're supposed to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2316.244], "stop_times": [2317.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2316.244}, "reply_to": "23557__1_049", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__1_051", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--I think that in this case it just... I don't think the Court really has to get to the outer reaches of this because in many of these cases, it's overwhelming--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2317.304], "stop_times": [2326.115], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2317.304}, "reply_to": "23557__1_050", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_052", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--But if we don't get to the outer reaches, the next case I suppose will involve a... an application for a search warrant or an arrest warrant which describes facts and pretty well tells you what really happened.\nCould you rely on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2326.115, 2335.33], "stop_times": [2335.33, 2336.211], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2326.115}, "reply_to": "23557__1_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_053", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--No.\nBecause the... the important thing is not just describing what actually happened, but what... what happened on the day the guilty plea was taken.\nAnd that is where the documents that record the plea I think come in to show--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2336.211, 2336.601, 2343.328], "stop_times": [2336.601, 2343.328, 2348.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2336.211}, "reply_to": "23557__1_052", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_054", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, the police report wasn't made on that date.\nThe police report was prepared earlier, I assume.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2348.039, 2349.868], "stop_times": [2349.868, 2352.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2348.039}, "reply_to": "23557__1_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_055", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--The police report was prepared earlier, but when the crime... when they wrote down guilty, the offense he was guilty of is breaking into a certain address at a certain day, belonging to a certain victim, and involving the same arresting officer.\nAnd we believe that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2352.009, 2363.713], "stop_times": [2363.713, 2365.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2352.009}, "reply_to": "23557__1_054", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_056", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "But if it's that... if it's that explicit, I don't think you need the police report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2365.409], "stop_times": [2369.59], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.409}, "reply_to": "23557__1_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_057", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--Well, perhaps because you can refer to the police report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2369.59], "stop_times": [2373.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2369.59}, "reply_to": "23557__1_056", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_058", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "It seems to me we're dealing with a case in which the court documents are sufficiently ambiguous that you have to look to something else.\nThen the question is what other things may you look to, and you say we can look to police reports.\nI say why not look at warrant applications or maybe the prosecutor's notes, or there could be other equally reliable documents available, it would seem to me, that would... which establish the facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2373.835, 2379.315, 2383.926], "stop_times": [2379.315, 2383.926, 2394.429], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2373.835}, "reply_to": "23557__1_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_059", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I think that you really only have to look at... the... the fact that these are present in the court's files and the fact that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2394.429], "stop_times": [2400.133], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2394.429}, "reply_to": "23557__1_058", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_060", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I thought the police reports were not present in the court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2400.133], "stop_times": [2402.062], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2400.133}, "reply_to": "23557__1_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_061", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--They are present in the court's files.\nThe court said they were present in the court's files.\nThey just said they didn't become part of the plea colloquy because of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2402.062, 2402.888, 2404.508], "stop_times": [2402.888, 2404.508, 2407.278], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2402.062}, "reply_to": "23557__1_060", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_062", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, the... the warrant affidavit is going to be present in the files.\nIt's... it's returned.\nIt's... it's normally filed with... with the other papers in the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2407.278, 2409.972, 2411.0], "stop_times": [2409.972, 2411.0, 2414.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2407.278}, "reply_to": "23557__1_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__1_063", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--I think, though, that there's... there would be no particular reason to believe that the warrant application had been... had served as the basis for the guilty plea.\nI mean, if you had some sort of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2414.053, 2422.318], "stop_times": [2422.318, 2423.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2414.053}, "reply_to": "23557__1_062", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_064", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Why... why not?\nI... I mean, are we going to imagine an entirely different case out of the blue from the one that's disclosed in... in the warrant application?\nIt seems to me that there's a... a relatively high degree of probability there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2423.852, 2424.108, 2434.36], "stop_times": [2424.108, 2434.36, 2438.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2423.852}, "reply_to": "23557__1_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__1_065", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--If... I... I think that if the documents recording the guilty plea indicate that the... that the crime described is the crime described in the warrant application, you probably could look at that if... to determine if it was a boat or a building or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2438.518], "stop_times": [2451.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2438.518}, "reply_to": "23557__1_064", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_066", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, let's say the warrant application says, you know, we're looking for a stolen radio and the charge does indicate that he was... that... that the... that the property taken in the burglary was a... was... was a radio.\nWouldn't that be a basis for saying, okay, the warrant application probably discloses what was going on here?\nIf... if the... if it was a radio on the warrant application, a radio in the burglary charge to which he did plead guilty, probably it's the radio at the address indicated in the warrant application.\nIsn't that a fair inference?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2451.583, 2464.661, 2470.543, 2483.023], "stop_times": [2464.661, 2470.543, 2483.023, 2484.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.583}, "reply_to": "23557__1_065", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__1_067", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--Perhaps.\nThe... the whole thing about the warrant application, though, strikes me as... as a little bit more attenuated, though, also because it's done in advance of the police arriving on the scene and discovering what's going on whereas the police report--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2484.243, 2485.621], "stop_times": [2485.621, 2496.387], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2484.243}, "reply_to": "23557__1_066", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_068", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, it may be done in advance by... you know, by... by a couple of hours from the... the police going in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2496.387], "stop_times": [2500.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.387}, "reply_to": "23557__1_067", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__1_069", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--Right.\nBut still it's... it's done beforehand as opposed to done after the crime has been investigated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2500.554, 2500.723], "stop_times": [2500.723, 2505.242], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2500.554}, "reply_to": "23557__1_068", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_070", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--What... what about the... the police officer... what... what if we don't have a document of any sort but the... the State calls the police officer who, in fact, made the application for the... the issuance of the complaint and he says, when I appeared to ask for the issuance of the complaint, I testified to, I swore to the following facts?\nI.e., that it was a house at such and such Shaw Street.\nThat gives you your contemporaneity element.\nWhy not accept that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2505.242, 2527.264, 2531.562, 2536.652], "stop_times": [2527.264, 2531.562, 2536.652, 2537.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2505.242}, "reply_to": "23557__1_069", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__1_071", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I think that under a sort of a... theoretically that's a... that is a theoretical possibility, Justice Souter.\nI don't think that would happen a lot in actual practice because the sort of people who are prosecutional witnesses have a sufficient caseload that they're just never going to have in a... a actual recollection of specific events.\nAnd I can represent to the Court that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2537.913, 2545.164, 2556.413], "stop_times": [2545.164, 2556.413, 2558.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2537.913}, "reply_to": "23557__1_070", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_072", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "They have notes.\nBut the police all have little notebooks.\nThat's what they use in trial day in and day out.\nSo it seems to me that... that if... if contemporaneity is the... is... is... or rough contemporaneity is... is the criterion, then on your theory we ought to get into testimonial evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2558.396, 2558.636, 2560.181, 2564.719], "stop_times": [2558.636, 2560.181, 2564.719, 2576.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2558.396}, "reply_to": "23557__1_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "23557__1_073", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--It's... it's both contemporaneity, if I've said that correctly, but I think also a... a reason to infer that it provided the basis for the plea... for the plea colloquy, which it is in this case because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2576.71], "stop_times": [2588.285], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2576.71}, "reply_to": "23557__1_072", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_074", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, I guess you would be content with just relying on whatever was disclosed at the plea colloquy in court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2588.285], "stop_times": [2594.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2588.285}, "reply_to": "23557__1_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__1_075", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--That's correct.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2594.914, 2595.656], "stop_times": [2595.656, 2596.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2594.914}, "reply_to": "23557__1_074", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_076", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "And you would take... you would make the assumption, apparently, that on that occasion the elements, the factual basis for the plea would have been disclosed.\nBut unfortunately, the record has been destroyed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2596.544, 2607.531], "stop_times": [2607.531, 2610.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2596.544}, "reply_to": "23557__1_075", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__1_077", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--It has been destroyed, but Massachusetts State law requires that there be a factual basis before the court can accept a guilty plea.\nAnd I think we can... under the presumption of regularity that attaches to guilty pleas, you can presume that occurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2610.68, 2617.133], "stop_times": [2617.133, 2622.422], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2610.68}, "reply_to": "23557__1_076", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_078", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "You can just presume that the proceeding was regular and it was disclosed.\nIs that right?\nIs... under Massachusetts law is there any difference in the penalty at all for burglary of a house versus a motorcycle versus a car versus a vessel?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2622.422, 2625.733, 2626.769], "stop_times": [2625.733, 2626.769, 2639.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2622.422}, "reply_to": "23557__1_077", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__1_079", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "No, there isn't.\nThey're all punished the same.\nSo it's not as though this was a... a lesser included or anything like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2639.874, 2640.141, 2641.134], "stop_times": [2640.141, 2641.134, 2645.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2639.874}, "reply_to": "23557__1_078", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_080", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "So you want us to write the opinion that we can presume that what's in the State investigative files and records was likely before the trial court?\nI... I'd like to know what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2645.273, 2657.179], "stop_times": [2657.179, 2657.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2645.273}, "reply_to": "23557__1_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__1_081", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I don't think it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2657.985], "stop_times": [2658.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2657.985}, "reply_to": "23557__1_080", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_082", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--I don't know what I'm supposed to write.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2658.194], "stop_times": [2659.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2658.194}, "reply_to": "23557__1_081", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "23557__1_083", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--That when the... basically when the police report is unambiguous and when the documents in the State court file indicate that the basis for the guilty plea was the crime described in the police report, that you can infer that the factual basis for the plea, which is required under Massachusetts law, was in fact the breaking into a building as opposed to a ship or a vehicle and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2659.226], "stop_times": [2683.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2659.226}, "reply_to": "23557__1_082", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_084", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--Mr. Elwood, can I tell you what's troubling me about that?\nMaybe the whole categorical approach is unwise.\nIt may have been more strict than it should be.\nBut it... I'm puzzled by the notion that in a case that's been tried to verdict, you can only look at the indictment and the instructions, as I understand Justice Blackmun's opinion.\nYou could not look at the testimony in the record, even though there are nine witnesses who described what happened.\nIt seems to me that might be much more reliable than a police report.\nAnd I'm just wondering am I correct, do you think, on saying you cannot look at the testimony in the tried case?\nAnd if so, how do you... how do you say that police reports are better than sworn witnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2683.634, 2685.238, 2688.142, 2690.211, 2701.031, 2706.39, 2710.482, 2715.635], "stop_times": [2685.238, 2688.142, 2690.211, 2701.031, 2706.39, 2710.482, 2715.635, 2720.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2683.634}, "reply_to": "23557__1_083", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_085", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I think to me it's not 100 percent clear whether when Taylor referred to the jury instructions and the charging documents, that that was exhaustive of the jury trial conflict.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2720.455], "stop_times": [2729.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2720.455}, "reply_to": "23557__1_084", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_086", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "It's a for example thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2729.294], "stop_times": [2730.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2729.294}, "reply_to": "23557__1_085", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_087", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Right.\nIt could be something else.\nBut I think that if you were going... it's still possible to draw the distinction based on an administrability factor, which is the way many courts have looked at it, which is you don't want to have to have the court look back to transcripts of the whole thing versus... for the whole trial, whereas if they can look at a discrete body of documents and say yes, this guy pleaded guilty to burglary of a building, that you can reach that conclusion.\nIt's a line of administrability, not a... a line of testimony with the documents.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2730.07, 2730.251, 2730.894, 2751.211], "stop_times": [2730.251, 2730.894, 2751.211, 2755.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2730.07}, "reply_to": "23557__1_086", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_088", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "The thing I'm just questioning is whether this rule that you... you're advocating is really more administrable than one that just says it seems crazy in this particular case.\nBut... but in the interest of having a categorical administrative rule, we'll simply say whatever the public record shows and the proceedings themselves.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2755.543, 2761.336], "stop_times": [2761.336, 2769.766], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.543}, "reply_to": "23557__1_087", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_089", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "I think that it has proven administrable.\nAnd it... it... I think that the majority of courts allow you to look at court documents in order to determine what was... what sort of offense was at issue and... and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2769.766, 2771.568], "stop_times": [2771.568, 2780.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2769.766}, "reply_to": "23557__1_088", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_090", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "How should we interpret Taylor?\nDo you... do you agree with the interpretation suggested this morning by Justice Breyer, for example?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2780.214, 2782.735], "stop_times": [2782.735, 2790.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2780.214}, "reply_to": "23557__1_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "23557__1_091", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--I think it's definitely should be interpreted to include guilty pleas because taking Taylor literally, I mean, they only discussed jury trials.\nBut every court with criminal jurisdiction, every court of appeals with criminal jurisdiction, has concluded that it includes guilty pleas.\nAnd so I think it... it does make sense.\nI don't think that the Court would have in such a short section of the opinion have exhaustively addressed the entire scope of factual situations, and I don't think it would have addressed the circumstance under which most guilty pleas... or rather, under which most convictions are obtained--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2790.424, 2799.264, 2805.085, 2807.024], "stop_times": [2799.264, 2805.085, 2807.024, 2823.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2790.424}, "reply_to": "23557__1_090", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_092", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, then... but reading it that way, which is arguable, this case, but reading it that way, you'd say you can look... what we're interested in is not what happened.\nWe are interested in what kind of a crime was at issue.\nAnd where it's difficult to decide what crime is at issue, you can look to whatever official documents are there at the time, any court records, to make that determination, but there... if there is any indication that they're... they're contested, if there's any dispute as to what was at issue, then you can't count it.\nThen it doesn't count.\nWhat about that as a rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2823.047, 2832.651, 2837.018, 2858.903, 2861.005], "stop_times": [2832.651, 2837.018, 2858.903, 2861.005, 2862.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2823.047}, "reply_to": "23557__1_091", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__1_093", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--I... I think that is a sensible rule.\nI mean, basically our rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2862.623, 2864.465], "stop_times": [2864.465, 2865.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2862.623}, "reply_to": "23557__1_092", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_094", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "So you'd say there's... you can look to what Justice Stevens says.\nYou can look to what is official in that record that seems to have indication of reliability, and if there is any indication at all that this was a matter in dispute, you can't count the conviction.\nThat would be the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2865.596, 2868.074, 2880.292], "stop_times": [2868.074, 2880.292, 2881.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2865.596}, "reply_to": "23557__1_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "23557__1_095", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--I... I think that would be a sensible rule.\nAnd in this case, as... as we indicated, not only are the police reports unambiguous, but there's a very strong reason to believe that they were the basis for the guilty plea as it was obtained on that day.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2881.64, 2883.037], "stop_times": [2883.037, 2896.34], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2881.64}, "reply_to": "23557__1_094", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_096", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Mr. Elwood, we had a case last term involving a search warrant, Groh against Ramirez, and it... it was very clear that the application for the warrant identified specifically what the police were to search for, but the warrant itself didn't.\nAnd this Court held you couldn't look behind that blank warrant for the particulars that were revealed in the warrant application.\nAnd I suppose this is similar in the sense that we have the conviction and you're saying, but you can look behind that conviction to something that, we don't know, may or may not have been before the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2896.34, 2917.461, 2929.069], "stop_times": [2917.461, 2929.069, 2950.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2896.34}, "reply_to": "23557__1_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23557__1_097", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "As I recall Groh, that case specifically turned on the fact that the face of the Fourth Amendment requires that the warrant describe, not that the supporting documents describe, the place to be searched and the items to be seized.\nAnd I think in this case we already know it's okay to look behind convictions because Taylor itself says so.\nThe only question is what items are acceptable, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2950.9, 2962.941, 2968.039], "stop_times": [2962.941, 2968.039, 2971.224], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2950.9}, "reply_to": "23557__1_096", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_098", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Well, Taylor... Taylor doesn't quite have this full for example because there's another paragraph following the for example paragraph which says we hold an offense constitutes burglary for purposes of 924(e) if either the statutory definition corresponds to generic burglary, which it doesn't here, or the charging paper, which it doesn't here, and jury instructions, which the judge tells the jury you must find this in order to convict.\nThose are not for examples.\nThat paragraph says you've got three things you can look to.\nYou can look to the statutory definition.\nYou can look to the charging paper, and you can look to the jury instruction.\nAnd that's it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [2971.224, 3007.819, 3010.68, 3014.651, 3018.571, 3023.68], "stop_times": [3007.819, 3010.68, 3014.651, 3018.571, 3023.68, 3024.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2971.224}, "reply_to": "23557__1_097", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "23557__1_099", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--I think, though, that in the context that... that is, if you're going to include guilty pleas at all for these sort of straddle offenses that... that some of the conduct is generic burglary and some isn't, that if Taylor is accepted on face value, where it isn't an example, then it... it basically would mean that, sub silentio, the... the Court had held that guilty pleas could not be used at all for this sort of inquiry under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which I think would be extraordinarily or... or it would definitely limit at least the utility of the ACCA as an act punishing recidivism because the vast majority of convictions are obtained through criminal--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [3024.758], "stop_times": [3065.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3024.758}, "reply_to": "23557__1_098", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_100", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Yes, but aren't the vast majority of guilty pleas unambiguous?\nThis is a rather rare case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [3065.78, 3068.629], "stop_times": [3068.629, 3069.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3065.78}, "reply_to": "23557__1_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_101", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--But if the... I don't think... I think that whenever there is a straddle crime and that the charging document is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [3069.927], "stop_times": [3075.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3069.927}, "reply_to": "23557__1_100", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_102", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Yes, whenever straddle crimes, but... but they're the exception rather than the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [3075.752], "stop_times": [3078.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3075.752}, "reply_to": "23557__1_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_103", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "--That is probably the case.\nI know that there are something like 28 States that have them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [3078.464, 3081.631], "stop_times": [3081.631, 3084.467], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3078.464}, "reply_to": "23557__1_102", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_104", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "But even burglary I think in most States would be clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [3084.467], "stop_times": [3084.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3084.467}, "reply_to": "23557__1_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__1_105", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "There... there are many States that... that have offenses that include both generic and nongeneric burglary, although I think that it's probably true that most... most burglary statutes are either generic or nongeneric, not sort of straddled like that.\nBut in any event, I think it would significantly limit the utility of the ACCA.\nAnd in addition, every court of appeals with criminal jurisdiction has held that that's not what it means, that it does mean, as Justice Breyer indicated, that that was one example that the Court meant.\nIt is, after all, a fairly abbreviated discussion that wasn't briefed by the parties in the case, and I don't think that the Court should read it so expansively based on relatively ambiguous language.\nIf there are no further questions from the Court, we'll rely on our submission.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [3084.84, 3097.176, 3102.156, 3111.017, 3123.136], "stop_times": [3097.176, 3102.156, 3111.017, 3123.136, 3127.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3084.84}, "reply_to": "23557__1_104", "speaker": "john_p_elwood"}
{"id": "23557__1_106", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Elwood.\nMs. Thompson, you have a little over 3 minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [3127.276, 3128.715], "stop_times": [3128.715, 3132.628], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3127.276}, "reply_to": "23557__1_105", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "23557__2_000", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens.\nFirst, I would like to point out that the Armed Career Criminal Act does not punish all recidivism.\nIt is designed to punish the people who have prior convictions for those offenses falling... falling within the categories.\nSo it's not designed to punish all recidivism.\nMassachusetts does have generic burglary statutes.\nThese statutes that are at issue here are not among them.\nBut for the serious forms of burglary, such as home invasion, Massachusetts punishes those under generic burglary statutes.\nSo those do exist.\nWith regard to the record that the Court can look at in making this determination, it was significant in the district court that Judge Gertner was not pointed to the face of the complaint.\nAnd as you look at the complaints that are shown in the third appendix in this case, there is... there are dates listed at the bottom.\nThe entries in those docket sheets were made at different times, not all made at the time of a guilty plea.\nThe Government did not present any evidence to help the court understand anything about the way the dockets were made and the entries were made when a guilty plea was taken in the district court.\nThe third thing of interest is, as Judge Gertner found, there was no reason for a contemporaneous contest of the evidence... of the material in the police report because the police report was not part of the plea proceeding.\nSo what happens is the district court that's faced with the sentencing issue now has to make the determination, can I now look and see whether there was some contest years ago when the guilty plea was entered without the aid of a contemporaneous record of adjudication.\nAnd what Mr. Shepard's position is, as to what the... the rule should be, is that where... and we don't contest even remotely that guilty pleas don't fall under the ambit of the Armed Career Criminal Act.\nTaylor was a guilty plea itself.\nThat case was a guilty plea... is that where you have a nongeneric statute and you have a conviction by a guilty plea, that the court can look at a charging document and a contemporaneous formal record of adjudication, not simply anything that's found in the court file, and that must establish, based on that examination, that the defendant was necessarily found guilty of all the elements of generic burglary either by his own admission or by a finding by the judge.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [3132.628, 3134.269, 3142.872, 3152.075, 3154.656, 3158.975, 3163.296, 3171.656, 3173.116, 3187.831, 3198.121, 3205.245, 3219.939, 3236.955, 3256.306, 3272.938, 3274.868, 3303.858], "stop_times": [3134.269, 3142.872, 3152.075, 3154.656, 3158.975, 3163.296, 3171.656, 3173.116, 3187.831, 3198.121, 3205.245, 3219.939, 3236.955, 3256.306, 3272.938, 3274.868, 3303.858, 3304.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3132.628}, "reply_to": "23557__1_106", "speaker": "linda_j_thompson"}
{"id": "23557__2_001", "conversation_id": "23557", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Thompson.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-9168", "start_times": [3304.265, 3305.073], "stop_times": [3305.073, 3305.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3304.265}, "reply_to": "23557__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__0_000", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Mr. Boas, the Court will hear argument in Small against the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [6.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__0_001", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThis case presents the issue of whether, when deciding the meaning of a statute, we will focus, as the Government suggests, on two words only, any court, or whether we will look at the statute as a whole, whether we will consider the statute as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme and decide the meaning of the statute by appreciating how sections relate to one another.\nIn this particular case, 922(g)(1) of 18 U.S. Code is a... represents a merger of two old sections, title IV and title VII, that were passed in 1968 in the Omnibus Crime Control Act.\nIn... in those... in that statute, we had two redundant and overlapping sections, and one talked about prohibiting persons who have been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by more than a year.\nOne, title VII, talked about prohibiting persons convicted in any court of the United States or a State of a felony.\nThere were different penalties, slightly different classes of people.\nTitle IV focused more on the receiver; title VII more on the possessor.\nBut nothing... nothing about the... these two titles, about the legislative history suggests that Congress at any time meant something different from the term, any court, in title IV and any court of the United States in title VII.\nAnd when these two were merged in 1986 in the Firearms Owners' Protection Act, again, nothing suggests, nothing in the comments, nothing in the statute, that these two terms... that the elimination of the language, any court of the United States, was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [6.87, 11.517, 38.266, 54.12, 67.411, 74.675, 78.641, 83.403, 99.157], "stop_times": [11.517, 38.266, 54.12, 67.411, 74.675, 78.641, 83.403, 99.157, 115.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6.87}, "reply_to": "21977__0_000", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_002", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, I guess we have held, though, several times that Congress meant to define very broadly when it enacted felon in possession of firearm statutes.\nDid we not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [115.171, 128.795], "stop_times": [128.795, 129.372], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 115.171}, "reply_to": "21977__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21977__0_003", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--That's... that's correct, Justice O'Connor.\nHowever--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [129.372, 131.108], "stop_times": [131.108, 131.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 129.372}, "reply_to": "21977__0_002", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_004", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "So it makes it a tougher case when you use the word any because we've given the... the word any generally a broad definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [131.646], "stop_times": [141.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 131.646}, "reply_to": "21977__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21977__0_005", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well, earlier this year in the Nixon case, this Court said that when we look at any... and that was a case dealing with the meaning of any entity.\nDid it mean any entity, public or private, or any private entity?\nThe Court said any can and does mean different things depending upon the setting, and the Court said when using it broadly would lead to strange and indeterminate results, we'll give it a more narrow reading, which the Court did.\nNow, you're right, Justice O'Connor.\nThis Court has said that the purpose of the felon in possession statute was to be broad and sweeping, but the Government reiterates that view, citing repeatedly three cases, Scarborough, Bass, and Lewis, and all three of those cases in which the Court referred to Congress' comments and this Court's own comments about the broad sweep of the statute were 1202(a) cases.\nAnd so notwithstanding the fact that the Court said this is a broad statute, each one of those cases, Lewis, Bass, and Scarborough, were cases where by definition the prohibition was against persons convicted in any court of the United States or a State.\nSo that language doesn't help the Government at all because those were 1202(a) cases which limited specifically the Court to any court of the United States.\nSo to take the... and I... and... the simplistic view that as the... as the Fourth and Sixth Circuit did and as the Government does here, that any means any, without regard to the rest of the statute, is simply... is... is too narrow a focus.\nLet's look at the statute.\nIt's true that the word... the term, the two words, any court, is not defined.\nBut if we look in the definitions section, the term, crime punishable by more than a year, is defined.\nAnd so what we should really be focusing on is the phrase, convicted in any court of a crime punishable by more than a year.\nAnd that definition says the term, crime punishable by more than a year, excludes any State or Federal antitrust or business regulatory offense.\nNow, if we exclude from the definition of crime punishable by more than a year and the Government's... if we exclude from that any State or Federal antitrust law and the Government's interpretation is adopted, then we're left with the anomalous result that if a person is convicted of an antitrust offense in this country, they're allowed to possess a firearm.\nIf they're convicted of one in France or England, they can't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [141.844, 150.593, 156.371, 170.096, 171.62, 197.693, 213.835, 225.268, 243.557, 244.959, 249.873, 256.12, 263.163, 275.136, 297.92], "stop_times": [150.593, 156.371, 170.096, 171.62, 197.693, 213.835, 225.268, 243.557, 244.959, 249.873, 256.12, 263.163, 275.136, 297.92, 301.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 141.844}, "reply_to": "21977__0_004", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_006", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Are there any such cases?\nI mean, I never heard actually--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [301.058, 302.378], "stop_times": [302.378, 304.69], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 301.058}, "reply_to": "21977__0_005", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__0_007", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [304.69], "stop_times": [305.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 304.69}, "reply_to": "21977__0_006", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_008", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--when people... no.\nI mean, are there any cases in which France or England has convicted people of an antitrust violation punishable by imprisonment for more than a year?\nI... I didn't know that their antitrust laws had a criminal aspect, though I haven't looked it up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [305.062, 305.599, 314.144], "stop_times": [305.599, 314.144, 318.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 305.062}, "reply_to": "21977__0_007", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__0_009", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Nor have I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [318.065], "stop_times": [319.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 318.065}, "reply_to": "21977__0_008", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_010", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Fine.\nWell, I... I've never heard if anyone in any foreign country, other than ours, though I gather my law clerk found that in Japan, in fact, Japan does have a criminal antitrust law.\nThey may be the only ones outside the United States, and I don't know that anyone has ever been convicted under it because they're not too... or they didn't used to be too fierce on antitrust enforcement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [319.551, 320.188, 331.234], "stop_times": [320.188, 331.234, 340.81], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 319.551}, "reply_to": "21977__0_009", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__0_011", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well, 921(20) or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [340.81], "stop_times": [343.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 340.81}, "reply_to": "21977__0_010", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_012", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "I'm just wondering how anomalous or your anomaly is.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [343.782, 346.177], "stop_times": [346.177, 347.542], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 343.782}, "reply_to": "21977__0_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__0_013", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well, the... the limitation not only excludes antitrust offenses, it excludes any business regulatory offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [347.542], "stop_times": [353.402], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 347.542}, "reply_to": "21977__0_012", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_014", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "And are there such?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [353.402], "stop_times": [354.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 353.402}, "reply_to": "21977__0_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__0_015", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Of course.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [354.433, 355.093], "stop_times": [355.093, 355.465], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 354.433}, "reply_to": "21977__0_014", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_016", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "I mean, maybe.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [355.465], "stop_times": [356.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 355.465}, "reply_to": "21977__0_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__0_017", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [356.374], "stop_times": [356.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 356.374}, "reply_to": "21977__0_016", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_018", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "I don't... I don't... but I just... are we sure that there... that, you know, that this anomaly exists?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [356.829], "stop_times": [362.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 356.829}, "reply_to": "21977__0_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__0_019", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "I... I'm certainly that there are business regulatory crimes throughout the world.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [362.113], "stop_times": [366.283], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 362.113}, "reply_to": "21977__0_018", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_020", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Why did they say any State or Federal?\nI mean, in... in a way this provision... you... you may say that the... that the substantive effect of the provision supports your interpretation, but the text of the provision supports the Government's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [366.283, 369.71], "stop_times": [369.71, 383.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 366.283}, "reply_to": "21977__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__0_021", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [383.949], "stop_times": [384.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 383.949}, "reply_to": "21977__0_020", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_022", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--because if any only means State or Federal, there was no need to say State or Federal in this provision.\nYou could have simply said any in this provision, just as you said it elsewhere.\nSo one would think that they said State or Federal because they wanted to exclude foreign antitrust matters.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [384.588, 393.609, 397.779], "stop_times": [393.609, 397.779, 404.671], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 384.588}, "reply_to": "21977__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__0_023", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well, this same limitation, Justice Scalia, existed as a limitation under 1202(a) where any court said any State or Federal court and the exclusion said any State or Federal court.\nIt's consistent--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [404.671, 418.789], "stop_times": [418.789, 419.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 404.671}, "reply_to": "21977__0_022", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_024", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, I don't care how it got there.\nI'm just saying there... there... if... if any means what you said it means, namely State or Federal, there would have been no need to limit this other provision to State or Federal because the whole statute would only cover State or Federal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [419.904, 421.202], "stop_times": [421.202, 434.022], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 419.904}, "reply_to": "21977__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__0_025", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well, but at some point in the statute, Congress has to give an indication of their intent, and this is where it is.\nFor example, there's another limitation immediately following it which says it shall also not include any State offense which is described as a misdemeanor in the State and carries no more than 2 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [434.022, 439.034], "stop_times": [439.034, 449.603], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 434.022}, "reply_to": "21977__0_024", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_026", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "No.\nWell, but... but Justice Scalia's point... and I... I think he's correct... is that this cuts at least as much in favor of the Government as you and probably more because you would make Federal and State unnecessary surplus.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [449.603, 449.686], "stop_times": [449.686, 462.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.603}, "reply_to": "21977__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21977__0_027", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, there has to be some indication--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [462.401], "stop_times": [466.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 462.401}, "reply_to": "21977__0_026", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_028", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "You don't... you don't set forth the main qualification to the main definition in a... in a later subsection.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [466.2], "stop_times": [471.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 466.2}, "reply_to": "21977__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21977__0_029", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well, if we go further with 921(20), there's another limitation that again clearly deals with States, and that's the restoration of civil rights provision.\nThe Government concedes in their brief... and that was an effort to essentially statutorily reverse the Dickerson v. Banner Institute case... that that applies to State situations.\nThe idea that if a person receives a State pardon or his record is expunged, that wouldn't be a disqualifying factor.\nAnd they talk about the law of the foreign state being what determines whether it's a conviction or not.\nNow, clearly we're not looking at going to some pardon process in Germany or Uruguay to decide whether a person still has a conviction.\nAnother part of the statute that's very clear, 924(e)(1).\nThat's the armed career criminal section.\nThat section says that if a person's who's convicted under 922(g)(1), our statute, and has three prior serious drug convictions in a court described in 922(g)(1), then they get 15 years.\nNow, that definition of serious drug conviction is a State or Federal conviction.\nNow, let's flip over to 21 U.S.C. 802(44), the drug statute where you have a similar recidivist type of statute where you go from a 5-year mandatory to a 10-year mandatory if you have a prior drug conviction.\nThere in 802(44), a serious drug offense is defined as a State, Federal, or foreign drug offense.\nSo we see that Congress can differentiate when it wants to.\nNow, they're--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [471.939, 484.942, 495.057, 501.289, 507.689, 516.234, 521.063, 523.207, 540.482, 546.243, 561.559, 569.815, 573.819], "stop_times": [484.942, 495.057, 501.289, 507.689, 516.234, 521.063, 523.207, 540.482, 546.243, 561.559, 569.815, 573.819, 574.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.939}, "reply_to": "21977__0_028", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_030", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Would... would you concede that... that this is at least sloppy drafting?\nBecause they said any in one place, they said State or Federal in other places.\nShouldn't they be... be consistent in their terminology?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [574.645, 578.649, 584.572], "stop_times": [578.649, 584.572, 587.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 574.645}, "reply_to": "21977__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__0_031", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well, perhaps they should be more consistent, Justice Ginsburg, but the overall... I mean, if you go down the list of the prohibitions in 922(g)(1), you can see that the thrust of this is... is to deal with domestic situations.\nThere's one that says you can't own a firearm if you're a... a fugitive from law... a fugitive from justice.\nThat's specifically defined as a fugitive from another State within the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [587.815, 602.509, 609.196], "stop_times": [602.509, 609.196, 614.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 587.815}, "reply_to": "21977__0_030", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_032", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Mr. Boas, I think you make a strong argument that Congress probably didn't think of this particular problem.\nDo you suppose if at the hearings before the committee, the process of the legislation, some witness came in and said, do you realize this language is so broad it will cover the person who is convicted of a felony in Japan, as well as person who's convicted of a felony in Illinois, do you think they would have modified the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [614.331, 620.259], "stop_times": [620.259, 636.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 614.331}, "reply_to": "21977__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__0_033", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "I think they would have.\nI think that... I don't concede that there was really a need to, but I think they would have because they would have said it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [636.977, 638.646], "stop_times": [638.646, 645.029], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 636.977}, "reply_to": "21977__0_032", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_034", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, there would have been a need to under your view now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [645.029], "stop_times": [646.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 645.029}, "reply_to": "21977__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__0_035", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--That's right.\nBut they would have historically going back to '68 and before, we always intended this to just cover domestic situations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [646.681, 646.864], "stop_times": [646.864, 654.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 646.681}, "reply_to": "21977__0_034", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_036", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "But I suppose somebody on the committee might have said, well, we don't want this kind of person to have a gun, and the fact he's convicted in Japan rather than in Brooklyn really doesn't make any difference with regard to the purpose of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [654.832], "stop_times": [666.061], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 654.832}, "reply_to": "21977__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__0_037", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "If the individual is convicted in Japan, Justice Stevens, then he would not be under our immigration laws allowed to come to this country, and if he did come--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [666.061], "stop_times": [674.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 666.061}, "reply_to": "21977__0_036", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_038", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, but this person--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [674.978], "stop_times": [675.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 674.978}, "reply_to": "21977__0_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__0_039", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--he'd be an illegal alien.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [675.887], "stop_times": [676.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 675.887}, "reply_to": "21977__0_038", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_040", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--But the defendant in this case was convicted in Japan and he somehow got to the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [676.547], "stop_times": [681.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 676.547}, "reply_to": "21977__0_039", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__0_041", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, because he's an American citizen.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [681.377], "stop_times": [682.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 681.377}, "reply_to": "21977__0_040", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_042", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [682.286], "stop_times": [683.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 682.286}, "reply_to": "21977__0_041", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__0_043", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "So... but Congress can't cure every problem that exists in the world, and this statute is fairly comprehensive.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [683.029], "stop_times": [689.922], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 683.029}, "reply_to": "21977__0_042", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_044", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Are people really not allowed to come in if they've been convicted of any crime?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [689.922], "stop_times": [693.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 689.922}, "reply_to": "21977__0_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__0_045", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Any crime that carries more than a year basically.\nIt's pretty--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [693.06, 695.661], "stop_times": [695.661, 696.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 693.06}, "reply_to": "21977__0_044", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_046", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Suppose it was a crime like not wearing a veil if you're a woman in a country that... suppose it was a crime like criticizing the government if you were in Soviet Russia.\nSuppose it was a crime like... you know, there are all kinds of crimes that we... we would never consider crimes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [696.116, 703.918], "stop_times": [703.918, 710.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 696.116}, "reply_to": "21977__0_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__0_047", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [710.855], "stop_times": [711.598], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 710.855}, "reply_to": "21977__0_046", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_048", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--and in other countries there are... we don't let anyone in if they've done any of those things?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [711.598], "stop_times": [714.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 711.598}, "reply_to": "21977__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__0_049", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--No.\nWell, those people will probably be seeking political asylum.\nAleksandr Solzhenitsyn... under the Government's interpretation, Nobel Prize winners would be precluded from... Solzhenitsyn did 8 years in a Soviet prison because he said nasty things about Joseph Stalin.\nTwo American women in Afghanistan, before the fall of the Taliban regime, were arrested and convicted because they possessed Bibles.\nNow, the Government says, well, these are anomalies.\nThese don't occur often.\nBut Congress had to be aware of the possibility of tinhorn dictatorships all over the world having court systems that were so devoid of due process that we have to take a look at whether we want to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [714.449, 714.942, 716.965, 729.514, 736.656, 738.719, 739.999], "stop_times": [714.942, 716.965, 729.514, 736.656, 738.719, 739.999, 753.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 714.449}, "reply_to": "21977__0_048", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_050", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, the... the court of appeals here said what it would... it read in a check.\nIt said it wouldn't read it to really mean any conviction.\nIt had to be in a system that was fundamentally fair.\nWasn't that what the court of appeals said?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [753.58, 757.667, 762.375, 765.923], "stop_times": [757.667, 762.375, 765.923, 767.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 753.58}, "reply_to": "21977__0_049", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__0_051", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--That's what they said, but... but when and how do we decide that?\nThere's another offense under 922(g)(1)... or under 922 that makes it a crime to give a false answer on a... a firearms questionnaire when you go to buy the gun... buy the gun.\nNow, what does not individual do?\nDoes he say to the firearms dealer, do you have a list of countries where our Government has decided it's a fair enough system that I can say no... yes, I have a conviction in view of the list that it's an unfair system so I can say yes, I have no... or no, I have no convictions?\nI mean, it... one of the reasons where we employ, for example, the rule of lenity, is... is a person put on notice of what it is that's criminal and what is not.\nWhen does it come up that the system isn't fair enough to count?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [767.698, 770.936, 781.876, 783.362, 799.997, 809.302], "stop_times": [770.936, 781.876, 783.362, 799.997, 809.302, 813.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 767.698}, "reply_to": "21977__0_050", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_052", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, I think... let... let's put, you know, the worst for you.\nIf it were put to Congress, which would you prefer, that... that Solzhenitsyn not be able to have a gun or that the worst kind of violent criminal convicted and imprisoned and escaped from a foreign country who manages to get into this country can go in and buy a gun?\nWhich... which of these two would you prefer?\nAnd I think I'd say, well, you know, it's tough on Solzhenitsyn he can't own a gun, but he'll probably get over it.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [813.168, 816.223, 841.319, 843.261, 851.806], "stop_times": [816.223, 841.319, 843.261, 851.806, 853.413], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.168}, "reply_to": "21977__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__0_053", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, what I'd prefer and that the statute means aren't necessarily the same thing, Your Honor.\nI'd prefer violent criminals who were dangerous not to have guns.\nBut again, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [853.413, 858.798, 863.527], "stop_times": [858.798, 863.527, 865.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 853.413}, "reply_to": "21977__0_052", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_054", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Suppose you put the question to Congress, which would you prefer?\nWould you prefer the occasional person who's been convicted of foreign court, comes over here, that this statute doesn't apply to him, or would you prefer that all the refugees from Eastern Europe and people who come from Arab countries and people who come from countries that have quite different systems in places all over the world discover that suddenly they're felons because of things they never would have dreamt of because they were perhaps convicted of selling gasoline on the open market or perhaps they were convicted of any of these religious crimes we've talked about, selling a Bible?\nSuppose you put that question to Congress.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [865.756, 868.357, 905.22], "stop_times": [868.357, 905.22, 906.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 865.756}, "reply_to": "21977__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__0_055", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--I think Congress would say the perils and problems that exist by a blanket inclusion without any method of determining which count and which don't count of foreign convictions are too great.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [906.995, 919.876], "stop_times": [919.876, 920.498], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 906.995}, "reply_to": "21977__0_054", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_056", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, if it's a... if it's a matter of notice and... then that's a separate issue.\nPlus the Government, it seems to me, should put on its form that this includes foreign conviction, and that solves that problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [920.498, 925.039], "stop_times": [925.039, 932.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 920.498}, "reply_to": "21977__0_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21977__0_057", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well, but what if it's a foreign conviction where there's no due process?\nIs there a checklist that in that foreign conviction, did you have a jury, did you have the right to confront your accuser, did you have the right to remain silent?\nI mean, we all seem to realize that the Government's position that any conviction anywhere is too stark a place.\nAnd again--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [932.387, 936.185, 943.782, 951.45], "stop_times": [936.185, 943.782, 951.45, 951.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 932.387}, "reply_to": "21977__0_056", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_058", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "May... may we go back to the... the choice that you were given by Justice Scalia first and then Justice Breyer?\nI thought that someone who comes in here illegally and possesses a gun commits an offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [951.822, 958.88], "stop_times": [958.88, 967.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 951.822}, "reply_to": "21977__0_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__0_059", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [967.691], "stop_times": [968.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 967.691}, "reply_to": "21977__0_058", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_060", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Isn't it so?\nSo there's not... Congress would say to that hypothetical, we've got a third choice, much more sensible.\nAnybody who sneaks in here without permission and has a gun--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [968.146, 968.889, 973.718], "stop_times": [968.889, 973.718, 977.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 968.146}, "reply_to": "21977__0_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__0_061", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [977.145], "stop_times": [977.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 977.145}, "reply_to": "21977__0_060", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_062", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--commits a crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [977.888], "stop_times": [979.208], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 977.888}, "reply_to": "21977__0_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__0_063", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "That's one of the subsections of 922(g)(5).\nAnybody who's an illegal alien here illegally can't have a gun.\nAnyone--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [979.208, 984.204, 987.632], "stop_times": [984.204, 987.632, 988.375], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 979.208}, "reply_to": "21977__0_062", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_064", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "So it doesn't cover Americans, of course--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [988.375], "stop_times": [990.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 988.375}, "reply_to": "21977__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__0_065", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--No.\nIt doesn't cover--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [990.111, 990.277], "stop_times": [990.277, 991.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 990.111}, "reply_to": "21977__0_064", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_066", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--who go... go and commit crimes abroad, are convicted abroad, and... and come back to home sweet home and then get a gun.\nI mean, that seems to me extraordinary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [991.103, 996.1], "stop_times": [996.1, 998.716], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 991.103}, "reply_to": "21977__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__0_067", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--That... I didn't hear your--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [998.716], "stop_times": [1000.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 998.716}, "reply_to": "21977__0_066", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_068", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "That seems to me extraordinary.\nI don't think Congress would have wanted that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1000.308, 1001.96], "stop_times": [1001.96, 1003.446], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1000.308}, "reply_to": "21977__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__0_069", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well, I don't think Congress can be said to have intended or envisioned that they would cure every problem in the world.\nIt's a very, very narrow category of American citizens convicted abroad who come back here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1003.446, 1010.711], "stop_times": [1010.711, 1018.762], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1003.446}, "reply_to": "21977__0_068", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_070", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "I think if there was a problem that... that they were going to leave unsolved, it is less likely the problem of having an American citizen killed by a gun toted by somebody who has been convicted of a crime abroad than it is the problem of somebody having been convicted abroad of some silly crime like wearing a veil or not wearing a veil or something else.\nIf... if it's either of those two problems that they meant to leave overlooked, I would say it's the latter.\nThey might well have said, well, the courts will take care of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1018.762, 1039.939, 1045.648], "stop_times": [1039.939, 1045.648, 1048.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1018.762}, "reply_to": "21977__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__0_071", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, Your Honor, it's unclear what... what their thought process was in this matter.\nBut I can say this, that the narrow category that escapes the coverage of this statute... there's nothing to indicate anywhere in any of the debates, in the language of the statute that that's what Congress intended.\nAnd again, if you look at the overall view here, I mean, fugitive from justice.\nIt's limited to someone from the State.\nPerson... let's look at 922(g)(9).\nVery clear, incapable of misunderstanding.\nThe same prefatory language.\nA person convicted in any court... exactly the same, and it ends with the same language... cannot ship, possess, receive.\nAnd what does it say?\nInstead of saying convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year, it says convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.\nAnd that's defined as a State or Federal misdemeanor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1048.233, 1054.178, 1068.296, 1073.104, 1075.066, 1079.608, 1083.035, 1085.097, 1092.695, 1093.742, 1101.09], "stop_times": [1054.178, 1068.296, 1073.104, 1075.066, 1079.608, 1083.035, 1085.097, 1092.695, 1093.742, 1101.09, 1105.076], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1048.233}, "reply_to": "21977__0_070", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_072", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Where... where is that defined?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1105.076], "stop_times": [1106.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1105.076}, "reply_to": "21977__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__0_073", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "That's defined in 921(a)(33), Your Honor.\nIt's specifically limited.\nNow, here we are.\nA person who beats his wife in England can have a gun in this country, but a person who commits a business regulatory offense in Germany can't.\nIt makes no sense.\nThe... it... it's a very clear statement by Congress that a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence... they're only intending it to be a State or Federal crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1106.746, 1111.492, 1113.787, 1115.645, 1125.86, 1127.701], "stop_times": [1111.492, 1113.787, 1115.645, 1125.86, 1127.701, 1139.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1106.746}, "reply_to": "21977__0_072", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_074", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Once again, that... that cuts both ways.\nWhy would they... if the text reads the way you say it reads, why did they have to say is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law?\nBecause it wouldn't have mattered.\nThe only courts... the only convictions that would be covered would be Federal or State convictions.\nThey would not need that... that qualification.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1139.218, 1144.086, 1154.367, 1155.603, 1160.061], "stop_times": [1144.086, 1154.367, 1155.603, 1160.061, 1162.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1139.218}, "reply_to": "21977__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__0_075", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "At... at some point a person has to be told what Congress was intending.\nThis language goes back to '68 where the language in the exclusion limiting it to State... excluding Federal and State convictions matched the language in the term, any court, in 1202(a), which was title VII.\nThey were... they were complementing each other.\nAnd... and if you look at even as far back as the Batchelder decision in the '70's from this Court, the Court talked about these two being redundant, overlapping, the only difference being that one uses the term felony, one uses the term crime punishable by more than a year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1162.373, 1166.338, 1181.486, 1184.68], "stop_times": [1166.338, 1181.486, 1184.68, 1199.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1162.373}, "reply_to": "21977__0_074", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_076", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Mr. Boas, when they combined these two--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1199.486], "stop_times": [1201.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1199.486}, "reply_to": "21977__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__0_077", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1201.754], "stop_times": [1202.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1201.754}, "reply_to": "21977__0_076", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_078", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--and ones... the 1202 did say Federal or State... they made other changes, harmonizations.\nIn the explanation of their consolidation of the two sections, to what extent did they discuss changes and the reasons for them?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1202.497, 1210.093], "stop_times": [1210.093, 1222.371], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1202.497}, "reply_to": "21977__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__0_079", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "The... they made no discussion of the reason for taking out the language, of the United States or of any State, and what they... the only language was that we're intending to merge these into one statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1222.371], "stop_times": [1234.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1222.371}, "reply_to": "21977__0_078", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_080", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "But they did... they did explain other things--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1234.343], "stop_times": [1236.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1234.343}, "reply_to": "21977__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__0_081", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1236.655], "stop_times": [1237.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1236.655}, "reply_to": "21977__0_080", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_082", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--other changes, but this one... there's silence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1237.232], "stop_times": [1240.204], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1237.232}, "reply_to": "21977__0_081", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__0_083", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1240.204], "stop_times": [1240.742], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1240.204}, "reply_to": "21977__0_082", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_084", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--as far as I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1240.742], "stop_times": [1241.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1240.742}, "reply_to": "21977__0_083", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__0_085", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "And... and by keeping in the exclusions, by... by looking at 924(e)(1) where it... what's very important to me is that 924(e)(1) says if you have three prior drug... serious drug offenses in a court referred to in 922(g)(1), you get 15 years.\nThose three prior three drug offenses in a court referred to in 922(g)(1) are State or Federal drug offenses by definition.\nIt seems to me that it really couldn't be any more clear.\nAnd frankly, to the extent it's not totally clear and it could go either way, I think then the rule of lenity requires that it be decided with a more narrow construction, that is, that any court meant any court of the State or of the United States.\nI believe it was in the... in the '90's when this Court's opinion, authored by Justice Thomas in I think it was called Alvarez-Sanchez, dealt with a statute, 3105 dealing with the admissibility of confessions in Federal cases and that they won't be inadmissible if they're taken by any law enforcement official more than 6 hours after the arrest.\nAnd the issue what does any mean in terms of any law enforcement official.\nAnd the Court said it means any State or Federal law enforcement official.\nNow, it didn't have to reach the issue of whether it included foreign law enforcement officials, but certain things are obvious without an... an explanation.\nAnd you're right.\nThere was some sloppy drafting here and it could have been more clear, but when we look at the statute as a whole and try to harmonize the various parts of that statute, it would be almost absurd to think, when we look... and... and maybe these anomalies won't occur all the time, as you point out, Justice Breyer, but it would almost be absurd to think that with all of these limitations, exclusions, when we run down the list under 922(g)(1), that Congress was talking about any court in the world.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1241.485, 1264.974, 1274.55, 1277.772, 1294.119, 1319.111, 1323.347, 1326.813, 1337.687, 1338.33, 1368.96], "stop_times": [1264.974, 1274.55, 1277.772, 1294.119, 1319.111, 1323.347, 1326.813, 1337.687, 1338.33, 1368.96, 1369.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1241.485}, "reply_to": "21977__0_084", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_086", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Let me... let me ask you the question the... the Chief Justice would ask, were he here, because he always asked this kind of a question.\nWhat... if you had to pick your best case of ours which interpreted the word any in the way that you would like us to interpret here, what's... what's the best case you have?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1369.332, 1377.521], "stop_times": [1377.521, 1390.675], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1369.332}, "reply_to": "21977__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__0_087", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--I'd say... that's... there's a question--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1390.675], "stop_times": [1395.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1390.675}, "reply_to": "21977__0_086", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_088", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "It's a good question.\nHe asked a good question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1395.793, 1396.415], "stop_times": [1396.415, 1397.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1395.793}, "reply_to": "21977__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__0_089", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--It's a good question.\n[Laughter]\nI'd say the Nixon case decided this year which said that any can and does mean different things depending upon the setting and whether it works strange and indeterminate results would be one of my best cases.\nThere's... when I sit down, I'll probably think of a better one, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1397.158, 1397.901, 1399.72, 1416.56], "stop_times": [1397.901, 1399.72, 1416.56, 1419.161], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1397.158}, "reply_to": "21977__0_088", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_090", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Maybe you can think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1419.161], "stop_times": [1420.154], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1419.161}, "reply_to": "21977__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__0_091", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "How... how about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1420.154], "stop_times": [1420.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1420.154}, "reply_to": "21977__0_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__0_092", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Maybe you can think of a unanimous case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1420.647], "stop_times": [1422.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1420.647}, "reply_to": "21977__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__0_093", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1422.133, 1423.785], "stop_times": [1423.785, 1424.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1422.133}, "reply_to": "21977__0_092", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_094", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--And this is one I'm... I'm surprised that you didn't cite, but it... I don't think you did... EEOC against Arabian American Oil Company, where the wording of the statute was anyplace outside the United States, title VII coverage, and this Court held that anyplace outside the United States did not mean that a U.S. employer operating abroad had to abide by the anti-discrimination norms with respect to hiring in some place abroad because Congress was thinking in terms of the inter-State sitting... in the setting and not international.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1424.323], "stop_times": [1467.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1424.323}, "reply_to": "21977__0_093", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__0_095", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, I... I'm not familiar with that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1467.996], "stop_times": [1469.482], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1467.996}, "reply_to": "21977__0_094", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_096", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "That... that was a decision by the Chief.\nSo--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1469.482, 1470.847, 1471.44], "stop_times": [1470.847, 1471.44, 1472.166], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1469.482}, "reply_to": "21977__0_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__0_097", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "That's should be... that's a good one too, Judge... Justice.\nI... I... there's... there's another case that I'd refer to which is the... the Gonzales case, which is cited by the Government.\nGonzales is interesting because it deals with 924(c)(1), which is the section that says you get 5 consecutive years if you're convicted of... 5 years consecutive to any other sentence if you're convicted of possessing a firearm during the course of a serious drug offense.\nAnd in that case, the Court concluded that any other sentence meant any State or Federal sentence, not just a Federal sentence.\nNow, the Government might argue that that helps them because the... the defendant in that case wanted it to be limited to any Federal sentence because he was serving a State sentence, and the question was would the 5 years for the 924 violation be consecutive or concurrent, as the trial court gave it.\nBut it... what the Court did was say any depends on the context of the rest of the statute.\nAnd here, we think it means State and Federal.\nThey didn't talk about foreign convictions.\nYou know, it's interesting.\nIt's ironic that... that while we're debating how American citizens should be impacted by foreign convictions, the administration is unwilling to sign the treaty that would make American citizens subject to the International Criminal Court because there's concern about what would happen to Americans abroad, even in that court, not in a court in... in Uruguay or in North Korea, but in the International Criminal Court.\nIn fact, in the preliminary findings of the FOPA statute, the... the Congress said... and this Court doesn't have to decide and I'm not asking the Court to decide the Second Amendment issue, but Congress found the Second Amendment was a fundamental constitutional right.\nAnd the name of the statute is the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.\nCongress had in mind protecting the owners of firearms when necessary, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1472.166, 1474.273, 1486.162, 1505.685, 1515.179, 1530.783, 1537.06, 1540.321, 1541.823, 1545.233, 1572.371, 1589.361, 1594.684], "stop_times": [1474.273, 1486.162, 1505.685, 1515.179, 1530.783, 1537.06, 1540.321, 1541.823, 1545.233, 1572.371, 1589.361, 1594.684, 1601.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1472.166}, "reply_to": "21977__0_096", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_098", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "You call that FOPA?\nThat's the name of the statute?\n[Laughter]\nIt's an unfortunate acronym, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1601.621, 1602.819, 1605.891, 1604.555], "stop_times": [1602.819, 1605.891, 1604.555, 1606.7], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1601.621}, "reply_to": "21977__0_097", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__0_099", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--That's right.\nThe spelling is a little bit different, Justice Scalia.\nBut Congress... the... the name of the statute tells you something about Congress' intent.\nThe otherwise licit and blameless activity of possessing a firearm isn't the equivalent of selling drugs.\nNow, maybe if you have a prior drug offense and you're a drug dealer, under 802 of 21, Congress said you get your sentence doubled whether it's a State, Federal, or foreign conviction, but under 924(e) for a conviction under a court defined in 922(g)(1), the prior only ups your sentence if it's a State or Federal conviction.\nWe can't ignore the overall statutory scheme here, which time and time again refers to domestic matters.\nThe Government in their brief says foreign convictions are used all the time, and they give three examples.\nThey say we recognize them for the purpose of extraditing American citizens.\nThey say we recognize them because if you're convicted of a... a sex offense in certain foreign countries, you have to register here.\nAnd they say we recognize them... I forget what their third reason is.\nBut there's no example that they gave or that they can give where a foreign conviction is ever used anywhere else in this country as an element of the crime.\nI mean, it's used for recidivist purposes and State courts have debated back and forth whether we're going to double somebody's sentence because of a foreign conviction, but it's never used anywhere else as an element of the crime.\nThis... this would be a first, and it's pretty significant.\nTo me it's ironic that the Sentencing Commission said you can't use a foreign conviction simply to up somebody a few months in the guidelines.\nBut the Government here argues that we can use it to satisfy an element of the crime--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1606.7, 1607.982, 1611.614, 1616.937, 1623.79, 1647.65, 1655.264, 1661.768, 1666.765, 1675.514, 1680.798, 1691.794, 1703.917, 1707.343, 1716.548], "stop_times": [1607.982, 1611.614, 1616.937, 1623.79, 1647.65, 1655.264, 1661.768, 1666.765, 1675.514, 1680.798, 1691.794, 1703.917, 1707.343, 1716.548, 1722.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1606.7}, "reply_to": "21977__0_098", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_100", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Recidivism is an element of the crime.\nIf... if you have a crime of, you know, repeated felony, recidivism is an element.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1722.121, 1724.062], "stop_times": [1724.062, 1730.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1722.121}, "reply_to": "21977__0_099", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__0_101", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well, that... that's correct, Your Honor.\nOf course, the... it's an exception under Apprendi that the... the prior crime.\nBut what... what I'm saying is it's... it's a slightly different situation in terms of it being... I know we have Blakely and the whole sentencing factor issue.\nBut it... it's a slightly different use of a prior and making... in other... in all those cases, the... it's a crime whether or not you have a felony.\nThe felony might make it a more serious crime.\nIn our case, this isn't a crime without this felony.\nThat's the thing that makes it a crime.\nAnd what I'm saying is the only situation we have where something that's otherwise blameless conduct becomes a crime is the use of a felony.\nThere's no other situation where a foreign felony is employed or has been employed in that situation.\nIf there's no other questions, I'd like to, if it would please the Court, reserve the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1730.477, 1732.978, 1737.148, 1746.641, 1757.665, 1760.387, 1764.724, 1766.415, 1778.22, 1783.3], "stop_times": [1732.978, 1737.148, 1746.641, 1757.665, 1760.387, 1764.724, 1766.415, 1778.22, 1783.3, 1787.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1730.477}, "reply_to": "21977__0_100", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_102", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "I'm sorry.\nYou've exhausted your time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1787.181, 1787.553], "stop_times": [1787.553, 1788.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1787.181}, "reply_to": "21977__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__0_103", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--I have.\nWell, thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1788.462, 1788.728], "stop_times": [1788.728, 1790.486], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1788.462}, "reply_to": "21977__0_102", "speaker": "paul_d_boas"}
{"id": "21977__0_104", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Ms. Millett.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1790.486], "stop_times": [1794.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.486}, "reply_to": "21977__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_000", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nJustice Scalia, you asked about what case we would want to adopt and be our strongest case on the meaning of the word any in the statute, and my answer to that question, although I take the liberty of answering it, though you didn't ask me--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1794.589, 1799.13], "stop_times": [1799.13, 1812.976], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1794.589}, "reply_to": "21977__0_104", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_001", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "You can ask it as well--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1812.976, 1813.786], "stop_times": [1813.786, 1814.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1812.976}, "reply_to": "21977__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__1_002", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--is the Gonzales case where this Court said that the word any in the gun control law, in this context, in this framework means, read naturally... I'm quoting here.\nRead naturally, the word any has an expansive meaning, that is, one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind.\nThis is not, Justice Ginsburg, a statute where Congress wrote sloppily.\nIn fact, in Barrett and Huddleston, this Court specifically said and noted that excruciating care with which Congress wrote title IV, section--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1814.546, 1826.806, 1834.796, 1839.997], "stop_times": [1826.806, 1834.796, 1839.997, 1851.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1814.546}, "reply_to": "21977__1_001", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_003", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "There is... there's an overarching concern and I'll... I'd like to put it to you right from the beginning.\nWhen a legislature legislates, be it the State or Federal Government, it is generally thinking in terms of its own domain, its own bailiwick.\nWhen Congress legislates, it's thinking about the United States.\nSometimes it's thinking about abroad, but most of the time when it is, it says so.\nAnd we have a number of cases, not just the Arabian American Oil Company.\nI mean, that... the language of title VII was between a State and anyplace outside thereof, anyplace outside thereof.\nAnd in that very case, the Chief made the point that I'm putting to you now, that Congress thinks about the United States, our country, and if it means to say something that will take in other places in the world, it says so clearly.\nAnd we don't make the assumption that Congress was intending to have any extraterritorial flip to its law unless it tells us that.\nThat's my overall concern about the Government's position in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1851.226, 1857.103, 1869.969, 1874.26, 1880.743, 1886.315, 1895.703, 1913.369, 1923.267], "stop_times": [1857.103, 1869.969, 1874.26, 1880.743, 1886.315, 1895.703, 1913.369, 1923.267, 1928.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1851.226}, "reply_to": "21977__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_004", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, this is not an extraterritorial application of a statute.\nThis regulates a threat to American public safety within the United States by someone within the United States based on their conduct, possession of a firearm by a dangerous person within the United States.\nThat is not extraterritorial application of the law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1928.313, 1933.248, 1947.738], "stop_times": [1933.248, 1947.738, 1950.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1928.313}, "reply_to": "21977__1_003", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_005", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Yes, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1950.893], "stop_times": [1951.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1950.893}, "reply_to": "21977__1_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_006", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "That's no more--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1951.348], "stop_times": [1951.969], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1951.348}, "reply_to": "21977__1_005", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_007", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--but let me just interrupt on your... your best case suggestion.\nI don't think the test is when has the word any been used in different ways, but has the word any court ever been used by Congress to include foreign courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1951.969, 1956.094], "stop_times": [1956.094, 1965.92], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1951.969}, "reply_to": "21977__1_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_008", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--The... the phrase convicted in any court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1965.92], "stop_times": [1969.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1965.92}, "reply_to": "21977__1_007", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_009", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "No.\nI'm asking about just the words, any court.\nWhat's your best case for the proposition that that would normally be construed by Congress to include foreign courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1969.142, 1969.392, 1970.507], "stop_times": [1969.392, 1970.507, 1977.481], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1969.142}, "reply_to": "21977__1_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_010", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--I don't... I don't have a case that specifically talks about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1977.481], "stop_times": [1980.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1977.481}, "reply_to": "21977__1_009", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_011", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "You don't have a case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1980.432], "stop_times": [1980.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1980.432}, "reply_to": "21977__1_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_012", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--that yet, but if I can... if I can explain why the phrase convicted in any court... because any any court... the... the problem is you're not... there's not a case for that.\nThe word, any court, that... those two words appear in a lot of places in the United States Code.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1980.598, 1988.705], "stop_times": [1988.705, 1993.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1980.598}, "reply_to": "21977__1_011", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_013", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "And do they ever refer to foreign courts?\nThat's the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1993.89, 1995.459], "stop_times": [1995.459, 1996.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1993.89}, "reply_to": "21977__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_014", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "The... not... not that I'm aware of, but... but they don't... it... it doesn't address it one way or the other.\nMost of the times, the vast majority of the times that you see any court in the United States, it... in the United States Code, it's followed by qualifying terms.\nWhat's very important here is that the phrase convicted in any court without qualifications.\nThere's lots of any courts in the United States--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [1996.097, 2003.055, 2012.277, 2018.0], "stop_times": [2003.055, 2012.277, 2018.0, 2019.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1996.097}, "reply_to": "21977__1_013", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_015", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "But the reason you often need qualification is there's... there's sort of basic question, does this include State courts as where as... as well as Federal, and it's often necessary to spell it out one way or the other.\nBut I don't... I'm not aware of any precedent for trying to decide whether it also embraces foreign courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2019.941, 2030.055], "stop_times": [2030.055, 2035.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.941}, "reply_to": "21977__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_016", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Justice Stevens, if I could make two points.\nAgain, convicted in any court is rarely employed by Congress.\nRarely.\nAnd we've cited in our brief on the occasions it has been employed, the context and structure are wholly consistent with including foreign judgments.\nThe PATRIOT Act created a ban on the possession of biological agents or toxins, and it... it picked up this same phrase and put it in there, and I think it is... would... and that is also a statute that in a separate provision has extraterritorial application.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2035.711, 2040.17, 2044.544, 2045.121, 2053.831], "stop_times": [2040.17, 2044.544, 2045.121, 2053.831, 2072.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2035.711}, "reply_to": "21977__1_015", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_017", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "How many times have you used this statute to go after people who were convicted in a foreign court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2072.779], "stop_times": [2078.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2072.779}, "reply_to": "21977__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_018", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "It... it's... I can't give you an exact number because we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2078.808], "stop_times": [2081.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2078.808}, "reply_to": "21977__1_017", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_019", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "About, approximate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2081.203], "stop_times": [2082.029], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2081.203}, "reply_to": "21977__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_020", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--we don't know about the ones that we never hear about.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2082.029], "stop_times": [2083.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2082.029}, "reply_to": "21977__1_019", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_021", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "More like 100, more like 50, more like 10, more like 5?\nAbout how many?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2083.431, 2085.677], "stop_times": [2085.677, 2086.366], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2083.431}, "reply_to": "21977__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_022", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "It's... it's not that... I would... I would say there's probably 10 to a dozen, but I... I have to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2086.366], "stop_times": [2092.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2086.366}, "reply_to": "21977__1_021", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_023", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "10 to a dozen over how long a period of time?\n20 years, 18 years?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2092.697, 2094.761], "stop_times": [2094.761, 2095.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2092.697}, "reply_to": "21977__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_024", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Since 1968.\nIt's been on the books since 1968.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2095.942, 2096.973], "stop_times": [2096.973, 2098.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2095.942}, "reply_to": "21977__1_023", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_025", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "'68.\nNow... so 35-40 years.\nNow... now, how many times do you think that people... I mean, the... the... if you've used it only a dozen times or so in about 40 years, then it doesn't sound like a major threat.\nWhat I'm weighing against that is the possibility that people are really convicted abroad of selling Bibles.\nThat really does happen, and there really were economic crimes in 1968 in all the Eastern European countries, and these aren't fanciful examples I've been giving you.\nAnd so if you were in Congress... or... or why do you think that Congress would have wanted to get the courts into the mess of trying to decide why wouldn't those crimes be covered and were the procedures fair?\nAnd we start distinguishing one country from another.\nAnd what are the procedures in the Ukraine or Kazakhstan anyway?\nI mean, my goodness, what a mess for the sake of a dozen cases in 40 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2098.559, 2099.202, 2100.938, 2111.069, 2117.218, 2127.538, 2143.324, 2146.197, 2150.35], "stop_times": [2099.202, 2100.938, 2111.069, 2117.218, 2127.538, 2143.324, 2146.197, 2150.35, 2155.939], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2098.559}, "reply_to": "21977__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_026", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Justice Breyer... and Justice Stevens, I do want to get back because I do have a lower court case that interprets any court in the way you discussed.\nI want to get back to that.\nBut Justice Breyer, I understand this being a very important concern, and... and there are no doubt particular applications that could seem unappealing, just as in Lewis v. United States where this Court held that an invalid, a patently unconstitutional State conviction counts for section 922(g)(1).\nThe reason that the... the convictions are covered here is Congress was not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2155.939, 2163.164, 2163.824, 2183.547], "stop_times": [2163.164, 2163.824, 2183.547, 2188.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2155.939}, "reply_to": "21977__1_025", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_027", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Which was it?\nJust... what was the case you just mentioned?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2188.594, 2189.559], "stop_times": [2189.559, 2191.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2188.594}, "reply_to": "21977__1_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_028", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Lewis v. United States, and that is... that's really our favorite case, although we like the word of... definition Gonzales has for any.\nBut in Lewis v. United States, this Court addressed the question whether the ban on possession of firearms by someone convicted of, I'll say, a felony, a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year, applies to... to convictions that are allegedly unconstitutional under State law or may, in fact, be unconstitutionally entered.\nThey could have been the product of a coerced confession.\nThe allegation there was lack of representation of counsel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2191.399, 2199.201, 2217.694, 2220.312], "stop_times": [2199.201, 2217.694, 2220.312, 2223.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2191.399}, "reply_to": "21977__1_027", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_029", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, that... that example, what you gave in your brief, gave me this concern.\nThe problem that you've just been describing, the State convictions that may be invalid but is being used under 922, I regard that as a kind of a venue question because you can go back to the State that rendered the conviction and say, State, I was convicted in violation of the Constitution, give me my good habeas writ that I get... can get from the State.\nThen I wipe out that conviction and I don't have it anymore.\nBut the person who's been convicted, say, in whatever examples... take... Zimbabwe would be another example.\nLibya.\nTo go back to that system and get a conviction expunged.\nThat's why you can't use a case within the U.S. system where it's a question of where do you go to wipe out your prior conviction.\nAnd for someone abroad, there isn't that option.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2223.3, 2231.708, 2259.033, 2262.172, 2273.439, 2274.061, 2279.634, 2289.498], "stop_times": [2231.708, 2259.033, 2262.172, 2273.439, 2274.061, 2279.634, 2289.498, 2294.123], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2223.3}, "reply_to": "21977__1_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_030", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, in Daniels v. United States, which dealt with 924, the sentencing enhancement provision, but it has a... the parallel and incorporates 922(g)(1) convictions, this Court held... a plurality of this Court held in five opinions that... in fact, that the... the bar... or that you still count an unconstitutional or allegedly unconstitutional State conviction, even if it was never appealed and that... and there is no more opportunity for appeal.\nThe time has passed.\nAnd under 922(g)(1), we also count.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2294.123, 2320.722, 2322.108], "stop_times": [2320.722, 2322.108, 2325.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2294.123}, "reply_to": "21977__1_029", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_031", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "But that's... that's a question of waiver or forfeiture.\nThose are the ordinary rules that apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2325.08, 2328.136], "stop_times": [2328.136, 2330.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2325.08}, "reply_to": "21977__1_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_032", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Yes, but that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2330.448], "stop_times": [2331.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2330.448}, "reply_to": "21977__1_031", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_033", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "But... but there's a basic rule in civil as well as criminal procedure, that if you want to attack a judgment, you go where that judgment was rendered.\nAnd of course, you should abide by the timing rules of that, but that's just a very sensible thing within a federal union.\nIf you're... if you're attacking what State A does, go to State A, don't tell State C.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2331.274, 2341.017, 2347.638], "stop_times": [2341.017, 2347.638, 2353.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2331.274}, "reply_to": "21977__1_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_034", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--And--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2353.111], "stop_times": [2354.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2353.111}, "reply_to": "21977__1_033", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_035", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "But that... that doesn't operate internationally.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2354.02], "stop_times": [2356.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2354.02}, "reply_to": "21977__1_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_036", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well, it does certainly in this case.\nHe could have appealed his conviction in Japan and he did not.\nSo he had a forum to do that in.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2356.909, 2358.684, 2361.634, 2364.235], "stop_times": [2358.684, 2361.634, 2364.235, 2364.485], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2356.909}, "reply_to": "21977__1_035", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_037", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Yes, but you're not building that into your interpretation of the statute at all because you have said in your brief... and correct me if I've got you wrong... you don't like what the Third Circuit did.\nYou say just the fact of the conviction counts.\nDon't investigate, court, whether it was a fair system that comports with fundamental notions of due process.\nJust see if there's a conviction anyplace in the world.\nAnd so what... what you're telling me is that it doesn't matter that you didn't appeal because even if he were precluded from appealing for some reason that we would consider totally unfair, it doesn't matter on your view of this statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2364.485, 2374.821, 2378.807, 2386.792, 2391.91], "stop_times": [2374.821, 2378.807, 2386.792, 2391.91, 2411.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2364.485}, "reply_to": "21977__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_038", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--That... that's right, Justice Ginsburg, and that is... you know, the... the statute also bars receipt of firearms by anyone who's under indictment.\nAnd that application applies even though you can't appeal, except for exceptional circumstances.\nYou can't appeal an indictment.\nAnd the 922(g)(1) bar, this Court's decision in Lewis made clear, is that it still applies unless and until your conviction is overturned.\nSo you don't have to have had a... a conviction vetted through the appellate process before the bar attaches.\nIn... in the immigration context--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2411.212, 2419.22, 2424.621, 2426.545, 2436.104, 2444.277], "stop_times": [2419.22, 2424.621, 2426.545, 2436.104, 2444.277, 2446.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2411.212}, "reply_to": "21977__1_037", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_039", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "But that's... that's standard for judgments anyway.\nWhen the judgment is final, it means you've gotten through the first... it has preclusive effect.\nAlmost always, when a judgment is overturned on appeal, then you go back to State 2 and say, look, it's been overturned on appeal, and at least in the civil side, almost always State 2 will say, okay, we'll give you post-judgment relief because what we were relying on as our sister State judgment is no longer on the books.\nI can't imagine that in our criminal system it doesn't work the same way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2446.672, 2448.092, 2454.696, 2480.786], "stop_times": [2448.092, 2454.696, 2480.786, 2484.567], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2446.672}, "reply_to": "21977__1_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_040", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well, certainly in immigration and extradition, you don't get to appeal the validity of your foreign conviction or the... the processes that led to it.\nSo this is not an alien concept.\nAnd it's very important to understand what Congress was doing here.\nThis isn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2484.567, 2495.507, 2497.382, 2500.708], "stop_times": [2495.507, 2497.382, 2500.708, 2501.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2484.567}, "reply_to": "21977__1_039", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_041", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "I'm asking if it's alien in our criminal justice system, not in deportation, not in... extradition is somebody who did somebody... something abroad, and we don't send people just to anyplace.\nDon't we have to have a treaty?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2501.634, 2513.961], "stop_times": [2513.961, 2515.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2501.634}, "reply_to": "21977__1_040", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_042", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Right.\nWe have treaties with more than 100 countries and we don't... and... and the courts do not examine the fairness of the proceedings or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2515.092, 2515.669], "stop_times": [2515.669, 2523.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2515.092}, "reply_to": "21977__1_041", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_043", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Because the person is going to be tried in that other system, and we have bound... within our international system, we say we're part of a world community and we want Japan to extradite people who have done bad things here to the United States, and so similarly, we will extradite to Japan.\nWe don't want them to look at our system and judge it.\nWe're sending somebody to be tried there.\nSo extradition is... is something entirely different than--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2523.349, 2541.47, 2544.542, 2547.127], "stop_times": [2541.47, 2544.542, 2547.127, 2553.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2523.349}, "reply_to": "21977__1_042", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_044", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Although we... we do also extradite, just to serve sentences, where there may have already been a trial that could be as flawed as anyone could conceive or articulate.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2553.897, 2561.866], "stop_times": [2561.866, 2562.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2553.897}, "reply_to": "21977__1_043", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_045", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well, we have the check already that these are... these places with whom we want to do criminal justice business together.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2562.238, 2571.154], "stop_times": [2571.154, 2572.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2562.238}, "reply_to": "21977__1_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_046", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well, what we have is the check that the political branches have decided that it's important to attach significance to foreign court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2572.269], "stop_times": [2579.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2572.269}, "reply_to": "21977__1_045", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_047", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--And then we have the... we have the document where it's very clear we want to have extradition with the UK, with Japan.\nHere, you're relying on the word court, and you don't have it all spelled out like you do in an extradition treaty.\nAnd that's the problem here.\nSure, if Congress had said we mean foreign court, then that would be it, but it hasn't said that and we have to determine does it mean the same thing as it means in the extradition context or the deportation context where you have a clear statement that Congress means a tribunal abroad.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2579.782, 2586.364, 2593.34, 2595.18], "stop_times": [2586.364, 2593.34, 2595.18, 2615.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2579.782}, "reply_to": "21977__1_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_048", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--In fact, in 8 U.S.C. 1182(a) which... which... inadmissibility criterion for aliens, convictions of moral turpitude, there's no reference to whether it's a conviction by a foreign court or a domestic court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2615.985], "stop_times": [2628.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2615.985}, "reply_to": "21977__1_047", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_049", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "But if somebody is coming into the country, somebody is asking to come in, any conviction that you're talking about, of course, refers to someplace abroad.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2628.823], "stop_times": [2636.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2628.823}, "reply_to": "21977__1_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_050", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "No.\nNo, it doesn't, Justice Ginsburg, because frequently and throughout that same statute, it refers to convictions in the United States.\nA lot of times the reason for inadmissibility, including the Mariel Cubans cases this Court heard last month, is... is convictions committed in the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2636.253, 2636.419, 2641.454], "stop_times": [2636.419, 2641.454, 2649.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2636.253}, "reply_to": "21977__1_049", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_051", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "May... may I interrupt this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2649.522], "stop_times": [2650.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2649.522}, "reply_to": "21977__1_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_052", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Now, surely the context--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2650.381], "stop_times": [2650.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2650.381}, "reply_to": "21977__1_051", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_053", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--this colloquy to raise another question, if I may?\nWould you concede that there are some tribunals in the world that are comparable to what you might call a kangaroo court that Congress would not have intended to include within the term court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2650.803, 2653.654], "stop_times": [2653.654, 2666.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2650.803}, "reply_to": "21977__1_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_054", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Yes, Justice Stevens.\nAnd I think that's an important thing here.\nThere has been no contest, for obvious reasons... we're dealing with Japan... as to what Congress meant by court.\nAnd sometimes if it's Saddam Hussein's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2666.407, 2669.09, 2670.372, 2675.861], "stop_times": [2669.09, 2670.372, 2675.861, 2677.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2666.407}, "reply_to": "21977__1_053", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_055", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "And how are we to decide whether such tribunal should be treated as a court within the meaning of the statute when there is no statutory definition of the term court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2677.885], "stop_times": [2686.885], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2677.885}, "reply_to": "21977__1_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_056", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Through traditional rules of statutory construction.\nI think that would involve looking at the other... the... the background that Congress would have enacted the statute against, first of all, and that... that may well have... it may not have been courts of just the United States because, as we know, Congress twice deleted that limitation from the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2686.885, 2690.162], "stop_times": [2690.162, 2708.532], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2686.885}, "reply_to": "21977__1_055", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_057", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "But if you concede that there are some tribunals that are not courts within the meaning of the statute, are you not conceding that the word court is inherently ambiguous?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2708.532], "stop_times": [2716.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2708.532}, "reply_to": "21977__1_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_058", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "I... I am... I am conceding that... that it has to be given meaning.\nI don't know that I would call it ambiguous, is we have to figure out.\nBut I... what I will say is that the phrase--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2716.334, 2722.361, 2724.962], "stop_times": [2722.361, 2724.962, 2726.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2716.334}, "reply_to": "21977__1_057", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_059", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "But it's something less than the all-inclusive term, any court, in a literal sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2726.614], "stop_times": [2730.163], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2726.614}, "reply_to": "21977__1_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_060", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Any... it has to be... it has to be a court capable of entering convictions.\nI don't... I don't think it's ambiguous in a sense--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2730.163, 2735.176], "stop_times": [2735.176, 2737.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2730.163}, "reply_to": "21977__1_059", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_061", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, I mean, it doesn't... it's... it's not a tennis court or an inner court.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2737.322, 2738.808], "stop_times": [2738.808, 2739.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2737.322}, "reply_to": "21977__1_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21977__1_062", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2739.263], "stop_times": [2740.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2739.263}, "reply_to": "21977__1_061", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_063", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "If... if somebody asked where this man was convicted, they'd say in a Japanese court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2740.294], "stop_times": [2744.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2740.294}, "reply_to": "21977__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21977__1_064", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Right.\nAnd... and I think, in addition, we don't decide that a word is ambiguous just at looking at that word.\nWe would look at the overall structure of the statute, and we would decide that it has to be a governmental entity capable of entering convictions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2744.918, 2745.49, 2750.574], "stop_times": [2745.49, 2750.574, 2757.633], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2744.918}, "reply_to": "21977__1_063", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_065", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "You didn't really have a chance--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2757.633], "stop_times": [2758.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2757.633}, "reply_to": "21977__1_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_066", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Can I assume that there's some prosecutorial discretion in the application of this statute?\nI mean, have you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2758.376, 2763.577], "stop_times": [2763.577, 2765.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2758.376}, "reply_to": "21977__1_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__1_067", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Absolutely, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2765.063], "stop_times": [2766.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2765.063}, "reply_to": "21977__1_066", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_068", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--have you prosecuted any... any woman who tried to buy a firearm because she had been convicted of wearing... not... not wearing a veil?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2766.072], "stop_times": [2773.131], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2766.072}, "reply_to": "21977__1_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__1_069", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--No, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2773.131], "stop_times": [2774.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2773.131}, "reply_to": "21977__1_068", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_070", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Do you think any United States attorney would do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2774.617], "stop_times": [2776.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2774.617}, "reply_to": "21977__1_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__1_071", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "I would hope not, Justice Scalia.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2776.269, 2777.755], "stop_times": [2777.755, 2778.21], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2776.269}, "reply_to": "21977__1_070", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_072", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Or... or somebody who was convicted of treason in Cuba?\nYou... you think that... that that would be a... a case that would be prosecuted vigorously by a United States attorney?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2778.21, 2780.727], "stop_times": [2780.727, 2789.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2778.21}, "reply_to": "21977__1_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__1_073", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--I... I wouldn't think so.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2789.151, 2790.47], "stop_times": [2790.47, 2790.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2789.151}, "reply_to": "21977__1_072", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_074", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Do you know any cases in which we've construed a statute narrowly on the ground that we're confident the prosecutor won't bring any such cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2790.842], "stop_times": [2796.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2790.842}, "reply_to": "21977__1_073", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_075", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--That... well, again, just last... this isn't... this isn't quite the same context.\nBut just this... just last term in the Cheney case, this Court recognized the limitations on prosecutors.\nAnd in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, in determining the scope of the Fourth Amendment and the capacity to arrest for misdemeanors, this Court recognized that not all checks have to come from the courts.\nThey can come from the political process here.\nAnd it's very important to keep in mind that these hypothesized problems, bad applications, are that.\nPurely hypothesized.\nThis has been on the books for almost 40 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2796.786, 2801.139, 2808.181, 2818.062, 2819.836, 2825.78, 2827.129], "stop_times": [2801.139, 2808.181, 2818.062, 2819.836, 2825.78, 2827.129, 2829.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2796.786}, "reply_to": "21977__1_074", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_076", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "But it's... it's been on the books for so long with very, very few prosecutions.\nSo it's one... it's not exactly an urgent question.\nBut it does seem to me if this... this problem had been brought to the attention of Congress, they would have defined the term court, and I don't... they haven't done that but probably because they didn't think of the problem.\nAnd you can argue, well, they surely would have wanted to have this particular person prosecuted, but would they have wanted everyone with every foreign court all over the world.\nThat's the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2829.98, 2833.073, 2835.635, 2846.631, 2856.108], "stop_times": [2833.073, 2835.635, 2846.631, 2856.108, 2856.745], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2829.98}, "reply_to": "21977__1_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_077", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "And in Beecham v. United States, in Justice O'Connor's opinion for the Court, this Court recognized there... it was dealing with another issue, whether the jurisdiction that restores civil rights is different from the convicting jurisdiction.\nIt said we don't have any way of knowing whether Congress thought about that.\nThat's not the question.\nCongress passed a statute here.\nIt passed a statute that's been written very carefully.\nIt's passed a statute where the definition of the word any in the statute has already been defined.\nAnd the... what the statute has been used for is to prosecute exactly the people that Congress wanted to capture.\nIt's international gun smugglers--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2856.745, 2868.079, 2871.134, 2872.099, 2874.312, 2877.163, 2882.23, 2889.71], "stop_times": [2868.079, 2871.134, 2872.099, 2874.312, 2877.163, 2882.23, 2889.71, 2891.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2856.745}, "reply_to": "21977__1_076", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_078", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Ms.--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2891.446], "stop_times": [2891.784], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2891.446}, "reply_to": "21977__1_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_079", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--violent assailants--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2891.784], "stop_times": [2892.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2891.784}, "reply_to": "21977__1_078", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_080", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, Ms.... Ms. Millett, my... my problem with that argument and I guess my basic problem with... with the case is Congress did not just sort of stop when it got to the point that would support your Lewis argument.\nIt went a step... it went several steps further.\nBut one of the steps further that it went to was... was in... in a certain fussiness about the definition of crime, and it said, well, we want to make sure that... that no State or... or Federal business criminals are... are put at a disadvantage by this.\nIt then accepted anything that a State might call a misdemeanor if it carried no more than 2 years.\nAnd it just seems very odd to me that Congress would have been that careful in putting these limitations on State and Federal crimes and would totally have ignored any category of crime under foreign law, any conviction under foreign law in... in light of some of the hypotheses that have been thrown out this morning.\nIt just seems strange that it would have ignored foreign law and foreign courts if it thought they were included.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2892.999, 2905.037, 2908.092, 2925.221, 2933.106, 2958.097], "stop_times": [2905.037, 2908.092, 2925.221, 2933.106, 2958.097, 2964.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2892.999}, "reply_to": "21977__1_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21977__1_081", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--I don't think it's strange at all, Justice Souter, and that is because that the business exception, if I can call it that, is a carve-out.\nWhat you have here, in this Court's word, is a sweeping prophylaxis against the misuse of firearms.\nThat's what this Court called it in Lewis, a sweeping prophylaxis.\nAnd what Congress did was back out--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2964.989, 2973.313, 2978.681, 2981.942], "stop_times": [2973.313, 2978.681, 2981.942, 2983.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2964.989}, "reply_to": "21977__1_080", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_082", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, it called it that, but it didn't... it didn't have this issue in front of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2983.511], "stop_times": [2985.369], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2983.511}, "reply_to": "21977__1_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21977__1_083", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--That's... that's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2985.369], "stop_times": [2986.112], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2985.369}, "reply_to": "21977__1_082", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_084", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "I... I realize you've got the language, but it... it wasn't addressing this issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2986.112], "stop_times": [2989.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2986.112}, "reply_to": "21977__1_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21977__1_085", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Right, and... and the language should be what counts most.\nBut beyond that, you're talking about Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2989.184, 2991.479], "stop_times": [2991.479, 2993.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2989.184}, "reply_to": "21977__1_084", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_086", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, I was talking about our language.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2993.52], "stop_times": [2994.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2993.52}, "reply_to": "21977__1_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21977__1_087", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Right.\nYou--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2994.346, 2994.718], "stop_times": [2994.718, 2995.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2994.346}, "reply_to": "21977__1_086", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_088", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "But... and I think that ought to count for a lot too.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2995.255, 2996.907], "stop_times": [2996.907, 2997.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2995.255}, "reply_to": "21977__1_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21977__1_089", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, not too much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2997.463], "stop_times": [2998.599], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2997.463}, "reply_to": "21977__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__1_090", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--But what Congress was doing there was backing out.\nIt was making an exception, and it was doing this against a backdrop of a lot of violence with guns.\nAnd so it makes sense that Congress would proceed carefully and deal with matters with which it was familiar and not want to carve out things that it wasn't familiar with.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [2998.599, 3002.685, 3009.084], "stop_times": [3002.685, 3009.084, 3020.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2998.599}, "reply_to": "21977__1_089", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_091", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "No, but how... how familiar an example is it that price-fixers would... would be placed in... in a terrible position if they couldn't carry guns?\nI mean, that was not a pressing problem, so far as I know.\nAnd yet, Congress dealt with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3020.413, 3030.444, 3035.728], "stop_times": [3030.444, 3035.728, 3037.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3020.413}, "reply_to": "21977__1_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21977__1_092", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, the problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3037.603], "stop_times": [3038.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3037.603}, "reply_to": "21977__1_091", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_093", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "And if it can deal with a problem that is as little pressing as that, it seems odd that it would not have averted in any way to equally non-pressing problems under... under foreign convictions if that's what they had in mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3038.446], "stop_times": [3053.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3038.446}, "reply_to": "21977__1_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21977__1_094", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--It dealt with that.\nI mean, specifically at the legislative history level, it dealt... it enacted that statutory exception because some States had made these types of business crimes punishable on more than a year.\nSo that's what it was responding to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3053.085, 3053.707, 3063.199], "stop_times": [3053.707, 3063.199, 3064.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3053.085}, "reply_to": "21977__1_093", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_095", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "All right.\nWhat... what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3064.497, 3064.868], "stop_times": [3064.868, 3065.057], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3064.497}, "reply_to": "21977__1_094", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21977__1_096", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "I can't... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3065.057], "stop_times": [3065.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3065.057}, "reply_to": "21977__1_095", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_097", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--No.\nI... finish your answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3065.883, 3066.809], "stop_times": [3066.809, 3067.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3065.883}, "reply_to": "21977__1_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21977__1_098", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--I can't... I'm not going to stand here and tell you that Congress specifically thought about this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3067.94], "stop_times": [3072.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3067.94}, "reply_to": "21977__1_097", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_099", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Oh, there's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3072.005], "stop_times": [3072.414], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3072.005}, "reply_to": "21977__1_098", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21977__1_100", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Right, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3072.414], "stop_times": [3073.407], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3072.414}, "reply_to": "21977__1_099", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_101", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--We both know there's no--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3073.407], "stop_times": [3073.657], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3073.407}, "reply_to": "21977__1_100", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21977__1_102", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--But... but what Congress did here... and it's very important to understand... it was throwing a broad net--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3073.657], "stop_times": [3080.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3073.657}, "reply_to": "21977__1_101", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_103", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Ms. Millett.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3080.649], "stop_times": [3081.104], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3080.649}, "reply_to": "21977__1_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_104", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3081.104], "stop_times": [3081.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3081.104}, "reply_to": "21977__1_103", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21977__1_105", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Ms. Millett, there are many lawyers in Congress and at least the law students of my generation... some of them are of that elder age.\nWe learned in law school one country doesn't enforce the penal judgments of another.\nThis is a kind of enforcement of a penal judgment of another, not exactly, but something like it.\nAnother reason why I would expect a Congress, knowing that background norm, would say, when it meant foreign, foreign.\nUnlike the context of the immigration, yes, there are some people who left and came back, but many... and... and we have all this whole line of cases.\nIs adultery a crime of moral turpitude, and you know, those go back to the '20's.\nBut this, which came about only because of the merger of two statutes, one saying Federal and State, the other not, and no explanation at all, in light of all these anomalies that have been brought out.\nShouldn't we say to Congress maybe that's what you meant, but if you did, you have an opportunity to say so before we read in foreign?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3081.392, 3093.225, 3099.186, 3106.738, 3116.769, 3126.967, 3131.813, 3146.608], "stop_times": [3093.225, 3099.186, 3106.738, 3116.769, 3126.967, 3131.813, 3146.608, 3154.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3081.392}, "reply_to": "21977__1_104", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_106", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Two answers, Justice Ginsburg.\nFirst, this was the second time in 1986 that Congress refused to include that limitation on courts.\nThe prior law, before the 1968 act, specifically referred to courts of the United States, States, and territories.\nIt did not pick up that language in title IV in 1968, and they took it out--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3154.953, 3156.772, 3162.755, 3168.865], "stop_times": [3156.772, 3162.755, 3168.865, 3174.604], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3154.953}, "reply_to": "21977__1_105", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_107", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "But neither did it give any explanation for not carrying it forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3174.604], "stop_times": [3177.426], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3174.604}, "reply_to": "21977__1_106", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21977__1_108", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--No, but I don't... that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3177.426], "stop_times": [3178.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3177.426}, "reply_to": "21977__1_107", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_109", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "It's... it's the silence at the... at the time it... it apparently departed from the practice of predecessor statutes that... that seems to be a problem for your argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3178.031], "stop_times": [3187.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3178.031}, "reply_to": "21977__1_108", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21977__1_110", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--But... but again, I don't think this Court has ever characterized as silence Congress' twice deletion of language from a statute in 1968 and again in 1986.\nIt had it.\nIt looked at it.\nIt took it out.\nAnd in 1986 in the Senate report that you were referring to, Justice Ginsburg, earlier, Congress said they... the conference report said we are rejecting the Senate's definition of felony.\nThe other thing to keep in mind is when Congress enacted this statute in 1968, it also enacted an administrative mechanism for relief that would deal with exactly the uncomfortable situations that have been identified.\n925(c) allows an administrative waiver in cases where an individual comes and says I don't want to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3187.607, 3198.587, 3199.33, 3200.323, 3202.318, 3212.211, 3225.419], "stop_times": [3198.587, 3199.33, 3200.323, 3202.318, 3212.211, 3225.419, 3233.099], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3187.607}, "reply_to": "21977__1_109", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_111", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "You know, this is a very interesting case because there are three ways to answer the question of what is a court.\nYou can leave it up to us to do it, and that would be judicial legislation to fill in a hole in the statute.\nYou can have the executive do it, decide what case... what cases to prosecute, or if we should knock out this... interpret the statute in the... in a different way than you urge, Congress would then do it.\nNow, which of the three is the better lawmaker on deciding which is the... what should the meaning of the word court be?\nThe executive, the legislature, or the judiciary?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3233.099, 3237.74, 3243.213, 3254.526, 3260.591], "stop_times": [3237.74, 3243.213, 3254.526, 3260.591, 3263.192], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3233.099}, "reply_to": "21977__1_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_112", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--I think... it's, of course, the legislature and the President's signature.\nI'd like to put a plug in for the executive in... in that reference, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3263.192, 3267.157], "stop_times": [3267.157, 3270.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3263.192}, "reply_to": "21977__1_111", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_113", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "That would save us a lot of work.\nWe--\n[Laughter]\n--we could just invalidate all statutes that we don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3270.024, 3270.834, 3276.073, 3272.358], "stop_times": [3270.834, 3276.073, 3272.358, 3277.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3270.024}, "reply_to": "21977__1_112", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21977__1_114", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--But, Justice Kennedy and Justice Stevens, the important thing to keep in mind here is we don't just have a statute that appeared out of nowhere.\nIt's been on the books for a long time and there was a legislative--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3277.149, 3286.204], "stop_times": [3286.204, 3289.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3277.149}, "reply_to": "21977__1_113", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_115", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "No, but it is pretty clear that Congress didn't really think about this problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3289.071], "stop_times": [3291.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3289.071}, "reply_to": "21977__1_114", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_116", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--No, but it thought... it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3291.117], "stop_times": [3291.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3291.117}, "reply_to": "21977__1_115", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_117", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "And it was also clear on your side that they would like to prevent this guy from having a gun.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3291.777], "stop_times": [3296.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3291.777}, "reply_to": "21977__1_116", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_118", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Exactly, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3296.146], "stop_times": [3296.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3296.146}, "reply_to": "21977__1_117", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_119", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "So there are two competing considerations, both of which are very powerful.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3296.889], "stop_times": [3300.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3296.889}, "reply_to": "21977__1_118", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21977__1_120", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well, if nothing else... and this guy is squarely within what Congress wanted to capture.\nIf nothing else, you don't have to decide anything more in this case than that it covers persons like this whose convictions are fundamentally fair and it's not contested and could leave for another day... but let's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3300.687, 3305.395], "stop_times": [3305.395, 3316.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3300.687}, "reply_to": "21977__1_119", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_121", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Can I... I want to get you.\nNow, I have a new question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3316.995, 3317.617], "stop_times": [3317.617, 3318.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3316.995}, "reply_to": "21977__1_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_122", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Would... would you finish... would you finish please--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3318.46], "stop_times": [3319.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3318.46}, "reply_to": "21977__1_121", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__1_123", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, I have a new--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3319.436], "stop_times": [3320.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3319.436}, "reply_to": "21977__1_122", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_124", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--telling us about the administrative waiver proceeding?\nYou were in the middle of it and I never heard the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3320.079, 3322.491], "stop_times": [3322.491, 3324.06], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3320.079}, "reply_to": "21977__1_123", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__1_125", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--That's exactly what I wanted to know.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3324.06], "stop_times": [3324.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3324.06}, "reply_to": "21977__1_124", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_126", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3324.682], "stop_times": [3324.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3324.682}, "reply_to": "21977__1_125", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_127", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "And I... can I... that's exactly what I wanted to know.\nWhen a person comes in to get a gun... because I hadn't focused on this, and it actually to me it's relevant.\nSuppose one of these people has been convicted in a foreign court and he doesn't have a clue, you know, that this means he can't buy a gun over here.\nSo he comes over here.\nHe goes into a... a gun store.\nNow, does he get notice that that... this conviction over in Japan or Lithuania or wherever it was means that he can't buy the gun?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3324.865, 3326.723, 3332.667, 3340.856, 3342.137, 3344.2], "stop_times": [3326.723, 3332.667, 3340.856, 3342.137, 3344.2, 3352.018], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3324.865}, "reply_to": "21977__1_126", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_128", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well, he got... in this case, he got... and this is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3352.018], "stop_times": [3354.33], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3352.018}, "reply_to": "21977__1_127", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_129", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "No.\nI'm asking... I'm asking in general.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3354.33, 3354.702], "stop_times": [3354.702, 3355.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3354.33}, "reply_to": "21977__1_128", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_130", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--You... you go and you fill out a form that says, as this case did... and it's on page 4 of our brief--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3355.9], "stop_times": [3360.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3355.9}, "reply_to": "21977__1_129", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_131", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3360.746], "stop_times": [3361.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3360.746}, "reply_to": "21977__1_130", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_132", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--asked him, have you been convicted in any court of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3361.201], "stop_times": [3363.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3361.201}, "reply_to": "21977__1_131", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_133", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "So it just says any court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3363.801], "stop_times": [3365.083], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3363.801}, "reply_to": "21977__1_132", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_134", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--In any court.\nAnd I think when someone--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3365.083, 3365.742], "stop_times": [3365.742, 3366.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3365.083}, "reply_to": "21977__1_133", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_135", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3366.651], "stop_times": [3366.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3366.651}, "reply_to": "21977__1_134", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_136", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--No.\nBut when someone has a conviction, when you have a felony conviction, you're on some notice of inquiry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3366.917, 3367.41], "stop_times": [3367.41, 3372.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3366.917}, "reply_to": "21977__1_135", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_137", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--It'll work for... yes.\nIt'll... it'll work for this one, but... but what I'm worried about... and really what led the Sentencing Commission to exclude all this stuff even though clearly recidivists should get a higher sentence, but we still excluded it because it's just a nightmare.\nThere are notice problems.\nThere are fairness problems.\nThere are procedural problems.\nThere are problems of crimes that aren't crimes here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3372.983, 3373.354, 3387.505, 3388.837, 3390.156, 3391.575], "stop_times": [3373.354, 3387.505, 3388.837, 3390.156, 3391.575, 3395.811], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3372.983}, "reply_to": "21977__1_136", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_138", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3395.811], "stop_times": [3396.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3395.811}, "reply_to": "21977__1_137", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_139", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "And... and all those come up, and that's what I'm worried about.\nSo I see this as a possible out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3396.72, 3398.662], "stop_times": [3398.662, 3400.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3396.72}, "reply_to": "21977__1_138", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_140", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3400.352], "stop_times": [3400.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3400.352}, "reply_to": "21977__1_139", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_141", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "The one... the procedure you just talked about might help.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3400.891], "stop_times": [3403.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3400.891}, "reply_to": "21977__1_140", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_142", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--And it's in 925(c), which is on--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3403.729], "stop_times": [3407.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3403.729}, "reply_to": "21977__1_141", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_143", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "That he knows about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3407.982], "stop_times": [3408.725], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3407.982}, "reply_to": "21977__1_142", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21977__1_144", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--page 65a of our brief.\nBut let me... let me be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3408.725, 3410.954], "stop_times": [3410.954, 3412.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3408.725}, "reply_to": "21977__1_143", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_145", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--And it provides judicial review of the Attorney General's failure to give the waiver.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3412.002], "stop_times": [3415.883], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3412.002}, "reply_to": "21977__1_144", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21977__1_146", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--It does, and... but let me be candid up front.\nCongress stopped funding this administrative mechanism in 1992, and that... this Court addressed that in the Bean case.\nIt... it doesn't exist now, but that was 25 years after Congress wrote this language and put it in the statute, and the fact that they stopped funding it 25 years later doesn't mean the statute doesn't mean what it said.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3415.883, 3417.946, 3424.65], "stop_times": [3417.946, 3424.65, 3436.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3415.883}, "reply_to": "21977__1_145", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_147", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Do you know why?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3436.789], "stop_times": [3437.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3436.789}, "reply_to": "21977__1_146", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_148", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "And Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3437.161], "stop_times": [3437.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3437.161}, "reply_to": "21977__1_147", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_149", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Do you know why they stopped funding it?\nWhy did... because I think that's been reenacted every year.\nNo money for this.\nWhy... why did Congress stop funding it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3437.411, 3438.359, 3441.991, 3443.188], "stop_times": [3438.359, 3441.991, 3443.188, 3445.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3437.411}, "reply_to": "21977__1_148", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21977__1_150", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "--Because some of... some of the people who were getting waivers were going out and committing crimes again.\nCongress here is very concerned about public safety.\nAnd this is not... there was, you know, the question, is there ever an element where you treat this like an element of foreign crime.\nThere aren't... there aren't crimes normally where you treat indictments or someone being under a restraining order this way.\nThis is not punishing you for your foreign crime.\nThis is a global categorical, class-wide judgment that as a class persons who have committed crimes overseas are more dangerous and may pose exactly the public safety risk we wanted to grab and stop.\nAs a class, they do that.\nIn a particular case, it may not.\nIn a particular case, an indictment might not.\nCongress was speaking globally.\nIt did so.\nIt threw a broad net.\nIt did so at the time it had an administrative check to deal with these problems.\nYes, that's gone.\nThat doesn't retroactively change what the statutory language meant.\nThis Court has said time and time again that this statutory language in 922 was written, in Beecham and Huddleston, with such care that Congress was focused on the difference between the present perfect and the past tense, this Court said in Barrett.\nThis is not sloppy writing.\nWhen Congress put any court in and did not carry forward a limitation to the courts of the United States and took that out in another part of the statute in 1986, we have to assume that Congress knew what it was doing.\nIf there were problems here, there is a political process to deal with it.\nThe political process has taken away the administrative waiver.\nBut there has not been... this hypothesis of bad applications has not arisen.\nIt's hypothesized.\nAnd what this statute has... has been used to do is capture exactly the people Congress wanted to capture.\nIt got exactly the ones who should be disarmed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3445.5, 3449.3, 3453.591, 3458.671, 3465.934, 3468.619, 3481.826, 3484.155, 3486.18, 3488.764, 3490.66, 3491.503, 3492.972, 3496.937, 3498.09, 3501.821, 3516.545, 3518.707, 3533.196, 3537.471, 3540.815, 3546.182, 3547.48, 3553.901], "stop_times": [3449.3, 3453.591, 3458.671, 3465.934, 3468.619, 3481.826, 3484.155, 3486.18, 3488.764, 3490.66, 3491.503, 3492.972, 3496.937, 3498.09, 3501.821, 3516.545, 3518.707, 3533.196, 3537.471, 3540.815, 3546.182, 3547.48, 3553.901, 3557.905], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3445.5}, "reply_to": "21977__1_149", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_151", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Do you know anybody in the Justice Department you might talk to to amend this form so that the form says this includes convictions in foreign countries?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3557.905], "stop_times": [3565.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3557.905}, "reply_to": "21977__1_150", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21977__1_152", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "I... I am confident that the ATF would be happy to do that.\nAs of now, the ATF has a regulation on the books for someone to look at and see that includes foreign convictions in this definition.\nAnd I think when someone has been convicted, they're on notice.\nThank you, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3565.229, 3568.102, 3575.737, 3578.05], "stop_times": [3568.102, 3575.737, 3578.05, 3579.453], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3565.229}, "reply_to": "21977__1_151", "speaker": "patricia_a_millett"}
{"id": "21977__1_153", "conversation_id": "21977", "text": "Thank you.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-750", "start_times": [3579.453, 3580.074], "stop_times": [3580.074, 3580.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3579.453}, "reply_to": "21977__1_152", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_000", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "We'll hear argument in Smith against the City of Jackson.\nMr. Goldstein.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [0.0, 4.387], "stop_times": [4.387, 4.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_001", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nPetitioners submit that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits an employment practice that has a significant disparate impact on older workers if that practice lacks any reasonable business justification.\nThe ADEA embodies Congress' determination that age discrimination seriously impedes older Americans' ability to participate fairly in the American work force.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [4.967, 14.795, 28.766], "stop_times": [14.795, 28.766, 39.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 4.967}, "reply_to": "22825__0_000", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_002", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Mr. Goldstein, let me just interrupt a minute.\nYou say if it lacks the... the business justification.\nBut is it not a part of... that is not a part of the plaintiffs' primary submission, is it, that it does not show?\nThat's an affirmative defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [39.476, 41.475, 43.77, 49.869], "stop_times": [41.475, 43.77, 49.869, 50.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 39.476}, "reply_to": "22825__0_001", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_003", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Justice Stevens, there is not a clear answer to that question in all candor.\nIt is not before the Court.\nI will tell you that the lower courts uniformly in the ADEA disparate impact context apply Justice O'Connor's plurality opinion in Watson and the Wards Cove rule rather than the post-1991 Civil Rights Act rule.\nThat is a debatable proposition because, as your question suggests, in subsection (f)(1) of the statute where this provision comes from... and let me just take us to the language.\nIt would probably be most useful.\nIn the blue book, the... the blue petitioners' brief at page 1 are the relevant provisions.\n(a)(2) we'll come back to.\nThat's the parallel language to Griggs.\nThe reasonable factor other than age provision is (f)(1), and it says: it shall not be unlawful for an... this is at the bottom of the page.\nIt shall not be unlawful for an employer to take any action otherwise prohibited... and I'm going to come back and focus on that... under subsection (a) where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age.\nThe fact that it says otherwise prohibited seems to suggest that this is setting up an employer defense, as your question indicates.\nAnd the Court in the... the Western Air Lines case in 1986 said that the BFOQ provision, which is in (f)(1) as well, is an affirmative defense.\nSo I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [50.79, 56.395, 57.48, 74.526, 85.627, 86.551, 91.68, 95.223, 97.01, 104.827, 116.172, 123.419, 133.062], "stop_times": [56.395, 57.48, 74.526, 85.627, 86.551, 91.68, 95.223, 97.01, 104.827, 116.172, 123.419, 133.062, 133.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 50.79}, "reply_to": "22825__0_002", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_004", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "You put your finger on exactly what's the part of this case that's bothering me.\nRead through the language.\nAs you read through the language, disparate impact does seem to be called for, and this particular provision, reasonable factors other than age, seems a defense to that, just as BFOQ is the defense to disparate treatment.\nAnd that all seems to work.\nBut you read the definition of reasonable factor other than age to mean business necessity or even Justice O'Connor's opinion, which is pretty tough.\nIt's hard for an employer to make that defense.\nAnd while making it hard to make that defense in the case of gender or race discrimination, in fact works in my opinion perfectly well.\nYou start making it hard to make that defense here and you're going to have a nightmare because every effort by any employer to equalize to any degree pay or treatment of his or her employees is going to have a disparate impact in respect to age because the correlation with age runs into all kinds of things that it doesn't in the other cases.\nSo I can't believe that Congress really would have wanted that, but the reason I can't believe it is because I can't believe the business necessity part of it.\nAnd so here I'm faced with a reg which, at one and the same time, pulls in disparate impact and business necessity, and now I don't know what to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [133.463, 137.297, 139.484, 155.42, 157.548, 170.236, 174.002, 183.057, 211.577, 222.328], "stop_times": [137.297, 139.484, 155.42, 157.548, 170.236, 174.002, 183.057, 211.577, 222.328, 233.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 133.463}, "reply_to": "22825__0_003", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__0_005", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--I can tell you.\n[Laughter]\nThe answer is that you should recognize, as does the commission, which has delegated rulemaking authority under the act, that business necessity, which is the term of art that they used in the regulation... and we'll come back to it.\nIt's at page 2 of the blue brief... means different things in different contexts.\nAnd so I want to take you to the specific citations where the EEOC has recognized the common sense principle.\nWe know that more things that are legitimate employer practices correlate with age than they do with race and gender.\nIt is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [233.015, 234.856, 237.684, 249.933, 254.066, 259.963, 266.848], "stop_times": [234.856, 237.684, 249.933, 254.066, 259.963, 266.848, 267.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 233.015}, "reply_to": "22825__0_004", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_006", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Mr. Goldstein, before you do that, before you deal with the EEOC regulation, this statute doesn't... at least on... on the page 1 part you called our attention to, doesn't refer to business necessity.\nThat's in the EEOC regulation.\nIf I were just reading this statute cold, I'd say, yes, that looks like an affirmative defense to me, but reasonable factor seems like something quite different than necessity.\nIt isn't necessary for the business to do this, but it's reasonable.\nAnd if that's... then the business necessity... it seems to me, at least arguably, an improper construction of this act, that the EEOC got it wrong when it referred to business necessity.\nThey were thinking of Griggs and... and title VII, but this statute says reasonable factors.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [267.184, 284.06, 286.062, 299.294, 303.755, 320.633], "stop_times": [284.06, 286.062, 299.294, 303.755, 320.633, 326.714], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 267.184}, "reply_to": "22825__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22825__0_007", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Yes.\nOur position relies only on the statute.\nWe embrace the text of the statute.\n(f)(1) says that the employer's conduct merely has to be reasonable.\nWe agree with that.\nThe point I would then take you to is that in... if the Court were interested in the regulation... we don't think it's necessary to get to the regulation, but if it were, the EEOC has said that it too recognizes that the phrase, business necessity, in the context of the Age Act does not mean essential to the business.\nLet me tell you why it used the language it did, business necessity, in the regulation just to clear it up.\nAnd that is when this Court first used the words, business necessity, in Griggs and then subsequently in Wards Cove, it didn't have all the connotations that it does now as being quite a high employer burden.\nIf I could just read to you two things from Griggs.\nGriggs said, the touchstone is business necessity.\nIf the employment practice cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited.\nIt simply required related to job performance.\nThat's the backdrop on which the EEOC used the word.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [326.714, 327.654, 330.249, 332.664, 336.297, 337.505, 354.293, 359.977, 372.823, 375.514, 378.092, 384.274, 386.353], "stop_times": [327.654, 330.249, 332.664, 336.297, 337.505, 354.293, 359.977, 372.823, 375.514, 378.092, 384.274, 386.353, 389.273], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 326.714}, "reply_to": "22825__0_006", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_008", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Well, I'm not sure you're right about that, Mr. Goldstein, because if you think of what it was, it was a pen and paper test and it was a high school diploma.\nNow, an employer might well think I want to upgrade my work force.\nI want this to be a real classy work force.\nSo I'm going to require a high school diploma.\nIt isn't necessary, but why is it unreasonable for me to do that?\nSo I... I don't... I think Griggs spoke about rules that were built in headwinds because a large part of the population didn't have the opportunity to get high school diplomas.\nThat doesn't exist in the age discrimination area.\nSo I... I don't think that Griggs is an example of something that was a loose business necessity rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [389.273, 399.578, 404.766, 407.298, 410.618, 415.65, 430.445, 434.098], "stop_times": [399.578, 404.766, 407.298, 410.618, 415.65, 430.445, 434.098, 443.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 389.273}, "reply_to": "22825__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22825__0_009", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "My point is only terminological, and that is, when the EEOC used those words, it did not do so against a backdrop in which they carried a connotation that was necessarily very strict, and it has said several times... and they are quoted in our brief... that the standard... and this is just the bottom line.\nI think it's a very important bottom line.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [443.358, 460.018], "stop_times": [460.018, 461.753], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 443.358}, "reply_to": "22825__0_008", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_010", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "You don't care about those regs anyway.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [461.753, 463.006], "stop_times": [463.006, 463.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 461.753}, "reply_to": "22825__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__0_011", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "We do care about the regulations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [463.419], "stop_times": [466.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 463.419}, "reply_to": "22825__0_010", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_012", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Oh, you do.\nI thought you were saying you could make your case just on the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [466.104, 466.584], "stop_times": [466.584, 469.776], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 466.104}, "reply_to": "22825__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__0_013", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Well, we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [469.776], "stop_times": [471.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 469.776}, "reply_to": "22825__0_012", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_014", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--text of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [471.279], "stop_times": [471.84], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 471.279}, "reply_to": "22825__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__0_015", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--We can and will.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [471.84], "stop_times": [472.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 471.84}, "reply_to": "22825__0_014", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_016", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Well, maybe you should because I'm not so sure that the EEOC interpretation is entitled to Chevron deference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [472.806], "stop_times": [480.785], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 472.806}, "reply_to": "22825__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22825__0_017", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "We do believe that it is entitled to Chevron deference because they have delegated rulemaking authority and there is some suggestion that the because of language in subsection--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [480.785], "stop_times": [493.145], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 480.785}, "reply_to": "22825__0_016", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_018", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "But was this an actual rule after notice and comment, or is it a... an interpretation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [493.145], "stop_times": [499.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 493.145}, "reply_to": "22825__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22825__0_019", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--It is a post-notice and comment rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [499.495], "stop_times": [501.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 499.495}, "reply_to": "22825__0_018", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_020", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "But... but it interprets... doesn't interpret the prohibitory section.\nI mean, it... it might be understood as simply making an assumption that, say, the Griggs rule would be applied in... in this Court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [501.773, 506.766], "stop_times": [506.766, 519.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 501.773}, "reply_to": "22825__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22825__0_021", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "It's conceivable you could read it that way, although the EEOC has specified many times, in the quarter century since it enacted the regulation, that no, when we... and let me take us to the text to explain why, and that again is at page 2 of the blue brief.\nThey said... and this is the block quote.\nWhen an employment practice, including a test, is claimed as a basis for different treatment of employees or applicants for employment on the grounds that it is a factor other than age, and such practice has an adverse impact on individuals.\nThat's the reference to disparate impact.\nThe regulatory materials cite to Griggs.\nBut in all events, I do want to come back to the bottom line, and that is the EEOC recognizes, we recognize that it's easier to prove either a defense or to put the burden on the plaintiff's case.\nIt's a... you have a higher hurdle--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [519.905, 535.085, 537.716, 550.765, 552.625, 554.681, 566.145], "stop_times": [535.085, 537.716, 550.765, 552.625, 554.681, 566.145, 568.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 519.905}, "reply_to": "22825__0_020", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_022", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Easier... easier is a matter of degree.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [568.626], "stop_times": [572.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.626}, "reply_to": "22825__0_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__0_023", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [572.364], "stop_times": [572.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 572.364}, "reply_to": "22825__0_022", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_024", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "And reasonable factor could be interpreted to say what the employer... but the employer just doesn't like paying these executives so much money when these new younger janitors make so little.\nAnd so he says, I want to pay the new younger janitors more.\nOkay?\nThere we've got it.\nDisparate impact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [572.973, 585.504, 589.564, 589.895, 591.606], "stop_times": [585.504, 589.564, 589.895, 591.606, 593.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 572.973}, "reply_to": "22825__0_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__0_025", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [593.197], "stop_times": [593.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 593.197}, "reply_to": "22825__0_024", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_026", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "And now you say, what's the business necessity?\nAnd frankly, there wasn't one.\nIt's just that I found it sort of bad.\nAll right?\nSo there we are.\nI've lost my case.\nNow, that's what is worrying me, and I thought perhaps this reg that seems to say... and lower courts have accepted that I would lose my case... that this reg is outside Congress'... the agency's authority for that reason because Congress couldn't have intended that result.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [593.675, 596.205, 597.849, 600.746, 601.411, 602.594, 603.962], "stop_times": [596.205, 597.849, 600.746, 601.411, 602.594, 603.962, 624.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 593.675}, "reply_to": "22825__0_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__0_027", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Well, let me take you to the lines of cases that I think might concern you.\nThere were a set of cases before this Court's decision in Hazen Paper that involved two rules, Justice Breyer, and I will tell you that you referred to in the Adams oral argument when this case... this issue came to you before.\nAnd so I want to refer to a very specific set of cases.\nThere were a set of cases before 1993 in which there was some correlation.\nHigh salary correlated with age.\nAnd the courts of appeals, the Third... the Second Circuit in the Geller case and the Eighth Circuit in the Leftwich case treated that as effectively a disparate treatment... disparate treatment case because of the high level of correlation.\nThe more recent cases reject that result and we embrace the more recent cases.\nAnd I want to cite them to you so you could look them up if you wanted.\nThe Evers case, which is 241 F. 3d 948; the Williams case, which is 112 F. Supp. 2d 267; and the last one is Newport Mesa, 893 F. Supp. 927.\nThese cases recognized that cost is a perfectly legitime business justification, and they put a single burden on the employer.\nNow, let me just... just to say, most impact cases aren't cost cases, but I know it's a concern.\nThey say, look, if you want to cut your costs and get rid of your more expensive work force, we're only going to ask you to do one thing, and that is allow your more senior workers to take a pay cut.\nThey do not say, as did the older cases, that it causes disparate impact and you lose your case.\nAnd so we don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [624.801, 628.866, 640.481, 642.595, 647.534, 650.119, 661.798, 667.689, 670.595, 685.316, 693.394, 698.199, 709.93, 715.533], "stop_times": [628.866, 640.481, 642.595, 647.534, 650.119, 661.798, 667.689, 670.595, 685.316, 693.394, 698.199, 709.93, 715.533, 716.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 624.801}, "reply_to": "22825__0_026", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_028", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Mr. Goldstein, you... this is... this case arises out of a compensation program of the employer, and why is it brought under 4(a)(2) instead of 4(a)(1) which addresses discrimination in compensation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [716.585], "stop_times": [735.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 716.585}, "reply_to": "22825__0_027", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22825__0_029", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, the lower courts unanimously conclude, as does the commission, that (a)(2), although it does not have the word compensation in it, does apply to compensation and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [735.168], "stop_times": [748.113], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 735.168}, "reply_to": "22825__0_028", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_030", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "But why in light of 4(a)(1)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [748.113], "stop_times": [750.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 748.113}, "reply_to": "22825__0_029", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22825__0_031", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Because they understand 4(a)... and let me take you... everyone to the text just so we can all be literally on the same page, and that is going to be in the red brief at page 17a.\nIt is 623(a), and it's the first block quote at the top of page 17a of the red brief.\nThey understand that 623(a)(1) refers to actions against individuals, whereas 623(a)(2) refers to actions against groups, group policy versus individual action, and they do that because of the introductory language to (a)(1) and (a)(2), to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual; whereas, (a)(2) refers to limit, segregate, or classify his employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [750.618, 760.672, 769.166], "stop_times": [760.672, 769.166, 793.16], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 750.618}, "reply_to": "22825__0_030", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_032", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "May I ask a question at this point going really back to the question I asked you at the outset of the argument?\nIf I thought seniority or years of service was a reasonable factor other than age and if I thought this particular compensation program was based on years of service rather than age, can I look at the reasonable factor other than age in deciding whether your complaint states a cause of action?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [793.16, 798.736], "stop_times": [798.736, 816.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 793.16}, "reply_to": "22825__0_031", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_033", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Yes.\nHazen Paper established that that is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [816.669, 817.657], "stop_times": [817.657, 820.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 816.669}, "reply_to": "22825__0_032", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_034", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "And if I do look at it and if I do come to the conclusion I've suggested, would I not have to dismiss your complaint?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [820.444], "stop_times": [825.743], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 820.444}, "reply_to": "22825__0_033", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_035", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--I may misunderstand the hypothetical, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [825.743], "stop_times": [829.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 825.743}, "reply_to": "22825__0_034", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_036", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "The hypothetical... and I think it may be the case... that you have a compensation program which uses years of service as a basis for classifying employees which has a disparate impact on older workers, but it does... also it relies squarely on a reasonable factor other than age if you will call years of service such a factor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [829.323], "stop_times": [849.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 829.323}, "reply_to": "22825__0_035", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_037", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Yes.\nThat's perfectly legitimate.\nThat... as I understand the hypothetical--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [849.054, 849.892, 851.513], "stop_times": [849.892, 851.513, 853.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 849.054}, "reply_to": "22825__0_036", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_038", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--suppose I want--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [853.979], "stop_times": [854.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 853.979}, "reply_to": "22825__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__0_039", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "I understand that to be this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [854.854], "stop_times": [856.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 854.854}, "reply_to": "22825__0_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_040", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--No, it would not because the rationale given by the employer here for... let... let me take us to the facts and then the explanation that's given by the employer.\nWhat happened here is they gave all of the line police officers much bigger raises than they gave to the more senior officers.\nThat... and the difference in pay between protected persons under the ADEA and non-protected persons was 4 standard deviations, a 1 in 10,000 chance, statisticians will tell you.\nAnd they said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [856.552, 866.548, 874.122, 884.823], "stop_times": [866.548, 874.122, 884.823, 885.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 856.552}, "reply_to": "22825__0_039", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_041", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "No, but the basis for differentiation was years of service, was it not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [885.608], "stop_times": [889.348], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.608}, "reply_to": "22825__0_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_042", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--The basis for differentiation was years of service, but the question is in... is it a reasonable choice by the employer in this context.\nAnd the reason is it's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [889.348, 896.728], "stop_times": [896.728, 897.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 889.348}, "reply_to": "22825__0_041", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_043", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Well, I'm just asking in the abstract.\nWhy wouldn't that always be a... a reasonable factor other than age?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [897.833, 899.285], "stop_times": [899.285, 902.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 897.833}, "reply_to": "22825__0_042", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_044", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--I apologize.\nThat... and so I think I answered your hypothetical too broadly.\nAnd that is, it depends.\nIn the great majority of cases, employers certainly can say I want to give a class of employees more money.\nPerfectly sensible.\nCongress didn't intend to block that.\nBut the question is, is this outside the usual set of cases?\nAnd the city's explanation what... for this policy, which was to give the line cops more money but not the rest of the cops who happen to all be over 40, was that they wanted to bring the salary up to a... a regional average.\nAnd so we asked the question, does this accomplish that in a reasonable way, and it does not because they left out huge categories of employees.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [902.711, 903.413, 906.694, 908.133, 914.764, 916.155, 918.195, 921.856, 935.194], "stop_times": [903.413, 906.694, 908.133, 914.764, 916.155, 918.195, 921.856, 935.194, 942.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 902.711}, "reply_to": "22825__0_043", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_045", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "But the factor... if I understand it, it wasn't because they were line officers, it was rather because they had lesser years of service than the more senior officers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [942.724], "stop_times": [950.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 942.724}, "reply_to": "22825__0_044", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_046", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [950.42], "stop_times": [950.75], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 950.42}, "reply_to": "22825__0_045", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_047", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [950.75], "stop_times": [951.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 950.75}, "reply_to": "22825__0_046", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_048", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "That is not the facts here.\nThat's right.\nThey... they did not say we are going to give pay raises to the people who have lesser years of service because we're concerned about their pay.\nTo the contrary.\nLet me take you to one piece of the record that I think will be helpful.\nAlthough again the cases presents the legal question, the lower court on remand can resolve the case.\nBut at page 15 of the joint appendix, there is the pay plan itself, and the first sentence is that... they... explains the purpose.\nThe... the city wanted to provide a compensation plan that will attract and retain qualified people, and then it says, to all employees regardless of age.\nThey purported to be giving the same treatment to everyone regardless--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [951.146, 952.113, 952.685, 961.375, 962.307, 964.844, 970.045, 979.316, 988.555], "stop_times": [952.113, 952.685, 961.375, 962.307, 964.844, 970.045, 979.316, 988.555, 992.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 951.146}, "reply_to": "22825__0_047", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_049", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "I don't think the statement of purpose tells me what the... what the criterion for the different treatment was.\nI still think it was years of service.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [992.941, 999.032], "stop_times": [999.032, 1000.514], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 992.941}, "reply_to": "22825__0_048", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_050", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Justice Stevens, I... I just think that... it misunderstands the facts as I know them in this particular case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1000.514], "stop_times": [1006.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1000.514}, "reply_to": "22825__0_049", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_051", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "What was the criterion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1006.67], "stop_times": [1007.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1006.67}, "reply_to": "22825__0_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_052", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "The criterion was that they took the... they had different kinds of officers.\nThey had police... line police officers, master sergeants, all the way on up through the system.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1007.457, 1012.559], "stop_times": [1012.559, 1017.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1007.457}, "reply_to": "22825__0_051", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_053", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "So in other words, the criterion was the kind of rank they had before.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1017.659], "stop_times": [1021.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1017.659}, "reply_to": "22825__0_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_054", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Yes, and then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1021.42], "stop_times": [1022.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1021.42}, "reply_to": "22825__0_053", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_055", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Then why isn't that a reasonable factor other than age?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1022.009], "stop_times": [1024.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1022.009}, "reply_to": "22825__0_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_056", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--The question is not whether that because that's not... having those criterion is perfectly reasonable.\nThe question is, is it reasonable... and this would be resolved on remand... to give raises to only one of those categories when your explanation is that you were trying to give raises to bring everyone up to a regional average?\nAnd so, Justice Stevens, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1024.127, 1029.7, 1042.549], "stop_times": [1029.7, 1042.549, 1044.865], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1024.127}, "reply_to": "22825__0_055", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_057", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "In other words, you say the... the question isn't whether they used a reasonable factor other than age.\nYour question is whether the use of those factors was overall reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1044.865, 1048.805], "stop_times": [1048.805, 1053.308], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1044.865}, "reply_to": "22825__0_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_058", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Yes.\nThere are two things.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1053.308, 1053.644], "stop_times": [1053.644, 1054.198], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1053.308}, "reply_to": "22825__0_057", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_059", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "That's a rewriting of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1054.198], "stop_times": [1055.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1054.198}, "reply_to": "22825__0_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_060", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Oh, I... I don't think so, Justice Stevens.\nIt's the same question that we ask in title VII, and that is, was it a... a... there's a higher bar there, but were you pursuing a... a legitimate goal and did you... did you pursue it in a reasonable way?\nThat's why a title VII plaintiff... and this has... and I do want to come back--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1055.242, 1056.854, 1068.525], "stop_times": [1056.854, 1068.525, 1071.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1055.242}, "reply_to": "22825__0_059", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_061", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Because title VII doesn't have this language in it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1071.994], "stop_times": [1073.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1071.994}, "reply_to": "22825__0_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__0_062", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--That's absolutely right, but it's not language here that would detract from that structure of the... of the title VII inquiry.\nAll the lower courts, for example, agree that it... as I said, follows the pre--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1073.794, 1081.633], "stop_times": [1081.633, 1086.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1073.794}, "reply_to": "22825__0_061", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_063", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--So here... here you're saying you're not attacking reasonable factor other than age.\nIt has to be based on reasonable factor other than age.\nAnd I take it here you're saying it's not based on what they advance as reasonable factors.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1086.374, 1091.093, 1094.785], "stop_times": [1091.093, 1094.785, 1100.014], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1086.374}, "reply_to": "22825__0_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__0_064", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Yes.\nThey give--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1100.014, 1100.264], "stop_times": [1100.264, 1100.58], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1100.014}, "reply_to": "22825__0_063", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_065", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1100.58], "stop_times": [1101.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1100.58}, "reply_to": "22825__0_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__0_066", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Yes.\nThey give an explanation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1101.02, 1101.311], "stop_times": [1101.311, 1102.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1101.02}, "reply_to": "22825__0_065", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_067", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "But if I... I say my explanation for why I pay the newer people more is really I like to have that atmosphere.\nYou make less money in my business, but it's more democratic and people are happier even though no one will invest in my company.\n[Laughter]\nBut still, I'd like a commune.\nAll right?\nThat's how I want to do it.\nNow, that's not totally idiotic.\nIt's plausible.\nSo I just win.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1102.259, 1113.291, 1122.371, 1123.248, 1125.581, 1126.02, 1126.969, 1129.609, 1131.528, 1133.637], "stop_times": [1113.291, 1122.371, 1123.248, 1125.581, 1126.02, 1126.969, 1129.609, 1131.528, 1133.637, 1134.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1102.259}, "reply_to": "22825__0_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__0_068", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "No.\nYou would lose a treatment case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1134.433, 1134.829], "stop_times": [1134.829, 1136.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1134.433}, "reply_to": "22825__0_067", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_069", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Ah, I lose a treatment case.\nNo, no.\nI'm not... I'm just... it's I'm not paying the younger workers more.\nI'm paying the newer workers more.\nAll right?\nThey happen to be much the same category, but I... I don't want it.\nIt's not age.\nOr, you know, I pay the lower paid workers more.\nHow's that?\nDo I win?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1136.008, 1138.728, 1138.977, 1142.778, 1145.583, 1147.041, 1151.44, 1152.383, 1154.943, 1156.368], "stop_times": [1138.728, 1138.977, 1142.778, 1145.583, 1147.041, 1151.44, 1152.383, 1154.943, 1156.368, 1156.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1136.008}, "reply_to": "22825__0_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__0_070", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "You paid the lower paid workers more?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1156.889], "stop_times": [1157.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1156.889}, "reply_to": "22825__0_069", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_071", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Yes.\nI paid the lower paid workers more?\nI want to bring them up to the executives.\nI... I like it.\nIt's more democratic and it makes a happier group.\nAnd... and so, now, do I win or lose?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1157.55, 1157.898, 1159.387, 1161.112, 1162.489, 1166.269], "stop_times": [1157.898, 1159.387, 1161.112, 1162.489, 1166.269, 1168.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1157.55}, "reply_to": "22825__0_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__0_072", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "You, in all likelihood, win in that hypothetical.\nYou--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1168.662, 1171.177], "stop_times": [1171.177, 1171.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1168.662}, "reply_to": "22825__0_071", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_073", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "I win.\nAnd I don't have to say any more than that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1171.442, 1171.882], "stop_times": [1171.882, 1172.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1171.442}, "reply_to": "22825__0_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__0_074", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--No.\nBut let me tell you, it's still a very important statute because... for the reason that I framed before, and that is, most cases that are ADEA disparate impact cases are not cost cases.\nThere are other tests: applications procedures, strength tests, and the like.\nThat's what the EEOC believes is still very essential.\nSo while we don't impose a big burden on employers in the cost context for the reasons that you and Justice Stevens have been exploring, that doesn't mean our position is somehow worthless.\nThe EEOC has said that the disparate impact plays a, quote/unquote, vital role under the ADEA and that the respondents' position would greatly weaken the statute because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1172.893, 1173.532, 1185.522, 1190.493, 1194.814, 1204.252], "stop_times": [1173.532, 1185.522, 1190.493, 1194.814, 1204.252, 1215.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1172.893}, "reply_to": "22825__0_073", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_075", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "There haven't been a whole lot of cases under the impact theory as applied to age, and you just said you're not talking about the cost category but that... you mentioned physical fitness.\nAnd there was a case.\nSmith against Des Moines involved that, but it was found the... the physical fitness test was job-related.\nHave there been mutual rules with a disparate impact that you can give us as examples?\nWhen you're talking about race and sex, the examples come to mind much more readily than in the age category.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1215.556, 1231.637, 1232.928, 1240.371, 1248.213], "stop_times": [1231.637, 1232.928, 1240.371, 1248.213, 1257.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1215.556}, "reply_to": "22825__0_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22825__0_076", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Yes, I can.\nI'll give you two sets of examples.\nThe first is the examples identified by the Solicitor General in his cert petition defending the EEOC's position in the Francis W. Parker case in 1994.\nThe EEOC pursued cases... and they're cited in the cert petition... involving rules that prohibit... that require recent college graduates to get a job that forbid hiring someone who worked previously for a higher salary than they would be getting in the new... in the new job and that laid off people who would be eligible to retire soon.\nSo those are the examples the Solicitor General gave.\nI'll give you two other examples.\nOne is a... a case called--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1257.115, 1258.348, 1260.372, 1270.583, 1292.719, 1294.758, 1296.368], "stop_times": [1258.348, 1260.372, 1270.583, 1292.719, 1294.758, 1296.368, 1298.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1257.115}, "reply_to": "22825__0_075", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_077", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "These are examples of?\nViolations or things that are okay?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1298.901, 1300.378], "stop_times": [1300.378, 1302.66], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1298.901}, "reply_to": "22825__0_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__0_078", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Violations.\nI apologize.\nThe EEOC filed suit because of these violations of the act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1302.66, 1303.429, 1303.919], "stop_times": [1303.429, 1303.919, 1307.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1302.66}, "reply_to": "22825__0_077", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_079", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Why isn't it a reasonable factor other than age that I don't want to hire somebody who's going to retire a year after I hire him?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1307.838], "stop_times": [1314.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1307.838}, "reply_to": "22825__0_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__0_080", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Because it's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1314.838], "stop_times": [1316.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1314.838}, "reply_to": "22825__0_079", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_081", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Gee, that seems to me terribly reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1316.184], "stop_times": [1318.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1316.184}, "reply_to": "22825__0_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__0_082", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1318.134], "stop_times": [1319.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1318.134}, "reply_to": "22825__0_081", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_083", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "I don't care how old he is.\nI don't want anybody who's going to retire the year after I hire him.\nI don't want to have to go through this... this whole process again.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1319.648, 1321.293, 1323.892], "stop_times": [1321.293, 1323.892, 1326.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.648}, "reply_to": "22825__0_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__0_084", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--The view of the commission... it's one I share, but a particular court might not... is that that is not a good... a reasonable work place judgment.\nOne could disagree with it.\nBut the... those employees will be very valuable.\nAnd it's not that they will retire, I should make clear.\nIt's that they're eligible to retire.\nIt... it may well be a different case if you could say, I asked the person.\nThey said they're leaving in a year.\nThe rule challenged there was mere eligibility to retire, and they did give the other examples.\nI didn't finish with the court cases.\nThey are Klein, which is 807 F. Supp. 1517, which is a hiring test I think by the FAA in that case that... that happened to exclude all of the people, I think, over the age of 55.\nAnd there are other cases that are, in the line of cases that I was discussing with Justice Breyer, in which the employer doesn't say... doesn't give the person who gets the higher pay the option of taking a pay cut before being fired.\nSo the statute, both in the non-cost context and the cost context, has very important applications.\nI did want to return to your correct premise, however, Justice Ginsburg.\nYou said there aren't many cases.\nI think it's important to recognize that the... the important, legitimate cases, by and large, are conciliated by the EEOC.\nRemember, it goes through an administrative process first.\nThe EEOC found a violation here, gave us a right to sue letter.\nThe... the city just declined to settle with us.\nThere have been... and I have checked.\nThere have been 74 disparate impact cases in the history of the statute that are reported in the Federal courts, and I think that is a good answer to the idea of the respondents that this will impose a huge burden on employers, the idea that there will be a massive amount of litigation.\nRemember--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1326.375, 1334.544, 1336.054, 1338.634, 1340.965, 1342.767, 1346.181, 1347.264, 1351.715, 1353.613, 1367.733, 1380.314, 1387.044, 1390.242, 1392.485, 1400.785, 1402.985, 1407.062, 1409.864, 1412.063, 1427.967], "stop_times": [1334.544, 1336.054, 1338.634, 1340.965, 1342.767, 1346.181, 1347.264, 1351.715, 1353.613, 1367.733, 1380.314, 1387.044, 1390.242, 1392.485, 1400.785, 1402.985, 1407.062, 1409.864, 1412.063, 1427.967, 1428.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1326.375}, "reply_to": "22825__0_083", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_085", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Well, once we... if we were to say it's covered, don't you think that number would expand?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1428.942], "stop_times": [1435.164], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.942}, "reply_to": "22825__0_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22825__0_086", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--It's possible it would expand some, but I do think we're right to say not much because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1435.164], "stop_times": [1440.339], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1435.164}, "reply_to": "22825__0_085", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_087", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Well, it's not the number of cases either.\nI mean, you could have... it wouldn't take much to have a single case that has a rule in it, say, that makes it very difficult for an employer to do things of type X or type Y, and that would have enormous impact even though you'd say, well, it was just one case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1440.339, 1442.212], "stop_times": [1442.212, 1456.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.339}, "reply_to": "22825__0_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__0_088", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Well, there are two fears I think the respondents have articulated, neither of which are borne out by actual experience because, Justice O'Connor, the EEOC has recognized these claims for a quarter century.\nUntil 1993, every single circuit agreed with us, and right now three circuits agree with us.\nSo I... there is a large body of experience that suggests... and that's where those 74 cases come from.\nSo, Justice Breyer, they have two concerns.\nOne is the mere notion of the possibility of liability will... and the prospect of how expensive litigation would be... would be deterring valuable employment practices.\nThat's not borne out by experience.\nYour point is, well, what if the liability threshold is too high?\nAnd experience suggests and the rules endorsed by the commission and the lower courts are that the liability threshold is not too high.\nI did also want to say that it is the liability threshold that is the key for deciding how to accommodate the respondents' concerns.\nJustice O'Connor's Watson plurality opinion explains that the evidentiary standards that apply in these disparate impact cases should serve as adequate safeguards.\nThe precise, same argument was made by the business community in Watson, saying, look, we're going to have to adopt quotas.\nThis will be entirely unmanageable.\nBefore I sit down and reserve the remainder of my time, I did want to say we have a really good case, to refer back to my last argument, and that's Griggs, which is about the exact same statutory text.\nAnd then we have a line, a wall that is uninterrupted of this Court's authority.\nSix straight decisions say when the statute... title VII says something and the ADEA says the same thing, they have the parallel construction.\nAnd in our view the respondents' arguments aren't good enough to overcome the double hurdle of stare decisis and Chevron deference.\nIf I could reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1456.91, 1466.51, 1473.459, 1479.6, 1481.358, 1491.481, 1493.28, 1497.101, 1504.199, 1515.159, 1524.091, 1530.84, 1532.48, 1543.186, 1547.879, 1556.14, 1563.04], "stop_times": [1466.51, 1473.459, 1479.6, 1481.358, 1491.481, 1493.28, 1497.101, 1504.199, 1515.159, 1524.091, 1530.84, 1532.48, 1543.186, 1547.879, 1556.14, 1563.04, 1564.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1456.91}, "reply_to": "22825__0_087", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__0_089", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Mr. Nager.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1564.789], "stop_times": [1568.98], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1564.789}, "reply_to": "22825__0_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__1_000", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nIf I may, I'd like to go straight to the question as to why mere statistical correlations with age don't create a prima facie case of discrimination because of age.\nThis Court in its title VII cases has said that a mere statistical correlation with race or sex can create a prima facie case of discrimination because of race or sex because it's advanced a proposition that there's no inherent correlation between race and sex and ability to perform a job or do a job.\nAnd as a consequence, the Court has said that a statistical disparity is a departure from the expected norm.\nThus, the statistical disparity creates a suspect situation which could be treated as a prima facie case of discrimination because of age, to use the Court's term in Watson, the functional equivalent of intentional discrimination.\nIn the age context, the premise doesn't apply.\nIn the age context, as Justice Breyer pointed out in the Florida Power argument, as he's pointed out again today, age is inherently correlated with myriad selection practices.\nIt's painful to say, particularly to a Court that's a little bit older than I am, but our mental and physical capacities are not constant over our lifetimes.\nThey're different for each one of us, but statistically they change over time and they deteriorate over time, and progress doesn't treat the skills and abilities that we have with... the same way to people who are at different stages in life.\nOur education and our technological--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1568.98, 1572.819, 1582.984, 1603.355, 1610.035, 1624.844, 1629.394, 1641.496, 1654.984, 1671.454], "stop_times": [1572.819, 1582.984, 1603.355, 1610.035, 1624.844, 1629.394, 1641.496, 1654.984, 1671.454, 1673.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1568.98}, "reply_to": "22825__0_089", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_001", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Verdi wrote Falstaff when he was 70... late... in his late 70's.\nIt was his greatest creation.\nSomething.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1673.455, 1677.465, 1679.228], "stop_times": [1677.465, 1679.228, 1680.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1673.455}, "reply_to": "22825__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22825__1_002", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--There is no doubt, particularly in occupations like judging--\n[Laughter]\n--that experience and wisdom may be something that grow over a lifetime.\nBut as we know--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1680.587, 1685.243, 1688.007, 1693.969], "stop_times": [1685.243, 1688.007, 1693.969, 1694.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1680.587}, "reply_to": "22825__1_001", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_003", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Wunsler died at about 28, didn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1694.588], "stop_times": [1696.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1694.588}, "reply_to": "22825__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_004", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "No. 34.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1696.689], "stop_times": [1698.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1696.689}, "reply_to": "22825__1_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22825__1_005", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1698.03], "stop_times": [1698.693], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1698.03}, "reply_to": "22825__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_006", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Let me... let me ask this.\nIf... if your argument has force, why haven't we been having horrible example piled upon horrible example since 1981 when the EEOC took the position that it takes?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1698.693, 1700.938], "stop_times": [1700.938, 1713.11], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1698.693}, "reply_to": "22825__1_005", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22825__1_007", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--The answer to that is as follows, is that Justice... Chief... then Justice Rehnquist, now Chief Justice Rehnquist, wrote a dissent from denial at the time of Geller v. Markham.\nAnd in my practical experience... and I do defend these cases for a living... that put a tremendous chill on the plaintiffs bar, and there were very few of these cases brought.\nBut contrary to Mr. Goldstein, who doesn't represent employers and help them plan their selection practices, employers made huge changes in the '80's and the early '90's until this Court's decision in Hazen Paper because employers were scared of these cases, and so employers started managing the numbers.\nThere were a lot of reductions in force in the late '80's, as I'm sure this Court remembers, as our Nation when through a... a industrial restructuring.\nAnd every one of those reductions in force, I had to sit down with my clients and break up the age of the work force into bands and see how people were going to be affected and move numbers.\nAnd the irony, of course, is... is in doing that, employers adversely impact the very people who are benefitted by the disparate impact doctrine under title VII because the Age Discrimination Act principally favors more senior, older white males, and when you try to manage your numbers so that you don't adversely impact older white males, what happens is... is you adversely impact the new entrants to the work force who in the last 25 years have been much greater numbers of racial minorities and females.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1713.11, 1725.123, 1737.255, 1754.827, 1762.371, 1772.998], "stop_times": [1725.123, 1737.255, 1754.827, 1762.371, 1772.998, 1807.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1713.11}, "reply_to": "22825__1_006", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_008", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--What do you do about the EEOC's regulation?\nWhy isn't that... why isn't that entitled to Chevron deference?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1807.972, 1812.889], "stop_times": [1812.889, 1818.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1807.972}, "reply_to": "22825__1_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_009", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Let me answer that.\nFirst of all, the... the answer is, is you only get to Chevron deference if this statute is not subject to construction by this Court in phase one of Chevron.\nThe first question is can this Court, looking at the language of the statute and the other legal materials, interpret the statute to have a single, reasonably clear meaning.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1818.65, 1821.609, 1834.027], "stop_times": [1821.609, 1834.027, 1841.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1818.65}, "reply_to": "22825__1_008", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_010", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "How can we possibly say that it's not ambiguous when we have, in another context, interpreted the identical language to permit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1841.84], "stop_times": [1849.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1841.84}, "reply_to": "22825__1_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_011", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Just the way this Court did last term in the General Dynamics case, which I realize you dissented on this point, Justice Scalia.\nBut just last term in the General Dynamics case, this Court held that the phrase, because of age, is idiomatically and contextually different than the phrase, because of race or sex.\nAnd my point to Justice Breyer is... is that the phrase, because of age, cannot properly be construed to be satisfied by a mere statistical correlation with age.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1849.577, 1857.732, 1869.67], "stop_times": [1857.732, 1869.67, 1881.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1849.577}, "reply_to": "22825__1_010", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_012", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "No, but in that... in that case, we were construing the word age and age definitely has a different meaning from sex or... or race.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1881.494], "stop_times": [1886.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1881.494}, "reply_to": "22825__1_011", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__1_013", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "I'm not saying that the... the General Dynamics case disposes of this case, Justice Stevens.\nI'm simply pointing out that, as Justice Souter's opinion for the Court last term held, that similar language in similar statutes can have different meaning and not be ambiguous.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1886.911, 1892.215], "stop_times": [1892.215, 1905.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1886.911}, "reply_to": "22825__1_012", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_014", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Yes, but not whole texts, not... I don't remember whether it was 1... 1 and 2 or A and B, but this is not a word, age.\nIt's... it's lines and lines, and to... and to say, oh, in Griggs we held that the title VII language... this language means you can have a disparate impact theory, but in age, we're going to read those very same words to prohibit.\nIn one sense... one you read to say, these words permit disparate impact, and then you read the same words to say these words prohibit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1905.861, 1914.43, 1931.451], "stop_times": [1914.43, 1931.451, 1941.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1905.861}, "reply_to": "22825__1_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22825__1_015", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1941.455], "stop_times": [1943.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1941.455}, "reply_to": "22825__1_014", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_016", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--disparate impact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1943.681], "stop_times": [1944.334], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.681}, "reply_to": "22825__1_015", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22825__1_017", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "That is not quite right, Justice Ginsburg.\nWhat we're saying is... is that natural meaning of the phrase, because of, either in title VII or in the Age Act, is a natural, more conventional reference to intent.\nNonetheless, the Court, because of the objectives of title VII and because statistical correlations could equal a functional equivalent of intentional discrimination, construed title VII to go beyond intent-based claims to encompass disparate impact claims.\nOur point to the Court today is... is that neither of those two critical premises apply, that a mere correlation with age does not, in the context of age, equal a prima facie case of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1944.334, 1945.666, 1956.739, 1974.893], "stop_times": [1945.666, 1956.739, 1974.893, 1988.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1944.334}, "reply_to": "22825__1_016", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_018", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--If that's so, Congress shouldn't have copied the language of title VII.\nIt isn't a matter of it just accidentally comes out to... to be sounding the same, as though, you know, two monkeys did it on a typewriter or something.\nThey copied... they copied title VII.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [1988.181, 1991.565, 1999.0], "stop_times": [1991.565, 1999.0, 2001.607], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1988.181}, "reply_to": "22825__1_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_019", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Well, they copied it before Griggs was decided, indeed, before any agency of Government, before any court in this country, and before any academic in this country had floated the concept--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2001.607], "stop_times": [2012.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2001.607}, "reply_to": "22825__1_018", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_020", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Well, I think it's a fair conclusion that they meant the two to mean the same thing, whether it was before Griggs or after Griggs.\nThey copied the language.\nIt seems to me they wanted the two to mean the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2012.323, 2016.824, 2018.208], "stop_times": [2016.824, 2018.208, 2020.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2012.323}, "reply_to": "22825__1_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_021", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--I... I think that that's wrong, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2020.45], "stop_times": [2023.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2020.45}, "reply_to": "22825__1_020", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_022", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Or... or at least it is arguably so, in which case you come back to my question.\nWhy isn't the... the EEOC's resolution of that ambiguity conclusive?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2023.619, 2027.996], "stop_times": [2027.996, 2034.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2023.619}, "reply_to": "22825__1_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_023", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Well, let me answer that question directly and then come back and argue with you about your premise.\nIf you turn to the appendix and on the red brief, page 56a is the regulation.\nAnd it is... as Justice Kennedy pointed out, it is not an interpretation of the prohibition of the statute.\nIt is an interpretation of the reasonable factor of an age provision.\nAnd as initial point, I'd submit to you, Justice Scalia, that it's one thing to defer to an agency's interpretation of the provision that you're being asked to construe in resolving what the meaning of the provision you're being asked to construe is.\nIt's another thing to defer to their interpretation of a distinct provision which isn't a prohibition at all.\nLet me move on and let's read what it says, though.\nWhat it says is... is the following.\nIt's interpreting a phrase that says is based a reasonable factor other than age, which Mr. Goldstein has conceded in his brief and the petitioners in the Florida Power case also conceded is necessarily a reference to intentionality.\nBut there's not a word in this regulation about employer intentions.\nQuite the contrary.\nAnd the reason why I... I asked you to turn to page 56a of our brief rather than the quotation of the regulation in Mr. Goldstein's brief is because there's an additional sentence in the regulation that Mr. Goldstein didn't print in his brief, and that is that the EEOC said where tests are involved--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2034.286, 2039.715, 2050.266, 2056.824, 2060.676, 2074.896, 2081.112, 2083.725, 2087.908, 2100.179, 2104.266, 2105.483], "stop_times": [2039.715, 2050.266, 2056.824, 2060.676, 2074.896, 2081.112, 2083.725, 2087.908, 2100.179, 2104.266, 2105.483, 2120.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2034.286}, "reply_to": "22825__1_022", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_024", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Where... where are you reading from?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2120.664], "stop_times": [2121.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2120.664}, "reply_to": "22825__1_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_025", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Page 56a of the red brief.\nI'm sorry, Justice.\nIt's section (d).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2121.83, 2123.625, 2125.112], "stop_times": [2123.625, 2125.112, 2127.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2121.83}, "reply_to": "22825__1_024", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_026", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "(e)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2127.067], "stop_times": [2127.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2127.067}, "reply_to": "22825__1_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_027", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "(d) as in David.\nWhat the EEOC said is that the reasonable factors other than age provision is not an intent-based provision.\nIt's a business necessity provision.\nThey did it, saying it means the same thing as it's... as it means in title VII because their whole purpose here was to conform the Age Act to title VII, and they said you have to comply, where tests are involved, with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection that they jointly promulgated with the Department of Labor, the Justice Department, and the Civil Service branch, whose name has escaped me right now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2127.879, 2129.747, 2136.689, 2138.459], "stop_times": [2129.747, 2136.689, 2138.459, 2161.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2127.879}, "reply_to": "22825__1_026", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_028", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Mr. Nager, I'm lost.\nWhat... what part of 56a are you referring to?\n(d)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2161.245, 2161.716, 2163.923], "stop_times": [2161.716, 2163.923, 2164.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2161.245}, "reply_to": "22825__1_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__1_029", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "(d) on page 56a.\nI'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2164.304, 2166.793], "stop_times": [2166.793, 2168.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2164.304}, "reply_to": "22825__1_028", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_030", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Does it say what you just said?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2168.705], "stop_times": [2170.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.705}, "reply_to": "22825__1_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__1_031", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Tests which are asserted... the last sentence.\nTests which are asserted as reasonable factors other than age will be scrutinized in accordance with the standards set forth at part 1607 of this title.\nPart 1607 of this title is the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2170.242, 2172.27, 2178.666], "stop_times": [2172.27, 2178.666, 2183.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2170.242}, "reply_to": "22825__1_030", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_032", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "All that's true, but they... they did promulgate this guideline, as far as... I looked it up.\nAt that time, they said, look, it's going to be disparate impact, and they cited Griggs.\nAnd people have put comments, which I haven't read yet, but I imagine the comments went to disparate impact.\nAnd then when they rewrote it in this form, they have a little paragraph of explanation which makes pretty clear it's meant to be disparate impact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2183.431, 2188.15, 2193.51, 2199.248], "stop_times": [2188.15, 2193.51, 2199.248, 2206.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2183.431}, "reply_to": "22825__1_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_033", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "I have no doubt that they were assuming that this Court's decision in Griggs... because this is what they said in their comments... this Court's decision in Griggs required disparate impact analysis--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2206.57], "stop_times": [2218.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2206.57}, "reply_to": "22825__1_032", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_034", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Well, all right.\nBut I mean, they... everybody knew what they were driving at at the time they promulgated this.\nSo it seemed to me that if... if we're not governed by the reg, it must be because the reg is outside the statutory authority.\nAnd it might be outside the statutory authority if in fact it embodies too tough a test.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2218.367, 2218.905, 2223.129, 2231.09], "stop_times": [2218.905, 2223.129, 2231.09, 2237.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2218.367}, "reply_to": "22825__1_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_035", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--It's... it's outside the... the statutory authority for two reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2237.465], "stop_times": [2241.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2237.465}, "reply_to": "22825__1_034", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_036", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "But now we've heard it doesn't embody that much of a tough test, and you know, the EEOC isn't here to tell us--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2241.621], "stop_times": [2246.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2241.621}, "reply_to": "22825__1_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_037", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2246.94], "stop_times": [2247.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2246.94}, "reply_to": "22825__1_036", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_038", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--what in fact it thinks.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2247.451], "stop_times": [2248.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2247.451}, "reply_to": "22825__1_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_039", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Mr. Goldstein cited a bunch of EEOC briefs in his brief, and you'll notice he didn't quote a single part of... of those EEOC briefs which say that the standard under the Age Act is less than the standard under the Age Act.\nWhat he cites to is a footnote in his opening brief where he quotes one sentence from an EEOC brief where an EEOC appellate lawyer said it is... is likely that an employer will be able to prevail more often.\nThe EEOC never said... and... and I litigate against them.\nI can tell you the only thing that they would hate less but hate a lot than your ruling in our favor that there's no disparate impact claims at all is that Mr. Goldstein has represented what their version of the defense is because that's not the Government's position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2248.489, 2264.34, 2277.112, 2280.928], "stop_times": [2264.34, 2277.112, 2280.928, 2294.669], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2248.489}, "reply_to": "22825__1_038", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_040", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "All right.\nSo we don't know what the Government's position is.\nThey're not here.\nSo suppose I think, one, the language is against you, the language of the statute.\nI do think it's against you.\nTwo, the EEOC reg does foresee a disparate impact test.\nThree, the practicalities are absolutely with you, and that has to go with the scope of the statute.\nAnd four, it might be possible for the EEOC to write a reg that deals with the problems you're worried about while advancing a disparate impact test.\nSuppose I think all those things--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2294.669, 2294.942, 2296.558, 2297.389, 2302.15, 2303.331, 2307.771, 2314.411, 2324.131], "stop_times": [2294.942, 2296.558, 2297.389, 2302.15, 2303.331, 2307.771, 2314.411, 2324.131, 2325.677], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2294.669}, "reply_to": "22825__1_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_041", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Which one--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2325.677], "stop_times": [2326.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2325.677}, "reply_to": "22825__1_040", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_042", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--which are at least consistent.\nWhat would I do with this case?\nThat's my problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2326.754, 2327.632, 2329.673], "stop_times": [2327.632, 2329.673, 2332.133], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2326.754}, "reply_to": "22825__1_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_043", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Okay.\nI... I would submit that you should--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2332.133, 2332.832], "stop_times": [2332.832, 2335.18], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2332.133}, "reply_to": "22825__1_042", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_044", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Where the Government hasn't appeared and told us what they want to do or what they think should be done, et cetera.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2335.18], "stop_times": [2339.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2335.18}, "reply_to": "22825__1_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_045", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--I... I should... I would submit, Justice Breyer, that you should reexamine your premise that the language of the Age Act, both in section 4(a) by itself and construed in light of 4(f) and the legislative history and purposes of the statute encompass disparate impact claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2339.434], "stop_times": [2355.461], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.434}, "reply_to": "22825__1_044", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_046", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Maybe the EEOC regulation was not so much an interpretation of the statute as an interpretation of Griggs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2355.461], "stop_times": [2362.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2355.461}, "reply_to": "22825__1_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_047", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Oh, I think that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2362.407], "stop_times": [2364.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2362.407}, "reply_to": "22825__1_046", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_048", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "I mean, maybe this provision represents the judgment of the agency that Griggs applies to this other statute, and... and I'm not sure that we owe Chevron deference to that determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2364.043], "stop_times": [2374.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2364.043}, "reply_to": "22825__1_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_049", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Well, I... I don't think you did, although I don't even think, frankly, from what I've read is they made the judgment.\nThey made the assumption.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2374.61, 2379.471], "stop_times": [2379.471, 2380.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2374.61}, "reply_to": "22825__1_048", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_050", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Yes, well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2380.232], "stop_times": [2382.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2380.232}, "reply_to": "22825__1_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_051", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Mr. Nager, will you go to another one of Justice Breyer's premises?\nHe says following the practicalities are with you, which you're certainly going to accept.\nHe says I think the EEOC can deal with some of these practical problems.\nDo you think so?\nWhy not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2382.248, 2386.938, 2392.247, 2398.067, 2399.548], "stop_times": [2386.938, 2392.247, 2398.067, 2399.548, 2400.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.248}, "reply_to": "22825__1_050", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22825__1_052", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Great question and the answer is no, they can't.\nAnd the reason is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2400.832, 2403.687], "stop_times": [2403.687, 2404.874], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2400.832}, "reply_to": "22825__1_051", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_053", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Give me some examples.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2404.874], "stop_times": [2405.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2404.874}, "reply_to": "22825__1_052", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22825__1_054", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--The reason is... is because if you... if you lower the prima facie case so that it's meaningless, so that it means that all a plaintiff has to do is find a selection practice... because it's always going to correlate with age... it means you shifted the burden to an employer in every case to establish that its... its practice meets whatever standard your hypothesizing the EEOC might come up with later, Justice Breyer.\nMeanwhile, the world has to go on, and what my clients will do is as follows.\nThey will say, well, you know, we're not going to wait to see if... if this new practice we're going to consider is going to stand the test of time in court and under the EEOC's yet-to-be-articulated regulation.\nWe're going to stick with the tried and true.\nWe are not going to innovate at all, and if we're going to innovate, we're going to massage the numbers while we do it.\nThe employers--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2405.732, 2431.553, 2435.248, 2446.454, 2449.056, 2454.713], "stop_times": [2431.553, 2435.248, 2446.454, 2449.056, 2454.713, 2455.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2405.732}, "reply_to": "22825__1_053", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_055", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "That would be a fairly easy burden... a fairly easy burden to me.\nAnd... and to give you a fairly easy burden is consistent with the idea of trying to get employers to think about the problem.\nAn employer who uses a different factor which is correlated with age but it's... it's an unreasonable thing to do or it isn't the real basis hasn't thought about the harm that he's working.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2455.204, 2459.097, 2466.993], "stop_times": [2459.097, 2466.993, 2482.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2455.204}, "reply_to": "22825__1_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_056", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Well, as--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2482.817], "stop_times": [2483.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2482.817}, "reply_to": "22825__1_055", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_057", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "So we could give you an easy burden and still accomplish the objective.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2483.163], "stop_times": [2486.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2483.163}, "reply_to": "22825__1_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_058", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--I... I don't want to resist the easy burden, but I do want to tell you, as Justice Scalia pointed out in the Florida Power argument, my clients do think about these things because if... you know, if they adopt an unreasonable practice that has an adverse statistical effect and they think they're likely to get sued about it, they actually do have to worry about it because these cases are tried to juries and they have to have a reasonable explanation for what... their practice because they get tried to juries as disparate treatment cases.\nOur point is not that statistics are not admissible.\nThey are.\nOur point is... is that they're not sufficient by themselves to create a prima facie case of... because of age, as it would be in a title VII case where we wouldn't expect to see the statistical disparity.\nSo it's fair to say that there's a reasonable adverse inference to be drawn from the existence of the disparity itself.\nThat is the premise articulated by this Court as to why the disparate impact doctrine can... can at... the prima facie case aspect of it equals a prima facie case of discrimination because of race or sex.\nThat is not true here.\nNow, it is also the case that when this Court adopted the disparate impact doctrine, it said it placed an enormous weight on the objectives of title VII's prohibitions, which it construed to be, as Justice Ginsburg pointed out, eliminating these built-in headwinds.\nWell, when... when the Secretary of Labor proposed the Age Discrimination Act, he gave a report to Congress and he said age discrimination is different than race and sex discrimination.\nIt is not based on animus.\nIt is... it is not dealing with a group of individuals who have suffered cumulative disabilities over their lifetime because of historic discrimination.\nHe said it's... the problem of age discrimination is the problem of over-generalization by an employer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2486.362, 2512.803, 2515.455, 2516.046, 2528.523, 2535.459, 2549.68, 2551.067, 2568.07, 2579.402, 2581.418, 2589.748], "stop_times": [2512.803, 2515.455, 2516.046, 2528.523, 2535.459, 2549.68, 2551.067, 2568.07, 2579.402, 2581.418, 2589.748, 2596.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2486.362}, "reply_to": "22825__1_057", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_059", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "But he gave the very same example that was Griggs.\nHe gave the example of the high school diploma because he thought that people of a certain age, when there wasn't such general education as there is today, might not have a high school diploma to a much higher extent than the people who came... the generation who came after.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2596.305, 2598.904], "stop_times": [2598.904, 2616.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2596.305}, "reply_to": "22825__1_058", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22825__1_060", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "But his solution was not a disparate impact doctrine.\nHis solution was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2616.873, 2619.813], "stop_times": [2619.813, 2620.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2616.873}, "reply_to": "22825__1_059", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_061", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Well, it's a little, and you said his solution was we're going to have training and manuals and all.\nBut that's not altogether clear.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2620.908, 2625.452], "stop_times": [2625.452, 2628.374], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2620.908}, "reply_to": "22825__1_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22825__1_062", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Well, take a look at the statute, Justice Ginsburg.\nPlease look at page 15a and 16a in the red brief.\nAnd if you look at section 621(b)... it's at the bottom of page 15a of the red brief... Congress said what the purposes of the Age Discrimination Act were, and it had three, but it's only addressed one with a prohibition.\nThe second one was to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment.\nThe other two were to promote employment of older persons based on ability and to help employers and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment.\nAnd if you turn the page and look at section 622(a)(1), the very first thing Congress mandates that the Secretary shall do to address its other two purposes, to undertake research and promote research with a view to reducing barriers to the employment of older persons and the promotion of measures for using their skills.\nWhat the Secretary of Labor's report goes on at length about is it identified all kinds of factors, neutral and non-neutral--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2628.374, 2631.294, 2640.454, 2654.454, 2657.973, 2666.973, 2687.436], "stop_times": [2631.294, 2640.454, 2654.454, 2657.973, 2666.973, 2687.436, 2695.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2628.374}, "reply_to": "22825__1_061", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_063", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "But it doesn't say there that that is to implement the first... that... that only the second one, to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2695.418], "stop_times": [2704.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2695.418}, "reply_to": "22825__1_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22825__1_064", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--It does... what it... you're right it doesn't say the following.\nIt doesn't say, and we don't want disparate impact, because in 1967 the... the concept of disparate impact as a legal theory was unknown to Congress, to the courts, and to the administrative agencies.\nBut what the Secretary of Labor did do in his report is, after identifying all of the problems that adversely affect older workers, he says, I recommend a two-pronged approach.\nOne prong is prohibitory.\nIt's coercive.\nYou shall not... we'll prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment, which the Secretary explained to Congress, and this Court last term said itself, means a... is a... is... is the use of age as the decision-making criteria.\nHe said, separately we should have a series of programs that seek to enlarge the abilities of older workers, that seek to educate employers about the abilities of older workers through non-coercive programs.\nAnd so what this statute does... and this Court has said it in several of its cases... this statute was based upon the Secretary of Labor's report.\nThe Secretary wrote the bill, and although Congress amended it in other ways, it didn't amend any of these provisions.\nThat this statute took a more nuanced approach to deal with a distinctly different problem, and the problem--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2704.718, 2707.996, 2720.129, 2729.278, 2731.382, 2732.369, 2747.188, 2760.6, 2768.826, 2774.409], "stop_times": [2707.996, 2720.129, 2729.278, 2731.382, 2732.369, 2747.188, 2760.6, 2768.826, 2774.409, 2782.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2704.718}, "reply_to": "22825__1_063", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_065", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Mr. Nager, at the end of his report, Secretary Wirtz said the... a purpose, to eliminate discrimination in the employment of older workers, it would necessary not only to deal with overt acts of discrimination, but also to adjust those present employment practices which quite unintentionally lead to age limits in hiring.\nAnd your point, as I understand it, yes, that was one of his purposes, but he meant that one to be accomplished with ERISA and other things like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2782.064, 2798.449], "stop_times": [2798.449, 2805.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2782.064}, "reply_to": "22825__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__1_066", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Well, the quote that you just gave says that there are express uses of age and there are non-age reasons that lead to the use of express limits of age, for example, the hypothetical that Justice Scalia gave with Mr. Goldstein, saying, well, I wouldn't want to hire someone who's going... who tells me they're going to retire a year from now.\nBut if he said I'm not going to hire you because you're 64 because I know you're going to... people retire at 65 mostly, that would be the same kind of non-age-based motive that nevertheless used age as a decision-making criteria.\nThat's what that quote is referring to.\nIf you... if you... the second half--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2805.753, 2824.725, 2840.629, 2843.149], "stop_times": [2824.725, 2840.629, 2843.149, 2846.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2805.753}, "reply_to": "22825__1_065", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_067", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "The quote... the reference to employment practices which quite unintentionally lead to age limits in hiring.\nI see what you're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2846.175, 2851.006], "stop_times": [2851.006, 2851.965], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2846.175}, "reply_to": "22825__1_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__1_068", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Right.\nAnd then... and... and the point here is this was thought out.\nIt wasn't thought out as disparate treatment versus disparate impact because the concepts didn't exist at the time, but it was thought out as arbitrary age discrimination versus other factors that adversely bear on older workers.\nThe prohibitions went to arbitrary age discrimination and didn't go to the adverse impacts.\nIt was the... the non-coercive measures that went to the adverse impacts.\nLet me go also--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2851.965, 2852.264, 2855.625, 2867.064, 2874.353, 2877.63], "stop_times": [2852.264, 2855.625, 2867.064, 2874.353, 2877.63, 2878.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2851.965}, "reply_to": "22825__1_067", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_069", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "No.\nHow does that work?\nBecause the... the particular language, it shall be unlawful for an employer to classify his employees in any way that would adversely affect an individual's status... his status, it says... as an employee because of such individual's age.\nNow, that sounds as if it's driving right at disparate impact.\nIt's... it's unlawful to classify an employee in any way that would adversely affect him because of his age.\nThat's what it says.\nAnd then you turn to defense and it says, but there's the defense with a differentiation, i.e., the classification is based on reasonable factors other than age.\nAnd therefore it would sound as if it says, look at the factor and ask is the factor reasonable.\nIf so, the employer wins if it's really based on that factor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2878.174, 2878.376, 2879.125, 2897.115, 2902.203, 2911.241, 2912.377, 2922.094, 2928.362], "stop_times": [2878.376, 2879.125, 2897.115, 2902.203, 2911.241, 2912.377, 2922.094, 2928.362, 2932.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2878.174}, "reply_to": "22825__1_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_070", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Two points?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2932.395], "stop_times": [2933.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2932.395}, "reply_to": "22825__1_069", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_071", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2933.515], "stop_times": [2933.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2933.515}, "reply_to": "22825__1_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_072", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "One is... is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2933.882], "stop_times": [2934.646], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2933.882}, "reply_to": "22825__1_071", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_073", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "How do we get out of that language?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2934.646], "stop_times": [2935.608], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2934.646}, "reply_to": "22825__1_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_074", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Well, we love the language.\nWe don't have to get out of it.\nIt says because of age.\nThat's a reference, a traditional, conventional reference--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2935.608, 2937.786, 2938.787, 2940.269], "stop_times": [2937.786, 2938.787, 2940.269, 2943.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2935.608}, "reply_to": "22825__1_073", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_075", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "No, no, but it says... it says that would adversely affect him because of his age.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2943.344], "stop_times": [2947.209], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.344}, "reply_to": "22825__1_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_076", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Well, the first... before the comma is the statement both of the action of the employer and the injury that it has to cause in order for a claim to exist, and then there's another requirement.\nThe requirement is... is that the action and the... the effect of... the injury that's affected by it be... because of age.\nThat is a conventional reference to intent.\nAnd the confirmation that it's a reference--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2947.209, 2958.907, 2966.796, 2969.049], "stop_times": [2958.907, 2966.796, 2969.049, 2970.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2947.209}, "reply_to": "22825__1_075", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_077", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Oh, no.\nIt's not intent because if you read it as a part of classifying, which you'd have to do to get it because of intent, you'd have to say to classify his employees because of such individual's age.\nNow, that's a little tough because you're talking about employees, and then you go to such individual.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2970.94, 2971.519, 2981.881], "stop_times": [2971.519, 2981.881, 2986.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2970.94}, "reply_to": "22825__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_078", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--It... it... the phrase, because of age, modifies all of the words that precede the comma that separates the two.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2986.882], "stop_times": [2994.386], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2986.882}, "reply_to": "22825__1_077", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_079", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Segregate or classify.\nYou want to read it all the way up back to segregate or classify.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2994.386, 2995.872], "stop_times": [2995.872, 2999.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2994.386}, "reply_to": "22825__1_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_080", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Well, I... I think it does modify the verb, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [2999.996], "stop_times": [3003.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2999.996}, "reply_to": "22825__1_079", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_081", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "It would be good if you had a comma after employees.\nI... I might go along with you if there was a comma after... to limit, segregate, or classify his employees, comma, in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of opportunities or otherwise affect his status as an employee, comma, because of such individual's age... go way back to before the comma.\nI can see that, but without the comma, that's... that's an awful travel back to limit, segregate, or classify.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3003.103, 3005.213, 3021.042], "stop_times": [3005.213, 3021.042, 3027.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3003.103}, "reply_to": "22825__1_080", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_082", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Well, I... I think that's the grammatically correct way to read it.\nBut even... even if it was just modifying the adversely affect--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3027.291, 3029.187], "stop_times": [3029.187, 3031.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3027.291}, "reply_to": "22825__1_081", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_083", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "It would be the natural way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3031.801], "stop_times": [3033.105], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3031.801}, "reply_to": "22825__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_084", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--it would still be because of age.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3033.105], "stop_times": [3033.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3033.105}, "reply_to": "22825__1_083", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_085", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "The natural way... wait.\nThe natural way is to read it as modifying to deprive--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3033.471, 3033.71], "stop_times": [3033.71, 3037.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3033.471}, "reply_to": "22825__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_086", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3037.332], "stop_times": [3037.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3037.332}, "reply_to": "22825__1_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_087", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--or otherwise adversely affect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3037.571], "stop_times": [3039.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3037.571}, "reply_to": "22825__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_088", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3039.42], "stop_times": [3039.757], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3039.42}, "reply_to": "22825__1_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_089", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "That's the natural way to read it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3039.757], "stop_times": [3041.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3039.757}, "reply_to": "22825__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_090", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "It is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3041.423], "stop_times": [3041.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3041.423}, "reply_to": "22825__1_089", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_091", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Now--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3041.977], "stop_times": [3042.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3041.977}, "reply_to": "22825__1_090", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_092", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "One still--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3042.507], "stop_times": [3043.082], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3042.507}, "reply_to": "22825__1_091", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_093", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--suppose we read it that way.\nThen what do you say?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3043.082, 3044.276], "stop_times": [3044.276, 3044.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3043.082}, "reply_to": "22825__1_092", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22825__1_094", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--You... even if you read it that way, it still says, comma, because of age, and the because of age is a reference to intent, and the confirmation of that, Justice Breyer, is the defense that you keep pointing to because as Mr. Goldstein conceded in his brief and as you pointed out in your questioning, it says, is based on.\nThat is also a reference to intent.\nThis statute is preoccupied with intent.\nWhat section 4(f) was about was identifying the situations in which age would be used but it, nonetheless, wouldn't even be arbitrary--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3044.953, 3063.812, 3065.727, 3068.134], "stop_times": [3063.812, 3065.727, 3068.134, 3077.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3044.953}, "reply_to": "22825__1_093", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_095", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Indeed, and I guess what supports that reading is that intent... intent to discriminate in hiring... the intentional discrimination because of age in hiring is covered by (2) rather than (1) isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3077.593], "stop_times": [3091.492], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3077.593}, "reply_to": "22825__1_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_096", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--No, no, no.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3091.492], "stop_times": [3093.472], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3091.492}, "reply_to": "22825__1_095", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_097", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "You think... I mean, if... if you have a rule... if you have a rule that you won't hire any employee... I mean, we... we were talking earlier about the... the reason... (2) reads employees in the plural, and (1) reads refuse to hire or discharge any individual.\nSo if you have any intentional discrimination that is against a class, it comes under (2) rather than (1).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3093.472, 3112.534], "stop_times": [3112.534, 3119.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.472}, "reply_to": "22825__1_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_098", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "I had never thought of construing the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3119.733], "stop_times": [3123.078], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3119.733}, "reply_to": "22825__1_097", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_099", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Is that wrong?\nWell, I thought... I thought that's what... what counsel for the petitioner was telling us.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3123.078, 3123.329], "stop_times": [3123.329, 3127.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3123.078}, "reply_to": "22825__1_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__1_100", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Well, if... if he did, he's only strengthened our case.\nWhat I want to say to the Court is... is that both of those provisions are modified by the phrase, because of age.\nThis Court in Hazen Paper construed the because of language in 4(a)(1) as a reference to intent and said statistical correlations of age are not sufficient to establish because of age within the meaning of section 4(a)(1).\nAnd the presumption of uniform usage... we're entitled to point to it as well that the presumption of uniform usage which would be that the phrase, because of age, in section 4(a)(2) is also not satisfied by a mere statistical correlation with age.\nAnd the reason why title VII is different than the Age Act... I keep coming back to this because this is so critical, Justice Breyer... is that the premise of the Court's statistical cases under title VII is that it's... it presumes that there's no inherent difference in ability between the races and the genders, whereas you know and I know that there is a difference in an... an inherent correlation between abilities and skills, between people of different ages statistically.\nAnd so that whereas in the... in the race and sex context, a statistical disparity by itself points out that there's something suspect and so would justify putting the employer to the burden on those occasions which would happen.\nAnd by definition, I think you and I both think, Justice Breyer, that it's not all that often that you're going to have these statistical disparities in the race and sex context.\nIn the age context, they happen all the time.\nSo it's... it... there's no basis for suggesting that a statistical correlation by itself creates something suspect, and it would rob the notion of a prima facie case of any meaning to say that... that a statistical correlation with age, which we expect to see all the time, would establish a prima facie wrong.\nAnd, of course, the Secretary of Labor wrote a report telling Congress that race and sex were different than age for this very reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3127.688, 3131.199, 3137.618, 3151.319, 3168.09, 3198.577, 3213.263, 3220.378, 3222.869, 3242.47], "stop_times": [3131.199, 3137.618, 3151.319, 3168.09, 3198.577, 3213.263, 3220.378, 3222.869, 3242.47, 3249.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3127.688}, "reply_to": "22825__1_099", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_101", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "But in your view, is based on reasonable factors other than age strictly an affirmative defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3249.939], "stop_times": [3255.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3249.939}, "reply_to": "22825__1_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__1_102", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "I... I think that it is... it was intended to address mixed motive cases.\nThat's why it was added.\nI think it is a indicia of the fact that this statute is concerned with intent in its prohibitions only.\nI'm not saying it's conclusive of that, but I'm saying it's another indicia, that if you look at all of section 4(f), it's about the instances in which age is being used--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3255.13, 3260.409, 3261.689, 3270.45], "stop_times": [3260.409, 3261.689, 3270.45, 3278.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3255.13}, "reply_to": "22825__1_101", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_103", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "But is it an affirmative defense?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3278.916], "stop_times": [3280.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3278.916}, "reply_to": "22825__1_102", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22825__1_104", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--I... I don't think that it is, and I... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3280.817], "stop_times": [3285.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3280.817}, "reply_to": "22825__1_103", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_105", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Well, did you challenge the sufficiency of this complaint on the ground that it did not allege that the... the program was not based on... was based on factors that were unreasonable?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3285.385], "stop_times": [3295.853], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3285.385}, "reply_to": "22825__1_104", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__1_106", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--I... I didn't handle the case in the trial court, but I believe that the... our... our client denied all of the allegations in the complaint and affirmatively said this was... its salary program was a reasonable factor other than age, yes.\nAnd certainly in the courts below, the reasonable--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3295.853, 3312.526], "stop_times": [3312.526, 3315.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3295.853}, "reply_to": "22825__1_105", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_107", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "What I'm trying to think through is whether that issue is one that can be resolved on the pleadings, or does it always require a trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3315.893], "stop_times": [3321.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3315.893}, "reply_to": "22825__1_106", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__1_108", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "--Well, I think the question of whether or not the reasonable factor other than age provision, when read in conjunction with section (a)(4)... 4(a) shows that this is an intent-based statute, as a pure legal question, can be judged on the pleadings.\nThe... the question of whether or not a... in a particular fact situation something is a reasonable factor other than age or not I think would be subject to what the proof is.\nIt might be undisputed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3321.391, 3335.578, 3347.393], "stop_times": [3335.578, 3347.393, 3348.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3321.391}, "reply_to": "22825__1_107", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_109", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "On your reading, I just don't see that there's any function.\nI mean, if disparate impact is out of it, then... then what work is there for the reasonable factor other than age to do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3348.05, 3350.548], "stop_times": [3350.548, 3359.678], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3348.05}, "reply_to": "22825__1_108", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22825__1_110", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "It was added in as a safe harbor to address mixed motive cases.\nThere was a concern at the time that since employers had been using age as the decision-making factor, that they would continue to think about it, and the question was raised, well, would that mean that the very fact they thought of it, even though they had a nondiscriminatory reason, mean that they still violated the act?\nAnd the Secretary said, no, we've put in this reasonable factor other than age provision to make it clear.\nIt... it was simply a safe harbor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3359.678, 3363.997, 3377.979, 3383.721], "stop_times": [3363.997, 3377.979, 3383.721, 3385.169], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3359.678}, "reply_to": "22825__1_109", "speaker": "glen_d_nager"}
{"id": "22825__1_111", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Nager.\nI think you've answered the question.\nMr. Goldstein, you have 4 minutes, and let's make it 4 and a half.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3385.169, 3386.209, 3387.438], "stop_times": [3386.209, 3387.438, 3393.019], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3385.169}, "reply_to": "22825__1_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22825__2_000", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens.\nI want to start with our affirmative case which is one of stare decisis and then go to what I think is the thing that might concern the Court and that's the practicalities of implementing our rule.\nOur stare decisis case I think is fairly decisive.\nThe language of title VII was the model for the ADEA.\nIt runs all the way through the same in subsection (a)(2).\nThis Court construed the text of the statute to give rise to disparate impact liability, and there are six cases of this Court that say when the language is the same, because one was derived from the other, we give them the same meaning.\nNow, I take it that the respondents have three answers to that.\nThe first is they attempt to rewrite the rationale of Griggs and say Griggs really isn't so much about the text of the statute.\nIt's what Congress was getting after, and this Court in Griggs was principally concerned with the fact that, look, in the context of age and sex discrimination, there's no legitimate correlation between an... a disparate impact and a legitimate employer policy.\nThat is not, in fact, what the rationale of Griggs is.\nThe rationale of Griggs is that it doesn't matter to the employee if you are purposefully discriminated against or accidentally discriminated against.\nCongress was concerned with the effects of discrimination.\nAnd this Court reached that conclusion based on the text of the statute.\nIf I could read from Griggs, quote, the objective of Congress in the enactment of title VII is plain from the language of the statute.\nThat's the same language as in our statute.\nThe thrust of section 703(a)(2) was to address, quote, the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation.\nThis Court subsequently reiterated twice that disparate impact comes from the text of the statute, not from the air.\nThose two cases are quoted at page 9 of our reply brief and they resolve all doubts about commas and because of or anything like that.\nThe Court in both Connecticut v. Teal and Justice O'Connor's opinion for the Court in Watson tied it directly to the statute.\nIf I could just read the Watson example.\nAgain, they're quoted in full.\nIn disparate impact cases, quote, the employer's practices may be said to, quote, adversely affect an individual's status as an employee because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.\nNow, the second argument they have... and this was the Fifth Circuit's argument... is the RFOA provision exists in the ADEA, not in title VII.\nI do not understand how the RFOA provision... if it means anything, it doesn't help us.\nAgain, let me take you back to the text.\nIt's on page 1 of the blue brief.\nIt's in a few other places, but it's there.\nIt shall not be unlawful for an employer to take any action otherwise prohibited under subsection (a) where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age.\nThe necessary premise of that provision is that something will be otherwise unlawful when it's based on something other than age.\nIt can't be talking about disparate treatment.\nThe only kind of liability that involves factors other than age is impact.\nAnd then on top of that, Congress required that the employer's conduct be reasonable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3393.019, 3394.988, 3404.077, 3407.137, 3411.759, 3415.05, 3429.358, 3432.633, 3439.641, 3454.365, 3457.481, 3465.188, 3468.058, 3471.339, 3478.068, 3479.978, 3488.079, 3495.659, 3504.288, 3511.639, 3513.588, 3514.953, 3528.538, 3537.243, 3542.459, 3544.399, 3546.393, 3547.94, 3559.083, 3566.859, 3568.798, 3573.589], "stop_times": [3394.988, 3404.077, 3407.137, 3411.759, 3415.05, 3429.358, 3432.633, 3439.641, 3454.365, 3457.481, 3465.188, 3468.058, 3471.339, 3478.068, 3479.978, 3488.079, 3495.659, 3504.288, 3511.639, 3513.588, 3514.953, 3528.538, 3537.243, 3542.459, 3544.399, 3546.393, 3547.94, 3559.083, 3566.859, 3568.798, 3573.589, 3577.548], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3393.019}, "reply_to": "22825__1_111", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__2_001", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "What of dual motive?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3577.548], "stop_times": [3578.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3577.548}, "reply_to": "22825__2_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22825__2_002", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Because the statute refers to something otherwise unlawful, it can't be talking about Price Waterhouse mixed motive.\nPrice Waterhouse mixed motive cases establish liability; i.e., you're not liable if you had another reason for doing it.\nBut the premise of (f)(1) is if it's already otherwise unlawful, this is a defense to that.\nThe third thing that they say is that in Hazen Paper this Court construed the because of language in (a)(1) not to refer to impact.\nThe critical difference is that the (a)(1) language does not include the... the clause that refers to the impact on the employee that Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer talked about with Mr. Nager.\nThey're structured very differently.\nAs to the practicalities, let me just say this has been the rule for a quarter century of the EEOC.\nIt was the rule in every circuit until 1993.\nIt is still the rule in three circuits.\nThe notion that there is a big problem with administering it and that the EEOC can't recognize the... as it has in all the examples we cite, that it's easier for an employer to prevail in the ADEA context is not accurate.\nI also want to just agree with Justice Breyer, that an important part of impact liability is just making employers think about it.\nAnd that comes from Justice Kennedy's opinion in McKennon where he said that disparate impact, quote, acts as a spur or catalyst to cause employers to self-examine and self-evaluate their employment practices to endeavor to eliminate, so far as possible, the last vestiges of discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3578.419, 3585.529, 3592.84, 3597.938, 3607.698, 3618.096, 3619.326, 3624.257, 3627.619, 3629.649, 3643.929, 3650.419], "stop_times": [3585.529, 3592.84, 3597.938, 3607.698, 3618.096, 3619.326, 3624.257, 3627.619, 3629.649, 3643.929, 3650.419, 3665.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3578.419}, "reply_to": "22825__2_001", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "22825__2_003", "conversation_id": "22825", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Goldstein.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1160", "start_times": [3665.828, 3667.699], "stop_times": [3667.699, 3668.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3665.828}, "reply_to": "22825__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__0_000", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "We'll hear argument in the case of Smith against Massachusetts.\nMr. Nathanson.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [0.0, 5.212], "stop_times": [5.212, 45.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__0_001", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThe trial judge found Melvin Smith not guilty on the merits and unequivocally so.\nThat acquittal entitled Melvin Smith to repose.\nInstead, what he got was a moving target.\nThe trial judge's later reconsideration of Smith's acquittal placed him in jeopardy for that same offense twice.\nSmith's position on the matter is completely faithful to this Court's precedent, and it makes sense in the real-world practice of criminal law.\nThe State, on the other hand, asks this Court to make exceptions to the rule, long-held, that acquittals terminate jeopardy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [45.636, 48.168, 54.446, 57.987, 60.387, 68.026, 75.867], "stop_times": [48.168, 54.446, 57.987, 60.387, 68.026, 75.867, 83.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 45.636}, "reply_to": "22367__0_000", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_002", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "No.\nJust to say that this... what happened here was not a final determination.\nTake an analog... an analogy to rule 54(b).\nThe judge can say, yes, I've made this ruling and it sticks.\nYou see, I'm going to give you a separate piece of paper that says judgment, but if I don't give you that separate piece of paper, even though I said judgment granted, it doesn't count until the very end of the case.\nI can always change my mind.\nWhy shouldn't it operate the same way on the criminal side?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [83.916, 84.624, 89.347, 97.224, 100.527, 113.286, 114.995], "stop_times": [84.624, 89.347, 97.224, 100.527, 113.286, 114.995, 120.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 83.916}, "reply_to": "22367__0_001", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__0_003", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, first of all, obviously, that's a civil case.\nThe Double Jeopardy Clause doesn't apply to civil cases.\nSecond of all... except with some rare exceptions.\nWhat I think the best way to... to really define finality here... and... and whatever finality is, I really do think we... we do have it here because this Court has said an acquittal under Martin Linen, a resolution, correct or not, of some or all if the factual elements--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [120.36, 122.889, 124.892, 130.41], "stop_times": [122.889, 124.892, 130.41, 149.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 120.36}, "reply_to": "22367__0_002", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_004", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Yes, but I looked at Martin Linen, and there, there was something labeled judgment of acquittal entered.\nHere we have an endorsement on a motion, and then we have an entry by the clerk saying... what does the entry say?\nMotion granted or something like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [149.596, 157.203, 165.38], "stop_times": [157.203, 165.38, 167.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 149.596}, "reply_to": "22367__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__0_005", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Allowed, and it was attested by the clerk.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [167.801], "stop_times": [169.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 167.801}, "reply_to": "22367__0_004", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_006", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Yes.\nBut is there... this might be significant.\nIs there in Massachusetts, when a motion for acquittal is granted and there are other charges still going on, is there a piece of paper that says, judgment, acquitted on count whatever it was?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [169.521, 170.04, 174.063], "stop_times": [170.04, 174.063, 191.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 169.521}, "reply_to": "22367__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__0_007", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe... the formal rule, which is not always observed, but the formal rule is that it must be recorded on... on the docket and announced in an open courtroom.\nThat happened here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [191.1, 191.881, 200.661], "stop_times": [191.881, 200.661, 201.237], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 191.1}, "reply_to": "22367__0_006", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_008", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, suppose you have a State and the State has a statute, and the statute says any motion for acquittal may be granted by the... the trial court at the close of the prosecution's evidence, but that motion shall not be deemed final and may be reviewed by the district court at any time before... or by the trial court at any time before the submission of the case to the jury.\nThen there's no repose element because the... the defendant is on notice that this may not be final.\nWhat would be the... your position in that case if a statute like that were on the books?\nAnd if you say that that's different, then I'll say, well, suppose the supreme court of Massachusetts just makes up this rule as a judicial matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [201.237, 224.362, 230.181, 235.726], "stop_times": [224.362, 230.181, 235.726, 242.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 201.237}, "reply_to": "22367__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22367__0_009", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, to answer the first question, I think that if... if such a statute were enacted, I'm willing to grant, for purposes of this case, that it wouldn't be a double jeopardy problem.\nIt may in a later case... and you know, I'd be very interested in that... a problem under a combination of Jackson and Winship because the defendant may have a... a right to that determination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [242.767, 256.797], "stop_times": [256.797, 269.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 242.767}, "reply_to": "22367__0_008", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_010", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Okay, well, let... let's just assume that you've conceded that.\nNow, you've been guarded about it.\nIf we can do that by statute, why can't we do that by a judicial decision by the supreme court of... Judicial Court of Massachusetts?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [269.822, 272.642, 274.013], "stop_times": [272.642, 274.013, 280.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 269.822}, "reply_to": "22367__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22367__0_011", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, first of all, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is the one who promulgated the rules in this case.\nRule 25(a) is promulgated by the Supreme Judicial Court of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [280.749, 286.581], "stop_times": [286.581, 290.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 280.749}, "reply_to": "22367__0_010", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_012", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, but they put a gloss on the rule by their decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [290.876], "stop_times": [293.007], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 290.876}, "reply_to": "22367__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22367__0_013", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Well, that was the Massachusetts Appeals Court, I might add.\nSecond of all, the rule itself requires that the motion shall be ruled upon at that time.\nIt says nothing about reconsideration, and clearly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [293.007, 295.764, 303.166], "stop_times": [295.764, 303.166, 306.556], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 293.007}, "reply_to": "22367__0_012", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_014", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "They've held that in this case.\nWe have a Massachusetts decision.\nIt's their law and under their law in Massachusetts, the judge can revise it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [306.556, 307.825, 309.905], "stop_times": [307.825, 309.905, 314.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 306.556}, "reply_to": "22367__0_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_015", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Actually--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [314.647], "stop_times": [315.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 314.647}, "reply_to": "22367__0_014", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_016", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, if it isn't their law, then I don't know how... why they affirmed this conviction rather than reversing it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [315.667], "stop_times": [321.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 315.667}, "reply_to": "22367__0_015", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_017", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--I'm not sure I know either, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [321.585], "stop_times": [323.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 321.585}, "reply_to": "22367__0_016", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_018", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "All right, but I mean, I... I take it that it is their law, otherwise I'd see reversal, wouldn't I, and not affirmance?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [323.431], "stop_times": [328.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 323.431}, "reply_to": "22367__0_017", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_019", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Actually I think what they did--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [328.94], "stop_times": [330.584], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 328.94}, "reply_to": "22367__0_018", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_020", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "What?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [330.584], "stop_times": [330.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 330.584}, "reply_to": "22367__0_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_021", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Your Honor, is they assumed that there was an error in... in... when dealing strictly with the rule, at the... at the end of the section dealing with this, they assume that there was an error and said no prejudice, which I've contended in the brief--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [330.949], "stop_times": [347.72], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 330.949}, "reply_to": "22367__0_020", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_022", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "So... so in other words, they're saying that in this case... how could there not be prejudice?\nHe had another trial.\nI mean... how could... I don't understand this from beginning to end then.\nBut let me go back to my original question.\nWhat rule do you propose?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [347.72, 352.787, 353.69, 359.199, 360.95], "stop_times": [352.787, 353.69, 359.199, 360.95, 363.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 347.72}, "reply_to": "22367__0_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_023", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--As for finality, the rule I propose is, first of all, we have to start with the basic foundation, which is an acquittal, under Martin Linen with a resolution--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [363.394], "stop_times": [374.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 363.394}, "reply_to": "22367__0_022", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_024", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "What I'm saying is, for double jeopardy purposes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [374.3], "stop_times": [377.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 374.3}, "reply_to": "22367__0_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_025", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [377.006], "stop_times": [377.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 377.006}, "reply_to": "22367__0_024", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_026", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--an acquittal in your view is an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes when?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [377.3], "stop_times": [383.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 377.3}, "reply_to": "22367__0_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_027", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "There's... there's three things that I think Court should look at.\nOne, first of all, because we treat acquittals from the bench for double jeopardy purposes the same as acquittals from a jury, a prosecutor can poll a jury immediately after the verdict.\nA prosecutor clearly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [383.175, 388.709, 401.269], "stop_times": [388.709, 401.269, 402.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 383.175}, "reply_to": "22367__0_026", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_028", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "No.\nI'm asking you for a... I'd have to write... if I agreed with you, I'd have to say we have here a judge who changed his mind.\nUnder the clause of the Constitution, a judge cannot change his mind when.\nNow, go ahead.\nNow, fill in the blanks.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [402.605, 402.753, 409.765, 417.955, 419.561], "stop_times": [402.753, 409.765, 417.955, 419.561, 420.72], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 402.605}, "reply_to": "22367__0_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_029", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [420.72], "stop_times": [421.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 420.72}, "reply_to": "22367__0_028", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_030", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "According... I know what their rule is.\nTheir rule is a judge can change his mind up to the point that the jury is dismissed, something like that.\nI understand that.\nNow, I want to know what your rule... is your rule a judge cannot change his mind once he writes the word acquittal on a piece of paper, even if he says, oh my God, I meant to say no acquittal?\nToo late.\nOkay, now, so I want to know what your rule is.\nIs that the rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [421.05, 422.402, 430.902, 432.02, 443.434, 444.847, 447.14], "stop_times": [422.402, 430.902, 432.02, 443.434, 444.847, 447.14, 447.996], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 421.05}, "reply_to": "22367__0_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_031", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "No, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [447.996], "stop_times": [449.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 447.996}, "reply_to": "22367__0_030", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_032", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Okay.\nWhat is the rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [449.62, 450.178], "stop_times": [450.178, 450.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.62}, "reply_to": "22367__0_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_033", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "The... your first question... the constitutional point of no return, shall we say, is further proceedings.\nIf there is an acquittal and there are further proceedings--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [450.821, 458.125], "stop_times": [458.125, 461.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 450.821}, "reply_to": "22367__0_032", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_034", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "There is no further proceeding if he writes the word acquittal, I guess until he changes his mind.\nSo 3 minutes later, he says I change my mind.\nNow there are further proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [461.563, 469.461, 473.2], "stop_times": [469.461, 473.2, 474.93], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 461.563}, "reply_to": "22367__0_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_035", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Well, then at that point you look to other indicia of finality that this... this Court referenced that in... in Vincent, and that... that's generally compliance with State procedure.\nCompliance with State procedures--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [474.93, 486.512], "stop_times": [486.512, 488.1], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 474.93}, "reply_to": "22367__0_034", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_036", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "But I need to write a simple rule.\nAll I'm trying to get from you is what is your rule.\nIs your rule that when a judge writes the word acquittal... an acquittal, by the way, happens to mean there's nothing left for the jury to do on that charge.\nThat's what it means.\nWhen he writes the word acquittal, he cannot change it.\nIs that your rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [488.1, 490.01, 493.76, 505.791, 507.4, 511.22], "stop_times": [490.01, 493.76, 505.791, 507.4, 511.22, 513.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 488.1}, "reply_to": "22367__0_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_037", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--No.\nThe rule is that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [513.02, 514.38], "stop_times": [514.38, 514.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 513.02}, "reply_to": "22367__0_036", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_038", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Okay.\nAnd what is your rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [514.846, 515.144], "stop_times": [515.144, 515.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 514.846}, "reply_to": "22367__0_037", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_039", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--The rule is that the judge cannot change it, as a matter of Federal constitutional law, if there are further proceedings.\nIn a multi-count case, count A is acquitted.\nWe initiate further proceedings on count B and C.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [515.806, 522.745, 527.404], "stop_times": [522.745, 527.404, 531.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 515.806}, "reply_to": "22367__0_038", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_040", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "But your answer just isn't responsive.\nWhen has it become final?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [531.3, 534.045], "stop_times": [534.045, 537.54], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 531.3}, "reply_to": "22367__0_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__0_041", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "It ripens at the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [537.54], "stop_times": [539.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 537.54}, "reply_to": "22367__0_040", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_042", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "When?\nWhen the judge says something, when he writes something?\nWhen does it become final?\nAt what point in time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [539.497, 539.766, 542.58, 544.676], "stop_times": [539.766, 542.58, 544.676, 546.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 539.497}, "reply_to": "22367__0_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__0_043", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--What I'm suggesting is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [546.977], "stop_times": [550.095], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 546.977}, "reply_to": "22367__0_042", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_044", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "What is your proposed rule?\nYou haven't said yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [550.095, 551.425], "stop_times": [551.425, 553.184], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 550.095}, "reply_to": "22367__0_043", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__0_045", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--What... what I'm suggesting is... is two things.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [553.184], "stop_times": [555.469], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 553.184}, "reply_to": "22367__0_044", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_046", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Just one thing.\nJust when does it become final?\nLet's limit it to one thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [555.469, 557.389, 558.964], "stop_times": [557.389, 558.964, 560.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 555.469}, "reply_to": "22367__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__0_047", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "It... it becomes final when there are further proceedings initiated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [560.384], "stop_times": [566.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 560.384}, "reply_to": "22367__0_046", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_048", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Sorry.\nI don't understand that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [566.085, 567.569], "stop_times": [567.569, 568.424], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 566.085}, "reply_to": "22367__0_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_049", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "That doesn't make sense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [568.424], "stop_times": [569.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 568.424}, "reply_to": "22367__0_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__0_050", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "The... the... that is the line drawn by most of the lower courts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [569.561], "stop_times": [573.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 569.561}, "reply_to": "22367__0_049", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_051", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "You're not understanding my question then.\nImagine a case in which a judge writes the word acquittal.\nNow, half an hour later, he thinks, oh, my God, what have I done.\nThe jury is still sitting there.\nOf course, they're sitting there because he hasn't had a chance to dismiss them yet.\nThey happened to be having lunch or something.\nIs it final?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [573.349, 574.864, 581.46, 586.559, 589.393, 593.594, 595.27], "stop_times": [574.864, 581.46, 586.559, 589.393, 593.594, 595.27, 596.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 573.349}, "reply_to": "22367__0_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_052", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "It is not final--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [596.658], "stop_times": [599.271], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 596.658}, "reply_to": "22367__0_051", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_053", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "It is not final.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [599.271], "stop_times": [600.438], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 599.271}, "reply_to": "22367__0_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_054", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--if... if the defense has not been forced at that point to choose to rest or put on a case.\nThat is the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [600.438, 605.965], "stop_times": [605.965, 607.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 600.438}, "reply_to": "22367__0_053", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_055", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Say that again.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [607.632], "stop_times": [608.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 607.632}, "reply_to": "22367__0_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_056", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--If the defense is forced to rest or put on a case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [608.442], "stop_times": [611.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 608.442}, "reply_to": "22367__0_055", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_057", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "But he wrote the word acquittal.\nThere's nothing more for anybody to do until he changes the word.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [611.37, 613.364], "stop_times": [613.364, 617.002], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 611.37}, "reply_to": "22367__0_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_058", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, I think we're talking about two separate things.\nIs Your Honor's question presupposing a single-count case or a multi-count?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [617.002, 622.029], "stop_times": [622.029, 625.951], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 617.002}, "reply_to": "22367__0_057", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_059", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Let's try single-count.\nOkay?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [625.951, 626.89], "stop_times": [626.89, 627.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 625.951}, "reply_to": "22367__0_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_060", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [627.227], "stop_times": [627.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 627.227}, "reply_to": "22367__0_059", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_061", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "There he is.\nHe writes the word acquittal and the jury says, oh, what do we do now?\nGo home, says the clerk.\nNow, before they can get out the door or anything else happens, before they get out the door, he says, oh, my God, I made a mistake.\nCan he do that under your rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [627.655, 628.158, 632.696, 634.476, 642.637], "stop_times": [628.158, 632.696, 634.476, 642.637, 645.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.655}, "reply_to": "22367__0_060", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_062", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I'm not entirely sure of the answer to the question, Your Honor, but I... I think, first of all, we look at compliance with State procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [645.264], "stop_times": [652.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 645.264}, "reply_to": "22367__0_061", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_063", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Okay.\nWhat I thought from reading your brief, which you're confirming, is your rule... once the judge says acquittal, that's the end of it.\nIf he decides 3 seconds later, he cannot change his mind.\nNow, that rule to me is inconsistent with most law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [652.952, 653.422, 659.152, 662.143], "stop_times": [653.422, 659.152, 662.143, 665.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 652.952}, "reply_to": "22367__0_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_064", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "If we're talking about a clerical error, Your Honor, the Massachusetts rules and the Federal rules provide for correction of clerical errors.\nWhat... what we're talking about here is not a clerical error, but the judge clearly intended to do what she did.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [665.77, 675.304], "stop_times": [675.304, 684.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 665.77}, "reply_to": "22367__0_063", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_065", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, was your client--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [684.007], "stop_times": [684.87], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 684.007}, "reply_to": "22367__0_064", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__0_066", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "But a very plain error--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [684.87], "stop_times": [685.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 684.87}, "reply_to": "22367__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__0_067", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--was your client prejudiced in any way by not putting on some evidence that the... he would have put on?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [685.806], "stop_times": [692.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 685.806}, "reply_to": "22367__0_066", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__0_068", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "May I begin, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [692.9], "stop_times": [695.732], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 692.9}, "reply_to": "22367__0_067", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_069", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Just answer the question for once.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [695.732], "stop_times": [697.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 695.732}, "reply_to": "22367__0_068", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__0_070", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nThere... there was a defense that he essentially forfeited by not being aware that the judge was going to, at some point--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [697.882, 699.99], "stop_times": [699.99, 709.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 697.882}, "reply_to": "22367__0_069", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_071", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--But that was a terribly risky defense because his main defense is I wasn't there, I didn't do it, somebody else did it.\nHow could he then turn around and say I missed the opportunity to tell the jury I really was there, but it was okay for me to have the gun?\nI mean, what... what defense counsel would do that after having spent his whole effort to say it was the other guy, it wasn't this defendant?\nAnd then to make this defense that he had a right to possess this gun because he belonged in the house, that would be extraordinary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [709.84, 716.59, 726.106, 736.016], "stop_times": [716.59, 726.106, 736.016, 744.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 709.84}, "reply_to": "22367__0_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__0_072", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Your Honor, counsel for co-defendant, Felicia Brown, presented just such a defense and she was acquitted.\nShe presented the defense that Melvin Smith did not shoot Christopher Robinson, but if Melvin--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [744.8, 751.086], "stop_times": [751.086, 758.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 744.8}, "reply_to": "22367__0_071", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_073", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Nobody charged her with possessing a gun.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [758.542], "stop_times": [760.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 758.542}, "reply_to": "22367__0_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__0_074", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--But what I'm saying is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [760.326], "stop_times": [761.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 760.326}, "reply_to": "22367__0_073", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_075", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "That's... look, there were a lot of charges in this case, and we're dealing with what is a relatively lesser offense of this whole string of events so that Brown being acquitted of other offenses doesn't say anything about this offense, which relates to the possession of a gun.\nThat's... that's all that it is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [761.869, 783.532], "stop_times": [783.532, 786.482], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 761.869}, "reply_to": "22367__0_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__0_076", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--What I'm saying is that it wasn't risky, Your Honor, because the... this jury was willing to consider an alternative defense that would have otherwise appeared as a concession.\nThey did not take it as a concession.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [786.482, 793.813], "stop_times": [793.813, 795.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 786.482}, "reply_to": "22367__0_075", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_077", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "But he would be... the defendant... you know, he hasn't gone to the jury yet, and the jury would say, my goodness, this is like a common law pleader.\nI didn't borrow the kettle.\nIt was broken when I got it.\nI returned it unbroken.\nTo... to do that, to say I wasn't there, that's my main defense, but then, jury, I'd like you also to consider that if you think that I was there, then... it... it really doesn't fly as a criminal defense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [795.185, 804.209, 806.789, 810.67, 814.237], "stop_times": [804.209, 806.789, 810.67, 814.237, 828.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.185}, "reply_to": "22367__0_076", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__0_078", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I'd just respectfully disagree, Your Honor.\nBut... but the... the larger point is if we allow this rule in general, we are going to engender serious problems.\nI'm saying that there... that there was some reliance here, but we're going to engender much more serious problems in other cases where a defendant perhaps presents a defense that is helpful to the remaining charges, but damaging on the acquitted charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [828.463, 831.978, 841.249], "stop_times": [831.978, 841.249, 860.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 828.463}, "reply_to": "22367__0_077", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_079", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, but if... if... you know, we shape the expectation by what we say.\nIf... if we say that a judge is always free to consider his rule and as long as the... there's a right to reopen, then any kind of reliance is... is misplaced.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [860.558, 865.16], "stop_times": [865.16, 876.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.558}, "reply_to": "22367__0_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22367__0_080", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "What Massachusetts law says in... in the Zavala case, they said that there is not a right to reopen where the judge has determined that the evidence is insufficient.\nSecond of all--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [876.223, 884.949], "stop_times": [884.949, 887.264], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 876.223}, "reply_to": "22367__0_079", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_081", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "That is when the case is not ongoing.\nI mean, here we had a case that was continuing and... and the judge said, oops, I made a mistake, which is common at the trial level.\nI mean, these decisions... she made this decision in a split second.\nMaybe she was too hasty, and then a trial judge will say, my law clerk went to the library at lunch, there was a Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts case going just the other way, so of course, I confess error, but the defendant isn't prejudice.\nThe defendant hadn't put on a... well, the... it came up at closing.\nRight?\nSo if the defendant was prejudice, anyway he could have said, wait a minute, judge, I want to put on that defense that I really was there but I had a right to have the gun.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [887.264, 890.397, 902.0, 907.757, 925.526, 930.95, 931.366], "stop_times": [890.397, 902.0, 907.757, 925.526, 930.95, 931.366, 942.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 887.264}, "reply_to": "22367__0_080", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__0_082", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--He didn't say that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [942.405], "stop_times": [944.044], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 942.405}, "reply_to": "22367__0_081", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_083", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "But he could have.\nSo he... so I don't see that you have a realistic claim of prejudice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [944.044, 944.916], "stop_times": [944.916, 949.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 944.044}, "reply_to": "22367__0_082", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__0_084", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, I... I don't think prejudice is a factor in double jeopardy jurisprudence.\nEither the defendant has been placed twice in jeopardy or he has not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [949.986, 955.025], "stop_times": [955.025, 959.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 949.986}, "reply_to": "22367__0_083", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_085", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Yes, but you have to set a... a point in time, and your point is... well, it's not exactly clear, but there's one point that says when the jury is discharged.\nThen there may be other reasons why there's unfairness to the defendant so that you wouldn't permit it, other than double jeopardy.\nBut if... why isn't that a sensible place to draw the line?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [959.005, 970.795, 982.274], "stop_times": [970.795, 982.274, 990.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 959.005}, "reply_to": "22367__0_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__0_086", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Because if... if discharge of the jury is the rule, then the judge can reconsider an acquittal at any point in a defendant's case.\n2 weeks into a defense case, the judge could reconsider an acquittal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [990.53, 1000.912], "stop_times": [1000.912, 1004.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 990.53}, "reply_to": "22367__0_085", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_087", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "The question... we're talking about a Federal constitutional rule, and suppose... you pointed out this went only to an intermediate appellate court.\nSuppose the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court interpreted its rule at 25(a) and it says, that rule allows some leeway for the judge to say I got it wrong as long as there's no prejudice to the defense.\nThat's what our rule means.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1004.459, 1015.14, 1034.859], "stop_times": [1015.14, 1034.859, 1036.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1004.459}, "reply_to": "22367__0_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__0_088", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I don't think that's permissible, Your Honor.\nIt... it is... granted, for purposes of this argument, that it's permissible for States to order judges to withhold rulings, that there shall be no ruling on the sufficiency of the evidence prior to the return of a jury verdict.\nLouisiana, for example, does that, and I think Oklahoma.\nBut for the Supreme Judicial... Judicial Court of Massachusetts to say that an acquittal has no force is simply straight contravening what this Court has said.\nIt's... it's essentially a continuing jeopardy argument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1036.82, 1038.94, 1055.392, 1058.782, 1074.181], "stop_times": [1038.94, 1055.392, 1058.782, 1074.181, 1077.129], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1036.82}, "reply_to": "22367__0_087", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_089", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, you do agree, I take it, that if the judge says, yes, I agree with you, there isn't a scintilla of evidence, and... and at some point I'm... I'm going to enter an acquittal, but I'm not going to do it now just in case I have a second thought, but at least by the... the end of the trial, I'll take care of it, you, I take it, concede that that is permissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1077.129], "stop_times": [1098.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1077.129}, "reply_to": "22367__0_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22367__0_090", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I think that is permissible because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1098.01], "stop_times": [1099.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1098.01}, "reply_to": "22367__0_089", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_091", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, if that... if that's permissible, if you win this case, isn't that going to be the way trials are conducted when... when there are mid-trial motions like yours?\nEvery judge is going to say, yes, looks as though you... you got them there, but I'll... I'll just hold onto this until things are over, and then I'll rule.\nThat's... that's the way they're all going to respond, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1099.857, 1109.065, 1117.805], "stop_times": [1109.065, 1117.805, 1121.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1099.857}, "reply_to": "22367__0_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22367__0_092", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--No, I don't think so, Your Honor.\nI think judges are... are intelligent people.\nThey read the pleadings beforehand.\nJustice Donovan clearly read the pleading beforehand in this case, and she... she was prepared to ask for argument on it.\nI don't think that judges do these things so precipitously that they are not going to be confident in their ruling.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1121.327, 1123.345, 1127.817, 1129.516, 1135.286], "stop_times": [1123.345, 1127.817, 1129.516, 1135.286, 1142.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1121.327}, "reply_to": "22367__0_091", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_093", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "No, but every judge knows he drops a catch once in a while, and... and if he wants to guard against wrecking the whole trial or... or creating an appellate issue later, he's just going to be cautious and hold onto it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1142.483], "stop_times": [1154.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1142.483}, "reply_to": "22367__0_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22367__0_094", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "And judges should be cautious, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1154.205], "stop_times": [1156.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1154.205}, "reply_to": "22367__0_093", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_095", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "But isn't it also important to know, though, whether the defendant has to put on a case or not?\nSo he can't just reserve judgment.\nI'll tell you after the trial is over whether you should put a case on or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1156.122, 1161.092, 1162.712], "stop_times": [1161.092, 1162.712, 1166.047], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1156.122}, "reply_to": "22367__0_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__0_096", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "That... that is, in fact, the point, Justice Stevens.\nThe Double Jeopardy Clause is a constitutional policy of finality for the defendant's benefit.\nHe... that's what this Court said in Jorn.\nThe defendant has to know whether he... he's defending a case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1166.047, 1168.576, 1175.793, 1177.725], "stop_times": [1168.576, 1175.793, 1177.725, 1181.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1166.047}, "reply_to": "22367__0_095", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_097", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "But does... does--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1181.27], "stop_times": [1182.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1181.27}, "reply_to": "22367__0_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22367__0_098", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Did the defendant here ask to be... to have the right to reopen?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1182.216], "stop_times": [1185.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1182.216}, "reply_to": "22367__0_097", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22367__0_099", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "He did not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1185.495], "stop_times": [1186.96], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1185.495}, "reply_to": "22367__0_098", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_100", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "May I ask--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1186.96], "stop_times": [1188.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1186.96}, "reply_to": "22367__0_099", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__0_101", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Did he--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1188.623], "stop_times": [1188.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1188.623}, "reply_to": "22367__0_100", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22367__0_102", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--you another question here?\nThere... there were three charges against your client, as I understand it.\nUnlawful possession of a firearm.\nThat's the one we're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1188.894, 1190.225, 1194.867, 1196.665], "stop_times": [1190.225, 1194.867, 1196.665, 1197.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1188.894}, "reply_to": "22367__0_101", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__0_103", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1197.906], "stop_times": [1198.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1197.906}, "reply_to": "22367__0_102", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_104", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Assault with intent to murder.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1198.395], "stop_times": [1200.691], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1198.395}, "reply_to": "22367__0_103", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__0_105", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1200.691], "stop_times": [1201.405], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1200.691}, "reply_to": "22367__0_104", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_106", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1201.405], "stop_times": [1204.368], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1201.405}, "reply_to": "22367__0_105", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__0_107", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1204.368], "stop_times": [1205.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1204.368}, "reply_to": "22367__0_106", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_108", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "The jury convicted on all three.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1205.13], "stop_times": [1207.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1205.13}, "reply_to": "22367__0_107", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__0_109", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1207.223], "stop_times": [1207.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1207.223}, "reply_to": "22367__0_108", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_110", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Now, he was given concurrent sentences.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1207.937], "stop_times": [1211.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1207.937}, "reply_to": "22367__0_109", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__0_111", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1211.809], "stop_times": [1212.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1211.809}, "reply_to": "22367__0_110", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_112", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1212.38], "stop_times": [1212.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1212.38}, "reply_to": "22367__0_111", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__0_113", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1212.975], "stop_times": [1213.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1212.975}, "reply_to": "22367__0_112", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_114", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "So would you explain to me if there's any practical effect to your winning in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1213.435], "stop_times": [1220.834], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1213.435}, "reply_to": "22367__0_113", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__0_115", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "There is a practical effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1220.834], "stop_times": [1221.899], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1220.834}, "reply_to": "22367__0_114", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_116", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "What is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1221.899], "stop_times": [1222.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1221.899}, "reply_to": "22367__0_115", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__0_117", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Firearm possession offenses in Massachusetts have restrictions as to parole and good time deductions that the other offenses do not have.\nSo there is a practical effect, aside from the fact that it's a... it's a conviction on his record, Your Honor.\nMoving on, Justice Breyer, just to address the question that you were asking me, I think perhaps a good way to phrase it is... is if the first factual resolution of the elements of... of the offense results in acquittal, there can be no further proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1222.42, 1231.084, 1236.48], "stop_times": [1231.084, 1236.48, 1264.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1222.42}, "reply_to": "22367__0_116", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_118", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "What I was thinking is... I mean, here a judge... I guess she was harried in the trial, she's thinking to herself, well, let's see, is there any evidence here that this was less than the shotgun... this was not a shotgun.\nYou know, it had to be a barrel less than 16 inches.\nSo is there any evidence here of the shotgun?\nAnd she, I guess, forgot that there was a lot of evidence that it was a pistol.\nNow, there aren't many pistols that are 16 inches long.\nSo she's thinking, something may be missing here.\nShe's a little uncertain, but she writes acquittal, and then a few minutes later, she thinks, let's say, oh, my God, there was all that evidence about the pistol.\nSo I shouldn't have done that.\nI mean, how... how is a judge like that, a hypothetical... what's she supposed to do?\nIs she supposed to say, I better not enter anything, because after all, I don't care if the defendant has to produce a case?\nOr is she supposed to enter something and think, well, I could change my mind before it's over?\nOr what is she supposed to do?\nShe just thinks she made a mistake.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1264.158, 1278.122, 1281.9, 1284.451, 1287.93, 1291.738, 1294.526, 1302.45, 1304.938, 1309.379, 1317.579, 1322.709, 1324.035], "stop_times": [1278.122, 1281.9, 1284.451, 1287.93, 1291.738, 1294.526, 1302.45, 1304.938, 1309.379, 1317.579, 1322.709, 1324.035, 1325.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1264.158}, "reply_to": "22367__0_117", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_119", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "So your hypothetical is that there's evidence of two guns?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1325.495], "stop_times": [1327.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1325.495}, "reply_to": "22367__0_118", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_120", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I thought here there was evidence there was a pistol, but maybe I'm wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1327.836], "stop_times": [1331.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1327.836}, "reply_to": "22367__0_119", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_121", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I'm sorry.\nYes, in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1331.52, 1332.466], "stop_times": [1332.466, 1334.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1331.52}, "reply_to": "22367__0_120", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_122", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "There was evidence it was a pistol.\nSo I... I would have thought, reading this, that there was evidence.\nThat's beside the point, but I'm... I'm just using it as an example where a judge might think she made a mistake.\nShe thought there was no evidence that it wasn't a shotgun, and I guess she forgot that there was evidence it was a pistol and a pistol is not a shotgun.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1334.226, 1335.564, 1338.973, 1344.586], "stop_times": [1335.564, 1338.973, 1344.586, 1353.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1334.226}, "reply_to": "22367__0_121", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_123", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--She... she clearly didn't forget.\nThe prosecutor said to her the evidence was testified to that it was a pistol, it was a revolver, it was a.32--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1353.715, 1354.875], "stop_times": [1354.875, 1361.871], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1353.715}, "reply_to": "22367__0_122", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_124", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, I'm quite sure... not quite sure then why she wrote down there was no evidence it wasn't a shotgun, but she had some reason.\nAnd now a few minutes later, she thinks, boy, whatever my reason is, it couldn't have been that good.\nOr maybe she thinks that that's a reason an hour from now or maybe a day from now.\nWhat's the line?\nSuppose she thinks of it a second from now.\nSuppose she thinks the instant she writes acquittal, she thought, oh, my God, a pistol is not a shotgun.\nOf course, it isn't.\nI know that.\nI better change it.\nIs it a second from now?\nIs it she can never change it no matter what once the pen leaves the paper?\nWhat's your rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1361.871, 1368.461, 1375.24, 1380.739, 1382.542, 1385.498, 1390.95, 1391.64, 1392.311, 1394.248, 1396.331, 1400.516], "stop_times": [1368.461, 1375.24, 1380.739, 1382.542, 1385.498, 1390.95, 1391.64, 1392.311, 1394.248, 1396.331, 1400.516, 1401.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1361.871}, "reply_to": "22367__0_123", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_125", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--In a single-count case, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1401.452], "stop_times": [1404.138], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1401.452}, "reply_to": "22367__0_124", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_126", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I don't care whether it's single-count or double-count or triple-count.\nI want to know what... how you see it, not how I see it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1404.138, 1408.07], "stop_times": [1408.07, 1411.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1404.138}, "reply_to": "22367__0_125", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_127", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--It... compliance with State procedure informs the inquiry and once... once we have what is determined to be a resolution--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1411.341], "stop_times": [1422.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1411.341}, "reply_to": "22367__0_126", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_128", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Once it's final under State procedure, right?\nAnd you also would add once there's no clerical error.\nShe didn't mistakenly say, you know, affirm when she meant to write deny.\nLeaving that aside, once it's final under State procedure, it's final.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1422.929, 1426.521, 1430.069, 1434.771], "stop_times": [1426.521, 1430.069, 1434.771, 1438.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1422.929}, "reply_to": "22367__0_127", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__0_129", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1438.179], "stop_times": [1439.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1438.179}, "reply_to": "22367__0_128", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_130", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "And sometimes it's wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1439.128], "stop_times": [1439.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1439.128}, "reply_to": "22367__0_129", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__0_131", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1439.978], "stop_times": [1440.779], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1439.978}, "reply_to": "22367__0_130", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_132", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "But it'd be sometimes wrong no matter how you define final.\nI mean, you know, if she let's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1440.779, 1444.072], "stop_times": [1444.072, 1446.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1440.779}, "reply_to": "22367__0_131", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__0_133", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "That's excellent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1446.367], "stop_times": [1447.642], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1446.367}, "reply_to": "22367__0_132", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_134", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--let's all the evidence on and... and does it after all the evidence is there, and then she... and then at the close of all the evidence, she gives a directed verdict for... for the defendant, and then discharges the jury, and as soon as the jury walks out, oh, my God, what a mistake I made.\nToo bad.\nRight?\nI mean, we say double jeopardy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1447.642, 1460.789, 1461.572, 1462.71], "stop_times": [1460.789, 1461.572, 1462.71, 1463.906], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1447.642}, "reply_to": "22367__0_133", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__0_135", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.\nThat's what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1463.906, 1465.163], "stop_times": [1465.163, 1465.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1463.906}, "reply_to": "22367__0_134", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_136", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Excellent.\nThat was an excellent answer.\n[Laughter]\nNow, I would like to know, given that answer, why is this final under State procedure because it seems as if the State courts of Massachusetts have said, no, it is not a constitutional error to go and look into this again.\nShe can change her mind.\nAnd that's what I'd like you to focus on because I agree that that was a good explanation of the rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1465.883, 1466.401, 1467.562, 1468.183, 1488.976, 1490.752], "stop_times": [1466.401, 1467.562, 1468.183, 1488.976, 1490.752, 1497.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1465.883}, "reply_to": "22367__0_135", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_137", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--If... if State procedure, as in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1497.16], "stop_times": [1505.596], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1497.16}, "reply_to": "22367__0_136", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_138", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I'm thinking of this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1505.596], "stop_times": [1506.787], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1505.596}, "reply_to": "22367__0_137", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_139", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1506.787], "stop_times": [1507.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1506.787}, "reply_to": "22367__0_138", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_140", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Suppose I took Justice Scalia's rule and I said, that's the rule.\nNow, I would say that's the rule of a Federal law.\nVery well.\nThat turns on your decision here being final as a matter of State law, but it seems to me we have State courts here saying, at least for double jeopardy purposes, it isn't final as a matter of State law.\nAnd therefore, I want to know how we reach your conclusion here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1507.36, 1511.266, 1515.943, 1517.41, 1530.245], "stop_times": [1511.266, 1515.943, 1517.41, 1530.245, 1534.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1507.36}, "reply_to": "22367__0_139", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__0_141", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, there's... there clearly is a line beyond which the State cannot go, and that's what Justice Brennan was talking about in his concurrence in Lydon.\nHe said the... the State cannot fashion a procedure whereby the judge never discharges the jury, and in... in Kepner, this Court held that the Philippine procedure of withholding finality from an acquittal in a bench trial also violated the Constitution.\nSo State procedure does not control.\nIt is sufficient but not necessary.\nIf... if you comply with State procedure to say this is... this is an acquittal, okay, it's an acquittal.\nIf you do not comply with State procedure, it can still be an acquittal under Federal law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1534.887, 1544.086, 1560.096, 1561.556, 1564.344, 1571.586], "stop_times": [1544.086, 1560.096, 1561.556, 1564.344, 1571.586, 1579.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1534.887}, "reply_to": "22367__0_140", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_142", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Does the State have the power to say whether... whether an acquittal under State law constitutes an acquittal for purposes of Federal constitutional double jeopardy purposes?\nIs that a State law question or a Federal question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1579.046, 1593.457], "stop_times": [1593.457, 1595.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1579.046}, "reply_to": "22367__0_141", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__0_143", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "No.\nIt... it is a Federal question, Your Honor.\nThis Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1595.684, 1596.239, 1598.025], "stop_times": [1596.239, 1598.025, 1598.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1595.684}, "reply_to": "22367__0_142", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_144", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I thought it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1598.78], "stop_times": [1599.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1598.78}, "reply_to": "22367__0_143", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__0_145", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--this Court said that in Smalis quite clearly.\nIf I... if I may, two things and then I'd like to reserve.\nBut the... the State would have this Court draw a distinction between acquittals by a judge and acquittals by a jury.\nThat simply has been rejected by this Court numerous times.\nSanabria, Rumsey.\nAn acquittal is an acquittal.\nAgain, the... the State would have this Court draw distinctions between acquittals based on law and acquittals based on fact.\nSanabria unequivocally rejected that.\nSanabria says that in fact sufficiency of the evidence is not a legal defense.\nIf there are no further questions, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1599.028, 1600.861, 1608.171, 1614.064, 1618.063, 1638.834, 1622.88, 1630.355, 1634.4, 1640.69], "stop_times": [1600.861, 1608.171, 1614.064, 1618.063, 1638.834, 1622.88, 1630.355, 1634.4, 1640.69, 1644.543], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1599.028}, "reply_to": "22367__0_144", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__0_146", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Yes.\nMs. Neaves.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1644.543, 1645.018], "stop_times": [1645.018, 1649.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1644.543}, "reply_to": "22367__0_145", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__1_000", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nI'd like to start with where the Court left off on the notion of reconsideration and finality.\nThe Massachusetts Appeals Court here specifically stated that a judge's right to reconsider his or her legal rulings is firmly rooted in the common law and permitted Judge Donovan in this case to reconsider her legal ruling that the evidence was insufficient.\nCertainly that common law right of reconsideration could not run afoul of this Court's double jeopardy jurisprudence, but the appeals court specifically stated that the Double Jeopardy Clause was not violated because there was no second proceeding and that the judge in this case, therefore, was permitted to reconsider her ruling.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1649.676, 1653.09, 1659.078, 1676.527], "stop_times": [1653.09, 1659.078, 1676.527, 1696.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1649.676}, "reply_to": "22367__0_146", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_001", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "What if... what if this had been the sole count, the gun possession count had been the sole count, and... and the same ruling had been made by the judge?\nWould you say that there was double jeopardy attaching or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1696.793, 1707.192], "stop_times": [1707.192, 1711.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1696.793}, "reply_to": "22367__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__1_002", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Not so long as the jury was still there.\nIf the prosecutor had the opportunity to say, Judge Donovan, give me 10 minutes, I know there's a Supreme Judicial Court case on the point that I'm arguing to you, which is that you did not need a witness to directly testify that the gun barrel length was less than 16 inches, I know there's a case, give me 10 minutes, take a recess, and if the judge agreed to do that and the prosecutor came back and gave the case to the judge and the judge said, absolutely, you're... you're correct, I'm going to send the charge to the jury, there's no double jeopardy violation there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1711.739, 1714.11], "stop_times": [1714.11, 1745.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1711.739}, "reply_to": "22367__1_001", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_003", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "And what if it's a bench trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1745.3], "stop_times": [1746.037], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1745.3}, "reply_to": "22367__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__1_004", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "A bench trial is a very difficult situation.\nAnd the Smalis case certainly seems to be the hardest case here, but bench trials present different... a different situation because the judge is both the fact-finder and the law-giver.\nAnd in that context, it's much more difficult--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1746.037, 1749.076, 1759.994], "stop_times": [1749.076, 1759.994, 1762.516], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1746.037}, "reply_to": "22367__1_003", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_005", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I know it's difficult.\nWhat's your answer?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1762.516, 1763.457], "stop_times": [1763.457, 1764.157], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1762.516}, "reply_to": "22367__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__1_006", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--My answer to that is I believe that if the judge stated the evidence is insufficient, as... as the judge did in Smalis, as the trier of fact and law, I find the evidence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1764.157], "stop_times": [1775.504], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1764.157}, "reply_to": "22367__1_005", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_007", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "It's over.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1775.504], "stop_times": [1775.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1775.504}, "reply_to": "22367__1_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__1_008", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--It's over.\nIt's over.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1775.904, 1776.463], "stop_times": [1776.463, 1777.718], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1775.904}, "reply_to": "22367__1_007", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_009", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "The minute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1777.718], "stop_times": [1778.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.718}, "reply_to": "22367__1_008", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22367__1_010", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "What if in the case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1778.515], "stop_times": [1779.02], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1778.515}, "reply_to": "22367__1_009", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__1_011", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--the minute he--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1779.02], "stop_times": [1779.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1779.02}, "reply_to": "22367__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22367__1_012", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--we have before us the State allowed an interlocutory appeal on behalf of the prosecution right after the judge's ruling?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1779.545], "stop_times": [1785.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1779.545}, "reply_to": "22367__1_011", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__1_013", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "In a jury case, Your Honor?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1785.967], "stop_times": [1788.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1785.967}, "reply_to": "22367__1_012", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_014", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1788.179], "stop_times": [1788.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1788.179}, "reply_to": "22367__1_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__1_015", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1788.872], "stop_times": [1789.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1788.872}, "reply_to": "22367__1_014", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_016", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Conceivably they could allow an interlocutory appeal from a judgment of acquittal at the close of the prosecution's case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1789.857], "stop_times": [1795.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1789.857}, "reply_to": "22367__1_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__1_017", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--If such a... if such a process could be put in place where there was an appellate panel that would be willing and available to hear that while the jury remained empaneled, I don't think it would run afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1795.498], "stop_times": [1808.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1795.498}, "reply_to": "22367__1_016", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_018", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1808.697], "stop_times": [1809.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1808.697}, "reply_to": "22367__1_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22367__1_019", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "But is that necessary?\nI... I mean, that's what I think is the difficult question here.\nCan you say that it's final for purposes of the decision-maker outside that courtroom, namely an appellate court, but it's not final in respect to the judge having a right to change his mind within the court?\nThat... that makes a lot of sense to me, but I don't know if it's possible to get there.\nWhy not?\nI... I think, well, the reason is that you want judges to be able to reconsider things and you don't have that problem when you're talking about an appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1809.137, 1809.793, 1812.36, 1825.665, 1829.854, 1831.583], "stop_times": [1809.793, 1812.36, 1825.665, 1829.854, 1831.583, 1838.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1809.137}, "reply_to": "22367__1_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__1_020", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "That is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1838.466], "stop_times": [1839.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1838.466}, "reply_to": "22367__1_019", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_021", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Or is there any... is there any, in other words, to reconcile our case that you're talking about, Smalis?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1839.787], "stop_times": [1844.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1839.787}, "reply_to": "22367__1_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__1_022", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--The Smalis case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1844.193], "stop_times": [1845.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1844.193}, "reply_to": "22367__1_021", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_023", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Yes, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1845.081], "stop_times": [1845.705], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1845.081}, "reply_to": "22367__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__1_024", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I think there are a number of ways to reconcile it.\nCertainly Massachusetts' position is that it's the difference between a bench trial and a jury trial, but there is also no doubt that the case left the trial court and went up on appeal.\nI think both of those factors are significant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1845.705, 1847.296, 1858.026], "stop_times": [1847.296, 1858.026, 1859.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1845.705}, "reply_to": "22367__1_023", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_025", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Yes, but isn't... isn't the significance supposedly the existence or nonexistence of our continuation of the jury panel, going back to Justice Stevens' question?\nAnd what if the... what if the State had a procedure whereby the trial judge would simply decline to discharge the jury panel if an appeal were taken from the acquittal motion so that if he was tipped over, it could come right back to the same jury panel?\nWould... would the... would the answer have to be different?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1859.828, 1870.373, 1889.578], "stop_times": [1870.373, 1889.578, 1892.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1859.828}, "reply_to": "22367__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22367__1_026", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I don't think it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1892.396], "stop_times": [1894.256], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1892.396}, "reply_to": "22367__1_025", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_027", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1894.256], "stop_times": [1894.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1894.256}, "reply_to": "22367__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22367__1_028", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I think... I think for a... I think for my... to my way of thinking about the cases, the jury is what matters and it's the defendant's right to his particular tribunal, and that's the first jury that's empaneled--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1894.893], "stop_times": [1906.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1894.893}, "reply_to": "22367__1_027", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_029", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "No, but on my hypothesis he's going to get the same jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1906.589], "stop_times": [1908.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1906.589}, "reply_to": "22367__1_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22367__1_030", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1908.582], "stop_times": [1909.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1908.582}, "reply_to": "22367__1_029", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_031", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "They have not been discharged.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1909.238], "stop_times": [1909.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1909.238}, "reply_to": "22367__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22367__1_032", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Exactly.\nSo I would say that it would not be a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that's why I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1909.966, 1910.727], "stop_times": [1910.727, 1915.631], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1909.966}, "reply_to": "22367__1_031", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_033", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Wow.\nIt goes all the way up on appeal and the jury... I... I don't know what the... I guess he lets the jury go home for a couple of months or while the appeal is pending and then when the decision is overturned by the court of appeals, he comes back and recommences the trial?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1930.512, 1915.631], "stop_times": [1915.631, 1932.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1930.512}, "reply_to": "22367__1_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__1_034", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "All right.\nIf that's so, then why shouldn't Smalis have gone the other way?\nBecause they can send it right back to exactly the same judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1932.012, 1932.393, 1935.201], "stop_times": [1932.393, 1935.201, 1938.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1932.012}, "reply_to": "22367__1_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22367__1_035", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Because he... he is the trier of fact, and I think at that point--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1938.381], "stop_times": [1941.778], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1938.381}, "reply_to": "22367__1_034", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_036", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, the jury is the trier of fact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1941.778], "stop_times": [1942.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1941.778}, "reply_to": "22367__1_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22367__1_037", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1942.818], "stop_times": [1943.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1942.818}, "reply_to": "22367__1_036", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_038", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I mean, on the hypothesis before, you're saying if they don't discharge the jury and it can go back to them, no double jeopardy problem.\nIn Smalis, it's going to be the same judge.\nIt was a bench trial.\nIt should have come out the other way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1943.418, 1951.014, 1953.994, 1954.961], "stop_times": [1951.014, 1953.994, 1954.961, 1956.563], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.418}, "reply_to": "22367__1_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22367__1_039", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Well, I think the difference is the... the judge in Smalis was the trier of fact.\nHe made a rule... he is both the trier of fact and the law-giver.\nHe's decided that the evidence is insufficient.\nIf that case goes up on appeal, that is... that is factual... that is oversight of his factual determination in essence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1956.563, 1962.187, 1965.383, 1968.015], "stop_times": [1962.187, 1965.383, 1968.015, 1975.2], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1956.563}, "reply_to": "22367__1_038", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_040", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Isn't it very true--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1975.2], "stop_times": [1975.951], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.2}, "reply_to": "22367__1_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__1_041", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Is... is another... is another difference... and I don't know if this... is another difference that in the hypothetical case with the jury, the jury has not yet deliberated--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1975.951], "stop_times": [1986.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.951}, "reply_to": "22367__1_040", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22367__1_042", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1986.584], "stop_times": [1987.181], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1986.584}, "reply_to": "22367__1_041", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_043", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--in order to consider the facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1987.181], "stop_times": [1988.385], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1987.181}, "reply_to": "22367__1_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22367__1_044", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1988.385], "stop_times": [1988.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1988.385}, "reply_to": "22367__1_043", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_045", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Whereas in your--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1988.79], "stop_times": [1989.4], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1988.79}, "reply_to": "22367__1_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22367__1_046", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Yes, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1989.4], "stop_times": [1990.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1989.4}, "reply_to": "22367__1_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__1_047", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--your case, the... the judge is... is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1990.175], "stop_times": [1992.591], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1990.175}, "reply_to": "22367__1_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22367__1_048", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--May I ask this?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1992.591], "stop_times": [1993.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1992.591}, "reply_to": "22367__1_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__1_049", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--apparently deliberating--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1993.546], "stop_times": [1994.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1993.546}, "reply_to": "22367__1_048", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22367__1_050", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Is it not true that in this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1994.592], "stop_times": [1995.218], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1994.592}, "reply_to": "22367__1_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__1_051", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "That's where I was headed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1995.218], "stop_times": [1995.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1995.218}, "reply_to": "22367__1_050", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_052", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--in this case the judge did not reconsider until the end of the defense case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [1995.988], "stop_times": [2000.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1995.988}, "reply_to": "22367__1_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__1_053", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "That is correct, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2000.198], "stop_times": [2001.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.198}, "reply_to": "22367__1_052", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_054", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Now, during that period, did the defense lawyer have the right to rely on the acquittal in deciding whether or not to put in defensive evidence on the count from which he thought his client had been acquitted?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2001.443], "stop_times": [2011.864], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2001.443}, "reply_to": "22367__1_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__1_055", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, he certainly had some sense of reliance, but it wasn't a double jeopardy reliance.\nAnd I would... I would point the Court to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2011.864, 2016.983], "stop_times": [2016.983, 2019.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2011.864}, "reply_to": "22367__1_054", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_056", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Of course, if the Double Jeopardy Clause did apply, if it were treated as a true acquittal, he could just say, well, we can forget about that, send your witnesses home, we won't have to worry about it.\nI understand under your view they could send the witnesses home, and a week... a week later the judge could say, well, we haven't submitted it to the jury, I've decided to change my mind.\nYou could bring all those witnesses back.\nThat's the way you think it should work.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2019.774, 2028.263, 2036.354, 2037.928], "stop_times": [2028.263, 2036.354, 2037.928, 2039.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2019.774}, "reply_to": "22367__1_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__1_057", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Absolutely, Justice Stevens.\nAnd I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2039.643, 2041.045], "stop_times": [2041.045, 2041.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2039.643}, "reply_to": "22367__1_056", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_058", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "What... what about a judge who thinks... should the judge... should a judge in trial be able to change his mind as long as the jury is still there?\nYes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2041.582, 2049.791], "stop_times": [2049.791, 2050.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2041.582}, "reply_to": "22367__1_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__1_059", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2050.8], "stop_times": [2051.8], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2050.8}, "reply_to": "22367__1_058", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_060", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Should you be able to take an appeal in the same circumstance while the jury is still there?\nNo.\nNow, suppose a judge thinks both those things.\nIs that judge, like me, for example, hopelessly confused?\n[Laughter]\nIs the judge thinking contradictory things or is there a way of reconciling those two instincts?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2051.8, 2056.13, 2056.654, 2059.568, 2062.929, 2063.87], "stop_times": [2056.13, 2056.654, 2059.568, 2062.929, 2063.87, 2069.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2051.8}, "reply_to": "22367__1_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__1_061", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I... Justice Breyer, I... I certainly believe that the... that the double jeopardy rule that we're... we're advocating would permit that, but I... I think that most trial judges would not be very pleased about doing something like that.\nAnd practically speaking, there's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2069.324, 2083.51], "stop_times": [2083.51, 2085.659], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2069.324}, "reply_to": "22367__1_060", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_062", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "By the way, if it's constitutional, it's pretty easy to see a State might well say, let's do that, what a good idea.\nI mean, they might think it's a good idea.\nI don't know what people think is a good idea.\nWe'll provide for interlocutory appeals right in the middle of cases because the prosecution can never appeal at the end of the case.\nThat's really unfair.\nAnd we'll do this little thing here, and that way we give the prosecutor a chance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2085.659, 2092.21, 2094.702, 2096.551, 2104.068, 2105.27], "stop_times": [2092.21, 2094.702, 2096.551, 2104.068, 2105.27, 2110.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2085.659}, "reply_to": "22367__1_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__1_063", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--I... I have to stick with the rule that... that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2110.361], "stop_times": [2114.748], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2110.361}, "reply_to": "22367__1_062", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_064", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "All right.\nYou think it's... I'm just inconsistent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2114.748, 2115.026], "stop_times": [2115.026, 2116.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2114.748}, "reply_to": "22367__1_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__1_065", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--I think it... I... well, it's... it's... I think if... I think if you accept the notion that jury discharge is what matters for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause and permitting a trial judge to reconsider a legal ruling up to that point, then if a State court could fashion an interlocutory review process of that legal ruling, that would not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2116.072], "stop_times": [2135.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2116.072}, "reply_to": "22367__1_064", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_066", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "What is the conceptual basis for saying that jury discharge makes the difference?\nWhy is that the touchstone?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2135.793, 2140.183], "stop_times": [2140.183, 2142.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2135.793}, "reply_to": "22367__1_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__1_067", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I think this Court has said over and over again that it is the jury... the defendant's right to hold onto his chosen jury that matters in a number of different contexts in the double jeopardy area.\nThis Court has drawn the line at attachment of jeopardy when the jury is empaneled and sworn based on the historical value of a defendant having that particular jury resolve the government's case against him.\nAnd so I think that it matters, particularly where a motion for a required finding is not constitutionally mandated.\nIt's a tool that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2142.316, 2153.671, 2167.676, 2174.59], "stop_times": [2153.671, 2167.676, 2174.59, 2175.852], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2142.316}, "reply_to": "22367__1_066", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_068", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I would think prejudice to the defendant should be a factor, and if the defendant is misled by what the judge says into not putting on part of the case that otherwise would have been put on, that's a pretty serious matter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2175.852], "stop_times": [2189.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2175.852}, "reply_to": "22367__1_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__1_069", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--That is a very serious matter, and it is the sort of prejudice that falls within the rubric of due process and... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2189.17], "stop_times": [2195.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2189.17}, "reply_to": "22367__1_068", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_070", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "No, but we usually don't use--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2195.487], "stop_times": [2196.434], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2195.487}, "reply_to": "22367__1_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__1_071", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--would grant you a retrial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2196.434], "stop_times": [2197.174], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2196.434}, "reply_to": "22367__1_070", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_072", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--we don't use the... I mean, you could use the Due Process Clause for everything, for double jeopardy, for all of the other protections in the Constitution.\nI think our cases say if... if there's a problem that has been created by ignoring the double jeopardy rules, you don't solve that problem by... by the deus ex machina of the Due Process Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2197.174, 2204.863], "stop_times": [2204.863, 2218.672], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2197.174}, "reply_to": "22367__1_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__1_073", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "No.\nThat's... that's exactly correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2218.672, 2219.353], "stop_times": [2219.353, 2220.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2218.672}, "reply_to": "22367__1_072", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_074", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "What about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2220.455], "stop_times": [2220.909], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.455}, "reply_to": "22367__1_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__1_075", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "So this a problem created by the judge's dismissal, which this defendant had every reason to rely upon as being the end of that part of the case.\nI'm inclined to say if... if that is a problem, in fairness it's a... it's a double jeopardy problem, not a due process problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2220.909, 2230.618], "stop_times": [2230.618, 2238.802], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.909}, "reply_to": "22367__1_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__1_076", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, with respect, Justice Scalia, I would say it is the sort of reliance that a... that a defendant may have, as for example the case in Sanabria, where a... where a judge excludes certain evidence, and the case goes forward.\nAnd as a result of that... a result of that decision, the judge in that case granted a motion for acquittal.\nAnd at the end of the case, the prosecution asked for reconsideration of the exclusion of the evidence, and the judge ultimately determined not to go ahead and let that evidence back in, but specifically said if I had let it back in, I would have vacated my motion for required finding and allowed the case to go to the jury.\nSo that sort of prejudice... a defendant has an expectation of certain things that may or may not happen at trial, but the remedy outside of the double jeopardy context, if the defendant is acquitted, is a retrial.\nThe drastic remedy of double jeopardy is... is used when a defendant has been subjected twice to a trial before a second trier of fact.\nThis... this Court has been consistent that when the government subjects the defendant over and over again before a second--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2238.802, 2251.473, 2257.217, 2275.95, 2289.23, 2298.519], "stop_times": [2251.473, 2257.217, 2275.95, 2289.23, 2298.519, 2304.642], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2238.802}, "reply_to": "22367__1_075", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_077", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Did I understand you correctly to say that if the defendant is acquitted, the remedy is a retrial?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2304.642], "stop_times": [2308.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2304.642}, "reply_to": "22367__1_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__1_078", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--No, no, no.\nI'm sorry, Justice Stevens.\nNo.\nOnly if the defendant is convicted is the remedy a retrial because, indeed, if the jury acquits him, there is no harm at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2308.593, 2309.065, 2310.184, 2310.576], "stop_times": [2309.065, 2310.184, 2310.576, 2317.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2308.593}, "reply_to": "22367__1_077", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_079", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--What is the reason you didn't want a fairly simple rule that I was thinking of?\nI'll tell you what it is and you'll tell me honestly why you don't.\nIt's final.\nThe word acquittal is... is final if the jury has been discharged or the decision is sent to another body for review.\nOne or the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2317.333, 2321.704, 2324.13, 2325.33, 2334.483], "stop_times": [2321.704, 2324.13, 2325.33, 2334.483, 2337.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2317.333}, "reply_to": "22367__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__1_080", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I could live with that rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2337.324], "stop_times": [2339.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2337.324}, "reply_to": "22367__1_079", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_081", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Now, so you haven't found something in your research that suggests that... that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2339.092], "stop_times": [2342.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.092}, "reply_to": "22367__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__1_082", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "No, no.\nOur position has been consistent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2342.655, 2343.478], "stop_times": [2343.478, 2344.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2342.655}, "reply_to": "22367__1_081", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_083", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Well, under... under that view of things, suppose in this... in this case there's a motion for acquittal and the judge says, yes, I... I think there's no evidence on the gun.\nThen the prosecutor says I want 10 minutes because I think there's a case on it.\nThen he says, you know, there's a case and I think it covers this, and the judge says, well, I think you may be wrong.\nI'll let you reopen to put on evidence of... of the gun.\nWhat would... what would be the result in that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2344.893, 2355.373, 2360.965, 2365.903, 2370.368], "stop_times": [2355.373, 2360.965, 2365.903, 2370.368, 2373.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2344.893}, "reply_to": "22367__1_082", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22367__1_084", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I think that because if it's a jury trial and the case is still... and the jury is still there, it could be done without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2373.117], "stop_times": [2382.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2373.117}, "reply_to": "22367__1_083", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_085", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I think you have to say that under your view.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2382.323], "stop_times": [2384.063], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2382.323}, "reply_to": "22367__1_084", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22367__1_086", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I think so.\nI think honing... what this Court has talked about in honing is... is refining a case before a second trier of fact.\nAnd as a matter of Massachusetts' procedures, certainly the prosecution may be able to reopen if there's good faith or mistake, but for purposes of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2384.063, 2384.913, 2391.933], "stop_times": [2384.913, 2391.933, 2401.349], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2384.063}, "reply_to": "22367__1_085", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_087", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Then why did the Massachusetts Supreme Court say... and I thought it did say this in its rules... trial judge, you rule on the spot when a motion to acquit is made?\nWe will not allow you to reserve judgment.\nBecause the normal thing would be a trial judge would say, why should I decide this definitively now?\nI'll wait till the end of the case.\nBut as I understand the Massachusetts rules, it says, judge, you can't reserve on a motion to acquit.\nYou must rule immediately.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2401.349, 2412.677, 2415.542, 2422.078, 2424.359, 2431.199], "stop_times": [2412.677, 2415.542, 2422.078, 2424.359, 2431.199, 2432.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2401.349}, "reply_to": "22367__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__1_088", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--That is correct, Justice Ginsburg, and if I misunderstood the hypothetical, that... that was my mistake.\nAs a matter of Massachusetts law, a trial judge does not have that option.\nShe must rule on the motion before the defendant decides to put on the case, and that is what happened here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2432.619, 2437.28, 2441.248], "stop_times": [2437.28, 2441.248, 2447.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2432.619}, "reply_to": "22367__1_087", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_089", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "So... so part of Justice Breyer's question needs editing because it would not be possible under Massachusetts law for the judge to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2447.064], "stop_times": [2456.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2447.064}, "reply_to": "22367__1_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__1_090", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "That is correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2456.774], "stop_times": [2458.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2456.774}, "reply_to": "22367__1_089", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_091", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--I reserve.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2458.583], "stop_times": [2459.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2458.583}, "reply_to": "22367__1_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__1_092", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "That is correct.\nShe could not.\nAnd... and if I could just highlight a couple of points to... to demonstrate the significance of... of permitting trial judges the ability to reconsider legal rulings.\nIn Massachusetts, the fact that there's a written motion here is quite unusual.\nThese motions are made orally generally.\nThe prosecution is not given an opportunity... does not... there's no requirement that he be given advance notice ever.\nThere's no requirement of that.\nThe prosecution argues in opposition to the motion on the spot, and the judge rules on the spot.\nAnd... and I think that... that procedure is demonstrated quite clearly here.\nThe... the defendant filed the motion.\nThe prosecution did, indeed, argue the correct response, legal response, did not have a case at hand and as--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2459.287, 2460.035, 2460.983, 2474.831, 2479.585, 2482.863, 2491.222, 2493.229, 2500.363, 2505.047, 2508.078], "stop_times": [2460.035, 2460.983, 2474.831, 2479.585, 2482.863, 2491.222, 2493.229, 2500.363, 2505.047, 2508.078, 2516.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2459.287}, "reply_to": "22367__1_091", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_093", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Yes, but your position would be the same if the... if the Massachusetts law provided that the motions at the end of the prosecution's case shall not be ruled on unless... after they're written briefs filed by both sides and they have 3 days of argument.\nYou'd still have the same position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2516.039, 2529.098], "stop_times": [2529.098, 2530.41], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2516.039}, "reply_to": "22367__1_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__1_094", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2530.41], "stop_times": [2531.148], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2530.41}, "reply_to": "22367__1_093", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_095", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "And in fact, the... the quick and dirty procedure you describe is probably a boon to prosecutors because a judge is... is not likely to take the serious step of dismissing a charge on the basis of... of such a procedure and is more likely to say, well, we'll let the trial go ahead and see what the evidence discloses.\nI mean, I can't imagine that this is not a boon to the prosecutor rather than, as you... as you seem to paint it here, a disadvantage.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2531.148, 2551.368], "stop_times": [2551.368, 2559.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2531.148}, "reply_to": "22367__1_094", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__1_096", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I... I wouldn't want to characterize--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2559.409], "stop_times": [2563.167], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2559.409}, "reply_to": "22367__1_095", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_097", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "This is a very unusual judge I would think to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2563.167], "stop_times": [2565.994], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2563.167}, "reply_to": "22367__1_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__1_098", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2565.994], "stop_times": [2566.288], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2565.994}, "reply_to": "22367__1_097", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_099", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--to whip it out like that and... and enter an acquittal without... without letting it go forward.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2566.288], "stop_times": [2572.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2566.288}, "reply_to": "22367__1_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__1_100", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I would say it is unusual, but it happens where... and I think the trial judge certainly in this case who believes that if she's mistaken, can... can correct her ruling and send it to the jury, then feels somewhat free to... to do what the defendant asks, if it seems reasonable, and... and knows that if... if it can be corrected--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2572.07], "stop_times": [2593.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2572.07}, "reply_to": "22367__1_099", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_101", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "You may... you may regret what you've asked for.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2593.585], "stop_times": [2595.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.585}, "reply_to": "22367__1_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__1_102", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--I hope not, Justice Scalia.\nI hope not.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2595.536, 2598.115, 2599.124], "stop_times": [2598.115, 2599.124, 2601.092], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2595.536}, "reply_to": "22367__1_101", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_103", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "What would happen... I think one of the briefs suggested that suppose you have a multi-defendant case and the judge says, after the prosecution case is done, defendant A, I'm going to grant a motion to acquit. He's out of it, but there was enough evidence to require the... the defense to go on for B and C.\nAnd then after hearing B and C's defense, the judge said, I think I was wrong about acquitting A, so I'm... I'm going to withdraw it.\nWould there be... could that be done without any... any double jeopardy bar?\nThe jury hasn't been discharged.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2601.092, 2618.958, 2645.458, 2650.359], "stop_times": [2618.958, 2645.458, 2650.359, 2652.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2601.092}, "reply_to": "22367__1_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__1_104", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, I don't think it presents a double jeopardy bar, but a defendant has a right to be present at his trial, and so it certainly would be a reversible error if... if a trial judge--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2652.545], "stop_times": [2665.915], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2652.545}, "reply_to": "22367__1_103", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_105", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "No.\nThe... the... he's sitting there.\nDefendant A is sitting there throughout the whole trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2665.915, 2666.158, 2667.68], "stop_times": [2666.158, 2667.68, 2671.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2665.915}, "reply_to": "22367__1_104", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22367__1_106", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Then there's certainly no double jeopardy bar to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2671.491], "stop_times": [2674.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2671.491}, "reply_to": "22367__1_105", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_107", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--There could be a problem that you have to have a fair chance to present evidence and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2674.051], "stop_times": [2678.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2674.051}, "reply_to": "22367__1_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__1_108", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Absolutely, Justice Breyer, and... and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2678.584], "stop_times": [2680.717], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2678.584}, "reply_to": "22367__1_107", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_109", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I guess there are a lot of rules in Massachusetts that deal with that.\nThey can't... you have to be fair to the defendant in... is that right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2680.717, 2683.162], "stop_times": [2683.162, 2685.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2680.717}, "reply_to": "22367__1_108", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22367__1_110", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Well, certainly.\nRule 25 itself specifically states that the defendant shall have the opportunity to present evidence after the motion is denied or allowed in part without reserving that right.\nSo certainly that option is available.\nUnless the Court has further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2685.97, 2686.397, 2696.689, 2699.12], "stop_times": [2686.397, 2696.689, 2699.12, 2703.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2685.97}, "reply_to": "22367__1_109", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_111", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Neaves.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2703.542], "stop_times": [2705.341], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2703.542}, "reply_to": "22367__1_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__1_112", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2705.341], "stop_times": [2705.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2705.341}, "reply_to": "22367__1_111", "speaker": "cathryn_a_neaves"}
{"id": "22367__1_113", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Mr.... Mr. Srinivasan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2705.914], "stop_times": [2712.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2705.914}, "reply_to": "22367__1_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__2_000", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThe trial court in this case was permitted to correct its erroneous ruling in favor of the defendant on the motion for judgment of acquittal.\nBecause the prosecution is entitled to a full and fair opportunity to prove its a case, that's a value--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2712.5, 2717.962, 2724.81], "stop_times": [2717.962, 2724.81, 2730.357], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2712.5}, "reply_to": "22367__1_113", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_001", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "May I ask you the same question I asked your... your colleague?\nSupposing we're not in Massachusetts, but we're in another State that provided for an interlocutory appeal immediately after the judge's ruling in this case.\nWould... would you have the same appraisal of the case on those facts?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2730.357, 2733.14, 2742.886], "stop_times": [2733.14, 2742.886, 2746.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2730.357}, "reply_to": "22367__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__2_002", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Would we have the same appraisal as the State?\nWe don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2746.235, 2748.588], "stop_times": [2748.588, 2749.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2746.235}, "reply_to": "22367__2_001", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_003", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Yes.\nWould you still say it was not final, even though it was sufficiently final for appellate purposes?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2749.559, 2749.804], "stop_times": [2749.804, 2754.067], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2749.559}, "reply_to": "22367__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__2_004", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--No.\nWe... we think that the Court's holding in Smalis applies equally to jury trials and to bench trials such that an appeal, an interlocutory appeal, in the midst of a jury trial would not be permissible.\nBut we also think that there is a sound basis for drawing a distinction between--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2754.067, 2754.84, 2764.281], "stop_times": [2754.84, 2764.281, 2768.491], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2754.067}, "reply_to": "22367__2_003", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_005", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "But my question is assuming a State procedure in which the interlocutory appeal was permissible, you... you would say the Double Jeopardy Clause would bar that appeal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2768.491], "stop_times": [2775.744], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2768.491}, "reply_to": "22367__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__2_006", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Right, because we read that to be the holding of Smalis.\nBut we think there's a basis for distinguishing between appeals on one hand and continuing proceedings before the initial tribunal on the other hand.\nFirst of all, this Court has drawn that distinction in Swisher v. Brady where it initially said that the two-stage system of adjudication is... in Maryland that was at issue in that case was permissible because it entailed continued proceedings before the initial tribunal rather than an appeal to a second tribunal.\nAnd the Court specifically distinguished its prior decisions in Jenkins v. the United States and Kepner, both of which involved appellate review.\nAnd the other basis for drawing a distinction between appeals on one hand and reconsiderations by the trial court on the other is historical tradition.\nI think the Court could look to history and history would show that on one hand trial courts have always had inherent authority to reconsider their mid-trial rulings because the practical exigencies of trial are such that trial courts inevitably will err on occasion, and the ends of justice require trial courts to have the authority to revisit their mid-trial rulings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2775.744, 2778.054, 2784.467, 2803.716, 2811.284, 2819.612], "stop_times": [2778.054, 2784.467, 2803.716, 2811.284, 2819.612, 2839.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2775.744}, "reply_to": "22367__2_005", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_007", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Would... would you allow a trial judge to reopen... to... to permit the prosecution to reopen the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2839.755], "stop_times": [2844.658], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2839.755}, "reply_to": "22367__2_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22367__2_008", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "We would, Justice Kennedy, but it raises a distinct problem because one value that's served by the Double Jeopardy Clause is the defendant's interest in preventing the prosecution from honing its evidentiary case by repeated efforts.\nAnd if the trial judge were permitted to reopen the case to give the prosecution that opportunity, it at least would implicate that interest.\nNow, we still think that the proper line is jury discharge, but we understand that that hypothetical would present a distinct interest.\nNow, with respect to historical tradition on appeals, the historical tradition is clear that the government has lacked authority at common law to take an appeal in a criminal proceeding.\nThis Court relied on that common law tradition as early as Sanges v. the United States and it's repeated that understanding in Carroll v. the United States and Arizona v. Manypenny, and that's why the Court construes statutory grants of authority to the government to take an appeal in criminal cases quite narrowly.\nAnd so I think the Court could draw a distinction between reconsiderations by the trial court and appeals by looking to historical tradition, and the Court often looks at history to shape the contours of double jeopardy protections.\nAnd that would afford the case... the Court a basis for saying that in Smalis, while appeals were forbidden, in this case trial court reconsideration should be permitted.\nAnd I think the lens through which the Court would do that under the Double Jeopardy Clause is the valued interest in giving the prosecution one full and fair opportunity to prove its case in the sense that while that full and fair opportunity may exclude an appeal, because the Court held as much in Smalis, it doesn't exclude reconsiderations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2844.658, 2857.796, 2864.877, 2872.588, 2883.597, 2901.704, 2913.142, 2923.277], "stop_times": [2857.796, 2864.877, 2872.588, 2883.597, 2901.704, 2913.142, 2923.277, 2942.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2844.658}, "reply_to": "22367__2_007", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_009", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Why... why doesn't the... the prosecution gets its full and fair opportunity if we have a rule that says to trial judges, when you make a ruling on acquittal, you better be serious and you better not make a snap judgment, think it over, because once you've done it, it sticks?\nWhy... why doesn't the prosecution have a perfectly fair opportunity under that rule?\nEverybody knows where he stands and judges, we hope, are going to be careful.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2942.507, 2960.697, 2966.613], "stop_times": [2960.697, 2966.613, 2970.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2942.507}, "reply_to": "22367__2_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22367__2_010", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Justice Souter, we think a constitutional rule that would turn on the definitiveness of a trial court ruling would be flawed in three respects.\nFirst, the line between a definitive ruling and a tentative ruling is not altogether clear, and we've outlined in our brief at page 24 in a lengthy footnote a variety of factual scenarios that come from real cases where trial judges, as they often do, rendered a ruling on a motion for acquittal orally, and whether you think that ruling was definitive or tentative might depend on which page of the transcript you happen to be looking at.\nBut even if we're dealing with a situation in which the ruling clearly falls on the definitive side of the line, you'd still have the problem that a trial court might be convinced that it's correct and rule definitively but still be incorrect.\nTrial courts make mistakes.\nThat's why this issue comes up as often as it does.\nFor example, in this case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [2970.634, 2978.756, 3002.853, 3016.697, 3018.395, 3021.822], "stop_times": [2978.756, 3002.853, 3016.697, 3018.395, 3021.822, 3022.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2970.634}, "reply_to": "22367__2_009", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_011", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "In all these cases... we've had several, not too many over the... the whole line of cases... and the trial judge has always committed a rather plain error.\nAnd we all have the case where if you just try to decide whether it's a just result, you'd always say no.\nA case just like this.\nThe judge made a mistake, but we've always said that's not something we... we look at.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3022.741, 3029.422, 3035.221, 3037.341], "stop_times": [3029.422, 3035.221, 3037.341, 3042.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3022.741}, "reply_to": "22367__2_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__2_012", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--I don't... I'm not quite sure I'm following what you're saying, Justice Stevens, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3042.38], "stop_times": [3047.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3042.38}, "reply_to": "22367__2_011", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_013", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "I say as a typical matter these double jeopardy claims arise in cases in which the judge made a rather plain error, and when you look at it later, you say, gee, he goofed.\nAnd so I'm not sure we should consider the plainness of the error or the fact that they... they do mistakes because they do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3047.121, 3056.999], "stop_times": [3056.999, 3062.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3047.121}, "reply_to": "22367__2_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__2_014", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--But... but I don't... but the reason why the Court accepts errors in some situations is because there's some other value under the Double Jeopardy Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3062.859], "stop_times": [3070.374], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3062.859}, "reply_to": "22367__2_013", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_015", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "The value of finality is what is really at stake here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3070.374], "stop_times": [3072.632], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3070.374}, "reply_to": "22367__2_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__2_016", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, it's not just the value of finality.\nIt's that, for example, if the judge makes an error and then the jury is discharged, it's the value that the defendant has in obtaining a result from the particular tribunal.\nIn the circumstances of this case, where the trial judge can correct for error within the... within a matter of minutes, at least in some situations, there would be no double jeopardy purpose served--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3072.632, 3074.765, 3082.286], "stop_times": [3074.765, 3082.286, 3093.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3072.632}, "reply_to": "22367__2_015", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_017", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "But here it was not a matter of minutes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3093.431], "stop_times": [3094.462], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.431}, "reply_to": "22367__2_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__2_018", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--In this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3094.462], "stop_times": [3094.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3094.462}, "reply_to": "22367__2_017", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_019", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Here it was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3094.998], "stop_times": [3095.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3094.998}, "reply_to": "22367__2_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__2_020", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--No.\nI acknowledge in this case it wasn't, but it might well be in some cases.\nFor example, we cite a decision of the Washington Supreme Court, State v. Collins, which involves essentially the same scenario as this case, but the only distinction was that after the trial judge initially announced her ruling, the prosecution had the precedent in hand and within a span of 10 minutes, the trial judge was able to realize her error and to correct her ruling and reinstate the charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3095.489, 3096.172, 3099.374], "stop_times": [3096.172, 3099.374, 3117.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3095.489}, "reply_to": "22367__2_019", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_021", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Does it matter if the... if the ruling is conveyed to the jury even though the jury isn't discharged?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3117.37], "stop_times": [3122.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3117.37}, "reply_to": "22367__2_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__2_022", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "It would matter, Justice O'Connor, but I don't think it would necessarily preclude the prosecution from going forward on the charge under the Double Jeopardy Clause.\nThe question would be one of due process and prejudice to the defendant.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3122.433, 3131.401], "stop_times": [3131.401, 3134.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3122.433}, "reply_to": "22367__2_021", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_023", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "You had three... three reasons you were going to give Justice Souter.\nOne is it's not clear always that it's definitive.\nThe other is that trial judges do make mistakes, and the third is?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3134.348, 3137.198, 3139.467], "stop_times": [3137.198, 3139.467, 3142.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3134.348}, "reply_to": "22367__2_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22367__2_024", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "And the third is... it's an issue that you raised earlier, Justice Kennedy.\nIt's that this case might look different as an atmospheric matter if the trial judge at the time she rendered her ruling had said, I'm ruling in the defendant's favor, but I may reconsider this decision at a later point in the proceedings.\nNow, that might be seen to fall on the tentative side of the line, but that's exactly the effect of this... of the trial judge's ruling as a matter of Massachusetts law.\nAnd we don't think there's a constitutionally significant distinction between a trial judge explicitly saying that a ruling can be reconsidered and State law saying that the ruling can be reconsidered.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3142.806, 3146.187, 3158.206, 3166.128], "stop_times": [3146.187, 3158.206, 3166.128, 3176.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3142.806}, "reply_to": "22367__2_023", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_025", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Why isn't the distinction the right to rely?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3176.435], "stop_times": [3178.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3176.435}, "reply_to": "22367__2_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22367__2_026", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "It... there... there... that would be the basis of a claim, Justice Souter, but the right to rely is, in essence, a notice prejudice sort of claim and that could be handled in the way that trial courts typically handle claims by the defendant that they've detrimentally relied on an initial ruling the trial court has subsequently reconsidered.\nIt would be equally the case, for example, as the State mentioned with respect to an evidentiary ruling that barred the prosecution from introducing a category of evidence, but then the trial judge, later in the proceedings, wanted to revisit that ruling.\nThe question would be whether revisiting the ruling resulted in prejudice to the defendant because the defendant had detrimentally relied on the trial judge's initial determination.\nAnd we don't think that prejudice inquiry is meaningfully different when you're dealing with evidentiary rulings as when you're... as when you're dealing with the reinstatement of a previously acquitted charge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3178.216, 3195.336, 3206.454, 3214.432], "stop_times": [3195.336, 3206.454, 3214.432, 3224.385], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3178.216}, "reply_to": "22367__2_025", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_027", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Why... why shouldn't you have... what's magic about the jury?\nWhy shouldn't you have the same rule on a bench trial?\nA judge in a bench trial makes a ruling, thinks about it, and says, you know, I shouldn't have ruled that way.\nWhy shouldn't that judge be able to change?\nJust because there's no jury to discharge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3224.385, 3226.392, 3228.253, 3233.653, 3235.335], "stop_times": [3226.392, 3228.253, 3233.653, 3235.335, 3237.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3224.385}, "reply_to": "22367__2_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__2_028", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Well, it would depend.\nIf... if the bench trial judge were making a mid-trial ruling, as... as in this case, then the judge could change his or her mind.\nBut if the bench trial judge were resolving the entire case and entered--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3237.465, 3239.913, 3245.575], "stop_times": [3239.913, 3245.575, 3250.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3237.465}, "reply_to": "22367__2_027", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_029", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "What... what is the line?\nI mean, is there... there no point at which he can't change?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3250.032, 3251.504, 3254.335], "stop_times": [3251.504, 3254.335, 3254.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3250.032}, "reply_to": "22367__2_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__2_030", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--No.\nThe... the... I think the Constitution would step in and impose a line at some point, and probably the best indicator is a rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3254.88, 3255.171], "stop_times": [3255.171, 3260.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3254.88}, "reply_to": "22367__2_029", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_031", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--But it's not dismissal of the jury.\nWe'll have to make up some other line.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3260.495, 3261.05, 3262.06], "stop_times": [3261.05, 3262.06, 3262.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3260.495}, "reply_to": "22367__2_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__2_032", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--It can't be discharge of the jury, but I think where the Court would look, first and foremost, in defining a line for bench trials, if the issue would ever arise, would be a ruling that would essentially have resulted in discharge of the jury if the trial were before a jury.\nAnd for example, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3262.398, 3276.464], "stop_times": [3276.464, 3278.571], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3262.398}, "reply_to": "22367__2_031", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_033", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "But how do we... how does Smalis fit into this discussion?\nI thought in Smalis in a bench trial, we said it was final.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3278.571, 3282.074], "stop_times": [3282.074, 3285.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3278.571}, "reply_to": "22367__2_032", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22367__2_034", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--It was, Justice O'Connor, for purposes of an appeal, and that's why I think the critical distinction between Smalis and this case is that where the prosecution might not have authority to take an appeal from a ruling on the insufficiency of the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3285.704], "stop_times": [3298.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3285.704}, "reply_to": "22367__2_033", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_035", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Your line would be something like if it... if... from all of the transcript, it appears that the judge is... is giving consideration to the entire case or something like that in a bench trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3298.033], "stop_times": [3308.561], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3298.033}, "reply_to": "22367__2_034", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22367__2_036", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "In a bench trial, that... that would be part of the inquiry, Justice Kennedy, and I would also point, by the way, to... can I just finish the thought, Justice Stevens?\nTo Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(k)(1), which says that when a bench trial... when a judge sitting in a bench trial issues a ruling that finds a defendant not guilty, that ruling will discharge the defendant.\nAnd I think a discharge of the defendant would be one of critical consideration.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3308.561, 3315.601, 3326.5, 3328.93], "stop_times": [3315.601, 3326.5, 3328.93, 3330.419], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3308.561}, "reply_to": "22367__2_035", "speaker": "sri_srinivasan"}
{"id": "22367__2_037", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Thank you.\nMr. Nathanson, you have about 3 minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3330.419, 3330.799], "stop_times": [3330.799, 3334.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3330.419}, "reply_to": "22367__2_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22367__3_000", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Justice Stevens, may it please the Court:\nI'll try to be as brief as I can.\nThe argument about inherent authority to reconsider an acquittal really has it backwards.\nInherent authority bends to the Constitution.\nThe Constitution does not bend to a judge's inherent authority.\nSecond, the... the Government is trying to substitute a standard here of a second proceeding, which is not this Court's standard.\nThis Court's standard is further proceedings after an acquittal, including resumption of the same trial.\nThat's what this Court said in Smalis.\nThe Government is also trying to move this case into the particular tribunal analysis.\nThat comes from cases that are mistrials.\nThis is an acquittal.\nThis is not a particular tribunal case.\nAs to the judge resolving all the issues in a bench trial and... and that's why that... that acquittal would be more final than a motion for a directed verdict, it was a motion for a directed verdict.\nIt was a demurrer in Smalis.\nIt was the exact same standard that the judge applied in that case.\nAs to prejudice, prejudice has never been a factor in this Court's double jeopardy analysis.\nAs a matter of fact, in... in one of the really classical statements, Ex parte Lange, if you look at the facts of that case, that looks like complete gamesmanship.\nThe defendant was sentenced to a jail term and a fine when the... the statute only authorized a jail term or a fine.\nHe said, oh, I'll pay... I'll pay the fine.\nIt's a get-out-of-jail-free card.\nThere's complete gamesmanship, but prejudice was not a factor.\nAnd in fact, this Court has said prejudice is not open to judicial examination in double jeopardy cases.\nAs to honing, in... in fact, in Rumsey--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3334.912, 3337.792, 3339.828, 3345.897, 3349.349, 3351.937, 3360.819, 3365.738, 3367.113, 3372.124, 3373.836, 3374.748, 3376.632, 3389.738, 3391.375, 3394.284, 3400.667, 3408.638, 3415.948, 3417.338, 3419.509, 3422.966, 3429.705], "stop_times": [3337.792, 3339.828, 3345.897, 3349.349, 3351.937, 3360.819, 3365.738, 3367.113, 3372.124, 3373.836, 3374.748, 3376.632, 3389.738, 3391.375, 3394.284, 3400.667, 3408.638, 3415.948, 3417.338, 3419.509, 3422.966, 3429.705, 3435.725], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3334.912}, "reply_to": "22367__2_037", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__3_001", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Honing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3435.725], "stop_times": [3436.355], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3435.725}, "reply_to": "22367__3_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22367__3_002", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "--Honing.\nNot the name of a case, Your Honor.\nBut whether or not the Government has honed its cased through... and... and they would say evidentiary honing.\nBut it's not evidentiary honing.\nIn Rumsey, it was only argument that was presented at... at the remand after acquittal.\nJustice Souter, I want to heartily endorse the... the way you phrased what the rule should be, which is, trial judges, you ought to take this seriously.\nPretermitting the prosecution's case is a very serious matter.\nYou cannot take it back.\nSo think about it.\nDo it right the first time.\nAs to... to rule 25 itself, it's true that the... the judges can't reserve.\nSo what they do as... as a matter of practice in Massachusetts is they simply deny, and... and they deny the first one and they have two more opportunities, one at the close of the defendant's case and they have an opportunity at the close of... after the jury has returned a verdict.\nAt each of those steps, they can make a motion for acquittal.\nAs to the full and fair opportunity, this Court said in Martin Linen that the Government has a right to try the case.\nThey do not have a right to have it proceed to verdict.\nI'm just taking that straight from Martin Linen.\nAs to, finally, whether or not State law sort of insulates this from Federal... I see my time is up.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3436.355, 3437.296, 3438.624, 3444.43, 3445.644, 3451.574, 3464.001, 3467.574, 3468.756, 3469.842, 3471.175, 3479.517, 3496.296, 3500.014, 3509.754, 3512.905, 3515.576, 3525.206], "stop_times": [3437.296, 3438.624, 3444.43, 3445.644, 3451.574, 3464.001, 3467.574, 3468.756, 3469.842, 3471.175, 3479.517, 3496.296, 3500.014, 3509.754, 3512.905, 3515.576, 3525.206, 3525.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3436.355}, "reply_to": "22367__3_001", "speaker": "david_j_nathanson"}
{"id": "22367__3_003", "conversation_id": "22367", "text": "Mr. Nathanson, thank you.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-8661", "start_times": [3525.696, 3526.755], "stop_times": [3526.755, 3527.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3525.696}, "reply_to": "22367__3_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__0_000", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "We'll now hear argument in Spector against the Norwegian Cruise Line.\nMr. Goldstein.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [0.0, 7.225], "stop_times": [7.225, 8.545], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__0_001", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThe petitioners in this case are American citizens who took cruises to and from this country on tickets bought here that call for the application of U.S. law.\nThey were subject to discrimination by respondent, a U.S. based company on the land, in the ports, and in the waters of the United States.\nThe question presented is whether the Americans With Disabilities Act applies or instead whether respondent's conduct is lawful because the case is controlled by Bahamian law, which freely permits cruise lines to discriminate against persons with disabilities.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [8.545, 11.107, 20.395, 28.607], "stop_times": [11.107, 20.395, 28.607, 43.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 8.545}, "reply_to": "21657__0_000", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_002", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Mr. Goldstein, may I inquire of you whether other countries, for instance, in the EU area, have applied their own disability laws to some of the cruise ships that touch base in their courts?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [43.179], "stop_times": [58.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 43.179}, "reply_to": "21657__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21657__0_003", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Justice O'Connor, our research does not reveal that the question has arisen in the EU.\nI can, however, provide you some information, and that is that... two points I think.\nThe first is they subscribe... the members of the EU subscribe to the same conventions and to UNCLOS just the way we do, which gives the port state plenary authority within its ports and internal waters.\nAnd I have a couple of case citations for you on this issue.\nIn the ECJ, the Diva Navigation case, 1992, ECR I-6019.\nIt has not arisen in the EU, but it has arisen in Australia.\nAustralia has a disability law.\nIt applies that law to cruise ships, and the rule in Australia is that the port state law applies rather than the flag state law.\nAnd the citation for that is the Union Shipping case, 2002, NSWCA 124 CA 40379/01.\nI don't know what those numbers mean.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [58.662, 64.066, 68.71, 81.592, 84.685, 100.168, 104.459, 106.976, 116.347, 127.865], "stop_times": [64.066, 68.71, 81.592, 84.685, 100.168, 104.459, 106.976, 116.347, 127.865, 129.062], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 58.662}, "reply_to": "21657__0_002", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_004", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Thank you.\nAnd would you also address at some point how the treaty on Safety of Life at Sea would affect the resolution here?\nFor example, it has, as I understand it, requirements that there be watertight doors and those doors have to be set above the level of the floor so you couldn't roll a handicapped wheelchair or something over it.\nNow, do you anticipate that there would have to be structural changes if you were to prevail that would conflict with the treaty on Safety of Life at Sea?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [129.062, 129.228, 138.805, 157.48], "stop_times": [129.228, 138.805, 157.48, 169.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 129.062}, "reply_to": "21657__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21657__0_005", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "No, and you have put your finger on the point, and that is that there are no conflicts.\nWe know that for a couple of reasons.\nThe first is that there has been a detailed rule making underway in which the regulatory authorities charged by Congress with implementing the ADA have spent quite some time.\nThey have produced this single spaced, half inch thick document that is dedicated to making--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [169.186, 173.523, 175.313, 184.047], "stop_times": [173.523, 175.313, 184.047, 190.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 169.186}, "reply_to": "21657__0_004", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_006", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Are they in effect yet?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [190.241], "stop_times": [191.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 190.241}, "reply_to": "21657__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21657__0_007", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--They are not, but in terms of whether or not the statute, when it's applied, would conflict, you would look to this document and they took as their regulatory mission to make sure there were no such conflicts.\nWhat they did... let me take your example specifically and then put... place it within the statutory framework.\nWithin the ADA and a question of the combings, what they said is, that's right.\nIn certain cases SOLAS requires that the coamings be a certain height.\nIf the coamings are below the bulkhead level, where you would be worried about water coming in below, that is not an accessible route, and so you don't have to worry about it at all.\nAbove there, you ramp up to the coaming and ramp down, unless that's structurally infeasible.\nSo they... what they did is they... and this is the broader point.\nthey applied the rule of the ADA that a change to the structure of the vessel only has to be implemented if it's readily achievable.\nAnd what the regulatory authorities determined is that if there is any conflict with SOLAS at all, that change need not be made.\nNow, you... Justice O'Connor, you also focused on the fact that there are some of our claims that implicate the structure of the ship.\nThey are, however, a distinct minority, and we ought not lose sight of this because I don't think the other side has any good argument at all, under international law or anything else, that would explain why they can charge a person with a disability double.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [191.356, 202.063, 208.462, 214.777, 218.931, 228.136, 233.83, 236.514, 244.316, 252.285, 258.024], "stop_times": [202.063, 208.462, 214.777, 218.931, 228.136, 233.83, 236.514, 244.316, 252.285, 258.024, 271.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 191.356}, "reply_to": "21657__0_006", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_008", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Can you tell me just a little bit about that, how it works?\nSuppose that you prevail in this case... and it does seem to me that the... the charging the double doesn't involve modification of the ship, obviously.\nHow does it work if you have, oh, say, an English passenger who buys an English ticket and is charged double... I don't know if that's the English law, but let's assume... then he comes on a cruise ship and he goes to New York and Miami and... and New Orleans?\nCan he... does he... could he then sue, if... if we rule for you in this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [271.315, 274.205, 282.378, 298.619], "stop_times": [274.205, 282.378, 298.619, 304.919], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 271.315}, "reply_to": "21657__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21657__0_009", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "I would think on the question of the charging double, the answer to that question would be no because it would present a traditional, not unique to the ADA, choice of law question, and that is, if you're in England and you buy a ticket in England, your ticket is going to be subject to English common... in that case, the English disability law.\nThere is an English disability law.\nIt doesn't discuss cruise ships.\nIt's... but it's broadly written.\nBut with respect to the structure of the ship, I think that English passenger with a disability... say that you come across to the United States and you want to get off in New York.\nI think that Congress clearly intended that that person would be able to come off a... off the dock in a wheelchair, back onto the dock on the wheelchair; while you were in U.S. ports and you're staying in your cabin, that you would be able to, in your accessible... your accessible rest room, have grab bars.\nWe are... and... and let me not pass too quickly by the fact that even when we talk about some structural changes in the ship, by and large we're talking about things that have nothing to do with... Justice O'Connor, you focused the name of the treaty is the Safety of Life at Sea.\nWhether the bathroom doors swing in and out has nothing to do with that.\nWhether there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [304.919, 323.7, 324.897, 326.317, 327.682, 336.127, 352.185, 364.445, 368.282], "stop_times": [323.7, 324.897, 326.317, 327.682, 336.127, 352.185, 364.445, 368.282, 368.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 304.919}, "reply_to": "21657__0_008", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_010", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Mr. Goldstein, may... may I take it from your answer that it doesn't make any difference in your view, your answer to the question about the... the ship leaving from a port in England and going many places and touching base in New York, that kind of a voyage, or what this case seems to be where the vast majority of the passengers are from the United States, the port of departure is in the United States, the port of return is in the United States.\nYou don't seem to distinguish those cases because you say in the New York port, it doesn't matter if it's really a U.S. centered cruise or a cruise centered in Italy or any place else.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [368.942, 402.173, 415.11], "stop_times": [402.173, 415.11, 416.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 368.942}, "reply_to": "21657__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__0_011", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--I think your formulation is exactly right, Justice Ginsburg.\nIt doesn't matter to us where the cruise is centered.\nWe do, however, and this Court's precedents do, however, leave room for a highly unusual cruise that I'm not aware exists.\nTake, for example, a situation in which a cruise comes from England to the United States.\nIt doesn't pick up any passengers here.\nThey just visit.\nThey stop in 15 other countries.\nThey stop here.\nThe same passengers get up on the ship and leave.\nThis Court's precedents involving maritime choice of law leave room for the conclusion that says, look, we just don't think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [416.375, 418.604, 420.999, 428.429, 433.631, 435.338, 436.687, 437.923, 438.666, 441.161], "stop_times": [418.604, 420.999, 428.429, 433.631, 435.338, 436.687, 437.923, 438.666, 441.161, 447.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 416.375}, "reply_to": "21657__0_010", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_012", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "But if we go back to what is the more usual situation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [447.582], "stop_times": [451.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 447.582}, "reply_to": "21657__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__0_013", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [451.464], "stop_times": [451.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 451.464}, "reply_to": "21657__0_012", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_014", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Then you are, in effect, saying that the U.S. rules the world.\nEven if the home port, the place where this vessel is usually berthed, says we... we don't require our ships to take care of the handicapped, you are, in effect, saying no matter what the other ports say, what the U.S. law is is going to govern because practically if you're going to design the ship to meet the U.S. requirements, you're not going to rip those out when the ship goes elsewhere.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [451.935, 457.136], "stop_times": [457.136, 491.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 451.935}, "reply_to": "21657__0_013", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__0_015", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, we disagree with the characterization that the U.S. rules the world, of course.\nWe're talking about the fact Congress exercised its sovereign authority to control vessels in its ports and internal waters, just as in... take the Cunard example.\nIn the Cunard case, there were countries... and I understand it didn't involve the structure of the ship, but the principle is the same.\nThere were countries that required alcoholic beverages to be on those vessels, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [491.316, 496.517, 506.631, 512.121], "stop_times": [496.517, 506.631, 512.121, 516.745], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 491.316}, "reply_to": "21657__0_014", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_016", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "We... we could... we could require ships that are docked in the United States to pay their crews according to United States Jones Act requirements or United States minimum wage laws and so forth.\nWe don't do that.\nWe could do it, but we don't because it conflicts with... with the law of the flag and... and that's the usual... it's not a matter of our power to do it.\nWe could do it, of course, but it's just not something we ordinarily do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [516.745, 529.749, 530.409, 542.298], "stop_times": [529.749, 530.409, 542.298, 545.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 516.745}, "reply_to": "21657__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__0_017", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Well, Justice Scalia, I actually disagree with your characterization and would like to point you to a couple of precedents.\nThe Benz and McCulloch cases, which are very important to the respondents, were very important to the Fifth Circuit, embody the principle that you just described, to some extent, and that is that when you have a foreign ship in our waters, we will not apply the NLRA to the labor contract between the foreign crew and the foreign vessel.\nBut when Americans are involved, we do apply the NLRA, and that's the Ariadne precedent that the... and... and in fact, Ariadne is the most on point case because it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [545.724, 550.554, 569.047], "stop_times": [550.554, 569.047, 581.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 545.724}, "reply_to": "21657__0_016", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_018", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Was... was that the ship or was it longshoremen?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [581.019], "stop_times": [583.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.019}, "reply_to": "21657__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__0_019", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--It was longshoremen working on the ship complaining about safety conditions on the ship.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [583.126], "stop_times": [586.758], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 583.126}, "reply_to": "21657__0_018", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_020", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Longshoremen.\nLongshoremen based... based on shore.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [586.758, 586.924, 589.07], "stop_times": [586.924, 589.07, 589.32], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 586.758}, "reply_to": "21657__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__0_021", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Based on shore, but so are the passengers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [589.32], "stop_times": [591.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 589.32}, "reply_to": "21657__0_020", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_022", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "That's a different--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [591.299], "stop_times": [591.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 591.299}, "reply_to": "21657__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__0_023", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "But it is a different situation, but I think it's more analogous.\nNot only were the... the protests in Ariadne directed at the safety conditions on the foreign flagged vessel, but they were directed at the passengers.\nIf I could--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [591.838, 595.303, 604.591], "stop_times": [595.303, 604.591, 605.045], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 591.838}, "reply_to": "21657__0_022", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_024", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "What's... what's the scope of what you're talking about here?\nI mean, are... it says cruise ships.\nSo I had assumed those are those big ships that carry people mostly around the Mediterranean from Florida.\nBut based on what you're saying, now I think you're talking about something more.\nAre you talking, for example, about a merchant vessel that comes from, say, Saudi Arabia and has a few passengers?\nWhat's the... what's the scope of the definition?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [605.045, 607.896, 609.875, 615.548, 619.618, 625.768], "stop_times": [607.896, 609.875, 615.548, 619.618, 625.768, 629.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 605.045}, "reply_to": "21657__0_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__0_025", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--The... well, that... the definition... we would have to return to the ADA.\nIf a merchant ship has a few passengers, it would not be a specified form of public transportation or a public accommodation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [629.583, 632.992], "stop_times": [632.992, 640.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 629.583}, "reply_to": "21657__0_024", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_026", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Because?\nIt... what it does is it carries oil, but a certain number of people like to be on a ship with oil, I guess.\nAnd so every... every month they take 12 people and they put them in a cabin somewhere and they love it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [640.794, 641.166, 648.225], "stop_times": [641.166, 648.225, 654.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 640.794}, "reply_to": "21657__0_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__0_027", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--It's cheaper.\nIt's cheaper too.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [654.375, 654.996, 655.739], "stop_times": [654.996, 655.739, 655.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 654.375}, "reply_to": "21657__0_026", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__0_028", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "I'm not aware of... of--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [655.922], "stop_times": [657.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 655.922}, "reply_to": "21657__0_027", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_029", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "No, no.\nI... but all right.\nNow, I'm... I'm being facetious.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [657.475, 657.968, 658.711], "stop_times": [657.968, 658.711, 660.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 657.475}, "reply_to": "21657__0_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__0_030", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [660.197], "stop_times": [660.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 660.197}, "reply_to": "21657__0_029", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_031", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "But I am aware of... of people who have certainly gone on cruises on what is a primarily merchant ship.\nNow that... that I think is a common thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [660.363, 665.853], "stop_times": [665.853, 668.742], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 660.363}, "reply_to": "21657__0_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__0_032", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "If... let me--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [668.742], "stop_times": [670.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 668.742}, "reply_to": "21657__0_031", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_033", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Are you talking... because I think that makes a difference for the reason that once you talk about those, you're talking about primarily foreign flagged vessels that are rarely but sometimes in the United States where the costs would be very high probably to change the ship and the benefit to Americans would be tiny.\nAll right.\nSo I... I want to know what you're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [670.04, 689.054, 689.547], "stop_times": [689.054, 689.547, 691.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 670.04}, "reply_to": "21657__0_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__0_034", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Okay.\nLet me first say... and just to... to lock the point down in that cost is accounted for in the definition of what is readily achievable.\nBut let's go to the definition of specified public transportation because this will tell us what's going to be covered by the ADA.\nAnd just for the transcript, the citation is... this is section 12181(110).\nIt's... it's very short, but it's at the middle of page 12 of the blue brief.\nSpecified public transportation means transportation by bus, rail, or any other conveyance other than by aircraft, which has its own statute, that provides the general public with general or special service on a regular and continuing basis.\nThat too would be covered.\nAnd only the public places on the ship would be covered by it.\nCan I just return briefly to my Ariadne point?\nBecause I just wanted... that's a case where the... the NLRA was applied.\nAnd let me just read to you what the protest was that the NLRA was applied to because it fits perfectly with this case.\nAnd again, for the transcript, this is in the lower court opinion at 215 So.\n2d 53.\nThis was the handbill.\nWarning.\nIs your cruise ship a floating death trap?\nCan a substandard foreign flagged cruise ship turn your holiday into a Holocaust?\nThey were very illiterate.\nIf thousands of unsuspecting Americans continue to place their lives in jeopardy every day on cruises aboard foreign flagged floating fire traps.\nAnd that... that was a foreign flagged ship.\nThey we're concerned about the passengers.\nJustice Scalia, you also gave the example of the Jones Act, but remember that the Rhoditis case and the Uravic case, which involved injuries in the United States, then the Jones Act did apply.\nAnd that was... and Rhoditis was a case in which someone was on the ship and a chain broke and they were injured as a result of it, and U.S. law applied.\nThis is a situation in which millions of people in the United States are spending billions of dollars on cruises, and it seems--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [691.283, 691.488, 699.085, 704.536, 710.685, 714.689, 727.32, 728.313, 732.4, 734.751, 738.466, 745.154, 749.491, 750.521, 751.636, 752.463, 754.913, 758.9, 760.181, 767.035, 769.303, 770.972, 782.389, 791.305], "stop_times": [691.488, 699.085, 704.536, 710.685, 714.689, 727.32, 728.313, 732.4, 734.751, 738.466, 745.154, 749.491, 750.521, 751.636, 752.463, 754.913, 758.9, 760.181, 767.035, 769.303, 770.972, 782.389, 791.305, 799.562], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 691.283}, "reply_to": "21657__0_033", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_035", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Yes, but I... if I understand you correctly, your case really isn't limited to cruise ships.\nIt's limited to ships that come into... passenger ships, which would include the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, all the rest of them.\nWouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [799.562, 803.361, 809.138], "stop_times": [803.361, 809.138, 809.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 799.562}, "reply_to": "21657__0_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__0_036", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Yes, but I... I take it that the... you know--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [809.427], "stop_times": [812.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 809.427}, "reply_to": "21657__0_035", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_037", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "And the fact that it's based in Miami or it had mostly American customers really is not relevant to the legal issue.\nIs it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [812.499, 818.676], "stop_times": [818.676, 819.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 812.499}, "reply_to": "21657__0_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__0_038", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--It... it is in the sense that it makes this the recurring scenario that Congress would have been aware of when it enacted the ADA in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [819.252], "stop_times": [825.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 819.252}, "reply_to": "21657__0_037", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_039", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "But, of course, they would have been aware of those that are also less American in their patronage and so forth.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [825.031], "stop_times": [830.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 825.031}, "reply_to": "21657__0_038", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__0_040", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--That's true.\nIn the very rare case, which I am not aware of, in which a cruise ship comes to the United States, doesn't pick up passengers, then it's possible that the... that the ADA would not apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [830.415, 830.975], "stop_times": [830.975, 840.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 830.415}, "reply_to": "21657__0_039", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_041", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "No, but we're not necessarily thinking of a cruise ship, just the transatlantic liner that goes from Liverpool to Miami or something.\nThat would be covered.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [840.513, 846.662], "stop_times": [846.662, 847.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.513}, "reply_to": "21657__0_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__0_042", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "It would in... in U.S. territory.\nThat's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [847.572, 849.262], "stop_times": [849.262, 849.801], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 847.572}, "reply_to": "21657__0_041", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_043", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "But there's no way they can change the ship structurally when it's in New York and not have it changed structurally when it's in Europe.\nSo the mystery to me at this moment is what is the universe of ships that I would not say fit the ordinary word cruise.\nWhat they are are ships that go between Asia and San Francisco, Los Angeles, or New York and Europe, or maybe through the Suez Canal.\nThey're only here a little bit of the time.\nTheir passengers are mostly not American.\nNow, is that something I should worry about?\nIf that were your case, I would be very worried.\nIf that's just a little bit of... of added significance, then I want to know what to do about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [849.801, 857.603, 868.477, 879.644, 882.328, 885.3, 888.81, 891.987], "stop_times": [857.603, 868.477, 879.644, 882.328, 885.3, 888.81, 891.987, 900.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 849.801}, "reply_to": "21657__0_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__0_044", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Let me tell you what I know, and that is that the other side has not identified any problems of this... this type.\nMy research has not revealed some situation where we have a lot of these ships.\nI did carefully study the... the itineraries of the major cruise lines, and 95 percent plus of all of their trips go out from the United States and come back to the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [900.078, 907.319, 911.102], "stop_times": [907.319, 911.102, 923.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 900.078}, "reply_to": "21657__0_043", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_045", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "But you told me... and I want to make sure this is your answer... that it doesn't matter, that as long as the ship comes to a U.S. port as part of this overall journey, you... you answered that question and I thought that was your candid answer, that it doesn't matter that these... these particular cruise ships ply mostly U.S. waters and U.S. trade and are centered, even have their principal place of business in the United States.\nYou're not concentrating on that category.\nYou are saying that the ADA applies so long as the ship puts in at... at a U.S. port, picks up passengers.\nIt applies not only while it's in the port, but practically for every other place the ship goes.\nThat's why I asked isn't this the United States rules the world on what... your argument you made.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [923.483, 952.273, 955.228, 965.054, 974.054], "stop_times": [952.273, 955.228, 965.054, 974.054, 980.574], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 923.483}, "reply_to": "21657__0_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__0_046", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, here I think is the difference, and that is, that while U.S. law may have an extraterritorial consequence, just like our maritime tort law and the like, you cannot in Europe enforce the ADA.\nThe fact that the structural changes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [980.574, 992.751], "stop_times": [992.751, 994.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.574}, "reply_to": "21657__0_045", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_047", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, you can enforce the... the discrimination provisions, but the structural provisions don't have to be enforced.\nOnce the step is changed, they're not going to change it when they get 3 miles out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [994.238, 1000.515], "stop_times": [1000.515, 1004.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 994.238}, "reply_to": "21657__0_046", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21657__0_048", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--That's right.\nBut Justice... Justice Ginsburg's point... I take it to be a more particular one.\nIt's true that our law will have consequences abroad, but it is not the case that the U.S. rules the world.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1004.352, 1005.095, 1008.522], "stop_times": [1005.095, 1008.522, 1014.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1004.352}, "reply_to": "21657__0_047", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_049", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, it rules the world unless the world does not want to use the United States ports as ports of call.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1014.55], "stop_times": [1021.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1014.55}, "reply_to": "21657__0_048", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21657__0_050", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Justice... Justice Souter, I... I simply disagree, and that is, when you talk about the U.S. ruling the world, in a... in the context, say, of ARAMCO, we talked about the enforceability of U.S. law abroad.\nWhen the United States has tort standards or vehicle manufacturing standards and the like, all of those have consequences abroad for how devices are made and brought into the country.\nBut that doesn't mean that... what's going on is the plenary authority of the United States to enforce its laws in its ports and in its internal waters.\nThat very rule always will have extraterritorial consequences.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1021.237, 1032.959, 1041.875, 1049.677], "stop_times": [1032.959, 1041.875, 1049.677, 1052.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1021.237}, "reply_to": "21657__0_049", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_051", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "We're not questioning the authority.\nWe're questioning whether Congress intended that to be the case.\nWe have a rule that... that requires a clear statement when it has effects of this sort.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1052.733, 1054.136, 1057.562], "stop_times": [1054.136, 1057.562, 1063.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1052.733}, "reply_to": "21657__0_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__0_052", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Justice Scalia, we disagree, and let me just take you to your cases.\nI did that, I think, in the Jones Act and the NLRA context.\nBut let's just state the rule, and that is, from the Wildenhus's Case and that's at page 12.\nForeign law governs matters of discipline and all things done on board which affected only the vessel and those belonging to her and did not involve the peace or dignity of the country or the tranquility of the port.\nAnd what we're talking--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1063.507, 1066.684, 1069.989, 1074.819, 1086.641], "stop_times": [1066.684, 1069.989, 1074.819, 1086.641, 1087.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1063.507}, "reply_to": "21657__0_051", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_053", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "But, Mr. Goldstein, there's another aspect that troubles me.\nYour view, as I understand, only applies while the ship is in American waters so that if, for example, you complain about the training for a safety drill, if they conducted those after they'd gone out 20 miles to sea, there would be... there would be no violation of the... the statue.\nWould there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1087.589, 1089.884, 1103.731], "stop_times": [1089.884, 1103.731, 1104.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1087.589}, "reply_to": "21657__0_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__0_054", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--That is... that is a difficult question.\nWe have not... we have not pleaded such a claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1104.102, 1106.437], "stop_times": [1106.437, 1109.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1104.102}, "reply_to": "21657__0_053", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_055", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "In other words, I'm trying to understand.\nYou don't know what your position is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1109.575, 1110.69], "stop_times": [1110.69, 1112.093], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1109.575}, "reply_to": "21657__0_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__0_056", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1112.093], "stop_times": [1112.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1112.093}, "reply_to": "21657__0_055", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_057", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--with respect to what would otherwise be violations of the statute that occur on the high seas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1112.381], "stop_times": [1116.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1112.381}, "reply_to": "21657__0_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__0_058", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "We do believe it would be covered because the accommodation was purchased here, although we haven't raised the claim in this Court.\nIf I could reserve the remainder--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1116.718, 1122.867], "stop_times": [1122.867, 1124.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1116.718}, "reply_to": "21657__0_057", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_059", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Yes, but I think we should... the cruise ships are entitled to know whether they may freely discriminate against people in the casinos and so forth when they're on the high seas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1124.37], "stop_times": [1132.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1124.37}, "reply_to": "21657__0_058", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__0_060", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--We--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1132.072], "stop_times": [1132.443], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1132.072}, "reply_to": "21657__0_059", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_061", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "You don't know the answer to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1132.443], "stop_times": [1133.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1132.443}, "reply_to": "21657__0_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__0_062", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Justice Stevens, our position is that because of the definition of commerce in the ADA, when you purchase a public accommodation in the United States, that is an agreement to provide a public accommodation and it doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1133.269], "stop_times": [1145.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1133.269}, "reply_to": "21657__0_061", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_063", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "So your view is not limited to what happens in the territorial waters.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1145.696], "stop_times": [1148.956], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1145.696}, "reply_to": "21657__0_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__0_064", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--That is right, although we have... we would win the case on the internal waters and the territorial waters, and we haven't asserted in this Court a claim relating to the high seas.\nIf I could reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1148.956, 1157.146], "stop_times": [1157.146, 1159.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1148.956}, "reply_to": "21657__0_063", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__0_065", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Mr. Salmons, may I ask before you begin whether the United States agrees that the statute would apply to the activities of these ships when they're on the high seas?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1159.192], "stop_times": [1179.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1159.192}, "reply_to": "21657__0_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__1_000", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nWe do not think that title III of the ADA was intended to apply extraterritorially.\nThat said, we think there is a question that would need to be resolved as to whether applying the ADA to a public accommodation that was entered into in the United States, that began in the United States, a necessary term of which we believe would be nondiscrimination, would in fact be an extraterritorial application of U.S. law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1179.997, 1183.236, 1188.914], "stop_times": [1183.236, 1188.914, 1206.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1179.997}, "reply_to": "21657__0_065", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_001", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "When... when the ship is out on the high seas?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1206.913], "stop_times": [1210.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1206.913}, "reply_to": "21657__1_000", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__1_002", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "That's correct, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1210.934], "stop_times": [1212.403], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1210.934}, "reply_to": "21657__1_001", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_003", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "You think that's a hard question--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1212.403], "stop_times": [1213.229], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1212.403}, "reply_to": "21657__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__1_004", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "No.\nWe think the better view--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1213.229, 1213.617], "stop_times": [1213.617, 1214.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1213.229}, "reply_to": "21657__1_003", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_005", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--whether that's an extraterritorial application of U.S. law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1214.815], "stop_times": [1217.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1214.815}, "reply_to": "21657__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__1_006", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--No.\nWe think the better view, in fact, Justice Scalia, is that that would not be an extraterritorial application of U.S. law.\nBut if the Court were to disagree, then we would say title III does not apply at that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1217.399, 1217.649, 1221.447], "stop_times": [1217.649, 1221.447, 1224.912], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1217.399}, "reply_to": "21657__1_005", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_007", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Do you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1224.912], "stop_times": [1225.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1224.912}, "reply_to": "21657__1_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__1_008", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "I don't know what extraterritorial application means if it doesn't mean that, that a ship that is not in the United States is bound by United States law.\nWhat... why isn't that extraterritorial application?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1225.284, 1233.707], "stop_times": [1233.707, 1236.346], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1225.284}, "reply_to": "21657__1_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__1_009", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "The reason, Justice Scalia, would be because the accommodation that was offered, that was entered into, and that began in the United States... and... and I would point out... I think this is important to keep in mind--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1236.346], "stop_times": [1244.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1236.346}, "reply_to": "21657__1_008", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_010", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "What you're saying is it would... I thought you were saying that it would be the enforcement of the domestic contract of which the... the statutory provisions would be an implied term.\nIsn't that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1244.686, 1252.859], "stop_times": [1252.859, 1253.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1244.686}, "reply_to": "21657__1_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21657__1_011", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Yes.\nYes, that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1253.415, 1253.953], "stop_times": [1253.953, 1254.984], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1253.415}, "reply_to": "21657__1_010", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_012", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "It does not apply of its own force.\nIt applies because two parties in the United States contracted that it would apply.\nIs that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1254.984, 1256.925, 1262.581], "stop_times": [1256.925, 1262.581, 1262.953], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1254.984}, "reply_to": "21657__1_011", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21657__1_013", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "That's correct.\nNow... now, I... I would just add that I think it... you could characterize a public accommodation, you know, five nights lodging, for example.\nIf that's entered into in the United States and... and that begins in the United States, that a necessary term of that is nondiscrimination, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1262.953, 1263.901, 1270.959], "stop_times": [1263.901, 1270.959, 1277.564], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1262.953}, "reply_to": "21657__1_012", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_014", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, then if you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1277.564], "stop_times": [1278.307], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1277.564}, "reply_to": "21657__1_013", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__1_015", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--if you have an ADA claim that governs that even if the discrimination occurred abroad, that would only relate to those things tied into the accommodation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1278.307], "stop_times": [1284.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1278.307}, "reply_to": "21657__1_014", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_016", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--But if you're on a round trip ticket from Liverpool to Miami and back, it would depend on where you bought the ticket.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1284.806], "stop_times": [1288.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1284.806}, "reply_to": "21657__1_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__1_017", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, again, we... we think that if accommodation begins here in the United States, that... that a necessary term of that is nondiscrimination.\nNow, whether you characterize that as a contract claim or as a substantive application of the ADA, I'm not sure there's much of a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1288.893, 1296.778], "stop_times": [1296.778, 1303.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1288.893}, "reply_to": "21657__1_016", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_018", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Yes, but Justice Stevens' question is you buy the ticket in Liverpool.\nIs the ADA... an... an American buys the ticket in Liverpool to come to the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1303.176, 1304.847], "stop_times": [1304.847, 1310.335], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1303.176}, "reply_to": "21657__1_017", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21657__1_019", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "To come to the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1310.335], "stop_times": [1310.812], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1310.335}, "reply_to": "21657__1_018", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_020", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Is the ADA an applied term of that contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1310.812], "stop_times": [1313.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1310.812}, "reply_to": "21657__1_019", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21657__1_021", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "I would... I would assume not, although the question then would be whether or not it's a public accommodation that's been offered in the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1313.207], "stop_times": [1319.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1313.207}, "reply_to": "21657__1_020", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_022", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Don't... don't all--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1319.728], "stop_times": [1320.283], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1319.728}, "reply_to": "21657__1_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__1_023", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Even in U.S. waters?\nThat wouldn't make sense.\nAn American buys a ticket in... in Liverpool.\nHe's disabled.\nHe goes to New York, Miami, New Orleans, and he's discriminated at... at each step.\nNo... no coverage just because of where he bought the ticket?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1320.283, 1321.093, 1321.958, 1325.673, 1326.294, 1333.103], "stop_times": [1321.093, 1321.958, 1325.673, 1326.294, 1333.103, 1336.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.283}, "reply_to": "21657__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21657__1_024", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "No, no, Justice Kennedy, that's not our position.\nLet me... let me try and be clear.\nWe think that any vessel that comes into the internal waters and ports of the United States and offers a public accommodation or a specified public transportation service to our residents is subject to the ADA.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1336.613, 1338.183, 1339.009], "stop_times": [1338.183, 1339.009, 1349.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1336.613}, "reply_to": "21657__1_023", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_025", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Do you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1349.822], "stop_times": [1350.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1349.822}, "reply_to": "21657__1_024", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__1_026", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, that means--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1350.122], "stop_times": [1350.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1350.122}, "reply_to": "21657__1_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__1_027", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "If... if you had a situation... I'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1350.815], "stop_times": [1351.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1350.815}, "reply_to": "21657__1_026", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_028", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--No, go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1351.741], "stop_times": [1352.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1351.741}, "reply_to": "21657__1_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__1_029", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "If you had a situation where you had a ship that... let's say, that began in... in Great Britain and came here, it didn't pick up passengers here in the United States, I think that the better view would be, sure, United States law could apply to it because it's in our internal waters, but that as a substantive matter, with regard to the ADA, I don't know why that would be a public accommodation within the meaning of the ADA because it's not an accommodation that's offered--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1352.384], "stop_times": [1373.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1352.384}, "reply_to": "21657__1_028", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_030", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--But do you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1373.189], "stop_times": [1373.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1373.189}, "reply_to": "21657__1_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__1_031", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--or available to United States residents.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1373.849], "stop_times": [1375.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1373.849}, "reply_to": "21657__1_030", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_032", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Do you agree with Mr. Goldstein that nothing turns on... one might characterize this kind of cruise as U.S. centered, but his answer was as long as they put in, a regular cruise stop, they pick up, unload passengers, they take them back again on the ship, so long as they touch base at a U.S. port, letting off and picking up passengers, the ADA applies?\nDo you agree with that interpretation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1375.79, 1404.851], "stop_times": [1404.851, 1406.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1375.79}, "reply_to": "21657__1_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__1_033", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "As I understand what Your Honor just said, I think that I would.\nLet me just clarify, though.\nWe think the relevant question is whether that ship would... has offered a public accommodation or a specified public transportation service--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1406.997, 1409.476, 1410.712], "stop_times": [1409.476, 1410.712, 1417.111], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1406.997}, "reply_to": "21657__1_032", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_034", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "This is my--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1417.111], "stop_times": [1417.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1417.111}, "reply_to": "21657__1_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__1_035", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--in the United States, and if the answer is yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1417.854], "stop_times": [1419.257], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1417.854}, "reply_to": "21657__1_034", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_036", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Let... let me ask you the same question that I asked Mr. Goldstein.\nEven in the Cunard case, the prohibition case, they couldn't have liquor in the U.S. port, but when they leave and they go to Jamaica, they could pick up rum there.\nThey could have liquor all the rest of the time so long as, when they enter and leave the U.S. port, they didn't have the liquor aboard.\nHere what you're saying is what goes in the... for the New York port goes for every other place where this ship puts in.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1419.257, 1423.594, 1436.718, 1445.263], "stop_times": [1423.594, 1436.718, 1445.263, 1456.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1419.257}, "reply_to": "21657__1_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__1_037", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Well, again, I... not as a matter of... not as a matter of extraterritorial application of U.S. law, but that is our position with regard to a public accommodation that begins in the United States.\nI... I think the... the important--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1456.37, 1466.234], "stop_times": [1466.234, 1467.887], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1456.37}, "reply_to": "21657__1_036", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_038", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Suppose it doesn't begin in the United States in that it... it starts in, say, The Bahamas, and stops at--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1467.887], "stop_times": [1478.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1467.887}, "reply_to": "21657__1_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__1_039", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--I should probably should not have said begin, Your Honor.\nWhat I mean is if it... if the public accommodation is provided for in the United States, that would be covered by the terms of the ADA, we think the ADA applies.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1478.14, 1480.269], "stop_times": [1480.269, 1488.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1478.14}, "reply_to": "21657__1_038", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_040", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Then you're saying exactly what everybody is worried about.\nI take it there is no way really for a ship to... they either have the right door or they don't have the right door.\nAnd we're interested in the set of cases in which they're going to have to change their doors.\nAnd what I came in here thinking was we're talking about ships that pick up people and sail in Florida and sail around the Caribbean.\nThat's the... now, I've heard nothing but we're not talking just about those.\nWe are talking about ships like I'm the last human being alive that went on a Swiss ship to Europe.\nOkay?\n[Laughter]\n50 years ago.\nAnd... and we're talking about those ships, or we're talking about merchant ships that also say to the public, come as a passenger.\nNow, I would like to... not what you're arguing.\nYou're going to say, yes, we are arguing it.\nI want to know... say something to relieve my concern about that set, which was Justice Ginsburg's concern.\nWe are trying to rule the world in respect to those ships that only come here occasionally or it isn't a big part of their business, but they want to come to pick up American passengers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1488.814, 1490.179, 1497.898, 1504.108, 1512.016, 1516.474, 1522.008, 1522.751, 1523.411, 1524.254, 1533.192, 1536.636, 1538.477, 1546.817], "stop_times": [1490.179, 1497.898, 1504.108, 1512.016, 1516.474, 1522.008, 1522.751, 1523.411, 1524.254, 1533.192, 1536.636, 1538.477, 1546.817, 1558.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1488.814}, "reply_to": "21657__1_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__1_041", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Sure.\nAnd what I would say with regard to that is that you're right that our broad view is that the ADA applies if that... if they're offering public accommodation here in the United States.\nBut if you reject that, I think there are several ways you could approach that.\nOne would be to apply traditional choice of law factors that are... that are applicable in maritime, and you could conclude, you know, based on sort of whether or not there are sufficient contacts here and whether or not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1558.25, 1558.456, 1564.771, 1567.993], "stop_times": [1558.456, 1564.771, 1567.993, 1578.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1558.25}, "reply_to": "21657__1_040", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_042", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, you're saying that this is your position, but don't worry about it because we'll reject your position?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1578.518], "stop_times": [1582.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1578.518}, "reply_to": "21657__1_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21657__1_043", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--No, no.\nHe asked me to say something that... that would... would help his concerns.\nWhat I'm trying to say--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1582.399, 1582.687, 1585.826], "stop_times": [1582.687, 1585.826, 1586.902], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1582.399}, "reply_to": "21657__1_042", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_044", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "One thing might be true, what you're not saying, is there really aren't very many of those ships, or another thing you might say, which you're not saying because maybe isn't true, is almost all of those ships that there are are already subject to tougher... tougher rules, say, in Europe.\nBut you don't say either of those.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1586.902, 1600.277], "stop_times": [1600.277, 1602.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1586.902}, "reply_to": "21657__1_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__1_045", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--No.\nNo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1602.173, 1602.628], "stop_times": [1602.628, 1603.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1602.173}, "reply_to": "21657__1_044", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_046", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Since you don't you say either of those, I think neither may be true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1603.166], "stop_times": [1605.024], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1603.166}, "reply_to": "21657__1_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__1_047", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Well, I don't know the specific number.\nI would think that there are not many that the... that this... what you're concerned with primarily here are cruise ships that are in the business of providing public accommodations.\nBut I would add as well... and I think this is very important that the Court keep in mind... that the clear statement rule, as it's... as it's posited by respondent here, would not just apply to the ADA.\nIt would apply to all U.S. laws, and that would include title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in its prohibition of racial discrimination, and I would find that that would be a remarkable construction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1605.024, 1605.933, 1612.166, 1621.371], "stop_times": [1605.933, 1612.166, 1621.371, 1632.023], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1605.024}, "reply_to": "21657__1_046", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_048", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--It depends on what... what kind of laws you're talking about.\nLaws that require the crew to be treated differently are... are quite different from law... laws that... that require a passenger to be treated a certain way in the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1632.023, 1634.002], "stop_times": [1634.002, 1645.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1632.023}, "reply_to": "21657__1_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__1_049", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Justice Scalia, you're correct, and that's precisely why they have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1645.852], "stop_times": [1648.12], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1645.852}, "reply_to": "21657__1_048", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_050", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "And laws... laws that require structural alteration of a ship are quite different from laws that say while you're in United States waters, you won't discriminate on the basis of race.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1648.12], "stop_times": [1657.408], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1648.12}, "reply_to": "21657__1_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__1_051", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--If... two... two responses, if I may, Your Honor.\nAnd that is, if you... if that is the conclusion you reach, then you still need to remand this case because there are an awful number of claims that are precisely those kinds of claims that the Fifth Circuit would not allow.\nSecondly, I think you're wrong with regard to the scope of the clear statement requirement.\nThere is no requirement that you have to have a clear statement to apply a U.S. law to a foreign vessel.\nThere is only a requirement that you need a clear statement if the conduct at issue would relate only to the internal matters of that vessel.\nAnd here you're dealing with public accommodation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1657.408, 1660.008, 1667.976, 1671.897, 1676.355, 1682.837], "stop_times": [1660.008, 1667.976, 1671.897, 1676.355, 1682.837, 1684.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1657.408}, "reply_to": "21657__1_050", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_052", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "If we haven't expressed it yet, we ought to express it then.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1684.861], "stop_times": [1686.552], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1684.861}, "reply_to": "21657__1_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__1_053", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Well, I disagree, Your Honor.\nAnd what I would point you to is... is that the long... every time this Court has spoken with regard to the clear statement requirement relating to foreign flagged ships, it has referred to the internal order doctrine.\nAnd that is embodied in a number of bilateral agreements that go back for centuries.\nThe... the treaty that was at issue in the Wildenhus's Case expressly said that if the... if the conduct did not relate to members of the crew but to passengers or other members of the port state or otherwise affected the interests of the port state, that the port state law would apply.\nAnd that is the general rule.\nThe international regime that governs this area by its terms provide minimum standards and leaves it available to port states and to flag states to add additional requirements.\nThat would mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1686.552, 1687.295, 1696.583, 1700.548, 1715.985, 1717.183, 1728.224], "stop_times": [1687.295, 1696.583, 1700.548, 1715.985, 1717.183, 1728.224, 1728.846], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1686.552}, "reply_to": "21657__1_052", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_054", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Mr. Salmons, one of the alternatives you threw out, not as a response to clear statement, but as a... a response to the issue that was being raised by it, was the provision of the statute that it was intended to exercise the... the fullest extent of the... of the commerce power.\nAnd The... The Bahamas respond to that by saying you could have said exactly... or argued exactly the same thing in McCulloch.\nWhat is your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1728.846, 1744.199, 1752.706], "stop_times": [1744.199, 1752.706, 1754.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1728.846}, "reply_to": "21657__1_053", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21657__1_055", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Well, I... I would disagree with that on... on a couple of respects.\nThe first is that the definition of commerce here is broader than it was and specifically refers to travel between the United States and foreign countries.\nThe only other statute we're aware of that says that is title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.\nIn addition--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1754.23, 1757.946, 1764.344, 1770.167], "stop_times": [1757.946, 1764.344, 1770.167, 1770.743], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1754.23}, "reply_to": "21657__1_054", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_056", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, may I just ask you a... a factual question?\nI didn't go back to the text to check this.\nDoes the text of this statute say in these words basically we are exercising the fullest possible extent of the commerce power?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1770.743, 1772.685, 1774.747], "stop_times": [1772.685, 1774.747, 1784.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1770.743}, "reply_to": "21657__1_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21657__1_057", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Absolutely, Justice Souter.\nWhat... what the text of the statute says--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1784.945, 1785.482], "stop_times": [1785.482, 1787.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1784.945}, "reply_to": "21657__1_056", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_058", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "And it's not in McCulloch.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1787.053], "stop_times": [1787.508], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1787.053}, "reply_to": "21657__1_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21657__1_059", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--That's correct.\nWhat the text of this statute says is that... in fact, this is the definition of commerce that relates only to title III of ADA.\nAnd it says precisely that it includes travel between foreign countries and the United States and that Congress was intending to... to reach the full sweep of its... its constitutional authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1787.508, 1788.251, 1793.906], "stop_times": [1788.251, 1793.906, 1805.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1787.508}, "reply_to": "21657__1_058", "speaker": "david_b_salmons"}
{"id": "21657__1_060", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Salmons.\nMr. Frederick.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1805.136, 1806.538], "stop_times": [1806.538, 1812.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1805.136}, "reply_to": "21657__1_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__2_000", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThis case is about congressional intent not congressional power.\nCongress undoubtedly has the power--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1812.028, 1821.399, 1826.313], "stop_times": [1821.399, 1826.313, 1828.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1812.028}, "reply_to": "21657__1_060", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_001", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Could you address the last point?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1828.913], "stop_times": [1830.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1828.913}, "reply_to": "21657__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21657__2_002", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Yes.\nIt was not the fullest extent of the commerce power.\nThat statute was at issue in this Court's case concerning the Lanham Act where the Court said that a violation of the Lanham Act that occurred in Mexico but had an effect in the United States was intended to be covered by Congress because that commerce clause, Justice Souter, did state to the fullest extent of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.\nThis statute does not say that.\nThis statute talks about commerce in and between States and territories, and it is much closer to the statute language that this Court addressed in the ARAMCO case where--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1830.111, 1830.521, 1833.864, 1856.321, 1858.263], "stop_times": [1830.521, 1833.864, 1856.321, 1858.263, 1869.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1830.111}, "reply_to": "21657__2_001", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_003", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "So it... it doesn't have the fullest extent language then.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1869.53], "stop_times": [1871.842], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1869.53}, "reply_to": "21657__2_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21657__2_004", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--That's correct.\nThat's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1871.842, 1872.396], "stop_times": [1872.396, 1873.245], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1871.842}, "reply_to": "21657__2_003", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_005", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "How does it compare to title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1873.245], "stop_times": [1877.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1873.245}, "reply_to": "21657__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__2_006", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, there are slight differences in the language, but I don't think that's dispositive because title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which this Court addressed in the ARAMCO case, the Court... the Chief Justice's opinion there said that that language was not enough to express the intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1877.126], "stop_times": [1894.05], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1877.126}, "reply_to": "21657__2_005", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_007", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "So that would be the same for title II, which is the public accommodations part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.\nSo I take it that you are saying that on these foreign flagged vessels, just as the ADA would be inapplicable, so title II, the public accommodations part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, would be inapplicable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1894.05, 1900.077], "stop_times": [1900.077, 1918.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1894.05}, "reply_to": "21657__2_006", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__2_008", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "It's all a question of congressional intent, Justice Ginsburg, and there's no indication of an intent that Congress needed to address any problem that arose with respect to that form of discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1918.16], "stop_times": [1929.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1918.16}, "reply_to": "21657__2_007", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_009", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "So your... but your answer is, there being no such indication, that a ship putting in at a U.S. port was free to discriminate among its passengers on the basis of race.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1929.593], "stop_times": [1945.485], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1929.593}, "reply_to": "21657__2_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__2_010", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, there would be no U.S. congressional statute that would address that, Justice Ginsburg.\nThere would be a violation of the Bahamian constitution which prohibits--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1945.485, 1950.111], "stop_times": [1950.111, 1954.569], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1945.485}, "reply_to": "21657__2_009", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_011", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "I'm asking about the U.S. law and policy which says no segregation, no discrimination in places of public accommodation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1954.569], "stop_times": [1964.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1954.569}, "reply_to": "21657__2_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__2_012", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--As I said, I'm not aware that there has ever been an instance of that in the cruise industry.\nCongress has not addressed that.\nWe're talking about foreign ships here.\nAnd I want to get back to the structural features of the ship because the ADA fundamentally--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1964.311, 1968.937, 1970.794, 1973.311], "stop_times": [1968.937, 1970.794, 1973.311, 1978.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1964.311}, "reply_to": "21657__2_011", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_013", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, but this is a good question, and what is your position?\nThat the ship could engage in racial discrimination while in U.S. ports on the selling of tickets and the provision of accommodations while in U.S. ports and within the 3--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1978.058, 1981.484], "stop_times": [1981.484, 1995.89], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1978.058}, "reply_to": "21657__2_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21657__2_014", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, our position is that Congress has not spoken to the question, and so there is no congressional statute that is on point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [1995.89], "stop_times": [2004.618], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1995.89}, "reply_to": "21657__2_013", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_015", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Then your answer, I take it, is yes, it can discriminate and it can discriminate because Congress has not told it not to.\nIs that it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2004.618, 2011.783], "stop_times": [2011.783, 2012.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2004.618}, "reply_to": "21657__2_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21657__2_016", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "No.\nOur position is that it can't discriminate because a different law proscribes that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2012.526, 2012.709], "stop_times": [2012.709, 2017.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2012.526}, "reply_to": "21657__2_015", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_017", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "So far as United States law is concerned, it could.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2017.606], "stop_times": [2020.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2017.606}, "reply_to": "21657__2_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21657__2_018", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2020.411], "stop_times": [2021.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2020.411}, "reply_to": "21657__2_017", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_019", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "And the same answer for 1981?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2021.321], "stop_times": [2025.036], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2021.321}, "reply_to": "21657__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__2_020", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, as I said, Congress has not extended its laws to the full reach of U.S. territorial power, and this Court has maintained that position ever since the Charming Betsy case 200 years ago, The Schooner Exchange case, and Brown v. Duchesne.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2025.036], "stop_times": [2041.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2025.036}, "reply_to": "21657__2_019", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_021", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, let's put it this way.\nSo my understanding of your answer is that we could write an opinion ruling for you but leaving these other questions open?\nI don't see how we can do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2041.754, 2042.663, 2052.694], "stop_times": [2042.663, 2052.694, 2054.386], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2041.754}, "reply_to": "21657__2_020", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21657__2_022", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "What you say, Justice Kennedy, is that the clear statement canon requires Congress to say when it intends to apply a law to a foreign vessel.\nCongress didn't do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2054.386, 2063.84], "stop_times": [2063.84, 2065.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.386}, "reply_to": "21657__2_021", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_023", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "But if I'm writing the opinion and I put that down and rule for you, it seems to me that I then answered necessarily Justice Ginsburg's question in the negative.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2065.243], "stop_times": [2074.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2065.243}, "reply_to": "21657__2_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21657__2_024", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "You do, Justice Kennedy.\nAnd just as this Court in the ARAMCO case said that title VII doesn't apply to the foreign... work in a foreign land by an American company of an American--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2074.159, 2075.646], "stop_times": [2075.646, 2084.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2074.159}, "reply_to": "21657__2_023", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_025", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "But these--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2084.645], "stop_times": [2085.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2084.645}, "reply_to": "21657__2_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21657__2_026", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, Congress hasn't extended criminal laws of the United States to the full reach of U.S. power.\nIt is only proscribed 15 offenses that will apply in the special maritime jurisdiction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2085.217, 2093.562], "stop_times": [2093.562, 2100.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2085.217}, "reply_to": "21657__2_025", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_027", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Mr. Frederick, this is... this is what concerns me about your answer.\nI know that Mr. Goldstein took the position that it doesn't matter what kind of operation this is, but the operation that we're dealing with, it sells tickets mainly to... what percentage of its passengers are from the U.S.A.?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2100.249, 2102.19], "stop_times": [2102.19, 2120.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2100.249}, "reply_to": "21657__2_026", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__2_028", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Approximately two thirds to three quarters in any given year.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2120.411], "stop_times": [2124.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2120.411}, "reply_to": "21657__2_027", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_029", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "And does it normally start the voyage and end it in U.S. ports?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2124.192], "stop_times": [2131.457], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2124.192}, "reply_to": "21657__2_028", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__2_030", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "The majority of them do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2131.457], "stop_times": [2133.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2131.457}, "reply_to": "21657__2_029", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_031", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "And how much of its advertising budget is pitched at U.S. customers?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2133.936], "stop_times": [2138.887], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2133.936}, "reply_to": "21657__2_030", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__2_032", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, there... all of those questions are going to be answered as a predominant marketing effort, et cetera is directed to the U.S. market.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2138.887], "stop_times": [2148.425], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2138.887}, "reply_to": "21657__2_031", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_033", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, this is the anomaly.\nYou're asking us to buy an interpretation.\nAn enterprise is U.S. centered in terms of where it gets its business and that enterprise, nonetheless, is not bound by what is our bedrock anti discrimination law both with regard to customers, passengers, and employment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2148.425, 2149.373, 2151.973], "stop_times": [2149.373, 2151.973, 2173.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.425}, "reply_to": "21657__2_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__2_034", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "And the reason, Justice Ginsburg, is that that law imposes structural changes on vessels that go to other ports.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2173.15], "stop_times": [2181.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2173.15}, "reply_to": "21657__2_033", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_035", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Why don't you... why don't you try to draw that line?\nWhy don't you say that just as the applicability or not may depend upon whether you're dealing with a crew of a foreign ship or whether you're dealing with an American who happens to be injured on board that ship, so also it may depend upon whether the antidiscrimination law in question is one that at least in some of its applications requires structural changes or not?\nThat would enable you to say the ADA doesn't apply, but would not compel you to say that title II doesn't apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2181.035, 2183.447, 2209.453], "stop_times": [2183.447, 2209.453, 2216.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2181.035}, "reply_to": "21657__2_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__2_036", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "We are talking--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2216.224], "stop_times": [2217.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2216.224}, "reply_to": "21657__2_035", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_037", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "You're not willing to take such a limited position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2217.588], "stop_times": [2219.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2217.588}, "reply_to": "21657__2_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__2_038", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Well, Justice Scalia, I think the Court could certainly carve out in its clear... articulation of the clear statement principle some of these lines.\nIt becomes very--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2219.65, 2229.681], "stop_times": [2229.681, 2230.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2219.65}, "reply_to": "21657__2_037", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_039", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Well, the ADA itself makes an exception for things that aren't readily achievable.\nI mean, you could certainly lean on that because a structural change probably isn't readily achievable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2230.796, 2236.163], "stop_times": [2236.163, 2243.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2230.796}, "reply_to": "21657__2_038", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21657__2_040", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Justice O'Connor, Congress, when it talked about readily achievable, did so in terms of cost.\nIt didn't do so in terms of conflict with the laws of other nations or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2243.239, 2248.879], "stop_times": [2248.879, 2253.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2243.239}, "reply_to": "21657__2_039", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_041", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, is there... is there... I mean, you're giving me the answer I thought the other side would give me.\nAll right?\nAnd I appreciate it actually.\n[Laughter]\nYou say that two thirds of these people, the customers, are American.\nSo we're dealing with a business that is primarily American, not a business like the Swiss ship except in exceptional cases.\nThen you say, all right, still it's a problem because of structural changes we'll have to make.\nWhat changes?\nThat is to say, I would have thought I could have read, but I haven't, that other countries like Europe also have discrimination laws against disabled people, and therefore, given that fact and given the document that Mr. Goldstein produced, it is highly unlikely that your clients will have to make any significant structural change that they wouldn't have had to make anyway.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2253.17, 2257.628, 2258.082, 2260.479, 2260.889, 2264.482, 2272.246, 2278.023, 2279.509], "stop_times": [2257.628, 2258.082, 2260.479, 2260.889, 2264.482, 2272.246, 2278.023, 2279.509, 2305.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2253.17}, "reply_to": "21657__2_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__2_042", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2305.228], "stop_times": [2305.649], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2305.228}, "reply_to": "21657__2_041", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_043", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Now, what's the response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2305.649], "stop_times": [2306.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2305.649}, "reply_to": "21657__2_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__2_044", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Well, that's completely false.\nIn... in the year 2000, the United States Government issued a report that contained an extensive appendix, which we've cited in our brief, that details in laborious detail the conflicts between land based ADA standards and SOLAS.\nNow, I can give you some specifics, if you would... that are fairly practical, such as the ADA requires under the interpretation advanced by the petitioners that there be a disabled access cabin on every level of the ship, but SOLAS requires that passengers with disabilities be placed near evacuation points.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2306.797, 2307.89, 2323.227], "stop_times": [2307.89, 2323.227, 2345.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2306.797}, "reply_to": "21657__2_043", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_045", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Why... why can't you just fight that battle by battle on what's reasonably achievable?\nBecause in order to avoid that problem, what you're telling us is that a cruise line can charge a... a disabled person double the price--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2345.89, 2350.448], "stop_times": [2350.448, 2360.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2345.89}, "reply_to": "21657__2_044", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21657__2_046", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "As a matter of fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2360.296], "stop_times": [2361.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2360.296}, "reply_to": "21657__2_045", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_047", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--because they're a nuisance.\nAnd that's your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2361.205, 2362.032], "stop_times": [2362.032, 2363.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2361.205}, "reply_to": "21657__2_046", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21657__2_048", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, as a matter of fact, we categorically deny the claims of discrimination here.\nWe're having to fight this on the basis of assuming the... the allegations are true, but they are categorically false.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2363.639, 2369.666, 2375.794], "stop_times": [2369.666, 2375.794, 2376.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2363.639}, "reply_to": "21657__2_047", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_049", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "But it doesn't matter what you want to do as a matter of good will.\nThe question is what the law requires you to do, and you're saying it's up to us, we govern.\nYou're not governed by U.S. antidiscrimination law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2376.354, 2380.236, 2386.263], "stop_times": [2380.236, 2386.263, 2390.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2376.354}, "reply_to": "21657__2_048", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__2_050", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, what the other side wants is a case by case method of decision making in which a district judge becomes the special master of the cruise industry so that each claim of discrimination that would require some modification to the ship--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2390.1], "stop_times": [2406.342], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2390.1}, "reply_to": "21657__2_049", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_051", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "That happens to every employer under... in the United States under the reasonably achievable standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2406.342], "stop_times": [2410.45], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2406.342}, "reply_to": "21657__2_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21657__2_052", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--And that's why, Justice Kennedy, it's a question of congressional intent.\nThe very same Congress debated extensively about whether to impose design requirements on foreign ships in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, and it decided to buck the international system knowingly by imposing a design requirement that double hulls be imposed on oil tankers, foreign oil tankers.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2410.45, 2413.877], "stop_times": [2413.877, 2433.901], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2410.45}, "reply_to": "21657__2_051", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_053", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Mr. Frederick, that brings up a question I've been meaning to ask you.\nTo what extent was this whole problem of the application of this statute to the foreign vessels discussed in the legislative history of these statutes?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2433.901, 2434.81], "stop_times": [2434.81, 2444.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2433.901}, "reply_to": "21657__2_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__2_054", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Zero.\nThere is not one word about vessel--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2444.265, 2444.841], "stop_times": [2444.841, 2447.07], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2444.265}, "reply_to": "21657__2_053", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_055", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "All right.\nIf... if that's so and if you look at the earlier cases... but all I could get out it is that those earlier cases... the Court tries to do what it really would have thought Congress would have intended in the circumstances.\nAnd if that's so, why wouldn't Congress really have intended that a business that's two thirds American has to abide by American law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2447.07, 2447.253, 2458.177], "stop_times": [2447.253, 2458.177, 2466.844], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2447.07}, "reply_to": "21657__2_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__2_056", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Because it was encroaching on an area of foreign sovereignty.\nForeign ships are governed by foreign laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2466.844, 2470.27], "stop_times": [2470.27, 2473.326], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2466.844}, "reply_to": "21657__2_055", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_057", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Does... does Britain... or does Britain or does the European Union, for example, forbid you to charge this double price?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2473.326], "stop_times": [2478.072], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2473.326}, "reply_to": "21657__2_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__2_058", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2478.072], "stop_times": [2479.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2478.072}, "reply_to": "21657__2_057", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_059", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Does European law... I'd be surprised if it doesn't forbid it, but do you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2479.558], "stop_times": [2483.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2479.558}, "reply_to": "21657__2_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__2_060", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--I... I don't know the answer to European law on charging of an additional price, but I would point out that pricing, like evacuation procedures, do go to the structure of the vessel.\nAnd we're talking here fundamentally in the ADA about structural changes that they want to impose that go... when ships travel, they can't dismantle those structural changes when they leave U.S. waters.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2483.523, 2494.092], "stop_times": [2494.092, 2506.519], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2483.523}, "reply_to": "21657__2_059", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_061", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Mr.... may I ask this question to you?\nWhat about a... an American-flagged ship?\nDoes the statute apply or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2506.519, 2507.3, 2509.491], "stop_times": [2507.3, 2509.491, 2511.015], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2506.519}, "reply_to": "21657__2_060", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__2_062", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, the Fifth Circuit reserved that question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2511.015], "stop_times": [2514.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2511.015}, "reply_to": "21657__2_061", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_063", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "What is your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2514.238], "stop_times": [2514.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2514.238}, "reply_to": "21657__2_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__2_064", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Our view is that there are arguments that can be made that it does not because Congress didn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2514.897], "stop_times": [2519.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2514.897}, "reply_to": "21657__2_063", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_065", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "What is your view?\nNot what arguments can be made.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2520.925, 2519.622], "stop_times": [2519.622, 2521.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2520.925}, "reply_to": "21657__2_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__2_066", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Well, I think--\n[Laughter]\nNo.\nI think our view is that it doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2521.751, 2522.494, 2522.627, 2522.866], "stop_times": [2522.494, 2522.627, 2522.866, 2524.063], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2521.751}, "reply_to": "21657__2_065", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_067", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "It does not apply.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2524.063], "stop_times": [2524.806], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2524.063}, "reply_to": "21657__2_066", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__2_068", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "It does not apply because Congress didn't express the intent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2524.806], "stop_times": [2526.952], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2524.806}, "reply_to": "21657__2_067", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_069", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "So really, we're not concerned with the fact this is a foreign flagged ship.\nYou're concerned with the fact it's a ship.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2526.952, 2529.431], "stop_times": [2529.431, 2531.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2526.952}, "reply_to": "21657__2_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__2_070", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "The... there's a difference and... and there are about 1,000 U.S. flagged ships that carry passengers, so that if Congress had given any thought to the question, it is reasonable to suppose it might have distinguished between U.S. ships for which U.S. law directly governs and foreign ships that are governed by a different law.\nThe fact--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2531.494, 2549.864], "stop_times": [2549.864, 2550.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2531.494}, "reply_to": "21657__2_069", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_071", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Do we need... do we need a clear statement for United States ships?\nI thought your case rested on a clear statement requirement.\nIs there any clear statement requirement for U.S. ships?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2550.336, 2553.125, 2556.402], "stop_times": [2553.125, 2556.402, 2558.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2550.336}, "reply_to": "21657__2_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__2_072", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--No, no, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2558.865], "stop_times": [2560.101], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2558.865}, "reply_to": "21657__2_071", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_073", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "So why... why isn't there a clear difference between the two?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2560.101], "stop_times": [2563.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2560.101}, "reply_to": "21657__2_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__2_074", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Because there aren't any words in the statute that go to ships.\nThe best they can do is a catchall phrase at the end of bus, rail, and any other means of conveyance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2563.156, 2567.054], "stop_times": [2567.054, 2575.333], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2563.156}, "reply_to": "21657__2_073", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_075", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, that's pretty good.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2575.333], "stop_times": [2576.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2575.333}, "reply_to": "21657__2_074", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__2_076", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, it's not--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2576.698, 2577.562], "stop_times": [2577.562, 2578.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2576.698}, "reply_to": "21657__2_075", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_077", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "If you don't require a clear statement, that's... that's good enough, it seems to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2578.305], "stop_times": [2586.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2578.305}, "reply_to": "21657__2_076", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__2_078", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2586.44], "stop_times": [2586.679], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2586.44}, "reply_to": "21657__2_077", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_079", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Your... your case hangs on the fact that, you know, when Congress wants to... to rule the world and say all ships in the... in the world that touch at our ports have to have this kind of a thing, it says so clearly.\nIt doesn't have to say so with perfect clarity with respect to American ships.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2586.679, 2598.279], "stop_times": [2598.279, 2602.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2586.679}, "reply_to": "21657__2_078", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__2_080", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--With respect to foreign ships, there is a clear statement rule and that clear statement rule is embodied in the fact that a foreign ship is governed by the law of the flag state where it is registered.\nThat's been the rule for 200 years.\nAnd the other side's position--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2602.904, 2613.966, 2615.741], "stop_times": [2613.966, 2615.741, 2617.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2602.904}, "reply_to": "21657__2_079", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_081", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, is that limited, though, just to things that affect the internal order of the ship?\nIs that the context in which we've articulated that rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2617.515, 2622.966], "stop_times": [2622.966, 2626.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2617.515}, "reply_to": "21657__2_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21657__2_082", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Well, it's been articulated in several different contexts.\nIn the Brown v. Duchesne case, the Court 150 years ago articulated in a patent case where the Court said that a patented device on the ship, which was the French ship in Boston Harbor infringing an American patentholder, would not apply U.S. patent law.\nAnd the Court said, because we can't conceive that Congress would have imagined this general language to encroach on the sovereignty of a foreign ship.\nNow, the other side has exactly two sentences to say about that case, but that is the case that is directly on point because that case says that when you are dealing with American laws that are generally written, you would not ordinarily apply them to a foreign ship unless Congress said so specifically.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2626.226, 2629.775, 2647.32, 2654.75], "stop_times": [2629.775, 2647.32, 2654.75, 2672.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2626.226}, "reply_to": "21657__2_081", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_083", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "But... but in that case, there was... as I understand it, there was no legal relationship of any sort between the supplier of the patent infringing object and the ship in the United States.\nSo it at least made sense to classify that with internal order as opposed to external relationships arguably involving... or implicating American law.\nYou've got exactly the opposite situation here.\nYou've got contracts made in the United States with the foreign cruise line.\nYou didn't have that in your patent case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2672.294, 2687.898, 2700.984, 2704.056, 2710.439], "stop_times": [2687.898, 2700.984, 2704.056, 2710.439, 2712.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2672.294}, "reply_to": "21657__2_082", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21657__2_084", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, Justice Souter, you have a foreign ship owned by a foreign corporation built in a foreign country under foreign engineering standards--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2712.668], "stop_times": [2720.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2712.668}, "reply_to": "21657__2_083", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_085", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "With its principal place of business in the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2720.22], "stop_times": [2721.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2720.22}, "reply_to": "21657__2_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__2_086", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--For a time before that ship moves into another market.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2721.889], "stop_times": [2724.761], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2721.889}, "reply_to": "21657__2_085", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_087", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Its significant external... its significant commercial relationships are in the United States with people in the United States performed partially in the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2724.761], "stop_times": [2736.073], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2724.761}, "reply_to": "21657__2_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21657__2_088", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "In just the same way that McCulloch the Court said that labor standards for a course of business that is regular between Honduras and the United States is not going to be sufficient to apply--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2736.073], "stop_times": [2747.014], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2736.073}, "reply_to": "21657__2_087", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_089", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "The crew members were Honduran in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2747.014], "stop_times": [2748.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.014}, "reply_to": "21657__2_088", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__2_090", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--They were.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2748.993], "stop_times": [2749.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2748.993}, "reply_to": "21657__2_089", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_091", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "This... if you just look at it, suppose you were not a lawyer and you look at this operation.\nYou'd say that's got U.S.A. written all over it.\nThe passengers are from the U.S.A..\nThe company is centered in Florida.\nAnd then you have this flag of convenience that it flies which can legitimately govern the relationship with its crew.\nBut to say that it governs the relationship with passengers, it seems to me very strange.\nAnd also the ticket says, passenger, if you're going to sue us, it's got to be in the United States and under U.S. law to boot.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2749.281, 2754.937, 2757.705, 2759.85, 2762.906, 2771.284, 2781.686], "stop_times": [2754.937, 2757.705, 2759.85, 2762.906, 2771.284, 2781.686, 2790.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2749.281}, "reply_to": "21657__2_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__2_092", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "But a choice of law clause, Justice Ginsburg, has never been held to incorporate law in the sense that laws that don't apply are going to be incorporated.\nI'm not aware of any choice of law clause that... that simply takes in every domestic statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2790.231, 2798.654], "stop_times": [2798.654, 2804.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2790.231}, "reply_to": "21657__2_091", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_093", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Just... it's just one other indicia that one looks at this operation and says this belongs to the U.S.A..\nA practical judgment, I think, would come down there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2804.31, 2811.247], "stop_times": [2811.247, 2818.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2804.31}, "reply_to": "21657__2_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__2_094", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "And... and you would have... under their theory, you would have the Consumer Products Safety Act, the Food and Drug Act, OSHA, all sorts of other statutes of general application that are now going to be imposed on foreign vessels simply because they do a lot of business in the United States.\nThe problem here, as a matter of congressional intent, is we don't know what Congress thought about this, and because Congress--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2818.1, 2833.35], "stop_times": [2833.35, 2840.597], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2818.1}, "reply_to": "21657__2_093", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_095", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well, we... we do... we do have the rule if it... if it applies to the internal operations of the ship, and so far as the crew is concerned, the Jones Act and OSHA, it seems to me, may well be governed by the law of the flag.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2840.597], "stop_times": [2851.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2840.597}, "reply_to": "21657__2_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21657__2_096", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--And the internal operations of the ship, Justice Kennedy, is part and parcel of how it is designed, what are the evacuation points, how are the cabins laid out, what ramps are placed where, how... everything about the ship's design--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2851.993], "stop_times": [2865.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2851.993}, "reply_to": "21657__2_095", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_097", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "That's a part of the case I'm not sure about, and it seems to me, again, it can be fought out under the reasonably achievable--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2865.943], "stop_times": [2871.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2865.943}, "reply_to": "21657__2_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21657__2_098", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--It doesn't... Justice Kennedy, the problem with that theory is it just doesn't comport with the language of... of the statute.\nCongress didn't think in terms of... as it did in the Oil Pollution Act, it said, if there's a conflict with international law, work it out.\nGet the Coast Guard with the foreign nations and work out the conflict.\nIt didn't put anything like that in this statute, which is a further indication that if Congress wants to extend this kind of disability protection, it can do that, but it ought to do so willingly.\nAnd the Government has had 13 years to come up with rules that would govern cruise ships, and the best they've done, a few days before the top side briefs in this case were filed, is to issue proposed draft guidelines for ferries, not cruise ships.\nMost of the regulations that they are pointing to wouldn't have an application to a large passenger cruise ship.\nIf Congress wants to change this, it certainly has the power, but this Court need not open up a Pandora's box of domestic legislation to apply to foreign ships where Congress has not expressed the intent to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2871.905, 2878.742, 2886.46, 2889.888, 2901.384, 2919.61, 2926.175], "stop_times": [2878.742, 2886.46, 2889.888, 2901.384, 2919.61, 2926.175, 2939.012], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2871.905}, "reply_to": "21657__2_097", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_099", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Could you go back to Justice Breyer's question about the number of foreign ships?\nOnce we get beyond cruise lines, does it... would... would the... the application on your view cover the... the dozen passengers who decide they want to take a trip on a... on a cargo boat?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2939.012, 2943.653], "stop_times": [2943.653, 2955.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2939.012}, "reply_to": "21657__2_098", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21657__2_100", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Yes.\nI don't perceive a limiting principle to the other side's position.\nIn fact, there's an amicus brief written where there's only one or two stops in the United States a year, and under their view, that ship would be governed by the ADA as well.\nIf... if Congress wants to enact these limits, it's certainly free to do so, but this is a highly complex area and ships are different from land based accommodations because you have to be able to evacuate people within 30 minutes.\nAnd so when we train people, we have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2955.237, 2955.558, 2958.414, 2969.105, 2983.677], "stop_times": [2955.558, 2958.414, 2969.105, 2983.677, 2986.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2955.237}, "reply_to": "21657__2_099", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_101", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "But doesn't it... on the other... on the other side of the coin, apart from the structural problem... and I understand the arguments on both sides there.\nWith respect to things like safety drills and access to gambling tables and all that, it seems to me that your answer to that would be, well, we'll just do that once we're on the high seas so there's no conflict with the statute when we're out there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [2986.733, 2991.896], "stop_times": [2991.896, 3004.732], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2986.733}, "reply_to": "21657__2_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__2_102", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--As a matter of fact, Justice Stevens, we give evacuation drills to the disabled in a different way.\nWe have special access and assistance squads that go to persons with physical challenges to get them off the vessel in an event of a... a need for evacuation.\nThat's a different procedure than most passengers, but it's... it is one that is in place.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3004.732, 3009.562, 3020.253], "stop_times": [3009.562, 3020.253, 3024.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3004.732}, "reply_to": "21657__2_101", "speaker": "david_c_frederick"}
{"id": "21657__2_103", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Frederick.\nMr. Garre.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3024.711, 3026.28], "stop_times": [3026.28, 3031.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3024.711}, "reply_to": "21657__2_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__3_000", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nApplying title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act to foreign flagged vessels would invite precisely the sort of international discord, conflict, and confusion that Congress presumably seeks to avoid when it writes American laws.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3031.581, 3035.402], "stop_times": [3035.402, 3049.853], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3031.581}, "reply_to": "21657__2_103", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21657__3_001", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Do you agree with Mr. Frederick's answer about title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?\nI mean, a lot of countries don't prohibit discrimination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3049.853, 3055.547], "stop_times": [3055.547, 3059.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3049.853}, "reply_to": "21657__3_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__3_002", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, first let me make clear that the Bahamian Government does and all of its cruise vessels are governed by that prohibition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3059.179], "stop_times": [3068.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3059.179}, "reply_to": "21657__3_001", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21657__3_003", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "I'm asking about the application of U.S. law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3068.55], "stop_times": [3069.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3068.55}, "reply_to": "21657__3_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__3_004", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "We think that that question can be resolved along the lines that Justice Scalia suggested, which is that when you're dealing with a matter that goes to the internal affairs of the ship... and there... we would suggest that there is more central to the internal affairs of the ship than its construction and design.\nUnder international law, article 94 of the Law of... Law of the Sea Convention, which the Bahamian Government has ratified... and by the way, the United States has not, and that's an important principle for this Court to keep in mind... foreign flagged states may be bound by different international treaties than the United States.\nSimply trying to draw some conflict resolution device that would deal with treaties that the United States has entered into, international nations have not will not address that problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3069.21, 3084.609, 3102.17], "stop_times": [3084.609, 3102.17, 3111.791], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3069.21}, "reply_to": "21657__3_003", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21657__3_005", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "So before you go on to that, I want to be clear on your answer to title II of the Civil Rights Act of '64.\nThere's... you say, well, that's easier to comply with.\nBut that's not the principle under which you're operating.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3111.791, 3118.395, 3122.276], "stop_times": [3118.395, 3122.276, 3126.651], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3111.791}, "reply_to": "21657__3_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21657__3_006", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "No.\nWith respect, Justice Ginsburg, our principle is that when it comes to the matters that under international law have been traditionally governed by the flag state, then when Congress writes its laws, we presume that unless Congress clearly indicates an affirmative intention to address those matters, it did not intend to.\nWhen Congress wrote the ADA, not a word of the statute indicates that it considered the international repercussions of applying that law to foreign flagged vessels.\nNot a word--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3126.651, 3126.817, 3145.038, 3153.195], "stop_times": [3126.817, 3145.038, 3153.195, 3153.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3126.651}, "reply_to": "21657__3_005", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21657__3_007", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "What about the... what about the full sweep argument?\nLet's sort of come full circle on that.\nYou... you say the full sweep argument is no good because the same thing could have been made in McCulloch.\nThe response was there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3153.955, 3155.88, 3158.396, 3163.559], "stop_times": [3155.88, 3158.396, 3163.559, 3165.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3153.955}, "reply_to": "21657__3_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21657__3_008", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "What's... what's the full sweep argument?\nI don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3165.455, 3167.107], "stop_times": [3167.107, 3167.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3165.455}, "reply_to": "21657__3_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__3_009", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Full sweep of the commerce power.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3167.478], "stop_times": [3168.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3167.478}, "reply_to": "21657__3_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21657__3_010", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Justice Souter, first of all, it's... it... the statute doesn't say full sweep.\nIt says sweep, and that's in the findings of the ADA.\nIt's reprinted on page 32 of petitioners' brief.\nAnd second of all, the definition of Congress, which doesn't contain that sweep language, is almost identical to the definition of commerce in McCulloch, which is on page 15, note 3 of that decision, and that definition, the United States argued in the McCulloch case, was not sufficient to extend U.S. labor laws to foreign flagged vessels.\nIt's important to understand the... the potential international conflicts that extending the ADA to foreign flagged vessels could create.\nThere are more than 40 nations that have adopted anti discrimination laws for the disabled.\nThree nations have... have adopted laws for domestic vessels: Britain, Canada, and Australia.\nIf a country like the United States extended its laws to foreign vessels that entered its ports, then other nations may well follow suit.\nAnd if you take a simple hypothetical example, the Queen Mary II traveling from South Hampton to New York, if you look at the guidelines that Britain has adopted for domestic vessels, those guidelines contain different structural and design requirements than the draft guidelines that the United States have promulgated.\nThere are different requirements for door widths.\nThere are different requirements for sloping.\nThere's different requirements for the watertight compartments.\nThere are different requirements about whether vessels have to be... have accessible cabins all throughout the ship.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3168.593, 3172.021, 3175.736, 3178.253, 3198.399, 3206.572, 3211.402, 3217.346, 3225.269, 3242.525, 3244.588, 3246.612, 3249.213], "stop_times": [3172.021, 3175.736, 3178.253, 3198.399, 3206.572, 3211.402, 3217.346, 3225.269, 3242.525, 3244.588, 3246.612, 3249.213, 3254.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3168.593}, "reply_to": "21657__3_009", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21657__3_011", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--When you say different, you mean you cannot comply with both.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3254.431], "stop_times": [3256.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3254.431}, "reply_to": "21657__3_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__3_012", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3256.932], "stop_times": [3257.47], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3256.932}, "reply_to": "21657__3_011", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21657__3_013", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Is that what you mean?\nOr... or are those just minimums and... and the United States would... would comply with those minimums?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3257.47, 3258.046], "stop_times": [3258.046, 3263.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3257.47}, "reply_to": "21657__3_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21657__3_014", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Justice Scalia, I think in some you could and in others you couldn't.\nAnd... and that's an important... important point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3263.247, 3266.303], "stop_times": [3266.303, 3268.699], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3263.247}, "reply_to": "21657__3_013", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21657__3_015", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "And incidentally just for the... are... this ship has... these are regulations that help the disabled?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3268.699], "stop_times": [3274.271], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3268.699}, "reply_to": "21657__3_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21657__3_016", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Yes, Your... yes, Your Honor.\nAnd... and in many cases, it's not going to be clear which regulation is going to be more accommodating to the disabled and which is not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3274.271, 3276.129], "stop_times": [3276.129, 3284.468], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3274.271}, "reply_to": "21657__3_015", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21657__3_017", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Could they work that out?\nThat is, if two thirds of our universe really is American-based, in terms of customers, and we're now only talking about conflicts in... real conflicts that... that affect, say, one third of the universe, that's also true in areas like antitrust or others where the enforcement authorities get together and they try to write memoranda that... that work this out in a reasonable way.\nCould... could the same thing happen here if such real conflicts did emerge?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3284.468, 3284.718, 3312.31], "stop_times": [3284.718, 3312.31, 3317.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3284.468}, "reply_to": "21657__3_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__3_018", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "We don't think so, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3317.04], "stop_times": [3318.898], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3317.04}, "reply_to": "21657__3_017", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21657__3_019", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Because?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3318.898], "stop_times": [3319.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3318.898}, "reply_to": "21657__3_018", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__3_020", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "We would take the same approach that this Court emphasized in... in the McCulloch case, which is that kind of ad hoc balancing analysis would wreak havoc for the question whether a significant regulation like the ADA would apply to a vessel.\nHow would foreign vessels know, when they enter U.S. ports, whether they have to undertake the extraordinary changes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3319.302, 3333.387], "stop_times": [3333.387, 3339.247], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3319.302}, "reply_to": "21657__3_019", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21657__3_021", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "The answer would be yes, you do.\nYou do have to, and then if there's some other authority that wants to get involved in this, the two authorities would work it out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3339.247, 3340.074], "stop_times": [3340.074, 3348.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3339.247}, "reply_to": "21657__3_020", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__3_022", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Justice Breyer, the way that those issues are worked out in the international shipping context is through the International Maritime Organization.\nThis organization has been responsible for crafting scores of conventions, hundreds of shipping codes, and it's already begun to address the issue of accessibility on ships for the disabled and the elderly.\nWe cite the 1996 guidelines in our brief.\nThose guidelines right now are... are not binding guidelines, but they could well become binding guidelines.\nAnd when an organization like the IMO addresses this question, it resolves--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3348.619, 3356.792, 3368.847, 3371.653, 3378.052], "stop_times": [3356.792, 3368.847, 3371.653, 3378.052, 3382.51], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3348.619}, "reply_to": "21657__3_021", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21657__3_023", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "That's perfect because then the Government says that once it becomes a matter of binding international rule, anything that conflicts with that will be viewed as not reasonably achievable.\nSo all you have to do is that and then there's no longer a problem with American law, according to them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3382.51, 3392.624], "stop_times": [3392.624, 3398.197], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3382.51}, "reply_to": "21657__3_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21657__3_024", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "--Well, we don't think the readily achievable language in the first case in any way contemplates conflicts with international law.\nThis Court has a separate canon that's almost as old as the country that it presumes Congress doesn't intend to interfere with international obligations or international laws, including customary international law, as you wrote for the Court last term in... in the Empagran case.\nWe presume that American legislatures give respect to the interests of sovereign nations when they write their laws, and we don't assume that Congress intends to intrude on the sovereign interests of other nations.\nAnd that's what extending the ADA to foreign flagged ships would do.\nThe Bahamian Government has a solemn responsibility under international law and under its own law to govern the construction and design of all flags of all ships that fly... fly its flags.\nArticle 10 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas recognizes that flag states have responsibility for the construction and design of ships.\nArticle 94 of the Law of the Sea Conventions specifies that flag states have responsibility over administrative, technical, and labor matters, including construction and design matters.\nThese are precisely the sorts of matters that for centuries the flag state has been responsible for.\nAnd in the Brown v. Duchesne case, this Court recognized that, a case that dealt with the application of patent laws to the construction and design of a foreign flagged vessels.\nThere are going to be conflicts within... between international law and the requirements of the ADA, but first of all, there's going to be confusion.\nIt's been more than a decade since the ADA was passed, and we don't even have final regulations as to what rules apply.\nAnd in the meantime, foreign flagged vessels are going to have to be reviewing the case law in the United States courts, determining on a vessel by vessel, design specification by design specification as to what standards apply.\nThat's only going to create additional international discord and confusion.\nPetitioners proposed solution to this problem we think is telling.\nThey urge this Court in their reply brief if there is a problem after the ADA is extended to foreign flagged ships and other nations begin to follow suit and you have a crazy made... maze of different regulations applying to construction and design, then at that point, the United States can go to the IMO and ask it to clean up the mess.\nWith respect, we think they have it backwards.\nThe purpose of the IMO and the international framework that exists for governing regulation of shipping is to establish a uniform set of rules in the first instance.\nThe IMO has already begun to address the problem at issue in this case, accessibility for the disabled.\nThey are available to address that in a multilateral fashion.\nAnd Congress, in enacting the ADA, gave no indication that it weighed any of the international repercussions of the action that petitioners urges the case... petitioners urge the Court to take in this case.\nAnd we would urge this Court to return this matter to Congress.\nCongress is in the position to weigh the risk of international confusion, to weigh the potential for international discord and to address those matters as it sees... sees fit.\nIf there are no further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3398.197, 3406.453, 3422.057, 3434.401, 3438.775, 3451.241, 3458.466, 3468.209, 3475.268, 3484.101, 3493.306, 3499.993, 3513.822, 3518.115, 3522.367, 3540.572, 3543.461, 3552.46, 3557.374, 3561.089, 3574.751, 3577.929, 3587.772], "stop_times": [3406.453, 3422.057, 3434.401, 3438.775, 3451.241, 3458.466, 3468.209, 3475.268, 3484.101, 3493.306, 3499.993, 3513.822, 3518.115, 3522.367, 3540.572, 3543.461, 3552.46, 3557.374, 3561.089, 3574.751, 3577.929, 3587.772, 3590.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3398.197}, "reply_to": "21657__3_023", "speaker": "gregory_g_garre"}
{"id": "21657__3_025", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Garre.\nMr. Goldstein, you have about 40 seconds.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3590.151, 3591.387], "stop_times": [3591.387, 3594.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3590.151}, "reply_to": "21657__3_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21657__4_000", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg, our position is the one that can accommodate your concerns.\nTheirs cannot.\nJust like in Empagran, where this Court built in comity considerations, relying on cases like Lauritzen that involved foreign flagged ships, it said, look, even if the text of the Sherman Act or the FTAIA could literally reach it, in these cases that we don't think Congress could have conceived of, we're not going to apply the statute.\nBut here, we have a situation in which this company has 95 percent of its cruises going in and out from the United States.\nMillions of people, and billions of dollars in commerce are affected by this statute and Americans that Congress had to have in mind.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3594.442, 3602.532, 3603.525, 3621.812, 3629.903], "stop_times": [3602.532, 3603.525, 3621.812, 3629.903, 3637.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3594.442}, "reply_to": "21657__3_025", "speaker": "thomas_c_goldstein"}
{"id": "21657__4_001", "conversation_id": "21657", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Goldstein.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1388", "start_times": [3637.249, 3639.478], "stop_times": [3639.478, 3640.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3637.249}, "reply_to": "21657__4_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22024__0_000", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Mr. Kaplan, you may proceed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [0.0], "stop_times": [3.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22024__0_001", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nI received word that the Court is interested in 46 U.S.C. 801, and I intend to focus my attention on that before I get into my argument.\n46-801 is referred to as the Shipping Act, and it was enacted in 1916 and the amendment in 1918.\nAt that time, the United States Government was involved in a war and we were interested in developing the merchant marine for purposes of transporting cargo, equipment, and people back and forth.\nAnd so the amendment that was filed was fashioned after exactly 1 U.S.C. 3, but it had some additional features involved, one of which was that a vessel that was under construction was included as part of the act, one of which was if the owner intended to use the vessel for transportation, it was included.\nIt is under no circumstances affecting a Jones Act claim because the Jones Act requires, number one, a vessel in navigation and it can't be on the dock or being under construction, and if it was under construction, it wouldn't have a crew.\nSo under the circumstances, with all due respect, it is our judgment that we... we would win on both sides.\nThe Super Scoop would indeed, qualify under that act as well as under 1 U.S.C. 3.\nBut we think that this goes a little too far and not appropriate.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3.715, 8.423, 19.113, 29.616, 41.86, 70.096, 87.39, 95.275, 101.879], "stop_times": [8.423, 19.113, 29.616, 41.86, 70.096, 87.39, 95.275, 101.879, 106.299], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3.715}, "reply_to": "22024__0_000", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_002", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Is the Super Scoop practically capable of transportation on water, counsel?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [106.299], "stop_times": [113.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 106.299}, "reply_to": "22024__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22024__0_003", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "It is more than practically capable, it actually is... actually transports its equipment and its personnel at work and its--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [113.236], "stop_times": [121.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 113.236}, "reply_to": "22024__0_002", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_004", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Didn't it come from the west... did it come from the west coast originally?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [121.697], "stop_times": [123.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 121.697}, "reply_to": "22024__0_003", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22024__0_005", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Indeed, it did.\nIt came through the west coast, unmarried, however.\nIt came from the west coast through Panama, through the Gulf, up the east coast, and, sir, if anything had occurred on that trip, that... that would have been considered a vessel.\nHowever, when it came in to Boston--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [123.926, 124.669, 127.104, 136.847], "stop_times": [124.669, 127.104, 136.847, 139.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 123.926}, "reply_to": "22024__0_004", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_006", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "But there was nobody on it in that trip.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [139.448], "stop_times": [140.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.448}, "reply_to": "22024__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__0_007", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [140.441], "stop_times": [140.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 140.441}, "reply_to": "22024__0_006", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_008", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "There was nobody... there was no one on it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [140.934], "stop_times": [143.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 140.934}, "reply_to": "22024__0_007", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__0_009", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "In fact, it's unmanned.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [143.329], "stop_times": [143.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 143.329}, "reply_to": "22024__0_008", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_010", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--to be injured.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [143.479], "stop_times": [144.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 143.479}, "reply_to": "22024__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__0_011", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "There was nobody injured and unmanned, yes, indeed.\nBut what... what I'm saying is historically there has never been a decision in which a dredge was not considered a vessel until this case that we appear here now.\nOf course, I'm here to seek to have you overrule the decision that was rendered.\nBut more importantly, we are having a morass in the lower courts, and I'm here to try and persuade this Court to establish, once and for all, that there is a standard, that there is a definition for the use of the word vessel under the Jones Act.\nNow, in 1920, when the Jones Act was enacted, there was no reference to the use of the word vessel, and we know that when that happens, we have to seek to find what was the meaning, what was the established meaning at that time.\nAnd the way we do that is to look first to statutory law, and in addition we look to case law.\nThe statutory law is clear.\nIn 1873 in the revised statutes it makes it very clear that section 3 describes a vessel is any watercraft that... or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, for transportation on water.\nWith that standard in 1873, this Court in 1907 tried the case of Ellis v. the United States and did apply that revised statute and decided that the dredges that were working in the city of... in the Boston Harbor were indeed vessels and that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [144.256, 146.961, 164.151, 170.162, 187.828, 202.939, 209.172, 211.523, 231.463], "stop_times": [146.961, 164.151, 170.162, 187.828, 202.939, 209.172, 211.523, 231.463, 254.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 144.256}, "reply_to": "22024__0_010", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_012", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, now, that... that definition, used or capable of being used... right, now.\nAfter one of the hurricanes, I saw a... a tugboat that had just been washed up on shore down in the Gulf.\nWhat if somebody... some enterprising person had fitted that out like a... like a diner, you know, a... a restaurant and they have staff in the diner and they're serving the meals off of this boat?\nNow, the boat, apart from the fact that it's a couple of hundred yards inland, is capable of being... still capable of being used.\nAre the employees of that diner covered by the Jones Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [254.663, 259.577, 267.295, 279.76, 288.305], "stop_times": [259.577, 267.295, 279.76, 288.305, 292.392], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 254.663}, "reply_to": "22024__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__0_013", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Very interesting question, Justice Scalia.\nHowever, this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [292.392, 295.243], "stop_times": [295.243, 296.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 292.392}, "reply_to": "22024__0_012", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_014", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "It... it goes to whether we want to use, you know, section 3 as... as our definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [296.895], "stop_times": [300.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 296.895}, "reply_to": "22024__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__0_015", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--This Court seemed to have focused right on point in the cases of Cope in... Cope was early, 1903, and in the case of Evansville in 1926 when they added the two words, practically capable.\nThe Cope case was a drydock and it was run into by somebody and they sought damages.\nAnd the Court... this Court said, wait a minute.\nIn that case, that's a drydock.\nIt goes up and down.\nIt doesn't navigate.\nIt doesn't transport people or cargo over water.\nSo they said it's not practically capable of fulfilling under the revised statute.\nThe easiest case is 1926 when this Court again in Evansville made it very clear that a wharfboat, which on occasion was taken out.\nOnce a year, I think the evidence is, they would take it out and move it back.\nBut it was affixed to the land.\nIt had its telephone.\nIt had its sewage.\nIt had all connections to the land.\nAnd this Court again used 1 U.S.C. 3, but did say that it wasn't practically capable of performing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [300.694, 319.763, 329.301, 332.023, 334.624, 335.45, 337.225, 341.577, 348.082, 360.053, 363.231, 365.915, 367.772, 369.63, 371.366], "stop_times": [319.763, 329.301, 332.023, 334.624, 335.45, 337.225, 341.577, 348.082, 360.053, 363.231, 365.915, 367.772, 369.63, 371.366, 380.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 300.694}, "reply_to": "22024__0_014", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_016", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Is that what we would say about all these gambling casino boats that are parked on the side of the Mississippi River?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [380.199], "stop_times": [387.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 380.199}, "reply_to": "22024__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22024__0_017", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Your Honor, these are a problematic case, and the whole thing is determined on whether or not it's in navigation.\nIf a vessel is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [387.63, 398.115], "stop_times": [398.115, 399.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 387.63}, "reply_to": "22024__0_016", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_018", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "What's your answer?\nThere are lots of these gambling boats that are parked--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [399.973, 400.882], "stop_times": [400.882, 404.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 399.973}, "reply_to": "22024__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22024__0_019", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--If the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [404.847], "stop_times": [405.069], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 404.847}, "reply_to": "22024__0_018", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_020", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--along the side of the river.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [405.069], "stop_times": [406.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 405.069}, "reply_to": "22024__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22024__0_021", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--If the gambling boat has lost its ability to be in navigation, if it's affixed to the land, if it has connections to the land, if it doesn't expect to go into navigation, it is out of navigation.\nIt's owner has taken that vessel from a navigable vessel into out of navigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [406.333, 423.317], "stop_times": [423.317, 429.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 406.333}, "reply_to": "22024__0_020", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_022", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "And then what is the standard you use, the definition to use to get to that result?\nIs this your practically point again?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [429.344, 432.566], "stop_times": [432.566, 434.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 429.344}, "reply_to": "22024__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22024__0_023", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Say that again, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [434.463], "stop_times": [436.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 434.463}, "reply_to": "22024__0_022", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_024", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "You've given us the answer.\nWhat's the standard that you use to get to that answer?\nDo you go back to the definition that it... it cannot practicably be used?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [436.032, 438.361, 441.521], "stop_times": [438.361, 441.521, 445.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 436.032}, "reply_to": "22024__0_023", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22024__0_025", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, the standard that I'm seeking to have the Court employ is 1 U.S.C., section 3, which says, any... a vessel is any watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [445.503], "stop_times": [460.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 445.503}, "reply_to": "22024__0_024", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_026", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "And then... and then the riverboat... it depends on how... how permanently it's affixed to the land.\nSuppose it stays there for 10 years.\nIt... it can go anytime, but it stays there for 10 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [460.347, 464.434, 465.51], "stop_times": [464.434, 465.51, 468.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 460.347}, "reply_to": "22024__0_025", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22024__0_027", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--If in fact it stays there for 10 years and it does not move, that's evidence that the owner intended that vessel to lose its position in navigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [468.521], "stop_times": [478.552], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 468.521}, "reply_to": "22024__0_026", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_028", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "So there's an intent component to your test now?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [478.552], "stop_times": [481.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 478.552}, "reply_to": "22024__0_027", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22024__0_029", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "There... there... technically one could say break the bonds that hold it to the dock and then take it out and use it because once a vessel, always a vessel?\nThe answer is no.\nAccording to this Court, this Court said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [481.152, 493.041, 494.322], "stop_times": [493.041, 494.322, 496.058], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 481.152}, "reply_to": "22024__0_028", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_030", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Mr. Kaplan?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [496.058], "stop_times": [496.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 496.058}, "reply_to": "22024__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__0_031", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--when it's not practically capable of doing it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [496.28], "stop_times": [499.335], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 496.28}, "reply_to": "22024__0_030", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_032", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Mr. Kaplan, you said two things and I... I'm wondering these are separate or they're really one concept.\nI thought your answer was going to be to the boat that is used as a diner or to the casino that's tied up to the land, that it's not in navigation.\nIt may satisfy the 1 U.S.C. definition of vessel, but it has to be in navigation to be covered by the Jones Act.\nSo I thought that's what you would... something is taken out of navigation would not qualify.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [499.335, 508.335, 521.505, 534.053], "stop_times": [508.335, 521.505, 534.053, 541.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 499.335}, "reply_to": "22024__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__0_033", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "The answer is no.\nIt... it does not qualify if it's removed from navigation.\nOnce the vessel is taken out of navigation, as in Justice Scalia's situation where that vessel is on the land, it is being used as a completely different--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [541.028, 543.174, 547.178], "stop_times": [543.174, 547.178, 558.324], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 541.028}, "reply_to": "22024__0_032", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_034", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "So you say it is a vessel.\nI thought your answer before was that it was not a vessel because it's not practically capable of being used.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [558.324, 559.521], "stop_times": [559.521, 565.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 558.324}, "reply_to": "22024__0_033", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__0_035", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--I say it's not a vessel.\nIt's out of navigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [565.177, 565.294], "stop_times": [565.294, 566.913], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 565.177}, "reply_to": "22024__0_034", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_036", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "I... I like Justice Ginsburg's answer better.\n[Laughter]\nIt is a vessel but it's not in navigation.\nThen you could stick with the... with the section 3 definition.\nIt's capable of being used, so it's a vessel, but it's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [566.913, 569.43, 569.802, 574.632, 578.43], "stop_times": [569.43, 569.802, 574.632, 578.43, 581.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 566.913}, "reply_to": "22024__0_035", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__0_037", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "But then the question is whether or not it's in navigation at the time of the accident.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [581.94], "stop_times": [584.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 581.94}, "reply_to": "22024__0_036", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22024__0_038", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "And that only applies--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [584.912], "stop_times": [586.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 584.912}, "reply_to": "22024__0_037", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_039", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "And... and that is a rule that, I take it, you do not wish us to adopt, or maybe you do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [586.277], "stop_times": [590.818], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 586.277}, "reply_to": "22024__0_038", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22024__0_040", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--I'm trying to establish that if it's in navigation, then it is a vessel.\nIf the owner of that vessel removed it from any chance of navigation, made it a different kind of a vessel, it is no longer in navigation.\nIt remains a vessel, but it's not a vessel in navigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [590.818, 599.567, 610.053], "stop_times": [599.567, 610.053, 613.563], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 590.818}, "reply_to": "22024__0_039", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_041", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "No, but doesn't... doesn't that put you right back in the problem, the original problem, with... with the riverboat?\nIf all it is is tied up, it isn't permanently taken out of navigation.\nIt isn't precluded.\nAll they've got to do is cast the lines off and it's out in the water so that the riverboat is the vessel and presumably we've got seamen working on it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [613.563, 619.508, 625.285, 626.278], "stop_times": [619.508, 625.285, 626.278, 635.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 613.563}, "reply_to": "22024__0_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__0_042", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Justice Souter, if on that situation where all they have to do is cast the lines off and go out to sea, then of course it remains a vessel, and it remains in navigation.\nAnd it is... it fits all the elements of the requirements.\nBut if that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [635.399, 645.885, 650.92], "stop_times": [645.885, 650.92, 652.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 635.399}, "reply_to": "22024__0_041", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_043", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "So you're saying... and I... I don't mean to disagree with you.\nYou're saying, yes, there are going to be a few tough results under this definition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [652.035, 655.645], "stop_times": [655.645, 658.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 652.035}, "reply_to": "22024__0_042", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__0_044", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--There may be, but there's got to be some practically capable influence that this Court has already focused on to say whether that particular vessel is practically capable of being in navigation.\nIf it's out of navigation, it's never going to be back in navigation, and there's nothing more that's going to happen to that as a vessel, then of course it's no longer a vessel that would qualify.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [658.805, 673.006], "stop_times": [673.006, 683.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 658.805}, "reply_to": "22024__0_043", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_045", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "So... so what is... I see the First Circuit as trying to grapple with the very question you're raising, which is I think difficult.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [683.509], "stop_times": [691.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 683.509}, "reply_to": "22024__0_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__0_046", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [691.089], "stop_times": [691.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 691.089}, "reply_to": "22024__0_045", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_047", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Of course, it seems to me fine, let section 3 apply.\nNo problem so far with me.\nBut that is so broadly stated that if you read it literally, my garage door is a boat or a vessel because, after all, it's capable of being used in navigation, if worst came to worst.\nAnd now you're trying to narrow it to get out of that absurd result.\nWell, so did the First Circuit.\nThat's what they were trying to do, and you got caught up in it.\nBut that's... so... so what... that's why I think we're struggling with the words, and... and perhaps practically... if you mean by practically that it is not practically capable of navigation, even though it really is, if it just hasn't been used for navigation for a long, long time and has connections to the land like Jimmy's Harborside probably or... or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [691.56, 695.313, 697.405, 710.862, 714.988, 717.3, 719.983], "stop_times": [695.313, 697.405, 710.862, 714.988, 717.3, 719.983, 744.316], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 691.56}, "reply_to": "22024__0_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__0_048", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Like the establishments from the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [744.316], "stop_times": [745.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 744.316}, "reply_to": "22024__0_047", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_049", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--What?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [745.885], "stop_times": [746.135], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 745.885}, "reply_to": "22024__0_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__0_050", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--pier 4, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [746.135], "stop_times": [746.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 746.135}, "reply_to": "22024__0_049", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_051", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Yes, yes, or one like that.\nBut is... are those the words?\nDo we need some other words as well?\nWe say practically capable but practically capable has a technical meaning here that it means if there's close to permanent connection to the land, it doesn't apply?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [746.794, 748.546, 750.221, 751.995], "stop_times": [748.546, 750.221, 751.995, 763.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 746.794}, "reply_to": "22024__0_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__0_052", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Justice Breyer, we're talking primarily of Jones Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [763.035], "stop_times": [766.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 763.035}, "reply_to": "22024__0_051", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_053", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [766.074], "stop_times": [766.75], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 766.074}, "reply_to": "22024__0_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__0_054", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Jones Act requires a relationship between the worker and the vessel.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [766.75, 770.571], "stop_times": [770.571, 772.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 766.75}, "reply_to": "22024__0_053", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_055", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "So could we say... could we say that, as well, it must be unlike my garage door?\nA, it must be a... a structure that normally would have a crew or that... a significant amount of the time.\nWe would have a connection to the water.\nIt would be capable of having a master or crew.\nWhat about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [772.057, 776.681, 788.115, 790.528, 793.688], "stop_times": [776.681, 788.115, 790.528, 793.688, 795.174], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 772.057}, "reply_to": "22024__0_054", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__0_056", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--This Court has already established--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [795.174], "stop_times": [797.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 795.174}, "reply_to": "22024__0_055", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_057", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [797.032], "stop_times": [797.486], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 797.032}, "reply_to": "22024__0_056", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__0_058", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--what the standards are for Jones Act, whether a person qualifies.\nThere are filters between whether a person is a Jones Act seaman or not.\nFor example, there has to be a vessel.\nThere has to be a vessel in navigation.\nThere has to be a economic relationship between the worker and his vessel and he has to contribute towards the mission or to the function of that vessel.\nHe has to, more importantly, have a substantial relationship to his vessel, both with respect to duration and with respect to nature.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [797.486, 802.483, 807.229, 809.625, 812.264, 823.288], "stop_times": [802.483, 807.229, 809.625, 812.264, 823.288, 834.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 797.486}, "reply_to": "22024__0_057", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_059", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "When you say the function of the vessel, do you mean the function of the vessel in its transportation function?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [834.184], "stop_times": [839.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 834.184}, "reply_to": "22024__0_058", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__0_060", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [839.263], "stop_times": [840.954], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 839.263}, "reply_to": "22024__0_059", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_061", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "So that would be the answer to the riverboat problem.\nYou'd say sure, if the... if the riverboat is capable simply of being let go in the water by casting off lines, the riverboat is a vessel.\nBut you don't have to worry about turning all the... the croupiers and the waiters into seamen because they're not contributing to the transportation function of the vessel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [840.954, 843.555, 852.926], "stop_times": [843.555, 852.926, 862.957], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 840.954}, "reply_to": "22024__0_060", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__0_062", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Precisely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [862.957], "stop_times": [863.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 862.957}, "reply_to": "22024__0_061", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_063", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "I mean, is that the way out of the problem?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [863.95], "stop_times": [865.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 863.95}, "reply_to": "22024__0_062", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__0_064", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Precisely?\nSo then the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [865.231, 865.619], "stop_times": [865.619, 865.991], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 865.231}, "reply_to": "22024__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__0_065", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "There is a safeguard between the vessel and whether a person qualifies as a Jones Act seaman on that vessel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [865.991], "stop_times": [873.132], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 865.991}, "reply_to": "22024__0_064", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_066", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--So you... you think that the person who operates the dredge, since he's not navigating the vessel, is not covered by the Jones Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [873.132], "stop_times": [880.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 873.132}, "reply_to": "22024__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__0_067", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Oh, I do not.\nI do not, indeed.\nI say--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [880.851, 882.216, 884.445], "stop_times": [882.216, 884.445, 884.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 880.851}, "reply_to": "22024__0_066", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_068", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "You do not what?\nDo not think he's covered by the Jones Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [884.817, 885.726], "stop_times": [885.726, 887.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 884.817}, "reply_to": "22024__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__0_069", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--I say he's covered by the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [887.418], "stop_times": [888.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 887.418}, "reply_to": "22024__0_068", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_070", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "He is covered.\nWell, then why isn't the croupier covered?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [888.616, 889.154], "stop_times": [889.154, 890.928], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 888.616}, "reply_to": "22024__0_069", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__0_071", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Why isn't what?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [890.928], "stop_times": [892.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 890.928}, "reply_to": "22024__0_070", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_072", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Why isn't the croupier covered, you know?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [892.043], "stop_times": [895.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 892.043}, "reply_to": "22024__0_071", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__0_073", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Is the croupier contributing to the function of the vessel?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [895.553], "stop_times": [898.359], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 895.553}, "reply_to": "22024__0_072", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_074", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "That vessel's function is gambling.\nHe sure is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [898.359, 900.382], "stop_times": [900.382, 901.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 898.359}, "reply_to": "22024__0_073", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__0_075", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "It is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [901.042], "stop_times": [902.074], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 901.042}, "reply_to": "22024__0_074", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_076", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Does... look, does the... does the person in charge of the dredge control this process of pulling against anchor lines that moves it 8 feet or whatever it is?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [902.074], "stop_times": [911.984], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.074}, "reply_to": "22024__0_075", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__0_077", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "The manner in which the dredge... this dredge worked... by the way--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [911.984], "stop_times": [915.578], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 911.984}, "reply_to": "22024__0_076", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_078", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "No, but if you can give me a yes or no answer, give me a yes or no answer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [915.578], "stop_times": [919.088], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 915.578}, "reply_to": "22024__0_077", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__0_079", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [919.088], "stop_times": [919.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 919.088}, "reply_to": "22024__0_078", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_080", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [919.293], "stop_times": [919.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 919.293}, "reply_to": "22024__0_079", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__0_081", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "That man controls not only--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [919.459], "stop_times": [921.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 919.459}, "reply_to": "22024__0_080", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_082", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "So that's why he's different from the croupier then, isn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [921.522], "stop_times": [923.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 921.522}, "reply_to": "22024__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__0_083", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--The croupier does not control the motion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [923.63], "stop_times": [926.768], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 923.63}, "reply_to": "22024__0_082", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_084", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Right, and the... the guy in charge of the dredge does control the movement of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [926.768], "stop_times": [930.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 926.768}, "reply_to": "22024__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__0_085", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [930.649], "stop_times": [931.105], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 930.649}, "reply_to": "22024__0_084", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_086", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "What if you have a very complicated dredge and it takes two people?\nOne of them does nothing but... but operate the steam shovel that pulls up the goop and puts it in the... in the barges.\nOkay?\nAnd the other one moves the dredge.\nYou say the one is... is covered by the Jones Act and the other one isn't?\nNo, it can't be.\nIf the function of the vessel is dredging, anybody who is performing that function of dredging is covered by the Jones Act.\nDon't you believe that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [931.105, 934.57, 941.34, 941.795, 943.365, 947.08, 948.482, 955.003], "stop_times": [934.57, 941.34, 941.795, 943.365, 947.08, 948.482, 955.003, 955.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 931.105}, "reply_to": "22024__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__0_087", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "I do believe that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [955.747], "stop_times": [956.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 955.747}, "reply_to": "22024__0_086", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_088", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Of course, you do.\nSo the croupier is--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [956.74, 957.362, 957.855], "stop_times": [957.362, 957.855, 958.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 956.74}, "reply_to": "22024__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__0_089", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Then what do you... then what do you do with the croupier?\nYou can't have it both ways.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [958.681, 961.077], "stop_times": [961.077, 962.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 958.681}, "reply_to": "22024__0_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__0_090", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, if the croupier is participating in the navigation of the vessel, we don't care anymore.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [962.767], "stop_times": [969.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 962.767}, "reply_to": "22024__0_089", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_091", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "He's not participating in the navigation of the vessel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [969.083], "stop_times": [971.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 969.083}, "reply_to": "22024__0_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__0_092", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [971.851], "stop_times": [973.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 971.851}, "reply_to": "22024__0_091", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_093", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "He's doing whatever croupiers do.\nI don't know.\n[Laughter]\nNo, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [973.337, 974.906, 975.445, 975.832], "stop_times": [974.906, 975.445, 975.832, 977.674], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 973.337}, "reply_to": "22024__0_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__0_094", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--They don't hand me any money, I'll tell you.\nWhat I'm trying to establish here is that there really is a distinction between the law applicable to whether or not there is a vessel, and I'm suggesting that 1 U.S.C. clearly describes what a vessel is and should be for Jones Act purposes.\nThe second part of the issue is whether or not the individual qualifies and is warranted to have the Jones Act coverage.\nSo as to the vessel... as to this coverage, we know, through Wilander and through Chandris, this Court has established some very sensible and good standards by which a person can or cannot be a... a Jones Act seaman.\nNow the only thing that's necessary is we have to round the circle up to determine what is a vessel for Jones Act purposes.\n1 U.S.C. seems to satisfy it.\nIt's important to note that in this particular case this is a Coast Guard-certified, inspected vessel.\nThis vessel is... carries... it has a 1290 ton itself and it carries cargo of 466 ton.\nIt is... it has navigation lights.\nIt has to be ballasted.\nIt has to be load-lined.\nWhen it goes to work, the way in which it moves is as follows.\nThe tugs take the anchors out 50 feet.\nNow, as the operator is using that bucket to dump into the scows, he's also handling the... the vessel is also moving through its own deck winches.\nThey spool up on their own winches.\nSo in addition to where he's digging, they're also moving so that instead of just digging a hole, they're digging the trench.\nSo under all the circumstances, this Super Scoop, because it has a crew, a captain and a crew of 10, because they have to wear lifesaving devices, because they have a... a standby vessel for safety purposes right there by order of the Coast Guard, because it is exposed to all the weather and navigation problems that exist in the... in Boston Harbor, because the risks are inherent in this kind of work, this man qualifies as not only a vessel but as a Jones Act seaman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [977.674, 979.614, 996.166, 1005.621, 1021.801, 1029.435, 1032.203, 1040.461, 1051.068, 1055.033, 1056.109, 1057.428, 1061.06, 1064.487, 1075.883, 1078.399, 1087.521], "stop_times": [979.614, 996.166, 1005.621, 1021.801, 1029.435, 1032.203, 1040.461, 1051.068, 1055.033, 1056.109, 1057.428, 1061.06, 1064.487, 1075.883, 1078.399, 1087.521, 1122.072], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 977.674}, "reply_to": "22024__0_093", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_095", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Is the scow a vessel too?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1122.072], "stop_times": [1124.302], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1122.072}, "reply_to": "22024__0_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__0_096", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "I'm sorry.\nI didn't hear you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1124.302, 1125.211], "stop_times": [1125.211, 1125.583], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1124.302}, "reply_to": "22024__0_095", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_097", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "The scow.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1125.583, 1125.749], "stop_times": [1125.749, 1126.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1125.583}, "reply_to": "22024__0_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__0_098", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Oh, the scow.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1126.326], "stop_times": [1127.152], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1126.326}, "reply_to": "22024__0_097", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_099", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "That's easy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1127.152], "stop_times": [1127.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1127.152}, "reply_to": "22024__0_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__0_100", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, what happened in this one, if Your Honor please, is when... this was a collision at sea.\nClient was aboard the scow when it collided with the Super Scoop and he was tossed down a 10-foot--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1127.352, 1132.436], "stop_times": [1132.436, 1141.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1127.352}, "reply_to": "22024__0_099", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_101", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--I know the circumstances of the accident.\nAnd you're... you're discussing whether Super Scoop was a vessel.\nI'm asking if the scow where the injury occurred is a vessel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1141.558, 1143.582, 1148.329], "stop_times": [1143.582, 1148.329, 1153.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1141.558}, "reply_to": "22024__0_100", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__0_102", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Oh, indeed.\nThe scow is... is what they put the fill in, and as differentiated from a barge, a scow has the ability to open up its bottom to let all the fill out when they get out to sea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1153.158, 1153.696], "stop_times": [1153.696, 1164.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1153.158}, "reply_to": "22024__0_101", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_103", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Yes, but you haven't told us whether you think it was a vessel or not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1164.182], "stop_times": [1165.463], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1164.182}, "reply_to": "22024__0_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22024__0_104", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Pardon?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1165.463], "stop_times": [1166.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1165.463}, "reply_to": "22024__0_103", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_105", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Was... was it a vessel?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1166.001], "stop_times": [1166.578], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1166.001}, "reply_to": "22024__0_104", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22024__0_106", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "The scow is a vessel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1166.578], "stop_times": [1168.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1166.578}, "reply_to": "22024__0_105", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_107", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "The scow was.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1168.025], "stop_times": [1169.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1168.025}, "reply_to": "22024__0_106", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22024__0_108", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "The scow is absolutely a vessel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1169.261], "stop_times": [1170.542], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1169.261}, "reply_to": "22024__0_107", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_109", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Oh, that's not even close.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1170.542], "stop_times": [1171.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1170.542}, "reply_to": "22024__0_108", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__0_110", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Not even--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1171.285], "stop_times": [1171.923], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1171.285}, "reply_to": "22024__0_109", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_111", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "I mean, it carries all this goop somewhere else to... to dump it.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1171.923, 1174.34], "stop_times": [1174.34, 1174.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1171.923}, "reply_to": "22024__0_110", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__0_112", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--They had to move from here to somewhere else.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1174.712, 1176.941], "stop_times": [1176.941, 1177.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1174.712}, "reply_to": "22024__0_111", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_113", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Then explain to me why--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1177.024], "stop_times": [1178.222], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1177.024}, "reply_to": "22024__0_112", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__0_114", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--So did the Super... sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1178.222], "stop_times": [1179.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1178.222}, "reply_to": "22024__0_113", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_115", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--why it wasn't the vessel that counts.\nIf it's a vessel and it is in fact the place where he was injured and it was moving, it... that would be an easy case, but somehow you have to deal with the Super Scoop, and I'm wondering why.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1179.337, 1181.21], "stop_times": [1181.21, 1192.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1179.337}, "reply_to": "22024__0_114", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__0_116", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, the Super Scoop was not moving at that moment, but the scow was moving--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1192.134], "stop_times": [1197.79], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1192.134}, "reply_to": "22024__0_115", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_117", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, why don't you just say the scow was a vessel?\nEnd of case.\nThe scow was a vessel.\nIt was moving.\nThat's where he was injured.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1197.79, 1199.647, 1200.762, 1202.043, 1202.787], "stop_times": [1199.647, 1200.762, 1202.043, 1202.787, 1203.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.79}, "reply_to": "22024__0_116", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__0_118", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--I would take that, Your Honor, but I would like to extend it to get a status... a statement from this Court so that we can remove the indecisions, the silly tests that the lower courts have been creating for what is a vessel and what is not a vessel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1203.901], "stop_times": [1219.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1203.901}, "reply_to": "22024__0_117", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_119", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Kaplan.\nThank you.\nYour time is up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1219.876, 1220.991, 1222.849], "stop_times": [1220.991, 1222.849, 1223.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1219.876}, "reply_to": "22024__0_118", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22024__0_120", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Oh, my.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1223.47, 1224.585], "stop_times": [1224.585, 1225.411], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1223.47}, "reply_to": "22024__0_119", "speaker": "david_b_kaplan"}
{"id": "22024__0_121", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Ms. Blatt.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1225.411], "stop_times": [1234.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1225.411}, "reply_to": "22024__0_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22024__1_000", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Thank you, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nJustice Ginsburg, I take it the reason that the scow was not relied on is because the petitioner worked 99.9 percent of his time on the Super Scoop and petitioner never made the argument that he had a connection to the scow.\nBut this case, the dredge, the Super Scoop, was a vessel in navigation and it's an easy case under both standards because it remained in service as a means of carrying its workers and equipment as it moved along the Boston Harbor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1234.449, 1239.361, 1251.334], "stop_times": [1239.361, 1251.334, 1264.42], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1234.449}, "reply_to": "22024__0_121", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_001", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Do you think we need to use the word practical or practically in section 3?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1264.42], "stop_times": [1268.917], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1264.42}, "reply_to": "22024__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22024__1_002", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Yes.\nI mean, you've... you've read it in into Evansville and Cope, the... the drydock case, but it's... it's basically referring to any mobile watercraft that is practically capable of moving either cargo or people.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1268.917, 1269.926], "stop_times": [1269.926, 1283.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1268.917}, "reply_to": "22024__1_001", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_003", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Why is that reading anything in?\nI mean, do... do you think if... if you were not practically capable, you would be capable?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1283.035, 1284.128], "stop_times": [1284.128, 1289.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1283.035}, "reply_to": "22024__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__1_004", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "I don't... I don't think it much--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1289.351], "stop_times": [1291.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1289.351}, "reply_to": "22024__1_003", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_005", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "I don't regard that as a reading in at all.\nI mean, capable means capable.\nYou're either capable or not.\nIf you practically can't be moved, your not capable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1291.292, 1292.695, 1294.059, 1295.09], "stop_times": [1292.695, 1294.059, 1295.09, 1298.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1291.292}, "reply_to": "22024__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__1_006", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--That's fine, and I think... like I said, this is an easy case.\nI could address some of the... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1298.079, 1300.663], "stop_times": [1300.663, 1302.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1298.079}, "reply_to": "22024__1_005", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_007", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Why... why is this an easy case?\nBecause, after all, the First Circuit is struggling with the same problem and they came to the conclusion, use section 3.\nThat's fine.\nBut you know that the garage door is not a vessel, and you also know that Jimmy's Harborside is not a vessel.\nAnd you also know that Justice Scalia's beached scow or something is not a vessel.\nAnd I take it nor is a vessel a scow that's tied up for 364 days of the year and acts as a picnic place and one day they take it out to sea and... because they want to move it across the harbor.\nI guess that isn't a vessel.\nIs it?\nOr maybe it is.\nSo why is this so easy?\nBecause the First Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1302.315, 1304.257, 1311.892, 1312.552, 1318.746, 1325.805, 1338.065, 1339.673, 1340.377, 1340.915, 1342.689], "stop_times": [1304.257, 1311.892, 1312.552, 1318.746, 1325.805, 1338.065, 1339.673, 1340.377, 1340.915, 1342.689, 1343.682], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1302.315}, "reply_to": "22024__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__1_008", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Justice Breyer, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1343.682], "stop_times": [1344.22], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1343.682}, "reply_to": "22024__1_007", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_009", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--had a test, tries to make those distinctions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1344.22], "stop_times": [1345.789], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1344.22}, "reply_to": "22024__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__1_010", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Right.\nThe... I respectfully disagree.\nThe First Circuit was way off base.\nIt did not use section 3 of title 1.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1345.789, 1345.922, 1346.699, 1348.307], "stop_times": [1345.922, 1346.699, 1348.307, 1351.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1345.789}, "reply_to": "22024__1_009", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_011", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "All right.\nLet's say it's wrong about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1351.091, 1351.279], "stop_times": [1351.279, 1352.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1351.091}, "reply_to": "22024__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__1_012", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "What it did is it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1352.188], "stop_times": [1352.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1352.188}, "reply_to": "22024__1_011", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_013", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Now let's take section 3.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1352.56], "stop_times": [1353.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1352.56}, "reply_to": "22024__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__1_014", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Okay, let's... okay, let's go from there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1353.653], "stop_times": [1354.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1353.653}, "reply_to": "22024__1_013", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_015", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "And taking section 3, it seems to me, we have the same problems.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1354.479], "stop_times": [1357.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1354.479}, "reply_to": "22024__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__1_016", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Let me... let me answer your question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1357.451], "stop_times": [1358.937], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1357.451}, "reply_to": "22024__1_015", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_017", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "And I'd like to know your answer and you just said to Scalia what I thought... Justice Scalia that I thought what was an answer isn't because I thought that word practical, as co-counsel recommended, has a rather specialized meaning where we get rid of a lot of these.\nNow you're saying no, it doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1358.937, 1372.683], "stop_times": [1372.683, 1373.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1358.937}, "reply_to": "22024__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__1_018", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "I think the... the... you look at the physical characteristics and the surrounding circumstances of any type of watercraft, and if it's out there moving, I... I think that really is an easy case.\nWhat I think is bothering... what was bothering the First Circuit is that this vessel clearly has a stationary purpose.\nIt had two essential and indispensable purposes, one of which was stationary and one of which was a mobile barge.\nThe types of cases that raise problems under 1 U.S.C. 3 is you have things that meet the definition of vessel.\nThe Coast Guard regulates them as vessels, but if they have no function to transport people or things... and the best example is our country's battleships.\nThey're basically retired vessels.\nThey're museums.\nAnd there are some casino boats that function the same way.\nThey have no transportation function.\nThey've been withdrawn from navigation.\nIf you want a legal standard for what in navigation is it's this.\nIt's what the Court said in Chandris, which is it's the status of the ship, and that means does it have some... is it still servicing as a ship.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1373.798, 1383.457, 1389.113, 1394.564, 1401.373, 1410.828, 1412.23, 1412.89, 1415.574, 1417.348, 1419.66, 1422.921], "stop_times": [1383.457, 1389.113, 1394.564, 1401.373, 1410.828, 1412.23, 1412.89, 1415.574, 1417.348, 1419.66, 1422.921, 1431.466], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1373.798}, "reply_to": "22024__1_017", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_019", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "But that goes to in navigation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1431.466], "stop_times": [1433.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1431.466}, "reply_to": "22024__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__1_020", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1433.878], "stop_times": [1434.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1433.878}, "reply_to": "22024__1_019", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_021", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--not to whether it's a vessel or not.\nIt is still a vessel even if it's beached up on land so long as it is capable of... of floating.\nIt's just not in navigation, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1434.128, 1435.447, 1441.558], "stop_times": [1435.447, 1441.558, 1443.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1434.128}, "reply_to": "22024__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__1_022", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "I agree.\nThe only types of cases where a vessel would lose its status as a vessel if it's been basically... there... there are basically two kinds of cases where the casino boats or the museums or hotels have lost their status.\nAnd there are basically... there are two examples.\nThey're boats in a moat.\nThey've been basically landlocked in through concrete or landfilled and they can't go anywhere.\nAnd the other one that's... that's equally as common is pipes and stuff have been driven through the hull of the ship, and they're not practically capable of transporting anything.\nThey'd have to be overhauled.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1443.499, 1443.992, 1453.735, 1455.676, 1456.724, 1460.793, 1469.421], "stop_times": [1443.992, 1453.735, 1455.676, 1456.724, 1460.793, 1469.421, 1470.536], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1443.499}, "reply_to": "22024__1_021", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_023", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Your... your view of the word in navigation does all the work here.\nAnd so a... a concert ship, which exists, which say is docked at a dock for, let's say, 300 days of the year or maybe 360, and those other 5 days they... they move it from one town to the next town where it stays for another 4 months, that is in navigation or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1470.536, 1473.469], "stop_times": [1473.469, 1494.867], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1470.536}, "reply_to": "22024__1_022", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__1_024", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "We think it's in navigation.\nIf you have a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1494.867, 1496.42], "stop_times": [1496.42, 1497.163], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1494.867}, "reply_to": "22024__1_023", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_025", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "All right.\nSo then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1497.163, 1497.363], "stop_times": [1497.363, 1497.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1497.163}, "reply_to": "22024__1_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__1_026", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--If it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1497.613], "stop_times": [1498.235], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1497.613}, "reply_to": "22024__1_025", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_027", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--the concert master and the... the... all the orchestra players and everyone else are covered by the Jones Act even though, by the way, none of them has ever moved whatsoever.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1498.235], "stop_times": [1507.401], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1498.235}, "reply_to": "22024__1_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__1_028", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--No, no.\nThat's not correct.\nIt just means it might be a vessel in navigation.\nYou have cruise ships, military ships, pleasure crafts that sit all the time, some for years, but they're still ready for another voyage when and if they're needed.\nThose are still in navigation.\nNow, if you have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1507.401, 1507.789, 1508.349, 1510.168, 1518.38, 1519.595], "stop_times": [1507.789, 1508.349, 1510.168, 1518.38, 1519.595, 1520.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1507.401}, "reply_to": "22024__1_027", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_029", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, if that's so, that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1520.71], "stop_times": [1521.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1520.71}, "reply_to": "22024__1_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__1_030", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--I'm going to answer your question on the seaman.\nIf you've got a worker that never goes to sea on a vessel in navigation, the place to deal with that is not by saying it's not a vessel or not that it's not in navigation.\nBut this Court emphasized in the Harbor Tug and Barge case, as well as the Chandris case, that there has to be a substantial connection not only in duration but also with respect to nature.\nAnd the Court in Harbor Tug said that... that inquiry will concentrate on whether the employee's duties take him to sea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1521.536, 1522.196, 1531.363, 1541.144], "stop_times": [1522.196, 1531.363, 1541.144, 1547.254], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1521.536}, "reply_to": "22024__1_029", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_031", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Okay.\nIn the case of the steam shovel operator on the dredge, do we say that... that he contributes toward that function because it can't move unless he dredges first, so that the... the whole object of moving across the harbor to dredge includes the... the dredging part?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1547.254, 1547.809], "stop_times": [1547.809, 1563.313], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1547.254}, "reply_to": "22024__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__1_032", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1563.313], "stop_times": [1563.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1563.313}, "reply_to": "22024__1_031", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_033", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Is that the way we do it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1563.479], "stop_times": [1564.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1563.479}, "reply_to": "22024__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__1_034", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "There's... there's a decision in McDermott v. Wilander that expressly holds that the worker need not aid in the navigation of the ship.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1564.388], "stop_times": [1570.166], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1564.388}, "reply_to": "22024__1_033", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_035", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "That's right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1570.166], "stop_times": [1570.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1570.166}, "reply_to": "22024__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__1_036", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Bartenders, croupiers, waitresses, et cetera on cruise ships are all seamen.\nThat's just the holding of McDermott v. Wilander.\nNow, there's still a separate question of whether they're exposed to the perils of sea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1570.704, 1574.625, 1577.68], "stop_times": [1574.625, 1577.68, 1581.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1570.704}, "reply_to": "22024__1_035", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_037", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "So as long as... as long as somebody is... is engaged in a navigation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1581.478], "stop_times": [1584.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.478}, "reply_to": "22024__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__1_038", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "In the ship's work--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1584.616], "stop_times": [1584.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1584.616}, "reply_to": "22024__1_037", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_039", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--function, everybody else comes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1584.838], "stop_times": [1586.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1584.838}, "reply_to": "22024__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__1_040", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--whether that work is gambling or--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1586.119], "stop_times": [1586.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1586.119}, "reply_to": "22024__1_039", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_041", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1586.657], "stop_times": [1587.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1586.657}, "reply_to": "22024__1_040", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__1_042", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--But now we have, in my concert ship, the concert master and the whole orchestra covered by the Jones Act even if none of them, by the way, has ever been even to sea on that day when... they take the train.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1587.028], "stop_times": [1600.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1587.028}, "reply_to": "22024__1_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__1_043", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Well, I just said that they may not be covered, but they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1600.774], "stop_times": [1603.336], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1600.774}, "reply_to": "22024__1_042", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_044", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Because?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1603.336], "stop_times": [1603.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1603.336}, "reply_to": "22024__1_043", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__1_045", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--They may not be covered--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1603.541], "stop_times": [1604.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1603.541}, "reply_to": "22024__1_044", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_046", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Because?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1604.906], "stop_times": [1605.127], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1604.906}, "reply_to": "22024__1_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__1_047", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--They may not be covered if they fail the last requirement--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1605.127], "stop_times": [1606.513], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1605.127}, "reply_to": "22024__1_046", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_048", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "But it says--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1606.513], "stop_times": [1607.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.513}, "reply_to": "22024__1_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__1_049", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--of Chandris.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1607.339], "stop_times": [1608.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1607.339}, "reply_to": "22024__1_048", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_050", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--in terms of both its duration and its nature, i.e., a connection to a vessel--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1608.165], "stop_times": [1613.078], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1608.165}, "reply_to": "22024__1_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__1_051", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Vessel in navigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1613.078], "stop_times": [1613.904], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1613.078}, "reply_to": "22024__1_050", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_052", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--in navigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1613.904], "stop_times": [1614.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1613.904}, "reply_to": "22024__1_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__1_053", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Right, and I... Harbor Tug v. Barge, which is a later opinion, explains that that test will look at whether the employee's duties take him or her to sea.\nNow, in this case the dredges operate not only... only on the water, but they're out there usually away from shore and are engaged in regular movement over navigable waters.\nAnd the workers on that dredge, such as petitioner, are subject to the traditional perils of navigation which include not only collision with ships, but even capsizing.\nBarges such as dredges are particularly susceptible to capsizing because their distance between the deck of the barge and the water, which is known as the freeboard, is low.\nIn this case it was only 5 feet, and they have a high center of gravity because of those derricks or cranes that are holding the bucket ship.\nAnd if it's operating in poor weather or for some reason it's overloaded, they can tip over and you have a marine incident or even casualties.\nAnd this worker was exposed to the perils of navigation like other traditional seamen.\nAnd this Court... we think it's pretty telling that the Court basically in two decisions has resolved this case.\nYou have already used 1 U.S.C. 3 in the Norton case in defining what is a vessel for purposes of the seamen exclusion in the Longshore Act.\nAnd then in the Ellis decision, this Court has already held that a dredge, including the scows that were accompanying that dredge, were vessels for purposes of 1 U.S.C. 3 and that the workers were seamen and that they were basically called upon to perform the duties, more or less, of ordinary seamen.\nAnd every other court that had looked at the issue and passed on it had equally held that dredges were vessels for a variety of maritime purposes.\nThat was seamen's liens, limitation of liability, and... and the overtime... overtime laws in the Ellis case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1614.276, 1623.275, 1633.845, 1643.543, 1654.195, 1661.17, 1670.17, 1675.676, 1681.809, 1689.944, 1706.495, 1714.957], "stop_times": [1623.275, 1633.845, 1643.543, 1654.195, 1661.17, 1670.17, 1675.676, 1681.809, 1689.944, 1706.495, 1714.957, 1723.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1614.276}, "reply_to": "22024__1_052", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_054", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Ms. Blatt, the... there was a brief filed by Signal I think that argues that a Jones Act vessel has to provide food, care and lodging to be covered.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1723.296], "stop_times": [1733.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1723.296}, "reply_to": "22024__1_053", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22024__1_055", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Right.\nWith due respect to the author, I think that approach is novel, it's radical, and it's unsubstantiated.\nNever has the definition of vessel turned on whether the watercraft had sleeping quarters.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1733.865, 1734.153, 1739.316], "stop_times": [1734.153, 1739.316, 1743.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1733.865}, "reply_to": "22024__1_054", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_056", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Are there problems in computing maintenance and cure in a case like this one?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1743.541], "stop_times": [1747.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1743.541}, "reply_to": "22024__1_055", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22024__1_057", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "It's usually governed by the collective bargaining agreement.\nI think it's something like $40 a day, and this petitioner was a union laborer.\nAnd it's... it's usually governed--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1747.611, 1750.311, 1754.504], "stop_times": [1750.311, 1754.504, 1755.869], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1747.611}, "reply_to": "22024__1_056", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_058", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Suppose it were just left it up to the law.\nAre there problems in computing what cure and maintenance--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1755.869, 1757.559], "stop_times": [1757.559, 1759.971], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1755.869}, "reply_to": "22024__1_057", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22024__1_059", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--There used to be, but in... there used to be a debate, which I think most of the cases the Signal brief is relying on, in how long maintenance and cure goes for and it was a rather kind of arcane, tricky thing, but basically this Court resolved it in 1930.\nIt goes to maximum cure.\nSo the seamen can no longer be cured.\nAnd there used to be a debate about should it just go to the extent of the wage contract or to some longer point, and the Court resolved that.\nBut there is no case that has ever even discussed the fact that a vessel turns on whether it has sleeping quarters.\nAnd we think that brief is also fatally undermined by the decision in Ellis and all the... decision in Ellis already holding that vessels... or the workers were seamen, and there was never been a discussion in those dredge cases about whether they had sleeping quarters.\nSeveral of those cases... the most oft-cited one is that Saylor v. Taylor case out of the Fourth Circuit, was a maritime lien case, and those are exactly the type of workers that this Court in McDermott said were seamen who were intended to be covered under the Jones Act.\nIf there are no questions, we would ask that the First Circuit's decision be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1759.971, 1772.791, 1774.36, 1776.961, 1784.391, 1791.45, 1807.137, 1821.626], "stop_times": [1772.791, 1774.36, 1776.961, 1784.391, 1791.45, 1807.137, 1821.626, 1826.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 1759.971}, "reply_to": "22024__1_058", "speaker": "lisa_s_blatt"}
{"id": "22024__1_060", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Blatt.\nMr. Connelly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1826.828, 1829.428], "stop_times": [1829.428, 1831.37], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1826.828}, "reply_to": "22024__1_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22024__2_000", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThis Court in Chandris and in Harbor Tug stated the basic point of trying to be... to separate lien-based employees from sea-based employees.\nThis Court also stated that was Congress' goal in passing the Jones Act.\nThe Court wrote: the Jones Act remedy is reserved for employees whose work regularly exposes them to the special hazards and disadvantages to which they who go down to the sea in ships are subjected.\nThe First Circuit's ruling is much more likely to get to that result.\nThe goal that this Court stated was Congress' goal then is section... excuse me... 1 U.S.C., section 3.\nJustice O'Connor, your first question had to do with the casino boats, and that is a point that I was going to raise.\nThose casino boats are traditional vessels plying the rivers and used mostly in the midwest and... and the Great Lakes.\nThose States have recently over the last 3 or 4 years changed their law.\nThe law had been that they had to go up to... out into navigation.\nThey've now changed them and said, no, you must stay dockside.\nAll they are is tied up dockside.\nThey can be untied and moved out at any time.\nThe cases that... and you're probably going to have some before you... are dealing with dealers and waiters and waitresses to go aboard the casino boat and maybe fall down in the kitchen or something and are injured.\nThey have never been on the boat while it was moved and it hasn't moved for the last several years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1831.37, 1836.2, 1845.488, 1849.407, 1859.81, 1864.723, 1871.948, 1880.493, 1887.757, 1891.556, 1894.816, 1898.615, 1900.927, 1904.104, 1915.333], "stop_times": [1836.2, 1845.488, 1849.407, 1859.81, 1864.723, 1871.948, 1880.493, 1887.757, 1891.556, 1894.816, 1898.615, 1900.927, 1904.104, 1915.333, 1919.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1831.37}, "reply_to": "22024__1_060", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_001", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, that might affect the decision of whether they are seamen covered under the Jones Act.\nIt might still be a vessel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1919.253, 1924.926], "stop_times": [1924.926, 1926.85], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1919.253}, "reply_to": "22024__2_000", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22024__2_002", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1926.85], "stop_times": [1927.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1926.85}, "reply_to": "22024__2_001", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_003", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "But there may be other aspects of the test that aren't met--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1927.388], "stop_times": [1932.134], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1927.388}, "reply_to": "22024__2_002", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22024__2_004", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--But breaking it down--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1932.134], "stop_times": [1933.249], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1932.134}, "reply_to": "22024__2_003", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_005", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--when the thing is tied up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1933.249], "stop_times": [1933.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1933.249}, "reply_to": "22024__2_004", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22024__2_006", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Breaking it down, Your Honor, if the petitioner has his way, those tests are met.\nThe first test is whether it's a vessel.\nIt is a vessel.\nSecond test, whether it's in navigation.\nThe Government has just told you, and it states in its brief, any vessel that had any transportation purpose at all that is still not... unless it's mothballed... and I think they said today either pipes driven through it or in cement... is a vessel in navigation.\nSo it is a vessel in navigation.\nWe know that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1933.786, 1939.609, 1941.549, 1942.292, 1944.272, 1957.208, 1958.656], "stop_times": [1939.609, 1941.549, 1942.292, 1944.272, 1957.208, 1958.656, 1960.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1933.786}, "reply_to": "22024__2_005", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_007", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "I think it might be a vessel, but probably not in navigation while it's tied up or in mothballs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1960.142], "stop_times": [1967.822], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1960.142}, "reply_to": "22024__2_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22024__2_008", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Again, Your Honor, all it is is tied to the pier.\nThe Government has taken the position, as has petitioner, in their briefs and here today that it's still in navigation if it can be used.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1967.822, 1970.134], "stop_times": [1970.134, 1976.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1967.822}, "reply_to": "22024__2_007", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_009", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Yes, but I think what the Government has said is that though it's in navigation, we have a case that says that the... that the seaman's connection to the ship has to be related to the functioning of the ship in navigation.\nHe doesn't have to navigate it, but he has to be working at what the ship does in the course of its navigation, and a dredge operator does that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [1976.738, 1992.221], "stop_times": [1992.221, 2002.373], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1976.738}, "reply_to": "22024__2_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__2_010", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, I don't think a dredge operator does that any more than the waiter on the casino.\nThe dredge operator... the dredge is there to do construction work.\nIt is there to dredge.\nThe casino is there to have people gamble and serve them drinks.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2002.373, 2006.997, 2010.219, 2011.25], "stop_times": [2006.997, 2010.219, 2011.25, 2014.882], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2002.373}, "reply_to": "22024__2_009", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_011", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "But isn't... isn't that the point?\nThe dredge is there necessarily to move.\nThe casino is not there necessarily to move.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2014.882, 2016.246, 2018.393], "stop_times": [2016.246, 2018.393, 2021.569], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2014.882}, "reply_to": "22024__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22024__2_012", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, it is our position... and as stated by some of the First Circuit... that the movement of the dredge was incidental.\nOnce--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2021.569, 2028.174], "stop_times": [2028.174, 2028.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2021.569}, "reply_to": "22024__2_011", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_013", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Should we clarify that?\nBecause I don't read the cases saying what Justice Scalia just said or what you... what it says is that a seaman must have a connection to a substantial... in terms of duration and nature connection to a vessel in navigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2028.712, 2029.622], "stop_times": [2029.622, 2043.778], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2028.712}, "reply_to": "22024__2_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__2_014", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2043.778], "stop_times": [2044.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2043.778}, "reply_to": "22024__2_013", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_015", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Obviously, a croupier has such a connection.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2044.149], "stop_times": [2046.173], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.149}, "reply_to": "22024__2_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__2_016", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2046.173], "stop_times": [2046.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2046.173}, "reply_to": "22024__2_015", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_017", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "It doesn't say anything about being connected to the navigating part.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2046.711], "stop_times": [2049.312], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2046.711}, "reply_to": "22024__2_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__2_018", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "That's correct, and this Court handled that in Wilander, Your Honor, that it said in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2049.312], "stop_times": [2052.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2049.312}, "reply_to": "22024__2_017", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_019", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Not to the navigating part but to what the vessel is doing in the course of its being in navigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2052.989], "stop_times": [2060.168], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2052.989}, "reply_to": "22024__2_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__2_020", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--If the term, Your Honor, in navigation, had the bite that I think it should have, then we may not be here today at all.\nThe First Circuit was actually looking at the actual transportation function, assuming that it had to be into navigation.\nWhat the... what the petitioner wants is 1 U.S.C., section 3 which looks at theoretical transportation, a mere capability.\nAnd Your Honor, I understand what you said, Justice Scalia, that to you, they're the same, practical capability or capability.\nBut to the petitioner and the Government, they are far different.\nIn both of their briefs, they have said that without the Evansville change in the language of the statute which adds practical capability, both have agreed that it is overly inclusive a statute, 1 U.S.C., section 3.\nIt includes everything and including Justice Breyer's garage door.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2060.168, 2066.856, 2073.46, 2081.056, 2088.199, 2091.46, 2104.547], "stop_times": [2066.856, 2073.46, 2081.056, 2088.199, 2091.46, 2104.547, 2108.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2060.168}, "reply_to": "22024__2_019", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_021", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "But as Mr. Kaplan pointed out, all... the fact that something is a vessel doesn't mean there's Jones Act coverage, and I think Mr. Kaplan was getting to the perils of the sea.\nSomeone who's working on a boat that is not in the water day in and day out is never exposed to the perils of the sea.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2108.057, 2118.255], "stop_times": [2118.255, 2127.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2108.057}, "reply_to": "22024__2_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__2_022", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, Your Honor, the perils of the sea, which this Court discussed at length in the Papai case, we... we say that... that is further evidence that Mr. Stewart is not entitled to Jones Act remedies.\nMr. Stewart was on a construction site.\nIt happened to be a work platform in site of land.\nHe was never more than 500 yards off the coast.\nThe dangers that he was up against were more akin to that of a construction worker or, at the very least, a harbor worker or a stevedore.\nThey were not the same perils that are normally faced by a true seaman.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2127.46, 2139.841, 2142.692, 2145.58, 2148.265, 2155.445, 2160.275], "stop_times": [2139.841, 2142.692, 2145.58, 2148.265, 2155.445, 2160.275, 2161.268], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2127.46}, "reply_to": "22024__2_021", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_023", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "One peril was a collision with another vessel, and that's exactly what happened here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2161.268], "stop_times": [2165.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2161.268}, "reply_to": "22024__2_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__2_024", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--We disagree with that, Your Honor.\nThis was a situation where the Super Scoop was... was moored.\nIt was anchored and stationary, again as a stationary work platform.\nThe scow was just being brought from one side to the other alongside... attached to it at all time by... by cables and by the crane.\nThe... the... he got jostled and he fell.\nNo different than harbor workers and stevedores face everyday when they're unloading ships and working on harbors.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2165.726, 2166.962, 2171.01, 2174.78, 2183.681, 2187.19], "stop_times": [2166.962, 2171.01, 2174.78, 2183.681, 2187.19, 2192.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2165.726}, "reply_to": "22024__2_023", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_025", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Suppose there had been... suppose there had been very rough water--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2192.557], "stop_times": [2195.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.557}, "reply_to": "22024__2_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22024__2_026", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "They would have sent everyone home.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2195.119], "stop_times": [2196.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2195.119}, "reply_to": "22024__2_025", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_027", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--and... and the crane operator was the... was operating it and the water came over the freeboard and it capsized.\nThat's... that would be the perils of the sea, wouldn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2196.317, 2201.313], "stop_times": [2201.313, 2203.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2196.317}, "reply_to": "22024__2_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22024__2_028", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, because we are in the protected harbors of the... of Boston Harbor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2203.708], "stop_times": [2207.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2203.708}, "reply_to": "22024__2_027", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_029", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "No.\nThis is my... this is a special day in Boston--\n[Laughter]\n--which... which they have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2207.878, 2207.978, 2209.902, 2211.138], "stop_times": [2207.978, 2209.902, 2211.138, 2212.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2207.878}, "reply_to": "22024__2_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22024__2_030", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--That happened a week ago.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2212.253], "stop_times": [2213.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.253}, "reply_to": "22024__2_029", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_031", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--every 86 years or something.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2213.329, 2214.111], "stop_times": [2214.111, 2214.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2213.329}, "reply_to": "22024__2_030", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22024__2_032", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "It happens every... every 86 years they have one of these storms.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2214.565, 2219.273], "stop_times": [2219.273, 2219.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2214.565}, "reply_to": "22024__2_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__2_033", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Your--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2219.683], "stop_times": [2220.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2219.683}, "reply_to": "22024__2_032", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_034", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "So far.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2220.388], "stop_times": [2222.412], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.388}, "reply_to": "22024__2_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__2_035", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Your Honor, I think in that... in that... using your hypothetical, it's a construction platform right off the coast.\nThey'd send everyone home.\nIf there was any trouble with the sea, the... the greatest perils that are discussed in the petitioner's brief... and they list them all... one of them is isolation and far away from home and far from aid.\nThose don't apply to Mr. Stewart.\nMr. Stewart would be sent home if there was too much... the weather got bad.\nHe would be sent home in a... in a minute or 2.\nHe lived right in Boston.\nHe was in the middle of a large city.\nThere was no major danger of isolation.\nThat... the Super Scoop was inspected regularly by the State, Federal, and Government officials and by the general contractor on the job.\nThere was no isolation.\nAll of the perils that have been listed by--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2222.412, 2228.727, 2229.554, 2237.849, 2239.585, 2243.422, 2245.28, 2246.106, 2247.842, 2250.193, 2258.283, 2259.481], "stop_times": [2228.727, 2229.554, 2237.849, 2239.585, 2243.422, 2245.28, 2246.106, 2247.842, 2250.193, 2258.283, 2259.481, 2262.043], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2222.412}, "reply_to": "22024__2_034", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_036", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "And... and by the Coast Guard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2262.043], "stop_times": [2263.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2262.043}, "reply_to": "22024__2_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22024__2_037", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--The Coast Guard also.\nI'm not sure they went out on a regular basis, but they did inspect the... the Super Scoop at... at some point.\nThere's no question about that.\nThis Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2263.091, 2265.425, 2269.306, 2271.248], "stop_times": [2265.425, 2269.306, 2271.248, 2272.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2263.091}, "reply_to": "22024__2_036", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_038", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "You're not contending that anything that happens in a harbor is not exposed to the perils of the sea, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2272.363], "stop_times": [2277.564], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2272.363}, "reply_to": "22024__2_037", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22024__2_039", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Oh, absolutely not, Your Honor.\nThis Court in Cope and earlier cases has long equated a vessel with transportation.\nThat's what the First Circuit did.\nThey... they needed a bright line.\nThey chose a bright line, and the bright line was transportation.\nIs the structure primarily engaged in transportation or commerce?\nAnd navigation, transportation, and commerce are all intermixed, and... and the definitions include each other.\nAnd they found that it was not primarily engaged in transportation.\nIt was primarily a work platform doing construction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2277.564, 2278.186, 2284.706, 2286.109, 2287.761, 2290.362, 2294.654, 2299.362, 2303.365], "stop_times": [2278.186, 2284.706, 2286.109, 2287.761, 2290.362, 2294.654, 2299.362, 2303.365, 2306.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2277.564}, "reply_to": "22024__2_038", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_040", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "But how do you... how can you possibly describe as a bright line test anything that says you have to identify the primary function?\nPlus, even if it's not its primary function, if it happens to be moving at the time of the accident, then there's coverage.\nThat doesn't seem to me very bright line.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2306.793, 2315.066, 2324.847], "stop_times": [2315.066, 2324.847, 2327.431], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2306.793}, "reply_to": "22024__2_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__2_041", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, Your Honor, what it is, I believe, is a bright line test with an exception.\nAnd the Stewart case talked about the DiGiovanni exception, which falls very closely to... to what Justice Stevens wrote in his concurring opinion in the Chandris case, that it is unfair that somebody who was actually injured while a... a vessel or... or structure is in actual navigation does not get at least a second bite at the apple and that that person cannot be... said to be a Jones Act seaman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2327.431, 2332.921], "stop_times": [2332.921, 2355.834], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2327.431}, "reply_to": "22024__2_040", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_042", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Even though the identical accident happens to his buddy 10 minutes before when the vessel isn't moving.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2355.834], "stop_times": [2362.809], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2355.834}, "reply_to": "22024__2_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__2_043", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, Your Honor, at no time during the 1 and a half years that Mr. Stewart was in the harbor, as far as we know from the record, was the Super Scoop in transportation.\nThe incidental movement of... of pulling forward a few feet with its anchors is not navigation or transport... transportation.\nThe First Circuit stated that the movement of the scow was both immaterial because, as the Government has already admitted, he wasn't tied to the scow.\nHis... his time was spent on the Super Scoop, but also incidental, Your Honor, because it was just slight movement along the site.\nIt wasn't transportation or navigation.\nAt no point... and... and the petitioner has put their spin on this that... stating that Mr. Stewart every day he was out there moved in and out of coverage.\nThat's not true.\nHe was never in Jones Act coverage.\nAnd Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2362.809, 2371.149, 2377.875, 2387.617, 2394.776, 2397.072, 2405.739, 2406.482, 2408.422], "stop_times": [2371.149, 2377.875, 2387.617, 2394.776, 2397.072, 2405.739, 2406.482, 2408.422, 2409.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2362.809}, "reply_to": "22024__2_042", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_044", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "I... I guess I could agree with you if... if I believed that I had to look to the primary purpose, whether the primary purpose of the vessel was transportation.\nBut what... what do you do about gambling ships that, you know, they... they sail out beyond the 2-mile limit and then come right back to where they left?\nNow, people get on board not to get transported.\nThey get on board to gamble.\nAnd the purpose of the ship, the primary purpose of the ship, is gambling.\nYou think that... that... the... the seamen who... who are on that ship, which regularly goes out beyond the 2-mile limit, you think that they're... that they're not covered by the Jones Act?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2409.248, 2417.627, 2427.165, 2429.682, 2431.002, 2435.543], "stop_times": [2417.627, 2427.165, 2429.682, 2431.002, 2435.543, 2444.005], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2409.248}, "reply_to": "22024__2_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__2_045", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--I think in that situation, Your Honor, it's... it's a closer call, that they--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2444.005], "stop_times": [2447.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2444.005}, "reply_to": "22024__2_044", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_046", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "I don't think it's close at all.\nI think they're obviously covered by the Jones Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2447.143, 2448.092], "stop_times": [2448.092, 2449.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2447.143}, "reply_to": "22024__2_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__2_047", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--That is a traditional trip... ship and those people are engaged in a form of transport--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2449.95], "stop_times": [2454.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2449.95}, "reply_to": "22024__2_046", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_048", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "But... but that's not the primary purpose of... of the ship, just as the primary purpose of this scow is... of... of this dredge is not transportation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2454.796], "stop_times": [2463.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2454.796}, "reply_to": "22024__2_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__2_049", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--In that situation, Your Honor, it would be... it would be a primary purpose, though, that transporting the people who happen to be gambling--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2463.119], "stop_times": [2469.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2463.119}, "reply_to": "22024__2_048", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_050", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Oh, a primary purpose?\nNow, you're getting a little fuzzy there.\nI thought you said the primary purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2469.972, 2470.715, 2472.739], "stop_times": [2470.715, 2472.739, 2474.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2469.972}, "reply_to": "22024__2_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__2_051", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Well, in the First Circuit--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2474.68], "stop_times": [2475.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2474.68}, "reply_to": "22024__2_050", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_052", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "It has to be a primary purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2475.794], "stop_times": [2476.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.794}, "reply_to": "22024__2_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__2_053", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Well, in the Manuel court, the Fifth Circuit actually uses the term, a primary purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2476.992], "stop_times": [2481.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2476.992}, "reply_to": "22024__2_052", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_054", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "A Oh.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2481.284], "stop_times": [2481.739], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2481.284}, "reply_to": "22024__2_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__2_055", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "And... and I think... and to a degree that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2481.739], "stop_times": [2483.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2481.739}, "reply_to": "22024__2_054", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_056", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "And you think that's not fuzzy.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2483.308, 2484.051], "stop_times": [2484.051, 2484.506], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2483.308}, "reply_to": "22024__2_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__2_057", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--It's an... it's an oxymoron, Your Honor.\nBut what... what the First Circuit was doing in... in the Stewart case is... is similar to what this Court did in Chandris.\nIt was looking at a temporal view.\nA worker... and the temporal view used by this Court in Chandris was looking at what the worker was doing.\nWhat were his duties?\nHe isn't going to be denied Jones Act coverage because he happened to be an office worker 2 months before if his duties had changed and he was now a Jones Act seaman, nor if he fell in the office, after he had been reassigned to the office, was he going to gain Jones Act seaman status just because he spent the last 2 years on the vessel.\nThat is what the First Circuit has done in terms of the vessel as well, not just the work but in terms of the vessel.\nDo not look at what this vessel did in the past.\nDo not look at what it did... might do in the... in the future.\nIt's transportation from California through the Panama Canal up the east coast is immaterial.\nYou should look at the worker who is claiming Jones Act status, his relationship to the structure and what the structure's purpose was and business was during that relationship.\nDuring the 1 and a half years that he was associated with it, it wasn't transporting anything.\nIt was used as a... a work platform only, only a structure, and it wasn't transporting anything during that time.\nThe same thing with the casino boats, these individuals who go upon the casinos as a waitress and are never... never leave the port, never leave the dock shouldn't be entitled to the special protections of the Jones Act.\nThey face none of the perils of... of the sea or of... of perils of... of navigation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2484.506, 2486.902, 2494.537, 2497.593, 2503.432, 2504.463, 2521.453, 2526.943, 2529.794, 2533.259, 2539.203, 2550.143, 2555.361, 2562.032, 2576.521], "stop_times": [2486.902, 2494.537, 2497.593, 2503.432, 2504.463, 2521.453, 2526.943, 2529.794, 2533.259, 2539.203, 2550.143, 2555.361, 2562.032, 2576.521, 2581.368], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2484.506}, "reply_to": "22024__2_056", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_058", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "There's a difference to this extent, would you agree, that something that's just tied up to the dock and never moves is different from something that is actually in the water and whether you call it transportation, it is moving?\nIt has to move to engage in the construction of this tunnel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2581.368, 2597.865], "stop_times": [2597.865, 2604.098], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2581.368}, "reply_to": "22024__2_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__2_059", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, Your Honor, this Court has decided, I believe it was in Chandris, that a... a seaman doesn't lose his seaman status just because the vessel he's assigned to is now in... in port.\nThey wanted... they didn't want a person to go in and out too many--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2604.098, 2615.615], "stop_times": [2615.615, 2618.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2604.098}, "reply_to": "22024__2_058", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_060", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, I'm just... let's focus on what is a vessel because someone... it may be a vessel but the injured person may not be a seaman.\nThose are two different things.\nThis is only the first step.\nSo when you're bringing in what the worker does, whether it's a croupier or whatever, the only question that we are considering is, is this dredge a vessel?\nWe're not involved with the question of whether the worker is a seaman unless we pass that basic threshold.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2618.194, 2626.639, 2627.754, 2629.323, 2645.708], "stop_times": [2626.639, 2627.754, 2629.323, 2645.708, 2655.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2618.194}, "reply_to": "22024__2_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__2_061", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--That's correct, Your Honor, but of course, the ultimate issue the Court is trying to arrive at is whether or not Mr. Stewart is a Jones Act seaman.\nAnd this Court has held for him to be a Jones Act seaman, it must be a vessel in navigation.\nI don't think that that can be separated, that just looking at a vessel.\n1 U.S.C., section 3, which the petitioner wishes, of course, everything... everything that floats that is capable of transportation is... is a vessel.\nThe First Circuit has... has used a much more narrow definition but focusing on the purpose and primary use of the structure because it is trying to get to where this Court was trying to get.\nIs it a vessel in navigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2655.905, 2663.995, 2669.075, 2672.252, 2681.085, 2695.863], "stop_times": [2663.995, 2669.075, 2672.252, 2681.085, 2695.863, 2697.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2655.905}, "reply_to": "22024__2_060", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_062", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Is it... is it the vessel that's the problem?\nWhy... why do you focus on the vessel?\nIt seems to me most of your argument has gone to whether it's in navigation.\nCan you be a vessel that is not in navigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2697.682, 2699.457, 2701.686, 2705.755], "stop_times": [2699.457, 2701.686, 2705.755, 2708.949], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2697.682}, "reply_to": "22024__2_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__2_063", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2708.949], "stop_times": [2710.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2708.949}, "reply_to": "22024__2_062", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_064", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Of course, you can or you wouldn't have the... the combination of the two terms appearing anywhere.\nSo why isn't the problem here not whether it's a vessel but whether it's in navigation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2710.89, 2715.925], "stop_times": [2715.925, 2722.035], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2710.89}, "reply_to": "22024__2_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22024__2_065", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, again, Your Honor, if... if in navigation means what it should mean, which is an instrument for transportation or commerce over navigable waters, and not simply as the petitioner and the Government want it to mean that anything that once might have been in navigable waters and stays in navigable waters and isn't mothballed is still in navigation... if it means what it should mean, then that's something I think the First Circuit is... was trying to get to anyway.\nThey... they were looking at it in terms of vessel status, vessel in navigation versus just in navigation.\nThey... they were trying to get there and that's why they used what is really a... a temporal look and looked at what was the business use.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2722.035, 2747.011, 2753.614], "stop_times": [2747.011, 2753.614, 2761.294], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2722.035}, "reply_to": "22024__2_064", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_066", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, exactly.\nAnd... and in Chandris, this Court rejected the snapshot approach to determining what's a vessel and the First Circuit seemed to go back to that.\nAnd certainly what the First Circuit did seems in serious tension with this Court's cases.\nIt just didn't follow the same line that we had outlined.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2761.294, 2761.477, 2772.068, 2778.55], "stop_times": [2761.477, 2772.068, 2778.55, 2785.814], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2761.294}, "reply_to": "22024__2_065", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22024__2_067", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "The First Circuit does... the First Circuit rule, Your Honor, in DiGiovanni and Fall and Stewart does have a snapshot exception.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2785.814], "stop_times": [2794.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2785.814}, "reply_to": "22024__2_066", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_068", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2794.525], "stop_times": [2794.897], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2794.525}, "reply_to": "22024__2_067", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22024__2_069", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "There's the main rule which has a bright line--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2794.897], "stop_times": [2797.209], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2794.897}, "reply_to": "22024__2_068", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_070", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Right, and that was rejected by this Court in Chandris.\nSo I... I think there's a problem here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2797.209, 2799.81], "stop_times": [2799.81, 2802.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2797.209}, "reply_to": "22024__2_069", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22024__2_071", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, there... there are always... and this is answering Justice Ginsburg's question earlier as well.\nThere are always going to be difficult situations where some people, doing the exact same work, using the same equipment on the same structure, some are covered and some are not, a situation where one has the requisite connection 30 or 40 percent to a vessel, the other person doing the same work next to him only has 10 percent.\nOne is covered.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2802.206, 2807.9, 2823.875], "stop_times": [2807.9, 2823.875, 2824.884], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2802.206}, "reply_to": "22024__2_070", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_072", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Yes, but it might be much simpler to rely on 1 U.S. Code, section 3 and our... our definition, as we've described it there, and then deal with other situations within the framework of the definition of seaman and the other issues that arise.\nAnd it seems like the First Circuit went backwards from Chandris back to Giovanni which basically had been rejected.\nSo that's the concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2824.884, 2843.46, 2854.711], "stop_times": [2843.46, 2854.711, 2856.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2824.884}, "reply_to": "22024__2_071", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22024__2_073", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Your Honor, again, I... I think that if 1 U.S.C., section 3 is adopted, then every vessel capable--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2856.447], "stop_times": [2866.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2856.447}, "reply_to": "22024__2_072", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_074", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Congress adopted that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2866.106], "stop_times": [2867.1], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2866.106}, "reply_to": "22024__2_073", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22024__2_075", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--Well, I don't... I don't agree, Your Honor.\nThe way... the way we look at the congressional intent... this Court has already decided in... in several cases that Congress left it to the court to decide which persons are... should be granted Jones Act seaman status.\nThis is what the Court has said.\nWhy then would the Congress in... in the same statutes have sort of handcuffed the Court by saying it's for you to decide who's a Jones Act seaman and who's entitled to those special protections, but we're going to handcuff you and... and say this is what you have to decide as far as vessel is concerned?\n1 U.S.C., section 3 was not followed.\nI should also point out that the petitioner is a recent convert to this position, and it... it hasn't been followed in the circuits at all.\nThere isn't a lot of cases out there where a lot of circuit judges have stated section 3 should be the definition for the Jones Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2867.1, 2868.707, 2883.196, 2884.205, 2901.029, 2904.456, 2912.153], "stop_times": [2868.707, 2883.196, 2884.205, 2901.029, 2904.456, 2912.153, 2920.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2867.1}, "reply_to": "22024__2_074", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_076", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "If... if you go... I thought vessel... the word vessel appears in our cases.\nIt doesn't appear in the Jones Act.\nAm I right or not about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2920.431, 2925.633, 2927.202], "stop_times": [2925.633, 2927.202, 2928.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2920.431}, "reply_to": "22024__2_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__2_077", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "It does not appear in the Jones Act--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2928.704], "stop_times": [2929.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2928.704}, "reply_to": "22024__2_076", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_078", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "All right.\nSo we have a degree of freedom on this.\nBut... but the... the question then is, is it... how... I'm getting the impression from you and... and from the SG that it's rather deeply embedded in the law, if we start reading the Fifth Circuit cases, that if we define X as a vessel, automatically it is a vessel in navigation, that the cases have said the word in navigation mean nothing, with one exception.\nThe exception is if you actually have like a physical cemented connection to the land so they can't escape.\nOtherwise, if it's just tied up at a dock, even if it never goes to sea, those words, in navigation, have no meaning.\nIf it's a vessel, it's a vessel in navigation.\nIf it's my garage door, my garage door, which can float, is a vessel in navigation.\nNow, how accurate is that assumption I'm now making?\nWhat would I read in the law?\nIs that definition of in navigation as meaning virtually nothing really embedded in the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2929.613, 2929.985, 2931.676, 2959.623, 2968.457, 2978.132, 2980.717, 2985.918, 2990.459, 2992.484], "stop_times": [2929.985, 2931.676, 2959.623, 2968.457, 2978.132, 2980.717, 2985.918, 2990.459, 2992.484, 2998.261], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2929.613}, "reply_to": "22024__2_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__2_079", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--It is pursuant to what... the petitioner and the Government's view.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [2998.261], "stop_times": [3002.226], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2998.261}, "reply_to": "22024__2_078", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_080", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "I know it is but what is your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3002.226], "stop_times": [3004.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3002.226}, "reply_to": "22024__2_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__2_081", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "My view is that it shouldn't be, that it should have some bite to it.\nIt should mean, as... as I stated before, an instrument of commerce or transportation over navigable waters.\nBut that's not what it has come to mean in a lot of the circuits below.\nIt has come to mean something that's just simply in navigable waters no matter how many years it has gone without--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3004.084, 3008.664, 3013.41, 3018.778], "stop_times": [3008.664, 3013.41, 3018.778, 3025.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3004.084}, "reply_to": "22024__2_080", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_082", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Well, would it help? Suppose we were to say it was... had to be capable, at least, of having a captain and crew?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3025.277], "stop_times": [3033.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3025.277}, "reply_to": "22024__2_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__2_083", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--I have never thought of that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3033.079], "stop_times": [3036.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3033.079}, "reply_to": "22024__2_082", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_084", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Then we better not do anything for the first time.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3036.051, 3038.902], "stop_times": [3038.902, 3039.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3036.051}, "reply_to": "22024__2_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22024__2_085", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Your Honor, I think in that in that situation, there are... there can be vessels involved with transportation, getting back to the Cope case and other cases, where there... it's... it's a barge being towed, but it's transporting things.\nWe're not disputing that.\nI don't think it needs to have a captain and crew necessarily to be a... considered a vessel in navigation.\nBut you hit the nail on the head, Your Honor, and that's... that's where the First Circuit was befuddled in... in trying to come up with a regional... reasonable test because they're dealing with this situation where it seemed like everything is a vessel in navigation.\nAnd yet, that doesn't serve Congress' intent of only persons who face the perils of the sea are entitled to the special protections under the Jones Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3039.239, 3053.884, 3054.627, 3060.671, 3076.508], "stop_times": [3053.884, 3054.627, 3060.671, 3076.508, 3086.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3039.239}, "reply_to": "22024__2_084", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_086", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "The... the word vessel does appear in the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3086.828], "stop_times": [3092.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3086.828}, "reply_to": "22024__2_085", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__2_087", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3092.688], "stop_times": [3093.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3092.688}, "reply_to": "22024__2_086", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_088", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "And this is the... the only purpose of the vessel inquiry that we're involved in is to... to say is this person within one injury compensation scheme or another.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3093.265], "stop_times": [3113.782], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3093.265}, "reply_to": "22024__2_087", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__2_089", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3113.782], "stop_times": [3114.691], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3113.782}, "reply_to": "22024__2_088", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_090", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Now why, in making that inquiry, should the courts go off on their own and be inventive and come up with a definition when Congress has given a definition that can be used by default?\nIf Congress thinks it should be other than the general definition they have provided, Congress can also do that.\nBut in the meantime, why should the courts go creating definitions instead of using the one that's right there in the statute book?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3114.691, 3128.893, 3135.413], "stop_times": [3128.893, 3135.413, 3144.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3114.691}, "reply_to": "22024__2_089", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__2_091", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Because this Court effectively overruled the definition or decided not to use it in the Evansville case.\nIt saw in that case that it would not just rely on the section 3 language.\nIt would add the word practically, practically capable, and... and not just capable because the Court saw that in Evansville the wharfboat, which they determined was not a vessel, even though again not dealing with the Jones Act, it was capable of transportation, but it wasn't practically capable of transportation.\nSo the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3144.618, 3152.214, 3156.301, 3173.763], "stop_times": [3152.214, 3156.301, 3173.763, 3174.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3144.618}, "reply_to": "22024__2_090", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_092", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Was the Court then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3174.218], "stop_times": [3174.756], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3174.218}, "reply_to": "22024__2_091", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__2_093", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--the Court has decided--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3174.756], "stop_times": [3175.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3174.756}, "reply_to": "22024__2_092", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_094", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--just construing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3175.394], "stop_times": [3175.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3175.394}, "reply_to": "22024__2_093", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__2_095", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--not to follow section 3.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3175.715], "stop_times": [3177.367], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3175.715}, "reply_to": "22024__2_094", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_096", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "--just construing instead of not following, but say by capable, Congress must mean practically capable.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3177.367], "stop_times": [3183.228], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3177.367}, "reply_to": "22024__2_095", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22024__2_097", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Your Honor... and I realize that is what Justice Scalia said earlier.\nThe position of the petitioner, as he stated as he was standing here not too many minutes ago, was that they seek to have the Court employ 1 U.S.C., section 3, not the Evansville change to that section.\nThey... they see it as quite different and it's in both of their briefs, that Evansville did change 1 U.S.C., section 3.\nThe petitioner's position is that this Court is bound by... to follow 1 U.S.C., section 3 because Congress says so.\nIt is our position that they're not so bound.\nIf you're bound... if you're not bound, why take a faulty definition such as section 3 and try to change it a little bit?\nYou're... you're free to as... as you are, to determine who is a Jones Act seaman.\nYou're free to determine what is a vessel in navigation or a vessel pertaining to the... the Jones Act.\n1 U.S.C., section 3 was never referenced in the Longshore Act.\nCongress at that time, many years before and many years after, has passed many statutes in which vessel is defined.\nSometimes they reference section 3; other times they write in a definition.\nSometimes it's similar to section 3, sometimes quite different.\nIn this case... for the Longshore Act, they decided to leave it to the courts.\nThe Jones Act was passed in 1920.\nIts predecessor was the act of 1915.\nThat act did have a definition of vessel that was very restrictive and actually talked about actual navigation.\nIn 1920, the Merchant Marine Act was passed and it... that portion of it had a very large definition, which was already discussed earlier, the Shipping Act definition.\nThe Jones Act didn't adopt that one and it didn't adopt the one in 1915.\nThe... the Longshore and Harbor Workers Act was passed in 1927.\nCertainly by that point they knew that they had just jettisoned two definitions 7 years before.\nThey chose again to leave it to the courts.\nIn 1972 and again in 1984, there were considerable amendments that Congress did to the Longshore Act.\nAt that time, they certainly knew... and there's always been heavy... heavy lobbying going on in Congress every time that they try to touch the Longshore Act or... or the Jones Act.\nThey knew by that point in time that the circuits were not using section 3 as the definition for Jones Act vessel.\nAgain, they chose to leave it to the courts.\nThey did not intercede and then reference section 3 or incorporate a definition like it or something.\nThey again chose not to.\nIn 1920, section 3 was certainly not the only definition of vessel.\nBenedict on Admiralty, which this Court has cited several times, which the petitioner has cited, had a completely different definition of... of vessel, and that could have been the one that Congress had in mind.\nI realize it's always dangerous to mention the Congressional Record, but most of the people who spoke in 1920 and again in... mainly in 1927 were discussing traditional vessels and vessels on a voyage.\nIf they had true seamen in mind, they probably had more of a traditional vessel in mind.\nAlso looking at the record, when the House wanted to include everybody, all seamen, into the Longshore Act, they listed out various structures such as dredges and barges.\nObviously, a compromise was reached with the Senate, and when the act was passed, they limited it, not just seamen and... and but only to masters and members of crews of vessels.\nThey limited it to that and left it, of course, to the courts to decide who is entitled to the Jones Act status.\nIf I may have a second, Your Honor.\nThe term vessel can and often has had a different meaning for the Jones Act, which this Court has stated is a vessel in navigation, than it does with the Longshore and Harbor Workers Act.\nIn his amicus brief filed on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Hillsman writes that the lower court unanimously... unanimously... have decided that the definition of vessel for purposes of the Longshore Act is much, much more inclusive than it is for the Jones Act, and it has worked perfectly fine.\nUnder the Longshore Act, most of the persons who collect longshore benefits only have to show it's a maritime nexus.\nThere's no vessel requirement from almost all of the claims under the Longshore Act.\nAnother point I wish to make is that both the First Circuit and the petitioner talked about a bright line test.\nThe First Circuit, though, test is dealing with actual transportation, the actual use in business of the structure during the time that the person who is claiming special status is associated with it.\nMore confusing is dealing with 1 U.S.C., section 3, which although bright is also very broad and would include everything.\nAnything that floats or is capable of floating would be included under that.\nThere are always going to be situations, no matter what definition the Court comes up with... always situations where a person would have to be covered under both acts, and I realize in the Chandris case, it was the goal of the Court to say we'd like to make it clear as we... we can.\nWe don't want people going in and out of Jones Act status.\nHowever, as this Court saw in Gizoni, a perfect example... in Gizoni, the person was a harbor worker.\nThis Court sent it back to the lower court saying... the lower court had said you're a harbor worker.\nThat's your label.\nYou're in the harbor workers' union.\nYou're not entitled to... for Jones Act status.\nThis Court said no, send it back, let's take another look.\nThe person, although a harbor worker, may have had the requisite connections to a vessel in navigation to be able to claim Jones Act seaman status.\nObviously, in that situation, which is a perfect example, the... the employer would have had to cover him under the Longshore Act and if... if the lower court changes or... or the jury decides that he's a Jones Act seaman, would have had to have covered him under the Jones Act.\nProfessor Schoenbaum has said that the mutual exclusivity of the two acts is really in theory only and that there are always cases and will be dealing with the brown water seamen and brown water employees, harbor workers and longshoremen, where they're going to have to be covered under both anyway.\nAgain, the First Circuit test, which does have an exception to it, which it clearly is... is a snapshot, again to give someone another bite at the apple, which this Court thought, at least in the concurring opinion in Chandris, was a fair result, has that.\nBut the test itself is... is broad.\nIt... it is a bright line and it makes it clear, as this Court has stated in the past, that unless there's a transportation function, it's not a vessel in navigation.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3183.228, 3186.944, 3198.339, 3203.912, 3209.689, 3212.002, 3218.234, 3222.526, 3229.38, 3235.863, 3242.671, 3247.668, 3249.913, 3255.303, 3259.268, 3262.445, 3270.264, 3279.719, 3284.282, 3289.278, 3294.396, 3296.337, 3303.146, 3312.024, 3320.402, 3323.087, 3328.492, 3330.267, 3335.468, 3347.151, 3360.897, 3365.234, 3377.206, 3387.897, 3394.871, 3400.628, 3421.145, 3440.647, 3447.689, 3451.998, 3461.436, 3474.893, 3483.892, 3488.805, 3505.441, 3508.33, 3515.183, 3520.59, 3521.333, 3522.613, 3525.874, 3529.301, 3537.846, 3553.284, 3572.936, 3588.744, 3591.057, 3599.806], "stop_times": [3186.944, 3198.339, 3203.912, 3209.689, 3212.002, 3218.234, 3222.526, 3229.38, 3235.863, 3242.671, 3247.668, 3249.913, 3255.303, 3259.268, 3262.445, 3270.264, 3279.719, 3284.282, 3289.278, 3294.396, 3296.337, 3303.146, 3312.024, 3320.402, 3323.087, 3328.492, 3330.267, 3335.468, 3347.151, 3360.897, 3365.234, 3377.206, 3387.897, 3394.871, 3400.628, 3421.145, 3440.647, 3447.689, 3451.998, 3461.436, 3474.893, 3483.892, 3488.805, 3505.441, 3508.33, 3515.183, 3520.59, 3521.333, 3522.613, 3525.874, 3529.301, 3537.846, 3553.284, 3572.936, 3588.744, 3591.057, 3599.806, 3600.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3183.228}, "reply_to": "22024__2_096", "speaker": "frederick_e_connelly_jr"}
{"id": "22024__2_098", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Connelly.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3600.261, 3600.921], "stop_times": [3600.921, 3601.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3600.261}, "reply_to": "22024__2_097", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22024__2_099", "conversation_id": "22024", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-814", "start_times": [3601.914], "stop_times": [3606.305], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 3601.914}, "reply_to": "22024__2_098", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "22559__0_000", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "We'll now hear argument in the case of Tenet against John Doe.\nMr. Clement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [0.0, 5.479], "stop_times": [5.479, 6.092], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22559__0_001", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThis case, like the Totten case almost 130 years ago, is at bottom an effort by alleged spies to obtain additional compensation for services rendered.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [6.092, 9.507], "stop_times": [9.507, 20.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6.092}, "reply_to": "22559__0_000", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_002", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Now, do you take the position that the Federal Government couldn't enforce any provision of such an agreement either?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [20.695], "stop_times": [28.223], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 20.695}, "reply_to": "22559__0_001", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22559__0_003", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "That's correct.\nThat's correct, Justice O'Connor, with respect to the kind of espionage arrangements and contracts we're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [28.223, 29.705], "stop_times": [29.705, 35.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 28.223}, "reply_to": "22559__0_002", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_004", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Well, suppose... suppose somebody, allegedly a former spy, is alleged to... by the Government to have breached the agreement by writing and publishing a tell-all book about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [35.3], "stop_times": [49.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 35.3}, "reply_to": "22559__0_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22559__0_005", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Well, Justice O'Connor, I think that actually points up the important differences between the way that the CIA deals with its employees and the way that it deals with its espionage agents like respondents are alleged to be.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [49.42], "stop_times": [60.316], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 49.42}, "reply_to": "22559__0_004", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_006", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Yes, okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [60.316], "stop_times": [60.615], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 60.316}, "reply_to": "22559__0_005", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22559__0_007", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "With respect to espionage agents--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [60.615], "stop_times": [62.551], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 60.615}, "reply_to": "22559__0_006", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_008", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Would the Government be without any recourse if it was an alleged espionage agent?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [62.551], "stop_times": [68.068], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 62.551}, "reply_to": "22559__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22559__0_009", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--I believe that's true, Justice O'Connor, because the espionage agents do not sign prepublication review agreements.\nThey do not receive formal security clearances the way that an employee does.\nAnd unlike an employee, they do not have access to a broad swath of classified information that raises attendant counterintelligence concerns.\nAnd so if you think about the course of dealing that the agency has with its employees, the employees are able to sue the agency in court under, for example, title VII, and the agency can turn around and sue their employees to enforce things like the prepublication review agreement that was issue... at issue in this Court's Snepp decision.\nSo in the employment context, I think it's very difficult to say that there's an implied term of the employment contract that either side will not have judicial recourse.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [68.068, 74.104, 78.032, 85.838, 104.478], "stop_times": [74.104, 78.032, 85.838, 104.478, 112.493], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 68.068}, "reply_to": "22559__0_008", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_010", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "But what if the employment contract is with an American citizen to act as an espionage agent and nobody else knew about it.\nWould... would that... would he be treated as an espionage agent or as an employee?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [112.493, 118.95], "stop_times": [118.95, 123.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 112.493}, "reply_to": "22559__0_009", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22559__0_011", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "If I understand your hypothetical, Justice Stevens, I think that individual would be treated as an espionage agent if it's just somebody for sort of a one-off assignment.\nAnd I think that... that is illustrated by this Court's decision in Totten.\nI mean, William Lloyd, for example, was a U.S. citizen.\nHe agreed with President Lincoln to engage in espionage activities in the south.\nAnd this Court held that when the estate of... of Mr. Lloyd came to seek compensation from a court, that there was no judicial remedy to enforce that alleged agreement, and the remedy, if any, lay with the President's contingent fund.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [123.238, 132.479, 136.213, 139.348, 143.798], "stop_times": [132.479, 136.213, 139.348, 143.798, 157.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 123.238}, "reply_to": "22559__0_010", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_012", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "I... I'd like your help on this.\nYour interpretation of Totten... does it say that there is just no actionable contract, or does it say there's no jurisdictions like political question?\nI mean, you win under any of those theories, if we accept them.\nBut which is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [157.894, 159.493, 169.479, 175.558], "stop_times": [159.493, 169.479, 175.558, 177.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 157.894}, "reply_to": "22559__0_011", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__0_013", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Well, Justice Kennedy, it's a difficult question to answer because I think there are a lot of different strains underlying the Totten decision, and I think there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [177.15], "stop_times": [185.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 177.15}, "reply_to": "22559__0_012", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_014", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Yes, but you need to get to whether there is... do you urge dismissal for lack of jurisdiction in the district court or a dismissal on the merits?\nIt's not clear to me at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [185.219, 195.225], "stop_times": [195.225, 196.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 185.219}, "reply_to": "22559__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22559__0_015", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--Well, Justice O'Connor, I think it's better understood as simply a rule of dismissal, that it's not really a pure jurisdictional defect.\nIt's been referred alternatively as a jurisdictional bar or as a rule of dismissal, and of course, as this Court reminded us recently in the Kontrick decision, people tend to use terms like jurisdiction loosely in these contexts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [196.636, 204.697], "stop_times": [204.697, 217.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 196.636}, "reply_to": "22559__0_014", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_016", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Well, I'm... I'm not going away with a clear idea of your position.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [217.61], "stop_times": [220.998], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 217.61}, "reply_to": "22559__0_015", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__0_017", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [220.998], "stop_times": [221.943], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 220.998}, "reply_to": "22559__0_016", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_018", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Do I... do I... does the Government file under 12(b)(1) like a jurisdiction, 12(b)(6), no cause of action?\nOf course, you'd probably do both, but I... I want to know--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [221.943, 227.543], "stop_times": [227.543, 230.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 221.943}, "reply_to": "22559__0_017", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__0_019", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [230.61], "stop_times": [231.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 230.61}, "reply_to": "22559__0_018", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_020", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--what your best thinking is of what Totten means.\nIt seems to me that this just means that there can be no contract formed under these circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [231.265, 232.895], "stop_times": [232.895, 238.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 231.265}, "reply_to": "22559__0_019", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__0_021", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--Justice Kennedy, I think the general practice of the Government is to file under both.\nI believe that's what happened here.\nI think the fact that we file under both suggests that there is a little bit of confusion about it.\nI would tend to agree with you it's better understood as a rule of dismissal under 12(b)(6) because if you think about the Totten decision, there's really two strains to the decision.\nOne is a recognition that the claim to relief necessarily depends on a fact that the law has always regarded as secret, and in a sense that case simply can't proceed.\nAnd that's very analogous to this Court's holding in Weinberger against Catholic Action.\nThere's a second strain to the case, though, and that is that the very idea of walking into court and filing the action is inconsistent with an implied term of the contract or, indeed, the whole nature of the espionage relationship.\nAnd I think particularly if you emphasize that second strain of the Totten decision, I think it's better understood as a 12(b)(6) dismissal because what you're really saying is somebody is walking into court and they are effectively pleading themselves out of court because as... if you look at this complaint here, it starts out with a recitation of the fact that these individuals allegedly engaged in espionage activities and that they were denied certain promises that were made to them after they carried out, quote, their end of the bargain.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [238.377, 242.205, 243.9, 248.057, 257.183, 267.651, 271.831, 286.102], "stop_times": [242.205, 243.9, 248.057, 257.183, 267.651, 271.831, 286.102, 315.104], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 238.377}, "reply_to": "22559__0_020", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_022", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "If there's no cause of action, there's nothing to... to claim on, what's... what's the closest analogy?\nIs it like a promise to make a gift, which is unenforceable?\nIs there kind of a contract analogy that we can use?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [315.104, 319.821, 322.943], "stop_times": [319.821, 322.943, 327.011], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 315.104}, "reply_to": "22559__0_021", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__0_023", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "I... I mean, I... you know, one... one way of thinking about it, but I think it's a very rough analogy, is it's almost like an unlawful contract.\nIt's a contract that the law just doesn't recognize.\nAnd I think that... that reflects the underlying reality of these cases, which is there is something inherent in an espionage relationship that when you enter an espionage relationship, you understand that you have no protected status under the law.\nI think that has, with respect, been clear in the... not just in the Totten decision but from the very beginning of the republic.\nI mean, ever since Nathan Hale agreed to cross British lines as a spy, it was understood that he had no legal recourse, that he had a status that was not recognized in the law.\nAnd I think that is... it has always been thus, and I think there is no reason to revisit the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [327.011, 333.771, 336.253, 351.718, 357.662, 367.39], "stop_times": [333.771, 336.253, 351.718, 357.662, 367.39, 371.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 327.011}, "reply_to": "22559__0_022", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_024", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Does... does that mean... the no legal recourse at all mean that you could torture an agent if you were dissatisfied with his work performance?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [371.654], "stop_times": [377.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.654}, "reply_to": "22559__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22559__0_025", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--I... I don't believe that's true, Justice Stevens, and what I would distinguish is between a constitutional claim that an... an agent... an alleged agent might have that doesn't depend on the espionage relationship.\nAs I would understand your question, I mean, it would... there would be a... a substantive due process claim that anybody could bring if the Government tortured them.\nThey wouldn't have to allege that I had a secret espionage relationship with the Government and then they tortured me.\nThat would be irrelevant to their claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [377.274, 389.896, 397.787, 403.532], "stop_times": [389.896, 397.787, 403.532, 405.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 377.274}, "reply_to": "22559__0_024", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_026", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Could I... could I bring your back to your... your earlier discussion of a spy who is also a... a Government employee?\nAre you telling me that he... he cannot sue for his regular salary simply because the work he was doing was... was espionage?\nI mean, he's... he's a GS-whatever, GS-16, and the Government just doesn't send him his monthly check.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [405.243, 411.238, 420.234], "stop_times": [411.238, 420.234, 428.894], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 405.243}, "reply_to": "22559__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__0_027", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Well, Justice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [428.894], "stop_times": [430.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 428.894}, "reply_to": "22559__0_026", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_028", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "He has no recourse for that check just because he's been doing spy work?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [430.183], "stop_times": [432.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 430.183}, "reply_to": "22559__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__0_029", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--No, that's not the position, and... and I... and I apologize if I gave that impression in answering Justice Stevens' hypothetical.\nI understood to be the hypothetical that you had a Government employee who engaged in a separate spy endeavor, if you will, and then tried to sue to collect on the damages owed under that... for that particular endeavor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [432.76, 438.502], "stop_times": [438.502, 449.077], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 432.76}, "reply_to": "22559__0_028", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_030", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Okay, not... not for his regular GS salary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [449.077], "stop_times": [451.65], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 449.077}, "reply_to": "22559__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__0_031", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "No.\nMy... my hypothetical was an individual who's not a Government employee but is hired by the Government to engage in espionage activities.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [451.65, 451.863], "stop_times": [451.863, 458.823], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 451.65}, "reply_to": "22559__0_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22559__0_032", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Exactly.\nAnd as I indicated to you earlier, Justice Stevens... but in a sense that's not a hypothetical.\nThat's the Totten decision itself.\nWilliam Lloyd was... or at least alleged that he was employed by President Lincoln to engage in those services.\nAnd in answer to Justice Scalia's question, if William Lloyd happen to be an employee of the... of the Comptroller of Currency or something, he could still sue to get whatever remedies he had--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [458.823, 459.891, 463.732, 465.166, 470.796], "stop_times": [459.891, 463.732, 465.166, 470.796, 480.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 458.823}, "reply_to": "22559__0_031", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_033", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "He couldn't get the 5,000 bonus for being a spy.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [480.332, 482.103], "stop_times": [482.103, 482.419], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 480.332}, "reply_to": "22559__0_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__0_034", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--That's exactly right.\nNo bonus dollars for being a spy under those circumstances.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [482.419, 483.128], "stop_times": [483.128, 485.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 482.419}, "reply_to": "22559__0_033", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_035", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Could you clarify on the employment question something else?\nIt's... it's in your reply brief and you say you're contrasting this type of claim with a title VII claim which... in which you say that the Court in Webster relied on the CIA's historical practice of litigating employment disputes.\nThe CIA's historical practice, not the Court's rulings.\nAre you suggesting that even with respect to employment litigation, it's up to the CIA to decide what its practice will be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [485.605, 488.863, 508.502, 513.381], "stop_times": [488.863, 508.502, 513.381, 522.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 485.605}, "reply_to": "22559__0_034", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22559__0_036", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "I don't think so, Justice Ginsburg, but the point is that the reason that... that I think that the Government would have had almost no ability to invoke a Totten-type defense in Webster or in a title VII case is because of its course of dealing with its employees.\nAnd I suppose that if the agency completely changed its course of dealing with respect to its employees or entered a very different course of dealing with certain select employees, then a Totten defense might become available in those circumstances.\nBut as I indicated earlier, I think if you look at the overall nature of the agency's relationship and rights vis-a-vis its employees, even its covert ones, that's a very different relationship than the agency has with respect to espionage agents.\nAnd again, that's because they enter contracts with them.\nEach side has certain litigation rights, and I think it would be a bit of a stretch for the Government to come in and say that there's an implied term of that employment agreement that forecloses a judicial remedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [522.203, 537.485, 551.354, 565.893, 568.661], "stop_times": [537.485, 551.354, 565.893, 568.661, 579.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 522.203}, "reply_to": "22559__0_035", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_037", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "May I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [579.343], "stop_times": [580.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 579.343}, "reply_to": "22559__0_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22559__0_038", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "I guess the Government can't enforce... cannot enforce these contracts either.\nRight?\nI mean, you take the good with the... the bad with the good?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [580.003, 583.308, 583.675], "stop_times": [583.308, 583.675, 585.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 580.003}, "reply_to": "22559__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__0_039", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "That's exactly right, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [585.848], "stop_times": [587.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 585.848}, "reply_to": "22559__0_038", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_040", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "You've never sued a spy to... who hasn't carried out his mission?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [587.495], "stop_times": [591.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 587.495}, "reply_to": "22559__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__0_041", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Certainly not... I'm not aware of such a suit, and I've been told by the agency that it's impossible.\nAnd I think it just reflects the nature of these agreements, and it does... it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [591.053, 595.873], "stop_times": [595.873, 600.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 591.053}, "reply_to": "22559__0_040", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_042", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--Can... can we go back to the... another threshold question?\nYou did press below and Judge Tallman urged that the reason this case can't be in the district court in California, or wherever, is it has to be in the Federal Circuit.\nThis is a contract claim against the Government.\nAre you abandoning that position?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [600.248, 604.098, 621.159, 623.56], "stop_times": [604.098, 621.159, 623.56, 626.017], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 600.248}, "reply_to": "22559__0_041", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22559__0_043", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--Yes, Justice Ginsburg, in fact we have abandoned it.\nWe abandoned that position at the cert stage.\nWe made that clear to the Court in our certiorari papers, and we don't renew any type of jurisdictional objection at this stage.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [626.017, 628.939, 631.48], "stop_times": [628.939, 631.48, 637.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 626.017}, "reply_to": "22559__0_042", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_044", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Are you free... are you free to abandon it?\nIs the... is the Government's surrender of its immunity from suit for contracts, provided that the suit is brought in the Federal Circuit... is that something that you are free... Congress having said that, that the executive is free to say, well, we could take advantage of that, but we don't want to?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [637.568, 639.296], "stop_times": [639.296, 663.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.568}, "reply_to": "22559__0_043", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22559__0_045", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I think the answer to that is that it probably is jurisdictional in the pure sense and so if this Court disagreed with our view that there wasn't a Tucker Act problem, this Court could reach that issue and send the case back on the Tucker Act grounds.\nSo maybe I could explain to you why it is that we think that there's not a Tucker Act problem, at least at this stage of the litigation.\nThe Ninth Circuit's reasoning on this was a little bit oblique, but as I understand it, there were two parts to it.\nFirst of all, that there might be some kind of substantive due process claim here that did not depend on the contract but rather somehow stemmed from the fact that there was some endangerment of these individuals and that gave rise to some substantive due process right.\nAnd even if that claim, as the Ninth Circuit recognized, is not one that is formed on the contract or an implied contract, it seems to me that that's a claim that's clearly within the coverage of the Totten doctrine because it is inherent in the espionage relationship that the individual will be engaged in a... in a situation where they will be endangered.\nAnd I think that was certainly true of William Lloyd in the Totten case.\nWhen he crossed southern lines, he was very much endangered, and that's something that wasn't lost on President Lincoln.\nIn footnote 3 of our opening brief, we have a quotation from President Lincoln about the inherent dangers of spies crossing lines and the need for secrecy to protect that.\nSo that's why I think that claim is properly understood as not being covered by the Tucker Act and not being required to be brought in the Court of Claims, but nonetheless a claim that is barred by the Totten doctrine.\nThe other point they made was with respect to the specific regulations that the agency has internally, and they suggest that there might be a claim here that was based on the regulations independent of the contract.\nBut in order for that claim to go forward, the Court would have to examine the unredacted version of the regulations.\nAnd even if the Court is right that there's a need for further proceedings on that question, it makes no sense to interpret the doctrine in a way that requires the Government to wait to assert a Totten defense until there is a jurisdictional question cleared up that actually requires discovery because I think what Totten recognized is... is there is a need to dismiss the claim at the outset before any discovery because of the nature of the suit.\nSo for those two reasons, we thought that the... that the better view was that the Tucker Act problem was either not presented because of the substantive due process claim or not ripe and that we would pursue the Totten act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [663.329, 677.524, 683.808, 689.076, 704.079, 724.196, 727.303, 732.354, 741.816, 754.244, 766.132, 772.385, 797.063], "stop_times": [677.524, 683.808, 689.076, 704.079, 724.196, 727.303, 732.354, 741.816, 754.244, 766.132, 772.385, 797.063, 807.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 663.329}, "reply_to": "22559__0_044", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_046", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "That... that would make a lot of sense if you really felt that what Totten is is... is a dismissal on the merits, just saying there's... there's no contractual claim.\nI... I mean, if you didn't believe that, if... if you believed that what Totten says is we have no jurisdiction, then we'd have no problem and we could resolve all of the questions.\nBut it seems to me if you believe that Totten is based mainly... you know, it's a contract case and said the contract is just totally invalid, we shouldn't be reaching the contract issue.\nWe should simply say that if... if we agree with you, that there's no substantive due process claim here and... and no claim based on the regulations.\nHow do we get the authority to decide the... the contract question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [807.746, 817.749, 828.223, 838.436, 848.143], "stop_times": [817.749, 828.223, 838.436, 848.143, 853.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 807.746}, "reply_to": "22559__0_045", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__0_047", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Well, I think whatever the status the contract question has, whether it's 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6), I think it's a... it's a threshold issue and I think this Court under the Rohrgas authority can reach that issue at the outset.\nAnd I think it would be particularly perplexing to have a doctrine that said that when we have a suit that we know on the face of the complaint cannot be brought in any court, that we are going to not reach that issue in favor of trying to determine first which court it properly belongs in, when that inquiry in fact will get us into the exact classified information that we know at the outset the suit should not involve in the first place.\nAnd I think there is enough flexibility in this Court's Rohrgas decision to allow the Court to reach that threshold question first.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [853.46, 866.22, 890.438], "stop_times": [866.22, 890.438, 897.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 853.46}, "reply_to": "22559__0_046", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_048", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "And you're saying that if there's no contract, then there's no substantive liberty to protect under the... under due process procedures.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [897.444], "stop_times": [908.243], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 897.444}, "reply_to": "22559__0_047", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__0_049", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "I... I think that follows, Justice Kennedy.\nI think one of the difficulties with the constitutional theory that's advanced on the other side is it gives... it seeks a right to enforce internal procedural handling mechanisms for claims that we know there's no legitimate expectation for their enforcement at all.\nAnd it seems odd that this would develop in a way where the procedural rights somehow trump the substantive rights, and we know from Totten that there is no substance here that can be brought forward in the courts.\nI think in this respect it is also important to recognize that, as a practical matter, an agent who's negotiating in the shadow of the Totten decision and the broader understanding that Totten reflects is likely to seek assurances not just about compensation but about how... how their claims would be heard by the CIA and how they're going to get their compensation.\nAnd I think there's no particular reason to think procedural assurances should be judicially enforceable when the substantive assurances are not.\nNow, one other point to make about the nature of these agreements.\nNot only because of the nature of these agreements does the agency end up in a position where it cannot enforce these contracts itself through judicial actions, but it also ends up in a situation where it may have to give up-front payments that it otherwise wouldn't have to give and the like.\nSo there are consequences to both sides of dealing in this way with these espionage relationships as effectively outside the law.\nBut again, it has always been thus, and I think there is no principle in... in any recent development that requires this Court to revisit the rule of Totten which, as I said, suggests an... it reflects an understanding that date backs... dates back much further.\nIf I can make one other point, which is I think even though the Totten decision reflects something more than the state secrets privilege, because there's a more fundamental defect with a suit that's premised on an espionage agreement than just the fact that it tends to compromise secret information, it is true that applying the Totten rule of dismissal does provide a clear mechanism that protects confidential information.\nAnd I would analogize it to this Court's decision in Snepp where the Court adopted a constructive trust arrangement.\nThe Court adopted that arrangement where... where an employee who violated a... a prepublication review agreement had to turn over all the proceeds to the Government.\nAnd... and the Court adopted that remedy in favor of a damages remedy, and the Court did so to send a clear signal to the employees that there is no incentive whatsoever to violate the terms of these agreements.\nIn the same way, having a clear rule of dismissal sends a clear message to espionage agents that there's no point in even bothering to file the suit in the first place.\nIt will simply be dismissed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [908.243, 910.304, 925.677, 936.13, 955.471, 962.801, 966.09, 982.679, 990.001, 1002.97, 1027.753, 1034.529, 1043.388, 1054.139, 1062.668], "stop_times": [910.304, 925.677, 936.13, 955.471, 962.801, 966.09, 982.679, 990.001, 1002.97, 1027.753, 1034.529, 1043.388, 1054.139, 1062.668, 1063.94], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 908.243}, "reply_to": "22559__0_048", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_050", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Mr. Clement, the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1063.94], "stop_times": [1064.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1063.94}, "reply_to": "22559__0_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__0_051", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Mr.--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1064.723], "stop_times": [1064.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1064.723}, "reply_to": "22559__0_050", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22559__0_052", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--Go ahead.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1064.925, 1065.38], "stop_times": [1065.38, 1065.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1064.925}, "reply_to": "22559__0_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__0_053", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--I just wanted to ask one.\nI don't remember whether the briefs discuss it or not, but is there a statute that prohibits the disclosure of secret agents like this and does that... if so, does that have any relevance to this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1065.83, 1066.82], "stop_times": [1066.82, 1077.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1065.83}, "reply_to": "22559__0_052", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22559__0_054", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Justice Stevens, there is such a statute.\nThere's a statutory provision that gives the authority.\nIt had been with the... with the Director of Central Intelligence.\nThe recent Intelligence Reform Act has transferred it to the Director of National Intelligence.\nBut it gives a requirement that the... that... that the director protect sources and methods.\nI think that that... that statutory provision is consistent with the general notion behind the Totten doctrine, but I don't think it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1077.31, 1080.581, 1083.39, 1086.779, 1091.035, 1096.31], "stop_times": [1080.581, 1083.39, 1086.779, 1091.035, 1096.31, 1103.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1077.31}, "reply_to": "22559__0_053", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_055", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "And does the statute impose a penalty on anyone for revealing the name of a secret agent?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1103.575], "stop_times": [1106.896], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1103.575}, "reply_to": "22559__0_054", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22559__0_056", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--I don't think it... it certainly doesn't impose any kind of monetary penalty.\nThere are, under certain circumstances, criminal penalties for the disclosure of classified information, but I think that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1106.896, 1110.777], "stop_times": [1110.777, 1117.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1106.896}, "reply_to": "22559__0_055", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_057", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "But is the identity of an agent a... a type of classified information protected by the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1117.343], "stop_times": [1122.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1117.343}, "reply_to": "22559__0_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22559__0_058", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--I think it is.\nIt's protected both by the sources and method provision, and I think revelation of a source could implicate the... the criminal prohibitions in the statute as well.\nAnd I think that this statute... I think you can see the extent to which this... this case implicates the core of the secrets that the agency has.\nThis Court in the Sims case described the sources and methods protected by the statute as the heart of the intelligence community.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1122.921, 1123.666, 1131.897, 1142.197], "stop_times": [1123.666, 1131.897, 1142.197, 1148.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1122.921}, "reply_to": "22559__0_057", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_059", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Mr. Clement--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1148.896], "stop_times": [1149.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1148.896}, "reply_to": "22559__0_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__0_060", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "And this case involves both.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1149.491], "stop_times": [1150.162], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1149.491}, "reply_to": "22559__0_059", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_061", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--the... the argument made by the other side, which seems to me has some plausibility to it, is that Totten was decided in an age when courts were not as flexible as they are today.\nWe... we have procedures for matters being kept confidential by courts.\nWe... we allow hearings that are closed in matters that never would have been done before.\nAnd since, the argument goes, the... the only purpose of Totten was to preserve the secrets, why can't we preserve the secrets that way?\nIf and when it turns out that the prosecution of this... of this suit would require a secret to be disclosed, we will terminate it or... but... but up until then, why... why decide in advance?\nWhy not take a... take a run at it and see?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1150.162, 1164.021, 1171.626, 1178.536, 1187.005, 1202.375], "stop_times": [1164.021, 1171.626, 1178.536, 1187.005, 1202.375, 1206.798], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1150.162}, "reply_to": "22559__0_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__0_062", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia, there's a couple of points to be made about that.\nOne, as this Court recognized in Reynolds... in the Reynolds state secrets context itself, even the provisions of going forward, no matter what innovations have been made, the... the provisions of going forward and handling classified information necessarily involve risks that the information will be disclosed.\nIn the first place, both Totten and the state secrets privilege itself are premised on the notion that the information, if it is in fact privileged, is withheld from the case.\nIt's an absolute privilege.\nSo the idea is not that you have some sort of limited disclosure to the court personnel and to the ultimate fact-finder in the case and that's somehow all consistent with the state secrets privilege.\nTo the contrary.\nOnce a determination is made that a matter is state secrets, there's no further disclosure of the information.\nYou... the whole premise of state secrets is not that you try to prevent ultimate disclosure to the general public.\nIt's that once something is privileged, you... you treat the matter as privileged and you take it out of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1206.798, 1209.603, 1225.944, 1235.976, 1237.121, 1247.953, 1248.951, 1255.34, 1260.897], "stop_times": [1209.603, 1225.944, 1235.976, 1237.121, 1247.953, 1248.951, 1255.34, 1260.897, 1265.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1206.798}, "reply_to": "22559__0_061", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_063", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "But you're not making that statement with respect to anything that's classified.\nThere was something in your brief, reply brief, at 18 and 19 in which you... you cite Reynolds and you say the proper response to classified information in civil litigation is to disregard the classified information, not to order partial disclosure to court personnel.\nAre... are you saying then in all of civil litigation if information is classified, then it's just out of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1265.95, 1271.852, 1289.843], "stop_times": [1271.852, 1289.843, 1297.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1265.95}, "reply_to": "22559__0_062", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22559__0_064", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I think there can be certain arrangements in certain civil litigation where the Government can agree with a party to proceed... as part of their overall agreement, to proceed on the basis of classified information, but that would involve a very different way of... of proceeding than the normal default rules.\nAnd I think absent some kind of agreement for the Government to proceed in that way, the default rule in civil litigation has always been that the privilege is just that.\nIt's... the matter is... the matter is privileged and it's taken out of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1297.922, 1314.963, 1322.899], "stop_times": [1314.963, 1322.899, 1326.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1297.922}, "reply_to": "22559__0_063", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_065", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "But you lose.\nI mean, if... if that matter is necessary for your case, don't... don't you lose?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1326.051, 1326.474], "stop_times": [1326.474, 1332.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1326.051}, "reply_to": "22559__0_064", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__0_066", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Absolutely not, Justice Scalia, not in civil litigation.\nAnd that's why the state secrets privilege is, I mean, quite a remarkable doctrine in the civil side of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1332.721, 1335.591], "stop_times": [1335.591, 1340.376], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1332.721}, "reply_to": "22559__0_065", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_067", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "You're talking about civil only.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1340.376], "stop_times": [1341.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1340.376}, "reply_to": "22559__0_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__0_068", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Only civil.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1341.069], "stop_times": [1342.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1341.069}, "reply_to": "22559__0_067", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_069", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "I'm thinking of gray mail.\nCertainly in the criminal... criminal area, that isn't the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1342.041, 1342.812], "stop_times": [1342.812, 1346.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1342.041}, "reply_to": "22559__0_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__0_070", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "That's exactly right, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1346.626], "stop_times": [1348.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1346.626}, "reply_to": "22559__0_069", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_071", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "You either cough it up or you lose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1348.01], "stop_times": [1349.233], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1348.01}, "reply_to": "22559__0_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__0_072", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Right, and a different bargain has been reached in the criminal context, and in that context to ameliorate the consequence of the sometimes difficult choice of revealing classified information or proceeding, the Congress has come through with the Classified Information Procedures Act.\nThat only applies in the criminal side, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1349.233, 1362.731], "stop_times": [1362.731, 1364.878], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1349.233}, "reply_to": "22559__0_071", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_073", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "I just want to ask one question.\nDon't they have a claim interpreted favorably to them that this has nothing to do with a contract, totally nothing?\nOkay?\nBut there happen to be some rules over there in the CIA in their books somewhere, which we've never read, and they say when we use a foreign person as a spy, we'll pay him some money or we give him something.\nWe have some procedures.\nNow, we don't have to do that as a matter of contract.\nWe don't have to do it at all, but we do it.\nAnd so there's a claim here that we want to see that they're following their own rules.\nThey say Totten doesn't apply to that because Totten is about contracts.\nOur claim isn't about contracts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1364.878, 1366.011, 1374.263, 1375.05, 1387.731, 1388.762, 1391.532, 1393.637, 1397.531, 1401.703], "stop_times": [1366.011, 1374.263, 1375.05, 1387.731, 1388.762, 1391.532, 1393.637, 1397.531, 1401.703, 1403.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1364.878}, "reply_to": "22559__0_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__0_074", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Justice Breyer, I have two responses to that.\nThe first is I think the... that the Totten doctrine extends more broadly than just the narrow confines of the contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1403.613, 1406.053], "stop_times": [1406.053, 1412.332], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1403.613}, "reply_to": "22559__0_073", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_075", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "But it doesn't extend to torts, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1412.332], "stop_times": [1415.931], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1412.332}, "reply_to": "22559__0_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__0_076", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "I would... I mean, I would need a specific hypothetical.\nI can't imagine a tort that by its nature--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1415.931, 1418.49], "stop_times": [1418.49, 1420.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1415.931}, "reply_to": "22559__0_075", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_077", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Oh, you go--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1420.667], "stop_times": [1421.467], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1420.667}, "reply_to": "22559__0_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__0_078", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--depends on the relationship.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1421.467], "stop_times": [1422.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1421.467}, "reply_to": "22559__0_077", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_079", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--You go ahead.\nYou go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1422.355, 1422.552], "stop_times": [1422.552, 1422.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1422.355}, "reply_to": "22559__0_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__0_080", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "I can't imagine a tort that depends on its very nature on the relationship.\nBut we're talking about regulations that, as I understand the other side's allegations, are regulations for handling secret contracts.\nSo unless one can allege that they were a party to a secret contract or at least a secret relationship, there's no point in that individual even being in a position... they wouldn't even have standing to challenge the regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1422.882, 1426.364, 1433.173], "stop_times": [1426.364, 1433.173, 1444.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1422.882}, "reply_to": "22559__0_079", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_081", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "So... so you're saying if in fact, when you look at those allegations, they're about regulations for handling secret contracts, it's about a contract, but if there were to be an allegation that has nothing to do with the contract at all, it's just a way we handle retired foreign spies, Smiley for example, or someone like that.\nIt has nothing to do with it, you see.\nThen could they... what would be the rules then?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1444.292, 1464.471, 1466.251], "stop_times": [1464.471, 1466.251, 1468.404], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1444.292}, "reply_to": "22559__0_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__0_082", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "I still think the answer would be that there would be no relief under that circumstance because their... their... still their claim to having any entitlement under those rules at all would... I mean, you know, total strangers don't have rights under those regulations.\nAlleged spies would have rights under those regulations, and the very idea of walking into court and asserting your rights as an alleged spy is inconsistent with the entire relationship and the contract that gave rise to it.\nI would also point you to the Weinberger decision, Weinberger against Catholic Action, because there this Court applied Totten to not force the Navy to produce an environmental impact statement even though there were regulations on the book... and the concurring Justices focused on those regulations... where the Department of Defense said we do produce an environmental impact statement even if it's classified.\nSo I think on the authority of Weinberger as well, the very fact that there are internal regulations on a subject, the entire subject matter of which is secret, doesn't give rise to judicially enforceable rights.\nIf there are no further questions, I'd like to reserve the time for rebuttal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1468.404, 1481.176, 1493.634, 1514.754, 1525.762], "stop_times": [1481.176, 1493.634, 1514.754, 1525.762, 1528.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1468.404}, "reply_to": "22559__0_081", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__0_083", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Mr. Burman.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1528.276], "stop_times": [1531.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1528.276}, "reply_to": "22559__0_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22559__1_000", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nFirst, with respect to the question about the due process rights below, I would note that the Government does not challenge, and specifically said so in footnote 2 of the petition for cert and footnote 1 in their brief on the merits, whether there is a due process claim here.\nI would encourage you... and I will come back to the due process question if you're interested.\nI'd encourage you to look at the respondents' appendix, pages 72 to 74, where the CIA employee described the fact that there are, in fact, regulations that are not limited to enforcing a secret contract.\nThat is not our claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1531.304, 1534.713, 1551.772, 1555.53, 1569.372], "stop_times": [1534.713, 1551.772, 1555.53, 1569.372, 1571.204], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1531.304}, "reply_to": "22559__0_083", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_001", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "But they are regulations that the... that depend upon the existence of a spy-principal relationship--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1571.204], "stop_times": [1577.692], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1571.204}, "reply_to": "22559__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22559__1_002", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Actually we don't believe that's correct, Your Honor.\nWe believe that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1577.692, 1580.599], "stop_times": [1580.599, 1581.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1577.692}, "reply_to": "22559__1_001", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_003", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--Well, are you claiming that your... your people are... were not spies?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1581.328], "stop_times": [1584.056], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1581.328}, "reply_to": "22559__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22559__1_004", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--We allege that they were coerced into that relationship, but we do--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1584.056], "stop_times": [1588.601], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1584.056}, "reply_to": "22559__1_003", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_005", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Well, however got there--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1588.601], "stop_times": [1589.661], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1588.601}, "reply_to": "22559__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22559__1_006", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--Correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1589.661], "stop_times": [1590.737], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1589.661}, "reply_to": "22559__1_005", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_007", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--they... they... your claim is that they're spies and that, therefore, whatever your procedural claims may be, whatever your substantive due process rights may be, as I understand it, depends upon the assumption of a spy-principal relationship.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1590.737], "stop_times": [1605.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1590.737}, "reply_to": "22559__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22559__1_008", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "We do not agree with that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1605.141], "stop_times": [1606.948], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1605.141}, "reply_to": "22559__1_007", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_009", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Why?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1606.948], "stop_times": [1607.234], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1606.948}, "reply_to": "22559__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22559__1_010", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "We believe that PL-110 allowed the admission of people essential to the United States without any comment on whether they had formerly been spies and that these regulations do not require us to prove as an essential element even to the CIA, much less to the district court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1607.234], "stop_times": [1623.677], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1607.234}, "reply_to": "22559__1_009", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_011", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "You--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1623.677], "stop_times": [1623.983], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1623.677}, "reply_to": "22559__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_012", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--that they were spies for the CIA.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1623.983], "stop_times": [1625.588], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1623.983}, "reply_to": "22559__1_011", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_013", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--you don't have to prove that they were spies, but you have to prove that... that they had a contractual relationship with the United States.\nAnd the only contractual relationship you're asserting is the relationship of a spy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1625.588, 1631.327], "stop_times": [1631.327, 1636.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1625.588}, "reply_to": "22559__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_014", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "We disagree with that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1636.688], "stop_times": [1638.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1636.688}, "reply_to": "22559__1_013", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_015", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Oh--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1638.033], "stop_times": [1638.296], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1638.033}, "reply_to": "22559__1_014", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_016", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "We do not believe... and in fact, the Ninth Circuit went out of its way to make very clear to the district court that if we try to plead around and base a claim on a contract, the district court should dismiss that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1638.296], "stop_times": [1649.614], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1638.296}, "reply_to": "22559__1_015", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_017", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--Now, wait.\nWhat... what is the basis on which you assert these regulations are applicable to you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1649.614, 1649.873], "stop_times": [1649.873, 1655.449], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1649.614}, "reply_to": "22559__1_016", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_018", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1655.449], "stop_times": [1655.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1655.449}, "reply_to": "22559__1_017", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_019", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--to your client?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1655.973], "stop_times": [1656.435], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1655.973}, "reply_to": "22559__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_020", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--we say that the... we believe we can show, once we are allowed to proceed... and it's premature at this time to decide whether we'll be successful in this or not.\nWe believe we can show that the CIA has internal regulations that say as to PL-110 resettlees, we will provide continued financial and security support in these circumstances, a need-based standard.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1656.435, 1664.753], "stop_times": [1664.753, 1679.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1656.435}, "reply_to": "22559__1_019", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_021", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "And... and the agency comes in and says, prove that you're a PL-110 resettlee.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1679.01], "stop_times": [1686.099], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1679.01}, "reply_to": "22559__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_022", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "The agency--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1686.099], "stop_times": [1687.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1686.099}, "reply_to": "22559__1_021", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_023", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "And... and what is your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1687.365], "stop_times": [1688.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1687.365}, "reply_to": "22559__1_022", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_024", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--The agency has never--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1688.989], "stop_times": [1689.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1688.989}, "reply_to": "22559__1_023", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_025", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Your response is I was resettled because I was a spy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1689.994], "stop_times": [1692.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1689.994}, "reply_to": "22559__1_024", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_026", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--No.\nWe don't have to say that.\nWe can say we were resettled under PL-110, which they have to inform at the time the INS Commissioner that they were bringing in people as PL-110 resettlees.\nThey're not required to tell the INS Commissioner that they were spies, just that they're essential.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1692.224, 1693.125, 1694.154, 1702.814], "stop_times": [1693.125, 1694.154, 1702.814, 1707.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1692.224}, "reply_to": "22559__1_025", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_027", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "What if... what if the Government takes a slightly different tack and... and you bring your essentially PL-110 neutral claim, and the Government says, the only relationship upon which this claim can be based by these particular Does is a spy relationship?\nWe claim privilege, and on the basis of that privilege, we... we claim dismissal.\nWhat is your response to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1707.009, 1723.573, 1727.757], "stop_times": [1723.573, 1727.757, 1729.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1707.009}, "reply_to": "22559__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22559__1_028", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "If that were an essential element of our claim, which we believe it is not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1729.437], "stop_times": [1733.782], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1729.437}, "reply_to": "22559__1_027", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_029", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Well, they're not saying it's an essential element in the sense that only a spy can make a 110 claim.\nThey're saying that the only basis upon which you can make a 110 claim is the spy relationship.\nYou have no other.\nHow do you respond to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1733.782, 1740.019, 1746.344, 1747.229], "stop_times": [1740.019, 1746.344, 1747.229, 1748.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1733.782}, "reply_to": "22559__1_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22559__1_030", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--Hence the reason we brought the case as Does.\nA procedure that was not known for that purpose at the time of Totten, that their own information officer and their brief and their position in Webster admits preserves the identity, preserves the secret.\nThey acknowledge--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1748.74, 1751.2, 1764.64], "stop_times": [1751.2, 1764.64, 1765.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1748.74}, "reply_to": "22559__1_029", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_031", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "But, look, you're talking about procedural means.\nI want to know what your immediate response to their claim of privilege is.\nAre you going to say we weren't spies?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1765.806, 1767.336, 1770.757], "stop_times": [1767.336, 1770.757, 1773.79], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1765.806}, "reply_to": "22559__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22559__1_032", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--The advantage of the Reynolds procedure is if they had made the claim of privilege, we would know what they were claiming was privileged.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1773.79], "stop_times": [1781.083], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1773.79}, "reply_to": "22559__1_031", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_033", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "They are making the claim of privilege on the ground that the only basis for your 110 claim is or can be, on facts known to them, that your clients were spies.\nDo you respond by saying, yes, we were spies, or do you respond by saying, we weren't spies?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1781.083, 1792.597], "stop_times": [1792.597, 1799.367], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1781.083}, "reply_to": "22559__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22559__1_034", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "We respond by saying we have an entitlement to a fair process within the agency, a confidential process--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1799.367], "stop_times": [1806.051], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1799.367}, "reply_to": "22559__1_033", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_035", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Let's assume that you have a really obnoxious court--\n[Laughter]\n--that wants a substantive response, do you respond by saying they're right, we're spies, or they're wrong, we weren't spies?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1806.051, 1808.312, 1808.657], "stop_times": [1808.312, 1808.657, 1816.901], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1806.051}, "reply_to": "22559__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22559__1_036", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--If their position is that they can't confirm or deny to the district court whether we were spies--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1816.901], "stop_times": [1823.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1816.901}, "reply_to": "22559__1_035", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_037", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "They are claiming a privilege on the grounds that the only basis for your claim can possibly be the spy relationship based on facts known to them.\nIn order to defeat that privilege, you've got at least to start by saying, no, we weren't spies and we don't claim to be.\nAre you going to say that or aren't you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1823.11, 1833.212, 1840.978], "stop_times": [1833.212, 1840.978, 1842.512], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1823.11}, "reply_to": "22559__1_036", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22559__1_038", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--We are not going to say we were not spies.\nWe are going to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1842.512, 1845.136], "stop_times": [1845.136, 1846.022], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1842.512}, "reply_to": "22559__1_037", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_039", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Then I don't know why you're not out of court on Totten.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1846.022], "stop_times": [1847.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1846.022}, "reply_to": "22559__1_038", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22559__1_040", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--Because we are not claiming the benefit of a bargain to be a spy.\nWe are not seeking compensation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1847.962, 1852.12], "stop_times": [1852.12, 1853.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1847.962}, "reply_to": "22559__1_039", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_041", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "What is a PL--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1853.625], "stop_times": [1854.249], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1853.625}, "reply_to": "22559__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__1_042", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "You are... you are--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1854.249], "stop_times": [1854.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1854.249}, "reply_to": "22559__1_041", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22559__1_043", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--What is a PL-110 settlee?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1854.489], "stop_times": [1856.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1854.489}, "reply_to": "22559__1_042", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__1_044", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--A PL-110 resettlee allowed the CIA and the FBI to bring in up to 100 people per year that were deemed essential to the U.S. They could have been simply very important scientists who wished to defect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1856.728], "stop_times": [1868.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1856.728}, "reply_to": "22559__1_043", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_045", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Okay.\nSo you would say this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1868.995, 1869.215], "stop_times": [1869.215, 1870.24], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1868.995}, "reply_to": "22559__1_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__1_046", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "They could have been any--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1870.24], "stop_times": [1870.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1870.24}, "reply_to": "22559__1_045", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_047", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--Are... are you claiming that your answer to Justice Souter's question is we will assume for purposes of this case... we're not admitting whether it's true or not, but we're going to assume we're not spies--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1870.454], "stop_times": [1882.262], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1870.454}, "reply_to": "22559__1_046", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__1_048", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--We believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1882.262], "stop_times": [1883.56], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1882.262}, "reply_to": "22559__1_047", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_049", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--because we win even if we're not spies because we are essential persons?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1883.56], "stop_times": [1888.058], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1883.56}, "reply_to": "22559__1_048", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__1_050", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--If we had made the Totten mistake of suing in our own name, we would be out of court, but we have sued as Does and we have said we are satisfied with the CIA concluding internally whether we are entitled to PL-110 status.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1888.058], "stop_times": [1901.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1888.058}, "reply_to": "22559__1_049", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_051", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "All right, but my guess is... well, he's pushed you and it sounds like it to me... that the only basis on which you could say you were an essential person is that you're a spy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1901.534], "stop_times": [1910.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1901.534}, "reply_to": "22559__1_050", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__1_052", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "We don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1910.023], "stop_times": [1910.512], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1910.023}, "reply_to": "22559__1_051", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_053", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "He's... he's not a scientist.\nHe's not a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1910.512, 1911.427], "stop_times": [1911.427, 1912.458], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1910.512}, "reply_to": "22559__1_052", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__1_054", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--Since they have not contested our PL-110 status until a somewhat desperate comment in the reply brief, we have never had to face this question because there has been no question that we are PL-110 resettlees, and that as long as we do not disclose our identity, which we've been careful not to do, unlike Totten, there is no state secret that is... is at risk.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1912.458], "stop_times": [1932.863], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1912.458}, "reply_to": "22559__1_053", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_055", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "But if the question comes up, you're going to have to disclose the identity.\nI mean, if... if it is controverted whether indeed you're... you're a spy or not, then what do you do?\nDo you say, well, we'll... we'll do it in camera?\nThat's right?\nI mean, you... you think that... that a United States district court has all of these security facilities available as Langley?\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1932.863, 1934.954, 1940.007, 1942.58, 1943.021, 1950.247], "stop_times": [1934.954, 1940.007, 1942.58, 1943.021, 1950.247, 1951.317], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1932.863}, "reply_to": "22559__1_054", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_056", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1951.317], "stop_times": [1951.932], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1951.317}, "reply_to": "22559__1_055", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_057", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--trust me, it doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1951.932], "stop_times": [1952.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1951.932}, "reply_to": "22559__1_056", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_058", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--We do not believe that we have to have... that we have to disclose anything to the district court to have standing as Does to seek a fair procedure within the CIA.\nAt the time of Totten, the idea of having a Doe being able to sue was not recognized for a plaintiff who wanted to protect his identity.\nWe have that now as of the last--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1952.812, 1962.712, 1970.32], "stop_times": [1962.712, 1970.32, 1972.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1952.812}, "reply_to": "22559__1_057", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_059", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--Do we have to change Totten?\nBecause, look, what I'm now thinking is, A, if you're suing on a contract, you win because you're a spy, if you win.\nIf you're suing on promissory estoppel, you win because you're a spy, if you win.\nIf you're suing on PL-110, you win because you're a spy, and if you're suing on due process, you win because you're a spy.\nSo no matter what, you can't win unless you're a spy.\nNow, they... they have Totten, and it... it... that sounds to me as if you're there.\nAnd do we have to overturn Totten for you to win?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1972.507, 1973.505, 1979.187, 1983.241, 1989.205, 1991.823, 1996.044], "stop_times": [1973.505, 1979.187, 1983.241, 1989.205, 1991.823, 1996.044, 1998.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1972.507}, "reply_to": "22559__1_058", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__1_060", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--I do not believe so, but you should not expand Totten in the dramatic way the Government asks.\nAnd it does not counsel for you to expand Totten when they cannot define a clear line as to where this jurisdictional, which they use in the brief but abandon here... they cannot explain to you why in Webster... they argued on pages 37 to 40 of their brief for exactly the same interpretation of Totten that they are arguing now.\nThey specifically said that it should not be up to the courts to look behind the scene of the privilege in Reynolds, and yet the Court rejected that position.\nIn Hamdi, they said there cannot be a secret proceeding with due process and the courts cannot review whether we've made that available, and the Court rejected that.\nThings have changed since the time of Totten.\nThat does not require overruling Totten, but it certainly does not counsel expanding Totten in the dramatic way that the executive asserts, a way that basically says to the Court you have absolutely no role in determining whether our assertion that the state secret is an essential element here is in fact the case and whether it truly is a state secret.\nWe... if there's anything we ought to be able to decide it's what our case is about.\nWe may have loosely used bargain in the complaint, but the district court and the Ninth Circuit have now made it very clear that we cannot have a contract claim, we cannot have a due process, whether substantive or procedural, based upon a contract, we cannot have a promissory estoppel claim.\nThe Ninth Circuit has decided all of that against us.\nWhat we still have, though, is a claim to a fair, internal agency procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [1998.857, 2003.784, 2024.886, 2033.96, 2043.326, 2045.956, 2066.545, 2071.244, 2090.735, 2093.867], "stop_times": [2003.784, 2024.886, 2033.96, 2043.326, 2045.956, 2066.545, 2071.244, 2090.735, 2093.867, 2099.277], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1998.857}, "reply_to": "22559__1_059", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_061", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Attached to what?\nI mean, you can... a fair procedure leading nowhere is not a claim.\nYou have a right to a fair procedure because it's attached to some substantive right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2099.277, 2100.224, 2104.506], "stop_times": [2100.224, 2104.506, 2112.44], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2099.277}, "reply_to": "22559__1_060", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22559__1_062", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "That's what we haven't yet had the opportunity to prove as to what it is in these regulations.\nBut if you would look at... again, at the respondents' appendix 72 to 74, the agency's witness that they voluntarily made available, did not make any assertion of privilege, did not make any assertion that this was confidential asked, are there agency regulations that you know of that relate to the resettlement of these PL-110 people who are resettlees from foreign countries?\nYes.\nAre there regulations that deal with the determination of the level and extent of benefits to be given resettlees?\nAnd are there agency regulations that deal with grievances by resettlees?\nWe think no minimal due process allows them to tell us the wrong standard and not to give us notice and an opportunity to be heard in a confidential proceeding--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2112.44, 2118.787, 2148.626, 2138.886, 2144.536, 2149.211], "stop_times": [2118.787, 2148.626, 2138.886, 2144.536, 2149.211, 2161.824], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2112.44}, "reply_to": "22559__1_061", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_063", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "What's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2161.824], "stop_times": [2162.27], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2161.824}, "reply_to": "22559__1_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__1_064", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "You still have--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2162.27], "stop_times": [2162.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.27}, "reply_to": "22559__1_063", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22559__1_065", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--what's your best case for that?\nWhat's your best case for that proposition?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2162.774, 2163.457], "stop_times": [2163.457, 2165.436], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.774}, "reply_to": "22559__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__1_066", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--Well, certainly Matthews v. Eldridge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2165.436], "stop_times": [2166.961], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2165.436}, "reply_to": "22559__1_065", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_067", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Because it sounds to me like due process in... in the air.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2166.961], "stop_times": [2169.529], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2166.961}, "reply_to": "22559__1_066", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__1_068", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "We don't believe it is, Your Honor.\nWe... we don't know for sure until we are entitled to litigate the regulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2169.529, 2171.802], "stop_times": [2171.802, 2176.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2169.529}, "reply_to": "22559__1_067", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_069", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "No, no.\nWe know enough at the summary judgment stage for us to... to decide whether the case can go forward or the dismissal stage.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2176.008, 2176.669], "stop_times": [2176.669, 2183.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2176.008}, "reply_to": "22559__1_068", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__1_070", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Well, there has been no summary judgment--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2183.179], "stop_times": [2184.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2183.179}, "reply_to": "22559__1_069", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_071", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Or dismissal stage.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2184.624], "stop_times": [2185.589], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2184.624}, "reply_to": "22559__1_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__1_072", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--At... at the dismissal stage, our pleadings have to be accepted as true, and we believe that the pleadings sufficiently assert that there are regulations there that create a... a property interest and that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2185.589], "stop_times": [2197.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2185.589}, "reply_to": "22559__1_071", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_073", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--That create a property right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2197.348], "stop_times": [2199.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2197.348}, "reply_to": "22559__1_072", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22559__1_074", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2199.242], "stop_times": [2199.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2199.242}, "reply_to": "22559__1_073", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_075", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "But the property right is the contract with the United States.\nI mean, you can't get away from the contract by calling it a property right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2199.803, 2205.804], "stop_times": [2205.804, 2211.695], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2199.803}, "reply_to": "22559__1_074", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22559__1_076", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "We do not believe there is a contract and we do not believe we have to rely on it.\nWe were... the Does were coerced into what they did.\nThey do not seek compensation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2211.695, 2215.226, 2218.185], "stop_times": [2215.226, 2218.185, 2220.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2211.695}, "reply_to": "22559__1_075", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_077", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "But what is your strongest case?\nI don't think Matthews addresses it.\nWhat is your strongest case for the notion that you have a property interest even though you don't have a contract?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2220.305, 2221.587, 2223.245], "stop_times": [2221.587, 2223.245, 2228.364], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2220.305}, "reply_to": "22559__1_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22559__1_078", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Probably Perry v. Sindermann in the sense that there... it was clear that the contract was over but the Court indicated that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2228.364], "stop_times": [2234.421], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2228.364}, "reply_to": "22559__1_077", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_079", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Well, that was the firing of a school teacher.\nThere was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2234.421, 2235.991], "stop_times": [2235.991, 2238.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2234.421}, "reply_to": "22559__1_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__1_080", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--It was a nonrenewal.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2238.2], "stop_times": [2239.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2238.2}, "reply_to": "22559__1_079", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_081", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--there was... there was an interest in having your job, contract property, and interest in getting back salary, contract property.\nNot this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2239.229, 2247.231], "stop_times": [2247.231, 2248.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2239.229}, "reply_to": "22559__1_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__1_082", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "The... what the Court actually, I believe, focused on there and in Goldberg v. Kelly was the question of whether there were regulations--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2248.139], "stop_times": [2255.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2248.139}, "reply_to": "22559__1_081", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_083", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Goldberg v. Kelly, welfare benefits, money.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2255.406], "stop_times": [2257.874], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2255.406}, "reply_to": "22559__1_082", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__1_084", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--We believe this is in a sense the equivalent of a welfare benefit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2257.874], "stop_times": [2261.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2257.874}, "reply_to": "22559__1_083", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_085", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Perry v. Sindermann.\nIs that... that's the nontenured teacher?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2261.628, 2262.02], "stop_times": [2262.02, 2264.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2261.628}, "reply_to": "22559__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__1_086", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2264.039], "stop_times": [2264.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2264.039}, "reply_to": "22559__1_085", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_087", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "There's no property right there, I don't think.\nI've always taught that as a ground that it wasn't compared to Roth where there was.\nAll right.\nSo... so... but there was a First Amendment interest of some kind.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2264.438, 2266.58, 2270.045, 2270.379], "stop_times": [2266.58, 2270.045, 2270.379, 2274.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2264.438}, "reply_to": "22559__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__1_088", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "And I believe the Court indicated that it would be possible if there were practices and policies that had been established that set substantive standards for continuing that there would be a property right in a fair procedure for determining that internally at the school.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2274.121], "stop_times": [2289.445], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2274.121}, "reply_to": "22559__1_087", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_089", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "You're probably right if they have... I see what you're saying.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2289.445], "stop_times": [2291.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2289.445}, "reply_to": "22559__1_088", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__1_090", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "We also believe there is a liberty interest.\nThese people came to the U.S. in danger.\nThe mere fact of labeling them essential to the United States and bringing them in in the PL-110 status, taking away their identity, giving them a false identity, false references, changing their occupations, all of those things we believe... we have an argument... created a liberty interest in continuation of the protection.\nIt's the special relationship, the Dushane-type argument that the... that the Ninth Circuit relied on.\nBut I would hasten to add it is premature to determine whether we win on the merits, and the Government is absolutely wrong in their brief in suggesting that unless we can prove at this point that we can win on the merits, that we don't have standing.\nWe have standing to make a claim for fair procedures.\nThose procedures may include confirming internally to the CIA our identity and they may include confirming whether we satisfy whatever the need-based standard is that the CIA has identified.\nWe have made every possible effort to comply with the covenant that Totten imposed in a contract, a contract that we don't believe we have.\nWe sued as Does.\nWe have sought preapproval of every single filing.\nWe had... counsel that learned any confidential information were precleared by the agency.\nThat is not what happened in Totten.\nThose are procedures, as Justice Scalia has suggested, that did not... were not recognized at the time of Totten just like the due process claim was not recognized at the time of Totten.\nAnd it is a claim that can be done internally to the CIA.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2291.126, 2293.087, 2296.507, 2316.945, 2322.561, 2334.665, 2338.845, 2350.057, 2360.325, 2361.935, 2364.756, 2369.945, 2372.5, 2383.029], "stop_times": [2293.087, 2296.507, 2316.945, 2322.561, 2334.665, 2338.845, 2350.057, 2360.325, 2361.935, 2364.756, 2369.945, 2372.5, 2383.029, 2387.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2291.126}, "reply_to": "22559__1_089", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_091", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "You think that Totten would be decided differently today because of the... our due process jurisprudence?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2387.345], "stop_times": [2393.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2387.345}, "reply_to": "22559__1_090", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__1_092", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "We believe that Totten didn't know to make a claim other than contract.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2393.161], "stop_times": [2396.658], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2393.161}, "reply_to": "22559__1_091", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_093", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "I... that's not my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2396.658], "stop_times": [2397.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2396.658}, "reply_to": "22559__1_092", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__1_094", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Yes, we do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2397.839], "stop_times": [2398.654], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2397.839}, "reply_to": "22559__1_093", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_095", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Suppose Mr. Totten is here today.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2398.654], "stop_times": [2399.805], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2398.654}, "reply_to": "22559__1_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__1_096", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "And if there were regulations in the Totten situation that created some sort of meaningful standard that would be applied by an internal procedure, which the record shows here the CIA has an internal procedure, not just regulations setting out the standard, but a review process.\nWe simply want to have a fair, internal procedure.\nThis case really is not about the protection of state secrets, but the limits of the executive authority to unilaterally assert without any review by the court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2399.805, 2415.607, 2419.205], "stop_times": [2415.607, 2419.205, 2428.949], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2399.805}, "reply_to": "22559__1_095", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_097", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "How would the court... a court go about monitoring this fair procedure--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2428.949], "stop_times": [2432.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2428.949}, "reply_to": "22559__1_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22559__1_098", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--We... we don't believe the court would have a role in monitoring the fair procedure.\nIt would simply determine whether the procedure that the CIA has described in the court record already satisfied minimum standards of... of due process.\nIf the court found that it did not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2432.71, 2436.658, 2446.94], "stop_times": [2436.658, 2446.94, 2448.661], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2432.71}, "reply_to": "22559__1_097", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_099", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--And then you... you said that... suppose you knew what it was on paper and then you wanted to complain to a court, that's not what they gave us.\nThey said that in their regulations, but they gave us something much less.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2448.661, 2457.227], "stop_times": [2457.227, 2461.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2448.661}, "reply_to": "22559__1_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22559__1_100", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--It's possible that the CIA would assert that there is some reason that it gave less than its regulations that would be a state secret.\nIt's hard for us to imagine what that would be, but in fact that is open on remand for the... for the CIA to argue that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2461.354, 2468.376], "stop_times": [2468.376, 2476.007], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2461.354}, "reply_to": "22559__1_099", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_101", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Do these regulations just set forth a procedure or do they set forth some substantive entitlement?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2476.007], "stop_times": [2481.807], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2476.007}, "reply_to": "22559__1_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_102", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "They seem to do both.\nThey... we haven't, of course, seen them in full yet, but they set forth a procedure and then they also say that there is some sort of need, age, indigency, and health-based standard for continuing the support.\nAnd if you'll notice--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2481.807, 2482.819, 2495.247], "stop_times": [2482.819, 2495.247, 2496.613], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2481.807}, "reply_to": "22559__1_101", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_103", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Then it will be worse for them.\nI mean, they say, look, frankly we'd rather reveal the names of one or two spies than we would like to reveal our procedures for dealing with the spies we bring into the United States.\nIt will take someone who reads those about 15 minutes with a computer to locate 400 resettled spies.\nThat will be a terrible disaster.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2496.613, 2497.623, 2507.431, 2516.442], "stop_times": [2497.623, 2507.431, 2516.442, 2518.263], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2496.613}, "reply_to": "22559__1_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__1_104", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--If that was an external process, but we agree it should be internal to the CIA, that the process for applying that standard must remain internal to the CIA.\nThe Does share the interest in protecting their identity and the identities of others like them.\nWe... we believe that the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2518.263, 2526.482, 2532.967], "stop_times": [2526.482, 2532.967, 2538.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2518.263}, "reply_to": "22559__1_103", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_105", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "What's your answer?\nWhat is your response?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2538.873, 2539.559], "stop_times": [2539.559, 2541.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2538.873}, "reply_to": "22559__1_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "22559__1_106", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--That there's no external... there... there will be no public knowledge of that information, that they can explain their... they can apply their process internally, apply the need-based process internally, and that will not be litigated in the courts if they assert executive... or state secret privilege as to that, and we assume that they would at that point.\nBut we... we agree--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2541.066, 2561.354], "stop_times": [2561.354, 2562.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2541.066}, "reply_to": "22559__1_105", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_107", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "But the court would say you don't have a cause of action unless it knows what... what these regulations say.\nSurely the regulations have to be disclosed to the court at least.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2562.955, 2568.814], "stop_times": [2568.814, 2572.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2562.955}, "reply_to": "22559__1_106", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_108", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--We... we believe that's the case and they have not yet said that it would hinder the state secrets at all to disclose them, and they have disclosed quite a bit and said that the remainder they are holding back only a need-to-know basis.\nThey have not asserted any state secret privilege with the remaining regulations.\nAnd we know, in fact, from the letter that is in the record from... between the CIA and the Justice Department in which the... there was basically an understanding that there would be regulations like this in order to make sure that these PL-110 resettlees did not effectively become wards otherwise on... on the Government and that the CIA would continue some responsibility for them.\nThe... we are not aware of any case in which this Court has suggested that there is an obligation of the district court to look behind the use of Doe and determine in a public manner the identity of the person.\nThat... the Government seems to assume that they have some entitlement to have a self-inflicted harm that they would demand that the identity of the Does be disclosed publicly and that they're entitled to do that.\nWe do not believe that that's a required part of the use of Does.\nAnd in any event, we think it is somewhat similar to the criminal context where, if the Government is going to insist on moving forward in some way that is an affirmative defense like that, they may well have a responsibility for not being able to defend their position if they, at the same time, say that the state secret privilege applies.\nBut at this point, anyway, that has not been presented to the district court.\nWe... we find it strange that the Government so quickly now says, unlike what it argued in Webster, that there is this type of contract which is not subject to the jurisdictional bar, and that is a contract with their own employees when they tell us that those same employees are going to know a much broader swath, as Mr. Clement said, of secrets.\nIf their rationale made sense as something that was so compelling that the Court should create a jurisdictional bar for what the courts would otherwise have the capacity and the competence to do, you would think it would apply in that situation as well.\nBut the fact is they lost Webster, and so they have to try to say that there is something still very broad about Totten but explain away Webster, and they simply cannot convincingly do that.\nWebster was the same argument by them.\nReynolds was the same argument by them, and they lost.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2572.129, 2584.239, 2588.065, 2609.884, 2623.066, 2635.929, 2640.169, 2660.173, 2664.445, 2685.415, 2701.264, 2713.654, 2716.353], "stop_times": [2584.239, 2588.065, 2609.884, 2623.066, 2635.929, 2640.169, 2660.173, 2664.445, 2685.415, 2701.264, 2713.654, 2716.353, 2719.13], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2572.129}, "reply_to": "22559__1_107", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_109", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "May... may I ask you what is probably a stupid question?\nWhy isn't the contract barred by the statute of frauds?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2719.13, 2721.453], "stop_times": [2721.453, 2724.494], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2719.13}, "reply_to": "22559__1_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22559__1_110", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Well, we haven't thought about that because we haven't proceeded on... on the contract.\nThere may well... we... it probably is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2724.494, 2730.714], "stop_times": [2730.714, 2733.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2724.494}, "reply_to": "22559__1_109", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_111", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2733.514], "stop_times": [2734.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2733.514}, "reply_to": "22559__1_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22559__1_112", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "And there... we... we... but we do not proceed on the contract.\nThe Does, in fact, do not underestimate the risks of disclosure of their identities and of their relationship with the CIA.\nPerhaps they put too much into the complaint describing at some length what they did, but the reason for that, I suggest, is understandable.\nIt was subject to preapproval by the agency.\nWhy not put the equities in there even though they're not essential elements of your claim and see if the agency approves them?\nThe agency approved them.\nWe should not be thrown out of court because we put into the complaint allegations which the agency admits using the Doe, do not threaten any secrets, and which are not part of the essential elements of our claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2734.112, 2738.514, 2745.546, 2754.104, 2756.414, 2763.894, 2765.354], "stop_times": [2738.514, 2745.546, 2754.104, 2756.414, 2763.894, 2765.354, 2779.035], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2734.112}, "reply_to": "22559__1_111", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_113", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Are all of these what you call 110 resettlees... are they all CIA resettlees?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2779.035], "stop_times": [2786.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2779.035}, "reply_to": "22559__1_112", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_114", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "It does not appear that they are.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2786.041], "stop_times": [2787.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2786.041}, "reply_to": "22559__1_113", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_115", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Some of them State Department and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2787.626], "stop_times": [2788.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2787.626}, "reply_to": "22559__1_114", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_116", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "At... at least... my understanding is at least the FBI and perhaps the Commissioner of INS at the time for... perhaps at the request of other agencies.\nIt appears that all three agencies had the ability to create this exception to the normal immigration procedure.\nIf the Does can show on remand that the CIA's regulations are as they allege and that PL-110 status generally, which is what the CIA witness McNair basically said, that many PL-110 resettlees are in continued danger because of the nature of which we brought them in, regardless of what they did before we decided to bring them in, or if they can show that in their particular situation there is a... a special relationship of danger created, we believe we would have a substantive due process argument and a procedural due process argument.\nThat is not today's question.\nThe Government has agreed that for purposes of today's question, it should be assumed that we can make out a due process claim.\nThat claim is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2788.826, 2797.254, 2803.546, 2839.042, 2840.904, 2848.266], "stop_times": [2797.254, 2803.546, 2839.042, 2840.904, 2848.266, 2850.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2788.826}, "reply_to": "22559__1_115", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_117", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "I'm not quite sure where the Government has said that.\nYou talk about footnote 2.\nAll it said was that they're not appealing the point that you have to go to the Court of Claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2850.002, 2851.792, 2854.071], "stop_times": [2851.792, 2854.071, 2859.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2850.002}, "reply_to": "22559__1_116", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22559__1_118", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--And also in footnote 1 in the... in their brief on the merits to this Court.\nI think it's on page 7.\nMy reading of that is that they are not challenging the due process analysis, and it would be premature to challenge the due process analysis at this time, which is what the Court said in Webster.\nWe believe that our due process argument is stronger than the due process argument that was made in Webster, but the Court in any event said that's not what is... what is before us at this time.\nAnd... and we believe that that's the same situation now.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2859.573, 2863.811, 2865.05, 2875.491, 2886.972], "stop_times": [2863.811, 2865.05, 2875.491, 2886.972, 2890.23], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2859.573}, "reply_to": "22559__1_117", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_119", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Do you agree--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2890.23], "stop_times": [2891.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2890.23}, "reply_to": "22559__1_118", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22559__1_120", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--I'm just wondering what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2891.282], "stop_times": [2891.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2891.282}, "reply_to": "22559__1_119", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_121", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--Excuse me.\nDo you agree your due process argument does depend on having either a property interest or a liberty interest?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2891.63, 2892.177], "stop_times": [2892.177, 2897.825], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2891.63}, "reply_to": "22559__1_120", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22559__1_122", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2897.825], "stop_times": [2898.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2897.825}, "reply_to": "22559__1_121", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_123", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--I'm just wondering what's, you know, some foreign... I don't know who... who the Does spied on, but let's assume... you say they're in danger.\nSomebody may be interested in... in the subject.\nWhat kind of security provisions do you have in your law office that would... that would make them immune from the kind of intrusion that foreign espionage services--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2898.275, 2908.537, 2911.845], "stop_times": [2908.537, 2911.845, 2925.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2898.275}, "reply_to": "22559__1_122", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_124", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "In... in general, we have not been allowed to take information outside of the agency.\nEven when the clear--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2925.356, 2929.634], "stop_times": [2929.634, 2930.619], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2925.356}, "reply_to": "22559__1_123", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_125", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--I'm not talking about the agency.\nJust about the name of your clients.\nI think it's... there are countries interested in... in, you know, who was spying on them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2930.619, 2931.167, 2932.61], "stop_times": [2931.167, 2932.61, 2937.94], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2930.619}, "reply_to": "22559__1_124", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_126", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--That was their decision to trust us with that, and ironically under the Government's theory of this case, the Does--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2937.94], "stop_times": [2943.436], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2937.94}, "reply_to": "22559__1_125", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_127", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Well, but it may lead... it may lead to other agents and... and one of the problems about allowing suits like this is that this information about who the agents are will be brought to a lawyer, kept in his law office, and much more readily accessible to... to foreign powers than... than it would be at Langley.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2943.436], "stop_times": [2964.527], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2943.436}, "reply_to": "22559__1_126", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22559__1_128", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "--And under the agency's theory of this case, there is nothing that stops the Does from making their identities public because there is no enforceable contract that the agency can enforce.\nThe agency wants to keep Snepp.\nIt wants to live with Webster, and the only thing it has left is to somehow carve out a rule that applies to these people who have done everything they possibly could, including not telling me who they are.\nOur files within our office do not identify them in writing, is my understanding, by name.\nI certainly am not aware of who they are.\nI know what's alleged in the complaint and nothing more than that.\nBut certainly the risk of gray mail, the risk of the Does... people in the Does' position disclosing something is totally irrelevant to the question of whether Totten creates some sort of bar that applies not just to a contract claim but to a claim where there is no contract, where it is not alleged that it is based upon a contract, and where the parties have done everything possible... the Does, the plaintiffs, have done everything possible to honor the confidences that the Government wants to keep.\nThank you, Your Honors.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [2964.527, 2975.475, 2977.085, 2988.145, 2993.157, 2995.536, 2999.217, 3028.404], "stop_times": [2975.475, 2977.085, 2988.145, 2993.157, 2995.536, 2999.217, 3028.404, 3029.756], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2964.527}, "reply_to": "22559__1_127", "speaker": "david_j_burman"}
{"id": "22559__1_129", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Burman.\nMr. Clement, you have about 4 and a half minutes if you need them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [3029.756, 3030.806], "stop_times": [3030.806, 3038.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3029.756}, "reply_to": "22559__1_128", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22559__2_000", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Justice Stevens, just a few points.\nAnd may it please the Court, just a few points in rebuttal.\nFirst of all, as I think Justice Kennedy's question indicated, there was no waiver of any due process argument.\nIf you look at those footnotes, the only thing that's waived is the Tucker Act concern that we talked about earlier.\nSecond of all, I think in thinking about this PL-110 claim, it's important to acknowledge, as I think Justice Scalia was suggesting, that it is the PL-110 claim to the CIA.\nAnd as I understand their argument, it depends on their being a significant difference between coming into court and saying I'm an unacknowledged spy and I'd like to sue the CIA and coming into court and saying I am an unacknowledged PL-110 resettlee with a claim against the CIA, please hear my claim.\nI would say there's no material difference in terms of all of the policies that undergird the Totten doctrine between those two.\nAnd I would note that even the Ninth Circuit recognized at 35a and 37a of the petition appendix that the respondents would have to establish a relationship with the agency.\nThe final two points I would make is, first of all, they would like to make some benefit of the fact that they are suing as Does as opposed to the Totten case.\nI would make two points about that.\nFirst of all, presumably the reason that William Lloyd could use his name in the Totten case is because it was a suit by his estate and he was deceased, so he didn't have a concern about retaliation.\n[Laughter]\nI would also say that the difference between suing under Doe and suing under your name just makes clear that both sides to this litigation start with the premise that the fundamental fact of this litigation turns on a secret.\nThey don't want their name revealed any more than we want the name revealed, and that just underscores how this is all about a secret, just as in Totten.\nThe last point I would make is they asked you to take their pleadings as a given at this stage in the litigation, and I would ask you to look at those pleadings.\nThe complaint is replete with references to the espionage relationship, and the complaint itself cites Totten or the Totten doctrine no less than seven times.\nI would suggest that if this claim is not Totten-barred, then no claim is.\nWith that, I'd ask the court below be reversed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [3038.669, 3040.269, 3042.436, 3047.426, 3052.497, 3063.955, 3082.037, 3088.787, 3098.457, 3106.462, 3108.362, 3118.385, 3119.133, 3130.611, 3138.357, 3145.887, 3154.828, 3158.735], "stop_times": [3040.269, 3042.436, 3047.426, 3052.497, 3063.955, 3082.037, 3088.787, 3098.457, 3106.462, 3108.362, 3118.385, 3119.133, 3130.611, 3138.357, 3145.887, 3154.828, 3158.735, 3161.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3038.669}, "reply_to": "22559__1_129", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "22559__2_001", "conversation_id": "22559", "text": "Thank you.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1395", "start_times": [3161.127, 3162.157], "stop_times": [3162.157, 3162.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3161.127}, "reply_to": "22559__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21444__0_000", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 03-1488, Ulysses Tory v. Johnnie L. Cochran.\nMr. Chemerinsky.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [0.0, 11.274], "stop_times": [11.274, 13.03], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21444__0_001", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Good morning.\nMr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe injunction in this case violates the most basic principles of the First Amendment.\nIt's a prior restraint.\nIt's a content-based restriction on speech.\nIt's vastly overbroad.\nIt even restricts the speech of those who are not a party to the lawsuit, such as Petitioner Ruth Craft.\nThe injunction in this case is inconsistent with this country's unique and profound commitment that speech by public officials and public figures be open, robust, and uninhibited.\nOne way in which the injunction is clearly unconstitutional is in restricting the speech of those who are not a party to the lawsuit.\nFor example, Ruth Craft is expressly restrained from ever speaking again about Johnnie Cochran even though she was never named as a party to the lawsuit.\nAnd, in fact, Cochran's attorney admitted at the beginning of trial, she wasn't a part of the lawsuit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [13.03, 14.091, 16.329, 21.408, 23.12, 26.21, 28.337, 33.812, 45.907, 53.185, 62.761], "stop_times": [14.091, 16.329, 21.408, 23.12, 26.21, 28.337, 33.812, 45.907, 53.185, 62.761, 67.054], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 13.03}, "reply_to": "21444__0_000", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_002", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "How about you?\nYou're in trouble too, aren't you?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [67.054, 68.198, 69.705], "stop_times": [68.198, 69.705, 70.817], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 67.054}, "reply_to": "21444__0_001", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21444__0_003", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Yes, I am, Your Honor.\nThis injunction is so broad that if I talk about Johnnie Cochran or this case on the sidewalk in front of this Court or pass out copies of the brief or speak to any reporter, I am violating the terms of the injunction and I could be held in contempt of court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [70.817, 71.571], "stop_times": [71.571, 84.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 70.817}, "reply_to": "21444__0_002", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_004", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Mr. Chemerinsky, you speak about the injunction, and the injunction has three parts.\nI thought that you were not challenging... at least the question presented doesn't suggest you're challenging... the first one that concerns distance, the 300 yard from Cochran or his place of business, and the third one, which is an anti-harassment provision.\nDo I understand correctly that it is only the second one that you're challenging?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [84.608, 91.337, 112.647], "stop_times": [91.337, 112.647, 118.472], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 84.608}, "reply_to": "21444__0_003", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21444__0_005", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nThe question presented is that the injunction is unconstitutional.\nOne of the reasons why the injunction is unconstitutional is that it's based on speech that's protected by the First Amendment.\nAll of the statements that were uttered by Mr. Tory are opinion protected by the First Amendment.\nThere is not the requisite actual malice.\nAnd so it's our position that the injunction itself is unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [118.472, 118.992, 122.727, 129.229, 136.147, 139.149], "stop_times": [118.992, 122.727, 129.229, 136.147, 139.149, 143.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 118.472}, "reply_to": "21444__0_004", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_006", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But your question is preventing all future speech about an admitted public figure, and the first and third provisions of this injunction do not prohibit all future speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [143.398], "stop_times": [155.496], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 143.398}, "reply_to": "21444__0_005", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21444__0_007", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, that's correct.\nIt's our position, though, that the injunction is based on speech that's protected by the First Amendment, and we believe that the question presented is that the injunction is impermissible in its restriction of speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [155.496, 157.683], "stop_times": [157.683, 168.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 155.496}, "reply_to": "21444__0_006", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_008", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But that isn't what you've said in the question presented.\nWhy shouldn't we be limited to answering the question presented?\nAnd that would leave the other parts there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [168.965, 172.734, 175.969], "stop_times": [172.734, 175.969, 178.422], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 168.965}, "reply_to": "21444__0_007", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21444__0_009", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, of course, you're limited to the question presented.\nOur position, though, is that the injunction in its restriction of speech is unconstitutional.\nAnd one of the reasons why the injunction is unconstitutional is that all of the speech that occurred in this case is speech that's protected by the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [178.422, 180.337, 186.47], "stop_times": [180.337, 186.47, 194.616], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 178.422}, "reply_to": "21444__0_008", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_010", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Yes, but you understand Justice Ginsburg's question surely, and I would imagine that even if you prevail, nothing we would order would affect the first and third parts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [194.616], "stop_times": [207.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 194.616}, "reply_to": "21444__0_009", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21444__0_011", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, Your Honor, certainly we believe that the injunction is most clearly unconstitutional in its overbreadth.\nWe believe also and separately the injunction is unconstitutional because injunctions are not a permissible remedy in a defamation case, especially concerning public officials and public figures.\nBut it's also our position that the injunction is based on speech that's protected by the First Amendment, and thus, the injunction violates the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [207.76, 214.186, 224.798], "stop_times": [214.186, 224.798, 232.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 207.76}, "reply_to": "21444__0_010", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_012", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, but that doesn't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [232.354], "stop_times": [233.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 232.354}, "reply_to": "21444__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__0_013", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Mr. Chemerinsky, is it true that your client intends to go on defaming Mr. Cochran?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [233.268], "stop_times": [238.451], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 233.268}, "reply_to": "21444__0_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21444__0_014", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nWe don't believe our client has ever defamed Mr. Cochran.\nWe believe that all of his speech is just opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [238.451, 239.808, 242.364], "stop_times": [239.808, 242.364, 244.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 238.451}, "reply_to": "21444__0_013", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_015", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Does he intend to continue making the same comments that he made before?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [244.876], "stop_times": [248.441], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 244.876}, "reply_to": "21444__0_014", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21444__0_016", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "His exact words were that perhaps he would continue to express his view that Mr. Cochran owes him money.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [248.441], "stop_times": [253.561], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 248.441}, "reply_to": "21444__0_015", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_017", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "All right.\nNow, let me ask you this.\nUnder your theory, if... if the defendant is judgment-proof, does respondent have any remedy at all if the statements are defamatory?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [253.561, 254.026, 255.177], "stop_times": [254.026, 255.177, 268.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 253.561}, "reply_to": "21444__0_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21444__0_018", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [268.713], "stop_times": [269.908], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 268.713}, "reply_to": "21444__0_017", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_019", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "What is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [269.908], "stop_times": [270.214], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 269.908}, "reply_to": "21444__0_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21444__0_020", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "There is, of course, a remedy.\nSince we're dealing here with a public figure, there is the remedy of expressing views which this Court has said in Gertz v. Welch is available to a public figure.\nThere is a damage judgment that's available.\nCertainly, Your Honor, there can't be a different rule--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [270.214, 271.733, 280.786, 283.024], "stop_times": [271.733, 280.786, 283.024, 285.879], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 270.214}, "reply_to": "21444__0_019", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_021", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But if... if the defendant is judgment-proof, what good does that do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [285.879], "stop_times": [289.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 285.879}, "reply_to": "21444__0_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21444__0_022", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Your Honor, there is a damage judgment that forever would be available against the person.\nAnd it cannot be, Your Honor, that those who are poor will have injunctions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [289.353, 294.405], "stop_times": [294.405, 298.602], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 289.353}, "reply_to": "21444__0_021", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_023", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well... well, your... your answer should be to Justice O'Connor there is no effective legal remedy under your theory of the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [298.602], "stop_times": [304.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 298.602}, "reply_to": "21444__0_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_024", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--No, Your Honor, I would disagree with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [304.342], "stop_times": [306.817], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 304.342}, "reply_to": "21444__0_023", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_025", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "I mean, you... you say he has the remedy of... of counter-speech.\nWe're talking... that's really that doesn't answer the question.\nThe question is, is there anything he can get from the courts other than a damage remedy, and your answer I think is no.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [306.817, 309.309, 311.813], "stop_times": [309.309, 311.813, 316.948], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 306.817}, "reply_to": "21444__0_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_026", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor.\nFrom the courts, he can get a damage remedy but I don't accept that a damage remedy is inadequate just because a person may be poor.\nThe damage remedy will be that they'd be collected for the person who gets assets in the future.\nAlso, as I was saying to Justice O'Connor, it can't be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [316.948, 319.257, 326.436, 329.989], "stop_times": [319.257, 326.436, 329.989, 333.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 316.948}, "reply_to": "21444__0_025", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_027", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, it... it seems to me that that really avoids the problem... the problem.\nSo suppose we disagree with you about that.\nThen it's true that there is no... there is no legal remedy that he can get.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [333.363, 338.058, 339.445], "stop_times": [338.058, 339.445, 343.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 333.363}, "reply_to": "21444__0_026", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_028", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--But then, Justice Kennedy, it can't be the rule that poor people have their speech enjoined, but those with assets can continue to speak in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [343.769], "stop_times": [351.955], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 343.769}, "reply_to": "21444__0_027", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_029", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Well, it also can't be the rule that poor people can defame ad libitum and... and people who have money cannot.\nI mean, that's... that's not a fair rule either.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [351.955, 359.907], "stop_times": [359.907, 362.383], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 351.955}, "reply_to": "21444__0_028", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__0_030", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "No, Your Honor, but that's why there would be, of course, the ability of a court to issue a damage judgment.\nThere are many instances in which damage judgments can't be collected.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [362.383, 368.856], "stop_times": [368.856, 371.628], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 362.383}, "reply_to": "21444__0_029", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_031", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "It's worthless against a... against a person who has no assets.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [371.628], "stop_times": [373.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 371.628}, "reply_to": "21444__0_030", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__0_032", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But that's true everywhere in the legal system, Your Honor.\nAnd I would also argue here that none of Mr. Tory's statements were defamatory.\nI would point--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [373.847, 376.343, 381.988], "stop_times": [376.343, 381.988, 383.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 373.847}, "reply_to": "21444__0_031", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_033", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "That's another one that is in your brief.\nYou say that these were statements of opinion not fact.\nBut that surely is not presented in your question.\nYou... you don't... there were findings made that these statements were defamatory, and your question presented does not seem to me to encompass at all the question whether these statements were defamatory.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [383.067, 385.148, 389.189, 392.599], "stop_times": [385.148, 389.189, 392.599, 408.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 383.067}, "reply_to": "21444__0_032", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21444__0_034", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--I would disagree, Your Honor.\nThe question presented is whether this injunction, the forever stops speech, violates the First Amendment.\nOne reason why--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [408.762, 410.407, 415.823], "stop_times": [410.407, 415.823, 417.203], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 408.762}, "reply_to": "21444__0_033", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_035", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Not... not this injunction.\nThe question presented is whether a permanent injunction as a remedy in a defamation... in a defamation action, preventing all future speech about an admitted public figure, violates the First Amendment.\nThere's no suggestion in that wording that you claim that in this particular case there was no defamation.\nI... I just don't think it's fairly included within the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [417.203, 418.143, 432.903, 440.09], "stop_times": [418.143, 432.903, 440.09, 442.861], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 417.203}, "reply_to": "21444__0_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__0_036", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Your Honor, what I am saying is that the question presented does ask whether this injunction, which permanently restricts speech--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [442.861], "stop_times": [450.43], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 442.861}, "reply_to": "21444__0_035", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_037", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "No, it doesn't.\nIt says whether a permanent injunction as a remedy in a defamation action preventing all future speech about an admitted public figure violates the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [450.43, 450.579], "stop_times": [450.579, 458.466], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 450.43}, "reply_to": "21444__0_036", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__0_038", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--We would argue--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [458.466], "stop_times": [460.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 458.466}, "reply_to": "21444__0_037", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_039", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "There's nothing about this particular injunction which is based upon speech that is not defamation.\nThere's nothing in there about that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [460.579, 467.74], "stop_times": [467.74, 469.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 460.579}, "reply_to": "21444__0_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__0_040", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Your Honor, our position is that question asks whether an injunction violates the First Amendment, and certainly it is about this case.\nAnd our position is that all of the speech that was expressed in this case is opinion.\nAnd it's important--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [469.101, 476.038, 480.611], "stop_times": [476.038, 480.611, 481.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 469.101}, "reply_to": "21444__0_039", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_041", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "All right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [481.464], "stop_times": [481.687], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 481.464}, "reply_to": "21444__0_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21444__0_042", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Now, if that's so--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [481.687], "stop_times": [482.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 481.687}, "reply_to": "21444__0_041", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_043", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well... well, there really... there are findings against you, and to say that a lawyer is a crook, a liar, and a thief and you're trying to tell us that that's not defamatory, I mean, I... I think we should just proceed on... on some other basis for this argument.\nWe have other questions to discuss.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [482.042, 494.014], "stop_times": [494.014, 495.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 482.042}, "reply_to": "21444__0_042", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_044", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Sure.\nBut, Your Honor, I want to just respond to that.\nThe exact statement there was... and I'll quote it for you and it is on page 54 of the joint appendix.\nJohnnie is a crook, a liar, and a thief.\nCan a lawyer go to heaven?\nLuke 11:46.\nYour Honor, this Court has said, for example, in Greenbelt Cooperative that charging somebody with blackmail is expressing opinion.\nIn Letter Carriers v. Austin this Court said calling somebody a traitor is opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [495.733, 495.941, 497.852, 503.799, 506.342, 507.57, 509.134, 514.934], "stop_times": [495.941, 497.852, 503.799, 506.342, 507.57, 509.134, 514.934, 518.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 495.733}, "reply_to": "21444__0_043", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_045", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--All right.\nThat... that... what you've quoted many... much of this I wouldn't repeat in polite company.\nYou've reported one of the most mild, and in fact there are two findings.\nOne, this is not just defamation.\nIt was an action for defamation, as well as a tort of invasion of privacy.\nAnd there is a finding, first, that this was done intentionally to create a negatively charged and ominous environment, and this is not a matter of speech-related issues.\nIt is simply the use of false and defamatory and privacy-invading communications, or worse, or attempt to improperly coerce payment of money in tribute for... for desisting from that type of activity.\nAll right.\nNow, those are the findings against you.\nSo suppose I agreed with you hypothetically that that, with all these findings, is nonetheless protected by the First Amendment.\nAll right?\nNow, suppose, in other words, you convince me of that.\nNow, I want to know how to write my opinion on that assumption to protect what I was worried about yesterday, that a woman who has a boyfriend or a husband is being continuously harassed in... with methods similar to this one.\nIt's easy to transpose those two cases which are both on my mind.\nAnd I want to know if in your opinion that these restraining orders, which try to prevent this kind of thing, among others, are unconstitutional, if there's a way of distinguishing them, if you could possibly win on what theory.\nAnd what I'm trying to get you to do is to say is it absolute.\nAre there limits?\nIf so, what?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [518.534, 519.01, 523.879, 529.617, 532.257, 537.259, 548.957, 562.247, 562.713, 564.568, 574.182, 575.059, 577.279, 596.463, 600.989, 615.955, 619.263, 620.363], "stop_times": [519.01, 523.879, 529.617, 532.257, 537.259, 548.957, 562.247, 562.713, 564.568, 574.182, 575.059, 577.279, 596.463, 600.989, 615.955, 619.263, 620.363, 621.427], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 518.534}, "reply_to": "21444__0_044", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21444__0_046", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "I would suggest three different ways in which you could write the opinion that distinguished the case.\nThe first is that this injunction is vastly overbroad, that even if there can be an injunction to say that Ulysses Tory and Ruth Craft can never again say anything about Johnnie Cochran in any public forum, that I can never speak about Johnnie Cochran would violate the First Amendment.\nA second way of distinguishing is that defamation is different, that when the First Amendment was adopted, the clear history was that above all it was to prevent prior restraints, and that injunctions were not permitted in defamation actions.\nThat's quite different than a harassment action.\nAnd third, as I've argued, what makes this different is the basis for this injunction is speech protected by the First Amendment.\nWith regard to the findings that you referred to, you mentioned two.\nThe first is invasion of privacy.\nYour Honor, the only privacy claim in this case was false light invasion of privacy.\nCalifornia law is clear.\nWhen there is a defamation action and a false light claim, the false light claim is automatically dismissed as duplicative when it's based on the same fact.\nThe second basis you pointed--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [621.427, 626.88, 645.054, 658.434, 660.694, 667.836, 671.309, 673.454, 677.957, 679.447, 686.757], "stop_times": [626.88, 645.054, 658.434, 660.694, 667.836, 671.309, 673.454, 677.957, 679.447, 686.757, 689.001], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 621.427}, "reply_to": "21444__0_045", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_047", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Mr. Chemerinsky, this case comes up to us from a California appellate court.\nSurely they know California law better than we do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [689.001, 694.258], "stop_times": [694.258, 698.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 689.001}, "reply_to": "21444__0_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21444__0_048", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, but they did not base their decision on the privacy claim because California law is clear that when it's false light invasion of privacy brought together with a defamation action, the false light claim is dismissed.\nThat's a California case, Couch v. San Jose Unified School District.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [698.775, 712.832], "stop_times": [712.832, 716.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 698.775}, "reply_to": "21444__0_047", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_049", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, we're not going to debate among ourselves over what California law is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [716.77], "stop_times": [723.399], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 716.77}, "reply_to": "21444__0_048", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21444__0_050", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nAll I'm saying is it's important to be clear about what the privacy claim is.\nAs I was saying to Justice Breyer, there may be privacy claims that give rise to injunctions.\nHarassment claims may give rise to injunctions, but not the privacy claim in this case which was just about false light, which even the California Court of Appeal admitted is treated together with defamation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [723.399, 724.069, 727.988, 732.862], "stop_times": [724.069, 727.988, 732.862, 743.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 723.399}, "reply_to": "21444__0_049", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_051", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Suppose this picketing had taken place in front of his house, every day in front of his house.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [743.686], "stop_times": [747.215], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 743.686}, "reply_to": "21444__0_050", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_052", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Your Honor, under Frisby v. Schultz, that would be a different situation.\nUnder Frisby v. Schultz, this Court said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [747.215, 750.661], "stop_times": [750.661, 752.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 747.215}, "reply_to": "21444__0_051", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_053", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "All right.\nWell... well, then this... this argument you're making, oh, never, never, the sky is falling and so forth, I... I think we have to be more precise here.\nI think if it were in front of his house, it would be different.\nIf he had alleged $10 worth of monetary damages, it would be disparaging the quality of his services, which would be a trade libel, and the Restatement at least... I don't know California law... says that you... would you agree that you can enjoin a trade libel--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [752.907, 753.244, 760.421, 764.82], "stop_times": [753.244, 760.421, 764.82, 779.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 752.907}, "reply_to": "21444__0_052", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_054", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Well, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [779.95], "stop_times": [780.754], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 779.95}, "reply_to": "21444__0_053", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_055", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--that disparages quality of goods to the serious injury of a... of a business?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [780.754], "stop_times": [784.647], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 780.754}, "reply_to": "21444__0_054", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_056", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Actually, Your Honor, the vast majority of cases have held that you cannot have an injunction for product defamation.\nAnd so I think while that's a different and more difficult question, most courts have said no even there.\nAnd Your Honor, I'm not saying there can never be injunctions.\nBut I am saying that this Court has said there's a very strong and heavy presumption against injunctions, and that never, not once in the 214-year history of the First Amendment, has this Court ever upheld an injunction as a remedy in a defamation action.\nAnd, Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [784.647, 790.721, 796.847, 799.533, 812.438], "stop_times": [790.721, 796.847, 799.533, 812.438, 813.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 784.647}, "reply_to": "21444__0_055", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_057", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, if... if this under... the underlying claim seems to be that Mr. Cochran is essentially being blackmailed; that is, this... this... your client wants tribute to go away.\nAnd you say, yes, but it's defamation.\nIt's a defamation action.\nTherefore, damages is the only remedy.\nIs there nothing that one can do to stop another from engaging in blackmail?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [813.775, 830.211, 834.82, 836.434, 838.795], "stop_times": [830.211, 834.82, 836.434, 838.795, 848.849], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 813.775}, "reply_to": "21444__0_056", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21444__0_058", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, there is.\nIf this was blackmail or extortion, Johnnie Cochran could have filed a criminal complaint with the police.\nHe could have civilly sued for blackmail or extortion.\nBut, Your Honor, this wasn't extortion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [848.849, 850.676, 856.29, 859.297], "stop_times": [850.676, 856.29, 859.297, 860.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 848.849}, "reply_to": "21444__0_057", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_059", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "What kind of a jurisprudence is it that a person can go to jail but that he's freed from an injunction?\nI mean, why... why do we do this?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [860.864, 865.244], "stop_times": [865.244, 867.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 860.864}, "reply_to": "21444__0_058", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_060", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, Your Honor, that's because this Court has said that injunctions of speech are even worse than criminal penalties.\nI would refer this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [867.117, 872.807], "stop_times": [872.807, 874.304], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 867.117}, "reply_to": "21444__0_059", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_061", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But... but why... is that true in every case?\nI mean, take the timid person who's not sure... I know the law doesn't protect the timid person in the first area, but let's... let's assume the timid person is not sure.\nSo he wants... he wants to get an equitable ruling first, declaratory judgment.\nHe... and he would take an injunction.\nThat's certainly much easier than going to jail.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [874.304, 876.817, 885.562, 890.284, 891.582], "stop_times": [876.817, 885.562, 890.284, 891.582, 894.359], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 874.304}, "reply_to": "21444__0_060", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_062", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--But, Your Honor, I'd remind you of this Court's language in the Vance v. Universal Amusement where the Court said presumption against prior restraints is heavier and the degree of protection broader than against limits on criminal penalties.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [894.359], "stop_times": [905.815], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 894.359}, "reply_to": "21444__0_061", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_063", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "I know, but I'm asking you why that... why that should be.\nIf... if you asked a person not familiar with our jurisprudence, which is worse, having an injunction that you can argue about or going to jail, I... I think they would say that going to jail is worse.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [905.815, 907.203], "stop_times": [907.203, 918.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 905.815}, "reply_to": "21444__0_062", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_064", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But, Your Honor, in terms of the First Amendment, there are reasons why an injunction has always been regarded as worse.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [918.688], "stop_times": [924.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 918.688}, "reply_to": "21444__0_063", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_065", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Always?\nDo you want to apply that to an harassment action too against a woman who has the restraining order?\nNo restraining orders in divorce cases in case they're against speech because even if violence is threatened, even if... et cetera.\nI mean, how... how far do you want to push that principle?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [924.441, 924.957, 929.376, 936.834], "stop_times": [924.957, 929.376, 936.834, 938.801], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 924.441}, "reply_to": "21444__0_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21444__0_066", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Your Honor, I don't want to push the principle at all to harassment.\nI believe that injunctions are completely appropriate in harassment actions.\nI think it is quite important to note that the California harassment statute expressly excludes speech which is protected by the First Amendment as being a basis for harassment.\nThe history of the First Amendment is different.\nTo go back to Justice Kennedy's question, it's always been thought that an injunction strikes at the very heart of the First Amendment because, as Justice Scalia pointed out--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [938.801, 942.425, 945.588, 955.588, 957.918], "stop_times": [942.425, 945.588, 955.588, 957.918, 966.409], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 938.801}, "reply_to": "21444__0_065", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_067", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Why can't we say that speech that is... is being used for extortion is different, just as speech which is being used for harassment is different?\nAnd just as you can get an injunction for the latter, you ought to be able to get an injunction for the former.\nNot all speech, but only when speech is being used to... to extort money.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [966.409, 975.026, 980.063], "stop_times": [975.026, 980.063, 984.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 966.409}, "reply_to": "21444__0_066", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__0_068", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, there can be an injunction for extortion, but this was not extortion.\nThere was never the criminal complaint.\nThere was never the civil action.\nAnd it didn't meet the requirements for extortion.\nYour Honor, California law, Penal Code section 518, defines extortion as, quote, the obtaining of property from another with his consent induced by a wrongful use of force or fear.\nThere wasn't the wrongful use of force or fear.\nNow, it may be that Ulysses Tory was speaking--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [984.989, 989.401, 991.259, 992.144, 994.33, 1005.241, 1007.482], "stop_times": [989.401, 991.259, 992.144, 994.33, 1005.241, 1007.482, 1010.121], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 984.989}, "reply_to": "21444__0_067", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_069", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Here I think there was... why isn't there a use of fear when, you know, you're afraid of this person destroying your business by calling you a liar and a cheat?\nWasn't Mr. Cochran afraid of that... of that happening?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1010.121, 1021.381], "stop_times": [1021.381, 1026.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1010.121}, "reply_to": "21444__0_068", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__0_070", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Your Honor, this Court is required to do an independent review of the record under Bose v. Consumers Union.\nThere's no indication that Mr. Cochran suffered that fear from Mr. Tory being outside.\nIt's true that Mr. Tory may have believed that he was owed money by Johnnie Cochran and was also trying to encourage Mr. Cochran to pay.\nBut this Court has said in cases like NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware speech does not lose its protective character simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1026.669, 1032.027, 1036.188, 1043.605], "stop_times": [1032.027, 1036.188, 1043.605, 1054.175], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1026.669}, "reply_to": "21444__0_069", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_071", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Mr. Chemerinsky, the district... I mean, the trial court made certain findings and I'm looking at page 42 of the joint appendix.\nThe first is that these statements were actually made for the purpose of inducing Cochran to pay Tory amounts of money which Tory was not entitled.\nThat's one finding.\nAnd then finding 24, despite repeated requests, Tory has refused to cease picketing unless he was paid money... a monetary settlement by Cochran.\nAnd then 27 that says this is simply use of false and privacy-invading communications to coerce or attempt to improperly coerce payment of money in tribute for desisting from that type of activity.\nAnd those sound like findings.\nIt's true that the label of extortion has been put on it, but it certainly does sound like the... that the purpose of the speech was to extract money not owed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1054.175, 1061.847, 1073.944, 1074.948, 1089.178, 1109.746, 1111.447], "stop_times": [1061.847, 1073.944, 1074.948, 1089.178, 1109.746, 1111.447, 1122.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1054.175}, "reply_to": "21444__0_070", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21444__0_072", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But, Your Honor, since this is a defamation action, not an extortion action, the rules under the First Amendment for defamation have to apply.\nUnder the rules of the First Amendment for defamation, injunctions are not available to public officials or public figures.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1122.232, 1132.524], "stop_times": [1132.524, 1139.261], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1122.232}, "reply_to": "21444__0_071", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_073", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, so this finding... the court shouldn't have made these findings?\nIt was irrelevant?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1139.261, 1141.651], "stop_times": [1141.651, 1142.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1139.261}, "reply_to": "21444__0_072", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_074", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, Your Honor, I believe that the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1142.771], "stop_times": [1145.341], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1142.771}, "reply_to": "21444__0_073", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_075", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Was there an objection to the testimony that established this?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1145.341], "stop_times": [1147.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1145.341}, "reply_to": "21444__0_074", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_076", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nMr. Tory, who was appearing pro se in the trial court, from the very outset objected that he was being held liable for speech protected by the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1147.992, 1149.758], "stop_times": [1149.758, 1157.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1147.992}, "reply_to": "21444__0_075", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_077", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "No, but it seems to me... and I think what bothers me is... is what bothers Justice Kennedy.\nIt seems to me that the argument you just made is an argument that given the pleadings in this case, the findings that Justice Ginsburg just quoted really were irrelevant findings, that they should not have gotten... that the court should not have gotten into extortion and so on and should not have provided a remedy for extortion, quite apart from the fact of whether it's an appropriate remedy, constitutional or otherwise.\nAnd that, it seems to me, is... is something that we... we are not here to touch.\nThat's a question of California law.\nWhat we are here to touch is, number one, whether the injunction is overbroad with respect to pure speech, and maybe we are here... that we have a question about the... the breadth of the case we took.\nBut maybe we are here to determine whether there can be an injunction against blackmail or harassing activities.\nBut I... I think we're not here to decide whether California could have gotten to the question of blackmail, harassment, and injunction for that.\nDo you agree with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1157.645, 1164.202, 1189.819, 1194.571, 1196.48, 1213.111, 1220.201, 1229.89], "stop_times": [1164.202, 1189.819, 1194.571, 1196.48, 1213.111, 1220.201, 1229.89, 1230.715], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1157.645}, "reply_to": "21444__0_076", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21444__0_078", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI certainly agree with the first point.\nOne issue before this Court is whether this injunction is overbroad, and it clearly is in terms of the breadth of speech that's regulated and whose regulated.\nBut as to the second point that you make, this is a defamation action, and thus the issue before this Court, clearly presented in the question presented, is whether a permanent injunction can be issued in a defamation case remedy when the plaintiff is a public figure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1230.715, 1231.669, 1233.268, 1242.201], "stop_times": [1231.669, 1233.268, 1242.201, 1256.623], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1230.715}, "reply_to": "21444__0_077", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_079", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, it can certainly... the... the issue is certainly before us as to whether such an injunction can be issued with respect to defamation pure and simple.\nBut the findings that Justice Ginsburg has... has read and part of the order in question here seems to go beyond pure defamation.\nIt goes to the kind of demonstrative activity which plausibly is found to have been in aid of extortion.\nAnd that, it seems to me, is an entirely different question.\nWe may... I'm not saying we will, but we may agree with you that it's overbroad.\nWe may agree with you that as to pure speech, you can't enjoin it.\nBut that doesn't necessarily mean that every part of this injunction is wrong, and it seems to me it is irrelevant as to whether the... the State of... the courts of California should have reached extortion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1256.623, 1265.288, 1277.007, 1285.644, 1289.395, 1293.823, 1297.968], "stop_times": [1265.288, 1277.007, 1285.644, 1289.395, 1293.823, 1297.968, 1308.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1256.623}, "reply_to": "21444__0_078", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21444__0_080", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "I would disagree in this way, Your Honor.\nBose v. Consumers Union makes clear that when it is a defamation action, this Court and every appellate court has to do an independent review of the record.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1308.977, 1311.327], "stop_times": [1311.327, 1320.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1308.977}, "reply_to": "21444__0_079", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_081", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "With respect to the defamation, pure and simple.\nI agree with you.\nWe... there is a heightened standard of review, but I don't think that addresses one way or the other what the standard should be when an action in the State courts has been treated as an action both for defamation and for extortion or harassment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1320.972, 1324.184, 1325.103], "stop_times": [1324.184, 1325.103, 1342.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1320.972}, "reply_to": "21444__0_080", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21444__0_082", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But, Your Honor, it was not treated here as an action for extortion or harassment--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1342.816], "stop_times": [1347.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1342.816}, "reply_to": "21444__0_081", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_083", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Mr. Chemerinsky, let me put the question this way.\nSuppose a State does not have a civil action for extortion.\nIt provides criminal remedies but no civil action for extortion.\nWhy does the Constitution not permit us to treat, in that State at least, a civil action for defamation which has within it elements of distortion differently from pure defamation?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1347.822, 1350.254, 1356.167, 1359.826], "stop_times": [1350.254, 1356.167, 1359.826, 1376.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1347.822}, "reply_to": "21444__0_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__0_084", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Your Honor, I would say the history of the First Amendment is different.\nA State can create a civil action then for extortion at the urging of this Court, but if you open the door to injunctions in defamation cases, then there's the possibility that in any defamation case, somebody might plead something about extortion, and injunctions will not be rare but will be the norm.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1376.269, 1379.244], "stop_times": [1379.244, 1395.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1376.269}, "reply_to": "21444__0_083", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_085", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "May I ask this... may I ask this question?\nSupposing the only thing he did was to carry a sign that said Johnnie is a crook, a liar, and a thief, and the trial judge finds that is false, and he's carrying it in a sign, could the trial judge enjoin him from carrying that sign in front of Johnnie Cochran's office?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1395.796, 1397.342], "stop_times": [1397.342, 1412.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1395.796}, "reply_to": "21444__0_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21444__0_086", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "No, Your Honor, because the law is clear that injunctions are not a permissible remedy in defamation cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1412.927], "stop_times": [1419.412], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1412.927}, "reply_to": "21444__0_085", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_087", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "What's the best authority you have for that proposition?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1419.412], "stop_times": [1420.797], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1419.412}, "reply_to": "21444__0_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21444__0_088", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Near v. Minnesota would be the best authority where this Court said clearly that injunctive relief should not be awarded in a defamation case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1420.797], "stop_times": [1428.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1420.797}, "reply_to": "21444__0_087", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_089", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Add to Justice Stevens'... add to Justice Stevens' hypothetical that he shows that he's losing some clients.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1428.346], "stop_times": [1435.566], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1428.346}, "reply_to": "21444__0_088", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_090", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But, Your Honor, even... yes, Your Honor.\nBut I don't think that changes the hypothetical in terms of enjoining the defamatory speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1435.566, 1441.187], "stop_times": [1441.187, 1446.693], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1435.566}, "reply_to": "21444__0_089", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_091", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Would you add too that he's judgment-proof?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1446.693], "stop_times": [1449.361], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1446.693}, "reply_to": "21444__0_090", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21444__0_092", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, again, as I said to Justice O'Connor, I don't think it can matter whether he's judgment-proof because we can't have a different rule that we allow poor people's speech to enjoin and not wealthy people.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1449.361], "stop_times": [1458.311], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1449.361}, "reply_to": "21444__0_091", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_093", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "You're saying... you're saying that a State cannot constitutionally prohibit someone from making false statements in front of the business that causes the business to lose money.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1458.311], "stop_times": [1468.71], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1458.311}, "reply_to": "21444__0_092", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_094", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, Your Honor, there are other causes of action that may allow that.\nIf it could be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1468.71, 1471.265], "stop_times": [1471.265, 1472.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1468.71}, "reply_to": "21444__0_093", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_095", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "So I'm... my question is, is this constitutional to prohibit this conduct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1472.313], "stop_times": [1477.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1472.313}, "reply_to": "21444__0_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_096", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Not in a defamation action, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1477.09], "stop_times": [1479.414], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1477.09}, "reply_to": "21444__0_095", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_097", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "That's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1479.414], "stop_times": [1479.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1479.414}, "reply_to": "21444__0_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_098", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1479.921], "stop_times": [1480.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1479.921}, "reply_to": "21444__0_097", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21444__0_099", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--that's not the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1480.111], "stop_times": [1481.195], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1480.111}, "reply_to": "21444__0_098", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_100", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But what is your authority for that proposition?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1481.195], "stop_times": [1483.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1481.195}, "reply_to": "21444__0_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21444__0_101", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, I would say that the authority comes from the fact that never in 214 years has this Court ever upheld an injunction in a defamation case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1483.358], "stop_times": [1491.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1483.358}, "reply_to": "21444__0_100", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_102", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Have we ever set aside an injunction that did that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1491.755], "stop_times": [1493.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1491.755}, "reply_to": "21444__0_101", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21444__0_103", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, not under those facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1493.339], "stop_times": [1495.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1493.339}, "reply_to": "21444__0_102", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_104", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Have we done it either way?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1495.473], "stop_times": [1495.902], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1495.473}, "reply_to": "21444__0_103", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21444__0_105", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "No.\nThat's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1495.902, 1496.199], "stop_times": [1496.199, 1497.108], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1495.902}, "reply_to": "21444__0_104", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_106", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Have we ever... have we ever considered a case where there's a strong element of extortion involved?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1497.108], "stop_times": [1501.986], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1497.108}, "reply_to": "21444__0_105", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__0_107", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "I would say yes, extortion for Austin v. Keith.\nThere was speech to pressure, and yet this Court said even though the speech was to pressure, it's still protected by the First Amendment.\nI'd like to save the rest of the time for rebuttal, if that's permissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1501.986, 1505.674, 1511.43], "stop_times": [1505.674, 1511.43, 1513.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1501.986}, "reply_to": "21444__0_106", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_108", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Very well, Mr. Chemerinsky.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1513.973], "stop_times": [1515.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1513.973}, "reply_to": "21444__0_107", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21444__0_109", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1515.444], "stop_times": [1515.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1515.444}, "reply_to": "21444__0_108", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__0_110", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Mr. Cole, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1515.714], "stop_times": [1518.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.714}, "reply_to": "21444__0_109", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21444__1_000", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist, and may it please the Court:\nFor years, Mr. Tory has relentlessly targeted Johnnie Cochran with a pattern of defamatory speech in a public forum for purpose of causing Mr. Cochran to pay Mr. Tory money in tribute for ceasing from this unprotected activity.\nHe admitted at trial he intended to engage in this conduct.\nHe was doing it just so he could be paid money, and when asked if he would continue to do so, he stated he would.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1518.598, 1523.587, 1539.196, 1543.817], "stop_times": [1523.587, 1539.196, 1543.817, 1551.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1518.598}, "reply_to": "21444__0_110", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_001", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, do you... do you defend the injunction in its entirety?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1551.746], "stop_times": [1555.465], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1551.746}, "reply_to": "21444__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21444__1_002", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Yes--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1555.465], "stop_times": [1557.216], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1555.465}, "reply_to": "21444__1_001", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_003", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "In other words, the... the... Mr. Chemerinsky didn't have too much chance to... to get very far into it, but one of his points was that there was... quite apart from any injunction against picketing, harassment, et cetera, there was an injunction simply against speech on a given subject directed to a lot of people with no limit of time.\nWith respect to that last aspect, do you defend the injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1557.216, 1579.578], "stop_times": [1579.578, 1583.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1557.216}, "reply_to": "21444__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21444__1_004", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Yes.\nFirst of all, I don't believe it was directed to a lot of people.\nAs this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1583.405, 1584.195, 1587.534], "stop_times": [1584.195, 1587.534, 1588.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1583.405}, "reply_to": "21444__1_003", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_005", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, it was directed, number one, to a named person who was not a party to the case, and it was directed to agents and employees of... of the named party.\nSo, I... I assume that Mr. Cochran probably has a fair number of agents and employees, so it does seem like a large number of people.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1588.985, 1598.95], "stop_times": [1598.95, 1607.926], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1588.985}, "reply_to": "21444__1_004", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21444__1_006", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--I believe this Court said in Madsen that that would raise an abstract controversy that Mr. Tory doesn't have standing to attack the injunction for other persons who are not before the court.\nNo aider or abetter has ever been served with this injunction.\nMs. Craft has never been served with this injunction.\nOnly Mr. Tory.\nSo I don't believe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1607.926, 1618.25, 1621.519, 1624.383, 1625.819], "stop_times": [1618.25, 1621.519, 1624.383, 1625.819, 1627.067], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1607.926}, "reply_to": "21444__1_005", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_007", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, let me ask you a law school question.\nIn... given the injunction on its face, with that breadth, is that injunction defensible with respect not to picketing, not to harassment, simply to speech in a public place?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1627.067, 1628.748], "stop_times": [1628.748, 1643.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1627.067}, "reply_to": "21444__1_006", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21444__1_008", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--I defend the injunction, and respondent defends the injunction on the ground that it is conduct that was being enjoined--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1643.248], "stop_times": [1651.394], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1643.248}, "reply_to": "21444__1_007", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_009", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "I... I asked you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1651.394], "stop_times": [1652.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1651.394}, "reply_to": "21444__1_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21444__1_010", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--from the use of unprotected speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1652.237], "stop_times": [1652.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1652.237}, "reply_to": "21444__1_009", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_011", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--to exclude the... the issue of conduct.\nI said forget the injunction for a moment with respect to picketing, with respect to harassment, and we'll say with respect to blackmail, since that has come up.\nForget that.\nSimply take the portion of the injunction that enjoins speech by these people, associates, agents, et cetera.\nOn the subject matter of the injunction for all time, do you defend that injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1652.992, 1655.112, 1664.617, 1665.095, 1674.695], "stop_times": [1655.112, 1664.617, 1665.095, 1674.695, 1681.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1652.992}, "reply_to": "21444__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21444__1_012", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Yes, we defend the injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1681.101], "stop_times": [1683.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1681.101}, "reply_to": "21444__1_011", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_013", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Let's take specifically the words of the injunction.\nIt's against orally uttering statements about Cochran, just orally uttering statements about Cochran.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1683.892, 1686.945], "stop_times": [1686.945, 1695.582], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1683.892}, "reply_to": "21444__1_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21444__1_014", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1695.582], "stop_times": [1696.416], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1695.582}, "reply_to": "21444__1_013", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_015", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "You say that someone can be enjoined--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1696.416], "stop_times": [1698.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1696.416}, "reply_to": "21444__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21444__1_016", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Based upon the unique facts of this case, Justice Ginsburg, I say somebody can be enjoined.\nI don't say that in the abstract.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1698.688, 1705.352], "stop_times": [1705.352, 1707.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1698.688}, "reply_to": "21444__1_015", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_017", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, you can't square that with the Near case at all.\nI... I mean, the... the injunction on its face in part 2 has the appearance of being overly broad.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1707.463, 1711.089], "stop_times": [1711.089, 1718.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1707.463}, "reply_to": "21444__1_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21444__1_018", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But in Near, they set forth certain factors, and those factors included that it was not a private redress of private wrongs.\nThe information was of legitimate public concern.\nNeither of those elements are present in this action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1718.665, 1727.874, 1731.334], "stop_times": [1727.874, 1731.334, 1734.635], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1718.665}, "reply_to": "21444__1_017", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_019", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "You don't know that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1734.635], "stop_times": [1735.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1734.635}, "reply_to": "21444__1_018", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__1_020", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "You don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1735.069], "stop_times": [1735.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1735.069}, "reply_to": "21444__1_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21444__1_021", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "You don't know what future speech is going to be.\nHis future thing may be, you know, Johnnie Cochran shouldn't be elected mayor of San Francisco.\nThat would be a... a question of public concern.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1735.324, 1737.39, 1742.516], "stop_times": [1737.39, 1742.516, 1745.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1735.324}, "reply_to": "21444__1_020", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__1_022", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But, Justice Scalia, what I'm relying on is the fact that he has engaged in 3 years in a pattern of continuing, repetitive conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1745.927], "stop_times": [1754.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1745.927}, "reply_to": "21444__1_021", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_023", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, what... what you're saying is that an... an injunction can be overbroad based on past wrongful conduct.\nAnd there is simply no authority for that proposition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1754.343, 1759.109], "stop_times": [1759.109, 1761.653], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1754.343}, "reply_to": "21444__1_022", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__1_024", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "I'm not suggesting that this injunction is necessarily overbroad based upon that proposition because I believe there are--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1761.653], "stop_times": [1768.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1761.653}, "reply_to": "21444__1_023", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_025", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But we have just pointed out that it... that it... it prohibits lawful, harmless, truthful speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1768.308], "stop_times": [1774.633], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1768.308}, "reply_to": "21444__1_024", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__1_026", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--I disagree with that, Justice Kennedy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1774.633], "stop_times": [1777.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1774.633}, "reply_to": "21444__1_025", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_027", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Well, it does on its face.\nI mean, it is clearly overbroad.\nNow, what should we do about that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1777.857, 1779.835, 1782.426], "stop_times": [1779.835, 1782.426, 1784.246], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1777.857}, "reply_to": "21444__1_026", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21444__1_028", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, if you're asking me, based upon the breadth of the injunction, what I... if... if there was... are you asking me what I would do to modify the injunction?\nYou could merely strike... you could leave intact paragraph 2 and you could strike simply subsections (ii) and (iii) as being unconstitutionally overbroad.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1784.246, 1791.838], "stop_times": [1791.838, 1803.773], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1784.246}, "reply_to": "21444__1_027", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_029", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Now, let... let me ask you about that.\nLet's... let's assume, for the moment, that a majority of the Court would find that some of these provisions are overly broad.\nIs there any authority that tells us what to do next?\nThis is not like a statute where we have to save the statute.\nDo we have any obligation to save the injunction?\nSend it back and let it be done.\nLet it be done all over again.\nI mean, why... why should we rewrite it up here?\nDo you have any authority that requires us or permits us to do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1803.773, 1805.956, 1813.57, 1817.295, 1822.157, 1823.871, 1825.183, 1826.36, 1828.192], "stop_times": [1805.956, 1813.57, 1817.295, 1822.157, 1823.871, 1825.183, 1826.36, 1828.192, 1832.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1803.773}, "reply_to": "21444__1_028", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__1_030", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Yes.\nIn... in Madsen, Justice Kennedy, you struck... the Court struck certain provisions as being unconstitutionally overbroad and left certain intact.\nSo there's no reason why you can't look at this injunction, which clearly does not attack paragraph 1.\nThe... they do not attack paragraph 1.\nThey do not attack paragraph 3.\nThey only level their attack at paragraph 2, and paragraph 2, by striking subsections (ii) and (iii), would then be limited to the exact conduct in issue, which is picketing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1832.803, 1833.555, 1843.031, 1849.052, 1852.362, 1853.991], "stop_times": [1833.555, 1843.031, 1849.052, 1852.362, 1853.991, 1864.345], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1832.803}, "reply_to": "21444__1_029", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_031", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "So... so if... before leaving that point, what the injunction prohibits is that Tory and those acting in concert, cooperation, or participation with him from, in a public forum, orally uttering statements about Cochran.\nAll right.\nThat's what it says.\nNow, do you think that if Tory or someone acting in cooperation with him says, I've had a change of heart, Johnnie Cochran is a marvelous person, and he says that on television... do you think that individual at that time has violated this injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1864.345, 1884.445, 1885.131, 1886.029], "stop_times": [1884.445, 1885.131, 1886.029, 1905.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1864.345}, "reply_to": "21444__1_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21444__1_032", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Absolutely not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1905.301], "stop_times": [1906.305], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1905.301}, "reply_to": "21444__1_031", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_033", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Absolutely not.\nBecause?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1906.305, 1907.956], "stop_times": [1907.956, 1908.495], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1906.305}, "reply_to": "21444__1_032", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21444__1_034", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "First of all, that's why--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1908.495], "stop_times": [1910.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1908.495}, "reply_to": "21444__1_033", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_035", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "It said the words.\nThey violated the words.\nIt was a statement, but he has not violated the injunction because?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1910.097, 1910.833, 1912.076], "stop_times": [1910.833, 1912.076, 1915.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1910.097}, "reply_to": "21444__1_034", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21444__1_036", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Because I don't believe that's a public forum.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1915.648], "stop_times": [1918.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1915.648}, "reply_to": "21444__1_035", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_037", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Oh, no, no.\nHe does it in a public forum.\nIn fact, he hires Disney Hall.\n[Laughter]\nAnd moreover, he gets on stage and announces it.\nOkay?\nThere's no problem about a public forum.\nSo, now, why doesn't it violate the injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1918.746, 1919.78, 1920.805, 1923.477, 1924.241, 1927.643, 1928.125, 1929.84], "stop_times": [1919.78, 1920.805, 1923.477, 1924.241, 1927.643, 1928.125, 1929.84, 1932.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1918.746}, "reply_to": "21444__1_036", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21444__1_038", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Your... Your Honor, I believe there are alternative channels of communication here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1932.252], "stop_times": [1940.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1932.252}, "reply_to": "21444__1_037", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_039", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "No.\nI thought what you were going to say... but you're not.\nSo I'm very interested in that, and I'm glad I asked.\nI thought you were going to say when it says uttering statements, it means statements of the kind or identical to those we have identified earlier in this opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1940.047, 1940.71, 1943.116, 1945.366], "stop_times": [1940.71, 1943.116, 1945.366, 1955.484], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1940.047}, "reply_to": "21444__1_038", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21444__1_040", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, I was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1955.484], "stop_times": [1956.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1955.484}, "reply_to": "21444__1_039", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_041", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But, now, you haven't said that.\nI said it, and I think it's too late for you to say it.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1956.366, 1957.39, 1960.145], "stop_times": [1957.39, 1960.145, 1962.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1956.366}, "reply_to": "21444__1_040", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21444__1_042", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--I think I said it when I said there was a continuing pattern of repetitive conduct under Pittsburgh Press, over 3 years that that was the conduct that he has engaged in.\nAnd that was clearly the purpose of this injunction, Justice Breyer.\nWe know that.\nAnd the purpose of the injunction is to enjoin conduct that's designed to extort money from Mr. Cochran.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1962.185, 1969.797, 1972.995, 1973.627], "stop_times": [1969.797, 1972.995, 1973.627, 1979.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1962.185}, "reply_to": "21444__1_041", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_043", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "In more than one case, we've said that an injunction has to be precise and clear and not leaving things to the imagination.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1979.946], "stop_times": [1989.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1979.946}, "reply_to": "21444__1_042", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21444__1_044", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, I think this is precise and clear.\nBased upon the breadth of the injunction, it's very clear.\nBased upon this man's prior repetitive conduct of defaming Mr. Cochran with unprotected speech for the purpose of attempting to extort money from him--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [1989.922, 1992.51, 1995.266], "stop_times": [1992.51, 1995.266, 2005.593], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1989.922}, "reply_to": "21444__1_043", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_045", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, it's... it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2005.593], "stop_times": [2007.281], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2005.593}, "reply_to": "21444__1_044", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__1_046", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But nothing in the injunction refers to prior conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2007.281], "stop_times": [2009.403], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2007.281}, "reply_to": "21444__1_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21444__1_047", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--That's right.\nIt's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2009.403, 2010.23], "stop_times": [2010.23, 2010.771], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2009.403}, "reply_to": "21444__1_046", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__1_048", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "The injunction just speaks for itself.\nIt doesn't say what... doing what you used to do or anything like that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2010.771, 2012.747], "stop_times": [2012.747, 2015.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2010.771}, "reply_to": "21444__1_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21444__1_049", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--The injunction--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2015.673], "stop_times": [2017.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2015.673}, "reply_to": "21444__1_048", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_050", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "You cannot picket Cochran or Cochran's law firm.\nPeriod.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2017.281, 2019.842], "stop_times": [2019.842, 2020.875], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2017.281}, "reply_to": "21444__1_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21444__1_051", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--If we restricted the injunction to specific words used such as you cannot picket Johnnie Cochran's law firm and say he's a crook, liar, and thief, the response will be that he'll come up with five new words to defame Mr. Cochran for purposes of extorting--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2020.875], "stop_times": [2039.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2020.875}, "reply_to": "21444__1_050", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_052", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, maybe there are different grades of specificity.\nMaybe it doesn't meet precisely the same words, but I think there are other ways to draft it that say no picketing.\nPeriod.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2039.728, 2040.984, 2045.769], "stop_times": [2040.984, 2045.769, 2046.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2039.728}, "reply_to": "21444__1_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21444__1_053", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Well, there could be no picketing for purposes of... no... which contains defamatory speech for purposes of extorting Mr. Cochran.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2046.328, 2055.478], "stop_times": [2055.478, 2057.464], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2046.328}, "reply_to": "21444__1_052", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_054", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "All I'm suggesting is just draft it... just excising (ii) and (iii) from paragraph 2 would not necessarily solve the problem completely.\nJust subparagraph (i) says picketing Cochran or Cochran's law firm, which is a pretty broad prohibition.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2057.464, 2065.735], "stop_times": [2065.735, 2073.181], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2057.464}, "reply_to": "21444__1_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21444__1_055", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Well, I would disagree based upon the prior... continuing course of... of repetitive conduct and the fact that this... over a period 3 years, once a week, this man spent 3 to 4 hours a day of his time defaming Mr. Cochran at his law office.\nWhen we enjoined him from doing so at his law office, he moved it to the Los Angeles Superior Court.\nAnd I think the fact that Mr. Cochran is a public figure actually favors the breadth of this injunction.\nIf this was not a public figure, then the public forum issue would not be as effective.\nBut because Mr. Cochran is a public figure, the only way he gets protection is in the public forum because this gentleman could move his picketing down to west L.A., Santa Monica Boulevard, nowhere near a courthouse, and to a public figure he can inflict the same damage to reputation.\nAnd that is the problem we were contending with in attempting to draft an injunction that was not overbroad and yet could control Mr. Tory--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2073.181, 2086.668, 2092.52, 2098.052, 2106.513, 2123.013], "stop_times": [2086.668, 2092.52, 2098.052, 2106.513, 2123.013, 2131.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2073.181}, "reply_to": "21444__1_054", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_056", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--You... you did draft this injunction.\nIt wasn't the... an inspiration from the judge unaided by your advocacy.\nIs that so?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2131.314, 2133.802, 2140.557], "stop_times": [2133.802, 2140.557, 2141.558], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2131.314}, "reply_to": "21444__1_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21444__1_057", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--It--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2141.558], "stop_times": [2142.523], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2141.558}, "reply_to": "21444__1_056", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_058", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "This... the terms of this injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2142.523], "stop_times": [2144.498], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2142.523}, "reply_to": "21444__1_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21444__1_059", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Were aided... were aided by my advocacy, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2144.498], "stop_times": [2148.671], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2144.498}, "reply_to": "21444__1_058", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_060", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Aided and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2148.671], "stop_times": [2152.689], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2148.671}, "reply_to": "21444__1_059", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21444__1_061", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well said, Chief Justice Rehnquist.\nWhat I'm suggesting here is Mr. Cochran would have been faced with... he has no remedy.\nInjunctive relief is the only remedy.\nAnd he would be faced with a multiplicity of actions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2152.689, 2156.602, 2164.202, 2166.876], "stop_times": [2156.602, 2164.202, 2166.876, 2170.818], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2152.689}, "reply_to": "21444__1_060", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_062", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Why?\nWhy couldn't he just be enjoined from... from similar defamation?\nI mean, this... this enjoins him from... from true speech.\nAt least he could... he could have been enjoined from in the future defaming Cochran in the same manner.\nAnd if he did that, then... then he could be punished.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2170.818, 2171.298, 2178.488, 2182.769, 2191.014], "stop_times": [2171.298, 2178.488, 2182.769, 2191.014, 2194.922], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.818}, "reply_to": "21444__1_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__1_063", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--I think we would be... that injunction then would be attacked on being vague or ambiguous, that Mr. Tory wouldn't have sufficient notice as to what he was allowed to say and not allowed to say.\nI guarantee you that was--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2194.922, 2205.199], "stop_times": [2205.199, 2206.697], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2194.922}, "reply_to": "21444__1_062", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_064", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, if... if that's so, then maybe Mr. Chemerinsky is right.\nWe... we shouldn't have injunctions.\nIf you're saying that injunctions can't be narrowly tailored, it seems to me that you're playing right into the argument that the petitioner is making.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2206.697, 2209.659, 2211.322], "stop_times": [2209.659, 2211.322, 2218.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2206.697}, "reply_to": "21444__1_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__1_065", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--No.\nI think they can be tailored.\nI just don't think they can be that narrowly tailored.\nAnd I don't think in this case, which I believe that the test we should be applying if we're going to balance, is this... there's no need for this injunction to be drafted in the least restrictive means.\nI also continue to advance the argument that this... the facts of this case are unique.\nIt's the use of speech to engage in unprotected conduct.\nThis... this conduct is not protected by the First Amendment.\nThe conduct of attempting to extort money from Mr. Cochran is not protected.\nIf that is not protected, then I believe we can craft--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2218.418, 2219.069, 2221.052, 2223.538, 2232.978, 2238.337, 2244.088, 2247.707, 2252.756], "stop_times": [2219.069, 2221.052, 2223.538, 2232.978, 2238.337, 2244.088, 2247.707, 2252.756, 2257.833], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2218.418}, "reply_to": "21444__1_064", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_066", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--You can... you can certainly have, you know, some unprotected speech in connection with extortion, like give me $5 million or I'll shoot you.\nBut that... this was a far cry from that.\nIn other words, it isn't just addressing the victim and saying give me something.\nIt's denouncing the victim, which gets into free speech here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2257.833, 2268.693, 2272.6, 2280.161], "stop_times": [2268.693, 2272.6, 2280.161, 2284.754], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2257.833}, "reply_to": "21444__1_065", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21444__1_067", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--It certainly does, Justice Rehnquist.\nBut what I am suggesting is there was no remedy for Mr. Cochran that would have avoided a multiplicity of actions other than to draft the injunction in a form that would preclude Mr. Tory from engaging in the same conduct without regard to whether it was... and to let him know clearly... give him a safe harbor as to what he could and could not say.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2284.754, 2286.968], "stop_times": [2286.968, 2312.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2284.754}, "reply_to": "21444__1_066", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_068", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But the injunction isn't limited to the same conduct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2312.183], "stop_times": [2316.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.183}, "reply_to": "21444__1_067", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21444__1_069", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But I don't think it needs to be because of the pattern and practice that this man has engaged in over 3 years.\nAnd if we take the example, which is so he has a change of heart and suddenly he now wants to praise Mr. Cochran and that's become his... and he's going to promote him as mayor of San francisco, he can certainly go into the court and modify the injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2316.159, 2323.989], "stop_times": [2323.989, 2337.86], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2316.159}, "reply_to": "21444__1_068", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_070", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "I thought he lived in L.A.--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2337.86, 2339.304], "stop_times": [2339.304, 2344.009], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2337.86}, "reply_to": "21444__1_069", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21444__1_071", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "I think he'd like to get him up to San Francisco.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2344.009, 2345.752], "stop_times": [2345.752, 2347.688], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2344.009}, "reply_to": "21444__1_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__1_072", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "He can certainly seek to modify the injunction, and that, as I pointed out in a subsequent letter brief, there's... California doesn't adopt the collateral bar rule.\nAnd therefore, he has a check and balance in this case.\nUnder People v. Gonzales, 12 Cal. 4th 805, the collateral bar rule has no application in the State of California.\nSo in the unlikely event that Mr. Tory was engaged in speech praising Mr. Cochran, one, and two, in the... in the more unlikely event that someone was going to attempt to cite him for contempt for engaging in protected speech, he could contest, under First Amendment grounds, the enforcement of this injunction in the State of California because the collateral bar rule has no impact.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2347.688, 2356.208, 2359.408, 2367.113], "stop_times": [2356.208, 2359.408, 2367.113, 2395.057], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2347.688}, "reply_to": "21444__1_071", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_073", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, I'm... I'm baffled by that.\nWhat you're saying is that the injunction... we're just all wasting our time?\nThe injunction doesn't mean anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2395.057, 2397.697, 2401.79], "stop_times": [2397.697, 2401.79, 2403.046], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2395.057}, "reply_to": "21444__1_072", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__1_074", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "No, no, no, no.\nJustice Kennedy, all I'm saying is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2403.046, 2404.595], "stop_times": [2404.595, 2405.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2403.046}, "reply_to": "21444__1_073", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_075", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "I... I fell off the track here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2405.881], "stop_times": [2407.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2405.881}, "reply_to": "21444__1_074", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__1_076", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--All I'm... all I'm saying is that if the collateral bar rule was in effect, you would waive your right to contest.\nYou don't have a right to contest the constitutionality of the injunction on First Amendment grounds or constitutional grounds when it's seek to be enforced against you.\nThat's not a defense in a contempt proceeding.\nCalifornia does not adopt that rule.\nTherefore, Mr. Tory can always... if he is engaged in protected speech, he can easily contend--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2407.333, 2415.218, 2424.003, 2426.469, 2429.588], "stop_times": [2415.218, 2424.003, 2426.469, 2429.588, 2437.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2407.333}, "reply_to": "21444__1_075", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_077", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Oh, yes, but he's different from other citizens because he's at... he's at risk of a contempt citation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2437.738], "stop_times": [2442.15], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2437.738}, "reply_to": "21444__1_076", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__1_078", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--I don't dispute that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2442.15], "stop_times": [2443.26], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2442.15}, "reply_to": "21444__1_077", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_079", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "I mean, his speech is being chilled with... with respect to protected speech.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2443.26], "stop_times": [2446.858], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2443.26}, "reply_to": "21444__1_078", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__1_080", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But there's nothing unusual--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2446.858], "stop_times": [2448.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2446.858}, "reply_to": "21444__1_079", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_081", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "So the collateral bar rule doesn't help you at all because he's subject to a contempt citation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2448.636], "stop_times": [2452.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2448.636}, "reply_to": "21444__1_080", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__1_082", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--He's subject to it, but there's a check and balance there in terms of when you balance, the potential remedy for Mr. Cochran... what... what is going to give Mr. Cochran the remedy he needs?\nAnd if we balance that against the... the breadth of this injunction, I think we have to look at... one of the biggest concerns about prior restraints, when analyzed in terms of injunctions, is the collateral bar rule.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2452.206, 2464.065], "stop_times": [2464.065, 2475.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2452.206}, "reply_to": "21444__1_081", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_083", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But it would be so easy.\nI mean, it's virtually no burden.\nI take it what you're saying is that this injunction in paragraph 2 at its heart is aimed at in public forums, keeping insults suggesting he was a crook against Johnnie Cochran unless you pay me $10,000.\nThen I'll stop.\nOkay?\nNow, at its heart, that's what it's aimed at.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2475.681, 2477.032, 2479.409, 2495.067, 2496.166, 2496.837], "stop_times": [2477.032, 2479.409, 2495.067, 2496.166, 2496.837, 2498.803], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2475.681}, "reply_to": "21444__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21444__1_084", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "That's exactly--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2498.803], "stop_times": [2499.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2498.803}, "reply_to": "21444__1_083", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_085", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "And you are saying if in fact it's ever enforced outside that heartland, you can have a defense.\nIt would violate the First Amendment.\nBut since it's so easy just to write those words we just said right in paragraph 2, why shouldn't the judge have to do it?\nIt's so easy.\nSay this is aimed at the heartland just as I said it and you said it, and it doesn't apply outside of it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2499.568, 2505.754, 2507.265, 2516.936, 2518.414], "stop_times": [2505.754, 2507.265, 2516.936, 2518.414, 2523.333], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2499.568}, "reply_to": "21444__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21444__1_086", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--And I have no dispute with that, Justice Breyer.\nI agree that was the whole purpose for the injunction.\nThat's the basis of the injunction.\nAnd you could always remand for further proceedings, consistent with any opinion you would write, that the injunction has to be tailored to... to deal with defamatory conduct, which is designed to extort or with the intent to extort.\nAnd I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2523.333, 2525.599, 2527.951, 2529.637, 2542.074], "stop_times": [2525.599, 2527.951, 2529.637, 2542.074, 2542.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2523.333}, "reply_to": "21444__1_085", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_087", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "That's what he's arguing.\nYou're... you're conceding that it's overbroad.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2542.499, 2543.044], "stop_times": [2543.044, 2545.124], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2542.499}, "reply_to": "21444__1_086", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__1_088", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--I'm saying if this Court... well, I'm gleaning the impression that this Court thinks it's overbroad.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2545.124], "stop_times": [2550.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2545.124}, "reply_to": "21444__1_087", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_089", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Ah, you're very perceptive.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2550.056, 2553.357], "stop_times": [2553.357, 2556.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2550.056}, "reply_to": "21444__1_088", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__1_090", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "And having gleaned that perception, I'm trying to suggest that, number one, there was no attack on paragraphs 1 and 3, and now we're focused on paragraph 2.\nAnd paragraph 2 can be tailored, as you have indicated, Justice Scalia, I think consistent with First Amendment issues.\nAnd I think it's important to point out that if we take away injunctive relief in a defamation action in this day... modern age--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2556.555, 2564.111, 2571.803], "stop_times": [2564.111, 2571.803, 2581.95], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2556.555}, "reply_to": "21444__1_089", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_091", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "You're sort of saying the opposite of what your opponent said.\nIf we take it away, has it ever been there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2581.95, 2584.319], "stop_times": [2584.319, 2586.593], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2581.95}, "reply_to": "21444__1_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21444__1_092", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--It's never been there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2586.593], "stop_times": [2588.836], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2586.593}, "reply_to": "21444__1_091", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_093", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "What are we taking away?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2588.836], "stop_times": [2589.109], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2588.836}, "reply_to": "21444__1_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21444__1_094", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "I... I agree it's never... you've never found it there and you've never said it can't be there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2589.109], "stop_times": [2593.308], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2589.109}, "reply_to": "21444__1_093", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_095", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "How does California work in that respect?\nBecause what I've been thinking of in my mind is that maybe we shouldn't decide this in terms of State law boxes, that California seems to have an action.\nLet's call it a buzz action to get away from words.\nAnd what that action is it's a defamation but a certain kind.\nIt's defamation accompanied by extortion.\nAnd when you have defamation accompanied by extortion... call it whatever you want... an injunction is proper in these circumstances.\nNow, can we decide it in such a way that we're not talking about all defamation actions?\nWe are talking about this beast in California which uses the word defamation but also finds injunction and therefore issues... also finds extortion and therefore issues an injunction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2593.308, 2595.242, 2605.08, 2608.786, 2612.586, 2615.306, 2623.807, 2629.558], "stop_times": [2595.242, 2605.08, 2608.786, 2612.586, 2615.306, 2623.807, 2629.558, 2642.417], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2593.308}, "reply_to": "21444__1_094", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21444__1_096", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Yes, I think that you could limit the injunction to defamatory speech of a similar nature designed to extort.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2642.417], "stop_times": [2651.418], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2642.417}, "reply_to": "21444__1_095", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_097", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Would... would that make Mr. Cochran happy?\nWhat... what's the big deal about extortion?\nI mean, suppose this same conduct occurs in the future, but he doesn't say I'll stop if you give me a lot of money.\nHe just pickets every day and says Cochran is a shyster, don't do any business with Cochran.\nDo you think Mr. Cochran would be any... any happier simply because the guy says I'll... hasn't said I'll stop if you pay me $10,000?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2651.418, 2653.376, 2655.683, 2665.188, 2670.576], "stop_times": [2653.376, 2655.683, 2665.188, 2670.576, 2678.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2651.418}, "reply_to": "21444__1_096", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__1_098", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "No, and I think that would be subject to the same injunctive relief.\nI think this case is unique with the extortion element, but I don't disagree, Justice Scalia, that that is why any decision that says injunctions in defamation actions would be improper.\nI think people would start defaming with impunity.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2678.242, 2681.425, 2692.468], "stop_times": [2681.425, 2692.468, 2695.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2678.242}, "reply_to": "21444__1_097", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_099", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "You've got to give us some line.\nI mean, the only reason we're grabbing onto extortion is that... that there's reluctance to say you can issue injunctions in all defamation actions.\nNow, what... what limitation do you want to place upon the ability to issue an injunction if it is not defamation combined with extortion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2695.334, 2695.741, 2704.34], "stop_times": [2695.741, 2704.34, 2712.48], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2695.334}, "reply_to": "21444__1_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21444__1_100", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "I don't think you need to place a limitation other than you can enjoin the defamation conduct.\nTake, for example, the Internet.\nA posting goes on of a... of a business that... a startup company.\nIt can't... damages of... for a startup company... they're very difficult to prove.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2712.48, 2719.57, 2720.736, 2724.812], "stop_times": [2719.57, 2720.736, 2724.812, 2730.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2712.48}, "reply_to": "21444__1_099", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_101", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But then you run into the public figure.\nI mean, that's a much more dangerous kind of rule of law, isn't it?\nI mean, a pure defamation action against a public figure, which they want to say this is.\nYou can write all kinds of things about public figures.\nPeople can and do, for better or for worse.\nDo... is there any authority for issuing in a pure defamation action an injunction?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2730.46, 2731.513, 2735.872, 2742.1, 2747.489, 2750.687], "stop_times": [2731.513, 2735.872, 2742.1, 2747.489, 2750.687, 2758.872], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2730.46}, "reply_to": "21444__1_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21444__1_102", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "There's no authority, but there's no authority that says you can't do it.\nBut what I am suggesting is in... is in a pure defamation action that's not tied to any specific wrongful conduct, there's no reason why you couldn't enjoin.\nFor example, if you found that a specific item was defamatory on its face, such as a posting on the Internet, the only way to get that posting off the Internet would be to enjoin it because damages aren't going to solve the problem.\nAnd if it's... even if it's purely defamatory, you could restrict it to that purely defamatory posting, similar to... to the obscenity cases where you've reviewed a film, you found it to be obscene, and then you preclude it.\nThere are procedural safeguards and you preclude it in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2758.872, 2764.118, 2778.847, 2793.729, 2809.217], "stop_times": [2764.118, 2778.847, 2793.729, 2809.217, 2812.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2758.872}, "reply_to": "21444__1_101", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_103", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But you've just said something that I think that's inconsistent with your earlier presentation.\nYou said you could enjoin that posting.\nHere you said it wouldn't be effective just to enjoin the particular placards that were used, the particular words because then there would be other words.\nSo the same question could come up with an Internet posting if you had an injunction not simply on what was posted but anything about this particular individual that might be posted in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2812.32, 2817.029, 2819.323, 2830.716], "stop_times": [2817.029, 2819.323, 2830.716, 2842.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2812.32}, "reply_to": "21444__1_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21444__1_104", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think where that leaves us is you'd have to engage in some sort of balancing about the... how narrowly tailored the injunction is and does it provide a sufficient remedy and, you know... and... and in this... and what test we would analyze it under, strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or the Ward test.\nAnd... and I think that in applying those tests, you'd have to come to a balance, and if the balance is that you're going to limit it to a specific type of speech or... then that... that would be a... a reasonable limit, and if it creates a multiplicity of actions, well, so be it.\nBut at least there's a remedy for that posting or postings of a similar nature.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2842.74, 2862.412, 2878.279, 2882.732], "stop_times": [2862.412, 2878.279, 2882.732, 2883.38], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2842.74}, "reply_to": "21444__1_103", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_105", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Now, you... you... to the extent that you're complaining about extortion-like conduct, something else that you drafted... I'm looking at the complaint on page 7 of the joint appendix.\nYou have identified all defamatory, including with the false light invasion of privacy, but you don't have any claim that looks like blackmail.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2883.38, 2897.458], "stop_times": [2897.458, 2912.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2883.38}, "reply_to": "21444__1_104", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21444__1_106", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--If you'd... if I could direct you, Justice Ginsburg, to page 12 of the joint appendix at paragraphs (j) and (k) of the verified complaint, you will see that we alleged in a verified complaint that he'd engaged in three previous efforts of this same type of conduct, one.\nAnd two, paragraph (k), that Tory is in the business of professionally extorting monies from innocent persons and business--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2912.723, 2929.379], "stop_times": [2929.379, 2935.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2912.723}, "reply_to": "21444__1_105", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_107", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "I... I was going to ask you about that.\nWere there findings to substantiate the allegations?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2935.752, 2937.005], "stop_times": [2937.005, 2940.043], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2935.752}, "reply_to": "21444__1_106", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__1_108", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Findings to substantiate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2940.043], "stop_times": [2942.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2940.043}, "reply_to": "21444__1_107", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_109", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Specifically about the extorting money from the bank and the oil company.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2942.867], "stop_times": [2950.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2942.867}, "reply_to": "21444__1_108", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__1_110", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--No, Justice Kennedy, there were not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2950.013], "stop_times": [2952.269], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2950.013}, "reply_to": "21444__1_109", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_111", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "No findings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2952.269], "stop_times": [2952.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2952.269}, "reply_to": "21444__1_110", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__1_112", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "There was some testimony only on one of those issues, which was the oil company.\nThere was no findings on this issue.\nBut then I would refer you to paragraph (k) which specifically refers to extorting of monies.\nAnd also in my opening statement, as is reflected in the trial's transcript, the... the first thing I said is this is speech designed for an improper purpose.\nIt's unprotected speech designed to extort money from Mr. Cochran.\nThat was the whole theme--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2952.439, 2956.701, 2959.191, 2963.827, 2973.498, 2976.935], "stop_times": [2956.701, 2959.191, 2963.827, 2973.498, 2976.935, 2977.947], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2952.439}, "reply_to": "21444__1_111", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_113", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "But what... what I mean is could you have... without using the label defamation, have stated a claim for extortion or blackmail?\nI'm not looking at your particular allegations but how you described on page 1 of the complaint what you were suing for: libel, libel per se, slander, slander per se, and invasion of privacy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [2977.947, 2989.501], "stop_times": [2989.501, 3005.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2977.947}, "reply_to": "21444__1_112", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21444__1_114", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--I think we could have pled extortion had we chose to.\nWe could have pled inference with advantageous business relations.\nWe probably could have pled California's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [3005.774, 3009.918, 3012.701], "stop_times": [3009.918, 3012.701, 3015.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3005.774}, "reply_to": "21444__1_113", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_115", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Does California law require you to label the type of the cause of action or is it notice pleading based on facts?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [3015.637], "stop_times": [3022.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3015.637}, "reply_to": "21444__1_114", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21444__1_116", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Notice pleading based on facts, but we do label the causes of action.\nThe... the point I'm trying to make is whether every cause of action was pled, if the conduct is extortion, which is what the judge implicitly found by findings 20 and 27, that conduct is not protected.\nAnd whether we named the cause of action correct in the complaint or we sued for that specified cause of action, doesn't change what it is that we were seeking relief for, which is stopping this man from defaming Mr. Cochran until he was paid money.\nWe attempted to achieve that.\nWe thought we did a fair job in paragraphs 1 and 3, which they don't attack and I agree is not fairly included within the question which has been certified here, nor is an attack on the underlying finding.\nBut we attempted in paragraph 2, broadly I agree, to avoid a multiplicity of actions and to give Mr. Tory other channels of communication other than the public forum where he is engaged in a continuing course of repetitive conduct to defame Mr. Cochran.\nHe... and... and this is... one point that I want to stress.\nWe don't view this injunction as being violated if he went on TV, he went on the radio, he went in the newspapers.\nWe don't view those as public forums under the definition that this Court has provided.\nThose are not public forums.\nWe are not concerned about that.\nWe do not believe that those events will occur.\nWe did not seek to protect them.\nSo we have given Mr. Tory an unlimited venue to speak, but we said you can't do this in the public forum because of your continuing course of repetitive conduct, 3 years, once a week, 52 times a year, over 150 times, 4 hours a day.\nAnd with that, I would submit that while the injunction is broad, I don't believe it's a unconstitutional prior restraint, and to the extent this Court believes it is overbroad, I believe striking subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of paragraph 2 would solve the problem, or alternatively, that in conjunction with a suggestion that it needs to be narrowed to deal with the speech and conduct in issue.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [3022.076, 3025.244, 3043.617, 3060.188, 3063.342, 3075.373, 3097.157, 3100.892, 3108.034, 3112.719, 3114.176, 3115.504, 3119.156, 3120.611, 3139.02, 3169.884], "stop_times": [3025.244, 3043.617, 3060.188, 3063.342, 3075.373, 3097.157, 3100.892, 3108.034, 3112.719, 3114.176, 3115.504, 3119.156, 3120.611, 3139.02, 3169.884, 3170.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3022.076}, "reply_to": "21444__1_115", "speaker": "jonathan_b_cole"}
{"id": "21444__1_117", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Cole.\nMr. Chemerinsky, you have 4 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [3170.599, 3172.876], "stop_times": [3172.876, 3175.815], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3170.599}, "reply_to": "21444__1_116", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21444__2_000", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Thank you.\nJustice Breyer kindly invited my thoughts about how an opinion might be written, and there are three different ways not mutually exclusive.\nOne is that this injunction is vastly overbroad for all the reasons that have been identified.\nMr. Cole said a couple of things.\nOne, he said that Mr. Tory can go to court and ask for modification of the injunction, but that's what makes this a prior restraint, that Mr. Tory can only speak again if he goes to court and gets permission.\nAlso, he said at the end that Mr. Tory can go before the media.\nHowever, under California law, under Damon v. Ocean Hill, the media is defined as a public forum.\nA second way the opinion could be written is that this for speech protected by the First Amendment.\nJustice Ginsburg, you asked me at the outset whether that's in the scope of the question presented.\nWell, it is directly relevant to what Mr. Cole was saying.\nBecause it's all opinion, all hyperbole it is protected by the First Amendment and can't be the basis for an extortion claim.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [3175.815, 3177.046, 3183.634, 3188.805, 3190.472, 3200.516, 3204.595, 3210.076, 3215.526, 3219.676, 3223.344], "stop_times": [3177.046, 3183.634, 3188.805, 3190.472, 3200.516, 3204.595, 3210.076, 3215.526, 3219.676, 3223.344, 3231.352], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3175.815}, "reply_to": "21444__1_117", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__2_001", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Yes, but you're asking us now to... the... the trial court found there was defamation, and now you want to argue, no, it wasn't defamation.\nIt was mere opinion.\nI really don't see how that's included in the question presented.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [3231.352, 3239.993, 3241.541], "stop_times": [3239.993, 3241.541, 3245.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3231.352}, "reply_to": "21444__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21444__2_002", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "I think it is because it goes to the question whether the injunction is permissible.\nBut I go on to the third way that the opinion could be written, and that's that injunctions are not permissible as a remedy in a defamation case.\nWe agree that if there is a cause of action for extortion, it can have an injunction as a remedy.\nWe agree if the cause of action is for harassment, there can be an injunction as a remedy.\nBut those have specific elements that have to be met.\nThose elements weren't met in this case.\nHistory is clear that injunctions aren't allowed in defamation cases, and also, Your Honor, it's quite important that Mr. Cole even said you can't craft a narrow injunction in a defamation case.\nAny injunction is either too narrow or too broad.\nIn Near v. Minnesota, this Court said that it was telling that in 150 years of the history of the First Amendment, there had never been an injunction approved by this Court in a defamation case.\nWe're now 70 years later than that.\nTo approve an injunction in a case like this, even though it's called defamation plus extortion, will open the door to injunctions as a routine matter in defamation cases across the country.\nNo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [3245.503, 3249.101, 3255.818, 3261.169, 3264.929, 3268.05, 3271.18, 3282.951, 3285.759, 3295.871, 3298.158, 3309.678], "stop_times": [3249.101, 3255.818, 3261.169, 3264.929, 3268.05, 3271.18, 3282.951, 3285.759, 3295.871, 3298.158, 3309.678, 3310.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3245.503}, "reply_to": "21444__2_001", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__2_003", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "There have been... there have been injunctions against harassing conduct, threatening, stalking.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [3310.847], "stop_times": [3317.031], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3310.847}, "reply_to": "21444__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21444__2_004", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor, and we have no objection to injunctions of that sort.\nWhat we object to is an injunction as a remedy in a defamation case and an injunction that is directed at speech.\nThat's what the First Amendment prohibits.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [3317.031, 3321.846, 3328.817, 3330.602], "stop_times": [3321.846, 3328.817, 3330.602, 3332.312], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3317.031}, "reply_to": "21444__2_003", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21444__2_005", "conversation_id": "21444", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chemerinsky.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1488", "start_times": [3332.312, 3334.658], "stop_times": [3334.658, 3336.321], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3332.312}, "reply_to": "21444__2_004", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__0_000", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "We'll hear argument now in Number 04-104, United States against Freddie J. Booker and 04-105, United States against Duncan Fanfan.\nMr. Clement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [0.0, 13.625], "stop_times": [13.625, 15.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__0_001", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThis case, and these cases, concern the constitutionality of the twelve hundred criminal sentencings that take place in Federal court each week.\nIf this Court re-affirms its traditional understanding of the relationship between the Guidelines, and the statutory maximum penalties set forth in the United States Code, an understanding reflected in a series of this Court's decisions dealing with the Guidelines, than the constitutionality of those criminal sentencings remains secure.\nOn the other hand, if this Court takes a different view, and treats the outer bounds of the Guideline ranges as if they were statutory maximums, then the majority of those criminal sentencings become constitutionally dubious, and this Court must confront difficult remedial issues.\nThis is, of course, not the first time that this Court has confronted a challenge to the constitutionality of the Guidelines or to the Commission.\nTo be sure, in those previous cases, this Court has never considered the precise Sixth Amendment issue before the Court today.\nBut, nonetheless, those previous cases are instructive, because all of those cases, Dunnigan, Witte, Watts, and Edwards, all reflect a particular understanding of the relationship between the Guidelines and the statutory maximum sentences for each specific crime defined in the United States Code.\nAnd all of those decisions suggest that the statutory maximum in the Code is the relevant focal point for constitutional analysis.\nSo, in the Witte case, for example, the finding of relevant conduct in the Witte case increased his sentence under the Guidelines by two hundred months.\nNonetheless, this Court rejected the double jeopardy challenge before the Court by emphasizing that that consideration of relevant conduct did not increase his penalty beyond the statutory maximum.\nLikewise in the Edwards case, this Court considered the propriety of a judicial finding of crack cocaine that increased the Guideline sentence, when the jury was instructed in the alternative, to find cocaine or crack.\nNow, even though the judicial finding had the effect of raising the punishment under the Guidelines, this Court found no serious Sixth Amendment issue raised precisely because the effect of the judge's finding did not take the sentence beyond the maximum for that cocaine-only conspiracy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [15.111, 18.576, 28.197, 48.381, 65.842, 73.068, 80.431, 100.493, 108.567, 118.226, 131.146, 143.944], "stop_times": [18.576, 28.197, 48.381, 65.842, 73.068, 80.431, 100.493, 108.567, 118.226, 131.146, 143.944, 161.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 15.111}, "reply_to": "21537__0_000", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_002", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And you say we found no serious Sixth Amendment issue raised.\nWas the right of jury trial issue argued in that case, and decided?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [161.572, 164.478], "stop_times": [164.478, 168.381], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 161.572}, "reply_to": "21537__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_003", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "In the Edwards case, a Sixth Amendment issue and, I think, fairly including the jury trial, was raised in that case.\nNow, I tried to go back and look briefs in that case and I have to admit, they're a little difficult to get through in terms of the precise issue that was being raised.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [168.381, 175.152], "stop_times": [175.152, 184.274], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 168.381}, "reply_to": "21537__0_002", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_004", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "The right to jury trial is fairly clear and stark, and I guess don't recall that being argued in any of those cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [184.274], "stop_times": [191.704], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 184.274}, "reply_to": "21537__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_005", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, it was argued, I think, fairly clearly in the Watts case, I mean, there was a section... Watts, of course, was a summary reversal, so you have to go and look at the brief in opposition in the Watts case.\nAnd if you do, there's a separate paragraph in the arguments section denominated the jury trial right.\nAnd I think in some respects, the Watts case is a particularly clear indicator that this Court has rejected the view of the Guidelines that Respondents embrace.\nBecause Justice Stevens was quite prophetic in his dissent in that case.\nHe embraced the precise understanding of the significance of the outer bound of the Guidelines range in his Watts dissent, and no member of this Court joined that dissent, and no member found the disposition with respect to Watts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [191.704, 201.175, 205.905, 214.533, 218.536], "stop_times": [201.175, 205.905, 214.533, 218.536, 231.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 191.704}, "reply_to": "21537__0_004", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_006", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "That just proves they don't listen to me as much as they should.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [231.334], "stop_times": [233.108], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 231.334}, "reply_to": "21537__0_005", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_007", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--It may very well prove that, Justice Stevens, because you were very clear about the point, just to remind you, in the Watts case there were two cases before the Court, there was the Putra case, and there was the Watts case, they were consolidated.\nAnd with respect to Putra, you can envision that case, or characterize that case as being sort of a collateral estoppel, double jeopardy case, but as you correctly recognized, very clearly, in your Watts dissent, with respect to Mr. Watts, the finding, the criminal finding of acquittal was based on 924(c), which requires use of a gun.\nThe sentencing enhancement was done based on an enhancing factor that only requires possession of a gun.\nSo there wasn't any collateral estoppel effect in that case.\nBut, nonetheless, in your dissent you pointed out, in footnotes 2 and 4 that it still had the effect of raising his sentence above the outer bound of the Guidelines range, and that, because that was done on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence, rather than a beyond a reasonable doubt standard, that that raised a constitutional problem, and you would have reversed.\nThe rest of the Court was happy to summarily reverse in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [233.108, 245.823, 264.976, 270.549, 273.687, 293.377], "stop_times": [245.823, 264.976, 270.549, 273.687, 293.377, 295.995], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 233.108}, "reply_to": "21537__0_006", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_008", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Mr. Clement, here's the problem I have with the Government's argument insofar as it does not urge that we reverse Blakely, I know that you want us to do that as well.\nBut assuming we adhere to Blakely, it seems to me you have a cure that doesn't correspond to the disease.\nYou say that the reason the right to jury trial does not apply here is because, after all, these sentences have not been prescribed, or these maximums have not been prescribed by the legislature, but rather, have been prescribed by a quasi-judicial agency.\nBut the right of jury trial is meant to protect against whom?\nWho are you worried about when you say,\n\"I want to be tried by a jury. \"\nYou're not worried about the legislature, you're worried about the judges, precisely.\nSo I don't care if the upper level of the Guidelines were actually prescribed by a court, as opposed to the Commission which is, I don't know what it is, but it's not a court.\nBut even if it were prescribed by a court, how would that eliminate the jury trial problem?\nThe whole reason for jury trial is we don't trust judges.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [295.995, 307.967, 315.297, 335.565, 341.509, 343.078, 344.936, 348.196, 359.342, 367.144], "stop_times": [307.967, 315.297, 335.565, 341.509, 343.078, 344.936, 348.196, 359.342, 367.144, 370.57], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 295.995}, "reply_to": "21537__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_009", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "With respect, Justice Scalia, I'd like to make two observations.\nOne, I don't think the jury trial right is just a juxtaposition of the role of the jury versus the role of the judge, because if that were the only factor at issue in this Court's Sixth Amendment jurisprudence, it would be very difficult to explain why it is that judicial fact-finding can have the effects that it can under a purely discretionary system, yet this Court has upheld that time and time again.\nThe second point I'd like to make, is I do think that this Court's Apprendi to Blakely line of cases--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [370.57, 373.997, 395.629], "stop_times": [373.997, 395.629, 401.489], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 370.57}, "reply_to": "21537__0_008", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_010", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Can we just go back to the point you just made, it's a little different when the judge has discretion and there's no... the judge has discretion to take a whole bunch of things into account, but they're not quantified.\nAnd I think that was dramatically illustrated, the difference, by the decision of Judge Lynch when he said,\n\"Well, I'll go back to the old ways of doing it, I'll look at the Guidelines for some advice. \"\nhe comes out with twenty-four months instead of thirty-three months.\nSo I think there is a huge difference between a judge taking account of many, many factors, not giving them a specific quantity as the Guidelines require.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [401.489, 414.577, 421.347, 426.465, 430.302], "stop_times": [414.577, 421.347, 426.465, 430.302, 442.728], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 401.489}, "reply_to": "21537__0_009", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__0_011", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think there... there certainly is a difference between sentencing under the Guidelines, versus a system of discretionary sentencing, or even a system of discretionary sentencing where the Guidelines have an advisory character, I'd certainly concede that.\nMy point was, though, in making a distinction between the role of the jury and the judge, it's not just as simple as saying that the jury trial right exists precisely to protect the jury from the judge, because if that were the case, the kind of fact-finding that Judge Lynch engaged in, or the kind of fact finding that was commonplace under discretionary sentencing also takes roles away from the jury, and gives them to the judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [442.728, 456.391], "stop_times": [456.391, 481.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 442.728}, "reply_to": "21537__0_010", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_012", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Yes, but we're talking here about one precise role of the judge or of the jury, and that is, to find a fact that is necessary to keep you in jail for an additional number of years.\nAnd the difference with discretionary sentencing is if it's, you know, ten to twenty years, what you know when you do the crime is that you've laid yourself open to twenty years.\nNow, if you get a merciful judge, good for you, I mean, that's lagniappe as they say in Louisiana, but if you get a hanging judge, you've got twenty years, and you know that when you commit the crime, whereas we have a system now where you entitled to no more than so much.\nAnd I find it just incompatible with a jury trial right to say that that fact must be determined, before you can be kept in jail.\nAnd yet we're going let it be determined by a judge.\nThat bears no resemblance to the discretionary sentencing system.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [481.079, 493.05, 504.789, 520.21, 528.716, 530.407], "stop_times": [493.05, 504.789, 520.21, 528.716, 530.407, 533.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 481.079}, "reply_to": "21537__0_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_013", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "With respect, Justice Scalia, I think you've built in some assumptions into that question, because under our system, generally speaking if somebody wants to know what the maximum exposure for a particular criminal offense is, they would be well-advised to look at the U.S. Code provision that specifies what the maximum sentence is for that offense, because that is their exposure, that's what they're told about in their Rule colloquy if they plead to the crime, and if the judge makes certain findings, to be sure, upward departure, whatever it takes in a particular case, that is the maximum exposure that the individual--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [533.584], "stop_times": [566.156], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 533.584}, "reply_to": "21537__0_012", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_014", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "It's not the maximum exposure.\nIf, for example, one of the factors is whether the crime was committed with a firearm, I know that if I don't use a firearm, under the Guidelines, I can only get so many years, so somebody has to find that I used a firearm, and if I didn't, my maximum exposure is less.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [566.156, 566.649], "stop_times": [566.649, 584.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 566.156}, "reply_to": "21537__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_015", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Unless the judge departs for some other reason, or the like.\nI mean, certainly that's true--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [584.648, 588.529], "stop_times": [588.529, 589.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 584.648}, "reply_to": "21537__0_014", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_016", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "No, or he makes a mistake in finding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [589.894], "stop_times": [590.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 589.894}, "reply_to": "21537__0_015", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_017", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--I suppose that's true, too.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [590.924], "stop_times": [593.525], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 590.924}, "reply_to": "21537__0_016", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_018", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "He finds a gun when there really wasn't one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [593.525], "stop_times": [594.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 593.525}, "reply_to": "21537__0_017", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_019", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "So there are different ways that you could get that sentence under the Guidelines system.\nBut if there's no mistake, and no departure on some of the grounds, we both understand, I think, how the Guidelines work and you're describing it correctly.\nBut still, that is a finding that is only necessary because of the determination of the Commission and the Guidelines, and that brings us back to the question--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [594.146, 599.469, 607.065], "stop_times": [599.469, 607.065, 615.776], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 594.146}, "reply_to": "21537__0_018", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_020", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Suppose the determination, as is occasionally true of the Guidelines, is made not by the Commission, but by Congress itself?\nOr made by the Commission at the direction of Congress?\nThen the distinction that you're making between the maximum set by the legislature and the guidance provided, or the guidance to discretion under the Guidelines, really doesn't stand up.\nSo at least to the extent that Congress directly enacts Guidelines, would you concede that then, the critical finding has to be made by the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [615.776, 623.949, 628.242, 642.897], "stop_times": [623.949, 628.242, 642.897, 653.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 615.776}, "reply_to": "21537__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__0_021", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--I would not concede that, Justice Ginsburg, but let me first make clear that in the case before us today, the Guidelines that we have are promulgated by the Commission, and were not the direct or indirect result of a Congressional act the way that the, say, the Protect Act added particular amendments to the Guidelines, so that question is not directly posed in this case.\nThe reason I would say that even in that case there is a difference is because it is still different when Congress goes in and amends a particular Guideline in a sense in a sea of Guidelines provided by the Commission.\nAnd I think that's true, one, because amending a single Guideline doesn't change the overall character of the Guidelines.\nBut also because, when Congress decides to take action not as a statute, but as an amendment to a Guideline, it doesn't change the fundamental character of the Guideline as a Guideline.\nAnd so after... the Protect Act for example, specifies a period in which... after which the Commission can then amend that Guideline.\nWhich is obviously not a case that you can have with a statute consistent with the Presentment Clause.\nAnd to just give you another example, the Sentencing Reform Act that has brought us here today, one of the things it did was make specific amendments to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.\nI think when Congress does that, it doesn't make Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 a statute, it continues to be a Federal Rule, the Federal Rules Advisory Committee can still modify it after the fact, and so I think even in that case, there's a difference in effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [653.095, 671.588, 683.476, 689.421, 699.535, 706.761, 711.507, 720.812], "stop_times": [671.588, 683.476, 689.421, 699.535, 706.761, 711.507, 720.812, 735.284], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 653.095}, "reply_to": "21537__0_020", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_022", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "What is the difference in effect?\nI mean, that's where I'm having trouble, and I guess others are having trouble.\nYes, there's a difference in process, there may be a difference, in some sense, in ultimate status, but there isn't, it seems to me, any difference in effect.\nThe defendant in the courtroom is going to suffer the same effect either necessitated or sufficed by this fact which is just as crucial, whether it's a rule, whether it's a guideline, whether it's a statute, why should that make any difference for the Sixth Amendment?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [735.284, 737.225, 740.857, 750.516], "stop_times": [737.225, 740.857, 750.516, 766.203], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 735.284}, "reply_to": "21537__0_021", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21537__0_023", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I think it should make... well, I guess what I would respond to that, Justice Souter, is this.\nI think that one thing that emerges from this Court's recent Sixth Amendment jurisprudence, is that the impact on the defendant himself or herself is not the only test that this Court looks to.\nBecause from the perspective of an individual defendant, they don't care if they've gotten five extra years because a judge made a finding under a discretionary regime, or they got five extra years because the judge made a finding that the legislature told the judge to make, the practical effect is the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [766.203, 770.29, 780.792], "stop_times": [770.29, 780.792, 795.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 766.203}, "reply_to": "21537__0_022", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_024", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, the practical effect is the same but in the moment before either in theory they commit the crime or in the moment before the trial is over or in the moment before the sentence comes down, there is one big difference in the two classes of cases.\nThe defendant is entitled to claim that he can not be sentenced to the higher range unless a fact is found.\nIn a case of discretionary sentencing range, within that range, he can not make that claim, he can not make that assumption, and the... that, it seems to me, is the point at which the jury trial right has got to focus.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [795.553, 811.324, 820.362], "stop_times": [811.324, 820.362, 834.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 795.553}, "reply_to": "21537__0_023", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21537__0_025", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, I think again, as Justice Stevens suggested earlier, I mean, that may be true if you focus in on that single fact under the Guideline system, but under the myriad of various ways that your Guidelines sentence can go up or down, it may be inappropriate under the Federal Guideline system to focus in on the point of analysis on that particular interval, of just the one--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [834.274], "stop_times": [852.811], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 834.274}, "reply_to": "21537__0_024", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_026", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [852.811], "stop_times": [853.304], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 852.811}, "reply_to": "21537__0_025", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21537__0_027", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Because, again, as a defendant, you may have a case where there are five or six potential enhancements, and there are five or six potential departures, and your sentence is going to be a product of the judicial fact finding that goes in, in making those various conclusions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [853.304], "stop_times": [867.793], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 853.304}, "reply_to": "21537__0_026", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_028", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And each one is appealable separately, each one is appealable separately, it's a separate legal finding.\nAnd the judge doesn't, in discretionary sentencing, he doesn't have to make any factual finding, he can just look at you and say,\n\"I think you're a bad actor, you've got forty years. \"\nWe have a system here where the judge must make factual findings, and each one is appealable if he's made them incorrectly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [867.793, 872.789, 879.189, 881.251], "stop_times": [872.789, 879.189, 881.251, 889.796], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 867.793}, "reply_to": "21537__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_029", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--I don't disagree with that characterization of the Guidelines, but I still think that it is a difference from a pure statutory scheme, it's different from a scheme like this Court had before in Blakely against Washington, where the statute focuses you in on just a couple of factors and you really can re-conceptualize that regime as providing for a base offense level and one or two aggravated grades of the offense.\nAs Judge Lynch observed in language that we quote on page 4 of our reply brief, you really can't re-conceptualize the Guideline system that way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [889.796, 912.17], "stop_times": [912.17, 919.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 889.796}, "reply_to": "21537__0_028", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_030", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, the principal reason you can't, or I think the principle reason that you're advancing is, that the Guideline system is so complicated.\nThere are a myriad of factors.\nAs Justice Scalia says, why isn't each one in that myriad subject to the same claim?\nSurely, the argument can't be just because it's more complicated, that the Sixth Amendment evaporates.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [919.889, 927.691, 930.003, 935.576], "stop_times": [927.691, 930.003, 935.576, 940.49], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 919.889}, "reply_to": "21537__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21537__0_031", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I agree, Justice Souter, and the point isn't that it's more complicated.\nIf I just continue with Judge Lynch's observation, which, as I say, is quoted on page four of our reply brief, it's not just that it's complicated, it's that the mission of the Guidelines system is, once, assuming that somebody's been convicted of some Federal crime with certain elements defined by Congress, then, what the Guidelines ask the judge to do is evaluate the incident of criminal activity and assess an appropriate punishment without regard to whether it has met the certain elements of a particular Federal crime.\nAnd so, the really, the focus is quite different, and in that sense, I think there is, there is more than a difference in form between a set of guidelines produced by a legislature and a set of guidelines produced by the sentencing commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [940.49, 943.666, 973.183], "stop_times": [943.666, 973.183, 986.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 940.49}, "reply_to": "21537__0_030", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_032", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I find very little difference between telling him to evaluate it with regard to particular elements of a crime and asking him to evaluate it with regard to particular sentencing facts.\nThe result is the same.\nYou're asking him to evaluate it in the light of certain facts that he has to find.\nWhether you call them the one or the other, he's doing the same thing.\nIf he finds this fact you get three more years; if he doesn't find it, you don't.\nI mean, you know, as far as the real outcome is concerned, what difference does it make whether you call it an \"element\" or a \"required fact for sentencing\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [986.929, 1000.88, 1002.699, 1007.074, 1010.705, 1015.248], "stop_times": [1000.88, 1002.699, 1007.074, 1010.705, 1015.248, 1024.247], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 986.929}, "reply_to": "21537__0_031", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_033", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, I think there are differences between the two.\nI think if you look at the Washington system that you had before you in the Blakely case, it was a product of the legislature, and so, not surprisingly, there is a focus on the crimes as defined by the legislature, there was a presumptive range for each crime, and then there were a handful of things that got you into... added three years, like a firearm, and then there was basically the upward departure authority or the downward departure authority, and that was it.\nAnd that makes sense; a legislature is going to be predominantly focused on the statutorily defined crimes.\nIn the context of the Guidelines, on the other hand, it is a much more widely variant focused, and what it's focusing on is the criminal activity as a whole.\nThere are many factors that can increase it, there's many factors that can decrease it, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1024.247, 1027.508, 1049.428, 1055.744, 1064.743], "stop_times": [1027.508, 1049.428, 1055.744, 1064.743, 1068.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1024.247}, "reply_to": "21537__0_032", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_034", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Is that complexity, is the key or, suppose these Guidelines were proposed by the Commission, just as they are, with all their complexity, but they were proposed as legislation, and then Congress enacted these Guidelines, would you be able to make the argument that you're making, still?\nThe Federal system, now legislative guidelines is viable after Blakely?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1068.83, 1088.686], "stop_times": [1088.686, 1096.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1068.83}, "reply_to": "21537__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__0_035", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--I don't think so.\nI think in that, in that context we would be limited to an argument to asking this Court to overrule Blakely.\nBut that is not to say that, that, what I want to make the point, though, is ultimately if pushed... and your hypothetical pushes us... if pushed, the argument is one of form, that the fact that these emanate from the sentencing commission makes a constitutional difference.\nBut I don't want to lose the fact in making that concession that there is still a real difference between the way the Federal Guidelines work and the way the Washington Guidelines work, and the Federal Guidelines work exactly as you would expect: sentencing guidelines promulgated by an entity located in the Article III branch, and consisting of Article III members; and the Washington Guidelines system works--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1096.488, 1097.52, 1102.432, 1115.436], "stop_times": [1097.52, 1102.432, 1115.436, 1138.365], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1096.488}, "reply_to": "21537__0_034", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_036", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "But that's not so clear anymore, it just happens that there are three members, but they don't have to be any judicial members, under the current legislation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1138.365], "stop_times": [1145.945], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1138.365}, "reply_to": "21537__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__0_037", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--That's true, Justice Ginsburg, but there--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1145.945], "stop_times": [1147.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1145.945}, "reply_to": "21537__0_036", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_038", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "It's still in the judicial branch, right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1147.637], "stop_times": [1149.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1147.637}, "reply_to": "21537__0_037", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_039", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--It's still in the judicial branch, Justice Scalia, and there are the same number of judicial members on the Commission now as there were when this Court considered the Mistretta decision.\nAnd I think Mistretta itself recognized that we could have bodies located in the judicial branch that were auxiliary to the judicial branch, even if they consisted, quote, \"solely of non-judges\".\nSo I don't think that's what's dispositive.\nI think what's dispositive ultimately is what this Court recognized in the Mistretta decision.\nIn the Mistretta decision, this Court made clear that the Commission was constitutionally located in the Article III branch precisely because it did not take on the quintessentially legislative tasks of setting maximum punishments and defining the elements of Federal crimes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1149.039, 1158.494, 1169.101, 1171.33, 1175.955], "stop_times": [1158.494, 1169.101, 1171.33, 1175.955, 1192.096], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1149.039}, "reply_to": "21537__0_038", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_040", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "In Mistretta it might have come out the other way had it not been for that observation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1192.096], "stop_times": [1195.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1192.096}, "reply_to": "21537__0_039", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__0_041", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I think that's exactly right, Mr. Chief Justice.\nAnd I can talk more about that in terms of the separability issue, which is question two.\nBut I think especially if you get to the point where prospectively the proposal is to treat sentencing enhancement factors under the Guidelines exactly as if they're elements of Federal crimes, they would have to be included in indictments and have to be charged to the jury on beyond a reasonable doubt.\nThen I don't see how Mistretta survives anymore or at least how Mistretta allows that particular judicial remedy to go forward.\nBecause at that point, you've really had the Commission become transformed into precisely what this Court said it wasn't, as a matter of constitutional law, in the Mistretta case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1195.812, 1198.041, 1202.211, 1218.103, 1225.179], "stop_times": [1198.041, 1202.211, 1218.103, 1225.179, 1235.11], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1195.812}, "reply_to": "21537__0_040", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_042", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "The paradigm that the cases discussed in Blakely and in the cases leading up to it from Apprendi, are facts such as the amount of drugs, was there a weapon, was there violence performed against the victim.\nAnd if the Court finds that these are so much like an element that they have to be proved, and adheres to its jurisprudence and invalidates the Guidelines to that effect, is there any argument that either the Government makes or that some of the commentators would make, that there are other kinds of sentencing considerations that can be called factual, to be sure, but that should be from the judge: say, lack of remorse as demonstrated after the verdict; the fact that after the verdict, investigation shows that of the two defendants, one was the real ringleader, streetwise, the other was kind of a naive dupe; or that there was a failure to cooperate with the person presenting the... preparing the sentencing report.\nThese are facts in a certain way.\nIs it for a penny, in for a pound?\nDo we have to treat all of these as factual, or is there any progress to be made in trying to see if there are some, some facts that are, are like elements and some that are not.\nThat would be a... it would take a number of cases, I suppose, to elaborate that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1235.11, 1253.853, 1307.351, 1310.795, 1312.469, 1328.278], "stop_times": [1253.853, 1307.351, 1310.795, 1312.469, 1328.278, 1333.358], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1235.11}, "reply_to": "21537__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__0_043", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Justice Kennedy, I think that the thrust of respondents' position... they can obviously speak for themselves to this point, but I think the thrust of their position is in for a penny, in for a pound, that if you extend Blakely to the guidelines, then that's it, the guidelines go out.\nI think the consequence of accepting the Government's position here, that the guidelines are different, would not foreclose the possibility for a more fine-tuned analysis that focused on the particular effects of particular guidelines ranges, or the particularly enhancing factors and the like.\nAnd I think one thing that ought to give the Court caution before it extends Blakely all the way to the guidelines is, if you look at the guidelines, there are certainly some enhancing factors or some factors that increase punishment under the guidelines, that look nothing like any traditional element of any crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1333.358, 1346.937, 1362.995], "stop_times": [1346.937, 1362.995, 1380.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1333.358}, "reply_to": "21537__0_042", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_044", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "What, what, what tests would you propose, or the commentators?\nHow do we distinguish the permitted kind of fact that the judge can find, and those that must be for the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1380.085, 1384.377], "stop_times": [1384.377, 1390.943], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1380.085}, "reply_to": "21537__0_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__0_045", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, I mean, two things, Justice Kennedy.\nI don't want to get too far afield in the sense that we think that for purposes of this case, the Court could distinguish the guidelines and could still maintain the very bright line of Blakely as applies to legislative enactments.\nBut if this Court were going to either, with respect to legislative enactments or in the particular field of the guidelines, try to develop another test to differentiate elements from... I'm sorry, elements from sentencing factors, I think this Court could get guidance in the same kind of analysis that it's done in the context of affirmative defenses.\nAs Apprendi itself recognized, in the Patterson case, this Court decided that in that context, it would not adopt one bright line or another and just give up the enterprise of drawing lines in between.\nAnd I think a similar enterprise could be done under the guise of dealing with the guidelines.\nBut I think the thrust of the Government's position here today is that you shouldn't accept the Respondent's particular challenge to the guidelines because that does have the effect of\n\"in for a penny, in for a pound. \"\nand wiping the guidelines out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1390.943, 1393.931, 1404.234, 1423.198, 1435.253, 1440.454, 1449.704, 1451.023], "stop_times": [1393.931, 1404.234, 1423.198, 1435.253, 1440.454, 1449.704, 1451.023, 1452.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1390.943}, "reply_to": "21537__0_044", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_046", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Mr. Clement, following up on Justice Kennedy's thought, if we adhere to the strict language in Apprendi itself, as quoted below, any... solely on the facts reflected in the jury verdict or the plea bargain, that's... that establishes the maximum.\nWhat percent of the total number of sentences that are imposed in the, by the Federal system today would violate that rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1452.509, 1467.204], "stop_times": [1467.204, 1474.8], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1452.509}, "reply_to": "21537__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_047", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, Justice Stevens, let me try to answer it as best as I can.\nI want to make the observation, though, that the only estimate I can give you is based on retrospective data, obviously, and it could be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1474.8, 1477.772], "stop_times": [1477.772, 1484.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1474.8}, "reply_to": "21537__0_046", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_048", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, let's look at the future and assume that in 97 percent of the cases which are plea bargains, you could agree on what the relevant facts are.\nThat certainly could be done.\nAnd in the 3 percent that are trialed, it is my impression that a very small number of those actually involve violations of the Apprendi rule.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1484.625, 1491.313, 1492.511, 1501.715], "stop_times": [1491.313, 1492.511, 1501.715, 1502.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1484.625}, "reply_to": "21537__0_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_049", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--I'm not sure that's right, Justice Stevens.\nLet me answer it this way, because I can only answer it based on the data I have.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1502.292, 1504.483], "stop_times": [1504.483, 1507.494], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1502.292}, "reply_to": "21537__0_048", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_050", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "See, it's relevant because underlying all this is a question if the guidelines fail in toto, or do they only fail with respect to those relevant small number of cases in which there's a violation of the Apprendi rule?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1507.494], "stop_times": [1519.094], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1507.494}, "reply_to": "21537__0_049", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_051", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I understand, and let me answer it this way, which is looking retrospectively at the data from 2002.\nIf you consider all the cases that either went to trial or pled and that, they're not differentiated, the two aren't differentiated, then about 65 percent of the cases raise a potential Blakely or Apprendi type issue, so that would be the starting point for the analysis.\nNow, as you pointed--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1519.094, 1524.955, 1539.239], "stop_times": [1524.955, 1539.239, 1540.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1519.094}, "reply_to": "21537__0_050", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_052", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "In raising the issue, it depends on what... the issue you describe.\nA lot of people describe it as an issue when you just use the guidelines at all.\nDo they raise an issue, involve it in a sentence over and above the amount that would be authorized by either the jury verdict or the plea bargain?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1540.065, 1543.12, 1547.95], "stop_times": [1543.12, 1547.95, 1556.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1540.065}, "reply_to": "21537__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_053", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Yes, that's 65--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1556.356], "stop_times": [1557.265], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1556.356}, "reply_to": "21537__0_052", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_054", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Do you think 65 percent of the cases do?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1557.265], "stop_times": [1558.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1557.265}, "reply_to": "21537__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_055", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--The numbers that we have is 65 percent.\nBasically, you have 44 percent of the cases involve some chapter II or chapter III enhancement or adjustment to the base level.\nAnd then we've kind of looked, in addition to the 44 percent, we've looked at the drug cases, which by the nature of the drug sentencing table, virtually all of the drug cases, if they don't implicate a mandatory minimum, involve a potential Blakely upward adjustment.\nAnd so what we've done is, in looking at these numbers, is to basically take all the drug cases and then subtract that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1558.38, 1561.824, 1569.537, 1582.983], "stop_times": [1561.824, 1569.537, 1582.983, 1588.267], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1558.38}, "reply_to": "21537__0_054", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_056", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "They all, of course, involve a potential upward adjustment.\nBut do they all involve actual sentences above the amount that the jury verdict would have authorized?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1588.267, 1590.375], "stop_times": [1590.375, 1596.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1588.267}, "reply_to": "21537__0_055", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_057", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Well, again, Justice Stevens, I don't know, because that comes to a second question, which is, if I understand your question, which is, we know that 65 percent of the cases raise a potentially, a potential Blakely issue.\nThen the question is, well, if 97 percent of the cases settle, is there a way to sort of waive Blakely rights and the like, and make this workable going forward?\nAnd it's hard to know what the, what, what system will emerge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1596.152, 1607.686, 1616.147], "stop_times": [1607.686, 1616.147, 1619.657], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1596.152}, "reply_to": "21537__0_056", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_058", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "The thing that... I'm sorry, but I really, it's very important to me.\nRaising an issue, the issue is always raised when there's a possibility of a higher sentence, but I don't think it's fair to assume that 65 percent of the sentences of tried cases actually resulted in sentences higher than what the jury verdict would have authorized.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1619.657, 1621.97], "stop_times": [1621.97, 1638.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1619.657}, "reply_to": "21537__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_059", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, again, I can only give you the numbers--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1638.454], "stop_times": [1641.509], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1638.454}, "reply_to": "21537__0_058", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_060", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "It's potentially that every case does.\nBut if in fact, most sentences come within the maximum anyway, it's of course a serious problem in those cases, but system-wide, it's not nearly the problem that the figures you've mentioned suggest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1641.509, 1643.078], "stop_times": [1643.078, 1655.627], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1641.509}, "reply_to": "21537__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_061", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Again, Justice Stevens, I want to answer as best I can.\nThe figures I have suggest that 65 percent of the cases do involve an upward adjustment of some kind.\nAnd so there is a Blakely problem.\nSo the only real question is, all right, 65 percent of the cases in the world where nobody thought Blakely was a problem for the guidelines involve those kind of upward adjustments.\nThere may be ways through plea agreements and the like to have people waive their Blakely rights in certain ways that may make the system work a little bit better or deal with a slightly reduced number of cases.\nBut I think any way you slice this, this is going to have a tremendous impact on the reality of criminal sentencing in the Federal system.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1655.627, 1657.651, 1664.089, 1665.946, 1674.657, 1685.265], "stop_times": [1657.651, 1664.089, 1665.946, 1674.657, 1685.265, 1691.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1655.627}, "reply_to": "21537__0_060", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_062", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, as to past.\nI mean, it may have a significant one-shot impact with respect to cases that were decided without Blakely in mind.\nBut for the future, I, I just don't agree with you that changes could make some reduction.\nI think changes could provide for jury findings whenever, whenever there's a need for a higher sentence based on facts.\nI don't know; what is the problem with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1691.831, 1694.31, 1701.906, 1709.93, 1723.083], "stop_times": [1694.31, 1701.906, 1709.93, 1723.083, 1725.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1691.831}, "reply_to": "21537__0_061", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_063", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, I, well let me try to address the remedial question then going forward.\nIf this Court were to find that Blakely is fully applicable to the guidelines, then that's going to raise some very serious and complex remedial questions.\nOne question, though, I think ought to be clear, is that one option that shouldn't be on the table is the idea that on a prospective basis, the guidelines are severable in a way that makes all enhancements or all upward adjustments completely unavailable, and all downward departures fully available.\nBecause that system is obviously nothing that Congress intended.\nNow Respondents, for their part, don't propose that rule, although they want to benefit from effectively that rule for their own cases.\nWhat they suggest is that on a going-forward basis, you could include the sentencing enhancing factors as, in the indictment and then send them to the jury as effectively de facto elements of the crime to be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.\nNow with respect, I think that so-called Blakely-ization of the guidelines creates an enormous amount of judicial lawmaking and raises very serious separation of powers problems.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1725.972, 1730.347, 1738.315, 1754.746, 1757.551, 1764.134, 1778.235], "stop_times": [1730.347, 1738.315, 1754.746, 1757.551, 1764.134, 1778.235, 1790.328], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1725.972}, "reply_to": "21537__0_062", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_064", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "What is, what is the lawmaking part?\nI mean, if I have a choice... if I have... let's put the question this way.\nCongress has authorized the Commission and the Commission has said,\n\"If fact X is found, then the range is higher. \"\nIs there a lot of lawmaking in concluding that Congress and the Commission would prefer that range to be higher regardless of whether a jury found the fact or a judge found the fact?\nThat doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me.\nThere may be other reasons not to do it.\nBut in terms of judicial lawmaking, it doesn't seem like much to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1790.328, 1791.981, 1797.675, 1803.415, 1806.842, 1821.331, 1823.643, 1825.584], "stop_times": [1791.981, 1797.675, 1803.415, 1806.842, 1821.331, 1823.643, 1825.584, 1829.588], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1790.328}, "reply_to": "21537__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21537__0_065", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, with respect, Justice Souter, I think it is fairly ambitious judicial lawmaking.\nYou do have to take out a fair amount of text to get the sentencing judge effectively out of the business of fact-finding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1829.588, 1833.553], "stop_times": [1833.553, 1840.119], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1829.588}, "reply_to": "21537__0_064", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_066", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "What text do you have to take out?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1840.119], "stop_times": [1841.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1840.119}, "reply_to": "21537__0_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_067", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "You have to take out the reference in 3553(b), that talks about what the courts find, and then it makes a definite reference to the court needing to find things in order to have upward and downward departures.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1841.028], "stop_times": [1852.424], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1841.028}, "reply_to": "21537__0_066", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_068", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "It depends on what you mean by the \"court\", doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1852.424], "stop_times": [1853.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1852.424}, "reply_to": "21537__0_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_069", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Just consider the word court to mean jury.\nJury or a judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1853.454, 1856.426], "stop_times": [1856.426, 1857.746], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1853.454}, "reply_to": "21537__0_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_070", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And I think then--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1857.746], "stop_times": [1858.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1857.746}, "reply_to": "21537__0_069", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_071", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Which... which is sometimes done, there are statutes that refer to the court, that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1858.822], "stop_times": [1863.213], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1858.822}, "reply_to": "21537__0_070", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_072", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--And as we point out in our brief, there are plenty of statutes that refer to the court in distinction from the jury.\nI think then if you look at 3742(e), which is the appeal right, if you look at 3742(e), it makes it quite clear that on appeal, courts of appeals are supposed to defer to the, to the fact, the facts found by the district court.\nNow I think in the context of the overall provision for judicial review, that it's clearly a reference to the judge, not to the jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1863.213, 1868.332, 1883.381], "stop_times": [1868.332, 1883.381, 1891.637], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1863.213}, "reply_to": "21537__0_071", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_073", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--It seems to me, when there is an ambiguity that construed one way creates a constitutional statute and construed another way creates an unconstitutional one, it's an easy call.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1891.637], "stop_times": [1905.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1891.637}, "reply_to": "21537__0_072", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_074", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, with respect, I don't think there's any way to avoid a potential unconstitutional system going forward, because if you treat these guideline factors that were clearly created by the Commission and in some cases created by Congress, on the assumption that they would be used for judge fact-finding, and then send them to the jury, then what you've done prospectively... it's one thing... let me put it this way.\nIt's one thing to recognize that the guideline factors that are enhancements have the effect of increasing sentences and operate like elements of crimes for retrospective constitutional analysis, for finding a Sixth Amendment problem, but it is quite another thing to prospectively treat those factors exactly as if they're elements of crimes, force them to be included in the indictment, send them to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1905.649, 1929.343], "stop_times": [1929.343, 1953.37], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1905.649}, "reply_to": "21537__0_073", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_075", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "It just means that if a different procedure is followed, you'll reach precisely the same sentences the guidelines reached.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1953.37], "stop_times": [1958.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1953.37}, "reply_to": "21537__0_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_076", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, I actually don't think that follows, Justice Stevens, because I think taking guidelines that were clearly designed for judge fact finding and sending them to the jury--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1958.216], "stop_times": [1966.639], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1958.216}, "reply_to": "21537__0_075", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_077", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "You think judges reach different results on factual issues than juries do?\nIs that part of your submission?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1966.639, 1969.528], "stop_times": [1969.528, 1970.505], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1966.639}, "reply_to": "21537__0_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_078", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--No.\nWhat my submission is, is that taking guidelines that were designed for judge fact finding and sending them and using them for jury fact finding is going to have a very disproportionate impact on some cases.\nLet me give you an example if I could, to make the point.\nIf you think of two fraud cases that under the guidelines--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1970.505, 1970.96, 1981.241, 1983.22], "stop_times": [1970.96, 1981.241, 1983.22, 1986.192], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1970.505}, "reply_to": "21537__0_077", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_079", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "But keep it simple because we're assuming that in most cases, there aren't a host of factors but usually just two or three, such as the drug quantity and did he... a gun.\nNow in those where there's a fairly simple fact to identify, would it make any difference in the ultimate sentence that's imposed whether the jury finds it or the judge finds it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [1986.192, 1994.094], "stop_times": [1994.094, 2003.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1986.192}, "reply_to": "21537__0_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_080", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--I think it would, Justice Stevens.\nAnd if I could... I'll keep it a very simple fraud example.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2003.448, 2004.768], "stop_times": [2004.768, 2007.08], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2003.448}, "reply_to": "21537__0_079", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_081", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Keep to the bad example I've given you.\nThe gun and the drug quantity.\nWhy would it make a difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2007.08, 2008.566, 2010.674], "stop_times": [2008.566, 2010.674, 2012.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2007.08}, "reply_to": "21537__0_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_082", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, it might make as much a difference in the drug case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2012.753], "stop_times": [2016.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2012.753}, "reply_to": "21537__0_081", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_083", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Would it make any difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2016.634], "stop_times": [2017.377], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2016.634}, "reply_to": "21537__0_082", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_084", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Well, here's how it could make a difference, if I could use the fraud example.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2017.377], "stop_times": [2020.515], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2017.377}, "reply_to": "21537__0_083", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_085", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2020.515], "stop_times": [2020.515], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2020.515}, "reply_to": "21537__0_084", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_086", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And then you may be able to see how it could or could not relate to the marijuana example or a drug example.\nIn the context of a fraud case, two fraud cases that are sentenced the exact same way and treated as uniform and proportional under the current system--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2020.515, 2025.716], "stop_times": [2025.716, 2033.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2020.515}, "reply_to": "21537__0_085", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_087", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And there's a difference in sentence depending on the on the amount of money that the fraud involved.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2033.146], "stop_times": [2036.573], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2033.146}, "reply_to": "21537__0_086", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_088", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--In the number of victims.\nAnd what you'll have is... if you think of one fraud that involved one victim and a slightly higher amount of money, and another fraud that involved many victims and a slightly lower amount of money, the current guideline system basically tries to treat them the same.\nNow with a single fraud victim, the idea of Blakely-izing the guidelines may be relatively straightforward.\nYou include the loss amount in the indictment.\nYou put a special verdict form with the amount of loss on it.\nAnd you call in that one witness, and you can prove up your case beyond a reasonable doubt.\nBut if you have a case of telemarketing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2036.573, 2037.111, 2049.204, 2055.149, 2057.311, 2060.145, 2063.982], "stop_times": [2037.111, 2049.204, 2055.149, 2057.311, 2060.145, 2063.982, 2066.005], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2036.573}, "reply_to": "21537__0_087", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_089", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "In that case... let's take them one at a time.\nIn that case, would it make any difference whether the jury made the finding or the judge made the finding?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2066.005, 2067.864], "stop_times": [2067.864, 2071.911], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2066.005}, "reply_to": "21537__0_088", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_090", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--I don't think it would, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2071.911], "stop_times": [2073.77], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2071.911}, "reply_to": "21537__0_089", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_091", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Okay.\nThen what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2073.77, 2074.07], "stop_times": [2074.07, 2074.07], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2073.77}, "reply_to": "21537__0_090", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_092", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "But that's what, what I want to contrast it is with--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2074.07], "stop_times": [2075.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2074.07}, "reply_to": "21537__0_091", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_093", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Now can you hand me a case in which it would make a difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2075.822], "stop_times": [2078.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2075.822}, "reply_to": "21537__0_092", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_094", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Sure.\nImagine that you have a telemarketing fraud where a thousand peoples... a thousand individuals have been milked out of a couple of dollars each.\nNow under the current system, proving up the fraud amount for the judge is not that difficult because you can get the probation officer to testify, or some other way to get the total amount of the fraud in front of the judge.\nUnder the system that Respondents propose, you're going to have to call in every one of 2,000 individuals who was defrauded.\nOtherwise, I think it's going to be very difficult to prove that fraud amount in front of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.\nAnd that just is one example of the disproportionate and disuniform effects--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2078.239, 2078.61, 2085.67, 2096.983, 2104.246, 2109.243], "stop_times": [2078.61, 2085.67, 2096.983, 2104.246, 2109.243, 2113.989], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2078.239}, "reply_to": "21537__0_093", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_095", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "You don't think a very large fraud such as you've described could be proved through two or three witnesses?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2113.989], "stop_times": [2119.767], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2113.989}, "reply_to": "21537__0_094", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_096", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--I think it would be very--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2119.767], "stop_times": [2121.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2119.767}, "reply_to": "21537__0_095", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_097", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "If you used the Internet and they had all said... I am not persuaded.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2121.253], "stop_times": [2124.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2121.253}, "reply_to": "21537__0_096", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_098", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Well, I suppose--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2124.12], "stop_times": [2124.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2124.12}, "reply_to": "21537__0_097", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_099", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And if it can't be, maybe the judges shouldn't go, be going around guessing how many people have been defrauded.\nOr you know, saying\n\"more likely than not, on the basis of the kind of evidence we usually don't accept in criminal trials. \"\nWhy is that okay?\nI don't understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2124.847, 2131.655, 2132.77, 2137.561, 2138.714], "stop_times": [2131.655, 2132.77, 2137.561, 2138.714, 2139.857], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2124.847}, "reply_to": "21537__0_098", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_100", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Well, again, I think whatever else is true, what you would be doing with such a system is you'd be taking factors that I think everyone concedes were designed by a Commission that was upheld as constitutional precisely because it did not have the effect of creating new Federal crimes and statutory limits.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2139.857], "stop_times": [2157.084], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2139.857}, "reply_to": "21537__0_099", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_101", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "It doesn't make me feel any good if I spend another years in jail because of it.\nSay,\n\"Oh, well, don't worry about it, it wasn't an element of the crime, after all. \"\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2157.084, 2161.255, 2161.505, 2164.682], "stop_times": [2161.255, 2161.505, 2164.682, 2164.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2157.084}, "reply_to": "21537__0_100", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_102", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "No, I understand that, Justice Scalia.\nI'm trying to talk about the remedial question, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2164.97, 2168.397], "stop_times": [2168.397, 2170.505], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2164.97}, "reply_to": "21537__0_101", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_103", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "May I ask--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2170.505], "stop_times": [2171.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2170.505}, "reply_to": "21537__0_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__0_104", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2171.248], "stop_times": [2171.62], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2171.248}, "reply_to": "21537__0_103", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_105", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--about practice experience in that regard.\nI understand the Department of Justice has told prosecutors that now you allege these sentencing enhancers... like drug quantity, like amount of property stolen... you allege them in the indictment, you prove them beyond a reasonable doubt.\nHas that proved intractably difficult in cases where it has been attempted?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2171.62, 2174.303, 2194.365], "stop_times": [2174.303, 2194.365, 2201.879], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2171.62}, "reply_to": "21537__0_104", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__0_106", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think we don't have enough experience to know.\nI think I can tell you one thing: that with a lot of enhancements, putting something in the indictment is not necessarily the difficult step.\nThere are some things like relevant conduct that can be very challenging to try to formulate in an indictment.\nBut for a lot of the factors that enhance a sentence, it's relatively easy to put it in the indictment itself.\nI think the trickier difficulties come up in terms of trying to instruct the jury, especially in cases where there are multiple enhancements.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2201.879, 2205.778, 2212.57, 2217.688, 2223.882], "stop_times": [2205.778, 2212.57, 2217.688, 2223.882, 2231.313], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2201.879}, "reply_to": "21537__0_105", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_107", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I'm assuming that in the case of, say, perjury at trial, you couldn't possibly allege that in the indictment because you won't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2231.313], "stop_times": [2237.916], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2231.313}, "reply_to": "21537__0_106", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__0_108", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "That's completely right, Mr. Chief Justice.\nAnd those cases are just out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2237.916, 2239.608], "stop_times": [2239.608, 2240.972], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2237.916}, "reply_to": "21537__0_107", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_109", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "They've got to be separately prosecuted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2240.972], "stop_times": [2243.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2240.972}, "reply_to": "21537__0_108", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21537__0_110", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And that's never been the under... I mean, that's true, there may be some cases that you could bring a separate perjury prosecution, but this court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2243.777], "stop_times": [2250.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2243.777}, "reply_to": "21537__0_109", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_111", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, I don't know of any case in which you could.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2250.919], "stop_times": [2252.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2250.919}, "reply_to": "21537__0_110", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21537__0_112", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Well, there may be situations where there's an obstruction of justice that wouldn't necessarily make out all the elements of a perjury prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2252.572], "stop_times": [2259.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2252.572}, "reply_to": "21537__0_111", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_113", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "No, no.\nI just, we ought to have an obstruction of justice crime with defined elements that can be prosecuted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2259.797, 2260.002], "stop_times": [2260.002, 2264.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2259.797}, "reply_to": "21537__0_112", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21537__0_114", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, Justice Souter, with respect, I mean, this Court, both before the guidelines and after the guidelines, rejected the argument that the only way to enhance a sentence for obstruction of justice was to bring a separate perjury prosecution.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2264.461], "stop_times": [2277.547], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2264.461}, "reply_to": "21537__0_113", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_115", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And I, I would, I would take the same position today, unless you were going to define it, in terms of a condition that is both necessary and sufficient to expand the sentencing range of the crime that you are nominally prosecuting the person for.\nI mean, that's the rub.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2277.547, 2292.286], "stop_times": [2292.286, 2293.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2277.547}, "reply_to": "21537__0_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21537__0_116", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "But that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2293.151], "stop_times": [2294.227], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2293.151}, "reply_to": "21537__0_115", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_117", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Let me go--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2294.227], "stop_times": [2294.477], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2294.227}, "reply_to": "21537__0_116", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21537__0_118", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--That's what this Court had before it in Dunnigan.\nAnd this Court said that that was not problematic.\nIt was obstruction during the trial.\nAnd this Court upheld it on reliance on Grayson, a pre-guidelines case, and this Court said that the additional rigor and predictability instilled by the guidelines did not make a constitutional difference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2294.477, 2296.539, 2299.057, 2300.809], "stop_times": [2296.539, 2299.057, 2300.809, 2311.128], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2294.477}, "reply_to": "21537__0_117", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_119", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I've listed four categories of things that you think would be very difficult to prove to a jury at the trial, but not to a judge at sentencing.\nThe first is the vast amount of information now and prior to guidelines that were contained in the presentence report.\nThat information, most of which was used since history was begun, maybe a hundred years ago, is simply not available until the trial was over.\nThe second happens to be the things that the Chief brought up, matters committed at trial, such as perjury.\nThe third sort of thing are those things that just get too complicated when you try to list in indictment, such as victim... put them all together... victim, brandishing the gun, et cetera.\nAnd the fourth kind of thing are the things that are too difficult to explain to a jury.\nTry explaining even \"brandishing\" to a jury, and if you can do that one, which may be easy, try the multiple-count rules.\nAll right.\nSo I have those four things.\nNow, are there others?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2311.128, 2320.976, 2329.232, 2338.437, 2345.375, 2359.864, 2365.187, 2373.526, 2374.641, 2376.954], "stop_times": [2320.976, 2329.232, 2338.437, 2345.375, 2359.864, 2365.187, 2373.526, 2374.641, 2376.954, 2378.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2311.128}, "reply_to": "21537__0_118", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__0_120", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I think that's a fair summary, Justice Breyer.\nI think on sort of how complicated it gets to take something that was designed for a judge and then send it before the jury in jury instructions, I would ask the Court to look at the Medas case, which we cite on page of our reply brief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2378.273, 2381.328], "stop_times": [2381.328, 2394.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2378.273}, "reply_to": "21537__0_119", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_121", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "All right, all right if I believe that that is just out of the question, it's so complicated, nobody could do it, it would be a radical change, Congress could never have intended that, what about a much simpler approach?\nWhat you would do is take 3553(b), and you say,\n\"Read the word i.e. \"shall apply the guidelines\"... to \"may\",. \"\nso that the guidelines become advisory, either because the \"shall\" becomes a \"may\" or because you give each judge the power to give any reasonable reason at all as to why the Commission's guideline, they didn't actively consider this factor.\nIn other words, read 3553(b) as permissive.\nAnd now, assuming I've expressed myself on the underlying Apprendi questions, so I, but suppose Blakely does apply, would you... is... what would be wrong with taking that approach?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2394.787, 2406.88, 2411.71, 2418.193, 2437.056, 2440.977], "stop_times": [2406.88, 2411.71, 2418.193, 2437.056, 2440.977, 2453.237], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2394.787}, "reply_to": "21537__0_120", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__0_122", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Assuming I understand the approach you propose, there would be nothing wrong with taking that approach.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2453.237], "stop_times": [2458.15], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2453.237}, "reply_to": "21537__0_121", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_123", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "All right, I have thought of one thing that might be wrong.\n[Laughter]\nSo I'll ask you about it, if you want.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2458.15, 2464.094, 2460.933], "stop_times": [2464.094, 2460.933, 2464.398], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2458.15}, "reply_to": "21537__0_122", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__0_124", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Could it be that \"shall\" does not mean \"may\"?\nRight?\n[Laughter]\nOh, that's not it?\n\"Shall\"--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2464.398, 2466.862, 2467.112, 2467.788, 2469.546], "stop_times": [2466.862, 2467.112, 2467.788, 2469.546, 2470.084], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2464.398}, "reply_to": "21537__0_123", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_125", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "All right, well, I... you see nothing wrong with that.\nThat makes the guidelines advisory, and there are a number of objections... maybe not, maybe big, maybe small.\nOne objection I was worried about is... I'm giving you my thought process, you know, and I... because I'm trying to get a... your response... is that if we did take that approach, you'd leave the appellate section in place.\nThat means every time the judge didn't use the guideline, the appeals courts would have to review for reasonableness.\nNow that would be in place.\nWe would discover judges all over the country having different views on that.\nCourts of appeals would have different views about was or what was not reasonable.\nWe would be here to review those differences, and we would become the sentencing commission.\nI thought I had escaped.\n[Laughter]\nNow, how, how serious an objection is that?\nOr do you recommend that, if you lose on this point, we take the approach of, in that way, making the guidelines advisory?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2470.084, 2472.806, 2477.902, 2491.465, 2499.722, 2501.375, 2505.128, 2509.753, 2515.614, 2518.215, 2518.586, 2524.902], "stop_times": [2472.806, 2477.902, 2491.465, 2499.722, 2501.375, 2505.128, 2509.753, 2515.614, 2518.215, 2518.586, 2524.902, 2531.301], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.084}, "reply_to": "21537__0_124", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__0_126", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I would... I would take the approach that you should make the advisory... the advisory guidelines... the guidelines as advisory.\nNow, with respect to whether or not you've escaped from the burden of serving on the sentencing commission, I don't think that the reading of 3742, the appeal provision, that you've envisioned is necessarily foreordained.\nI think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2531.301, 2538.294, 2550.908], "stop_times": [2538.294, 2550.908, 2551.651], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2531.301}, "reply_to": "21537__0_125", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_127", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, have you escaped Apprendi?\nIf discretion is cabined by guidelines and appellate courts review, for the abuse of discretion in applying those guidelines, why isn't that the same kind of entitlement that the Apprendi/Blakely opinion is predicated on to begin with?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2551.651, 2553.592], "stop_times": [2553.592, 2574.193], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2551.651}, "reply_to": "21537__0_126", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__0_128", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Absolutely.\nVote me for that.\nI mean, after all, judges used to define the elements of crimes, didn't they?\nAnd the mere fact that the elements at common law were defined by judges rather than by the legislature didn't mean that you didn't have to have a jury find them.\nSo if courts are going to establish the guidelines, so long as they are still binding, it seems to me you still need a jury finding, or you haven't escaped Apprendi.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2574.193, 2574.603, 2575.512, 2580.175, 2588.349], "stop_times": [2574.603, 2575.512, 2580.175, 2588.349, 2597.265], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2574.193}, "reply_to": "21537__0_127", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_129", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--A couple of observations, Justice Scalia.\nFirst of all, you're exactly right, since 1812 we've abandoned a system where judges can define the elements of crimes.\nAnd that's why, if I leave you with one thought on the remedy, I would think that it's inappropriate to allow an entity within the judicial branch to have that effect on a prospective basis.\nI think that would be a very serious separation of powers problem.\nI think it would dwarf the separation of powers problem that at least you found quite significant in the Mistretta case.\nNow, if I can address Justice Kennedy's question about the appeals system simply replicating the Apprendi or the Blakely problem.\nFirst of all, we would suggest that the appeal process that you've envisioned would not violate Apprendi and Blakely.\nAnd that's one of the reasons that we think the Commission wouldn't violate Blakely.\nBecause what we see is a distinction in this court's cases.\nThey have... this Court has that judicial discretionary sentencing doesn't implicate the Sixth Amendment.\nThis Court has said that legislative-directed sentencing does implicate the Sixth Amendment.\nWhat the guidelines present is a situation of judicial sentencing that's directed.\nWe would suggest... we would suggest--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2597.265, 2599.206, 2606.182, 2616.213, 2620.011, 2625.501, 2632.354, 2639.868, 2644.631, 2648.042, 2654.374, 2659.187, 2663.85], "stop_times": [2599.206, 2606.182, 2616.213, 2620.011, 2625.501, 2632.354, 2639.868, 2644.631, 2648.042, 2654.374, 2659.187, 2663.85, 2665.975], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2597.265}, "reply_to": "21537__0_128", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_130", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Judicial discretionary sentencing, as I understood it, never permitted an appellate court to increase the sentence given by the district judge.\nDo you know of any cases, where an appellate court said the district judge did not give enough years, where there was discretionary sentencing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2665.975, 2676.127], "stop_times": [2676.127, 2683.541], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2665.975}, "reply_to": "21537__0_129", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_131", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Well, Justice Scalia, I can point you to the DiFrancesco case, where this Court approved an earlier Federal statute that allowed for appeals in sentencing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2683.541], "stop_times": [2691.881], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2683.541}, "reply_to": "21537__0_130", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_132", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, that may be under statute, but I do not know, at common law, that when you talked about the discretion in the courts, it meant that in a criminal case a court of appeals could increase the sentence because of a... because of an abuse of discretion by the sentencing judge.\nI'm unfamiliar with any such case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2691.881, 2708.599], "stop_times": [2708.599, 2710.707], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2691.881}, "reply_to": "21537__0_131", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_133", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, there are lots.\nThere are lots, actually.\nIf you... if... I ask, \"Is it right, that\"?\n[Laughter]\nBut, I mean, if you take common law to mean England, as well as the United States, there weren't here, because the sentences weren't appealable, but in England, they were appealable, and they had a common law work out of what they called the \"tariff\", which is what the range of reasonableness was or wasn't.\nAnd the prosecution, I believe, could appeal it of being too low; and the defense, being too high.\nAnd the question was, Was the sentence reasonable?\nThe appellate court could set it.\nNow, if we had a system like that... and this is my serious question... is it unconstitutional under Apprendi if appeals court judges reviewing a sentence could say,\n\"This is the range of reason, this is arbitrary up here, or this is arbitrary down there? \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2710.707, 2711.45, 2712.565, 2714.96, 2715.249, 2729.283, 2734.856, 2736.592, 2737.994, 2749.428], "stop_times": [2711.45, 2712.565, 2714.96, 2715.249, 2729.283, 2734.856, 2736.592, 2737.994, 2749.428, 2754.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2710.707}, "reply_to": "21537__0_132", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__0_134", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, I think our position would be that that kind of system would be constitutional.\nAs I was suggesting to Justice Kennedy, we think, because that system would be constitutional, we think the guidelines are also constitutional.\nI think Justice Kennedy is right, though, that somebody that says that that system is unconstitutional and the guidelines is unconstitutional is not going to be particularly impressed by that reading of 3742 that gets you to that result.\nAnd that's why I want to leave you with an important thought, which is, that reading of 3742 is not foreordained.\nThis court could say that the guidelines should be applied in an advisory fashion, and that all that would be left of the Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2754.88, 2759.764, 2766.807, 2779.317, 2784.723], "stop_times": [2759.764, 2766.807, 2779.317, 2784.723, 2791.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2754.88}, "reply_to": "21537__0_133", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_135", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "That just seems so contrary to what Congress intended.\nThere's no evidence that they intended this scheme to be advisory.\nThey told the Commission to set up a scheme that would be applied, because they wanted to make sentencing more uniformly applied in the Federal scheme of things.\nI think it's a real stretch to try to argue for the position taken by some Federal judges in one of the amicus briefs that,\n\"It's just advisory, don't worry. \"\nAnd I find it very difficult to understand how appellate review could be applied to such a scheme.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2791.139, 2794.92, 2799.584, 2811.805, 2820.843, 2822.618], "stop_times": [2794.92, 2799.584, 2811.805, 2820.843, 2822.618, 2829.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2791.139}, "reply_to": "21537__0_134", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21537__0_136", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--But, Justice O'Connor, that's why, to be clear, we've only argued in favor of an advisory view of the guidelines if we get to the remedial question, because I think you're absolutely right, if you look at what Congress actually intended, it's crystal clear they did not intend the guidelines to be advisory.\nBut it's equally crystal clear they didn't intend the guidelines to be the basis for jury fact-finding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2829.927, 2843.795], "stop_times": [2843.795, 2849.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2829.927}, "reply_to": "21537__0_135", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_137", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, what if this Court said the guidelines are unconstitutional, period, and then judges simply looked to the guidelines, figuring, well, this is as good an idea as anybody else has about sentencing?\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2849.079, 2859.664], "stop_times": [2859.664, 2860.053], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2849.079}, "reply_to": "21537__0_136", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__0_138", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I think that actually would be the proper remedy.\nThat's effectively what we ask for, Mr. Chief Justice.\nAnd--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2860.053, 2863.38, 2865.509], "stop_times": [2863.38, 2865.509, 2866.064], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2860.053}, "reply_to": "21537__0_137", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_139", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And if it were done that way, why would it be that you would try to change the word (b)?\nWhy not just have Section 3553(a), which does list the guidelines as one of the considerations that judges may take into account in sentencing, one of... among three or four others?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2866.064, 2872.462], "stop_times": [2872.462, 2888.255], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2866.064}, "reply_to": "21537__0_138", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__0_140", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--No, I think that's fair, Justice Ginsburg.\nI mean, in responding to Justice Breyer's hypothetical, I didn't mean that was the only way to get to the result we've proposed.\nAnd the particular way, in our brief, that we suggest that you would get to an advisory use of the guidelines on a prospective basis is precisely as you suggest.\nYou don't read 3553(b) to change \"may\" to \"shall\"; instead, you read it, unfortunately, I guess, if we've reached the remedial question, to be unconstitutional.\nAnd then, at that point, you focus in on 3553(a)--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2888.255, 2889.924, 2895.397, 2903.775, 2913.435], "stop_times": [2889.924, 2895.397, 2903.775, 2913.435, 2916.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2888.255}, "reply_to": "21537__0_139", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_141", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Which has the guidelines--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2916.862], "stop_times": [2917.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2916.862}, "reply_to": "21537__0_140", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__0_142", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Absolutely.\nAbsolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2917.955, 2918.598], "stop_times": [2918.598, 2919.053], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2917.955}, "reply_to": "21537__0_141", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_143", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--as one of other factors.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2919.053], "stop_times": [2921.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2919.053}, "reply_to": "21537__0_142", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__0_144", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Exactly.\nAnd then if I could just--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2921.282, 2921.653], "stop_times": [2921.653, 2922.396], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2921.282}, "reply_to": "21537__0_143", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_145", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Except that that, as Justice O'Connor suggests, deprives the statute of its principal purpose, which was to constrain... to constrain judicial discretion.\nIf there's anything clear about it, that was clear about, it was that they did not want judges to have as much discretion as they had.\nAnd now you say these things are just advisory.\nIt seems to me much easier to... I wanted to ask you one very precise question.\nAssuming I think \"court\" can mean \"jury\"... it doesn't have to mean \"the judge\"... where in, in the whole guideline system, how many sections do not permit the use of \"court\" to mean \"jury\"?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2922.396, 2933.542, 2940.85, 2942.724, 2947.842], "stop_times": [2933.542, 2940.85, 2942.724, 2947.842, 2962.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2922.396}, "reply_to": "21537__0_144", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_146", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Well, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2962.52], "stop_times": [2964.189], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2962.52}, "reply_to": "21537__0_145", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_147", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I think there's only one where, where it may not work.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2964.189], "stop_times": [2967.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2964.189}, "reply_to": "21537__0_146", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_148", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Well, I don't see how it works in 3742(e), because if you read that section in context it's talking about determinations made by the court, it's talking about determinations made by the court after the presentence report comes in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2967.433], "stop_times": [2978.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2967.433}, "reply_to": "21537__0_147", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_149", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "That... that may be the one.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2978.867], "stop_times": [2980.248], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2978.867}, "reply_to": "21537__0_148", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_150", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--and so I think that 3742(e) has to go.\nI think the fairer--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2980.248, 2982.172], "stop_times": [2982.172, 2983.165], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2980.248}, "reply_to": "21537__0_149", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_151", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "All right.\nAnything else has to go?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2983.165, 2983.37], "stop_times": [2983.37, 2983.924], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2983.165}, "reply_to": "21537__0_150", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_152", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Well, I think the fairer reading of 3553(b) is that it has to go, too.\nI know that you don't agree with--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2983.924, 2987.389], "stop_times": [2987.389, 2988.875], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2983.924}, "reply_to": "21537__0_151", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_153", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2988.875], "stop_times": [2989.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2988.875}, "reply_to": "21537__0_152", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_154", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--I think you disagree with me on that.\nI think 994... 99... 994(a), in Title 28, which talks about the guidelines being for the use of the sentencing court, I would suggest that has to go, but I assume you would say sentencing court can mean sentencing judge.\nThen at that point, there's a provision of rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that must go, because it talks about the role of the district court in a way that I don't think you can, sort of, find to mean the jury.\nAnd then I think, obviously, the sentencing guidelines provision that makes clear that it is the judge that's to make the findings by a preponderance of the evidence, has to go, as well.\nSo I think that is... that is... that is the sum total of the carnage of deciding--\n[Laughter]\n--that the guidelines are fully applicable with Blakely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [2989.125, 2990.983, 3003.614, 3014.676, 3023.964, 3027.968, 3028.506], "stop_times": [2990.983, 3003.614, 3014.676, 3023.964, 3027.968, 3028.506, 3031.85], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2989.125}, "reply_to": "21537__0_153", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_155", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "If you... if you interpret \"court\" to mean \"jury\", how many of the sentencing factors which will be submitted to the jury are... would be a radical departure from the tradition, the role of the jury in the criminal system in the Anglo-American tradition?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3031.85], "stop_times": [3052.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3031.85}, "reply_to": "21537__0_154", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__0_156", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I think very, very many of them.\nI mean, I can't give you a better answer than that, in terms of the number.\nBut the Medas case, on page of a reply brief that I suggested the Court look at, provides one example.\nThere, you had a case where it had already gone to the, to the jury on a general verdict, and it had the typical kind of general verdict form that's used.\nA six-count indictment.\nThere were boxes, guilty/non-guilty for each of the six crimes in the indictment.\nThen when there was a concern that Blakely might require jury findings on all the various enhancements, the Government tried to put in a 20-page supplemental special verdict that tried to walk through the various factors that the jury would try to find.\nI think that just, in miniature, shows you the kind of transformation you're talking about.\nYou go from a 12-line general verdict form, which is the classic kind of verdict form used in the criminal system, to 20 pages of a supplemental special verdict form.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3052.033, 3054.141, 3056.575, 3062.436, 3070.859, 3071.807, 3076.515, 3090.837, 3095.213], "stop_times": [3054.141, 3056.575, 3062.436, 3070.859, 3071.807, 3076.515, 3090.837, 3095.213, 3104.5], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3052.033}, "reply_to": "21537__0_155", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_157", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, you ought to get rid of that prosecutor.\nThat didn't seem to me very sensible at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3104.5, 3106.895], "stop_times": [3106.895, 3108.753], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3104.5}, "reply_to": "21537__0_156", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__0_158", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "With respect, Justice Scalia, I think if you look at that supplemental verdict form, and you look at the guidelines, there's no other way to do it.\nAnd I think, as the judge in that case said, one of the things that comes up in virtually every guidelines case is the issue of relevant conduct.\nNow, that is a very, very difficult thing to try to instruct the jury on.\nThe application notes that the Commission itself have come up in span eight and a half pages of very small, single spaced text.\nTo try to give that as jury instructions, I think, would leave the jury completely bewildered.\nThen, you'd also, though, even if you could get past the instruction problems, the effect of considering relevant conduct is going to have a transformative effect on what goes before the jury, because relevant conduct asks the jury not to focus on the elements of the specific crime; the relevant conduct focuses on the other acts of that individual defendant and, if there's joint criminal, if there's a joint criminal undertaking, the reasonably foreseeable events of acts of others taken in furtherance of the joint undertaking.\nNow, the effect of using that guideline, designed for judges, and sending it to the jury, is effectively to transform many, many cases from individual defendant cases to scheme cases or conspiracy cases.\nSo in tallying up the carnage and the wreckage of applying these guidelines designed clearly for judge fact-finding and willy... nilly sending them to the jury, I think you have to include the confusion and the difficulty of that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3108.753, 3116.389, 3123.985, 3127.784, 3135.708, 3140.249, 3169.599, 3181.776], "stop_times": [3116.389, 3123.985, 3127.784, 3135.708, 3140.249, 3169.599, 3181.776, 3195.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3108.753}, "reply_to": "21537__0_157", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_159", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Mr. Clement can I... you don't have an awful lot of time left, and I want to ask you one rather important question, to me.\nThere's been a lot of talk about severability of the statute, and I can understand the concept that we'll only apply it in certain categories of cases.\nBut normally when I consider severability, I'm thinking of the text of a written statute.\nIs there a particular provision of the sentencing guidelines that you think can be severed from the rest of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3195.605, 3199.859, 3207.661, 3212.035], "stop_times": [3199.859, 3207.661, 3212.035, 3218.639], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3195.605}, "reply_to": "21537__0_158", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_160", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, Justice Stevens, I think with respect to the Sentencing Reform Act itself, the statute, the provision that we think needs to be severed is 3553(b).\nThen, with respect to the Guidelines, I think our view on the guidelines--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3218.639, 3227.351], "stop_times": [3227.351, 3231.028], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3218.639}, "reply_to": "21537__0_159", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_161", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Just sticking to the statute, take out 3553(b) in its entirety, you just--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3231.028], "stop_times": [3235.979], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3231.028}, "reply_to": "21537__0_160", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_162", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Well, the specific reference to \"shall\"... this is basically the \"shall/may\" issue... I think that needs to be severed.\nI'm not quite sure whether 3553(b) is left after you do that, but that's... that's the important thing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3235.979, 3241.819], "stop_times": [3241.819, 3247.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3235.979}, "reply_to": "21537__0_161", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_163", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--I'm just not sure what's left of the whole statute if you take that provision out entirely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3247.103], "stop_times": [3250.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3247.103}, "reply_to": "21537__0_162", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__0_164", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, I think, as Justice Ginsburg suggests, 3553(a) still stands alone as telling the court that it should consider that.\nAnd I think, in fact, if you look at the legislative history, I actually think the language in 3553(b) was, was a floor amendment that was added later.\nSo it certainly doesn't pull the whole statute down to take that one provision out of the statute.\nIf I could reserve the remainder of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3250.53, 3257.96, 3265.225, 3269.683], "stop_times": [3257.96, 3265.225, 3269.683, 3271.624], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3250.53}, "reply_to": "21537__0_163", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__0_165", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Very well, Mr. Clement.\nMr. Kelly, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3271.624, 3272.655], "stop_times": [3272.655, 3276.925], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3271.624}, "reply_to": "21537__0_164", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__1_000", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe first years of Freddie Booker's sentence punished him for crimes that were proved to a jury.\nBut the judge added another eight years to his sentence, years that were only authorized by the judge's finding that Fred Booker probably committed other crimes.\nLike thousands of other Federal defendants, Booker's sentence was increased based on crimes that were never proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.\nThe final years of a Federal sentence are as worthy of constitutional protections against undeserved punishment as are the first years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3276.925, 3283.119, 3291.004, 3300.581, 3310.983], "stop_times": [3283.119, 3291.004, 3300.581, 3310.983, 3320.393], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3276.925}, "reply_to": "21537__0_165", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_001", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Suppose that the judge had simply sentenced the defendant, let's say, to ten years, but looked at these other crimes and said,\n\"In my practice, I go to 15. \"\nAll right?\nThat's the basic situation.\nIs that unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3320.393, 3328.938, 3332.447, 3334.139, 3335.708], "stop_times": [3328.938, 3332.447, 3334.139, 3335.708, 3336.74], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3320.393}, "reply_to": "21537__1_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_002", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Under the guidelines or under the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3336.74], "stop_times": [3339.219], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3336.74}, "reply_to": "21537__1_001", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_003", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "No, no, there are no guidelines.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3339.219], "stop_times": [3340.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3339.219}, "reply_to": "21537__1_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_004", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--No, that is not unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3340.621], "stop_times": [3342.645], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3340.621}, "reply_to": "21537__1_003", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_005", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "All right.\nNow suppose the people who do exactly the same thing is the Court of Appeals applying the word \"reasonable\", these officials of the judicial branch.\nSee, they're reviewing the sentence for reasonableness.\nThey say,\n\"In our practice when a person commits bank robbery, if just an ordinary case, we think it's reasonable five years; but if he has a gun, seven years. \"\nSo if there's no gun, five years is the most that isn't arbitrary.\nBut if there's a gun, you can go to seven years.\nIn other words, an English-type tariff system.\nIs that unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3342.645, 3342.95, 3350.325, 3352.793, 3353.707, 3362.874, 3369.022, 3372.283, 3374.884], "stop_times": [3342.95, 3350.325, 3352.793, 3353.707, 3362.874, 3369.022, 3372.283, 3374.884, 3376.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3342.645}, "reply_to": "21537__1_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_006", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I believe it would be, Justice Breyer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3376.287], "stop_times": [3378.971], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3376.287}, "reply_to": "21537__1_005", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_007", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "You think it would be.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3378.971, 3379.342], "stop_times": [3379.342, 3379.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3378.971}, "reply_to": "21537__1_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_008", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3379.592], "stop_times": [3380.047], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3379.592}, "reply_to": "21537__1_007", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_009", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--now suppose the people who do it are the parole commission... as happen to be in the United States, executive branch officials.\nFor the last hundred years, they get sentences, for example, that were indeterminate, or might have been for 30 years.\nAnd what they say,\n\"It is our practice, assuming good behavior, that if it was just an ordinary bank robbery we'll keep him in for five years, but if he had a gun, he's going to stay in for seven. \"\nIs that unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3380.047, 3387.122, 3395.733, 3397.053, 3410.14], "stop_times": [3387.122, 3395.733, 3397.053, 3410.14, 3411.793], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3380.047}, "reply_to": "21537__1_008", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_010", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Parole commissions don't increase sentences.\nParole commissions decrease sentences.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3411.793, 3413.938], "stop_times": [3413.938, 3415.674], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3411.793}, "reply_to": "21537__1_009", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_011", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "No, what they have is an indeterminate sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3415.674], "stop_times": [3418.003], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3415.674}, "reply_to": "21537__1_010", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_012", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3418.003], "stop_times": [3418.253], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3418.003}, "reply_to": "21537__1_011", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_013", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "California.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3418.253], "stop_times": [3419.079], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3418.253}, "reply_to": "21537__1_012", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_014", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3419.079], "stop_times": [3419.534], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3419.079}, "reply_to": "21537__1_013", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_015", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And what they say is,\n\"In our practice, what we do is, we think it's reasonable, and we will keep a person in prison for five years in an ordinary bank robbery, but for seven years if he has a gun. \"\nI'm asking if that's constitutional.\nBecause that's the practice that they follow under parole commission guidelines, and they've done it now for a decade, I make up.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3419.534, 3420.565, 3434.683, 3436.912], "stop_times": [3420.565, 3434.683, 3436.912, 3443.932], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3419.534}, "reply_to": "21537__1_014", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_016", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "That is constitutional, Your Honor.\nAnd the reason is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3443.932, 3446.494], "stop_times": [3446.494, 3447.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3443.932}, "reply_to": "21537__1_015", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_017", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "That's constitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3447.32], "stop_times": [3447.453], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3447.32}, "reply_to": "21537__1_016", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_018", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Does he have an entitlement to a certain number of years under any of these questions?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3447.453], "stop_times": [3450.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3447.453}, "reply_to": "21537__1_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__1_019", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--As I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3450.831], "stop_times": [3452.438], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3450.831}, "reply_to": "21537__1_018", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_020", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "When you're sentenced to an indeterminate sentence, he's not entitled to parole at any time--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3452.438], "stop_times": [3457.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3452.438}, "reply_to": "21537__1_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__1_021", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Other than venues--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3457.146], "stop_times": [3457.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3457.146}, "reply_to": "21537__1_020", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_022", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--is he?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3457.146], "stop_times": [3457.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3457.146}, "reply_to": "21537__1_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__1_023", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--No, not at all.\nAnd as I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3457.518, 3458.344], "stop_times": [3458.344, 3459.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3457.518}, "reply_to": "21537__1_022", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_024", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "What I'm trying to drive at... and I'll be... is that I can't imagine a court holding that a parole commission in the executive branch that has exactly this same system would be behaving unconstitutionally.\nIt's difficult for me to imagine... though you say I'm wrong on that... a court holding it's unconstitutional when a court of appeals does the same thing reviewing for arbitrariness.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3459.004, 3472.629], "stop_times": [3472.629, 3485.01], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3459.004}, "reply_to": "21537__1_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_025", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Well, perhaps I misunderstood your second hypothetical, Your Honor.\nBut my understanding of the hypothetical was that if the judge gave five years and the appellate court said,\n\"No, you should have given seven years because of the existence of a certain fact-- \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3485.01, 3488.726, 3495.292], "stop_times": [3488.726, 3495.292, 3498.347], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3485.01}, "reply_to": "21537__1_024", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_026", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "You know, I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3498.347], "stop_times": [3498.347], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3498.347}, "reply_to": "21537__1_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_027", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "\"you must... you must increase the sentence.... \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3498.347], "stop_times": [3500.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3498.347}, "reply_to": "21537__1_026", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_028", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--I'm not raising the question well.\nI'm trying to imagine sentencing guidelines run by a parole commission, executive branch officials.\nI'm trying to imagine sentencing guidelines run under the word arbitrary by ordinary courts of appeals panels reviewing the sentences.\nAnd if those are both constitutional, then, I would ask, why is it unconstitutional to put the executive branch and judicial branch officials together in one group called the sentencing commission?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3500.576, 3502.024, 3508.833, 3517.46], "stop_times": [3502.024, 3508.833, 3517.46, 3531.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3500.576}, "reply_to": "21537__1_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_029", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "The relevant constitutional principle doesn't have to do with whether it's the executive branch of Government or the judicial branch of Government; it has to do whether a fact is necessary in order to increase a sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3531.291], "stop_times": [3543.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3531.291}, "reply_to": "21537__1_028", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_030", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I understand that.\nAnd... well, maybe I'm just not going to get my question across.\nI am trying to imagine Apprendi.\nWould Apprendi apply to parole commission guidelines?\nI should think the answer, unless we're going to reverse a hundred years of history, is no.\nWould Apprendi apply to a court of appeals panel with the power to review sentences for arbitrariness?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3543.263, 3544.006, 3547.266, 3549.578, 3553.665, 3559.981], "stop_times": [3544.006, 3547.266, 3549.578, 3553.665, 3559.981, 3568.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3543.263}, "reply_to": "21537__1_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_031", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3568.626], "stop_times": [3569.557], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3568.626}, "reply_to": "21537__1_030", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_032", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I would think the answer is no.\nAnd, therefore, I wonder why it applies if we take judicial officials and executive branch officials, and they do exactly the same thing under the heading Sentencing Commission.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3569.557, 3571.581], "stop_times": [3571.581, 3585.616], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3569.557}, "reply_to": "21537__1_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_033", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "In your hypotheticals, Justice Breyer, as I understand them, each of those entities is decreasing a sentence.\nWe're talking about a sentencing commission that authorizes a court and, in fact... well, authorizes a court to increase a sentence after finding a particular fact, and that is what triggers the Sixth Amendment protection.\nIt's the fact that a judge is authorized to give a longer sentence because of the existence of a fact than he would otherwise be authorized to impose.\nAnd that is the essential protection against which the Sixth Amendment jury trial right protects.\nThat is a fact that has to be found by a jury, not by a judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3585.616, 3592.758, 3604.935, 3615.337, 3621.736], "stop_times": [3592.758, 3604.935, 3615.337, 3621.736, 3624.892], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3585.616}, "reply_to": "21537__1_032", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_034", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "But what is your position if judges simply have complete discretion to sentence within a maximum range, and Judge A gives a lot of maximum sentences, and Judge B doesn't?\nIs that system constitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3624.892, 3637.629], "stop_times": [3637.629, 3639.775], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3624.892}, "reply_to": "21537__1_033", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__1_035", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "There is no Sixth Amendment problem with that system, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3639.775], "stop_times": [3642.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3639.775}, "reply_to": "21537__1_034", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_036", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "What is it in our legal tradition... what policies are served by preferring unexplained, unarticulated, standardless discretion to a system in which the judge gives reasons and follows careful standards and follows... and follows standards that give consistency from one sentence to the other?\nWhy should the former be preferred?\nWhat are we doing here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3642.541, 3667.722, 3669.829], "stop_times": [3667.722, 3669.829, 3671.148], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3642.541}, "reply_to": "21537__1_035", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__1_037", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I think, Justice Kennedy, that Blakely answers that question.\nBlakely distinguishes between a discretionary system in which the judge has the authority to consider a number of different factors in order to do what the judge thinks is fair, but is not required to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3671.148, 3674.576], "stop_times": [3674.576, 3686.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3671.148}, "reply_to": "21537__1_036", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_038", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "What policies--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3686.093], "stop_times": [3686.836], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3686.093}, "reply_to": "21537__1_037", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__1_039", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--give any particular weight--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3686.836], "stop_times": [3687.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3686.836}, "reply_to": "21537__1_038", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_040", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--are being furthered by that, other than wooden adherence to Apprendi and Blakely?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3687.458], "stop_times": [3691.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3687.458}, "reply_to": "21537__1_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__1_041", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--The policy is that if the judge's sentencing authority increases by finding of fact, which is not the case in a discretionary system.\nThat fact is the kind of finding that we leave to a jury, because juries--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3691.006, 3700.005], "stop_times": [3700.005, 3706.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3691.006}, "reply_to": "21537__1_040", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_042", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "But isn't that, isn't that ultimately formalistic and contrary to our whole design of our system, which is to learn over experience and to codify and to explain what considerations we take into account in applying the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3706.858], "stop_times": [3726.177], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3706.858}, "reply_to": "21537__1_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__1_043", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--I don't think it's contrary to our system, Your Honor, to say that if a more serious sentence attaches to a more serious crime, or to a more serious version of a crime, then it's up to the jury to decide whether the more serious crime or more serious version was committed.\nIn fact, that is essential to our system.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3726.177, 3743.184], "stop_times": [3743.184, 3744.837], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3726.177}, "reply_to": "21537__1_042", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_044", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "So suppose, in Justice Breyer's hypothetical... like the California indeterminate sentencing regime which applied until about years ago, after an indeterminate sentence, the parole board interviews two people convicted for the same crime; one was the ringleader, street-hardened offender, and the other was just a novice, a guy that went along, although he... they both committed the same crime.\nUnder the California system, the former would be given a projected release date of ten years; and the other, a projected release date of about two years.\nWould that be constitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3744.837, 3776.538, 3785.826], "stop_times": [3776.538, 3785.826, 3787.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3744.837}, "reply_to": "21537__1_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__1_045", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Yes, it would, because, again, under a discretionary system, the judge's sentencing authority is unaffected by the finding of a fact.\nIf the parole commission determines that one offender's sentence should be increased and the other offender's should not be decreased, that has no Sixth Amendment application or Sixth Amendment--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3787.684, 3795.735], "stop_times": [3795.735, 3806.964], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3787.684}, "reply_to": "21537__1_044", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_046", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Look, we're trying to go to the same point, and I think you're actually given me a pretty good answer.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3806.964, 3810.019], "stop_times": [3810.019, 3810.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3806.964}, "reply_to": "21537__1_045", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_047", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3810.557], "stop_times": [3811.3], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3810.557}, "reply_to": "21537__1_046", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_048", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--I'm imagining my system being the system that Apprendi forbids.\nSo I'm not doing increase/decreases.\nI'll think of the very kind of system.\nAnd I take it your answer is this... and remember, I dissented in Apprendi.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3811.3, 3815.675, 3817.821, 3820.422], "stop_times": [3815.675, 3817.821, 3820.422, 3824.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3811.3}, "reply_to": "21537__1_047", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_049", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I remember.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3824.759], "stop_times": [3825.752], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3824.759}, "reply_to": "21537__1_048", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_050", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I didn't agree with it.\nRight.\nBut there we are.\nAnd so I'm trying to see how far it goes.\nSo I wonder, we take our Apprendi system and now it's being administered by a parole commission.\nWe take our Apprendi system, and now it's being administered by a court of appeals using the legal standard arbitrariness.\nAnd I take it your answer is those are just as unconstitutional.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3825.752, 3826.224, 3826.39, 3828.082, 3831.304, 3836.134, 3842.737], "stop_times": [3826.224, 3826.39, 3828.082, 3831.304, 3836.134, 3842.737, 3846.536], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3825.752}, "reply_to": "21537__1_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_051", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "No, no, again, I'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3846.536], "stop_times": [3851.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3846.536}, "reply_to": "21537__1_050", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_052", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Now you understand what I'm doing, because I'm saying you either have to follow the force of your logic and make those unconstitutional, too, or you have to say there's a difference.\nAnd, by definition, the only difference is who promulgated it.\nAnd then, of course, I'm going to ask you, if there's a difference right there, why doesn't this one, which is executive plus judicial, fall on my side of the difference?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3851.632, 3860.244, 3863.654], "stop_times": [3860.244, 3863.654, 3872.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3851.632}, "reply_to": "21537__1_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_053", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Well, maybe I... maybe I don't understand your hypothetical, Justice Breyer, because parole commissions do not increase sentences; parole commissions decrease sentences.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3872.421], "stop_times": [3879.441], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3872.421}, "reply_to": "21537__1_052", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_054", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "No, I... in my imaginary parole commission--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3879.441], "stop_times": [3881.066], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3879.441}, "reply_to": "21537__1_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_055", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Okay.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3881.066, 3881.521], "stop_times": [3881.521, 3881.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3881.066}, "reply_to": "21537__1_054", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_056", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--which I will argue a different point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3881.521], "stop_times": [3883.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3881.521}, "reply_to": "21537__1_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_057", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3883.395], "stop_times": [3884.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3883.395}, "reply_to": "21537__1_056", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_058", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I mean, I will argue it another time.\nI've seen a lot of parole commission guidelines, and I would say they, a lot of them did fall within the Apprendi boundaries.\nBut if we did take it and have the parole commission do it... \"it\", being the Apprendi forbidden system, in your view, is it unconstitutional?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3884.205, 3886.972, 3892.667], "stop_times": [3886.972, 3892.667, 3899.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3884.205}, "reply_to": "21537__1_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_059", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "It would certainly be unconstitutional for a parole commission to find a fact that increased a sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3899.808], "stop_times": [3904.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3899.808}, "reply_to": "21537__1_058", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_060", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "All right.\nOkay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3904.638, 3904.871], "stop_times": [3904.871, 3905.121], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3904.638}, "reply_to": "21537__1_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_061", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3905.121], "stop_times": [3905.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3905.121}, "reply_to": "21537__1_060", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_062", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And then the same thing is true of a... of a court of appeals panel.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3905.559], "stop_times": [3909.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3905.559}, "reply_to": "21537__1_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_063", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "If it could find a fact that increased the sentence, yes, because those facts must be found by a jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3909.291], "stop_times": [3914.371], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3909.291}, "reply_to": "21537__1_062", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_064", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Mr. Kelly, I would be interested in hearing you address some of the severability problems that the Government has been raising.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3914.371], "stop_times": [3922.46], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3914.371}, "reply_to": "21537__1_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__1_065", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "If I could just ask one more question, because this is important to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3922.46], "stop_times": [3925.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3922.46}, "reply_to": "21537__1_064", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__1_066", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3925.144], "stop_times": [3925.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3925.144}, "reply_to": "21537__1_065", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__1_067", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "What about the previous California system in which it was an indeterminate sentence and the correctional authority made findings which set the sentence?\nThey were... they were committed to the California--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3925.432, 3935.546], "stop_times": [3935.546, 3942.112], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3925.432}, "reply_to": "21537__1_066", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__1_068", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3942.112], "stop_times": [3942.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3942.112}, "reply_to": "21537__1_067", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_069", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--correctional authority for the term prescribed by law, and that was set after the fact, post hoc, by the California Adult Authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3942.522], "stop_times": [3954.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3942.522}, "reply_to": "21537__1_068", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__1_070", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "If the agency were increasing an authorized sentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3954.205], "stop_times": [3961.636], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3954.205}, "reply_to": "21537__1_069", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_071", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "They're not increasing it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3961.636], "stop_times": [3962.751], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3961.636}, "reply_to": "21537__1_070", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__1_072", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--on the basis of a finding--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3962.751], "stop_times": [3962.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3962.751}, "reply_to": "21537__1_071", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_073", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "It's an indeterminate sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3962.934], "stop_times": [3964.198], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3962.934}, "reply_to": "21537__1_072", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__1_074", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3964.198], "stop_times": [3964.608], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3964.198}, "reply_to": "21537__1_073", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_075", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "They set the sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3964.608], "stop_times": [3965.723], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3964.608}, "reply_to": "21537__1_074", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__1_076", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "After the... instead of the judge or after the judge?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3965.723], "stop_times": [3970.143], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3965.723}, "reply_to": "21537__1_075", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_077", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Yes.\nIt was just sentenced, the judge, for the term prescribed by law.\nAnd an agency, after interviewing the defendant, after looking at the probation board, set the sentence.\nThe term prescribed by law could be for life.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3970.143, 3970.481, 3973.608, 3982.153], "stop_times": [3970.481, 3973.608, 3982.153, 3985.58], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3970.143}, "reply_to": "21537__1_076", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__1_078", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "If there were facts which were necessary to authorize--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3985.58], "stop_times": [3989.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3985.58}, "reply_to": "21537__1_077", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_079", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "He sets the sentence within the range authorized by the jury's verdict.\nThat's the question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3989.462, 3992.556], "stop_times": [3992.556, 3993.178], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3989.462}, "reply_to": "21537__1_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__1_080", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Right, that's fine.\nIf it's within the range authorized by the jury's verdict, it's fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3993.178, 3993.921], "stop_times": [3993.921, 3996.521], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3993.178}, "reply_to": "21537__1_079", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_081", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, whoa.\nWhat if, what if the statute says\n\"every felony in this state shall be punished by a term of not less than one year, or, on the other side, life. \"\nand you're committed to the parole authority, and the parole authority will decide between those boundaries?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [3996.521, 3997.636, 3999.038, 4007.295], "stop_times": [3997.636, 3999.038, 4007.295, 4013.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3996.521}, "reply_to": "21537__1_080", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__1_082", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Assuming that authority is given to the parole commission to select a sentence, and no further findings need to be made beyond those made by the jury, there's no Sixth Amendment problem with that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4013.444], "stop_times": [4030.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4013.444}, "reply_to": "21537__1_081", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_083", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "There might be a due process problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4030.451], "stop_times": [4031.937], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4030.451}, "reply_to": "21537__1_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__1_084", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "In fact, there might be a lot of other constitutional problems, but not a Sixth Amendment problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4031.937], "stop_times": [4035.009], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4031.937}, "reply_to": "21537__1_083", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_085", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I hope you will go over to the... to the severability problem, because, as I understood it, you and the Government were very much at odds about what should be severed and what shouldn't, and we didn't get to ask Mr. Clement about his severance, which was going to be that to the extent no plus factors are involved, no sentence-enhancing factors are involved, the guidelines remain binding.\nHe didn't get a chance to say that in his argument, and I hope he'll address it.\nAnd you say,\n\"Whatever you do, don't make it half binding and half advisory. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4035.009, 4062.28, 4066.45, 4067.686], "stop_times": [4062.28, 4066.45, 4067.686, 4072.97], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4035.009}, "reply_to": "21537__1_084", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__1_086", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4072.97], "stop_times": [4073.797], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4072.97}, "reply_to": "21537__1_085", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_087", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And why would it be so terrible to say,\n\"Well, to the extent that there are no sentencing enhancing factors, let's preserve what Congress did, let's make them binding when the jury doesn't have to find anything? \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4073.797, 4075.942], "stop_times": [4075.942, 4086.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4073.797}, "reply_to": "21537__1_086", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__1_088", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "For a couple of reasons, Justice Ginsburg.\nThe first is that Congress certainly didn't intend to have dual systems.\nThat destroys the congressional purpose of uniformity because you would have sentences, I suppose, being uniform under systems... the system where guidelines applied, but certainly not under the system where the guidelines don't apply, because there are guideline facts that need to be found.\nSo that congressional purpose is not advanced.\nThe second problem is that it's such an easily manipulable system, particularly by the Government.\nIf the Government wants to be in the guidelines, it doesn't allege a sentence-enhancing fact, or a guideline fact.\nIf the Government doesn't want to be bound by the guidelines, it alleges a guideline fact, and that takes sentencing out of the guidelines.\nAnd that cannot be what Congress intended.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4086.345, 4088.658, 4092.866, 4111.337, 4113.383, 4118.667, 4124.961, 4131.836], "stop_times": [4088.658, 4092.866, 4111.337, 4113.383, 4118.667, 4124.961, 4131.836, 4133.406], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4086.345}, "reply_to": "21537__1_087", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_089", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Is it any less uniform, any more manipulable, than on your proposal?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4133.406], "stop_times": [4139.721], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4133.406}, "reply_to": "21537__1_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21537__1_090", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Our--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4139.721], "stop_times": [4141.662], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4139.721}, "reply_to": "21537__1_089", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_091", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I mean, uniformity is gone.\nA certain manipulability has got to be faced as a fact, and I'm not sure that you're proposing a better solution, I gather.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4141.662, 4142.406], "stop_times": [4142.406, 4150.207], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4141.662}, "reply_to": "21537__1_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21537__1_092", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Well, I think our proposal doesn't really allow for any manipulation at all, Justice Souter.\nWe're simply saying that the fact finder must be a jury instead of a judge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4150.207, 4155.037], "stop_times": [4155.037, 4158.769], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4150.207}, "reply_to": "21537__1_091", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_093", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, except that the manipulation, at that point, is the manipulation, in a way, in the present system, and that is it's the manipulability of charge bargaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4158.769], "stop_times": [4169.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4158.769}, "reply_to": "21537__1_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21537__1_094", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, that's certainly true, and that exists under the guidelines.\nIt exists without the guidelines.\nIt exists in discretionary systems.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4169.033, 4173.492, 4175.433], "stop_times": [4173.492, 4175.433, 4176.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4169.033}, "reply_to": "21537__1_093", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_095", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4176.714], "stop_times": [4177.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4176.714}, "reply_to": "21537__1_094", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21537__1_096", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "It does exist under the guidelines?\nHow does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4177.085, 4178.117], "stop_times": [4178.117, 4178.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4177.085}, "reply_to": "21537__1_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_097", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I think it does, because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4178.777], "stop_times": [4181.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4178.777}, "reply_to": "21537__1_096", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_098", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "How?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4181.272], "stop_times": [4181.56], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4181.272}, "reply_to": "21537__1_097", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_099", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Well, certainly, to the extent that prosecutors make decisions about what charges they're going to bring--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4181.56], "stop_times": [4187.755], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4181.56}, "reply_to": "21537__1_098", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_100", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "No, only, only, only if you have statutes that have mandatory minimums that have lesser sentences.\nThat's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4187.755, 4193.7], "stop_times": [4193.7, 4194.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4187.755}, "reply_to": "21537__1_099", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_101", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4194.443], "stop_times": [4194.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4194.443}, "reply_to": "21537__1_100", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_102", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "But compared to the status quo, if you have the guidelines alone, one of their basic objectives was to prevent that kind of manipulation.\nAnd, by and large, I thought they had succeeded on that point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4194.726, 4202.123], "stop_times": [4202.123, 4205.179], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4194.726}, "reply_to": "21537__1_101", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_103", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, hasn't charge bargaining simply been replaced with fact bargaining?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4205.179], "stop_times": [4209.47], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4205.179}, "reply_to": "21537__1_102", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__1_104", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "It has, to a large extent.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4209.47], "stop_times": [4210.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4209.47}, "reply_to": "21537__1_103", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_105", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Is that lawful under the guideline?\nIs the judge required to accept the facts as the... as the prosecution and defense agree to present them?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4210.873, 4212.154], "stop_times": [4212.154, 4218.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4210.873}, "reply_to": "21537__1_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_106", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "The judge is not required to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4218.592], "stop_times": [4220.7], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4218.592}, "reply_to": "21537__1_105", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_107", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4220.7], "stop_times": [4220.904], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4220.7}, "reply_to": "21537__1_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_108", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--accept the facts.\nThe judge typically does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4220.904, 4221.359], "stop_times": [4221.359, 4222.473], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4220.904}, "reply_to": "21537__1_107", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_109", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I'm not sure that I understand why you wouldn't have the same alternatives under your view.\nBecause is it not correct that if the, if the sentence... the change under consideration is a decrease, those findings should be made by a judge.\nWhereas, if it's an increase, you'd say they have to be found by a jury.\nSo why don't you have the same possibility of a two-track system under your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4222.473, 4227.508, 4235.932, 4239.647], "stop_times": [4227.508, 4235.932, 4239.647, 4244.598], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4222.473}, "reply_to": "21537__1_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__1_110", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I guess... I wouldn't view that as a two-track system, because the guidelines would continue to apply in either case.\nIt would not be a situation in which the guidelines apply to some criminal sentencings, but don't apply to other criminal sentencings.\nThe guidelines will apply in every criminal sentencing.\nWhether a fact finder needs to be a judge or a jury depends upon whether the fact to be found increases the judge's sentencing authority.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4244.598, 4256.82, 4264.455, 4267.261], "stop_times": [4256.82, 4264.455, 4267.261, 4274.32], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4244.598}, "reply_to": "21537__1_109", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_111", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "So you would say... you would say your proposal is closer to what Congress really wanted, because it would leave in place all of the sentences that would be commanded by the guidelines, but just require a different fact finder in some of the cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4274.32], "stop_times": [4286.292], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4274.32}, "reply_to": "21537__1_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__1_112", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "That's exactly right, Justice Stevens.\nYou--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4286.292, 4288.066], "stop_times": [4288.066, 4288.232], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4286.292}, "reply_to": "21537__1_111", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_113", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "But then what about all the factors... Justice Breyer outlined four categories of, of guideline factors that are not easily, if at all, presented to the jury.\nThe Chief Justice mentioned the one of perjury at the trial itself.\nCould never give that to a jury because it hasn't happened until the trial.\nAnd some of the others that become very complicated, like he mentioned, other... other relevant conduct, relevant conduct, yeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4288.232, 4302.721, 4307.096, 4313.041], "stop_times": [4302.721, 4307.096, 4313.041, 4325.096], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4288.232}, "reply_to": "21537__1_112", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__1_114", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--I agree that perjury is not something that could be submitted to a jury... perjury during trial is not something that could be submitted to a jury.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4325.096, 4333.391], "stop_times": [4333.391, 4333.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4325.096}, "reply_to": "21537__1_113", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_115", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "So that would just be out.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4333.929], "stop_times": [4335.332], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4333.929}, "reply_to": "21537__1_114", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__1_116", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--That would be out.\nThat's one of the very few.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4335.332, 4336.242], "stop_times": [4336.242, 4337.44], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4335.332}, "reply_to": "21537__1_115", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_117", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "It would have to be prosecuted as separate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4337.44], "stop_times": [4338.554], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4337.44}, "reply_to": "21537__1_116", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__1_118", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "It would have to be prosecuted as a separate crime.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4338.554], "stop_times": [4340.123], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4338.554}, "reply_to": "21537__1_117", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_119", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Why couldn't you have a sentencing phase afterwards?\nI don't know.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4340.123, 4342.352], "stop_times": [4342.352, 4342.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4340.123}, "reply_to": "21537__1_118", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__1_120", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Could I interrupt for that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4342.808], "stop_times": [4345.158], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4342.808}, "reply_to": "21537__1_119", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__1_121", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4345.158], "stop_times": [4345.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4345.158}, "reply_to": "21537__1_120", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__1_122", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "There's one thing that's running through my mind.\nWhat if the defendant gets on the stand and testifies to a version of the events that the jury must have disbelieved in order to convict?\nCould not the judge... in effect, he would be making the finding... he would say,\n\"The jury has really found this fact, and, therefore, I can rely on it. \"", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4345.613, 4346.727, 4354.529, 4359.73], "stop_times": [4346.727, 4354.529, 4359.73, 4362.581], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4345.613}, "reply_to": "21537__1_121", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__1_123", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I don't think so, Justice Stevens, because the judge is still making the finding that the witness deliberately lied, as opposed to being mistaken in his testimony.\nAnd that is a finding of fact that increases sentencing authority.\nSo I don't think that a jury returning a guilty verdict in every case means that the jury disbelieved, or thought at least, that the defendant was lying.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4362.581, 4373.809, 4377.729], "stop_times": [4373.809, 4377.729, 4388.67], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4362.581}, "reply_to": "21537__1_122", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_124", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "What is your answer to Justice Ginsburg's question?\nAnd I'd appreciate your focusing on what I thought were the two most important ones, which is, first, the... I thought that sentencing for a hundred years had gone on primarily on the basis of the presentence report.\nAnd the idea was, the person is convicted and now we're going to decide what to do with this individual who's convicted, and we're going to read what the probation officer writes about it, and he'll go interview people after, as he does.\nAnd many, many, many, if not most, of the facts in that presentence report were not available at the time of trial.\nThey're about the history of the individual, and they're more about the manner in which the crime was carried out.\nAnd the other main thing is the... is the vast number of really complex operations, multiple-count rules, relevant conduct, all kinds of things that... try even \"brandishing\".\nI mean, that's the second thing, the complexity.\nSo the presentence report--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4388.67, 4391.392, 4404.313, 4417.566, 4424.169, 4429.287, 4443.117, 4445.18], "stop_times": [4391.392, 4404.313, 4417.566, 4424.169, 4429.287, 4443.117, 4445.18, 4447.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4388.67}, "reply_to": "21537__1_123", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_125", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Sure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4447.592], "stop_times": [4447.864], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4447.592}, "reply_to": "21537__1_124", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_126", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--and the complexity.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4447.864], "stop_times": [4448.978], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4447.864}, "reply_to": "21537__1_125", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_127", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "In other words, the tradition was that we asked the jury to determine what crime was committed, and the sentencing judge to determine the context in which it was committed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4448.978], "stop_times": [4458.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4448.978}, "reply_to": "21537__1_126", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21537__1_128", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And that still happens, even under our proposal, to a large extent, Your Honor, because the presentence report has historically guided a judge in exercising his discretion at sentencing.\nTo the extent that the judge exercises discretion in selecting a sentence within a guideline range, the judge will still rely upon the presentence report.\nAnd, frankly, most of what's in a presentence report doesn't have to do with finding extra facts; it has to do with guiding discretion in selecting a sentence.\nSo I don't think that that really changes under our system.\nWith regard to the complexity, it's been my experience in defending Federal criminal cases that although the guidelines are lengthy, there are only two or three that are likely to apply in any particular case, and it's not particularly complex to figure out what those are, and it wouldn't be all that complex to charge a jury with regard to how to determine facts that are required by the guidelines.\nWe give juries jury instructions that are complicated all the time.\nWe do it in RICO--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4458.433, 4469.512, 4478.124, 4486.047, 4488.831, 4515.026, 4520.97], "stop_times": [4469.512, 4478.124, 4486.047, 4488.831, 4515.026, 4520.97, 4521.713], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4458.433}, "reply_to": "21537__1_127", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_129", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Congress's basic... that's a good answer.\nCongress's basic objective here is... was uniformity.\nI think it was a noble objective, whether or not it's been achieved or, but are you saying to Congress, Sorry, the Constitution prohibits you, in Congress, from trying to create uniformity, or greater uniformity, of sentencing among district judges?\nThere's just no way you can do it, because if you throw everything to a jury, you know, you throw it right into the hands of the prosecutor to determine what to charge, what not to charge, what facts to agree upon, et cetera, no way to do it?\nWe're back to our two cellmates... one day served, 50 years served... though the real conduct was the same.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4521.713, 4523.942, 4529.022, 4547.681, 4561.094], "stop_times": [4523.942, 4529.022, 4547.681, 4561.094, 4569.618], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4521.713}, "reply_to": "21537__1_128", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_130", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--The real conduct can still be proved to a jury, as long as it's charged and proved to a jury.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4569.618], "stop_times": [4576.781], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4569.618}, "reply_to": "21537__1_129", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_131", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "How about the form of verdict under your system?\nIs there one line for the basic offense, and then other lines for each additional factor that's alleged in the indictment?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4576.781, 4579.632], "stop_times": [4579.632, 4589.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4576.781}, "reply_to": "21537__1_130", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__1_132", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "There may be, depending on the case.\nThere may be cases in which a general verdict is adequate because there are no guideline facts to find that would increase sentencing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4589.041, 4592.18], "stop_times": [4592.18, 4598.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4589.041}, "reply_to": "21537__1_131", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_133", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "But you're suggesting, then, a special... a special verdict in every case where there are guideline facts to be found.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4598.579], "stop_times": [4604.606], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4598.579}, "reply_to": "21537__1_132", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__1_134", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Just as special verdicts have been used since Apprendi to find drug quantities and other facts that increase maximum sentences.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4604.606], "stop_times": [4611.582], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4604.606}, "reply_to": "21537__1_133", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_135", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--But a special verdict wouldn't do from the point of view of the defendant, I think would resist it very heavily, if what the findings have to be are, say, a much larger drug quantity, the relevant conduct.\nThese are things that could be damning for a defendant.\nSo a defendant surely would not want that, all of this to be tried to the jury that's going to try the basic case.\nThe defendant would much prefer to have the jury not know about that it wasn't five ounces, that it was 500 grams, or that, at the same time, the defendant did a lot of other bad things.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4611.582, 4627.657, 4629.869, 4638.703], "stop_times": [4627.657, 4629.869, 4638.703, 4651.995], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4611.582}, "reply_to": "21537__1_134", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__1_136", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Your Honor, I think we can trust district judges to fashion procedural protections that assure that trials are fair.\nThat might, in some cases, mean bifurcating the underlying elements of the offense and the determination of those elements from the finding of guideline facts--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4651.995, 4657.9], "stop_times": [4657.9, 4668.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4651.995}, "reply_to": "21537__1_135", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_137", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "So you would have to have, then, essentially two trials.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4668.507], "stop_times": [4671.314], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4668.507}, "reply_to": "21537__1_136", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__1_138", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--In some cases, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4671.314], "stop_times": [4673.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4671.314}, "reply_to": "21537__1_137", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_139", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, isn't it... isn't it... isn't that going to be so in every relevant conduct case in which the Government thinks the relevant conduct is a serious factor?\nIt is either going to have to be a separate jury verdict on sentencing, or the district judge is going to be limited simply to whatever range the jury fact finding provides as the maximum range.\nThere are no other possibilities, are there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4673.709, 4680.48, 4695.546], "stop_times": [4680.48, 4695.546, 4698.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4673.709}, "reply_to": "21537__1_138", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21537__1_140", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, in some of those cases, Your Honor, the additional facts would come in on the main trail anyway, as 404(b) kind of evidence that is relevant to proving the underlying charges.\nAnd if it's going to come in anyway, then there probably wouldn't be a second part of the trial.\nSo I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4698.518, 4712.181, 4716.639], "stop_times": [4712.181, 4716.639, 4717.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4698.518}, "reply_to": "21537__1_139", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_141", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "But isn't the defendant in that case going to say look, I, I'm claiming a serious problem, if you're asking the jury to make a specific finding that I committed relevant facts A, B, C, D, and E, even though I don't happen to have been subjected to a criminal guilty verdict with respect to each one.\nBy, by requiring those findings, you're going to skew the jury's mind to the point where I'm not going to get a fair shake on the guilty/not guilty finding or special fact finding most immediately relevant to this case.\nEvery defendant is going to demand a separate jury proceeding for that, isn't he?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4717.382, 4738.809, 4752.677], "stop_times": [4738.809, 4752.677, 4759.53], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4717.382}, "reply_to": "21537__1_140", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21537__1_142", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--It's certainly possible that they'll demand separate, or bifurcation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4759.53], "stop_times": [4766.672], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4759.53}, "reply_to": "21537__1_141", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_143", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Yes, but you wouldn't sit back and allow that focus, if you're the defense lawyer you're not going to allow that focus to be made at the time of the basic guilty/not guilty finding, are you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4766.672], "stop_times": [4776.126], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4766.672}, "reply_to": "21537__1_142", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21537__1_144", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Well, I've had experience with that.\nAnd my experience has been, as I've said before, I might ask for a bifurcated trial, but if the judge thinks that that evidence is going to come in against my client anyway, the judge is going to deny bifurcation.\nIf the judge says you're right, this would be prejudicial to introduce this evidence in the main case, then we'll bifurcate the trial, and we'll let the jury find guilt, guilty not guilty and then find sentencing facts if the guilty verdict is returned.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4776.126, 4777.629, 4788.303], "stop_times": [4777.629, 4788.303, 4801.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4776.126}, "reply_to": "21537__1_143", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_145", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Do you know what the Kansas system is?\nI mean, right after Apprendi, they transformed their guideline system into one where the jury makes the findings, but are all of their trials bifurcated?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4801.223, 4804.817], "stop_times": [4804.817, 4815.713], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4801.223}, "reply_to": "21537__1_144", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__1_146", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I don't know if they bifurcate all their trials.\nMy understanding is that it works in a way that's similar to what I'm suggesting could happen in Federal court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4815.713, 4820.171], "stop_times": [4820.171, 4825.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4815.713}, "reply_to": "21537__1_145", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_147", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "As long as you're on the subject, I'm quite... you're going to... what is your reaction to what I've written, which you've, you used to say wrong, wrong, wrong, but I want to know why.\nAnd what I know why in particular is I speculated somewhat, that the reason that this might work, your side of it, if it works despite the, the complication, the bifurcated trials, etc.\n, is that 97 percent of the cases are handled through plea bargaining, and this will give you a little bit of a leg up, which I speculated the defense bar likes.\nI'm not surprised.\nBut then, I thought with in the long run, you just can't have a system of justice that depends for its workable nature upon plea bargaining, which in fact depends on the weapons you give to prosecutors.\nAnd so I ended up thinking, I just can't underwrite such a thing.\nAnd I'd like to get your, your, your reaction to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4825.827, 4837.715, 4849.771, 4858.603, 4859.718, 4874.513, 4879.325], "stop_times": [4837.715, 4849.771, 4858.603, 4859.718, 4874.513, 4879.325, 4883.701], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4825.827}, "reply_to": "21537__1_146", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__1_148", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Your Honor, here's how plea bargaining works now.\nThe prosecutor charges the easiest crime to prove that he can prove.\nThere is no effective plea bargaining in most of those cases because the prosecutor knows he's going to win that trial.\nSo the defendant pleads guilty because he doesn't want to lose his, his reduction for acceptance of responsibility.\nI think what changes is probably if our proposal is accepted, that there is more meaningful negotiation and that prosecutors and defense attorney's will come to an understand in most cases of what sentencing facts are provable, and what are not, and cases will continue to plead out much the same as they do right now, except more effectively because we eliminate the problem of the prosecutor being able to prove the easiest charge and save the heart of the case for sentencing.\nI think with that, Your Honor, I will, unless there are other questions, defer to my colleague.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4883.701, 4886.013, 4890.35, 4897.037, 4904.383, 4933.567], "stop_times": [4886.013, 4890.35, 4897.037, 4904.383, 4933.567, 4945.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4883.701}, "reply_to": "21537__1_147", "speaker": "t_christopher_kelly"}
{"id": "21537__1_149", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Kelly.\nMs. Scapicchio.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4945.085, 4946.571], "stop_times": [4946.571, 4949.543], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 4945.085}, "reply_to": "21537__1_148", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__2_000", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "As to question one, there's no meaningful difference between the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the Washington State Guidelines.\nThe Government conceded as much in their brief to this Court in Blakely.\nWhen they filed an amicus brief in Blakely they told this Court, or they urged this Court not to invalidate the Washington State Guidelines because, they told this Court, if you do, they are so similar to the Federal Guidelines that the Federal Guidelines will fall as well.\nAnd here they are, less than five months later, standing before the same Court, saying something completely different.\nNow, it's not that they're so similar to the Washington State Guidelines, but that they're completely different, and that they don't operate in the same manner at all.\nAnd what it comes down to is that for Sixth Amendment purposes, the source of the law doesn't matter.\nThe Government got it right when they filed their amicus brief in Blakely.\nIt doesn't matter to a defendant whether or not the source of the law is legislative, or the source of the law is by commission or regulatory body.\nIf the sentence is going to increase, based on a fact that, that the law makes essential to punishment, that must be pled and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [4949.543, 4963.911, 4968.164, 4983.191, 4990.455, 4999.0, 5006.076, 5009.941, 5020.176], "stop_times": [4963.911, 4968.164, 4983.191, 4990.455, 4999.0, 5006.076, 5009.941, 5020.176, 5030.041], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 4949.543}, "reply_to": "21537__1_149", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_001", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "So can I ask you the same question?\nImagine that the statute says bank robbery is zero to twenty years.\nCase one, a separate statute says a guideline commission will make distinctions, and the guideline commission says,\n\"five years in the ordinary case, seven years with a gun. \"\nCase two, the same thing but a parole commission does it.\nCase three, the same thing, but a court of appeals panel does it, under the guise of what's arbitrary, what isn't.\nThey're all, in your opinion, to be treated alike.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5030.041, 5031.489, 5038.752, 5049.815, 5053.326, 5058.277, 5066.716], "stop_times": [5031.489, 5038.752, 5049.815, 5053.326, 5058.277, 5066.716, 5069.012], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5030.041}, "reply_to": "21537__2_000", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__2_002", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "If there's a fact necessary to increase the sentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5069.012], "stop_times": [5072.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5069.012}, "reply_to": "21537__2_001", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_003", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, there is just what I said, just what I said.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5072.622], "stop_times": [5073.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5072.622}, "reply_to": "21537__2_002", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__2_004", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Then yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5073.553], "stop_times": [5074.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5073.553}, "reply_to": "21537__2_003", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_005", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5074.296], "stop_times": [5075.039], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5074.296}, "reply_to": "21537__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__2_006", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "With respect to Mr. Fanfan in this case, Mr. Fanfan's sentence was promulgated based on the jury verdict alone.\nMr. Fanfan, the Government chose to indict Mr. Fanfan on a single count of conspiracy.\nHe went to trial on a single count of conspiracy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5075.039, 5085.813, 5090.643], "stop_times": [5085.813, 5090.643, 5093.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5075.039}, "reply_to": "21537__2_005", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_007", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Conspiracy to what?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5093.615], "stop_times": [5095.267], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5093.615}, "reply_to": "21537__2_006", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__2_008", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Conspiracy to distribute 500 grams of cocaine.\nThe Government knew at the time of trial that Mr. Fanfan was arrested with 281 grams of crack cocaine at the time of his arrest.\nThe Government chose not to indict him for that 281 grams of crack cocaine, and instead, they chose to prove the easiest possibly indictment before the jury.\nOnce the jury was dismissed in this case, the Government then sought to increase Mr. Fanfan's sentence by 157 months, based on the possession of the crack cocaine that they knew about at the very beginning, and we're suggesting that Judge Hornby did the right thing in limiting Mr. Fanfan's sentence to that which was supported by the jury verdict alone and nothing else.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5095.267, 5097.952, 5105.587, 5116.072], "stop_times": [5097.952, 5105.587, 5116.072, 5139.478], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5095.267}, "reply_to": "21537__2_007", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_009", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Judge Hornby had some distress in doing that, didn't he, because the difference was quite large?\nBased on what the judge found, it would have been fifteen or sixteen years as opposed to five or six years?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5139.478, 5145.506], "stop_times": [5145.506, 5153.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5139.478}, "reply_to": "21537__2_008", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__2_010", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "What Judge Hornby did for Mr. Fanfan was, he conducted what he called a presentence, a pre-Blakely hearing, and at the pre-Blakely hearing he allowed the prosecutor to present evidence relative to relevant conduct involved in the offense.\nAnd the prosecutor presented evidence that the relevant conduct included this possession of 281 grams of crack cocaine, as well as a case agent who claimed that Mr. Fanfan was the leader of this entire conspiracy.\nAnd then Judge Hornby went on to say, based on everything that he heard in the pre-Blakely hearing, if given the opportunity, he would sentence my client to between 188 to 235 months.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5153.68, 5168.745, 5183.894], "stop_times": [5168.745, 5183.894, 5195.783], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5153.68}, "reply_to": "21537__2_009", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_011", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "He didn't say it, that that was his discretionary choice.\nHe said that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5195.783, 5200.053], "stop_times": [5200.053, 5200.946], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5195.783}, "reply_to": "21537__2_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__2_012", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "He was required.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5200.946], "stop_times": [5201.606], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5200.946}, "reply_to": "21537__2_011", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_013", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--He made, he made those findings of fact, that... leadership role and the quantity of drugs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5201.606], "stop_times": [5209.257], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5201.606}, "reply_to": "21537__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__2_014", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "He did.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5209.257], "stop_times": [5209.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5209.257}, "reply_to": "21537__2_013", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_015", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And on the basis of those two he said the guidelines would require me to come up with this higher sentence, not that using the guidelines as advisory he would have gotten--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5209.695], "stop_times": [5222.698], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5209.695}, "reply_to": "21537__2_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__2_016", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Absolutely.\nIt was the guidelines required him to impose sentence between 188 to 235 months.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5222.698, 5223.275], "stop_times": [5223.275, 5229.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5222.698}, "reply_to": "21537__2_015", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_017", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--And then the other, that's the high range, and the low range is, I'll just stick with the crime that he was indicted for, and that's five or six years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5229.591], "stop_times": [5240.365], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5229.591}, "reply_to": "21537__2_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__2_018", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "He, what Judge Hornby did is, is he sentenced Mr. Fanfan based solely on the jury's verdict.\nThe jury only heard evidence of the conspiracy to distribute 500 grams of crack cocaine.\nBecause the jury only heard evidence, and thus returned a verdict based solely on the 500 grams of crack cocaine, then Mr. Fanfan's sentence, according to the Judge Hornby after this Court decided Blakely, was limited to the jury verdict alone.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5240.365, 5245.938, 5251.155], "stop_times": [5245.938, 5251.155, 5264.885], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5240.365}, "reply_to": "21537__2_017", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_019", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "That's quite a windfall for Mr. Fanfan, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5264.885], "stop_times": [5269.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5264.885}, "reply_to": "21537__2_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21537__2_020", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, in this particular case I would say no, because the Government knew when this Court decided Apprendi, and certainly knew by the time this Court decided Ring, that if they wanted to increase a defendant's sentence beyond the statutory max, that they should plead it and prove it in the indictment.\nAnd in this case, they chose not to.\nAnd so, whether or not Mr. Fanfan may have... get some benefit because of this Court's decision in Blakely, certainly he does.\nI'm not denying that he doesn't.\nBut only because the Government didn't do what this Court told them they should do in both Apprendi and Ring.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5269.881, 5289.05, 5290.892, 5298.488, 5299.808], "stop_times": [5289.05, 5290.892, 5298.488, 5299.808, 5306.496], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5269.881}, "reply_to": "21537__2_019", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_021", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Did the trial judge give any indication of what sentence he would have imposed if he were not constrained by the guidelines?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5306.496], "stop_times": [5314.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5306.496}, "reply_to": "21537__2_020", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__2_022", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "He did not.\nHe indicated that, if the guidelines applied, that he believed Mr. Fanfan fell between 188 and 235 months.\nThere was no discussion at all as to whether or not he had discretion to sentence anywhere outside the guidelines during this proceeding.\nAnd, with respect to question two in this case, whether or not the guidelines are severable, which of course is the more difficult question before the Court, our proposal to sever out those portions of the guidelines that require judicial fact finding by a preponderance of the evidence will accomplish the sentencing reform goals.\nThe goals of the sentencing reform were uniformity, proportionality, and certainty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5314.669, 5316.405, 5326.186, 5334.814, 5357.477], "stop_times": [5316.405, 5326.186, 5334.814, 5357.477, 5362.306], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5314.669}, "reply_to": "21537__2_021", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_023", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "You wouldn't sever out the ones that would permit a downward departure, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5362.306], "stop_times": [5366.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5362.306}, "reply_to": "21537__2_022", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__2_024", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Would we sever the portions of the statute that require--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5366.643], "stop_times": [5370.98], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5366.643}, "reply_to": "21537__2_023", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_025", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "You would leave in place the provisions for downward departures?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5370.98], "stop_times": [5374.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5370.98}, "reply_to": "21537__2_024", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__2_026", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--We would leave in place the majority of the sentencing guidelines.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5374.239], "stop_times": [5377.212], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5374.239}, "reply_to": "21537__2_025", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_027", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, and... but could you answer my question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5377.212], "stop_times": [5379.069], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5377.212}, "reply_to": "21537__2_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__2_028", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, would I sever out--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5379.069], "stop_times": [5381.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5379.069}, "reply_to": "21537__2_027", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_029", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Would you leave in place the provisions for downward departure?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5381.587], "stop_times": [5386.212], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5381.587}, "reply_to": "21537__2_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__2_030", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5386.212], "stop_times": [5386.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5386.212}, "reply_to": "21537__2_029", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_031", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "How can you do that?\nThe statute that makes the guidelines mandatory applies to both upwards and downwards departures, so I have always had trouble knowing what provision of the statute anybody severs.\nI can understand your saying that there's a bunch of unconstitutional applications of the statute, and you have to set aside the sentences in those particular cases, but I simply don't understand severing a single provision that covers both upward and downward departures.\nHow do you sever it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5386.738, 5388.813, 5399.048, 5413.72], "stop_times": [5388.813, 5399.048, 5413.72, 5414.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5386.738}, "reply_to": "21537__2_030", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__2_032", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, I think you sever it by severing out the unconstitutional portions of it.\nAnd you sever it by getting rid of anything that indicates that indicates it's a judicial fact finding by a preponderance of the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5414.447, 5418.162], "stop_times": [5418.162, 5425.321], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5414.447}, "reply_to": "21537__2_031", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_033", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "But that's the same, that's the same provision that allows departures of the same... by the same procedure.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5425.321], "stop_times": [5430.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5425.321}, "reply_to": "21537__2_032", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__2_034", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, the departures in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5430.96], "stop_times": [5432.363], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5430.96}, "reply_to": "21537__2_033", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_035", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "It seems to me you're not severing a piece of a statute, you're just severing a bunch of applications of the statute you think are invalid.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5432.363], "stop_times": [5438.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5432.363}, "reply_to": "21537__2_034", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__2_036", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--The applications of the statute that are invalid in this case are the ones that require judicial fact finding by a preponderance of the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5438.762], "stop_times": [5446.358], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5438.762}, "reply_to": "21537__2_035", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_037", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Correct.\nI understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5446.358, 5446.647], "stop_times": [5446.647, 5447.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5446.358}, "reply_to": "21537__2_036", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__2_038", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Those under Blakely need to be severed.\nWhat we're left with now is a statute that needs to, that needs to function in terms of saving the guidelines.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5447.101, 5448.383], "stop_times": [5448.383, 5455.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5447.101}, "reply_to": "21537__2_037", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_039", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "But would it... would it really save the guidelines in the way that Congress intended them, to strike basically the provision for enhancements, and leaving in place the provisions for downward departures?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5455.275], "stop_times": [5469.764], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5455.275}, "reply_to": "21537__2_038", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__2_040", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "It's not going to operate exactly the way Congress intended.\nBecause Congress never intended to pass a statute that was unconstitutional.\nAnd so it has to undergo some change.\nAnd in this particular case, what we're saying is, minimize the amount of changes that the statute has to undergo in order to preserve it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5469.764, 5473.768, 5477.566, 5481.653], "stop_times": [5473.768, 5477.566, 5481.653, 5488.712], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5469.764}, "reply_to": "21537__2_039", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_041", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, maybe we should just leave it to Congress to decide, because it doesn't sound like the scheme Congress intended.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5488.712], "stop_times": [5495.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5488.712}, "reply_to": "21537__2_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21537__2_042", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, Congress intended a mandatory system.\nIt's clear that Congress intended a mandatory system.\nThe Government--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5495.854, 5500.063, 5503.218], "stop_times": [5500.063, 5503.218, 5504.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5495.854}, "reply_to": "21537__2_041", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_043", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And it intended fact finding by a preponderance for both upward adjustments and downward.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5504.149], "stop_times": [5511.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5504.149}, "reply_to": "21537__2_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21537__2_044", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Not necessarily fact finding by the judiciary.\nIt's not one of the listed goals of the sentencing reform act.\nThose listed goals are uniformity, proportionality and certainty, and those goals can still be met under the proposal that we're suggesting the Court adopt.\nThere will still be uniformity in sentencing, there will still be proportionality and there will still be certainty of sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5511.291, 5515.378, 5519.26, 5528.177], "stop_times": [5515.378, 5519.26, 5528.177, 5534.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5511.291}, "reply_to": "21537__2_043", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_045", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Well, but will there be proportionality if the sentences, sentences can be downward, the jury verdict could be adjusted downward, but not upward?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5534.454], "stop_times": [5545.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5534.454}, "reply_to": "21537__2_044", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__2_046", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "If it turns out, Mr. Chief Justice, that there is some, some difference in the severity of a sentence that a defendant receives, certainly Congress could, could come in and make the appropriate changes if that's the result of the proposal that we're suggesting, but the proportionality wouldn't change.\nYou know, the degree of crimes is still going to line up in the exact same manner.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5545.311, 5565.329], "stop_times": [5565.329, 5569.787], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5545.311}, "reply_to": "21537__2_045", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_047", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "But you can say the same thing if we simply said that the whole guidelines fall, and they're simply there for judges to apply if they wish.\nYou can say,\n\"Well, if Congress doesn't like that they can come in and put a new system. \"\nThat's true any time Congress acts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5569.787, 5579.447, 5580.068, 5583.245], "stop_times": [5579.447, 5580.068, 5583.245, 5585.557], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5569.787}, "reply_to": "21537__2_046", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__2_048", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "But... absolutely, Mr. Chief Justice, it is true any time Congress acts, but in this particular case, the Government has the burden of proving the inseverability of the statute.\nWe're attempting to show that the statute is severable to save the guidelines in this case, and we're attempting to show that by suggesting to the Court that you don't have to throw out twenty years of sentencing reform.\nThat the guidelines should still be mandatory; we're suggesting that the mandatory portions of the guidelines remain, the bulk of the guidelines remain, and we're changing the fact finder.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5585.557, 5595.095, 5607.727], "stop_times": [5595.095, 5607.727, 5618.622], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5585.557}, "reply_to": "21537__2_047", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_049", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Why do you... why do you have to call it severability?\nSuppose we just said it's clear that whenever these facts have not been found by a jury, the guidelines cannot be applied?\nThat the guidelines are unconstitutional, as applied, when there's been no jury finding, and leave it.\nWe're not severing any particular language, we're just saying that that portion, that proceeding in that fashion produces and unconstitutional sentence.\nAnd then let the Government work out how it wants to find its way around that problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5618.622, 5620.768, 5629.208, 5636.334, 5647.396], "stop_times": [5620.768, 5629.208, 5636.334, 5647.396, 5653.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5618.622}, "reply_to": "21537__2_048", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__2_050", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "That's certainly an option that the Court could consider.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5653.795], "stop_times": [5657.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5653.795}, "reply_to": "21537__2_049", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_051", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I'm just not sure, I share Justice Stevens' perplexity as to whether that's really properly described as severing part of the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5657.343], "stop_times": [5667.846], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5657.343}, "reply_to": "21537__2_050", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__2_052", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And may I add this thought, that it seems to me, I don't know whether this is true; Mr. Clement and I had a dialogue that was inconclusive; I had been under the impression, perhaps erroneous, that in fact the number of unconstitutional departures if one follows Apprendi as being the constitutional rule, is actually a small percentage of the total, and if it should follow that only three, four, five, six percent of the sentences that have heretofore been imposed or will be imposed in the future would be unconstitutional, that's a pretty weak reason for saying the whole statute is unconstitutional on its face, or even in one provision of the statute.\nIt seems to me you just say,\n\"Oh, okay, you can't impose those sentences in those three percent of the cases. \"\nI don't know why that's a departure from our prior practice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5667.846, 5701.76, 5703.124, 5706.218], "stop_times": [5701.76, 5703.124, 5706.218, 5709.562], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5667.846}, "reply_to": "21537__2_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__2_053", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I, Well, I think because what's left is, is that the system will then be open to some manipulation, under that scenario.\nIf the Government can control who it is that will be sentenced under the guidelines and who will not be sentenced under the guidelines, then the system is, is ripe for manipulation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5709.562, 5717.901], "stop_times": [5717.901, 5727.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5709.562}, "reply_to": "21537__2_052", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_054", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "No, my suggestion is everybody can be sentenced under the Guidelines; the only difference is that in three or four percent of the cases you may have to bring a jury in to get an enhanced sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5727.726], "stop_times": [5735.362], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5727.726}, "reply_to": "21537__2_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__2_055", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "In, under that scenario, if any fact that needed to increase a defendant's sentence was pled and proved to a jury, that would suffice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5735.362], "stop_times": [5743.99], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5735.362}, "reply_to": "21537__2_054", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_056", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "You wouldn't care whether you call this severing, severability or not, would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5743.99], "stop_times": [5747.873], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5743.99}, "reply_to": "21537__2_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__2_057", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Absolutely not.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5747.873], "stop_times": [5748.449], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5747.873}, "reply_to": "21537__2_056", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_058", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I didn't think you would.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5748.449], "stop_times": [5749.459], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5748.449}, "reply_to": "21537__2_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__2_059", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "It produces the same results, whether it's, you call it severance or the way that the statute works.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5749.459], "stop_times": [5756.046], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5749.459}, "reply_to": "21537__2_058", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_060", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And I assume, don't you, that any solution we come up to is likely to be an interim solution anyway?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5756.046], "stop_times": [5760.626], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5756.046}, "reply_to": "21537__2_059", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21537__2_061", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "It's very likely to be interim solution and the legislature will tell us what they really want us to do and we'll all make the appropriate adjustments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5760.626], "stop_times": [5768.139], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5760.626}, "reply_to": "21537__2_060", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_062", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "But the idea is that this works because most cases are plea bargained.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5768.139], "stop_times": [5773.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5768.139}, "reply_to": "21537__2_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__2_063", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Most cases are plea bargained.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5773.795], "stop_times": [5775.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5773.795}, "reply_to": "21537__2_062", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_064", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "So what you'll do if you're right, is all you would say is any time that the prosecutor wants to say that you committed the bank robbery or you committed the drug offense with more than a minimal amount of money or more than a minimal amount of drug, or there were guns, they get into a bargain, and they end up with a sentence once they bargain... if that's the sentence, because they're not even going to contest it before the judge, both sides will come in and agree.\nBut in those few cases where they do contest it, you would have to have the jury find the facts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5775.653, 5800.71], "stop_times": [5800.71, 5805.912], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5775.653}, "reply_to": "21537__2_063", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__2_065", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5805.912], "stop_times": [5806.655], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5805.912}, "reply_to": "21537__2_064", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_066", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Now, the only reason that I find it disturbing is to think that Congress could have wanted such a system is given other developments in Congress, mandatory minimums and all kinds of things, that seems to me to be a system that would really, might make non-uniformity in reality, worse than it was before 1986.\nSee, I mean, my goodness, every prosecutor's going to be doing something different, every defense attorney; everything will depend upon the bargains.\nThe judges when they come in will think different things.\nI mean--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5806.655, 5826.429, 5834.807, 5837.575], "stop_times": [5826.429, 5834.807, 5837.575, 5837.947], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5806.655}, "reply_to": "21537__2_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__2_067", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "The--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5837.947], "stop_times": [5838.568], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5837.947}, "reply_to": "21537__2_066", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_068", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Should we uphold something like that in the face of a Congress that wanted uniformity?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5838.568], "stop_times": [5842.859], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5838.568}, "reply_to": "21537__2_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__2_069", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "--Yes, and I'll tell you why.\nBecause that's exactly the way that the guidelines operate now.\nThe only thing that's changing is the identity of the fact finder.\nThat the Government can come in now and charge whatever it wants, because it's free to charge whatever it wants, and that, the Government in this case, or in any case, could then bargain with defense counsel and the defendant as to which facts they may want to plead to, as to which portions of the indictment they may want to plead to, happens every day.\nAnd, and, and so, if that's the case, changing the identity of the fact finder isn't going to change that process at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5842.859, 5845.255, 5848.971, 5852.23, 5871.633], "stop_times": [5845.255, 5848.971, 5852.23, 5871.633, 5878.442], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5842.859}, "reply_to": "21537__2_068", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_070", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Did you find out anything in your research on this where anybody in the... this discussion of the guidelines began, I think, in the early 70's, it's been around for 30 years.\nThe guidelines have been law for 17 years, and until recently with Apprendi, is there a history of anything being written about the guidelines being unconstitutional for this Sixth Amendment reason?\nDid any group of judges, or defense attorneys, or academics or anybody write anything that we could look at until quite recently in which they thought this was a possibility?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5878.442, 5889.178, 5900.612], "stop_times": [5889.178, 5900.612, 5913.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5878.442}, "reply_to": "21537__2_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__2_071", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Before quite... before this Court's decision in Apprendi?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5913.076], "stop_times": [5916.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5913.076}, "reply_to": "21537__2_070", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_072", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Yeah, before we began with Apprendi?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5916.048], "stop_times": [5917.041], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5916.048}, "reply_to": "21537__2_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__2_073", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I don't believe so.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5917.041], "stop_times": [5918.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5917.041}, "reply_to": "21537__2_072", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_074", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5918.777], "stop_times": [5919.065], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5918.777}, "reply_to": "21537__2_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21537__2_075", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "I'm not aware of any.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5919.065], "stop_times": [5920.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5919.065}, "reply_to": "21537__2_074", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_076", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Have you read Justice Thomas's opinion in Apprendi?\nHe's got a lot of prior law in there that maybe would be of interest to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5920.013, 5925.669], "stop_times": [5925.669, 5931.409], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5920.013}, "reply_to": "21537__2_075", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__2_077", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "And with respect to Mr. Fanfan in this case, Your Honors, we're asking that this Court give intelligible content to the jury's verdict by finding the district court's imposition of a 78-month sentence based solely on the facts found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5931.409], "stop_times": [5950.894], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5931.409}, "reply_to": "21537__2_076", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_078", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "May I ask just one, one last question?\nDo you agree that within the guidelines ranges, which sometimes are fairly large, that a judge does have the discretion to impose any sentences he wants to based on the conduct of the defendant, whether or not it's proved to the jury?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5950.894, 5952.586], "stop_times": [5952.586, 5965.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5950.894}, "reply_to": "21537__2_077", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__2_079", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Within the guideline range?\nYeah.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5965.839, 5968.523], "stop_times": [5968.523, 5969.599], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5965.839}, "reply_to": "21537__2_078", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_080", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "You get to the range by the jury finding, the judge still retains substantial discretion within the, within the range.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5969.599], "stop_times": [5975.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5969.599}, "reply_to": "21537__2_079", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21537__2_081", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Substantial discretion within the range, yes.\nIf there are no further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5975.21, 5976.862], "stop_times": [5976.862, 5979.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 5975.21}, "reply_to": "21537__2_080", "speaker": "rosemary_curran_scapicchio"}
{"id": "21537__2_082", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Thank you Ms. Scapicchio.\nMr. Clement, you have four minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [5979.276, 5981.238], "stop_times": [5981.238, 5986.439], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 5979.276}, "reply_to": "21537__2_081", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__3_000", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\nThis Court in Mistretta expressed its understanding that the commission was constitutional because it would pursue traditional judicial tasks related to sentencing, and it would not get involved in quintessentially legislative acts of setting maximum penalties, or defining the elements of the crime.\nNow, we of course, think that's quite relevant for the Sixth Amendment issue that's raised in question one; but even if you disagree with us on that, even if you think the non-legislative origins of the guidelines don't matter for purposes of question one, surely they do matter for purposes of the severability analysis under question two.\nBecause if one takes those elements, those enhancement factors in the guidelines, and treats them like true elements of crimes that must go to the jury, then you are giving this non-legislative body's work product the effect of Federal criminal statutes, and that's something that not only Mistretta suggests is problematic, but United States v. Hudson in 18 suggests is problematic.\nAnd the effect is really breathtaking; it is an understatement to say that the effect of that judicial remedial decision would be to create thousands of new Federal crimes.\nNow, let me talk just for a second about the language of severability.\nThere's been some questions about whether what we're really talking about is severability.\nFirst of all you're going to have some cases where there's going to be no enhancing factor at all.\nAnd in those cases you don't need to talk about severability.\nIf there's no Sixth Amendment issue raised in a case, there's no reason to strike anything down and that would be a simple matter of traditional principles of third party standing and facial challenges.\nThe fact that you might have a constitutional problem in this case, doesn't mean that you invalidate the guidelines in those other cases, where they apply without problem.\nThe real question becomes, what do you do in a case where there is a Sixth Amendment problem, assuming Blakely applies to the guidelines?\nAt that point, I think severability is the right way to talk about it.\nOne way of dealing with the case at the point you recognize there's a Sixth Amendment problem in this case is to say,\n\"Well, there's nothing we can do about it, we can't sentence this individual to any more than the upper bound of the sentencing range. \"\nThe second thing you can do is you can say,\n\"Well, okay, there's a constitutional problem, but the result is that we sever 3553(b), we don't make the guidelines mandatory, and we allow the judge to impose a discretionary sentence within the range of the statute. \"\nThat is what we think is the appropriate solution.\nAs a couple of you have mentioned, what we may be talking about here is an interim solution anyway as Congress may well get involved.\nThat's why in considering what regime of remediability or severability best serves the interests of Congress in uniformity and proportionality, it pays to pay particular attention to the cases that are in the pipeline now.\nAnd on those cases, there's no question which proposal better serves the interest of uniformity and proportionality.\nRespondents have to admit that they are seeking a huge sentencing windfall here.\nOne other point that bears mention is this idea of, the suggestion that because the guidelines will not be binding in every case, the Government somehow controls the decision as to whether or not it's a guidelines case or not.\nThat is not the case.\nThat decision under the system will rest with the judge.\nIf there is an enhancement sought, but it's not found in the basis of the judge, then there's no Sixth Amendment problem in that case, and the case can go forward.\nThe irony, of course, is that the consequence of applying Blakely to the guidelines is to create more power with the prosecutor, because as Justice Breyer pointed out, under the current system of the guidelines, the prosecutor cannot control through the indictment exactly what sentencing factors the judge will consider.\nThe Burns case, for example, that this Court had involved a case in where the judge sua sponte took notice of sentencing factors that neither the prosecutor nor the defendant very much wanted in front of the court.\nThat will no longer be possible under a system where everything has to be in the indictment, so the result is to strengthen the hand of the Government.\nThe last thing is this idea of bifurcation is not a panacea.\nI know Justice Scalia, you've thrown that out in a number of instances, but the traditional rule in cases with real elements of real Federal crimes is that you don't get to bifurcate out one element that the defendant doesn't want to put before the jury.\nThat's the, that's the binding law in cases like Collamore out of the First Circuit and Barker out of the Ninth Circuit.\nSo, I think it's wrong to suggest that, that bifurcation is going to solve all these problems.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [6251.089, 5986.439, 6005.098, 6023.674, 6046.542, 6057.111, 6061.114, 6064.336, 6070.198, 6073.374, 6084.027, 6091.867, 6099.176, 6102.52, 6108.009, 6113.749, 6116.016, 6131.21, 6133.689, 6140.664, 6153.751, 6159.611, 6164.441, 6176.99, 6178.021, 6181.448, 6188.878, 6206.628, 6216.825, 6223.801, 6227.888, 6240.065, 6246.092], "stop_times": [5986.439, 6005.098, 6023.674, 6046.542, 6057.111, 6061.114, 6064.336, 6070.198, 6073.374, 6084.027, 6091.867, 6099.176, 6102.52, 6108.009, 6113.749, 6116.016, 6131.21, 6133.689, 6140.664, 6153.751, 6159.611, 6164.441, 6176.99, 6178.021, 6181.448, 6188.878, 6206.628, 6216.825, 6223.801, 6227.888, 6240.065, 6246.092, 6251.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 6251.089}, "reply_to": "21537__2_082", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21537__3_001", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Clement, the case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [6251.832], "stop_times": [6254.227], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 6251.832}, "reply_to": "21537__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21537__3_002", "conversation_id": "21537", "text": "The honorable court is now adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-104", "start_times": [6254.227], "stop_times": [6258.685], "speaker_type": null, "side": null, "timestamp": 6254.227}, "reply_to": "21537__3_001", "speaker": "<INAUDIBLE>"}
{"id": "21548__0_000", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "We'll now hear argument in Van Orden against Perry.\nMr. Chemerinsky.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [0.0, 5.367], "stop_times": [5.367, 7.159], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__0_001", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Good morning, Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nOn the grounds of the Texas State Capitol, there is one evident religious symbol that conveys a powerful religious message that there is a theistic God and that God has commuted rules for behavior.\nOf course, the government may put religious symbols on its property, including the Ten Commandments, but must do so in a way that does not endorse religion or a particular religion, but does not have the purpose of advancing religion, but does not favor any particular religion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [7.159, 10.381, 21.898], "stop_times": [10.381, 21.898, 37.213], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7.159}, "reply_to": "21548__0_000", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_002", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Mr. Chemerinsky, I suppose that opening statement suggests that you think that Thanksgiving proclamations are also unconstitutional, which were recommended by the very first Congress, the same Congress that proposed the First Amendment.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [37.213], "stop_times": [56.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 37.213}, "reply_to": "21548__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__0_003", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "No, Your Honor, I would--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [56.821], "stop_times": [58.39], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 56.821}, "reply_to": "21548__0_002", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_004", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "They also refer to one God, to a theistic ruler of the universe.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [58.39], "stop_times": [65.737], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 58.39}, "reply_to": "21548__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__0_005", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--No, Your Honor, I think the Thanksgiving proclamations would be constitutional.\nI think it's analogous to the legislative prayers that this Court upheld in Chambers v. Marsh.\nI think it's very different than this Ten Commandments monument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [65.737, 69.164, 73.91], "stop_times": [69.164, 73.91, 77.049], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 65.737}, "reply_to": "21548__0_004", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_006", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "All right.\nBut then you have to narrow your opening statement and say that certainly the State can acknowledge the existence of a unitary God without offending the Establishment Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [77.049, 77.709], "stop_times": [77.709, 93.851], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 77.049}, "reply_to": "21548__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__0_007", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, but it all depends on how it is done.\nHere the way in which it is done is the most powerful and profound religious message that this Court has ever considered on government property.\nHere you have a monument that proclaims not only there is a God, but God has dictated rules of behavior for those who follow him or her.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [93.851, 96.945, 105.284], "stop_times": [96.945, 105.284, 113.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 93.851}, "reply_to": "21548__0_006", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_008", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "I don't know whether that's any more profound or ultrareligious, super religious than the prayer that the chaplain gives every day in the House.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [113.541], "stop_times": [123.117], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 113.541}, "reply_to": "21548__0_007", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21548__0_009", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Your Honor, there is a difference between a prayer that a chaplain gives... in Chambers v. Marsh, this Court emphasized that the prayer by the chaplain was a nonsectarian prayer.\nThis is very much sectarian.\nThis proclaims that there is a God.\nIt proclaims--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [123.117, 133.725, 135.749, 138.349], "stop_times": [133.725, 135.749, 138.349, 139.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 123.117}, "reply_to": "21548__0_008", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_010", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Well, I mean, I haven't read the prayer.\nI would be surprised if I went through all the prayers and there was no mention, direct or indirect, of the Ten Commandments or a couple of them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [139.176, 140.307], "stop_times": [140.307, 149.783], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 139.176}, "reply_to": "21548__0_009", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21548__0_011", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--Your Honor, I would be surprised because here, if you look at these commandments, it's that God has claimed that he is the only God, prohibiting idolatry, prohibiting graven images, prohibiting taking the name of the Lord and God in vain.\nRequiring observing of the sabbath.\nThis is God dictating to God's follower's rules for behavior.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [149.783, 163.613, 165.859], "stop_times": [163.613, 165.859, 171.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 149.783}, "reply_to": "21548__0_010", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_012", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Is there any other... I mean, you can continue if you want, but one difference which I've written down is you say that the difference between this and the prayer is that this is more profoundly religious.\nIs there any other difference, in your opinion?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [171.127, 180.908], "stop_times": [180.908, 183.759], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 171.127}, "reply_to": "21548__0_011", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21548__0_013", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "No.\nI think the key difference is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [183.759, 184.252], "stop_times": [184.252, 185.366], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 183.759}, "reply_to": "21548__0_012", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_014", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "That's the difference?\nSo if I happen to read these prayers in the Congress and I came to the conclusion that in terms of a religious message, I actually thought the prayers had the more religious message, then I should vote against you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [185.366, 185.616], "stop_times": [185.616, 200.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 185.366}, "reply_to": "21548__0_013", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21548__0_015", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nThere are, of course, other differences.\nAs I said to Justice Scalia earlier, with regard to legislative prayer in Chambers versus Marsh, this Court said that there was a history going back to the very first Congress that allowed there to be those kinds of religious invocations.\nTen Commandments monuments standing by themselves, as they do here, certainly are not of that historic origin.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [200.681, 201.341, 203.077, 216.08], "stop_times": [201.341, 203.077, 216.08, 224.17], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 200.681}, "reply_to": "21548__0_014", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_016", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "How about if they're packaged in a museum like setting and there is some interest on the part of the State in preserving something.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [224.17], "stop_times": [235.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 224.17}, "reply_to": "21548__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21548__0_017", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [235.028], "stop_times": [236.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 235.028}, "reply_to": "21548__0_016", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_018", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "And displaying a whole variety of things?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [236.142], "stop_times": [239.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 236.142}, "reply_to": "21548__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21548__0_019", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Of course, there can be Ten Commandments or any religious works as part of a museum setting.\nThis isn't a museum setting, Your Honor.\nEvery monument on the Texas--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [239.28, 244.787, 246.339], "stop_times": [244.787, 246.339, 248.281], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 239.28}, "reply_to": "21548__0_018", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_020", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Is this a kind of a park?\nWhat do we regard this space as?\nWhat is it?\nIs it a park like setting?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [248.281, 249.517, 252.655, 253.853], "stop_times": [249.517, 252.655, 253.853, 255.461], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 248.281}, "reply_to": "21548__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21548__0_021", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--It is a park like setting.\nIt is the acres of the State Capitol grounds.\nEvery monument on the State Capitol grounds is there because the State legislature wanted to convey a particular message.\nIt is a felony in Texas, an impeachable offense to put anything on the Capitol grounds without the approval of the legislature.\nMost of the monuments are there to honor war veterans.\nThis is the only religious message anywhere on the Capitol grounds.\nAnd by itself--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [255.461, 256.742, 259.259, 266.114, 273.294, 276.638, 281.551], "stop_times": [256.742, 259.259, 266.114, 273.294, 276.638, 281.551, 282.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 255.461}, "reply_to": "21548__0_020", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_022", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Well, would it be all right, in your view, if they put several others up for different religions?\nThen is it going to be okay?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [282.665, 289.148], "stop_times": [289.148, 290.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 282.665}, "reply_to": "21548__0_021", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21548__0_023", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--If the clear purpose and message was to honor the diversity of religions in Texas, it would then be permissible.\nIf it were a series of displays like that frieze, the fifteen different--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [290.55, 297.072], "stop_times": [297.072, 301.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 290.55}, "reply_to": "21548__0_022", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_024", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "You don't object to that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [301.408], "stop_times": [302.273], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 301.408}, "reply_to": "21548__0_023", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21548__0_025", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--Quite the contrary, I think it's a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [302.273], "stop_times": [303.653], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 302.273}, "reply_to": "21548__0_024", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_026", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Or the depiction on the door of the Court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [303.653], "stop_times": [306.625], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 303.653}, "reply_to": "21548__0_025", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21548__0_027", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--Quite the contrary.\nThis is exactly how the State may display the Ten Commandments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [306.625, 308.444], "stop_times": [308.444, 311.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 306.625}, "reply_to": "21548__0_026", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_028", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "But the prayers in Congress doesn't do that and our Thanksgiving proclamations don't do that.\nThey invoke a God, a unitary God, and that's contrary to the dictates of some religions that believe that there are a lot of gods.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [311.705, 317.194], "stop_times": [317.194, 327.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 311.705}, "reply_to": "21548__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__0_029", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [327.985], "stop_times": [329.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 327.985}, "reply_to": "21548__0_028", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_030", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "We don't pray to gods, the prayers are always to God.\nYou know, I don't see why the one is good and the other is bad.\nIt's no answer to say, well, you know, the former has been around for a long time.\nWell, it has but it suggests what the framers and what our society for several hundred years has believed the Establishment Clause means.\nAnd it does not... it is not too sectarian if it invokes a unitary God.\nNow, you're saying it becomes too sectarian when it invokes the Ten Commandments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [329.538, 332.881, 336.391, 342.335, 351.994, 361.116], "stop_times": [332.881, 336.391, 342.335, 351.994, 361.116, 366.583], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 329.538}, "reply_to": "21548__0_029", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__0_031", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nI'm saying several things.\nAs I said earlier, first, this Court in Chambers v. Marsh said that there was a unique history to legislative prayers.\nThere isn't a similar history here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [366.583, 368.425, 370.775, 376.803], "stop_times": [368.425, 370.775, 376.803, 378.372], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 366.583}, "reply_to": "21548__0_030", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_032", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Mr. Chemerinsky, too, doesn't the venue count?\nAfter all, we have had the question of prayer in schools, and the Court has said that that was not all right.\nPrayer in the legislature was distinguished.\nSo it's not just prayer anywhere that the government wants to have it is okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [378.372, 384.4, 392.035, 395.917], "stop_times": [384.4, 392.035, 395.917, 401.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 378.372}, "reply_to": "21548__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21548__0_033", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Of course, Justice Ginsburg, the venue counts.\nAnd here the venue is very important.\nIt is the corner between the Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court.\nAnd in that way, this monument standing alone does convey the government's endorsement for religion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [401.862, 403.802, 406.114, 410.778], "stop_times": [403.802, 406.114, 410.778, 417.344], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 401.862}, "reply_to": "21548__0_032", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_034", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Okay.\nBut if the legislature itself can have its sessions opened with a prayer, can the legislature itself want to have the Ten Commandments posted within the legislative halls?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [417.344, 417.594], "stop_times": [417.594, 430.719], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 417.344}, "reply_to": "21548__0_033", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21548__0_035", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Your Honor, I think there is a very different message that's conveyed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [430.719], "stop_times": [433.857], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 430.719}, "reply_to": "21548__0_034", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_036", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Can it do that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [433.857], "stop_times": [434.6], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 433.857}, "reply_to": "21548__0_035", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21548__0_037", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "No, Your Honor, it can't post the Ten Commandments by itself in its legislative halls because that would then be the government endorsing expression for support for that message.\nIt cannot be, Your Honor, that just because there is a legislative prayer, that any religious message anywhere on government property would then be permissible.\nAs Justice Kennedy has said in his opinion for--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [434.6, 443.971, 452.394], "stop_times": [443.971, 452.394, 454.541], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 434.6}, "reply_to": "21548__0_036", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_038", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "But it's so hard to draw that line.\nIf the legislature can open its own sessions attended by the public with a prayer, you say it cannot, in the same building, display the Ten Commandments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [454.541, 456.686], "stop_times": [456.686, 468.491], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 454.541}, "reply_to": "21548__0_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21548__0_039", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--That's right, because the message from the government is quite different.\nThe message with legislative prayers, as this Court found in Chambers v. Marsh, is a recognition of a long historical practice.\nBut when it comes to the Ten Commandments, it really is different than even a legislative prayer.\nThis declares not only there is a God, but that God has proclaimed rules for behavior.\nThe Ten Commandments come from sacred texts.\nAs Justice Kennedy said in his opinion of County of Allegheny, certainly a city council could not put atop the city hall building a large Latin cross, even if that city council begins every day with a prayer.\nIt cannot be, though, just because some religious messages are alllowed, like a prayer, that everything then becomes permissible.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [468.491, 472.373, 479.925, 484.012, 488.842, 491.608, 505.067], "stop_times": [472.373, 479.925, 484.012, 488.842, 491.608, 505.067, 511.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 468.491}, "reply_to": "21548__0_038", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_040", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Well, you know, in the First Amendment speech area, we're very, very strict.\nA moment's delay in publication is a constitutional crisis.\nAnd I'm not sure that we should carry that over to this area, where there is this obsessive concern with any mention of religion.\nThat seems to me to show a hostility to religion.\nI just don't see a balanced dialogue in our cases or in these kinds of arguments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [511.383, 518.236, 521.679, 531.34, 535.615], "stop_times": [518.236, 521.679, 531.34, 535.615, 540.733], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 511.383}, "reply_to": "21548__0_039", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21548__0_041", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Your Honor, I don't believe there should be an obsessive concern with religion.\nIf the Ten Commandments are displayed as part of an overall display of law givers, like that frieze, it's permissible.\nBut when you put sacred texts somewhere on government property, then the message is that the government is endorsing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [540.733, 543.667, 550.104], "stop_times": [543.667, 550.104, 556.337], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 540.733}, "reply_to": "21548__0_040", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_042", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "This is a classic avert your eyes.\nIf an atheist walked by, he can avert his eyes, he can think about something else.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [556.337, 558.566], "stop_times": [558.566, 564.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 556.337}, "reply_to": "21548__0_041", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21548__0_043", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--I don't think so, Your Honor.\nThis Court has said the key is that the government can't endorse religion, in a way that makes some feel like insiders and some like outsiders.\nImagine somebody who is Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [564.882, 566.739, 573.593], "stop_times": [566.739, 573.593, 577.696], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 564.882}, "reply_to": "21548__0_042", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_044", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "May I ask you this question.\nSupposing... I recently read a case from the Seventh Circuit on what they did in Lacrosse, Wisconsin.\nAnd as we all know, this organization has donated Ten Commandments monuments all over the country.\nAnd what they did there is they sold the parcel back to the Eagles, their name, and put up a sign which read, this property is not owned or maintained by the City of Lacrosse, nor does the city endorse the religious expression thereon.\nNow, my question to you is, if there were a similar disclaimer on this monument, would that be an adequate remedy, in your view?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [577.696, 579.471, 584.838, 590.245, 604.984], "stop_times": [579.471, 584.838, 590.245, 604.984, 612.415], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 577.696}, "reply_to": "21548__0_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__0_045", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--It would be a harder case, but I don't think it would be an adequate remedy.\nAnd the reason is the city cannot put a religious symbol standing alone on government property just through disclaimer.\nThat's exactly what County of Allegheny was.\nThere the nativity scene in the courthouse had a plaque saying it was donated by others, but that can't excuse it because otherwise the city could put the large Latin cross just with a disclaimer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [612.415, 615.22, 621.824, 624.053], "stop_times": [615.22, 621.824, 624.053, 634.827], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 612.415}, "reply_to": "21548__0_044", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_046", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "But if the test is whether the reasonable observer would think that the government is endorsing the religious message, wouldn't the disclaimer make it clear to the reasonable observer the government was not endorsing the message?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [634.827], "stop_times": [646.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 634.827}, "reply_to": "21548__0_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__0_047", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "I think the disclaimer would make it a harder case, but I think when you're dealing with the ground in a Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court, that placement, when you're dealing with the Ten Commandments, sacred texts, I still think that the message the reasonable observer would be that this is the government endorsing religion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [646.882], "stop_times": [663.889], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 646.882}, "reply_to": "21548__0_046", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_048", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "At some point, would the State's interest in preserving old objects overcome the objection constitutionally?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [663.889], "stop_times": [673.344], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 663.889}, "reply_to": "21548__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21548__0_049", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Yes, at some point, it could where it was clear to the reasonable observer that it was there because it was an old object.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [673.344], "stop_times": [679.576], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 673.344}, "reply_to": "21548__0_048", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_050", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "How did this monument get there?\nWas it in... is it true that it was put in as a result of promoting a movie about the Ten Commandments?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [679.576, 682.093], "stop_times": [682.093, 689.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 679.576}, "reply_to": "21548__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21548__0_051", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "The record is unclear as to that.\nThere are certainly many indications in the popular press that Cecil B. DeMille together with his movie, The Ten Commandments, worked with the Friends of Eagles to have these monuments put around the country.\nBut there is nothing in the legislative history that links this particular monument to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [689.235, 691.177, 700.231], "stop_times": [691.177, 700.231, 704.634], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 689.235}, "reply_to": "21548__0_050", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_052", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Isn't the display on the tablets on the top before you get to the text, before you get to, I am the Lord, thy God.\nI thought that those were replicas of what was in the film.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [704.634, 712.929], "stop_times": [712.929, 716.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 704.634}, "reply_to": "21548__0_051", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21548__0_053", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "I don't know that, Your Honor.\nI've tried to find out what that text is.\nIt is not in Hebrew.\nIt is not in a script that anyone was able to recognize.\nBut it is important to notice that if you look at the entire monument, in addition to the Ten Commandments, there is also a Latin symbol of Christ, there is also Jewish Stars of David.\nAnd as I was saying in response to Justice Kennedy's question, imagine the Muslim or the Buddhist who walks into the State Supreme Court to have his or her case heard.\nThat person will see this monument and realize it's not his or her government.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [716.812, 719.534, 722.029, 723.62, 725.357, 734.645, 743.022], "stop_times": [719.534, 722.029, 723.62, 725.357, 734.645, 743.022, 746.383], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 716.812}, "reply_to": "21548__0_052", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_054", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "I thought Muslims accept the Ten Commandments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [746.383], "stop_times": [749.877], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 746.383}, "reply_to": "21548__0_053", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__0_055", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "No, Your Honor, the Muslims do not accept the sacred nature of the Ten Commandments, nor do Hindus, or those who believe in many gods, nor of course, do atheists.\nAnd for that matter, Your Honor, if a Jewish individual would walk by this Ten Commandments, and see that the first commandment isn't the Jewish version, I am the Lord, thy God, took you out of Egypt, out of slavery, would realize it's not his or her government either.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [749.877, 760.195], "stop_times": [760.195, 773.116], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 749.877}, "reply_to": "21548__0_054", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_056", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "You know, I think probably 90 percent of the American people believe in the Ten Commandments, and I'll bet you that 85 percent of them couldn't tell you what the ten are.\n[Laughter]\nAnd when somebody goes by that monument, I don't think they're studying each one of the commandments.\nIt's a symbol of the fact that government comes... derives its authority from God.\nAnd that is, it seems to me, an appropriate symbol to be on State grounds.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [773.116, 787.976, 791.57, 797.801, 806.939], "stop_times": [787.976, 791.57, 797.801, 806.939, 813.777], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 773.116}, "reply_to": "21548__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__0_057", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "I disagree, Your Honor.\nFor the State to put that symbol between its State Capitol and the State Supreme Court is to convey a profound religious message.\nIf you're just saying, now, this isn't there for its secular reason.\nIf someone were to read this monument, one sees that it emphasizes its religious content.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [813.777, 815.097, 823.808, 827.729], "stop_times": [815.097, 823.808, 827.729, 832.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 813.777}, "reply_to": "21548__0_056", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_058", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "It is a profound religious message, but it's a profound religious message believed in by the vast majority of the American people, just as belief in monotheism is shared by a vast majority of the American people.\nAnd our traditions show that there is nothing wrong with the government reflecting that.\nI mean, we're a tolerant society religiously, but just as the majority has to be tolerant of minority views in matters of religion, it seems to me the minority has to be tolerant of the majority's ability to express its belief that government comes from God, which is what this is about.\nAs Justice Kennedy said, turn your eyes away if it's such a big deal to you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [832.724, 845.19, 852.21, 870.082], "stop_times": [845.19, 852.21, 870.082, 875.738], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 832.724}, "reply_to": "21548__0_057", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__0_059", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "I disagree, Your Honor.\nBecause this Court has said that above all, the government can't make some feel like they're insiders and some like outsiders.\nEven if they're the majority religion--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [875.738, 876.648, 883.251], "stop_times": [876.648, 883.251, 885.026], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 875.738}, "reply_to": "21548__0_058", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_060", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Well, suppose a non Christian, say a Muslim, comes before a judge who has very strong Christian beliefs, a very religious person.\nDoes he feel like an outsider?\nAnd to require that we pretend that there is no religious motivation, no deep religious conviction on the part of many of our public officials seems to me to be a hostility toward religion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [885.026, 895.8, 898.112], "stop_times": [895.8, 898.112, 913.921], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 885.026}, "reply_to": "21548__0_059", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21548__0_061", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nImagine that judge put the Ten Commandments right above his or her bench.\nThat would make some individuals feel like outsiders.\nOf course, many judges have religious beliefs, but they can't have the religious beliefs above them.\nAnd Your Honor, that's not hostility to religion.\nAs this Court said in County of Allegheny, excluding religious symbols like the nativity scene, when displayed by itself, is not hostility to religion.\nLast year in Locke v. Davie, this Court said that to deny funding through the State of Washington for scholarships was not hostility to religion.\nEnforcing the Establishment Clause is not about hostility to religion.\nIt is about making sure that every person who walks into that courtroom can feel that it's his or her government.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [913.921, 915.119, 919.948, 923.914, 928.493, 930.972, 939.063, 946.615, 950.784], "stop_times": [915.119, 919.948, 923.914, 928.493, 930.972, 939.063, 946.615, 950.784, 957.471], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 913.921}, "reply_to": "21548__0_060", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_062", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "That's an important point to me, but I don't see any way to get there in these difficult cases without making a practical judgment about whether that's really so.\nAnd the reason I say that, I start with Goldberg's opinion with Harlan in Schempp.\nAnd I know there are a lot of others, but I don't know if we've found a satisfactory test.\nAnd the point that they make is the government should be noninvolved with the religious, and it can't favor one over the other.\nBut at the same time, we are a religious nation, where most people do believe in God and most of our institutions flow from the religious nature of our people.\nThe City on the Hill, proclaim liberty throughout the land.\nAll of those are religious.\nSo how can the government, without what they call the pervasive and brooding commitment to secularism, which they think would be wrong, become necessarily involved because of our traditions, but not go too far?\nNow, I come to the conclusion very tentatively, there is no way to do it other than look at the divisive quality of the individual display case by case.\nAnd when I do that, I don't find much divisiveness here.\nNow, I'm exposing the whole thing not because I'm accepting it, but I would love to hear what you think.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [957.471, 971.218, 978.155, 984.964, 991.53, 1002.525, 1006.306, 1008.619, 1025.253, 1035.202, 1038.796], "stop_times": [971.218, 978.155, 984.964, 991.53, 1002.525, 1006.306, 1008.619, 1025.253, 1035.202, 1038.796, 1043.997], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 957.471}, "reply_to": "21548__0_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21548__0_063", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, I think that the test that this Court has formulated do draw those lines.\nWith regard to your point about divisiveness, the Ten Commandments is enormously divisive right now.\nI don't think we can ignore the social reality.\nThe chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court resigned, there are crowds outside today.\nI got hate messages this week, not because people care about the Ten Commandments as a secular document, but people care about the Ten Commandments because it's a profound religious message.\nAnd many want that religious message on government property.\nAnd I'm saying the government can put the Ten Commandments there as part of an overall display of law givers, because, Justice O'Connor, it's an overall display about diversity of religion.\nBut when the Ten Commandments sits by itself it is, to use your word right now, enormously divisive.\nAnd that's why, from that criteria, it does violate the Establishment Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1043.997, 1048.334, 1054.194, 1056.629, 1061.459, 1071.861, 1075.948, 1085.607, 1092.295], "stop_times": [1048.334, 1054.194, 1056.629, 1061.459, 1071.861, 1075.948, 1085.607, 1092.295, 1096.714], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1043.997}, "reply_to": "21548__0_062", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_064", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "What about the opening of this Court's session today, in a manner that has been used since John Marshall, is that divisive because there are a lot of people who don't believe in God.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1096.714], "stop_times": [1111.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1096.714}, "reply_to": "21548__0_063", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__0_065", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Because You Honor, I think that you have to distinguish between minimal religious content and maximum religious content.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1111.286], "stop_times": [1117.974], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1111.286}, "reply_to": "21548__0_064", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_066", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Mr. Chemerinsky, on that point, how much of the Ten Commandments... I mean, once we get to thou shalt not kill or murder, then there are tenets to govern a society, but how much are strictly about the obligation that man owes to God?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1117.974], "stop_times": [1137.831], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1117.974}, "reply_to": "21548__0_065", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21548__0_067", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "The first of the two tablets, the first five commandments, Your Honor, and of course religions belief this was written in God's own hand and given to Moses.\nIt's believed that the first five commandments that you were referring to are God's prescriptions for religious behavior.\nThe latter five, the others that you're referring to, were God's commands for secular behavior.\nAll of these are God's commands to God's people.\nAnd that's what makes a difference than the minimal religious content of God save this Honorable Court that Justice Scalia was referring to.\nThe core of Texas's argument seems to be that it's there for secular purposes.\nBut of course, if one looks at this monument, one sees that it's emphasizing the religious content and there is nothing that would lend the reasonable observer to see the secular content.\nIt says in large letters, I am the Lord, thy God.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1137.831, 1148.355, 1154.671, 1159.872, 1163.82, 1170.441, 1176.841, 1185.84], "stop_times": [1148.355, 1154.671, 1159.872, 1163.82, 1170.441, 1176.841, 1185.84, 1188.729], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1137.831}, "reply_to": "21548__0_066", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_068", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Well, suppose, Mr. Chemerinsky, it was like Moses on that frieze where there are commandments showing, but there are only the sixth through tenth commandment.\nWould that be all right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1188.729, 1205.076], "stop_times": [1205.076, 1206.934], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1188.729}, "reply_to": "21548__0_067", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21548__0_069", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Your Honor, if it was Moses on that frieze together with fourteen other symbols, absolutely okay, because it would clear to the reasonable observer--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1206.934], "stop_times": [1214.243], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1206.934}, "reply_to": "21548__0_068", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_070", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "But if we just had the Moses with the tablet that has the instructions for how people will conduct themselves in a civilized society versus worshipping.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1214.243], "stop_times": [1225.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1214.243}, "reply_to": "21548__0_069", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21548__0_071", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--I think that would still be unconstitutional between the Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court because it would still be the State of Texas expressing the message that there is a God and that God has dictated these rules for behavior.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1225.676], "stop_times": [1239.135], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1225.676}, "reply_to": "21548__0_070", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_072", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Okay, what if you go one step further and there was simply a tablet without any embellishment about source saying, you know, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not covet, et cetera, basically just the last five commandments, pure and simple.\nWould you have any objection on Establishment Clause grounds?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1239.135, 1258.741], "stop_times": [1258.741, 1261.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1239.135}, "reply_to": "21548__0_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21548__0_073", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "If the tablets were by themselves in that way, between the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas State Capitol, it would be a harder case, but I believe it would still be unconstitutional because those tablets do convey a message that God--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1261.63], "stop_times": [1274.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1261.63}, "reply_to": "21548__0_072", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_074", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "No, I'm just talking about when I... I don't know if I used the word tablet.\nI'm just talking about a piece of stone or a poster that says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not covet, thou shalt not bear false witness, et cetera.\nWould there be any Establishment Clause objection simply because though it does not say so, those were quotations from the last six commandments.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1274.179, 1277.773, 1289.306], "stop_times": [1277.773, 1289.306, 1300.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1274.179}, "reply_to": "21548__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21548__0_075", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nIf all it said was thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal, I don't think that that would be a problem because those are a reflection of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1300.64, 1302.126], "stop_times": [1302.126, 1310.194], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1300.64}, "reply_to": "21548__0_074", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_076", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Who are you kidding?\nI mean, everybody knows that comes from the Ten Commandments.\nAnd what that message says is that these commands that are engraved on the human heart come from God.\nWhy put it that way?\nYou know, instead of that, just quote the State statute against murder.\nThat's not what they're doing.\nThey're saying these basic principles of human behavior that we're governed by come from God.\nAnd that message would be conveyed so long as you use the terminology of the Ten Commandments.\nThat's what the Ten Commandments stand for.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1310.194, 1311.02, 1315.024, 1321.506, 1323.363, 1329.391, 1330.999, 1340.287, 1345.45], "stop_times": [1311.02, 1315.024, 1321.506, 1323.363, 1329.391, 1330.999, 1340.287, 1345.45, 1347.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1310.194}, "reply_to": "21548__0_075", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__0_077", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "But Your Honor, this Court has emphasized that content and context matter enormously.\nAnd what I'm trying to do is to distinguish the situation where in Texas, it was clearly tablets with the words, I am the Lord, thy God, with five commandments for religious behavior and five for secular behavior.\nFrom Justice Souter's question, there are five others and especially those that are reflected in State law, like thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal.\nI think that the message is different there.\nIt is the words, I am the Lord, thy God.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1347.14, 1351.804, 1362.761, 1370.175, 1372.692], "stop_times": [1351.804, 1362.761, 1370.175, 1372.692, 1375.293], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1347.14}, "reply_to": "21548__0_076", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_078", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "I think you're telling us the State cannot accommodate religion.\nThe only way they can do it is to put the Ten Commandments up and insist that it's always secular, whether it's predominantly for a secular purpose.\nIt seems to me that's hypocritical and it's asking religious people to surrender their beliefs and that is not accommodation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1375.293, 1379.751, 1388.396], "stop_times": [1379.751, 1388.396, 1395.643], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1375.293}, "reply_to": "21548__0_077", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21548__0_079", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "No, Your Honor.\nI do think that it degrades religion to have to have the Ten Commandments defended for their secular purpose.\nI do think, though, that what's required of the government, when it puts religious symbols on government property, is to not be endorsing religion.\nThat's why a nativity scene by itself in the County of Allegheny case was unconstitutional.\nOn the other hand, that's why the nativity scene as part of a unified display in Lynch v. Donnelly was permissible.\nThat's why, if the Ten Commandments are part of an overall display like this frieze, it's permissible.\nAs part of an overall display about religious tolerance, and that's what the reasonable observer would see, it is permissible.\nBut where it is the Ten Commandments themselves, placed as they are here, then it really is about the government endorsing religion, then it is the purpose of advancing religion and then it does violate the Establishment Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1395.643, 1396.386, 1402.497, 1410.299, 1415.705, 1421.444, 1426.934, 1432.507], "stop_times": [1396.386, 1402.497, 1410.299, 1415.705, 1421.444, 1426.934, 1432.507, 1444.395], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1395.643}, "reply_to": "21548__0_078", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_080", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "So the word accommodate should not be within our jurisprudence?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1444.395], "stop_times": [1448.111], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1444.395}, "reply_to": "21548__0_079", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21548__0_081", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Accommodate should very much be in the jurisprudence.\nAnd any time there is a Free Exercise Clause claim, then there has to be careful attention to accommodating religion.\nBut there is no Free Exercise Clause claim in this case, Your Honor, so this isn't a case about accommodating anybody's religious beliefs.\nThis is about the State expressing support for religion with sacred and solemn religious texts on government property.\nAnd my position is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1448.111, 1450.811, 1456.839, 1464.086, 1472.176], "stop_times": [1450.811, 1456.839, 1464.086, 1472.176, 1473.252], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1448.111}, "reply_to": "21548__0_080", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_082", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Can the State express its support for religion generally?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1473.252], "stop_times": [1477.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1473.252}, "reply_to": "21548__0_081", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__0_083", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--Your Honor, it all depends--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1477.256], "stop_times": [1479.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1477.256}, "reply_to": "21548__0_082", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_084", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Suppose it didn't have the Ten Commandments, it just had a big thing that says religion is good.\nIt said religion is the foundation of our institutions.\nSuppose there were something like that.\nWould that be bad?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1479.978, 1485.901, 1491.064, 1492.3], "stop_times": [1485.901, 1491.064, 1492.3, 1492.96], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1479.978}, "reply_to": "21548__0_083", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__0_085", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--I don't think that would be a problem under the Establishment Clause because it's minimal--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1492.96], "stop_times": [1495.726], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1492.96}, "reply_to": "21548__0_084", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_086", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "But there are atheists who disagree with that intensely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1495.726], "stop_times": [1498.533], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1495.726}, "reply_to": "21548__0_085", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__0_087", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--But Your Honor, I'm not arguing for a heckler's veto by atheists.\nWhat I am saying is that when the government puts sacred and solemn texts taken directly from the Bible at the core of its State government, it has to then do something to convey the message that it's not there for religious purposes, that it's there for secular purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1498.533, 1501.959], "stop_times": [1501.959, 1518.102], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1498.533}, "reply_to": "21548__0_086", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_088", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Doesn't it matter whether that text has acquired an independent meaning of its own?\nAs I say, I don't think most people know what the text of the Ten Commandments are, but they do know that it stands for the fact that our laws are derived from God.\nThat's what it stands for.\nWhy isn't that symbolism sufficient to enable the State of Texas to use it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1518.102, 1524.046, 1535.07, 1536.678], "stop_times": [1524.046, 1535.07, 1536.678, 1542.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1518.102}, "reply_to": "21548__0_087", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__0_089", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "The Ten Commandments monument by itself conveys the message that the Ten Commandments are the source of law and it's that message the State can't convey.\nMay I save the rest of the time for rebuttal?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1542.584, 1551.129], "stop_times": [1551.129, 1553.275], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1542.584}, "reply_to": "21548__0_088", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_090", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Yes, you may save your time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1553.275], "stop_times": [1554.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1553.275}, "reply_to": "21548__0_089", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__0_091", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1554.139], "stop_times": [1554.777], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1554.139}, "reply_to": "21548__0_090", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__0_092", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "General Abbott, we'll hear from you, please.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1554.777], "stop_times": [1557.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1554.777}, "reply_to": "21548__0_091", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__1_000", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nEvery court that has reviewed the specific facts of this case has agreed that the Texas monument is constitutional under this Court's well settled precedents in Lynch and Allegheny.\nThis Court should agree that the Texas monument should not be torn down from its historical place for three reasons.\nFirst, the Ten Commandments is an historically recognized symbol of law.\nSecond, this monument is one of the smallest of the 17 monuments on the Capitol grounds, and like most of the other monuments, was a gift to the State of Texas and is clearly recognized as such on the monument itself.\nAnd third, this monument has stood for more than 40 years without controversy on a national historic landmark.\nIn fact, even the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1557.544, 1560.616, 1571.745, 1580.373, 1585.863, 1600.74, 1608.813], "stop_times": [1560.616, 1571.745, 1580.373, 1585.863, 1600.74, 1608.813, 1609.945], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1557.544}, "reply_to": "21548__0_092", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_001", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "May I ask you this question?\nUnder your analysis of the reason this is justifiable.\nWould it equally be permissible to have a crucifix of the same size in the same location on the Capitol grounds?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1609.945, 1611.764, 1615.396], "stop_times": [1611.764, 1615.396, 1623.774], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1609.945}, "reply_to": "21548__1_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__1_002", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--Justice Stevens, I think that would pose a much greater problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1623.774], "stop_times": [1626.829], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1623.774}, "reply_to": "21548__1_001", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_003", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "That's not my question.\nDo you think it would be permissible... it seems to me your reasoning that you've given us would support that result.\nAnd maybe that's the correct result.\nI'm wondering what your view is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1626.829, 1627.778, 1633.601, 1634.92], "stop_times": [1627.778, 1633.601, 1634.92, 1636.201], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1626.829}, "reply_to": "21548__1_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__1_004", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "I seriously question whether or not a crucifix would be constitutionally acceptable in that same location, and for the very same reasons which I'm articulating why the Ten Commandments would be acceptable in this location.\nThe crucifix is not like the Ten Commandments in that it's not an historically recognized symbol of law.\nIt doesn't send a secular message to all the people, regardless of whether they are believers or not believers of the important role the Ten Commandments have played in the development of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1636.201, 1651.555, 1658.242], "stop_times": [1651.555, 1658.242, 1668.151], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1636.201}, "reply_to": "21548__1_003", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_005", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "It's not a secular message.\nI mean, if you're watering it down to say that the only reason it's okay is it sends nothing but a secular message, I can't agree with you.\nI think the message it sends is that law is... and our institutions come from God.\nAnd if you don't think it conveys that message, I just think you're kidding yourself.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1668.151, 1668.273, 1675.126, 1682.928], "stop_times": [1668.273, 1675.126, 1682.928, 1687.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1668.151}, "reply_to": "21548__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__1_006", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Well, Justice Scalia, the Ten Commandments send both a religious message and a secular message.\nWhen people--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1687.964, 1694.158], "stop_times": [1694.158, 1695.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1687.964}, "reply_to": "21548__1_005", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_007", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "But the district court, I think in this very case, found that commemorating the Ten Commandments' role in the development of secular law was not one of the State's purposes in accepting the monument.\nDon't we accept that finding as the case comes to us?\nThat hasn't been challenged.\nWe don't have any cross appeal.\nI assume we accept that finding of the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1695.765, 1712.278, 1716.448, 1718.844, 1720.413], "stop_times": [1712.278, 1716.448, 1718.844, 1720.413, 1724.045], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1695.765}, "reply_to": "21548__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21548__1_008", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--The Court obviously is correct to accept that finding.\nAs you know, from the district court's finding, the secular purpose that was accepted by the district court was to honor the Paternal Order of Eagles.\nBut also there was an ongoing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1724.045, 1728.875, 1737.996], "stop_times": [1728.875, 1737.996, 1740.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1724.045}, "reply_to": "21548__1_007", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_009", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "But you're arguing for something contrary to the district court's finding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1740.02], "stop_times": [1744.479], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1740.02}, "reply_to": "21548__1_008", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21548__1_010", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--I'm actually, Justice O'Connor, arguing for purposes that are in addition to that district court's finding because there was an ongoing purpose to retain this now historical monument that has stood for more than 40 years without controversy on a national and historic landmark.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1744.479], "stop_times": [1763.798], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1744.479}, "reply_to": "21548__1_009", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_011", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "So in another case, if a government official feels that the Ten Commandments have been very, very important in his or her life as a spiritual or religious matter and wants other people to know how important the Ten Commandments are, he cannot accept on behalf of the city the Ten Commandments. And so you can have no Ten Commandments in city A with the Ten Commandments in city B.\nGeneral, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.\nAnd again, you're just doing with purpose what you did in response to Justice Scalia's question.\nYou're asking us to ignore the religious purpose that is the most manifest value of these symbols.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1763.798, 1780.599, 1788.401, 1795.831], "stop_times": [1780.599, 1788.401, 1795.831, 1805.286], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1763.798}, "reply_to": "21548__1_010", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21548__1_012", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Well, with regard to both purpose and effect in this particular setting, I don't think that religion was the driving force.\nI know that all of the evidence shows that religion was not a driving force in any respect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1805.286, 1814.452], "stop_times": [1814.452, 1819.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1805.286}, "reply_to": "21548__1_011", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_013", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "I suppose that every monument that's on the State Capitol grounds in Texas in a sense conveys a message of State endorsement, State endorsement of the role of servicemen in fighting earlier wars or in support of the Boy Scouts or whatever it might be, doesn't it?\nI mean, by placing them there with the legislative approval, is that not really some kind of a message of endorsement for each one?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1819.404, 1842.232], "stop_times": [1842.232, 1851.437], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.404}, "reply_to": "21548__1_012", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21548__1_014", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "If I may clarify an important fact and that is clearly the state of Texas, by displaying 17 monuments in a museum like setting on Capitol grounds, is trying to acknowledge and commemorate certain events.\nIt's important for the Court to remember, though, that the State of Texas has specifically endorsed nine of those monuments by putting the State seal or the Lone Star seal for the State of Texas on those nine monuments.\nThis monument does not have that kind of endorsement on there.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1851.437, 1863.576, 1874.389], "stop_times": [1863.576, 1874.389, 1877.444], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1851.437}, "reply_to": "21548__1_013", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_015", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Isn't it all the case, as has been pointed out, that no monument is going to be on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol without the approval of the legislature?\nYou don't dispute that, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1877.444, 1886.899], "stop_times": [1886.899, 1889.128], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1877.444}, "reply_to": "21548__1_014", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21548__1_016", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Not at all.\nThat is very true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1889.128, 1889.582], "stop_times": [1889.582, 1890.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1889.128}, "reply_to": "21548__1_015", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_017", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "And you don't dispute that anyone going on those grounds would assume that the State government approved it or it wouldn't be there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1890.158], "stop_times": [1896.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1890.158}, "reply_to": "21548__1_016", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21548__1_018", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Justice Souter, of course the presumption would be that people on the Capitol grounds would assume the State of Texas wanted those monuments on the Capitol grounds.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1896.763], "stop_times": [1907.825], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1896.763}, "reply_to": "21548__1_017", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_019", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Well, I'm not sure that that endorsement... in England, there is a square where they have King Charles on one hand... on one end and he's looking at Oliver Cromwell, who beheaded him, on the other.\nI don't know if you have to endorse one or the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1907.825, 1917.008], "stop_times": [1917.008, 1921.905], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1907.825}, "reply_to": "21548__1_018", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21548__1_020", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Well, Justice Kennedy, I believe that there is a very meaningful difference between this Court's standards of an endorsement and what a State or the nation may do with regard to commemoration.\nAs an easy example, on the National Mall, there is, of course, the Lincoln Memorial and in the Lincoln Memorial, there is text from the King James version of the Bible.\nThe nation commemorates and acknowledges Lincoln and what he has said.\nBut by that display, the United States is not trying to endorse the King James version of the Bible or a particular religious message in that.\nInstead what the state--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1921.905, 1934.286, 1943.824, 1948.487, 1955.917], "stop_times": [1934.286, 1943.824, 1948.487, 1955.917, 1957.199], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1921.905}, "reply_to": "21548__1_019", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_021", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "But you have to contend with the fact that the district court found that this sort of commemoration of the commandments involved was not the objective in placing the monument there, so you're left basically with a religious text.\nAnd if anybody has any doubt about that, the religious text is surrounded by some religious symbols, the Chi Rho, the Star of David.\nSo it seems to me that it's hard to find, if we accept the district court findings, that there's anything here but an expression of approval by the State of Texas for a religious expression, and only for the religious expression.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [1957.199, 1970.984, 1980.166], "stop_times": [1970.984, 1980.166, 2000.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1957.199}, "reply_to": "21548__1_020", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21548__1_022", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--All other factors, though, Justice Souter, as a person who stands in front of that monument clearly recognizes, centered in a specialized scroll is an indication that this was a monument that was dedicated and presented to the people and the youth of the State of Texas by the Fraternal Order of Eagles.\nThere is no stamp of approval on this by the State of Texas on that monument.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2000.584, 2018.333], "stop_times": [2018.333, 2021.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2000.584}, "reply_to": "21548__1_021", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_023", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "But you're not trying to withdraw the... I took it to be the concession that of course anyone would reasonably assume that the State of Texas approved this message, and thought it was appropriate to devote state property to its promulgation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2021.676], "stop_times": [2038.972], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2021.676}, "reply_to": "21548__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21548__1_024", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Clearly the State of Texas approved the monument being on the grounds--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2038.972], "stop_times": [2044.627], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2038.972}, "reply_to": "21548__1_023", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_025", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "But then the fact that the Eagles also approve it doesn't really get us very far, does it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2044.627], "stop_times": [2049.456], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2044.627}, "reply_to": "21548__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21548__1_026", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--Well, where I believe it gets you, as this Court has recognized, there is a very meaningful difference between acknowledging something and endorsing something.\nFor example, the creche in Lynch or the menorah in Allegheny.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2049.456, 2058.085], "stop_times": [2058.085, 2060.891], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2049.456}, "reply_to": "21548__1_025", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_027", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Let me ask you this.\nIf the Eagles' presentation statement weren't on there, would that make a difference to Establishment Clause analysis?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2060.891, 2061.634], "stop_times": [2061.634, 2072.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2060.891}, "reply_to": "21548__1_026", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21548__1_028", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "I think the Eagles' disclaimer on there helps our case but if it were not on there, I think the monument could still stand just as the creche did in Lynch or the menorah in Allegheny.\nThe city of Pawtucket was not endorsing the creche in the display, it was acknowledged as part of the overall holiday celebration.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2072.507, 2084.175], "stop_times": [2084.175, 2098.497], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2072.507}, "reply_to": "21548__1_027", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_029", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "What is the... that's one of the problems with the argument, it seems to me, that by putting the Ten Commandments monument on grounds that have lots of other monuments, that the religious message is somehow either diluted or changed.\nContrast the situation in Texas with what we've got here.\nYou've got Moses up there with at least the last five commandments showing.\nBut Moses is in the company of a group of individuals who are nothing but law givers.\nYou've got Menes and Hammurabi and John Marshall and the rest of them.\nThere is an obvious theme.\nAnybody who looks at the identity... or knows the identity of these figures is saying they're getting at law givers.\nBut if you look at the grounds of the Texas State Capitol, you see wars, pioneer women, children and so on.\nThere is no one common theme.\nThe only theme seems to be these are objects or symbols that are worthy of some kind of respect.\nAnd one of them is religious.\nBeing mixed into a group that has no common theme does not eliminate the religious... the obvious religious message from this monument.\nIsn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2098.497, 2115.959, 2121.82, 2126.9, 2133.709, 2137.052, 2140.396, 2148.159, 2158.312, 2161.284, 2168.26, 2170.368, 2181.764], "stop_times": [2115.959, 2121.82, 2126.9, 2133.709, 2137.052, 2140.396, 2148.159, 2158.312, 2161.284, 2168.26, 2170.368, 2181.764, 2183.25], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2098.497}, "reply_to": "21548__1_028", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21548__1_030", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Well, just as this Court may display in the courtroom itself, Moses with the Ten Commandments amongst law givers, doesn't mean that that is the only way the Ten Commandments--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2183.25], "stop_times": [2195.071], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2183.25}, "reply_to": "21548__1_029", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_031", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Maybe it doesn't, but I'm trying to find a rationale for the argument that's being made, and that I thought you were alluding to.\nThe argument is that by mixing this in with a grab bag of other symbols, you have somehow diluted or changed the focus from a religious message to something else.\nAnd I can understand that in the Moses case in the frieze because there is a clear common theme.\nOn the Texas grounds, at least insofar as I can tell, there is no common theme.\nThere are a series of objects that say, these are worthy of veneration.\nOne of them is religious.\nThere is nothing that removes the religious message from its prominence in the display the way the religious message is removed from prominence in the Moses display, isn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2195.071, 2201.758, 2216.248, 2224.05, 2231.191, 2236.021, 2237.962], "stop_times": [2201.758, 2216.248, 2224.05, 2231.191, 2236.021, 2237.962, 2251.17], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2195.071}, "reply_to": "21548__1_030", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21548__1_032", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--Your Honor, if I may explain with two points.\nOne, there is a common theme on the Texas Capitol grounds, just as there are on most Capitol grounds and on the National Mall.\nAnd the common theme is to recognize historical influences in our country and in our State.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2251.17, 2255.34, 2262.027], "stop_times": [2255.34, 2262.027, 2268.632], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2251.17}, "reply_to": "21548__1_031", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_033", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "But what do you do with the district court finding?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2268.632], "stop_times": [2270.284], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2268.632}, "reply_to": "21548__1_032", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21548__1_034", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Well, the district court finding obviously chose to decide that the secular purpose for the display was to honor the Fraternal Order of Eagles for their commitment to combatting juvenile delinquency.\nBut that is different... the purpose why the district court found why the display was constitutional is different than the message that is being sent to the reasonable observer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2270.284, 2283.387], "stop_times": [2283.387, 2295.381], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2270.284}, "reply_to": "21548__1_033", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_035", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "You had a second point and I don't want to miss your second point.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2295.381], "stop_times": [2298.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2295.381}, "reply_to": "21548__1_034", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21548__1_036", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "The second point is that there are other displays in this Court.\nAs a person walks into this courtroom or exits the courtroom, they don't see the Ten Commandments in a display with a bunch of law givers.\nInstead, they see the Ten Commandments alone with an eagle above it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2298.891, 2303.926, 2312.721], "stop_times": [2303.926, 2312.721, 2318.127], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2298.891}, "reply_to": "21548__1_035", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_037", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "They see blank tablets.\nThey don't see any writing.\nThis is the only one that has script on it.\nIt has numbers and in fact that's confusing because one of them, the people think is the Ten Commandments is the Bill of Rights.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2318.127, 2320.645, 2323.04, 2326.3, 2335.134], "stop_times": [2320.645, 2323.04, 2326.3, 2335.134, 2337.613], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2318.127}, "reply_to": "21548__1_036", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21548__1_038", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, clearly the Ten Commandments that are reflected on the doorway into and out of this courtroom don't have words on them like the tablets do in the State of Texas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2337.613], "stop_times": [2350.738], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2337.613}, "reply_to": "21548__1_037", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_039", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "But we know what they are, don't we?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2350.738], "stop_times": [2352.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2350.738}, "reply_to": "21548__1_038", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__1_040", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "We do and that's the point.\nEven more importantly, the reasonable observer knows what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2352.224, 2353.672], "stop_times": [2353.672, 2357.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2352.224}, "reply_to": "21548__1_039", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_041", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "But do we know which version of the Ten Commandments it stands for?\nThere are three different versions at least.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2357.675, 2360.026], "stop_times": [2360.026, 2361.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2357.675}, "reply_to": "21548__1_040", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__1_042", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--I happen to agree with the Petitioner.\nThere is more than three versions of the Ten Commandments.\nAnd the purpose, if you go back to what the Eagles were trying to achieve here, was to come up with a version of the Ten Commandments that wasn't reflective of any particular religion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2361.967, 2366.136, 2369.374], "stop_times": [2366.136, 2369.374, 2379.965], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2361.967}, "reply_to": "21548__1_041", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_043", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "And it doesn't matter what the version is, does it?\nIf it just stands for the fact that laws... the foundation of our laws is God.\nIf that's all it stands for, who cares what the text is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2379.965, 2380.997, 2388.306], "stop_times": [2380.997, 2388.306, 2391.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2379.965}, "reply_to": "21548__1_042", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__1_044", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "General Abbott, would the Texas purpose be equally served if the monument had on it the kind of disclaimer that the city in Wisconsin put on its monument?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2391.028], "stop_times": [2402.711], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2391.028}, "reply_to": "21548__1_043", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__1_045", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Justice Stevens, I apologize, I'm not familiar with that disclaimer.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2402.711], "stop_times": [2406.343], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2402.711}, "reply_to": "21548__1_044", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_046", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "It reads this way.\nWhat they did is they sold the parcel of land that had the Eagles' donation on it back to the Eagles and then they put a fence around it and then they put this sign up,\n\"This property is not owned or maintained by the City of Lacrosse, nor does the City endorse the religious expression thereon. \"\nMaybe as long as it's still on the property, it couldn't be the same.\nBut suppose you had a comparable disclaimer.\nWould that defeat any of the purposes on which you relied to justify having the statue there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2406.343, 2407.086, 2415.427, 2422.568, 2425.558, 2427.315], "stop_times": [2407.086, 2415.427, 2422.568, 2425.558, 2427.315, 2432.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2406.343}, "reply_to": "21548__1_045", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__1_047", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "A disclaimer like that would surely ensure that this display is constitutional.\nHowever, it's our contention--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2432.804, 2437.839], "stop_times": [2437.839, 2439.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2432.804}, "reply_to": "21548__1_046", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_048", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "And would it undermine the message that you legitimately seek to convey?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2439.287], "stop_times": [2443.206], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2439.287}, "reply_to": "21548__1_047", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__1_049", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--I don't believe it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2443.206], "stop_times": [2444.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2443.206}, "reply_to": "21548__1_048", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_050", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Why don't you do it and we wouldn't have this case?\nI really would consider it something of a Pyrrhic victory if you win on the ground that you're arguing.\nSo that in all future cases, we're going to have to examine displays of the Ten Commandments to see whether there was ever any intent to say that our laws are ultimately dependent upon God.\nIs that what you want us to do case by case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2444.61, 2447.749, 2455.651, 2468.904], "stop_times": [2447.749, 2455.651, 2468.904, 2471.421], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2444.61}, "reply_to": "21548__1_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21548__1_051", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Well, this Court obviously has decided Establishment Clause cases on a case by case basis, but in this particular instance, the Ten Commandments displayed in a museum like setting on the Capitol grounds arrayed among 17 other monuments, the message that is received by the viewer who is trekking through the Capitol grounds looking at monuments is clearly one not of the State of Texas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2471.421], "stop_times": [2494.539], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2471.421}, "reply_to": "21548__1_050", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_052", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "I've got to get one question before you leave because you're the one who knows the record.\nAnd what I've had a hard time finding in the record is what I think there must be some material that the State or somebody in a tourist office or a guide or somebody tells people what the 17 different monuments are.\nAnd all I've found is the general brochure which doesn't tell them what they are.\nAnd I found something on the Internet.\nWell, which is in the record.\nBut aside from this page from the Internet in the record and that, is there anything else in this record that if somebody wanders around, they're on the State grounds, they say, what is this, what are these things anyway?\nThere must be something to tells them.\nAnd where is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2494.539, 2500.483, 2516.087, 2519.513, 2521.371, 2524.715, 2536.027, 2537.513], "stop_times": [2500.483, 2516.087, 2519.513, 2521.371, 2524.715, 2536.027, 2537.513, 2538.478], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2494.539}, "reply_to": "21548__1_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21548__1_053", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "The state provides a walking tour guide.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2538.478], "stop_times": [2541.6], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2538.478}, "reply_to": "21548__1_052", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_054", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "And the brochure doesn't tell what they are.\nThis thing, it says grounds?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2541.6, 2544.034], "stop_times": [2544.034, 2545.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2541.6}, "reply_to": "21548__1_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21548__1_055", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Your Honor, Justice Breyer, if I could refer you to page 205 of the joint appendix, it provides a description of each of the monuments on the walking tour.\nAnd if I could also refer the Court to page 117 of the joint appendix, it shows the actual walking tour where a person would go along the process of seeing the monuments.\nBut clearly as they walk through the Capitol grounds, what any observer, not just the reasonable observer, what any observer would notice is that before they could even get to this particular monument, they will have passed in full view of countless other monuments and historical markers clearly indicating to them that they are not there for the purpose of seeing just the Ten Commandments but they are in a museum like setting cast amongst many different kinds of monuments.\nAnd so they appreciate the setting before they even arrive at the Ten Commandments monument.\nAlso when they arrive at the Ten Commandments monument, they will notice it is one of the smallest of the monuments on the Texas Capitol grounds.\nIt does have the disclaimer on it indicating that it was donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles.\nIt does not have the State seal on it like many of the other monuments, so it's not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2545.891, 2557.287, 2569.093, 2599.307, 2603.765, 2610.536, 2614.911], "stop_times": [2557.287, 2569.093, 2599.307, 2603.765, 2610.536, 2614.911, 2619.331], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2545.891}, "reply_to": "21548__1_054", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_056", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Is it like how many other monuments?\nThis is not peculiar to Texas.\nThe Order of the Eagles have given how many monuments just like this one, identical to this one?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2619.331, 2622.607, 2626.883], "stop_times": [2622.607, 2626.883, 2634.396], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2619.331}, "reply_to": "21548__1_055", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21548__1_057", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--Justice Ginsburg, it is actually not clear from the record.\nThere have been some accounts of hundreds, maybe even into the thousands that the Fraternal Order of Eagles have given out.\nAnd I cannot tell you for a fact that they are all identical.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2634.396, 2637.823, 2644.799], "stop_times": [2637.823, 2644.799, 2648.021], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2634.396}, "reply_to": "21548__1_056", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_058", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "When you said that every court that has considered this case has said it's compatible with the Establishment Clause, did you mean just this Texas case or other cases involving an Eagles Ten Commandments?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2648.021], "stop_times": [2667.833], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2648.021}, "reply_to": "21548__1_057", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21548__1_059", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, my reference was to the fact that every case that has considered the specific... every court that has considered the specific facts of this case, meaning the Texas case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2667.833], "stop_times": [2679.146], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2667.833}, "reply_to": "21548__1_058", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_060", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "So you didn't mean this particular depiction of the Ten Commandments?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2679.146], "stop_times": [2684.985], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2679.146}, "reply_to": "21548__1_059", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21548__1_061", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--No, Your Honor.\nWhat I meant is that both the district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals specifically reviewed the facts of this case and were all in complete agreement that the facts of this case render this monument constitutional under this Court's well settled precedents in Lynch and Allegheny.\nOne other thing I would like to draw the Court's attention to that will give you a very well understanding of what the monument looks like and its setting is the videotape that is Exhibit 44, it's obviously not part of the joint appendix, but it demonstrates how this particular monument is set in a museum like setting amongst many other monuments and gives you the perspective of what the typical viewer would appreciate as they walk around the Capitol grounds.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2684.985, 2685.29, 2703.916], "stop_times": [2685.29, 2703.916, 2735.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2684.985}, "reply_to": "21548__1_060", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_062", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Kind of an eclectic museum.\nOne message that you get is that the State is honoring the donor of the various--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2735.988, 2747.506], "stop_times": [2747.506, 2755.929], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2735.988}, "reply_to": "21548__1_061", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21548__1_063", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "General Abbott, I want to thank you for your argument and also for demonstrating that it's not necessary to stand at the lectern in order to a fine job.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2755.929, 2768.394], "stop_times": [2768.394, 2768.848], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2755.929}, "reply_to": "21548__1_062", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__1_064", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2768.848], "stop_times": [2769.675], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2768.848}, "reply_to": "21548__1_063", "speaker": "greg_abbott"}
{"id": "21548__1_065", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Mr. Clement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2769.675], "stop_times": [2775.452], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.675}, "reply_to": "21548__1_064", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__2_000", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThe Ten Commandments have undeniable religious significance, but they also have secular significance as a code of law and as a well recognized historical symbol of the law.\nWhen a State decides to display a Ten Commandments display along with more than a dozen other monuments on its Capitol grounds in order to honor the donor, it is not endorsing the religious text of the Ten Commandments.\nAnd in the same way, when a state has that monument as part of such a collection, the Establishment Clause should not be interpreted to force them to send a message of hostility to religion by singling out that one monument for removal solely because of its religious content.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2775.452, 2783.337, 2795.143, 2810.375], "stop_times": [2783.337, 2795.143, 2810.375, 2827.094], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2775.452}, "reply_to": "21548__1_065", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21548__2_001", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Can I ask you to address one thing that troubles me about the case?\nAs I understand it, it's the Protestant version basically of the Ten Commandments we have before us, which has significant differences from the Catholic version and the Jewish version.\nAnd I understand it was the result of consultation and so forth.\nBut I noticed in your brief, you list the States in which the Ten Commandments displays are listed, there is none for Rhode Island, which I often think of as primarily a Catholic state, and the only one from Massachusetts is a frieze on the north wall of the public library which apparently didn't have the text of the commandments in it.\nIs there any significance to the fact that this kind of display may be more popular in areas of the country where the Protestant religion is dominant as opposed to other versions of Christian religions?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2827.094, 2830.438, 2840.347, 2844.145, 2863.297], "stop_times": [2830.438, 2840.347, 2844.145, 2863.297, 2875.186], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2827.094}, "reply_to": "21548__2_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__2_002", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Justice Stevens, I don't think so.\nI mean, we didn't purport to do an exhaustive survey, but I think there is a well represented group of displays throughout the country including, I think, in States that probably have relatively high Catholic populations.\nBut I think we would steer this Court away from attributing too much significance to the fact that if a State is going to display the Ten Commandments at all, it will necessarily have to display a version that reflects one or another sect's preferences.\nIn the Marsh case, for example, this Court upheld legislative prayer.\nIt understood that they would necessarily have to choose a chaplain and that chaplain would necessarily be of one denomination or another.\nAnd this Court didn't doom the whole practice of legislative prayer because of the necessity of picking a chaplain of one denomination or another.\nIn fact, in the Marsh case itself, this court upheld Nebraska's practice, even though they had chosen the same Presbyterian minister for 16 straight years.\nAnd so I don't think this Court in other Establishment Clause contexts has steered away from putting the States and municipalities in a catch 22.\nAnd given that this Court has suggested even in Stone against Graham that the Ten Commandments can be displayed, can be used in certain settings, it can't be that once the State in practice picks a particular version, it's all of a sudden guilty of a sectarian preference.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2875.186, 2877.128, 2889.388, 2903.505, 2906.971, 2914.195, 2921.254, 2930.305, 2938.273], "stop_times": [2877.128, 2889.388, 2903.505, 2906.971, 2914.195, 2921.254, 2930.305, 2938.273, 2952.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2875.186}, "reply_to": "21548__2_001", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21548__2_003", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Of course, the other thing that's notable about your listing is most of the examples are examples of displays of the event itself rather than the text.\nAnd there is an argument made I think by Professor Laycock that when you display the entire text, it's kind of a different sort of symbol than when you just have a symbolic presentation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2952.391, 2960.481], "stop_times": [2960.481, 2969.936], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2952.391}, "reply_to": "21548__2_002", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__2_004", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Well, Justice Stevens, I think that quite a few... both types of displays and I think the very fact the Fraternal Order of Eagles put a lot of displays out suggests that a bunch of them are textual displays.\nI'm not sure, though, that a display that actually has Moses receiving the Ten Commandments from God is any less religious.\nI would suggest that's actually more religious than one that just displays the monument standing alone.\nIf the monuments are standing alone, you can I think appreciate the fact that maybe they're being displayed for their secular significance as well as their religious significance.\nWhen Moses is there, it's hard to avoid the implication that they are the revealed law of God, as opposed to also a secular code.\nSo in that sense, I'm not sure that the variations in the display take away from the fact that there is religious content--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [2969.936, 2982.029, 2988.799, 2993.258, 3001.803, 3009.787], "stop_times": [2982.029, 2988.799, 2993.258, 3001.803, 3009.787, 3015.814], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 2969.936}, "reply_to": "21548__2_003", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21548__2_005", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "A symbolic display is less objectionable when quoting the text as this monument does?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3015.814], "stop_times": [3020.272], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3015.814}, "reply_to": "21548__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__2_006", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--Well, Justice Stevens, I would say... my point is not that there are not other ways to display it.\nCertainly I think, as we point out in our brief, blank tablets or tablets with Roman numerals are less objectionable... certainly, I think they're beyond objection... than a textual display.\nMy point was that I'm not quite sure how one would balance sort of four commandments and Moses versus all Ten Commandments in text.\nI think it's a close call.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3020.272, 3025.556, 3036.498, 3044.958], "stop_times": [3025.556, 3036.498, 3044.958, 3045.907], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3020.272}, "reply_to": "21548__2_005", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21548__2_007", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Well, except the four commandments and Moses would avoid the differences between the three different versions of the Ten Commandments, whereas when you quote one, you must select one over the other two.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3045.907], "stop_times": [3053.503], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3045.907}, "reply_to": "21548__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__2_008", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Well, I guess I'm not sure that's true.\nI mean, some of the displays that are out there in courthouses have Moses receiving the commandments and have text.\nAnd I guess, my point, though, would be, again--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3053.503, 3056.188, 3061.511], "stop_times": [3056.188, 3061.511, 3063.906], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3053.503}, "reply_to": "21548__2_007", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21548__2_009", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Most of them don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3063.906], "stop_times": [3064.816], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3063.906}, "reply_to": "21548__2_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__2_010", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--To be sure, to be sure.\nBut I would hope the constitutional line wouldn't be that you can't have text.\nI mean, the Ten Commandments have a role in our society and had an influence on the development of the law as text.\nI mean, they weren't influential with ten Roman numbers.\nThey were influential as text.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3064.816, 3066.84, 3070.472, 3079.017, 3081.7], "stop_times": [3066.84, 3070.472, 3079.017, 3081.7, 3083.475], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3064.816}, "reply_to": "21548__2_009", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21548__2_011", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "General Clement, there is a question I have about the government's position.\nAnd does place matter at all?\nI mean, here we're talking about the grounds surrounding a State Capitol.\nWhat about every school room, if that's the choice of the school board?\nIs it the same or do you make... or every courtroom up to the court to decide for itself?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3083.475, 3088.305, 3091.61, 3097.387, 3104.463], "stop_times": [3088.305, 3091.61, 3097.387, 3104.463, 3116.13], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3083.475}, "reply_to": "21548__2_010", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21548__2_012", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I certainly think location and context matters.\nI think in almost every Establishment Clause context, the setting and context matters a great deal.\nThe school case, for example, as you suggest, I mean, unless this Court is going to revisit Stone against Graham, it's certainly true that the school context at least raises much more difficult questions.\nIn terms of where it can be displayed in the courthouse, I think there are certainly permissible displays in the courthouse, but it may be something all together different to have a display in a way that it actually looks like a religious sanctuary within the walls of the courthouse.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3116.13, 3120.339, 3125.168, 3136.109], "stop_times": [3120.339, 3125.168, 3136.109, 3150.886], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3116.13}, "reply_to": "21548__2_011", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21548__2_013", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "It looks just like this monument.\nLet's take this monument and put it in the rotunda of the court because the judges of that court choose to have it there.\nIs that all right?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3150.886, 3152.539, 3164.095], "stop_times": [3152.539, 3164.095, 3167.183], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3150.886}, "reply_to": "21548__2_012", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21548__2_014", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Justice Ginsburg, I think putting it in the rotunda of the court as a stand alone monument, giving it sort of pride of place, if you will, raises a much more difficult question, to be sure, and may well cross the constitutional line.\nAs I was alluding to, the one case I'm familiar with, which is the case of the Alabama Supreme Court, there it was displayed in a way that the district court literally found it was like a religious sanctuary within the walls of the court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3167.183, 3179.039], "stop_times": [3179.039, 3190.806], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3167.183}, "reply_to": "21548__2_013", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21548__2_015", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "And do you think that it should cross the constitutional line under the interpretational theory of the First Amendment you wish us to adopt?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3190.806], "stop_times": [3199.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3190.806}, "reply_to": "21548__2_014", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21548__2_016", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "I think the display that I have in mind in the Alabama Supreme Court probably does cross the constitutional line even under our view.\nI think that a display of the Ten Commandments in some appropriate way in the courthouse certainly wouldn't cross the line that this Court... that we would have this Court draw.\nI mean, we think, for example, it cannot be that the very fact that moving it closer to the courthouse itself is a constitutional problem because as you yourself have pointed out, Justice Kennedy, the legislative prayers that were approved in Marsh v. Chambers were at the absolute epicenter of the government.\nAnd still those were a permissible acknowledgment of religion.\nSo I think while context matters, I don't think solely the fact that it's moved closer to the seat of government does have a dispositive impact.\nAnd again, I would say in response to Justice Stevens' question, I do think it is important to remember that there is going to have to be a choice among the various documents if they are going to be displayed at all.\nAnd I don't think that the Constitution puts the municipalities and the States in the bind of being able to display the Ten Commandments in theory, but in fact, not being able to pick any one version--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3199.101, 3206.986, 3216.441, 3232.704, 3236.253, 3244.759, 3256.193], "stop_times": [3206.986, 3216.441, 3232.704, 3236.253, 3244.759, 3256.193, 3266.968], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3199.101}, "reply_to": "21548__2_015", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21548__2_017", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "What would your comment be on requiring a disclaimer of some kind?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3266.968], "stop_times": [3270.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3266.968}, "reply_to": "21548__2_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__2_018", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "--Well, Justice Stevens, two points to make about that.\nOne is certainly a disclaimer would make this an easier case.\nAnd I would point out that there is a disclaimer of sorts on the monument already because it clearly states that it was a gift from the Fraternal Order of Eagles.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3270.311, 3273.283, 3276.999], "stop_times": [3273.283, 3276.999, 3284.223], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3270.311}, "reply_to": "21548__2_017", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21548__2_019", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "It is kind of ambiguous.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3284.223], "stop_times": [3284.966], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3284.223}, "reply_to": "21548__2_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__2_020", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "It is, Justice Stevens, and I'm troubled frankly by the suggestion that they would have to go as far as you suggested they would go under the City of Lacrosse case.\nThe idea that in order to have the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds, the State of Texas has to cordon that monument off, unlike any other of the 17 monuments, suggests a hostility to religion.\nI think the idea that there has to be a fence away from the Ten Commandments to make clear that the State has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments is bending over too far in the other direction.\nThe State can have, as this Court has acknowledged many times, permissible acknowledgments of religion.\nAnd I don't think in this case that the State of Texas has gone too far.\nOne other point I think that is important to put on the table, and it is consistent with the analysis of both the district court and the Fifth Circuit, is that whatever the original purpose is for Texas accepting the monument and displaying it in the first instance, they now have an additional secular purpose in retaining the monument.\nAnd I would point this Court to Judge Becker's analysis in the Chester County case for the Third Circuit.\nIn that case, he had a display that was admittedly smaller, but it was actually a much more overtly sectarian version of the Ten Commandments.\nIt had the Ten Commandments plus the summary of the Ten Commandments from the New Testament.\nAnd nonetheless, Judge Becker said that in that case, the monument had been there since 1920 and Chester County had a legitimate secular purpose in maintaining that document and maintaining the plaque on the courthouse.\nAnd I think he correctly understood that in these cases of displays that have stood for 40 years or longer, that the State is in something of a dilemma.\nThank you, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3284.966, 3293.844, 3307.34, 3317.0, 3323.111, 3326.909, 3344.675, 3350.315, 3357.291, 3362.408, 3374.957, 3383.213], "stop_times": [3293.844, 3307.34, 3317.0, 3323.111, 3326.909, 3344.675, 3350.315, 3357.291, 3362.408, 3374.957, 3383.213, 3384.056], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 2, "timestamp": 3284.966}, "reply_to": "21548__2_019", "speaker": "paul_d_clement"}
{"id": "21548__2_021", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Mr. Chereminsky, you have four minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3384.056], "stop_times": [3391.964], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3384.056}, "reply_to": "21548__2_020", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21548__3_000", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Thank you.\nThis case comes down to two questions.\nFirst, is the Ten Commandments a highly religious message.\nAnd second, can the government place a single religious message on government property at the seat of its government.\nAs to the first question, Stone v. Graham resolves this because this Court said that the Ten Commandments is an inherently religious message no matter what disclaimer accompanies it.\nThe Ten Commandments is not on the Texas State Capitol grounds simply to recognize the role of religion in government.\nIt is not simply an acknowledgment.\nIt is sacred text taken directly from the Bible.\nIt's not there about the history of religion in Texas.\nThere is nothing to tell the reasonable observer that it is there for historical purposes.\nWhat about all the other religions that have played a role in Texas history?\nThe Mojave religion, even Madeleine Murray O'Hare.\nIs Texas saying they would accept statues for all of these individuals there as part of the history of Texas?\nThe second question is, can the government place a single religious message by itself on government property, especially at the seat of government.\nThe County of Allegheny case resolves that.\nThis is much like the nativity scene at the seat of the county government.\nWhat's important and hasn't gotten enough emphasis this morning, this is the sole religious message anywhere on the Texas State Capitol grounds.\nThis isn't a museum.\nEvery item that's there is there because the Texas legislature chose to put it there.\nMost are there to honor veterans of particular wars.\nTexas put this there precisely to express the religious message.\nYour Honors, what's left of the Establishment Clause if any item can be displayed with the most profound religious contents?\nDo we then say the observer can just avert his or her eyes?\nThe observer could have averted his or her eyes in the County of Allegheny case.\nBut this Court was clear in saying that a single religious message, a single religious symbol on government property is inherently an establishment of religion.\nFor this reason, the Texas monument violates the Establishment Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3513.45, 3391.964, 3394.154, 3398.362, 3405.217, 3414.892, 3420.837, 3422.8, 3425.4, 3428.372, 3432.542, 3436.796, 3439.89, 3445.462, 3453.902, 3456.858, 3461.066, 3470.149, 3472.212, 3477.124, 3479.642, 3483.812, 3492.274, 3496.239, 3500.037, 3509.735], "stop_times": [3391.964, 3394.154, 3398.362, 3405.217, 3414.892, 3420.837, 3422.8, 3425.4, 3428.372, 3432.542, 3436.796, 3439.89, 3445.462, 3453.902, 3456.858, 3461.066, 3470.149, 3472.212, 3477.124, 3479.642, 3483.812, 3492.274, 3496.239, 3500.037, 3509.735, 3514.648], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3513.45}, "reply_to": "21548__2_021", "speaker": "erwin_chemerinsky"}
{"id": "21548__3_001", "conversation_id": "21548", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chereminsky.\nThe case is submitted.\nWe will now hear argument in the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1500", "start_times": [3514.648, 3516.505, 3519.932], "stop_times": [3516.505, 3519.932, 3521.668], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3514.648}, "reply_to": "21548__3_000", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_000", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "We'll now hear argument in Whitfield against the United States and Hall against the United States.\nMs. Samek.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [16.5, 23.364], "stop_times": [23.364, 24.14], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 16.5}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_001", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nCongress enacted 18 U.S.C. 1956(h) for the sole purpose of increasing the penalties for money laundering conspiracies.\nCongress did not intend to abandon the overt act requirement from money laundering conspiracies and for good reason.\nThe list of specified unlawful activities under 1956 is vast.\nAnytime two or more people conspire or reach an agreement to commit a crime that generates economic proceeds, invariably the discussion will lead to what they're going to do with the money get... that gets generated, how they're going to spend the money, which is a potential 1957 offense, or how they're going to hide the money, a potential 1956 offense.\nThe Government would charge these agreements as money laundering conspiracies without there even being a single overt act to demonstrate that criminal intent had crystallized, that a money laundering conspiracy was really afoot, and that steps were being taken to launder money, oftentimes triggering substantially higher penalties for the underlying offense, and subverting... subverting the overt act requirement for conspiracy to commit the underlying offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [24.14, 27.825, 37.981, 46.141, 51.186, 71.708], "stop_times": [27.825, 37.981, 46.141, 51.186, 71.708, 99.404], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 24.14}, "reply_to": "22658__0_000", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_002", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Would you just clarify one thing for me?\nDo they have to prove an overt act in order to establish venue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [99.404, 100.952], "stop_times": [100.952, 103.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 99.404}, "reply_to": "22658__0_001", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_003", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Excuse me?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [103.799], "stop_times": [105.722], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 103.799}, "reply_to": "22658__0_002", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_004", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Does the Government have to prove an overt act in order to establish venue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [105.722], "stop_times": [109.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 105.722}, "reply_to": "22658__0_003", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_005", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Our position is that the venue provision in 1956(h) for money laundering conspiracies requires that they establish an overt act and that venue would lie--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [109.854], "stop_times": [119.734], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 109.854}, "reply_to": "22658__0_004", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_006", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Well, your... you say the... the statute requires.\nI'm just asking if it independently of the conspiracy statute... of the... the substantive statute itself, how do they establish venue.\nDo they have to prove an overt act just for the purpose of getting a venue established--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [119.734, 121.751, 129.791], "stop_times": [121.751, 129.791, 135.31], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 119.734}, "reply_to": "22658__0_005", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_007", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [135.31], "stop_times": [135.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 135.31}, "reply_to": "22658__0_006", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_008", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--as they do--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [135.999], "stop_times": [136.291], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 135.999}, "reply_to": "22658__0_007", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_009", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Is that the only basis for venue?\nI mean, I thought the statute provides that's just one of the bases for venue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [136.291, 139.173], "stop_times": [139.173, 142.99], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 136.291}, "reply_to": "22658__0_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22658__0_010", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Our position is that the venue provision in 1956, 1956(i), is the exclusive venue provision for money laundering.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [142.99], "stop_times": [150.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 142.99}, "reply_to": "22658__0_009", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_011", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "But... but read it.\nWhat does it say?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [150.197, 150.915], "stop_times": [150.915, 151.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 150.197}, "reply_to": "22658__0_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22658__0_012", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Are we talking about section 1956(i)?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [151.525], "stop_times": [158.526], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 151.525}, "reply_to": "22658__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22658__0_013", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Section 1956(i) is the venue provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [158.526], "stop_times": [160.831], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 158.526}, "reply_to": "22658__0_012", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_014", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "And doesn't it allow it to be brought where venue would lie if the completed money laundering offense that's the object of the conspiracy has been accomplished or anywhere an overt act was committed?\nIsn't it an either/or?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [160.831, 176.031], "stop_times": [176.031, 177.152], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 160.831}, "reply_to": "22658__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22658__0_015", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Yes.\nOur position is that when you read the venue--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [177.152, 178.432], "stop_times": [178.432, 180.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 177.152}, "reply_to": "22658__0_014", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_016", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "So you don't have to read it as requiring venue.\nIt's just requiring an overt act.\nIf there is an overt act, then venue will lie, but it also will lie where the completed offense would have occurred.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [180.589, 184.817, 187.672], "stop_times": [184.817, 187.672, 197.799], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 180.589}, "reply_to": "22658__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22658__0_017", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--Certainly, but where the completed offense occurs, there certainly would be overt acts.\nYou know, it's inherent in completing the money laundering transaction that there would be overt acts as part of the financial transaction.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [197.799, 201.847], "stop_times": [201.847, 208.432], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 197.799}, "reply_to": "22658__0_016", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_018", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--But why would they state it in the alternative if... why would they state it in the alternative if the overt act were always required?\nThat's the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [208.432, 214.103], "stop_times": [214.103, 214.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 208.432}, "reply_to": "22658__0_017", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_019", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "I agree that it's... it's somewhat confusing, Your Honor, but we would submit that the Government's interpretation of subclause (2) is that if two people conspired in... if two people in Florida conspired to commit a money laundering offense in California, absent any overt act whatsoever, conspiracy would lay in California.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [214.82], "stop_times": [237.663], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 214.82}, "reply_to": "22658__0_018", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_020", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "But that doesn't respond to the venue question.\nVenue, as written in this statute and in most statutes, is permissive.\nIt gives you a choice of forum.\nIt doesn't limit.\nIn... in the times when venue is exclusive, Congress is explicit in telling you that, but ordinarily a venue provision, as this one, either/or, is permissive.\nIt would be extraordinary to make a venue provision exclusive.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [237.663, 240.772, 246.15, 248.391, 250.095, 263.491], "stop_times": [240.772, 246.15, 248.391, 250.095, 263.491, 267.622], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 237.663}, "reply_to": "22658__0_019", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__0_021", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Well, this Court has made venue provisions exclusive in the patent infringement context and in the Banking Act precisely using the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [267.622], "stop_times": [275.808], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 267.622}, "reply_to": "22658__0_020", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_022", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Well, this Court has no authority to make a venue provision either exclusive or permissive.\nCongress decides that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [275.808, 279.678], "stop_times": [279.678, 281.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 275.808}, "reply_to": "22658__0_021", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__0_023", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--And our position is that Congress made this venue provision the exclusive venue provision--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [281.568], "stop_times": [286.617], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 281.568}, "reply_to": "22658__0_022", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_024", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "I... I mean, one can understand that if the venue provision just read, a prosecution may be brought in any... in... let's see... may be brought in the district where venue would lie for the completed... if it just read, venue will lie in any district where an act in furtherance of the attempt or conspiracy took place, then we could argue about whether that is the exclusive venue or not.\nBut I don't see how there is even an argument that it's the exclusive venue when you're dealing with a provision which says that a prosecution may be brought in the district where the... where venue would lie for the completed offense or in any other district where an act in furtherance took place.\nHow can you possibly read that to say that the exclusive venue is a place where an act in furtherance took place?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [286.617, 311.108, 328.497], "stop_times": [311.108, 328.497, 335.328], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 286.617}, "reply_to": "22658__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22658__0_025", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--Our position is that those are the two alternatives for where venue would lie for a conspiracy case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [335.328], "stop_times": [341.774], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 335.328}, "reply_to": "22658__0_024", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_026", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Oh, okay, but... but then... then you acknowledge that the place where an overt act took place is not the exclusive venue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [341.774], "stop_times": [349.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 341.774}, "reply_to": "22658__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22658__0_027", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Our argument is that the first clause of that provision contemplates the existence of an overt act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [349.852], "stop_times": [356.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 349.852}, "reply_to": "22658__0_026", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_028", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "What about the rule provision for venue, which has not been excluded by the statute?\nThe ordinary provision for venue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [356.944, 362.674], "stop_times": [362.674, 364.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 356.944}, "reply_to": "22658__0_027", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__0_029", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "The ordinary provision for venue would be that venue lies in the district where the crime occurs.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [364.992], "stop_times": [369.448], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 364.992}, "reply_to": "22658__0_028", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_030", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [369.448], "stop_times": [370.407], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 369.448}, "reply_to": "22658__0_029", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__0_031", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "That would be... in the money laundering context, under our interpretation of 1956(h), that would be where the overt act occurs.\nSo it would be consistent with it.\nOur--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [370.407, 377.363, 380.213], "stop_times": [377.363, 380.213, 380.733], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 370.407}, "reply_to": "22658__0_030", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_032", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "I thought the crime is the conspiracy.\nThe overt act may be an additional requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [380.733, 382.575], "stop_times": [382.575, 386.804], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 380.733}, "reply_to": "22658__0_031", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__0_033", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--The overt act is part of... it's our position that the overt act is required, and there needs to be an agreement--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [386.804], "stop_times": [395.279], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 386.804}, "reply_to": "22658__0_032", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_034", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "But you will... you will concede that there are many Federal crimes, conspiracy crimes, in which an overt act is not required.\nThe Shabani case requires you to recognize that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [395.279, 405.968], "stop_times": [405.968, 409.101], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 395.279}, "reply_to": "22658__0_033", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__0_035", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--Correct.\nAnd in those cases where all that's required is an agreement, then venue would lie where the agreement occurs, but in this case, because the... the offense requires an agreement plus an overt act, it's our position that that's where venue would lie.\nAs a practical matter, if there is... if... if this Court construes 1956(h) as requiring overt act, as a practical matter, anytime two people agree to commit a money laundering conspiracy in one district and commit overt acts in another district in furtherance of that, it would be highly unlikely that there would not be some overt act in the district where they agreed to commit the offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [409.101, 409.479, 423.249], "stop_times": [409.479, 423.249, 446.868], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 409.101}, "reply_to": "22658__0_034", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_036", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "So you're saying that it doesn't mean very much because an overt act wouldn't be hard to prove.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [446.868], "stop_times": [452.629], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 446.868}, "reply_to": "22658__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__0_037", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "As a--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [452.629], "stop_times": [453.191], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 452.629}, "reply_to": "22658__0_036", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_038", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "But there are... I mean, the difference between statutes that say overt act is required and those that just say conspiracy... there are many, many such statutes, and we dealt with one in Shabani.\nBut of all the statutes that include no express overt act requirement, have any of them be read to implicitly include one, which is the argument you're making that we should adopt here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [453.191, 469.321], "stop_times": [469.321, 486.55], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 453.191}, "reply_to": "22658__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__0_039", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--That's correct.\nAnd no.\nThere... we have not found any cases where the Court has heretofore read an overt act requirement into a conspiracy provision.\nBut this statute is unique.\nThe money laundering statute is unique.\nIf you look at the statute and we lay it out... the statute in total... in our reply brief, starting at 1a... the structure of 1956 strongly supports our position that all Congress was doing, when they enacted 1956(h), was increasing the penalty for money laundering conspiracies.\nAs this Court is well aware, when Congress typically writes a complex statute, the statute begins by setting forth all of the offense elements.\nHere, that would be set forth in (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3).\nThe statute then goes on in subsection (b) to set forth the civil penalty provisions.\nSubsection (c) then defines the various terms used in the act.\nSubsection (d) then talks about relationships with other laws.\nSubsection (e) identifies those Federal agencies that can investigate money laundering offenses.\nSubsection (f) talks about circumstances under which there would be extraterritorial jurisdiction.\nSubsection (g) then talks about recording... reporting requirements, and then you get to subsection (h), which we say, when you read the statute as a whole, clearly intends simply that the penalty for money laundering conspiracies would be increased to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense provision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [486.55, 487.08, 487.724, 495.351, 498.73, 500.334, 519.614, 527.628, 532.067, 537.351, 542.83, 547.71, 553.168, 559.59], "stop_times": [487.08, 487.724, 495.351, 498.73, 500.334, 519.614, 527.628, 532.067, 537.351, 542.83, 547.71, 553.168, 559.59, 577.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 486.55}, "reply_to": "22658__0_038", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_040", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Except that there are other statutes that... that read this way, which we have held to... to create the conspiracy offense, as well as impose the penalty for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [577.079], "stop_times": [587.39], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 577.079}, "reply_to": "22658__0_039", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22658__0_041", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Your Honor--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [587.39], "stop_times": [589.195], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 587.39}, "reply_to": "22658__0_040", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_042", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "I mean, it... it could do that.\nAny person who conspires to commit any offense defined in this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense.\nAnd that could be deemed to create the conspiracy offense and prescribe the penalty for it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [589.195, 590.152, 597.52], "stop_times": [590.152, 597.52, 603.652], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 589.195}, "reply_to": "22658__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22658__0_043", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--It could be construed as a freestanding offense provision--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [603.652], "stop_times": [606.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 603.652}, "reply_to": "22658__0_042", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_044", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "And there are other such provisions, aren't there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [606.702], "stop_times": [608.411], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 606.702}, "reply_to": "22658__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22658__0_045", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--There are not any of the offense... conspiracy provisions that this Court has interpreted that had the same structural ambiguity as 1956(h).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [608.411], "stop_times": [617.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 608.411}, "reply_to": "22658__0_044", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_046", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Well, Shabani comes pretty close, doesn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [617.088], "stop_times": [619.638], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 617.088}, "reply_to": "22658__0_045", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22658__0_047", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Shabani is a separate, distinct statute.\n846 was a separate, distinct, discrete offense statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [619.638, 622.578], "stop_times": [622.578, 627.158], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 619.638}, "reply_to": "22658__0_046", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_048", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--like this it seems to me contains no express requirement of an overt act, and we've said, indeed, none is required and that at common law it wasn't required.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [627.158], "stop_times": [637.175], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 627.158}, "reply_to": "22658__0_047", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22658__0_049", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "That's true.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [637.175], "stop_times": [637.998], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 637.175}, "reply_to": "22658__0_048", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_050", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "So why would we read it in here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [637.998], "stop_times": [640.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 637.998}, "reply_to": "22658__0_049", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "22658__0_051", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Because text... as this Court has said on multiple occasions, in order to understand what the words mean in a statute, you have to look at context.\nSo you have to look at where the provision is placed and what Congress meant by that provision and look at the statute as a whole.\nIf anyone... if we look--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [640.235, 647.861, 654.148], "stop_times": [647.861, 654.148, 656.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 640.235}, "reply_to": "22658__0_050", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_052", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--Of course, if you look at this statute as a whole, you don't find the overt act requirement in it anywhere, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [656.032], "stop_times": [661.04], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 656.032}, "reply_to": "22658__0_051", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_053", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--You don't find the overt act explicitly in the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [661.04], "stop_times": [663.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 661.04}, "reply_to": "22658__0_052", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_054", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "And the fact that you described it as a long, detailed statute it seems to me cuts against you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [663.544], "stop_times": [667.085], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 663.544}, "reply_to": "22658__0_053", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_055", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "No, because our position is that placing it in subsection (h) evidences that Congress' intent and sole focus when they enacted this was the purpose of increasing the penalty for money laundering.\nThe--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [667.085, 679.665], "stop_times": [679.665, 680.31], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 667.085}, "reply_to": "22658__0_054", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_056", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Let's get--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [680.31], "stop_times": [680.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 680.31}, "reply_to": "22658__0_055", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22658__0_057", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "And they were making it unnecessary to rely on the general conspiracy statute in 18-371 or whatever it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [680.881], "stop_times": [686.52], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 680.881}, "reply_to": "22658__0_056", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_058", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--It's our position that they're incorporating the overt act requirement, the act in furtherance requirement, from 371 as evidenced by the legislative history.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [686.52], "stop_times": [694.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 686.52}, "reply_to": "22658__0_057", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_059", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--If that's so... if that's so, then why does the venue provision which you were just alluding to earlier read, except as provided in paragraph (2), a prosecution for an offense under this section.\nAn offense under this section or section 1957 may be brought in... and then it says... (2) a prosecution for an attempt or a conspiracy offense under this section.\nNot under section 371, but a prosecution for an attempt or a conspiracy offense under this section.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [694.315, 707.342, 719.89], "stop_times": [707.342, 719.89, 728.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 694.315}, "reply_to": "22658__0_058", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22658__0_060", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "And it would be an offense under this section because certainly the jury would need to find that the object of the conspiracy was money laundering.\nSo it would be an offense in that respect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [728.16, 736.3], "stop_times": [736.3, 738.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 728.16}, "reply_to": "22658__0_059", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_061", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "I... I think that language really cuts very hard against you.\nA conspiracy offense under this section.\nIt... it is reading as though that's the section that defines the offense, not just the section that provides the penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [738.689, 742.9, 745.088], "stop_times": [742.9, 745.088, 751.914], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 738.689}, "reply_to": "22658__0_060", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22658__0_062", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "I can see how you would read it that way, Your Honor, but the offense--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [751.914], "stop_times": [755.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 751.914}, "reply_to": "22658__0_061", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_063", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Only because I'm a reasonable man.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [755.88, 757.451], "stop_times": [757.451, 758.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 755.88}, "reply_to": "22658__0_062", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22658__0_064", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--The offense provisions set forth in 1956 are clearly set out and enumerated in subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3).\nIn 1988... when the statute was originally enacted, (a)(1) and (a)(2) set forth the offense provisions.\nWhen the statute was amended in 1988 and Congress intended to create another offense provision, they set forth (a)(1)... the third sting provision which is (a)(1)(iii).\nIf Congress intended to create an offense provision when they enacted 1956(h), they would have set it forth as (a)(1)(iv), or alternatively, they would have added or conspires to each of the predecessor offenses.\nNotably, the offense provision at issue here does not include attempts, which 846 did, and which the overwhelming majority of conspiracy subsections include... attempts are included with offenses.\nThe fact that Congress did not include attempts in this provision again reflects the fact that they were solely focused on 371, a conspiracy offense, and all they were trying to do was increase the penalty.\nThe placement of the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [758.729, 766.617, 773.551, 786.301, 800.674, 814.513, 826.12], "stop_times": [766.617, 773.551, 786.301, 800.674, 814.513, 826.12, 827.451], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 758.729}, "reply_to": "22658__0_063", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_065", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Then you would expect at least a cross reference to 371 for defining the conspiracy, but there's nothing here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [827.451], "stop_times": [836.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 827.451}, "reply_to": "22658__0_064", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__0_066", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--That's true, and it clearly would... it certainly would be clearer had they done so.\nBut if you take the language originally, this provision was proposed by Representative Annunzio to be an amendment to 371, and we lay out in our... in the blue brief at page 12 what that amendment would have looked like, virtually identical language to 1956(h).\nCertainly if you read it in subsection 371... if you take the identical language and put it in section 371, there wouldn't be much of an argument, we would submit, that Congress surely intended to include the overt act, act in furtherance language and they were just talking about increasing the penalty for money laundering.\nThat makes our point that you look at the language, and depending on where it's placed in a statute, it can have different meanings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [836.499, 840.371, 857.633, 876.007], "stop_times": [840.371, 857.633, 876.007, 882.511], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 836.499}, "reply_to": "22658__0_065", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_067", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "You have given a few examples of a word may mean different things in different contexts, but you haven't given any example... and I don't know if there is one... where the entire string of words is identical in two statutes, both dealing with conspiracies, and you read an overt act requirement into one and not the other.\nI mean, you have a much harder argument to make when you're talking about an entire provision where the wording is almost identical than when you're talking about one word used in different contexts.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [882.511, 911.638], "stop_times": [911.638, 922.36], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 882.511}, "reply_to": "22658__0_066", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__0_068", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "That's true, Your Honor, but as this Court said in Shabani, absent contrary indications, the Court will presume that Congress intends to incorporate the common law concept of the terms that it uses.\nIn Shabani, the defendant did not argue any contrary indications.\nThey argued that at common law conspiracy required the commission of an overt act.\nThat is not our position.\nBut our position is that here there are contrary indications, and because the statute is ambiguous based on the placement and structure of 1956(h), you have to look to see if there are other indications.\nAnd clearly in the legislative history--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [922.36, 933.541, 938.171, 943.331, 944.721, 957.234], "stop_times": [933.541, 938.171, 943.331, 944.721, 957.234, 959.091], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 922.36}, "reply_to": "22658__0_067", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_069", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Yes, but there's nothing in the text of the statute that's ambiguous, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [959.091], "stop_times": [961.724], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 959.091}, "reply_to": "22658__0_068", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_070", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--No, but that is not dispositive because the placement the Congress has said... I mean, this Court has said on multiple occasions that you need to read a statute as a whole, and when you look at the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [961.724], "stop_times": [971.528], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 961.724}, "reply_to": "22658__0_069", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_071", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "But if you read it as a whole, you can't find any ambiguity.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [971.528], "stop_times": [973.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 971.528}, "reply_to": "22658__0_070", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_072", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--I think you can find ambiguity, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [973.88], "stop_times": [976.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 973.88}, "reply_to": "22658__0_071", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_073", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "In the text of the statute?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [976.665], "stop_times": [977.76], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 976.665}, "reply_to": "22658__0_072", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_074", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "In the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [977.76], "stop_times": [978.61], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 977.76}, "reply_to": "22658__0_073", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_075", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Reading the whole text.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [978.61], "stop_times": [980.006], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 978.61}, "reply_to": "22658__0_074", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_076", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--Reading the whole text of the statute, it looks to me it reads that the offenses are set off... set forth at the beginning, followed by the civil penalties, then procedural aspects, including this penalty provision for increasing conspiracies.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [980.006], "stop_times": [991.715], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 980.006}, "reply_to": "22658__0_075", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_077", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "None of which mentions an overt act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [991.715], "stop_times": [993.356], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 991.715}, "reply_to": "22658__0_076", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_078", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "No, it doesn't mention an overt act, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [993.356], "stop_times": [994.942], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 993.356}, "reply_to": "22658__0_077", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_079", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "So I don't find anything ambiguous in what you describe.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [994.942], "stop_times": [997.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 994.942}, "reply_to": "22658__0_078", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_080", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--Well, we believe that 1956(h) clearly reflects Congress' intent to solely increase the penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [997.151], "stop_times": [1004.033], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 997.151}, "reply_to": "22658__0_079", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_081", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Perhaps that's all they thought of, but maybe they did a little more than they thought they were doing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1004.033], "stop_times": [1008.2], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1004.033}, "reply_to": "22658__0_080", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_082", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Well, if Congress inadvertently omitted the overt act requirement, this Court has on prior occasions read into congressional silence terms, definitions that Congress may have inadvertently left out.\nSo in United States v. Taylor, for example, the question was whether or not Congress intended to revert back to the common law definition of burglary in the Career Criminals Amendment Act, and in 1984, the Career Criminals Amendment Act had language that talked about a generic burglary, breaking and entering into a dwelling.\nIn 1986, when they amended the act, they removed that language.\nThe question before the Court then came up what does... you know, what does burglary mean.\nCongress had omitted those words, but the Court found that that wasn't Congress' intent.\nThey clearly didn't intend to revert back to the common law, and it was probably an error of drafting and this Court found that generic burglary was the standard.\nSo this Court has done that before.\nIn the... in the Perrin case, United States v. Perrin, the same thing.\nThere... words were missing from the statute and the Court did not find that in Perrin... it was a bribery case, and what was at issue was whether or not the... the statute covered bribery of private persons or only the common law definition where it would only incorporate bribery of public... public persons, public officials.\nAnd the Court said even though there are other statutes that have private person language in it, similar to this case, even though there are other statutes that have overt act requirements in it, we are not going to assume that Congress intended to revert back to the common law and interpret bribery as only applying to public officials.\nSo this Court can look at the legislative history.\nThe purpose is clear.\nThe Government admits that the purpose of the act was to increase the penalty.\nPrior to 1956(h), money laundering conspiracies were prosecuted pursuant to 371, which required the commission of an overt act.\nCongress clearly intended to increase the penalty from 5 years to a potential 10 or 20 years, based on what the object of the conspiracy was.\nThe legislative history all reflects that fact, and the Government admits that.\nThe... as contrasted with 846, which... in which the public law described 846 in a section labeled offenses and provision in the money laundering context, the public law described 1956(h) as a penalty to increase the... as a money laundering conspiracy for increasing the penalty.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1008.2, 1021.02, 1041.523, 1045.525, 1050.521, 1056.675, 1066.553, 1068.997, 1072.822, 1092.223, 1109.532, 1112.355, 1113.396, 1117.033, 1125.872, 1134.221, 1138.836], "stop_times": [1021.02, 1041.523, 1045.525, 1050.521, 1056.675, 1066.553, 1068.997, 1072.822, 1092.223, 1109.532, 1112.355, 1113.396, 1117.033, 1125.872, 1134.221, 1138.836, 1157.813], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1008.2}, "reply_to": "22658__0_081", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_083", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Can I... can I ask what you make of subsection (d) of... of this provision which says that violations of this section may be investigated by such components of the Department of Justice as the Attorney General may direct and by such components of the Department of the Treasury as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct, as appropriate, and with respect to offenses over which the Postal Service has jurisdiction, by the Postal Service?\nApparently there was some turf war going on as to who had jurisdiction over these offenses and... and this was meant to... to solve the turf war, but it reads violations of this section.\nNow, does that allocation of authority among Justice and Treasury and the Postal Service not apply to the conspiracy offenses under section 371?\nBecause that's not a violation of this section.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1157.813, 1185.342, 1197.702, 1210.101], "stop_times": [1185.342, 1197.702, 1210.101, 1211.962], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1157.813}, "reply_to": "22658__0_082", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22658__0_084", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "I'm not sure I understand your point.\nI would think that if it's a conspiracy to commit... if the specified unlawful activity is one of the postal offenses or one of the customs offenses, both of which carry--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1211.962, 1214.68], "stop_times": [1214.68, 1223.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1211.962}, "reply_to": "22658__0_083", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_085", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "The offense is never completed.\nthere's nothing... nothing occurs except a conspiracy, and you're telling us a conspiracy is not a violation of this section.\nThis section sets forth the penalty... that's your argument... but it does not establish the offense.\nThe offense is established by 371.\nIf that's the case, this allocation of responsibility among the various divisions of the Government doesn't apply to conspiracy prosecutions, which would make no sense at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1223.795, 1225.177, 1233.771, 1239.682, 1241.893], "stop_times": [1225.177, 1233.771, 1239.682, 1241.893, 1251.669], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1223.795}, "reply_to": "22658__0_084", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22658__0_086", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--It's our position that when Congress enacted this, they were trying to enact a penalty-enhancing statute.\n1956(h) then incorporates or impliedly recognizes the overt act requirement from 371.\nCongress was not intending to change the way money laundering conspiracies were prosecuted.\nThey would have done so under 371, requiring the act in furtherance, and a jury or a judge would find that money laundering was the object of the conspiracy.\nThat's how Congress envisioned this act as... as being applied, and so I would assume Congress would envision that if it was a conspiracy to violate one of the postal offenses, that the postal authority would have had authority to investigate that offense.\nInteresting--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1251.669, 1257.617, 1265.24, 1269.642, 1278.972, 1294.833], "stop_times": [1257.617, 1265.24, 1269.642, 1278.972, 1294.833, 1295.518], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1251.669}, "reply_to": "22658__0_085", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_087", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "What do you... excuse me.\nWhat... what do you make of... of this argument?\nLet's start with the premise that Congress wasn't thinking about overt acts at all.\nStart with the premise that you argue from that what Congress was concerned with here was primarily penalty.\nHowever, Congress did this in a context in which there are two recognized kinds of statutes, two recognized kinds of... of conspiracy formulations.\nAnd if one has the magic words in it referring to an overt act, you got to prove an overt act.\nIn the other variety, there's no reference to overt acts, and as a general rule, you don't have to prove overt acts.\nWhy isn't it a sensible interpretive rule to say, look, when there are recognized models and Congress, in fact, chooses one rather than another, we're not going to get into the question of did Congress really mean to make a change when it picked one model rather than the other?\nIt simply picked one model, and the... the clearest way to have a coherent system of conspiracy law is to apply the model.\nIf it didn't talk about overt act, there's no overt act requirement.\nWhy isn't that a sensible way to... to work our way through these thickets?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1295.518, 1296.633, 1298.578, 1302.578, 1308.682, 1321.037, 1327.179, 1334.53, 1357.149, 1367.672, 1371.566], "stop_times": [1296.633, 1298.578, 1302.578, 1308.682, 1321.037, 1327.179, 1334.53, 1357.149, 1367.672, 1371.566, 1375.726], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1295.518}, "reply_to": "22658__0_086", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22658__0_088", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--I... I think that would be a sensible way to work your way through thickets of statutes that were enacted after Shabani when this Court created that formulary.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1375.726], "stop_times": [1384.031], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1375.726}, "reply_to": "22658__0_087", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_089", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "But Shabani rested on... on the existence of these prior models.\nShabani didn't create them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1384.031, 1387.734], "stop_times": [1387.734, 1389.502], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1384.031}, "reply_to": "22658__0_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22658__0_090", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "That's correct, but there is nothing in the legislative history to suggest that Nash and Singer, the cases that Shabani relied on, were ever discussed or contemplated by Congress.\nIf Congress was going to make such a fundamental change in how they were going to prosecute money laundering conspiracies, they would have said so.\nWe're not talking about a backdrop of not requiring an overt act and should Congress read an overt act into Congress' silence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1389.502, 1399.741, 1408.01], "stop_times": [1399.741, 1408.01, 1415.19], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1389.502}, "reply_to": "22658__0_089", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_091", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "There are about... there are over 50, I think, in title 18 alone conspiracy provisions with no overt act requirement, no explicit overt act requirement.\nThe... the argument you're making, I suppose, would require this Court to go by... one by one through those 50-odd statutes, and there would be contests of every one because the absence of those words is not dispositive, as you see it.\nSo you would be generating a controversy about 50-odd statutes that would be gone, that just wouldn't be there if you agreed with Justice Souter's approach.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1415.19, 1428.367, 1448.701], "stop_times": [1428.367, 1448.701, 1462.523], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1415.19}, "reply_to": "22658__0_090", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__0_092", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Well, we don't... we don't believe that's the case because if you look at all of those subsections in title 18, none of them have the structural ambiguity that 1956(h) has, combined with a venue provision--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1462.523], "stop_times": [1476.843], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1462.523}, "reply_to": "22658__0_091", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_093", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Have you looked at all 59, I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1476.843], "stop_times": [1479.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1476.843}, "reply_to": "22658__0_092", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__0_094", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--The--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1479.113], "stop_times": [1479.978], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1479.113}, "reply_to": "22658__0_093", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_095", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--and assured yourself on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1479.978], "stop_times": [1481.339], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1479.978}, "reply_to": "22658__0_094", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__0_096", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--I've... I've looked through the entire statute, and I have not found... title 18.\nI have not found any that have both an anomaly, a structural anomaly, and a venue provision that turns on the existence of an overt act.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1481.339, 1486.038], "stop_times": [1486.038, 1494.479], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1481.339}, "reply_to": "22658__0_095", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_097", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Well, we've already dealt with venue where I think your argument is exceedingly weak since the statute phrases it as a permissive not a requirement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1494.479], "stop_times": [1505.68], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1494.479}, "reply_to": "22658__0_096", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__0_098", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Well, first of all, we would submit, just briefly on... on the venue point, if Congress wanted this to be a permissive venue provision, they could have said venue would lie where and in the circumstances or as otherwise required by statute, in which case they could have shown that they were applying to other statutory bases for venue, as well as what Congress was establishing here.\nThey didn't do that.\nThe venue provision was enacted in response to this Court's decision in Cabrales, which dealt with the money laundering... the substantive offense of money laundering, and this Court's suggestion that money laundering could be considered a continuing violation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 3237, the continuing offense venue provision.\nIf all Congress was doing was codifying that principle and trying to address the issue in Cabrales, they would have just dealt with substantive money laundering in the venue provision.\nThey would not have also included a provision in the venue section dealing with conspiracy.\nThe fact that they did and the fact that they used language that this Court has previously found to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1505.68, 1527.779, 1528.911, 1546.878, 1557.41, 1562.139], "stop_times": [1527.779, 1528.911, 1546.878, 1557.41, 1562.139, 1566.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1505.68}, "reply_to": "22658__0_097", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_099", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "It gave... it gave the prosecutor more choices of where to bring suit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1566.854], "stop_times": [1570.655], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1566.854}, "reply_to": "22658__0_098", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__0_100", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--We say those are the only choices on where to bring suit.\nBut--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1570.655, 1575.405], "stop_times": [1575.405, 1576.983], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1570.655}, "reply_to": "22658__0_099", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_101", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Do you want to reserve any time?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1576.983], "stop_times": [1579.076], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1576.983}, "reply_to": "22658__0_100", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__0_102", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--Oh, yes.\nI'm sorry.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1579.076, 1580.049], "stop_times": [1580.049, 1580.263], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1579.076}, "reply_to": "22658__0_101", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__0_103", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Mr. Marcus.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1580.263], "stop_times": [1587.357], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1580.263}, "reply_to": "22658__0_102", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__1_000", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThe money laundering conspiracy statute does not require proof of an overt act for three reasons.\nFirst, the text of the statute contains no such requirement.\nSecond, the statute is modeled on the drug conspiracy statute which this Court unanimously held in the Shabani case does not require proof of an overt act.\nThird, the statute was enacted against the background rule of statutory construction that... that a conspiracy provision, whose text conditions liability on the act of conspiring only, will be construed to follow the common law, where proof of an overt act was not required for conviction.\nThis Court should adhere to its bright line rule in this case because it provides clear guidance to Congress and to the lower courts.\nPetitioners seek to avoid application of the bright line rule on a variety of grounds, none of which has... none of which has merit.\nI will address a few of those grounds here.\nFirst, the money laundering conspiracy statute, section 1956(h), is not a penalty provision for the general conspiracy statute, section 371.\nSection 1956(h) does not contain any reference to section 371, and petitioners are unable to cite any provision in the United States Code that provides a penalty for an offense defined elsewhere, without also referencing where that offense is defined.\nUnder petitioners' theory, if section 371 were appealed tomorrow, section 1956(h) would also no longer be valid.\nBut there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1587.357, 1590.182, 1595.521, 1599.232, 1608.383, 1625.068, 1633.166, 1641.578, 1644.12, 1654.209, 1670.994, 1679.59], "stop_times": [1590.182, 1595.521, 1599.232, 1608.383, 1625.068, 1633.166, 1641.578, 1644.12, 1654.209, 1670.994, 1679.59, 1681.854], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1587.357}, "reply_to": "22658__0_103", "speaker": "jonathan_l_marcus"}
{"id": "22658__1_001", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "If... if 371 were repealed, would it affect the actual practice in the Justice Department?\nI... I think I recall reading in the briefs for the other side that... that the... the United States has continued to charge conspiracies in money laundering cases under 371.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1681.854, 1688.093, 1700.006], "stop_times": [1688.093, 1700.006, 1701.337], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1681.854}, "reply_to": "22658__1_000", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22658__1_002", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--Well, my understanding is on... on occasion that is done in a multi-object conspiracy case.\nWhere there are several objects to the conspiracy sometimes for purpose of simplification, the Government will just... will charge a 371--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1701.337, 1706.435], "stop_times": [1706.435, 1713.896], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1701.337}, "reply_to": "22658__1_001", "speaker": "jonathan_l_marcus"}
{"id": "22658__1_003", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "But not in exclusively laundering cases.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1713.896], "stop_times": [1715.51], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1713.896}, "reply_to": "22658__1_002", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22658__1_004", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--Generally, no.\nThere might be... there might be an occasional example where it may have been an oversight where a prosecutor may have overlooked section 1956(h), maybe soon after 1956(h) was enacted, but generally speaking no.\nThe money laundering conspiracy prosecutions are done under 1956(h).", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1715.51, 1716.71, 1726.489], "stop_times": [1716.71, 1726.489, 1730.673], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1715.51}, "reply_to": "22658__1_003", "speaker": "jonathan_l_marcus"}
{"id": "22658__1_005", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "When... when you say when there are multiple objects, you're not getting the money... money laundering just under 371.\nYou'd surely charge both under 371 and under... under... what is it?\n1956.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1730.673, 1739.429, 1747.393], "stop_times": [1739.429, 1747.393, 1749.832], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1730.673}, "reply_to": "22658__1_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22658__1_006", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "That's correct, Justice Scalia.\nYou could.\nYou could prosecute... you could prosecute them as... as separate offenses, but sometimes the Government for... just for purpose of simplification will just charge one... one agreement with multiple objects, and one of those objects might be a money laundering object.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1749.832, 1752.668, 1753.128], "stop_times": [1752.668, 1753.128, 1767.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1749.832}, "reply_to": "22658__1_005", "speaker": "jonathan_l_marcus"}
{"id": "22658__1_007", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "If it were just money laundering, could you charge under 371?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1767.255], "stop_times": [1769.749], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1767.255}, "reply_to": "22658__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "22658__1_008", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Yes, you could charge under 371.\nThere's nothing that prevents the Government from doing so.\nThis Court has... has held before, for example, in the Batchelder case that there can be multiple provisions that essentially cover the same conduct, and the Government has discretion to choose which one to use.\nGenerally speaking, the money laundering conspiracy statute contains higher penalties.\nSo the practice today is... is to prosecute those offenses under section 1956(h).\nAnother... another reading there... another reason they're reading that it's a penalty provision should be rejected is that Congress modeled section 1956(h) on the drug conspiracy statute that's virtually identically worded to section 1956(h), and no one disputes that the drug conspiracy statute establishes a freestanding criminal offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1769.749, 1772.602, 1774.614, 1787.014, 1790.654, 1795.235], "stop_times": [1772.602, 1774.614, 1787.014, 1790.654, 1795.235, 1818.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1769.749}, "reply_to": "22658__1_007", "speaker": "jonathan_l_marcus"}
{"id": "22658__1_009", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "This is 846.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1818.025], "stop_times": [1819.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1818.025}, "reply_to": "22658__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22658__1_010", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "846, yes, in title 21.\nPetitioners also argue that because prior to enactment of section 1956(h), the Government had to prosecute money laundering conspiracies for 6 years under section 371, that this Court should presume that Congress intended to perpetuate the overt act requirement of section 371 into the money laundering conspiracy offense.\nBut this Court looks, first, to the text of the statute to discern Congress' intent, and had Congress wanted to perpetuate section 371's overt act requirement, it could have easily modeled the text of section 1956(h) on the language from 371 or on the language from any of the other numerous conspiracy provisions in the code that contained express overt act requirements.\nCongress chose a different model, the drug conspiracy statute, which as I said before, this Court held in Shabani does not contain an overt act requirement.\nBy choosing that model, Congress manifested its intent not to require proof of an overt act because at the time it... because at the time it acted, the background rule of statutory construction provided that a conspiracy statute that conditions liability solely on the act of conspiring would be construed to follow the common law.\nPetitioners point to silence in the legislative history, but the silence in the legislative history on the overt act requirement is not the kind of compelling evidence of... of contrary intent that would justify departing from the text of the statute and this Court's bright line rule.\nFinally, petitioners rely on a venue provision for money laundering cases, section 1956(i), which was enacted 9 years after the money laundering conspiracy statute at issue here.\nThat venue provision reflects Congress' intent to identify a variety of districts in which money laundering cases can be brought.\nIt does not reflect an intent to redefine the... the elements of the substantive money laundering conspiracy offense.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1819.544, 1822.005, 1840.955, 1860.085, 1869.325, 1886.789, 1901.154, 1914.363, 1921.071], "stop_times": [1822.005, 1840.955, 1860.085, 1869.325, 1886.789, 1901.154, 1914.363, 1921.071, 1927.214], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1819.544}, "reply_to": "22658__1_009", "speaker": "jonathan_l_marcus"}
{"id": "22658__1_011", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "What do you make of the... the argument that I think occurs in the yellow brief, that... the reference to any other district where an act in furtherance, et cetera, took place implies that in the clause preceding, they were referring to a district in which an act in furtherance took place?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1927.214], "stop_times": [1945.915], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1927.214}, "reply_to": "22658__1_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "22658__1_012", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Justice Souter, I think what... what that terminology was... was referring to was district.\nThe other is meant to modify district.\nIn other words, the first... the first clause there provides a venue where the case can be brought.\nAnd if it's not brought in that... if it doesn't fall within that venue, then you can bring it in... in a different district, an other district.\nI think that's the... the best way to read the... the statute.\nI mean, otherwise, it could have... as it was pointed out during petitioners' argument, otherwise they could have just had one.\nThey wouldn't need separate clauses.\nThey could have just had one clause that said, and the case... the conspiracy case can be brought in any district where an overt act was committed.\nPetitioners seize on the fact that the venue provision permits venue to be laid in any district in which an overt act was committed.\nBut the rule in conspiracy cases has always been that an overt... that venue can be laid where an overt act was committed regardless of whether an overt act was an element of the offense.\nAt common law, as I said before, conspiracies... a conspiracy conviction did not rely... depend on proof of an overt act, and yet venue could always be laid at common law where an overt act was committed.\nThe common law venue rule has been applied consistently to modern Federal conspiracy statutes, such as the drug conspiracy statute, which likewise does not require proof of an overt act as an element of the offense.\nCongress' codification in the money laundering statute of... of this... of this venue principle cannot be read to presuppose an overt act element when the very venue rule it was codifying did not presuppose one.\nIf this Court... if this Court has no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [1945.915, 1951.709, 1953.179, 1958.231, 1964.394, 1967.577, 1972.716, 1973.716, 1980.118, 1989.507, 1998.942, 2011.016, 2022.498, 2035.738], "stop_times": [1951.709, 1953.179, 1958.231, 1964.394, 1967.577, 1972.716, 1973.716, 1980.118, 1989.507, 1998.942, 2011.016, 2022.498, 2035.738, 2039.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1945.915}, "reply_to": "22658__1_011", "speaker": "jonathan_l_marcus"}
{"id": "22658__1_013", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "I had just one other question, just out of curiosity, about how important this case is.\nHow many prosecutions under this statute does the Government bring without proving an overt act?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2039.83, 2044.083], "stop_times": [2044.083, 2048.845], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2039.83}, "reply_to": "22658__1_012", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__1_014", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--I'm... I'm not aware of... I'm not aware of a number, Justice Stevens.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2048.845], "stop_times": [2053.507], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2048.845}, "reply_to": "22658__1_013", "speaker": "jonathan_l_marcus"}
{"id": "22658__1_015", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Are there any?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2053.507], "stop_times": [2054.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2053.507}, "reply_to": "22658__1_014", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__1_016", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "I... I don't know.\nI mean, it's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2054.161, 2055.432], "stop_times": [2055.432, 2056.877], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2054.161}, "reply_to": "22658__1_015", "speaker": "jonathan_l_marcus"}
{"id": "22658__1_017", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "It seems to me quite unlikely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2056.877], "stop_times": [2057.927], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2056.877}, "reply_to": "22658__1_016", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__1_018", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--Well--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2057.927], "stop_times": [2058.229], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2057.927}, "reply_to": "22658__1_017", "speaker": "jonathan_l_marcus"}
{"id": "22658__1_019", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "I'm just wondering.\nIt seems to me sort of a tempest in a teapot, this whole case to me.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2058.229, 2059.343], "stop_times": [2059.343, 2062.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2058.229}, "reply_to": "22658__1_018", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__1_020", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--Yes.\nI think it's true in the vast majority of cases, the Government does have proof of an overt act.\nAnd, of course, overt acts help establish the... establish the agreement and... and to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt there was an agreement.\nIf the Court has no further questions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2062.577, 2063.05, 2066.337, 2072.382], "stop_times": [2063.05, 2066.337, 2072.382, 2074.103], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2062.577}, "reply_to": "22658__1_019", "speaker": "jonathan_l_marcus"}
{"id": "22658__1_021", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "I... I do have one and it's not on the money laundering conspiracy issue, but in this particular case, would it be consistent with the position that the Solicitor General has been taking for us to hold the final disposition of this case pending Booker and Fanfan?\nWasn't there a sentencing question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2074.103, 2098.179], "stop_times": [2098.179, 2101.993], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2074.103}, "reply_to": "22658__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__1_022", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "--Well, it's our position that it wasn't... they didn't raise that issue in... in the court of appeals.\nThey didn't raise the Sixth Amendment issue in the court of appeals.\nThey didn't raise that issue in their cert petition here, and so it's... it's not covered by the... by the question presented.\nSo it is the position that we've... that we've set out in the brief that it should not be... it should not be held pending that... that disposition in Booker and Fanfan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2101.993, 2109.143, 2110.911, 2115.492], "stop_times": [2109.143, 2110.911, 2115.492, 2123.202], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2101.993}, "reply_to": "22658__1_021", "speaker": "jonathan_l_marcus"}
{"id": "22658__1_023", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "And that's consistent with the position that the Government has been taking routinely in cases where Booker... where the sentencing guidelines are an issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2123.202], "stop_times": [2132.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2123.202}, "reply_to": "22658__1_022", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__1_024", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Well, I think in the... I think that that position is based on petitions that have raised the question, I believe.\nIf... if the Court has no further questions, it should reaffirm the conspiracy statutes that do not contain an overt act requirement should not be read to include one.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2132.899, 2140.959, 2149.928], "stop_times": [2140.959, 2149.928, 2151.665], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2132.899}, "reply_to": "22658__1_023", "speaker": "jonathan_l_marcus"}
{"id": "22658__1_025", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Marcus.\nMs. Samek, you have about 3 and a half minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2151.665, 2152.988], "stop_times": [2152.988, 2155.891], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2151.665}, "reply_to": "22658__1_024", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "22658__2_000", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nJustice Ginsburg, you had inquired about the number of subsection... conspiracy subsections, and I didn't get a chance to answer your question.\nEven if you don't find the statute is unique because of the venue provision, as my review of the conspiracy subsections in title 18, there were only about two others out of the 50-some-odd cases that have the same structural anomaly that 1956(h) does.\nSo this would not be opening up a can of worms to say that in this case an overt act clearly was intended by Congress and that we need to look at congressional intent.\nSo it wouldn't be... require... a holding in this case consistent with congressional purpose would not require the Court to then have to review every single title 18 conspiracy subsection.\nAs the Government pointed out, money laundering cases are not typically prosecuted without the commission of an overt act because overt acts are relatively simple to prove.\nThere's no reason why Congress would have intentionally eliminated the overt act requirement from money laundering conspiracies when, on the one hand, it's easy to prove, but on the other hand, it placed such a critical value in money laundering conspiracies because it's not just that it shows that criminal intent has crystallized and that money laundering is actually afoot, but you're talking about taking offenses, like we say in our brief, where someone pledges a... a cow for collateral for a loan and then they talk with a friend about whether or not they should sell the cow, and they decide not to sell the cow.\nUnder the Government's theory, they couldn't be prosecuted for defrauding the Government because, in fact, they never sold the cow.\nThey couldn't be prosecuted for conspiracy to defraud the Government because they didn't commit an overt act in furtherance of defrauding the Government.\nThey couldn't be convicted or prosecuted for money laundering because they never sold the cow, so there were never any proceeds to generate.\nBut they could be convicted, under the Government's theory, of conspiracy to commit money laundering based on the sale of a cow and their sentence would increase from a potential 5 years to a potential 20 years.\nThere's absolutely no indication in the Congressional Record that Congress ever intended such dramatic triggering of substantially higher penalties without the commission of an overt act, which is not difficult to prove.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2155.891, 2157.946, 2166.506, 2183.729, 2193.677, 2204.266, 2213.878, 2247.747, 2254.184, 2262.097, 2269.527, 2280.498], "stop_times": [2157.946, 2166.506, 2183.729, 2193.677, 2204.266, 2213.878, 2247.747, 2254.184, 2262.097, 2269.527, 2280.498, 2292.248], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2155.891}, "reply_to": "22658__1_025", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__2_001", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "The Government has said that... that you have essentially waived their sentencing guidelines issue that you asked us in footnote 6 of your brief to consider.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2292.248], "stop_times": [2306.21], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2292.248}, "reply_to": "22658__2_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "22658__2_002", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "In the district court, there were issues raised as to all defendants as far as various sentencing enhancements.\nIn front of the Eleventh Circuit, one of those enhancements was argued and it was rejected.\nAs to Mr. Hall, one of the sentencing enhancements were argued and was reversed on that sentencing enhancement.\nBut there is still a sentencing enhancement that was raised in the Eleventh Circuit, but it was not raised in this petition.\nIt was not the issue that this Court granted cert on, but we would argue that it's still a valid... a valid claim and that this Court should hold this decision in abeyance until its decision in Booker and Fanfan.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2306.21, 2312.449, 2317.548, 2322.977, 2328.717], "stop_times": [2312.449, 2317.548, 2322.977, 2328.717, 2339.928], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2306.21}, "reply_to": "22658__2_001", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__2_003", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Was the argument below that... # that imposing the sentencing enhancement was unconstitutional, or was the argument just that the facts didn't support it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2339.928], "stop_times": [2350.487], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2339.928}, "reply_to": "22658__2_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "22658__2_004", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "The argument was that the facts didn't support it.\nFinally, Your Honor, we would... Your Honors, we would just again say that Congress did not intend to cause a dramatic change in the way money laundering conspiracies were prosecuted.\nThis Court has said in other cases that when Congress intends dramatic changes, that you would expect to find something in the legislative history.\nThe Court has said that in the Lewis case having to do with interstate gambling and... I see my time is up.\nThank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2350.487, 2353.004, 2363.678, 2370.971, 2377.795], "stop_times": [2353.004, 2363.678, 2370.971, 2377.795, 2378.36], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2350.487}, "reply_to": "22658__2_003", "speaker": "sharon_c_samek"}
{"id": "22658__2_005", "conversation_id": "22658", "text": "Thank you very much.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-1293", "start_times": [2378.36, 2379.494], "stop_times": [2379.494, 2380.839], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2378.36}, "reply_to": "22658__2_004", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__0_000", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "We'll hear argument now in No. 04-495, Reginald Wilkinson v. Charles.\nE. Austin.\nGeneral Petro.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [0.0, 8.581, 9.668], "stop_times": [8.581, 9.668, 12.553], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__0_001", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe purpose of any hearing process is to get a better answer.\nIf the question is what happened in the past, an adversarial fact-finding can help provide the answers.\nIf, however, the question seeks to look forward and predict future behavior, then a slightly more limited procedure will serve to expedite and arrive at the best possible answer to this predictive question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [12.553, 14.708, 17.908, 24.005], "stop_times": [14.708, 17.908, 24.005, 36.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 12.553}, "reply_to": "21307__0_000", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_002", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "General Petro, before you get into the details of why... why you think the process here was all that was due, I'm... I'm more concerned about the preliminary question of whether there was a liberty interest here.\nI... I know you haven't challenged the existence of it, but I'm not sure that lets me off the hook.\nWe... we had a case some years ago in which both sides apparently wanted the statute in existence and they conceded in the... in the court of appeals that the statute existed and wanted us to say what this presumptively existing statute said.\nAnd we held, since there was serious doubt about whether the statute had been properly enacted, we had to reach that question first because we were not going to speculate on what a, you know, hypothetical statute said.\nAnd I think you're asking us to do sort of the same thing here.\nYou're... if... you know, without even conceding or... the Government doesn't concede anyway.\nThe United States doesn't.\nYou're asking us to hold that if this is covered by the Due Process Clause, what you've given here is enough.\nBut I don't... I don't like to speculate on... on hypothetical questions like that.\nAnd it... it really seems to me that to say that there's a liberty interest here flies in the face of our more reasoned opinions in this area, especially Sandin which... which has some language that's... that's almost... almost right on point.\nWe note also that this... where is it?\nConner's confinement did not exceed similar but totally discretionary confinement in either duration or degree of restriction.\nI... I don't understand how this person has a liberty interest in not... in not being put in a maximum security facility.\nPresumably you could put all your prisoners in maximum security.\nI mean, you don't pull their fingernails or anything, do you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [36.575, 52.921, 57.38, 74.553, 89.977, 93.326, 99.949, 100.92, 110.83, 115.096, 127.549, 131.005, 138.755, 146.466, 149.261], "stop_times": [52.921, 57.38, 74.553, 89.977, 93.326, 99.949, 100.92, 110.83, 115.096, 127.549, 131.005, 138.755, 146.466, 149.261, 152.546], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 36.575}, "reply_to": "21307__0_001", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21307__0_003", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "No... no, we don't, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [152.546], "stop_times": [153.702], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 152.546}, "reply_to": "21307__0_002", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_004", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "So there's... there's no Eighth Amendment problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [153.702], "stop_times": [155.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 153.702}, "reply_to": "21307__0_003", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21307__0_005", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [155.82], "stop_times": [156.178], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 155.82}, "reply_to": "21307__0_004", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_006", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "So if you wanted to, you could put all of your prisoners in maximum security.\nRight?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [156.178, 160.307], "stop_times": [160.307, 160.621], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 156.178}, "reply_to": "21307__0_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21307__0_007", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes, I agree, Your Honor, that we could.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [160.621], "stop_times": [162.401], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 160.621}, "reply_to": "21307__0_006", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_008", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "So where is the liberty interest here?\nI don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [162.401, 163.399], "stop_times": [163.399, 164.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 162.401}, "reply_to": "21307__0_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21307__0_009", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "We... we made a decision in petitioning the Court that the liberty interest issue was something that we would not raise.\nWe raised it on appeal through the district court and through the circuit court.\nWe chose not to raise it here to focus on the due process issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [164.054, 169.968, 173.808], "stop_times": [169.968, 173.808, 177.003], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 164.054}, "reply_to": "21307__0_008", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_010", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, I understand, but I feel like something of a fool being asked, you know, Justice Scalia, if... if there were a liberty interest here, would these procedures be enough to secure it.\nThat's not the kind of work I usually do.\nI... you know, I usually ask... answer real questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [177.003, 188.49, 190.251], "stop_times": [188.49, 190.251, 194.122], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 177.003}, "reply_to": "21307__0_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21307__0_011", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "The... the circuit court made a factual determination that there was a significant and atypical deprivation.\nWe would respectfully disagree with that determination, but because it was a factual determination, we chose to confine our appeal to the issue of law.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [194.122, 199.566], "stop_times": [199.566, 207.459], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 194.122}, "reply_to": "21307__0_010", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_012", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, but there is a... there is a question of law involved as to whether there's a liberty interest.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [207.459], "stop_times": [211.826], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 207.459}, "reply_to": "21307__0_011", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__0_013", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [211.826], "stop_times": [212.413], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 211.826}, "reply_to": "21307__0_012", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_014", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "In the Sandin case in 1995, this Court said that prisoners have a State-created liberty interest only where the deprivation or restraint imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.\nNow, I guess to be categorized in category 5 in your State, it does involve putting someone in solitary confinement, reducing their time for exercise, and reducing their options for parole.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [212.413, 231.884, 249.543], "stop_times": [231.884, 249.543, 250.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 212.413}, "reply_to": "21307__0_013", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__0_015", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "That is correct.\nBut when people are moved to level 5, Your Honor, typically they're being moved from level 4, at least more than 90 percent of the time, and level 4 has a similar area of restriction.\nIn reality, I would argue... and I would concur with Justice Scalia... that this is not a significant or atypical deprivation--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [250.881, 251.532, 261.616], "stop_times": [251.532, 261.616, 269.153], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 250.881}, "reply_to": "21307__0_014", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_016", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, do you take the... why don't you simplify it by telling us whether you take the position today that there is or is not a liberty interest here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [269.153], "stop_times": [278.731], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 269.153}, "reply_to": "21307__0_015", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__0_017", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Your Honor, we chose not to--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [278.731], "stop_times": [280.346], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 278.731}, "reply_to": "21307__0_016", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_018", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "I know you did.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [280.346], "stop_times": [281.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 280.346}, "reply_to": "21307__0_017", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__0_019", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--petition on that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [281.577], "stop_times": [282.048], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 281.577}, "reply_to": "21307__0_018", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_020", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "I'm asking you your opinion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [282.048], "stop_times": [284.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 282.048}, "reply_to": "21307__0_019", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__0_021", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Your Honor, I would be most pleased to argue that there is no liberty interest in this instance under Sandin.\nThe Court made it very clear that where there is a mandatory State-created interest, that interest would have to involve a significant and atypical deprivation.\nIn this instance, we do not believe that moving an inmate to level 5 classification is a significant or atypical deprivation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [284.187, 288.982, 298.054], "stop_times": [288.982, 298.054, 304.667], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 284.187}, "reply_to": "21307__0_020", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_022", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "What if he were moved from level 1 to level 5?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [304.667], "stop_times": [306.544], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 304.667}, "reply_to": "21307__0_021", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__0_023", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Your Honor, that has not occurred in reality.\nThere have been several inmates that have moved from admission to level 5.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [306.544, 310.607], "stop_times": [310.607, 315.262], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 306.544}, "reply_to": "21307__0_022", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_024", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "But why isn't the comparison the entire prison population rather than just 5 versus 4?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [315.262], "stop_times": [319.982], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 315.262}, "reply_to": "21307__0_023", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__0_025", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Your Honor, it's just typically what occurs, and so there are some circumstances where a level 3 inmate may be moved to 5, but in any event, that inmate would have been moved to 4.\nThe classification jump is, in a practical standpoint--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [319.982, 331.08], "stop_times": [331.08, 334.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 319.982}, "reply_to": "21307__0_024", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_026", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, is it... is it your view that we should consider it the normal practice in the Ohio system to keep people in solitary for 23 hours a day?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [334.276], "stop_times": [342.137], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 334.276}, "reply_to": "21307__0_025", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__0_027", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Your Honor, that's not the normal practice.\nIn fact, it involves--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [342.137, 343.95], "stop_times": [343.95, 344.963], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 342.137}, "reply_to": "21307__0_026", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_028", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, then isn't that the standard of reference that we should use?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [344.963], "stop_times": [347.16], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 344.963}, "reply_to": "21307__0_027", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__0_029", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Your Honor, it involves a small number of inmates, and those inmates have been determined through a very predictive determination that... that in fact they do pose a threat--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [347.16], "stop_times": [355.89], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 347.16}, "reply_to": "21307__0_028", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_030", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "So we're... we're dealing with a small number of inmates out of a very large population, but isn't the frame of reference for telling whether it's a liberty interest a comparison to the large population?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [355.89], "stop_times": [364.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 355.89}, "reply_to": "21307__0_029", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__0_031", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Your Honor, the... the deprivation is... is perhaps marginally greater, but I would suggest that it is marginal, and therefore--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [364.097], "stop_times": [373.527], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 364.097}, "reply_to": "21307__0_030", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_032", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, you say it's marginally greater than 4.\nIt's not marginally greater than 1 or 2 certainly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [373.527, 374.721], "stop_times": [374.721, 377.718], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 373.527}, "reply_to": "21307__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_033", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Your Honor, I would submit that it is... it is more... it is much greater than 4.\nBut whether it represents something that is unexpected by the inmate, in reality the inmate has an expectation of having his liberty essentially extremely limited in this instance--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [377.718, 383.788], "stop_times": [383.788, 394.315], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 377.718}, "reply_to": "21307__0_032", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_034", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, but the... the point of the case is that the inmate does not expect to be put in solitary confinement for 23 or 23 and a half hours a day for a period of 1, 2, or more years without some process to do it because that is so extraordinarily onerous and so different from the general run of incarceration practice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [394.315], "stop_times": [415.269], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 394.315}, "reply_to": "21307__0_033", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_035", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--And... and, Your Honor, we initiated a process.\nIt is our New Policy 111-07, which the district court and then the circuit court ultimately ruled on, where we made--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [415.269, 417.391], "stop_times": [417.391, 423.499], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 415.269}, "reply_to": "21307__0_034", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_036", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "That... but that's what... that's what you wanted to talk about, but we're on, first, the preliminary question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [423.499], "stop_times": [429.205], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 423.499}, "reply_to": "21307__0_035", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21307__0_037", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [429.205], "stop_times": [429.988], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 429.205}, "reply_to": "21307__0_036", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_038", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "And is... I think you started to say that you regarded atypical and significant as a fact-finding which was made against you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [429.988], "stop_times": [441.268], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 429.988}, "reply_to": "21307__0_037", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21307__0_039", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [441.268], "stop_times": [441.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 441.268}, "reply_to": "21307__0_038", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_040", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--based on the extreme conditions of this kind of confinement where you don't see another human.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [441.946], "stop_times": [448.021], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 441.946}, "reply_to": "21307__0_039", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21307__0_041", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Your Honor, we would... I would continue to... to argue that it is not... if it is significant and atypical, it is marginally significant and atypical.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [448.021], "stop_times": [457.348], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 448.021}, "reply_to": "21307__0_040", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_042", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Wasn't solitary confinement involved in Sandin?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [457.348], "stop_times": [459.813], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 457.348}, "reply_to": "21307__0_041", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21307__0_043", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes, it was.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [459.813], "stop_times": [460.757], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 459.813}, "reply_to": "21307__0_042", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_044", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Didn't we say in Sandin that solitary confinement was... was not enough to... to create--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [460.757], "stop_times": [464.747], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 460.757}, "reply_to": "21307__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21307__0_045", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "For how long?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [464.747], "stop_times": [465.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 464.747}, "reply_to": "21307__0_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21307__0_046", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "30... for 30 days I believe, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [465.391], "stop_times": [466.975], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 465.391}, "reply_to": "21307__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_047", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes, it was, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [466.975], "stop_times": [468.032], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 466.975}, "reply_to": "21307__0_046", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_048", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Not 1 year, 2 years, 3 years.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [468.032], "stop_times": [469.712], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 468.032}, "reply_to": "21307__0_047", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_049", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "No.\nAnd in this case the... but... but level 5 as a classification is a limited confinement.\nIt is reserved for those very dangerous inmates not dissimilar to Sandin.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [469.712, 470.347, 477.935], "stop_times": [470.347, 477.935, 482.522], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 469.712}, "reply_to": "21307__0_048", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_050", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "But... but typically it has been represented maybe... maybe wrongly... typically it has been represented that they tend to be in there for a year or 2-year periods.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [482.522], "stop_times": [491.033], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 482.522}, "reply_to": "21307__0_049", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_051", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Your Honor, they are reviewed from a classification standpoint on an annual basis.\nThey are reviewed from a privilege standpoint... and there's different levels within 5... on a quarterly basis and so--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [491.033, 495.209], "stop_times": [495.209, 500.575], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 491.033}, "reply_to": "21307__0_050", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_052", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "But in... but in fact, they tend to be in there for the extended periods of time.\nIsn't that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [500.575, 504.217], "stop_times": [504.217, 504.595], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 500.575}, "reply_to": "21307__0_051", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_053", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--That... that's correct, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [504.595], "stop_times": [505.764], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 504.595}, "reply_to": "21307__0_052", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_054", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Mr.... General Petro, I for one would like to hear what you have to say about the question presented in your petition for certiorari.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [505.764], "stop_times": [516.216], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 505.764}, "reply_to": "21307__0_053", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__0_055", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.\n[Laughter]\nIn this instance, the process due, as provided by Ohio, was outlined in New Policy 111-07.\nThat policy was adopted and ultimately then reviewed by the district court.\nThe district court held it to be unconstitutional and added a number of other procedures.\nThe process that was contained in New Policy 111-07 was a predictive policy, and it understood--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [516.216, 517.806, 518.568, 526.195, 530.915, 534.617], "stop_times": [517.806, 518.568, 526.195, 530.915, 534.617, 540.217], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 516.216}, "reply_to": "21307__0_054", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_056", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--May... may I just ask you a question about that?\nI realize that there is a predictive element.\nI don't think anyone disputes that.\nOne of the points of contention here, as I understand it, is that even the new policy did not give a... an... an inmate a statement of the charge or reason for the... for the reclassification to 5.\nIs... is that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [540.217, 543.07, 545.337, 547.331, 563.507], "stop_times": [543.07, 545.337, 547.331, 563.507, 565.144], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 540.217}, "reply_to": "21307__0_055", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_057", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Your Honor, it gave notice, 48 hours in advance, under the new policy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [565.144], "stop_times": [569.911], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 565.144}, "reply_to": "21307__0_056", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_058", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Notice of what?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [569.911], "stop_times": [570.631], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 569.911}, "reply_to": "21307__0_057", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_059", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Notice of the fact that there would be a reclassification.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [570.631], "stop_times": [573.585], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 570.631}, "reply_to": "21307__0_058", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_060", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "But did it give notice of the reason for the reclassification?\nYou did such and such.\nYou are such and such kind of person, a gang member.\nDoes it tell him anything?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [573.585, 576.679, 578.124, 580.817], "stop_times": [576.679, 578.124, 580.817, 581.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 573.585}, "reply_to": "21307__0_059", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_061", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "It doesn't spell out... in New Policy 111-07, it doesn't spell out all the evidence, but it gives a basic--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [581.899], "stop_times": [587.615], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 581.899}, "reply_to": "21307__0_060", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_062", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "No, not the evidence, just the reason.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [587.615], "stop_times": [589.048], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 587.615}, "reply_to": "21307__0_061", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_063", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--It gives a basic statement that you're being considered for reclassification.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [589.048], "stop_times": [592.638], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 589.048}, "reply_to": "21307__0_062", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_064", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "I... I know that, but does it say you're being reconsidered for... considered for reclassification because you hit somebody over the head or because you've shown that you're a member of a gang or some other reason?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [592.638], "stop_times": [602.781], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 592.638}, "reply_to": "21307__0_063", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_065", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "It... it as a general rule does not have to do that, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [602.781], "stop_times": [605.218], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 602.781}, "reply_to": "21307__0_064", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_066", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "What about... I mean, the person, if he reads the regulation, would see that it says that to classify him, the State has to show that through repetitive and seriously disruptive behavior, he has demonstrated a chronic inability to adjust as evidenced by repeated class 2 rule violations.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [605.218], "stop_times": [627.634], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 605.218}, "reply_to": "21307__0_065", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__0_067", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [627.634], "stop_times": [628.093], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 627.634}, "reply_to": "21307__0_066", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_068", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "So I guess he would like to know give me at least a vague idea of what behavior you're talking about and which class 2 rule violations you're talking about.\nNow, does the notice tell him those two things?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [628.093, 637.911], "stop_times": [637.911, 640.577], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 628.093}, "reply_to": "21307__0_067", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__0_069", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "The notice is very general in its nature.\nAt the time that the hearing actually commences, there's an opportunity to sit down and actually discuss with the inmate, and the inmate can respond in writing or in presence at the... at the hearing--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [640.577, 642.912], "stop_times": [642.912, 653.456], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 640.577}, "reply_to": "21307__0_068", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_070", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, you say he has the opportunity.\nDo you actually tell him you are about to be reclassified or our proposal is to reclassify you because you violated this particular regulation by this particular conduct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [653.456, 654.966], "stop_times": [654.966, 668.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 653.456}, "reply_to": "21307__0_069", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_071", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--There is... what initiates the reclassification is a report form that would identify to the inmate--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [668.448], "stop_times": [674.325], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 668.448}, "reply_to": "21307__0_070", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_072", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "I'm asking you what you tell the inmate, not what initiates your process.\nNow, please answer my question.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [674.325, 677.995], "stop_times": [677.995, 679.611], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 674.325}, "reply_to": "21307__0_071", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_073", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--The inmate, Your Honor, has access to the report form that says specifically what's initiated.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [679.611], "stop_times": [684.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 679.611}, "reply_to": "21307__0_072", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_074", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "At which point does he get... at which point does he get access?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [684.122], "stop_times": [685.881], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 684.122}, "reply_to": "21307__0_073", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_075", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "At the point of notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [685.881], "stop_times": [686.553], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 685.881}, "reply_to": "21307__0_074", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_076", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "So... so this... I mean, that's what I don't understand what this case is about because I... I'm amazed that... I think it is too detailed what they're requiring of you, by far.\nBut the elements are I have to know.\nI'm an inmate.\nI want to know what is this about.\nSuppose I think they're wrong.\nI need to know how to tell them they're wrong.\nAnd the other thing I think I'd need to know is after the committee or the warden decides against me, what are his reasons.\nI'm not asking for a book.\nAll I want to know are the basic reasons.\nNow, those things I can't work out from the briefs, quite honestly, whether the new policy gives him those new things, those two things, or doesn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [686.553, 696.926, 700.963, 701.822, 703.918, 706.158, 708.616, 716.888, 719.027, 722.014], "stop_times": [696.926, 700.963, 701.822, 703.918, 706.158, 708.616, 716.888, 719.027, 722.014, 733.683], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 686.553}, "reply_to": "21307__0_075", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__0_077", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "The new policy gives him the basic information that we are asserting that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [733.683], "stop_times": [738.183], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 733.683}, "reply_to": "21307__0_076", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_078", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Now, already you say that, but I would think the basic information includes some idea of what my disruptive behavior was and some idea of what the class 2 violations that I was convicted of was.\nAnd now, I've heard you both say that he does get it and that he doesn't get it.\nI'm sure that's my fault, but I want to know, does he get this information before the hearing, or does he not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [738.183, 752.396, 756.449], "stop_times": [752.396, 756.449, 763.808], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 738.183}, "reply_to": "21307__0_077", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__0_079", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Your Honor, he gets the basic reason for the classification and that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [763.808], "stop_times": [767.946], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 763.808}, "reply_to": "21307__0_078", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_080", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Now... you heard what I said.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [767.946], "stop_times": [769.824], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 767.946}, "reply_to": "21307__0_079", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__0_081", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Yes, I did, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [769.824], "stop_times": [770.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 769.824}, "reply_to": "21307__0_080", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_082", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Does he get what I just said?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [770.858], "stop_times": [772.052], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 770.858}, "reply_to": "21307__0_081", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__0_083", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes, he does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [772.052], "stop_times": [772.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 772.052}, "reply_to": "21307__0_082", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_084", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "He does.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [772.52], "stop_times": [773.276], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 772.52}, "reply_to": "21307__0_083", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__0_085", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "He gets the basic information.\nHe doesn't get a list of any evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [773.276, 774.575], "stop_times": [774.575, 776.184], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 773.276}, "reply_to": "21307__0_084", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_086", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, what does he... can you... can you describe it for us what... he gets 48 hours notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [776.184], "stop_times": [779.027], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 776.184}, "reply_to": "21307__0_085", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21307__0_087", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [779.027], "stop_times": [779.605], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 779.027}, "reply_to": "21307__0_086", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_088", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Notice that's there's going to be a hearing.\nWhat else does he get?\nDoes he get a summary of the written report?\nDoes he get a... a statement of... of the reasons?\nWhat--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [779.605, 781.375, 782.33, 784.292, 786.249], "stop_times": [781.375, 782.33, 784.292, 786.249, 787.141], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 779.605}, "reply_to": "21307__0_087", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21307__0_089", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "At the close of the hearing, he... there is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [787.141], "stop_times": [789.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 787.141}, "reply_to": "21307__0_088", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_090", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--No.\nBefore the hearing starts, he gets 48 hours notice, but is he... is he just told there's going to be a hearing in 48 hours and that's it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [789.081, 789.509], "stop_times": [789.509, 795.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 789.081}, "reply_to": "21307__0_089", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21307__0_091", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--There's going to be a hearing and it's for reclassification, and here is... here is the... the actual report that actually identifies what has triggered this activity for reclassification.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [795.156], "stop_times": [806.681], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 795.156}, "reply_to": "21307__0_090", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_092", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "So he does get the report.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [806.681], "stop_times": [807.288], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 806.681}, "reply_to": "21307__0_091", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21307__0_093", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "So he gets--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [807.288], "stop_times": [807.876], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 807.288}, "reply_to": "21307__0_092", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_094", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "48 hours--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [807.876], "stop_times": [808.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 807.876}, "reply_to": "21307__0_093", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21307__0_095", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--But it's a very bare bones report and it doesn't identify the specific evidence involved which--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [808.325], "stop_times": [812.873], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 808.325}, "reply_to": "21307__0_094", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_096", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Now, I don't care that he doesn't have the evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [812.873], "stop_times": [814.878], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 812.873}, "reply_to": "21307__0_095", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__0_097", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [814.878], "stop_times": [815.081], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 814.878}, "reply_to": "21307__0_096", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_098", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "I want to know that he thinks he's being sent to this prison because his roommate, Rat Fink, has made up a bunch of stories about him.\nAll right?\nSo he needs to know whether... what it is that... that this board is considering before he can come in and explain why it isn't true.\nHe doesn't have to have all the evidence.\nHe has to know what the point is, what the charge is, what the claim is.\nAnd you're saying he gets it because he has the report.\nIs there an example in the record of a report?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [815.081, 822.788, 823.519, 833.807, 835.86, 840.799, 843.13], "stop_times": [822.788, 823.519, 833.807, 835.86, 840.799, 843.13, 845.028], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 815.081}, "reply_to": "21307__0_097", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__0_099", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "There's an example of the report form that is filled out by the prison officials at the time that a reclassification is going to occur, and the inmate does have access to that report form at the time of notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [845.028], "stop_times": [856.329], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 845.028}, "reply_to": "21307__0_098", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_100", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "May I ask this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [856.329], "stop_times": [857.042], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 856.329}, "reply_to": "21307__0_099", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__0_101", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Perhaps we can be concrete.\nIf he... suppose the charge is he is a gang leader.\nWill he get notice that says you are being considered for reclassification because you are a gang leader?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [857.042, 857.726, 863.645], "stop_times": [857.726, 863.645, 872.488], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 857.042}, "reply_to": "21307__0_100", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21307__0_102", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, he does get that notice.\nHe gets that basic form that basically says he's being reclassified.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [872.488, 874.626], "stop_times": [874.626, 877.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 872.488}, "reply_to": "21307__0_101", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_103", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Not that he's been reclassified, but is the reason... the reason that you are being reclassified is that you are a gang leader.\nThose... those words, you are a gang leader.\nWill he get those?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [877.832, 887.981, 890.306], "stop_times": [887.981, 890.306, 891.384], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 877.832}, "reply_to": "21307__0_102", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21307__0_104", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "He gets the... the accusation.\nHe knows the accusation is made from the report form that is prepared by the prison officials.\nSo he knows--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [891.384, 894.978, 899.357], "stop_times": [894.978, 899.357, 900.53], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 891.384}, "reply_to": "21307__0_103", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_105", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--May I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [900.53], "stop_times": [900.662], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 900.53}, "reply_to": "21307__0_104", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__0_106", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--that one of those criteria has been asserted--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [900.662], "stop_times": [902.941], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 900.662}, "reply_to": "21307__0_105", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_107", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--May I ask you this question?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [902.941], "stop_times": [904.231], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 902.941}, "reply_to": "21307__0_106", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__0_108", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [904.231], "stop_times": [905.185], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 904.231}, "reply_to": "21307__0_107", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_109", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "I'm just... is the procedure you're describing the procedure that was reviewed by the district court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [905.185], "stop_times": [910.325], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 905.185}, "reply_to": "21307__0_108", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__0_110", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "The procedure.\nYes, it is.\nNew Policy 111-07 is what the district court reviewed and then what was further reviewed by the circuit court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [910.325, 911.504, 912.081], "stop_times": [911.504, 912.081, 917.531], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 910.325}, "reply_to": "21307__0_109", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_111", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "So the evidence in the record before the district court describes exactly what you're describing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [917.531], "stop_times": [921.077], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 917.531}, "reply_to": "21307__0_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__0_112", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "The evidence that's in the record was the procedure in place prior to the enactment of New Policy 111-07, and the court choose... chose to review for procedural purposes Policy 111-07 and then make its decision based on New Policy 111-07.\nSo the evidence that's in the record, the testimony at the... during the trial, really is not relevant to this policy.\nIt's relevant to the former policy.\nIf... if--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [921.077, 938.176, 944.964, 946.463], "stop_times": [938.176, 944.964, 946.463, 948.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 921.077}, "reply_to": "21307__0_111", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_113", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "General Petro, I... I don't... I'm going to ask you a very tendentious question, but it's something I don't want to make a mistake about.\nGoing back to your answer to Justice Ginsburg's question, when he is given what you described as the bare bones report at the beginning of the proceedings, when he gets the 48-hour notice, will in her example the bare bones report say you are being reconsidered for reclassification because you are believed to be a gang leader?\nDoes he get the gang leader information?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [948.382, 955.187, 979.917], "stop_times": [955.187, 979.917, 982.274], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 948.382}, "reply_to": "21307__0_112", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_114", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Yes, he does generally.\nIt doesn't give any evidence.\nIt simply is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [982.274, 984.423, 985.846], "stop_times": [984.423, 985.846, 986.565], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 982.274}, "reply_to": "21307__0_113", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_115", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "No.\nI'm not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [986.565, 986.698], "stop_times": [986.698, 987.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 986.565}, "reply_to": "21307__0_114", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_116", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [987.285], "stop_times": [987.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 987.285}, "reply_to": "21307__0_115", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_117", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--I'm not worried about evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [987.71], "stop_times": [988.394], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 987.71}, "reply_to": "21307__0_116", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_118", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "I understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [988.394], "stop_times": [989.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 988.394}, "reply_to": "21307__0_117", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_119", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Just I want to know the charge.\nWill he always get the charge?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [989.015, 989.794], "stop_times": [989.794, 992.081], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 989.015}, "reply_to": "21307__0_118", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_120", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "He will get the... there is a form that is completed, a long form that is completed by the prison officials that basically stipulates the predicate act or the predicate acts that really result in the reclassification action.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [992.081], "stop_times": [1004.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 992.081}, "reply_to": "21307__0_119", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_121", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "So that in the gang leader example, he will be told that it's because he is accused of being a gang leader that this is occurring.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1004.705], "stop_times": [1010.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1004.705}, "reply_to": "21307__0_120", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__0_122", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes, because that is part of the form.\nWith the Court's permission--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1010.405, 1012.341], "stop_times": [1012.341, 1013.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1010.405}, "reply_to": "21307__0_121", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_123", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "And the form... and the form is in the record, I take it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1013.446], "stop_times": [1014.944], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1013.446}, "reply_to": "21307__0_122", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__0_124", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Yes, it is.\nWith the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1014.944, 1015.457], "stop_times": [1015.457, 1016.314], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1014.944}, "reply_to": "21307__0_123", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_125", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Where?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1016.314], "stop_times": [1016.432], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1016.314}, "reply_to": "21307__0_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__0_126", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--With the Court's permission, I'd like to reserve the balance of my time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1016.432], "stop_times": [1019.93], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1016.432}, "reply_to": "21307__0_125", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__0_127", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Thank you, General Petro.\nMs. Maynard, we'll hear from you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1019.93, 1020.607], "stop_times": [1020.607, 1022.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1019.93}, "reply_to": "21307__0_126", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__0_128", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Ms. Maynard, before you start, maybe you could answer the question I tried to ask at the end of his argument.\nWhere in the record is the report?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1022.42, 1032.744], "stop_times": [1032.744, 1034.191], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1022.42}, "reply_to": "21307__0_127", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__1_000", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "JA-58 is the form, and if you look at that, you'll see that it has a line that says, you are being considered for a transfer for the following reasons, colon, and there's a blank to be filled in.\nMr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nThe procedures that Ohio provides for placement into its supermax prison facility are more than ample to satisfy due process.\nAs the Federal Government has argued in its brief, the Bureau of Prisons believes there is no liberty interest implicated here.\nBut even if one assumes that there is, the type of decision at issue is inherently a predictive one that turns on the holistic judgment of prison officials.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1034.191, 1050.03, 1054.057, 1063.47, 1069.929], "stop_times": [1050.03, 1054.057, 1063.47, 1069.929, 1083.705], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1034.191}, "reply_to": "21307__0_128", "speaker": "deanne_e_maynard"}
{"id": "21307__1_001", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Why is it a predictive judgment that a person is a gang leader?\nThe ultimate decision, given the facts and circumstances, we predict that this person is among the worst of the worst, but the findings that have to be made along the way are not necessarily predictive.\nI mean, it... it would be nice if the... if the issues came simply divided what happened in the past, what might happen in the future, but the judgment that's made to classify someone as 5 inevitably involves some, well, what happened in the past on the basis of which we can project what might happen in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1083.705, 1089.897, 1107.364], "stop_times": [1089.897, 1107.364, 1128.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1083.705}, "reply_to": "21307__1_000", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21307__1_002", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "That's true, Justice Ginsburg.\nWe would have three responses to that.\nOne is first in Ohio, as in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, in the large majority of instances, most of the facts upon which a predictive assessment would turn have already been subject to some more formal type... trial-type procedure.\nFor example, in the Bureau of Prisons, the vast majority of prisoners who are placed in one of our two more restrictive facilities have committed some violent act in prison for which they have been found to be guilty pursuant to formal Wolff-type, trial-type procedures.\nSecondly, with respect to facts that might be taken into consideration for which there hasn't yet been such a formal trial-type proceeding, this Court has made clear that when you're talking about the types of predictive risk assessments that are at issue here, it is appropriate for prison officials, using their expertise and judgment and knowledge of the prison conditions in their prison and in the prison system as a whole, to take into account things that are rumor, innuendo, and other imponderables that may not have been proven in any fact-type proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1128.665, 1130.392, 1131.848, 1145.303, 1164.833], "stop_times": [1130.392, 1131.848, 1145.303, 1164.833, 1197.106], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1128.665}, "reply_to": "21307__1_001", "speaker": "deanne_e_maynard"}
{"id": "21307__1_003", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "But that would be... that would be a what happened question, not what might happen.\nWhat happened, the determination might be made on the basis of rumor or innuendo.\nMy only point is that questions don't come labeled so simply, predictive versus what happened in the past.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1197.106, 1206.706, 1212.359], "stop_times": [1206.706, 1212.359, 1219.794], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1197.106}, "reply_to": "21307__1_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21307__1_004", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "That's true.\nI agree with that.\nBut again, I believe that most of the... the facts upon which these decisions are based and... and Ohio asserts in its brief that that's the case in their case too, that people who are placed in level 5 have either been subject of a rule board's infraction hearing or have committed a crime for which they've been convicted while in prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1219.794, 1221.362, 1222.049], "stop_times": [1221.362, 1222.049, 1239.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1219.794}, "reply_to": "21307__1_003", "speaker": "deanne_e_maynard"}
{"id": "21307__1_005", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "And suppose neither of those are... are so.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1239.019], "stop_times": [1241.83], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1239.019}, "reply_to": "21307__1_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21307__1_006", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, I... as I say, I think in the vast majority of cases, in both the Federal system and Ohio, that is the case.\nBut even so, the consideration at issue takes into a broader spectrum of consideration than just the individual inmate.\nHaving the type of formal fact-finding retrospective proceeding that the court below required here is going to focus the decision-maker in the wrong direction and on a more narrow set of facts than ideally we want the prison administrators to focus upon.\nWe want them to be looking at, just like in Hewitt, the relationship of this inmate to other inmates, of inmates within the prison generally, of inmates to this inmate, and the safety of others.\nSo there's more of them at stake.\nThere are other private interests at stake besides those of the individual who may be moved in the prison administration's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1241.83, 1247.84, 1256.801, 1272.006, 1282.624, 1284.128], "stop_times": [1247.84, 1256.801, 1272.006, 1282.624, 1284.128, 1291.546], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1241.83}, "reply_to": "21307__1_005", "speaker": "deanne_e_maynard"}
{"id": "21307__1_007", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, those two, it seems to me, are all questions of... of fact.\nI mean, ultimately your position may be correct, but I... I just can't place a lot of store in this predictive versus nonpredictive judgment, and it's contrary to your own argument.\nYou say, well, in almost all the cases, it's because he's been convicted of a crime in prison and so forth.\nWell, that... that undercuts, it seems to me, the... the basic argument that you're trying to make that established this line between predictive and nonpredictive judgment.\nI... I suppose you would say even in cases where it is a matter of past effect, these procedures are... are adequate.\nOr would you?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1291.546, 1295.636, 1306.073, 1310.239, 1318.804, 1327.502], "stop_times": [1295.636, 1306.073, 1310.239, 1318.804, 1327.502, 1329.977], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1291.546}, "reply_to": "21307__1_006", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21307__1_008", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Yes.\nWe believe that the procedures that Ohio provides are... are more than adequate because it gives the prisoner notice of the charges and an opportunity to contest the placement decision.\nIn fact, we believe that the... the process that Ohio provides is more than is necessary to satisfy due process.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1329.977, 1330.712, 1340.508], "stop_times": [1330.712, 1340.508, 1347.842], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1329.977}, "reply_to": "21307__1_007", "speaker": "deanne_e_maynard"}
{"id": "21307__1_009", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Ms. Maynard, this is a class action, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1347.842], "stop_times": [1350.146], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1347.842}, "reply_to": "21307__1_008", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21307__1_010", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes, it is, Justice Scalia.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1350.146], "stop_times": [1351.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1350.146}, "reply_to": "21307__1_009", "speaker": "deanne_e_maynard"}
{"id": "21307__1_011", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "What if... what if for some of the prisoners, maybe a majority of the prisoners, this... this reality of having a prior factual hearing exists, but for some of it, it doesn't?\nWhat... what disposition would this Court then make of the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1351.495, 1366.395], "stop_times": [1366.395, 1370.102], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1351.495}, "reply_to": "21307__1_010", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21307__1_012", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "There's... still, the appropriate analysis, when you're talking about... basically what we have at bottom--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1370.102], "stop_times": [1374.71], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1370.102}, "reply_to": "21307__1_011", "speaker": "deanne_e_maynard"}
{"id": "21307__1_013", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "But I mean, suppose I think that a... a trial-type proceeding is necessary, and in fact, it's been given for most of the people in this class action, but not for the rest.\nWhat happens to the case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1374.71, 1388.843], "stop_times": [1388.843, 1390.469], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1374.71}, "reply_to": "21307__1_012", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21307__1_014", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--It seems to me that you hold that... that the procedures here are adequate because... under the Due Process Clause because in the broad range of cases, you're going to have sufficient notice and an opportunity to contest.\nAgain, I think it's really important to understand the nature of the decision issued here.\nIt's really a gestalt judgment of prison officials exercising their expertise in an area that this Court has repeatedly said prison officials get a wide range of deference.\nAgain, I would like to make a point about the Federal Bureau of Prisons because the respondents have pointed to our control unit procedures which are more trial-like.\nAnd I just want to let the Court know that those procedures were imposed upon the Federal Government and the Bureau of Prisons pursuant to a court order in 1978 before this Court issued its decision in cases such as Hewitt where the Court made clear this distinction about prison placement and issues involving the judgment and predictive decisions of prison administrators.\nWhen the Bureau of Prisons has been--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1390.469, 1402.932, 1406.415, 1415.93, 1425.006, 1445.625], "stop_times": [1402.932, 1406.415, 1415.93, 1425.006, 1445.625, 1447.711], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1390.469}, "reply_to": "21307__1_013", "speaker": "deanne_e_maynard"}
{"id": "21307__1_015", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Did you ask for... did the Government move for modification of a decree?\nI... I assume that it was not a decision of this Court.\nYou said this... what you do in the supermax at the Federal level has been imposed by a court.\nWhich court?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1447.711, 1451.545, 1455.007, 1462.174], "stop_times": [1451.545, 1455.007, 1462.174, 1462.665], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1447.711}, "reply_to": "21307__1_014", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21307__1_016", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Let me clarify one thing.\nWhat... it would be... this relates only to the control unit, which is now at... at... in... in part of the ADX Florence facility.\nIt does not apply to the general populations of the ADX Florence facility and the Marion facility.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1462.665, 1464.947, 1474.051], "stop_times": [1464.947, 1474.051, 1479.838], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1462.665}, "reply_to": "21307__1_015", "speaker": "deanne_e_maynard"}
{"id": "21307__1_017", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, you talked about something being imposed.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1479.838], "stop_times": [1482.605], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1479.838}, "reply_to": "21307__1_016", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21307__1_018", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1482.605], "stop_times": [1482.861], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1482.605}, "reply_to": "21307__1_017", "speaker": "deanne_e_maynard"}
{"id": "21307__1_019", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "And so I want to know what was imposed, first, by whom, by which court, and what... what the order was.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1482.861], "stop_times": [1489.277], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1482.861}, "reply_to": "21307__1_018", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21307__1_020", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "The injunction was entered by the Eastern District of Illinois and was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit in a case called Bono v. Saxby.\nAnd the Federal court... the... the Bureau of Prisons adopted the regulations pointed to by the respondents in the C.F.R. as it... in... in... to comply with that injunction.\nWe have not yet sought to have that injunction set aside, but those procedures apply to a very small number of Federal prisoners.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1489.277, 1495.975, 1507.905], "stop_times": [1495.975, 1507.905, 1515.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1489.277}, "reply_to": "21307__1_019", "speaker": "deanne_e_maynard"}
{"id": "21307__1_021", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "But even so, I mean, you were saying this was forced on... on the... effectively on the Government.\nWell, it seems to me if that were the case, you would, after this Court rendered the decisions it did in Hewitt and Sandin, say, Seventh Circuit, please reconsider.\nIt sounds to me as though you haven't done that so you probably think it's okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1515.435, 1522.022, 1535.877], "stop_times": [1522.022, 1535.877, 1542.091], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1515.435}, "reply_to": "21307__1_020", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21307__1_022", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "We don't think it's constitutionally required, Justice Ginsburg.\nIt hasn't... we haven't moved to set it aside because it hasn't caused an administrative burden.\nThere are currently only 49 inmates in the control unit at Florence.\nIn the last decade, we have only placed 118 inmates there, and so we were able to cope with these burdensome procedures with respect to those numbers.\nBut it's important to note that what we do when we... what the Bureau of Prisons does when it was free to decide its own process is detailed at pages 26 to 28 of our brief, and that applies to a large number of prisoners, 550 who are in the general populations of... in very similar conditions to those in the Ohio State penitentiary.\nAnd there we have adopted a much less formal process even than the one that Ohio does, and we believe that is also constitutionally sufficient.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1542.091, 1544.977, 1548.475, 1551.903, 1559.979, 1581.242], "stop_times": [1544.977, 1548.475, 1551.903, 1559.979, 1581.242, 1588.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1542.091}, "reply_to": "21307__1_021", "speaker": "deanne_e_maynard"}
{"id": "21307__1_023", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, is... is the population with respect to which you have adopted the far more lenient process a... the population of the control unit, which I understand is comparable to the unit we're talking about in Ohio, or is it with respect to the general maximum security population which is housed in conditions less onerous than the control unit?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1588.746], "stop_times": [1609.882], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1588.746}, "reply_to": "21307__1_022", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__1_024", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "It is... applies to the general conditions in ADX... the general populations in ADX Florence and USP Marion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1609.882], "stop_times": [1618.164], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1609.882}, "reply_to": "21307__1_023", "speaker": "deanne_e_maynard"}
{"id": "21307__1_025", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Okay, and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1618.164], "stop_times": [1618.329], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1618.164}, "reply_to": "21307__1_024", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__1_026", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "But those conditions, Your Honor, are similar to the Ohio State penitentiary.\nThe difference between... may I finish, Justice... Mr. Chief Justice?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1618.329, 1622.549], "stop_times": [1622.549, 1626.794], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1618.329}, "reply_to": "21307__1_025", "speaker": "deanne_e_maynard"}
{"id": "21307__1_027", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1626.794], "stop_times": [1627.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1626.794}, "reply_to": "21307__1_026", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__1_028", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "The... the difference in the general population, the prisoners are out 10 to 12 hours a week for recreation, and in the control unit, they are out 7 hours a week.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1627.311], "stop_times": [1634.858], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1627.311}, "reply_to": "21307__1_027", "speaker": "deanne_e_maynard"}
{"id": "21307__1_029", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Thank you, Ms. Maynard.\nMr. Lobel, we'll hear from you.\nWould you tell us what happened in Mr. Austin's case?\nI mean, did he get a notice and that sort of thing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1634.858, 1637.088, 1641.236, 1646.309], "stop_times": [1637.088, 1641.236, 1646.309, 1650.169], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1634.858}, "reply_to": "21307__1_028", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__2_000", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes.\nYes, Your Honor.\nMay... Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:\nIn many of the cases... and I... I will try to... in Mr. Austin's case and many of the other cases, people didn't get a notice.\nI'd like to try to explain what they get and what they don't get.\nFirst, they do not get a final decision which gives them reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1650.169, 1650.869, 1652.431, 1654.543, 1662.207, 1666.282], "stop_times": [1650.869, 1652.431, 1654.543, 1662.207, 1666.282, 1672.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1650.169}, "reply_to": "21307__1_029", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_001", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, could you answer my question first?\nWhat kind of notice, if any, did Mr. Austin get?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1672.804, 1674.644], "stop_times": [1674.644, 1679.471], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1672.804}, "reply_to": "21307__2_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__2_002", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "I think Mr. Austin got no notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1679.471], "stop_times": [1680.724], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1679.471}, "reply_to": "21307__2_001", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_003", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Perhaps you can take us through this chronologically.\nYou... you began at the end.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1680.724, 1682.68], "stop_times": [1682.68, 1684.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1680.724}, "reply_to": "21307__2_002", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21307__2_004", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Okay.\nThe notice they get at the beginning is an... a notice which sometimes includes the reasons, sometimes it doesn't include the reasons.\nWhat the requirement in this policy is and what was found at trial was that often they would get very vague reasons like you're a gang member or a gang leader.\nNow--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1684.09, 1684.847, 1692.355, 1704.968], "stop_times": [1684.847, 1692.355, 1704.968, 1705.458], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1684.09}, "reply_to": "21307__2_003", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_005", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Then can you just explain that?\nBecause the policy says that he shall get notice and attached to the notice will be a committee report.\nThen they have a copy of the form that the report is supposed to fill out on page 58 to about page 78 and it's about the most detailed thing I've ever seen.\nSo--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1705.458, 1706.983, 1713.606, 1724.006], "stop_times": [1706.983, 1713.606, 1724.006, 1724.603], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1705.458}, "reply_to": "21307__2_004", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_006", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Yes, that they don't get.\nThat they do not get.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1724.603, 1725.381], "stop_times": [1725.381, 1726.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1724.603}, "reply_to": "21307__2_005", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_007", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Even though... you mean even though it says that the policy says you should be noticed and you're... it says, attached to the notice will be a copy of the... I'm sorry.\nI'm looking... am I looking at the wrong place?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1726.426, 1736.985], "stop_times": [1736.985, 1738.708], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1726.426}, "reply_to": "21307__2_006", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_008", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "I think you're reading in the wrong place.\nBut it... there... they do attach something, but it's not that long form.\nThat long form is what was never given to the prisoners which would tell them what it is that they were said to have done.\nFor example, if--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1738.708, 1740.329, 1744.718, 1753.123], "stop_times": [1740.329, 1744.718, 1753.123, 1754.558], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1738.708}, "reply_to": "21307__2_007", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_009", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "May I... may I... I just want to make sure.\nThere is then a direct disagreement of fact between you and the Attorney General.\nI understood him to say they got the form that starts at JA-58, and I understand you to be saying they don't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1754.558, 1756.307, 1761.037], "stop_times": [1756.307, 1761.037, 1766.855], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1754.558}, "reply_to": "21307__2_008", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__2_010", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--They do not.\nThe form that starts at JA-58 they get, but the form that starts at JA-58 is only one page.\nIt's JA-58.\nThey get that form.\nThat form says you'll tell them the reasons.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1766.855, 1768.189, 1774.754, 1776.317, 1777.239], "stop_times": [1768.189, 1774.754, 1776.317, 1777.239, 1780.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1766.855}, "reply_to": "21307__2_009", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_011", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1780.626], "stop_times": [1781.734], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1780.626}, "reply_to": "21307__2_010", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__2_012", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "So at this... at... at... during the trial, often they didn't get the... they didn't get any notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1781.734], "stop_times": [1786.435], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1781.734}, "reply_to": "21307__2_011", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_013", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1786.435], "stop_times": [1786.967], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1786.435}, "reply_to": "21307__2_012", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21307__2_014", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "But now they should get a notice.\nIt should tell them some reason.\nThe problem at trial was that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1786.967, 1788.866, 1790.413], "stop_times": [1788.866, 1790.413, 1793.042], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1786.967}, "reply_to": "21307__2_013", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_015", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "You mean a trial before all the... before they were about to be committed or the hearing at which it was determined whether they would be or not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1793.042], "stop_times": [1804.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1793.042}, "reply_to": "21307__2_014", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__2_016", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--At the hearing and... they got a notice.\nThe notice said you're a gang leader.\nHow is a man supposed to respond to a vague notice that I'm a gang leader when he doesn't know what it is that they are saying is their... is the reason that he's a gang leader?\nAll he could say... this isn't like a trial.\nIt's not a trial-type procedure.\nWhat happens in reality--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1804.684, 1808.625, 1810.716, 1822.129, 1824.172, 1826.258], "stop_times": [1808.625, 1810.716, 1822.129, 1824.172, 1826.258, 1828.039], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1804.684}, "reply_to": "21307__2_015", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_017", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, do you think it should be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1828.039], "stop_times": [1829.089], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1828.039}, "reply_to": "21307__2_016", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__2_018", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1829.089], "stop_times": [1829.799], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1829.089}, "reply_to": "21307__2_017", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_019", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "I mean, this is a prison classification, for goodness sakes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1829.799], "stop_times": [1832.636], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1829.799}, "reply_to": "21307__2_018", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__2_020", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "No.\nWe're not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1832.636, 1832.748], "stop_times": [1832.748, 1833.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1832.636}, "reply_to": "21307__2_019", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_021", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "He's been found guilty and sentenced to prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1833.392], "stop_times": [1835.351], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1833.392}, "reply_to": "21307__2_020", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__2_022", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Right, and we're not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1835.351], "stop_times": [1836.502], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1835.351}, "reply_to": "21307__2_021", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_023", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "The question is what procedures are required.\nAnd we've given a lot of discretion in prison administration.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1836.502, 1839.436], "stop_times": [1839.436, 1844.95], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1836.502}, "reply_to": "21307__2_022", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__2_024", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--And... and we are not asking for trial-type procedures.\nAll we're asking for is very minimal due process, which is that the person comes before a committee of three correction officials, and they say, what do you have to say for yourself?\nThey don't present any evidence.\nThey don't present witnesses.\nThey say, you're a gang leader.\nWhat do you have to say for yourself?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1844.95, 1847.813, 1858.464, 1859.814, 1860.891, 1862.245], "stop_times": [1847.813, 1858.464, 1859.814, 1860.891, 1862.245, 1863.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1844.95}, "reply_to": "21307__2_023", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_025", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Here is the exact words I... I think.\nIt's... tell me.\nThis certainly seems to be right.\nThe inmate shall be served with notice at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of a hearing.\nThe notice shall include all of the reasons for the proposed placement--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1863.408, 1865.568, 1866.821, 1868.788, 1874.905], "stop_times": [1865.568, 1866.821, 1868.788, 1874.905, 1878.521], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1863.408}, "reply_to": "21307__2_024", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_026", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1878.521], "stop_times": [1879.241], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1878.521}, "reply_to": "21307__2_025", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_027", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--and a summary of the evidence relied on.\nNow, I'm just reading that.\nWhat is it I'm reading?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1879.241, 1881.14, 1881.891], "stop_times": [1881.14, 1881.891, 1882.511], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1879.241}, "reply_to": "21307__2_026", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_028", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "That's... that's the district court's order.\nThat's not what they... that's the revised policy under the district court's order.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1882.511, 1883.828], "stop_times": [1883.828, 1888.079], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1882.511}, "reply_to": "21307__2_027", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_029", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "All right.\nWhere is... where is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1888.079, 1888.836], "stop_times": [1888.836, 1889.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1888.079}, "reply_to": "21307__2_028", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_030", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Where is theirs?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1889.684], "stop_times": [1891.059], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1889.684}, "reply_to": "21307__2_029", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_031", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--I'm sorry.\nYou go ahead.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1891.059, 1892.007], "stop_times": [1892.007, 1892.594], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1891.059}, "reply_to": "21307__2_030", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_032", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Their policy is, I believe, on page JA-23.\nThat tells you what they... they say.\nHe is to be served with a notice of hearing form 48 hours prior to the hearing.\nThat will... that... there were problems with this.\nOne is very vague notice.\nYou're a gang leader.\nThey have evidence for why he's a gang leader.\nIn Mr. Roe's case, who's one of the plaintiffs, the evidence which... which was never told to the prisoner... the committee didn't even know the evidence.\nThe evidence was that he was hit over the head with a spatula while he was waiting on line at the maximum security lunch line, and he went to the hospital, and he never fought back.\nAnd from this, somebody determined that he was a gang leader because the people who were being targeted at that time were gang leaders.\nNow, if you take a man and say, come before a committee, we're not going to tell you what this is about, just that you're a gang leader, what do you have say for yourself--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1892.594, 1897.208, 1902.455, 1906.68, 1909.842, 1911.666, 1912.701, 1915.32, 1923.378, 1931.751, 1939.933], "stop_times": [1897.208, 1902.455, 1906.68, 1909.842, 1911.666, 1912.701, 1915.32, 1923.378, 1931.751, 1939.933, 1948.935], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1892.594}, "reply_to": "21307__2_031", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_033", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, what's... what's wrong with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1948.935], "stop_times": [1950.391], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1948.935}, "reply_to": "21307__2_032", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__2_034", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Because--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1950.391], "stop_times": [1951.196], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1950.391}, "reply_to": "21307__2_033", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_035", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "I mean, if he can... if he's not a gang leader, he can tell them why he isn't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1951.196], "stop_times": [1956.119], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1951.196}, "reply_to": "21307__2_034", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__2_036", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--He'll say I'm not a gang leader.\nBut if they know and the reason is because he was involved in this fight, which... in which he didn't fight back, he should be able to then say, well, this guy... you're wrong.\nThis guy beat me up because I insulted him, or he's been an enemy of mine.\nHe has something to respond.\nOtherwise, he can just say I'm not a gang leader.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1956.119, 1957.419, 1968.416, 1972.224, 1973.583], "stop_times": [1957.419, 1968.416, 1972.224, 1973.583, 1975.354], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1956.119}, "reply_to": "21307__2_035", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_037", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "You... you want a trial-type proceeding.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1975.354], "stop_times": [1977.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1975.354}, "reply_to": "21307__2_036", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__2_038", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "This is a far cry from a trial.\nA trial... the State would have to put on witnesses.\nThey'd have to prove something.\nAll you're doing here is saying to the man, we're going to give you an opportunity to respond.\nAnd the question is, do you have to give them notice detailed enough?\nAnd that's all the district court required was some summary so that it's detailed enough so that he can respond.\nAnd really, all they have to do is take that form that they print up, Justice Breyer, which you were looking at, that long form, and copy it and append it to the notice.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [1977.125, 1980.021, 1982.649, 1984.223, 1989.033, 1992.404, 1998.815], "stop_times": [1980.021, 1982.649, 1984.223, 1989.033, 1992.404, 1998.815, 2009.823], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1977.125}, "reply_to": "21307__2_037", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_039", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, there is... isn't there the problem... at least Ohio suggested that there is... that if this person is indeed a gang leader and the form says so-and-so and so-and-so effectively ratted on you, those persons who came forward might not live to see another day?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2009.823], "stop_times": [2033.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2009.823}, "reply_to": "21307__2_038", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21307__2_040", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "And the district court ordered what Ohio does in all its disciplinary proceedings, what the Federal Government does in its disciplinary proceedings, which is if it's confidential information, you don't have to turn it over because they understand that, Justice Ginsburg.\nThe district court understood that.\nBut in Mr. Roe's case, it wasn't confidential that he was hit over the head.\nOr in Mr. Thompson's case, it wasn't confidential that they said to him, you were present at some fight and they didn't tell who he was fighting and they never were... they never gave him any of the... the details so... to be able to respond.\nIf it's confidential, they don't have to turn it over.\nThe district court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2033.443, 2046.809, 2048.318, 2052.302, 2066.201, 2069.059], "stop_times": [2046.809, 2048.318, 2052.302, 2066.201, 2069.059, 2069.895], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2033.443}, "reply_to": "21307__2_039", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_041", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "But was... was this under the old policy that you're talking about what occurred?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2069.895], "stop_times": [2074.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2069.895}, "reply_to": "21307__2_040", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__2_042", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Yes, Your Honor.\nIt was under--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2074.646, 2075.989], "stop_times": [2075.989, 2076.741], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2074.646}, "reply_to": "21307__2_041", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_043", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes.\nAnd I thought that we had to address this facial challenge insofar as it affects the new policy.\nAnd if the State complied with the new policy, what is your complaint with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2076.741, 2077.141, 2084.908], "stop_times": [2077.141, 2084.908, 2091.893], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2076.741}, "reply_to": "21307__2_042", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__2_044", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--The... the new policy, which really was in all honesty, Your Honor, a tweaked policy or a modified policy... they took the old policy and they made some changes to it.\nThe question before the Court is whether that new policy fixed the problems.\nWe saw the problems--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2091.893, 2101.27, 2106.475], "stop_times": [2101.27, 2106.475, 2107.664], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2091.893}, "reply_to": "21307__2_043", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_045", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Which was never... never in effect, right?\nThe new policy--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2107.664, 2108.923], "stop_times": [2108.923, 2110.016], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2107.664}, "reply_to": "21307__2_044", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21307__2_046", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Never went into effect.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2110.016], "stop_times": [2110.772], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2110.016}, "reply_to": "21307__2_045", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_047", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--So all... the evidence relates to the old policy which I think Ohio recognizes was not adequate.\nAnd then there's... Ohio has this new policy, and you, just on the basis of the written statement of the policy, made the judgment that it's not good enough.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2110.772, 2116.547], "stop_times": [2116.547, 2127.694], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2110.772}, "reply_to": "21307__2_046", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21307__2_048", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "It doesn't on... just on the face of it, it doesn't fix the problem that the district court found.\nVague notice.\nThe other thing they would do is they would give the person notice of one reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2127.694, 2133.256, 2134.296], "stop_times": [2133.256, 2134.296, 2137.789], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2127.694}, "reply_to": "21307__2_047", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_049", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, let... you keep talking about what happened in the past, and I'm... I find some difficulty with that because we're being asked to review a new policy.\nAnd I would like you to look at the new policy, show us where to find it in the record, and tell us specifically what's wrong with it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2137.789, 2146.705], "stop_times": [2146.705, 2155.095], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2137.789}, "reply_to": "21307__2_048", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__2_050", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--I'll give you a very specific--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2155.095], "stop_times": [2156.455], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2155.095}, "reply_to": "21307__2_049", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_051", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Could... could you refer to something?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2156.455], "stop_times": [2158.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2156.455}, "reply_to": "21307__2_050", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__2_052", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Page... look at page 22 and... 23 and 33 of the new policy.\nLook at 23.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2158.913, 2161.92], "stop_times": [2161.92, 2162.944], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2158.913}, "reply_to": "21307__2_051", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_053", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Where... where is that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2162.944], "stop_times": [2163.648], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2162.944}, "reply_to": "21307__2_052", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__2_054", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "JA-23.\nLook at JA-23 and look at JA-33.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2163.648, 2164.8], "stop_times": [2164.8, 2168.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2163.648}, "reply_to": "21307__2_053", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_055", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "All right.\nI'm on 23.\nWhat are we--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2168.171, 2170.698, 2171.866], "stop_times": [2170.698, 2171.866, 2172.612], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2168.171}, "reply_to": "21307__2_054", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__2_056", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "On 23, you look at the final decision-maker... the Bureau of Classification... the bottom line of the next-to-the-last paragraph... will review the recommendation and any objections filed and make a final decision.\nNow, here's what was happening, and I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2172.612, 2185.096], "stop_times": [2185.096, 2189.399], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2172.612}, "reply_to": "21307__2_055", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_057", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Is this happening under the new policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2189.399], "stop_times": [2191.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2189.399}, "reply_to": "21307__2_056", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__2_058", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--That's the new policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2191.256], "stop_times": [2192.323], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2191.256}, "reply_to": "21307__2_057", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_059", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "But now, you just were going to say here's what was happening.\nDo you mean under the new policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2192.323, 2195.934], "stop_times": [2195.934, 2197.992], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2192.323}, "reply_to": "21307__2_058", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__2_060", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "No.\nThe question is whether this page 23 fixes what was happening in the past.\nThis is their new policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2197.992, 2198.12, 2203.047], "stop_times": [2198.12, 2203.047, 2204.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2197.992}, "reply_to": "21307__2_059", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_061", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, why... why is that the question?\nIf the new policy meets constitutional standards, why does it have to fix something else?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2204.125, 2206.418], "stop_times": [2206.418, 2213.623], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2204.125}, "reply_to": "21307__2_060", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__2_062", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Your Honor, it doesn't meet constitutional standards because it only says the chief has to make a final decision.\nThe chief doesn't have to give any reasons for it, and I don't know of any case in this Court in predictive decisions, in punitive decisions where a... a decision-maker can send somebody to solitary confinement long-term.\nAnd Justice Souter, it's for at least 2 years.\nOver 200 people there were for more than 3 years, which was really the... the... only limited by how long the building was open... and say, I'm putting you in there and I'm not telling you why.\nAnd this policy lets them do it, and that's what they were doing.\nAnd there's nothing in this policy to change that.\nAnd what was happening--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2213.623, 2219.458, 2232.087, 2234.477, 2246.301, 2249.367, 2251.82], "stop_times": [2219.458, 2232.087, 2234.477, 2246.301, 2249.367, 2251.82, 2253.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2213.623}, "reply_to": "21307__2_061", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_063", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "So I think I've got your point.\nTell me if I... I mean, I've now looked at... this is very confusing to me.\nI'm sure it's my fault.\nBut I take it, if you look at page 22, that's the new policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2253.122, 2254.823, 2258.226, 2259.405], "stop_times": [2254.823, 2258.226, 2259.405, 2264.418], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2253.122}, "reply_to": "21307__2_062", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_064", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2264.418], "stop_times": [2265.085], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2264.418}, "reply_to": "21307__2_063", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_065", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "And what the new policy says is, committee, you must give the prisoner some information.\nThen it refers to form 2598.\nForm 2598 is the form on page 58.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2265.085, 2274.269, 2278.039], "stop_times": [2274.269, 2278.039, 2282.535], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2265.085}, "reply_to": "21307__2_064", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_066", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Exactly.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2282.535], "stop_times": [2283.09], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2282.535}, "reply_to": "21307__2_065", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_067", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "What that tells him is nothing about the facts.\nThat tells him he's been charged.\nPeriod.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2283.09, 2285.554, 2287.351], "stop_times": [2285.554, 2287.351, 2287.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2283.09}, "reply_to": "21307__2_066", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_068", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "He's been charged for being a gang leader.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2287.821], "stop_times": [2289.388], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2287.821}, "reply_to": "21307__2_067", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_069", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Now, the new policy goes on to say, the classification committee shall document information presented by staff and the inmate which is form 2627 and 2628.\nAnd I don't know where 2698 fits in, but 2698 are all those pages with the information.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2289.388, 2301.468], "stop_times": [2301.468, 2307.585], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2289.388}, "reply_to": "21307__2_068", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_070", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "And they don't have to give that to anybody.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2307.585], "stop_times": [2309.131], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2307.585}, "reply_to": "21307__2_069", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_071", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "And it just doesn't say anything about them at all.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2309.131], "stop_times": [2310.763], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2309.131}, "reply_to": "21307__2_070", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_072", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "And all the district court was saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2310.763], "stop_times": [2312.549], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2310.763}, "reply_to": "21307__2_071", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_073", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "So your point is in the past, they didn't give them the information.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2312.549], "stop_times": [2315.38], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2312.549}, "reply_to": "21307__2_072", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_074", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--They didn't give them the information.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2315.38], "stop_times": [2315.979], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2315.38}, "reply_to": "21307__2_073", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_075", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Then they promulgated a new policy and the new policy says nothing about it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2315.979], "stop_times": [2319.584], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2315.979}, "reply_to": "21307__2_074", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_076", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Exactly.\nAnd that is why it's facially invalid.\nBut if you look at what was happening, you could--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2319.584, 2320.293, 2323.915], "stop_times": [2320.293, 2323.915, 2326.122], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2319.584}, "reply_to": "21307__2_075", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_077", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--But form 58... I'm... I'm looking at page 58... says that the prisoner will be given this form that says you were referred to the classification committee for the following reasons.\nAnd that leaves space to be filled out.\nWhat's the matter with that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2326.122, 2338.095, 2341.161], "stop_times": [2338.095, 2341.161, 2342.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2326.122}, "reply_to": "21307__2_076", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__2_078", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--And... two problems with that.\nIt could either say you're a gang leader, and second, it could say which--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2342.649, 2343.987], "stop_times": [2343.987, 2348.013], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2342.649}, "reply_to": "21307__2_077", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_079", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "This is a facial attack.\nWhat in the world is the matter with that, saying you were referred for the following reasons and leaving space to have it filled out?\nIs that defective under the Due Process Clause?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2348.013, 2350.429, 2358.359], "stop_times": [2350.429, 2358.359, 2361.447], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2348.013}, "reply_to": "21307__2_078", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__2_080", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Because you... at trial we showed what the practice was.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2361.447], "stop_times": [2365.746], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2361.447}, "reply_to": "21307__2_079", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_081", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "You showed what happened in the past.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2365.746], "stop_times": [2367.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2365.746}, "reply_to": "21307__2_080", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__2_082", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "And the question is, does this fix it?\nAnd what happened in the past was they gave, for example, a prisoner, and it said, here are the reasons.\nThe reason is you stabbed somebody.\nThe committee said, you stabbed somebody.\nIt wasn't very bad.\nWe recommend that you not be put in the place.\nIn over 50 percent of the cases of those committee recommendations on retention, the chief rendered a decision, without giving a final... any real reasons, and used evidence and reasons which were never given to the inmate.\nIn Ohio's brief, they say we could still do that.\nWe only have to give them some reason.\nFor example, we have to say you're a gang member.\nIf it turns out that you're... turns out you're not a gang member, the chief can say later on, well, you were dealing drugs.\nThat's... that's not adequate.\nFacially it's not adequate to give the person some reason and then switch the reason in the middle of the game.\nAnd that's what was happening.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2367.239, 2368.722, 2375.324, 2377.186, 2380.684, 2381.558, 2384.412, 2400.86, 2404.038, 2405.835, 2407.99, 2414.608, 2416.512, 2422.305], "stop_times": [2368.722, 2375.324, 2377.186, 2380.684, 2381.558, 2384.412, 2400.86, 2404.038, 2405.835, 2407.99, 2414.608, 2416.512, 2422.305, 2423.355], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2367.239}, "reply_to": "21307__2_081", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_083", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, I can understand that you could come on behalf of a prisoner on an as-applied challenge, but to look at this form and tell us it is facially invalid is difficult for me to understand.\nIf... if there are specific incidents where something was defective, then challenge it, but what's the matter with the form?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2423.355, 2436.822], "stop_times": [2436.822, 2446.64], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2423.355}, "reply_to": "21307__2_082", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__2_084", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well... well, the first thing that's matter with the form is it doesn't require reasons for the decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2446.64], "stop_times": [2450.463], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2446.64}, "reply_to": "21307__2_083", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_085", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "It's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2450.463], "stop_times": [2451.023], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2450.463}, "reply_to": "21307__2_084", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__2_086", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, why does the Due Process Clause require reasons?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2451.023], "stop_times": [2454.596], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2451.023}, "reply_to": "21307__2_085", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__2_087", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Even in Salerno, the... the... this Court held that in a preventive case, the bail... the bail reform statute still requires, as a basic modicum of due process, that you give the person the reason--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2454.596], "stop_times": [2470.676], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2454.596}, "reply_to": "21307__2_086", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_088", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "That... that was a statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2470.676], "stop_times": [2471.907], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2470.676}, "reply_to": "21307__2_087", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__2_089", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--That was a statute, and the Court relied on that for why the statute was constitutional.\nEven in Greenholtz, the parole case, the... this Court said over and over again that in the... in the parole decision, which is much more predictive than here, the parole board gave its reasons for why it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2471.907, 2476.771], "stop_times": [2476.771, 2490.136], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2471.907}, "reply_to": "21307__2_088", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_090", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--This form says, state the reasons, and leaves blank space to do that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2490.136], "stop_times": [2494.242], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2490.136}, "reply_to": "21307__2_089", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__2_091", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--But that's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2494.242], "stop_times": [2494.626], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2494.242}, "reply_to": "21307__2_090", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_092", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "So what's the matter?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2494.626], "stop_times": [2495.239], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2494.626}, "reply_to": "21307__2_091", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21307__2_093", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--That's in the notice.\nIt's not in... it's not in the decision.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2495.239, 2496.263], "stop_times": [2496.263, 2498.397], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2495.239}, "reply_to": "21307__2_092", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_094", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, what it says about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2498.397], "stop_times": [2499.565], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2498.397}, "reply_to": "21307__2_093", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_095", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "It... it seems to me that the... the facial attack objection would... would not be... carry much weight if what happened was this.\nThere was a trial.\nThe policies were found deficient, and the court said, you devise some new forms.\nAt that point, it seems to me that the facial attack would... objection would... would not be relevant.\nAnd... and your point would be right.\nYou say, you know, they... they haven't... this doesn't... is not going to cure the... the deficiency.\nBut what happened here was that, as I understand it, midway in the litigation there was a new policy, and it... it seems... so we have sort of a moving target that we're working with.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2499.565, 2510.785, 2511.58, 2518.587, 2525.674, 2526.986, 2531.056], "stop_times": [2510.785, 2511.58, 2518.587, 2525.674, 2526.986, 2531.056, 2541.322], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2499.565}, "reply_to": "21307__2_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21307__2_096", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes.\nYour Honor, it depends--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2541.322, 2541.849], "stop_times": [2541.849, 2543.002], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2541.322}, "reply_to": "21307__2_095", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_097", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Could you comment on that?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2543.002], "stop_times": [2543.509], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2543.002}, "reply_to": "21307__2_096", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21307__2_098", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--It depends on what you mean by midway.\nOn the eve of trial, as we approached the trial court for trial, they promulgated the new policy which was not supposed to be implemented until several months after trial.\nAnd it seems in that situation perfectly reasonable for a district court to say, here are the problems that I've uncovered.\nI'm going to look at the new policy and see if this new policy fixes it.\nThe... the problems were not moot, Justice O'Connor.\nThese were ongoing problems.\nThere were 200 prisoners who were there under a deficient policy.\nThe question then was, were they entitled to something better?\nAnd did this new policy give them something better?\nAnd the... the district court found, I think quite correctly, that it gave them a little better.\nIt was tweaked.\nIt was modified.\nBut on some of the basic questions of whether or not you can bait and switch the reasons, whether you could tell somebody you're in here for drugs and then the classification chief could... could put him in for something else, or whether you had to give them some reason that he can respond to... in a situation where you're not having a trial, Mr. Chief Justice, where... where the State does not have to come forward with any evidence.\nThe only evidence the person is getting of what is his problem is this notice.\nAnd the question is, when that is the only evidence... it's not like a trial like in the Federal courts where you have to present witnesses, you have to meet a standard of proof.\nIt's not even in the... like a disciplinary trial where you have to meet a certain standard of proof and present witnesses.\nThe committee sits there.\nThe guy comes in and they say to him, tell us why you're not a gang leader.\nAnd he says, well, tell me why you think I am a gang leader.\nAnd they should be forced to tell him that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2543.509, 2544.975, 2555.241, 2563.423, 2568.186, 2571.177, 2573.748, 2577.69, 2582.185, 2585.205, 2589.919, 2590.564, 2591.492, 2615.134, 2621.235, 2629.982, 2635.668, 2637.044, 2641.123, 2644.024], "stop_times": [2544.975, 2555.241, 2563.423, 2568.186, 2571.177, 2573.748, 2577.69, 2582.185, 2585.205, 2589.919, 2590.564, 2591.492, 2615.134, 2621.235, 2629.982, 2635.668, 2637.044, 2641.123, 2644.024, 2646.142], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2543.509}, "reply_to": "21307__2_097", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_099", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Well, what's wrong with giving him the opportunity to say why he's not a gang leader?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2646.142], "stop_times": [2652.889], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2646.142}, "reply_to": "21307__2_098", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__2_100", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "How is Mr. Roe going to say I'm not a gang leader because I wasn't hit over the head with a spatula because I'm a gang leader, I was hit over the head with a spatula because the guy doesn't like me, unless he knows that that's why they think he is a gang leader?\nHow could he respond to that?\nAll he could say is I don't know what you're talking about.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2652.889, 2668.877, 2670.334], "stop_times": [2668.877, 2670.334, 2673.917], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2652.889}, "reply_to": "21307__2_099", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_101", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--But why can't you do that in an as-applied challenge?\nI mean, it may be that there was all this... suppose we wrote an opinion hypothetically.\nSuppose... and it said, look, I've read through this new policy.\nI assume it will be administered in accordance with the elements of due process, the basic elements being some kind of notice basically what... what the factual part is, some kind of opportunity to present proofs in evidence that's a reasonable one, and some kind of decision by a neutral decision-maker.\nCertainly the language of the new policy permits such an interpretation.\nIt doesn't... and... and suppose we were to say, well, we assume it will have the basic elements, and it's so complex, so detailed that... that if they don't, then the individual who suffers could bring a claim and say it was administered unfairly in my case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2673.917, 2676.732, 2682.213, 2685.734, 2707.579, 2712.604], "stop_times": [2676.732, 2682.213, 2685.734, 2707.579, 2712.604, 2728.507], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2673.917}, "reply_to": "21307__2_100", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_102", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Your Honor, I think as a facial matter, when you're putting somebody in long-term solitary confinement for years and years in a small cell with no possibility of parole, you're... I think you should give them notice of the reasons in sufficient--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2728.507], "stop_times": [2745.27], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2728.507}, "reply_to": "21307__2_101", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_103", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "No, I'm not disagreeing with you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2745.27], "stop_times": [2746.571], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2745.27}, "reply_to": "21307__2_102", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_104", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--in sufficient detail.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2746.571], "stop_times": [2747.322], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2746.571}, "reply_to": "21307__2_103", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_105", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "But you see... yes.\nI'm... I'm not disagreeing with you.\nI'm saying I read their new policy, now having gotten to it the third time through all this detail, and it seems to me that they do give a notice, and Justice O'Connor just pointed out where there's a place for reasons.\nAnd as I read what happens after the committee decides, it says, it shall make a decision... a recommendation accordingly... according to this very long, detailed form.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2747.322, 2747.675, 2748.997, 2759.801], "stop_times": [2747.675, 2748.997, 2759.801, 2769.156], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2747.322}, "reply_to": "21307__2_104", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_106", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2769.156], "stop_times": [2769.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2769.156}, "reply_to": "21307__2_105", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_107", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "And it doesn't say they won't tell the prisoner.\nIt doesn't say whether they'll tell the prisoner.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2769.487, 2772.068], "stop_times": [2772.068, 2774.287], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2769.487}, "reply_to": "21307__2_106", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_108", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2774.287], "stop_times": [2774.495], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2774.287}, "reply_to": "21307__2_107", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_109", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "So why can't I assume they will tell him so he'll know what's going on?\nAnd then if they don't, you'd have an as-applied challenge.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2774.495, 2778.02], "stop_times": [2778.02, 2781.786], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2774.495}, "reply_to": "21307__2_108", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_110", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Even if, as an abstract matter, you could assume it, when you've had a 1-week trial with witness after witness, and the witnesses say they're not doing this--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2781.786], "stop_times": [2790.004], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2781.786}, "reply_to": "21307__2_109", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_111", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "That was before the new policy.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2790.004], "stop_times": [2792.345], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2790.004}, "reply_to": "21307__2_110", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_112", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--But the new policy is introduced at trial.\nAnd the... the question is... really what you're saying, Justice Breyer, is the mere introduction of the new policy renders the whole case... case moot.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2792.345, 2794.489], "stop_times": [2794.489, 2803.849], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2792.345}, "reply_to": "21307__2_111", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_113", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "What I'm now saying is I can understand exactly why you might feel the way you do.\nBut our job is to not necessarily take that feeling.\nBut shouldn't we presume that the State will administer words that comport with the basic elements, not every detail as you want, but they will administer this new policy in accord with those basic elements of fairness?\nIsn't that giving a... sort of like a deference to the State, which maybe we should?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2803.849, 2807.465, 2811.55, 2825.694], "stop_times": [2807.465, 2811.55, 2825.694, 2830.579], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2803.849}, "reply_to": "21307__2_112", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_114", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Maybe you should in an ordinary case.\nWhere there's been a trial and it's a clear pattern and practice that they're not, then I think that Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw says that you have to show that the new policy is going to cure the problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2830.579, 2832.877], "stop_times": [2832.877, 2847.454], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2830.579}, "reply_to": "21307__2_113", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_115", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Are you... are you saying that what we have before us is this, a trial which showed that the pre-new policy procedures were deficient and the trial judge and you and a court of appeals interpreted the new policies as remedies for past wrongs that were established?\nAnd the question is the adequacy of that remedy.\nThat's one way to look at the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2847.454, 2869.587, 2872.067], "stop_times": [2869.587, 2872.067, 2873.405], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2847.454}, "reply_to": "21307__2_114", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21307__2_116", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "That's certainly one way.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2873.405], "stop_times": [2874.317], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2873.405}, "reply_to": "21307__2_115", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_117", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Another way to look at the case is to say that Ohio admitted that there were some improprieties, showed its new policy, and the case turned on the adequacy of the new policies.\nNow, those are two different things.\nWhich is this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2874.317, 2885.281, 2886.62], "stop_times": [2885.281, 2886.62, 2888.155], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2874.317}, "reply_to": "21307__2_116", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21307__2_118", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "But to look at it the second way, you have to show that the problems proved at trial were moot.\nIf the problems are ongoing, then the plaintiffs are entitled to a remedy.\nYou can't say that there are problems that are ongoing, which there were... they were all--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2888.155, 2893.931, 2898.186], "stop_times": [2893.931, 2898.186, 2901.802], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2888.155}, "reply_to": "21307__2_117", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_119", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "But how can you know whether the problems are ongoing if the new rules haven't been implemented?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2901.802], "stop_times": [2909.235], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2901.802}, "reply_to": "21307__2_118", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__2_120", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Well, they are ongoing at trial.\nWhen the trial judge renders his decision, they're ongoing.\nThe question then is looking at this abstractly, it's not a question of in the abstract is it okay, but in the abstract will it cure the problems.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2909.235, 2911.598, 2914.776], "stop_times": [2911.598, 2914.776, 2926.391], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2909.235}, "reply_to": "21307__2_119", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_121", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Why... why isn't it a question of as facially in the abstract is it okay?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2926.391], "stop_times": [2934.113], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2926.391}, "reply_to": "21307__2_120", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__2_122", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes.\nWell, as I said, facially in the abstract, I think it's not okay because I think they should have final decision with reasons and notice with sufficient detail for reasons.\nBut even if you don't agree with me on that, I think that this case, when you have an... when you have a trial and there's a pattern and practice of... of problems, I don't think that it's proper to simply assume that a piece of paper which says we'll give reasons is adequate when the reasons that they're giving and that the trial shows they're giving are inadequate.\nThey're vague.\nThey're... they're shifting the ball on people.\nAnd I... and I think--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2934.113, 2934.459, 2944.965, 2969.375, 2969.978, 2972.901], "stop_times": [2934.459, 2944.965, 2969.375, 2969.978, 2972.901, 2975.024], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2934.113}, "reply_to": "21307__2_121", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_123", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "May I ask this question, Mr. Lobel?\nPutting aside for a second which policy we look at and so forth, were there findings that particular inmates were improperly sent to this facility?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2975.024, 2976.346], "stop_times": [2976.346, 2984.5], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2975.024}, "reply_to": "21307__2_122", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__2_124", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--There... there were findings that... that there were... particular inmates were improperly... were sent with no evidence against them.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2984.5], "stop_times": [2991.929], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2984.5}, "reply_to": "21307__2_123", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_125", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "All right, and was there any... any order saying that inmate should get out and go to a different facility?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2991.929], "stop_times": [2996.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2991.929}, "reply_to": "21307__2_124", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__2_126", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "No.\nThe district court simply ordered that since there was a widespread showing of arbitrary and capricious placement and... and that there was a showing that they built the prison for 500... with 500 cells and they didn't need 500 cells and they were putting people in there who didn't need... who didn't meet the criteria that they set forward... there was a widespread showing of that.\nThe district court said you should give them new hearings following a procedure which would be sufficient to meet the constitutional Due Process Clause.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [2996.862, 2996.973, 3017.447], "stop_times": [2996.973, 3017.447, 3027.83], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2996.862}, "reply_to": "21307__2_125", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_127", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "And so the State then came back and said we're putting in this new policy, we will give them new hearings under the new policy?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3027.83], "stop_times": [3033.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3027.83}, "reply_to": "21307__2_126", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__2_128", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "No.\nThe... the State never implemented the new policy.\nThe court said what you should do is give them hearings, which give them notice sufficient to explain what's going on, render a final decision which explains what's going on, give them a chance to produce witnesses if they have a... if they have witnesses, and they gave them hearings--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3033.525, 3033.812, 3036.809], "stop_times": [3033.812, 3036.809, 3053.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3033.525}, "reply_to": "21307__2_127", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_129", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "So that even though... if I understand it correctly, even though there had findings that some inmates have been improperly... had had inadequate procedure as a predicate to going into the new facility, they can just stay there until the litigation is over.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3053.225], "stop_times": [3066.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3053.225}, "reply_to": "21307__2_128", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21307__2_130", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--That's right because the district court didn't move any particular prisoner.\nBut what happened was when you--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3066.115, 3069.128], "stop_times": [3069.128, 3071.939], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3066.115}, "reply_to": "21307__2_129", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_131", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Where do... where do we find those findings?\nWhere in the record do we find the findings about individual people?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3071.939, 3073.554], "stop_times": [3073.554, 3078.525], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3071.939}, "reply_to": "21307__2_130", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__2_132", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--They're... they're all through the district court's opinion.\nIf you want to look at Mr. Roe, it's at 73 to 76.\nMr. Thompson is at 77 to 79.\nAll of these were cases where the district court found people are being put in here on no evidence or essentially no evidence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3078.525, 3081.592, 3085.575, 3088.413], "stop_times": [3081.592, 3085.575, 3088.413, 3095.287], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3078.525}, "reply_to": "21307__2_131", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_133", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "And as... and as to those prisoners, was there a requirement that the... that the court's procedures be made applicable and so there would have to be a retroactive hearing as to those prisoners?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3095.287], "stop_times": [3105.12], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3095.287}, "reply_to": "21307__2_132", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21307__2_134", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "For all the prisoners.\nSeveral... several months later, there were new hearings.\nAnd what happened then was that the amount of prisoners at this prison went from 330 to where it is right now, which is 48, the same in the Federal control... as in the Federal control unit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3105.12, 3106.779, 3109.979], "stop_times": [3106.779, 3109.979, 3121.439], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3105.12}, "reply_to": "21307__2_133", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_135", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Can you just give me 1 minute on the other issue?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3121.439], "stop_times": [3123.518], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3121.439}, "reply_to": "21307__2_134", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21307__2_136", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "We're talking about 48 prisoners.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3123.518], "stop_times": [3123.747], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3123.518}, "reply_to": "21307__2_135", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_137", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Can you tell us on... on the liberty interest where we started with the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3123.747], "stop_times": [3128.252], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3123.747}, "reply_to": "21307__2_136", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21307__2_138", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3128.252], "stop_times": [3128.621], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3128.252}, "reply_to": "21307__2_137", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_139", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--with the Attorney General, is there a liberty interest in not being transferred from prison 1... level 1 to level 2--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3128.621], "stop_times": [3136.097], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3128.621}, "reply_to": "21307__2_138", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21307__2_140", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "No.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3136.097], "stop_times": [3136.487], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3136.097}, "reply_to": "21307__2_139", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_141", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--level 2, that sort of thing?\nWhy is it that there's a liberty interest in being transferred... I guess being transferred from 4 to 5?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3136.487, 3137.041], "stop_times": [3137.041, 3142.326], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3136.487}, "reply_to": "21307__2_140", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21307__2_142", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "We argued here that this was an atypical, significant hardship compared not to level 1, 2, 3, or 4, but compared to the segregation units, any other prison in Ohio, even the segregation units, and for three reasons, all of which in combination the court of... the district court held required a finding of liberty interest.\nOne, it's long-term, indefinite.\nThere were over 200 people here who were there for almost as long as the building was open, and there was no reason to believe that they were ever going to get out.\nIt was indefinite.\nThat's very different than Sandin's 30-day disciplinary confinement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3142.326, 3162.816, 3166.027, 3174.352, 3175.376], "stop_times": [3162.816, 3166.027, 3174.352, 3175.376, 3179.78], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3142.326}, "reply_to": "21307__2_141", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_143", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "I thought there... there was at least annual review.\nIsn't... wasn't there an annual--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3179.78, 3181.696], "stop_times": [3181.696, 3182.895], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3179.78}, "reply_to": "21307__2_142", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21307__2_144", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "There was an annual review, but the committee that they set up to review it, made up not of law professors, but made up of correctional officials, said--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3182.895], "stop_times": [3191.625], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3182.895}, "reply_to": "21307__2_143", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_145", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--And a good thing too.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3191.625, 3192.691], "stop_times": [3192.691, 3192.899], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3191.625}, "reply_to": "21307__2_144", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21307__2_146", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--And a good thing, I agree.\nI would... I would hate to be doing this.\nBut made up of wardens and deputy wardens, said Mr. Roe, there's no reason you should be here, you should get out.\nAnd then based on reasons and evidence, which Mr. Roe never knew, which the committee never knew... the committee thought Mr. Roe was in there for one reason, and it turned out on trial he was in there for another reason.\nThe classification chief says to him... says, you're going to stay here another year.\nMr. Roe goes back, has a perfect record, does every program he can do.\nHe comes back to the committee.\nThe committee says, Mr. Roe, you should get out of here again.\nAnd the classification chief again says, I'm sorry, for no reason I'm just going to keep you here.\nAnd at that point you say, well, Mr. Roe, you may be here for the rest of your life, and there's no... this is not definite like in the control unit where--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3192.899, 3194.243, 3196.174, 3202.498, 3212.931, 3218.045, 3222.915, 3224.824, 3227.986, 3235.576], "stop_times": [3194.243, 3196.174, 3202.498, 3212.931, 3218.045, 3222.915, 3224.824, 3227.986, 3235.576, 3244.04], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3192.899}, "reply_to": "21307__2_145", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_147", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "What does the new policy say about this?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3244.04], "stop_times": [3245.592], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3244.04}, "reply_to": "21307__2_146", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21307__2_148", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3245.592], "stop_times": [3246.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3245.592}, "reply_to": "21307__2_147", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_149", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Nothing about--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3246.008], "stop_times": [3246.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3246.008}, "reply_to": "21307__2_148", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21307__2_150", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Nothing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3246.792], "stop_times": [3247.197], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3246.792}, "reply_to": "21307__2_149", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_151", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--about the annual review.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3247.197], "stop_times": [3248.275], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3247.197}, "reply_to": "21307__2_150", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21307__2_152", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "It says you get an annual review.\nThey got an annual review.\nThe new policy doesn't say.\nAnd what the district court ordered was draconian, that the classification chief, after he does this, without hearing from the inmate, without giving him reasons, has to write a final decision, which gives him some of the reasons that Mr. Roe is being kept there, and that they have to tell him, like they told the prisoners in... in Greenholtz, what you have to do to get out.\nWhat... and that doesn't seem to me unreasonable.\nAnd all you have to do is give a one-paragraph reason.\nNow, that's the first reason, but that's not the only reason.\nThe State officials testified that this was qualitatively different than any other prisoner, that the level of restriction, the no outdoor recreation for many years, that people have not been outside for years, the small cell with solid steel doors so that they could not hardly talk to anybody or see anybody, that these were conditions--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3248.275, 3249.783, 3251.298, 3252.914, 3274.902, 3278.439, 3281.415, 3285.489], "stop_times": [3249.783, 3251.298, 3252.914, 3274.902, 3278.439, 3281.415, 3285.489, 3306.193], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3248.275}, "reply_to": "21307__2_151", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_153", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Did they have reading materials?\nI--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3306.193, 3306.843], "stop_times": [3306.843, 3307.217], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3306.193}, "reply_to": "21307__2_152", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21307__2_154", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--They had reading materials, yes, Your Honor, and they had televisions so they could watch their favorite programs.\nBut they had nobody to talk to.\nAnd we... the experiment that was done with long-term solitary confinement, which this Court itself in the 1890's found caused people to go crazy... if you have to give people the process that was required here to send the prisoner to a mental institution, you should have to give them at least that process to send them into a situation which is going to send them to the mental institution.\n[Laughter]\nAnd that's what's involved here.\nIt's a qualitatively different type of experience.\nAnd the Seventh Circuit in U.S. v. Johnson said you cannot sentence somebody to... into solitary confinement for the term of their sentence because it's a qualitatively different type of experience.\nIt's not the 30 days in Sandin.\nIt's not the 7 weeks in Ewing.\nThis is qualitatively different.\nAnd to top it off, the third reason is because these people were automatically deemed ineligible for parole.\nAnd Justice Scalia, in Sandin, the Court said in this case it's not... the... the prisoner isn't being denied parole.\nWell, here we have evidence that there are prisoners who were... the parole board said we will release you on parole.\nAll you have to do is get out of the supermax.\nThe committee says... a correctional officials says, you're ready to go.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3307.217, 3313.212, 3314.817, 3337.557, 3338.255, 3340.228, 3343.134, 3355.704, 3357.426, 3359.149, 3360.914, 3366.563, 3376.493, 3382.855, 3384.408], "stop_times": [3313.212, 3314.817, 3337.557, 3338.255, 3340.228, 3343.134, 3355.704, 3357.426, 3359.149, 3360.914, 3366.563, 3376.493, 3382.855, 3384.408, 3389.149], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3307.217}, "reply_to": "21307__2_153", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_155", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "That's not the whole class, though.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3389.149], "stop_times": [3390.499], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3389.149}, "reply_to": "21307__2_154", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21307__2_156", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Not--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3390.499], "stop_times": [3391.016], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3390.499}, "reply_to": "21307__2_155", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_157", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "You have a class action.\nIt's just a few of them.\nIn fact, there's... there's no more parole in Ohio, as I understand it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3391.016, 3391.527, 3392.498], "stop_times": [3391.527, 3392.498, 3395.9], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3391.016}, "reply_to": "21307__2_156", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21307__2_158", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Yes, but a... the vast... I believe it's over 90 percent of the people who were in this prison were sentenced under the old rules, under the old parole rules.\nAnd in addition, every prisoner who got sent to this prison was delayed parole for the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 years that they were going to spend at this prison.\nSo every prisoner it affected.\nThank you very much.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3395.9, 3405.984, 3416.197, 3417.931], "stop_times": [3405.984, 3416.197, 3417.931, 3419.35], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 3395.9}, "reply_to": "21307__2_157", "speaker": "jules_lobel"}
{"id": "21307__2_159", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "General Petro, you have 3 minutes remaining.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3419.35], "stop_times": [3422.448], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3419.35}, "reply_to": "21307__2_158", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__3_000", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nIt has been pointed out that... that inmates stay in the prison for many years, but in reality, over 600 inmates since the opening of... of Ohio State penitentiary in 1998... over 600 inmates have gone into level 5 and over 550 inmates have left level 5.\nAnd so the classification process is an ongoing process.\nIt is now established under an order of the district court, but we submit, Your Honors, that the new policy that was presented in 2002 at the time this case was pending trial, was a policy that provided a process which was the best type of process for a predictive decision.\nThis Court has often deferred to the decision-making of... of prison officials in seeking to protect the safety and security of the prison.\nAnd in this instance, the policy that was put in place and the hearing process, without actually having essentially a fact-finding process, which is what the court has imposed on this process, was the kind of process that allows for prison officials to review a whole variety of additional information even beyond what might be evidentiary.\nWhen we think about the conditions in the prison where the inmate is currently housed, if they're at the Lucasville penitentiary in level 4... and the conditions there are particularly volatile... the prison officials need to have the flexibility to make a decision on placement in level 5 not only to protect this inmate but to protect the institution itself and the safety of the inmates and the safety, of course, of... of the personnel that work at the facility.\nIn the Mathews test, which was applied both by the district court and by the court of appeals, there is clearly an acknowledgement that the interest of the government is very strong.\nBut in the second step of the Mathews test, there's a recognition that additional procedures really add no value to the decision-making process.\nHere the... the government needs to have the capacity and the... the ability to make the best possible decision looking at a whole variety of factors, and to have a procedure put in place by the court that requires a full display of all the evidence that will be presented at the time of hearing, as incorporated in the notice to the inmate that a hearing will be held, and then an acknowledge that there's... only this evidence is the evidence that... that is being relied upon really presents essentially a fact-finding hearing where the hearing process that is set forth in New Policy 111-07 is more than just fact-finding.\nIt's kind of an analysis.\nIt gets an opportunity... provides an opportunity to really assess the attitude of the inmate, the... the risks that are involved in... in placement in a... in a different level in a different penitentiary.\nIt is directed at protecting the safety and the security of the inmates and, obviously, of protecting the... the safety of the personnel.\nAnd it is fully consistent with this Court's precedents.\nIn applying the Mathews test--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3422.448, 3423.537, 3439.557, 3442.358, 3459.531, 3466.379, 3487.867, 3513.424, 3523.605, 3533.024, 3571.77, 3572.964, 3585.651, 3595.144, 3598.13], "stop_times": [3423.537, 3439.557, 3442.358, 3459.531, 3466.379, 3487.867, 3513.424, 3523.605, 3533.024, 3571.77, 3572.964, 3585.651, 3595.144, 3598.13, 3600.647], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3422.448}, "reply_to": "21307__2_159", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__3_001", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "Thank you, General Petro.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3600.647], "stop_times": [3601.91], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3600.647}, "reply_to": "21307__3_000", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21307__3_002", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "--Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3601.91], "stop_times": [3602.065], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3601.91}, "reply_to": "21307__3_001", "speaker": "james_m_petro"}
{"id": "21307__3_003", "conversation_id": "21307", "text": "The case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_04-495", "start_times": [3602.065], "stop_times": [3603.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3602.065}, "reply_to": "21307__3_002", "speaker": "j__william_h_rehnquist"}
{"id": "21470__0_000", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "We'll now hear argument in Wilkinson against Dotson.\nSolicitor Cole.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [0.0, 4.689], "stop_times": [4.689, 7.821], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 0.0}, "reply_to": null, "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21470__0_001", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nPrisoners typically want two things: first, to improve their conditions while in prison; and second, to get out of prison as quickly as possible.\nRespondents' claims here are not conditions claims.\nThey do not seek a larger cell or better food while in prison.\nRather, their claims are about getting out of prison.\nTraditional understandings of habeas would suggest that these release-driven claims lie there, not in section 1983, and this Court's decision in Heck confirms that this common sense answer is also the correct answer.\nIn fact, Heck establishes two bars, each of which independently prevent respondents from using section 1983 to pursue their claims here.\nFirst, Heck establishes that civil actions under section 1983 cannot be used to collaterally attack State criminal judgments.\nBefore a prisoner can advance a claim under section 1983 that would necessarily imply the invalidity of such a judgment, he must first show that it has been favorably terminated.\nAnd Edwards v. Balisok confirms that quasi-judicial administrative decisions regarding the duration of confinement count as criminal judgments for this purpose.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [7.821, 11.804, 19.149, 22.846, 26.14, 29.232, 41.867, 50.568, 58.447, 68.838], "stop_times": [11.804, 19.149, 22.846, 26.14, 29.232, 41.867, 50.568, 58.447, 68.838, 78.02], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 7.821}, "reply_to": "21470__0_000", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_002", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, it isn't just duration of... of confinement.\nI mean, in... in Balisok, what you had was a determination that the confinement would be definitely less as a result of the... the good time scheme.\nThe... the gut notion behind Balisok was that what you were attacking would imply that the sentence itself was invalid because the conviction was and so on.\nWe don't have that here.\nWhat we have here is a scheme that makes a... a sentence that is imposed a more definite sentence.\nWe know where in the range it's going to be reconsidered.\nAnd however that may be classified, it's not simply a Balisok situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [78.02, 80.635, 90.109, 105.972, 107.518, 114.133, 118.498], "stop_times": [80.635, 90.109, 105.972, 107.518, 114.133, 118.498, 123.758], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 78.02}, "reply_to": "21470__0_001", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__0_003", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "It's arguably different than the good-time credits at issue in Balisok, as... as Your Honor notes.\nHowever, I... I would suggest that even with respect to good-time credits, often under many State systems, good-time credits have the dual effect of moving up the parole eligibility date, as well as potentially... and in some States, it doesn't even have an effect on the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [123.758, 129.892], "stop_times": [129.892, 143.686], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 123.758}, "reply_to": "21470__0_002", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_004", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Right, but that had--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [143.686], "stop_times": [144.149], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 143.686}, "reply_to": "21470__0_003", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__0_005", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--of the sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [144.149], "stop_times": [144.382], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 144.149}, "reply_to": "21470__0_004", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_006", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--that had nothing to do with the rationale in Balisok, as I recall it.\nIsn't that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [144.382, 147.421], "stop_times": [147.421, 148.852], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 144.382}, "reply_to": "21470__0_005", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__0_007", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Your Honor, the... the Court... that's... that's correct, yes.\nAnd I guess what I'd... I'd say is that what seemed to be driving the Court, though, was still the durational aspect of the sentence; that is, as the Court said in Muhammad, if a claim threatens no consequence for the duration of confinement, then that isn't a... or that isn't a claim that should be brought in 1983.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [148.852, 152.433], "stop_times": [152.433, 171.255], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 148.852}, "reply_to": "21470__0_006", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_008", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "No... no question.\nBut the durational consequence in those cases was a definite consequence of longer duration, i.e., a sentence in the first place, a sentence not reduced by good time in... in the second example.\nHere, there... there is no such clear consequence.\nHere, the consequence is that there will simply be a period of time before a sentence already imposed will be reviewed to determine whether, in fact, it will be shortened or allowed to run.\nAnd that's different.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [171.255, 171.909, 185.827, 189.438, 203.169], "stop_times": [171.909, 185.827, 189.438, 203.169, 204.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 171.255}, "reply_to": "21470__0_007", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__0_009", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I'm not sure it is, Your Honor.\nBoth of them are going to have definite durational consequences for confinement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [204.324, 207.029], "stop_times": [207.029, 210.587], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 204.324}, "reply_to": "21470__0_008", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_010", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "No... no question about that.\nAt... at the level of whether there is a durational consequence, they... they both have it.\nI... I grant you that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [210.587, 211.259, 216.053], "stop_times": [211.259, 216.053, 217.294], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 210.587}, "reply_to": "21470__0_009", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__0_011", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "And, Your Honor, as far back as Preiser, this Court has noted that challenges to duration go to the very heart of habeas corpus.\nThat's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [217.294, 223.433], "stop_times": [223.433, 224.398], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 217.294}, "reply_to": "21470__0_010", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_012", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "The duration of... of the sentence.\nAnd here, there's no implication at all that this sentence is in any way invalid, that the sentence itself or any portion of it is invalid because the parole would be a matter of administrative grace, but it doesn't... the determination of parole eligibility or parole suitability does not go to the validity of the sentence in any way, shape, or manner.\nDoes it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [224.398, 228.575, 256.394], "stop_times": [228.575, 256.394, 256.762], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 224.398}, "reply_to": "21470__0_011", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21470__0_013", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Well, a decision from a Federal court... and I guess... I think the answer to Your... Your Honor's question is yes, it does.\nAnd the reason I say that is I think we need to look to the consequences of the Federal court decision that would follow from the claims that... that the plaintiffs... or I'm sorry... the prisoners here are advancing.\nThe State of Ohio has made individualized decisions with respect to each of these respondents that they should not again be considered for release from prison until 2005.\nThe request... the relief that they're requesting and the claims that they're bringing, if successful, would result in the Federal court undermining that State decision with regard to the length that they should be incarcerated.\nIt goes directly to the... the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [256.762, 262.51, 272.448, 282.469, 294.426], "stop_times": [262.51, 272.448, 282.469, 294.426, 296.936], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 256.762}, "reply_to": "21470__0_012", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_014", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "It doesn't... it doesn't shorten the length that they're going to be incarcerated.\nThere... there is no certainty that... that if they win this action, they will be incarcerated for a lesser period, is there?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [296.936, 300.27], "stop_times": [300.27, 310.19], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 296.936}, "reply_to": "21470__0_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__0_015", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Absolutely no certainty of that, Your Honor.\nBut there is certainty--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [310.19, 312.5], "stop_times": [312.5, 313.795], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 310.19}, "reply_to": "21470__0_014", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_016", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "And... and there was in the other cases, wasn't there?\nIn Balisok.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [313.795, 315.68], "stop_times": [315.68, 317.327], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 313.795}, "reply_to": "21470__0_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__0_017", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, I don't think so.\nI mean, prisoners could be released in the State of Washington before the terminus of their sentence.\nThey might not... it isn't as though they had to serve all the way till the end, less whatever good-time credits they had.\nThey could easily be--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [317.327, 319.055, 323.28, 327.949], "stop_times": [319.055, 323.28, 327.949, 328.985], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 317.327}, "reply_to": "21470__0_016", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_018", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, but--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [328.985], "stop_times": [329.375], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 328.985}, "reply_to": "21470__0_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__0_019", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--released prior to that time.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [329.375], "stop_times": [330.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 329.375}, "reply_to": "21470__0_018", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_020", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Oh, indeed, but the... but... but getting the good-time credits entitled them to be... be released earlier.\nThey might have been released even earlier still, but their entitlement to be released earlier was a consequence, wasn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [330.862, 335.516], "stop_times": [335.516, 343.23], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 330.862}, "reply_to": "21470__0_019", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__0_021", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "It was, Your Honor.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [343.23], "stop_times": [344.514], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 343.23}, "reply_to": "21470__0_020", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_022", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "And there is no entitlement to be released earlier as a consequence of this.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [344.514], "stop_times": [348.224], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 344.514}, "reply_to": "21470__0_021", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__0_023", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "We--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [348.224], "stop_times": [349.559], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 348.224}, "reply_to": "21470__0_022", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_024", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "You just get another hearing and maybe you will, maybe you won't.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [349.559], "stop_times": [351.769], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 349.559}, "reply_to": "21470__0_023", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__0_025", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--That's correct.\nYou'll... you'll just get another hearing.\nBut an important note on that: you'll get another hearing, and you'll get another hearing sooner than the State has decided that you should get a hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [351.769, 353.377, 354.589], "stop_times": [353.377, 354.589, 360.832], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 351.769}, "reply_to": "21470__0_024", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_026", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, that's true.\nSo it makes it possible that you'll get released earlier, but... but there's no assurance you'll... really, the crucial question for me, I think, is whether... whether this could have been brought as a habeas action.\nCould this have been brought as a habeas action?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [360.832, 361.151, 373.953], "stop_times": [361.151, 373.953, 376.324], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 360.832}, "reply_to": "21470__0_025", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__0_027", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Yes, Your Honor, it could have been brought as a habeas action.\nIf you look at the nature of their complaints, they're... they're clearly in custody.\nHabeas would require custody and violation of the Constitution of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [376.324, 379.151, 382.694], "stop_times": [379.151, 382.694, 386.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 376.324}, "reply_to": "21470__0_026", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_028", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "But they're just asking for a new hearing.\nThey're not asking for an earlier release.\nWhat's your closest case that... that would allow a habeas action which does not seek an earlier release but just... just a hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [386.709, 387.82, 389.725], "stop_times": [387.82, 389.725, 399.054], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 386.709}, "reply_to": "21470__0_027", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__0_029", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I think probably the Garlotte case, Your Honor, in which the Court allowed a habeas challenge where the only result was going to be to advance the date of eligibility for release from prison incarceration.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [399.054], "stop_times": [408.883], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 399.054}, "reply_to": "21470__0_028", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_030", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "It... it doesn't advance the date of eligibility.\nIt advances the date at which the parole board will take another look.\nThe only eligibility is an eligibility to take... to have another look-take and not an eligibility for release.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [408.883, 414.205, 418.655], "stop_times": [414.205, 418.655, 426.232], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 408.883}, "reply_to": "21470__0_029", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__0_031", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "That's true, Your Honor, but these... under that understanding of eligibility, where eligibility means the first possible release date.\nBut these prisoners are not eligible for release in the sense of it's not going to happen for them unless and until the next release hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [426.232, 432.802], "stop_times": [432.802, 439.992], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 426.232}, "reply_to": "21470__0_030", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_032", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "But if they are subject to another look, they are not necessarily then eligible for release.\nAnd I think that's the point that we're getting... let me... let me ask a... a sort of complementary question.\nIs there any reason that these--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [439.992, 445.424, 450.586], "stop_times": [445.424, 450.586, 454.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 439.992}, "reply_to": "21470__0_031", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__0_033", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Is this with an I or an E?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [454.151], "stop_times": [455.171], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 454.151}, "reply_to": "21470__0_032", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__0_034", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I was hoping for an I, yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [455.171], "stop_times": [456.481], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 455.171}, "reply_to": "21470__0_033", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_035", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "With an I or an E?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [456.481], "stop_times": [456.942], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 456.481}, "reply_to": "21470__0_034", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__0_036", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--With an E. With an E. But if... if you take my questioning as a compliment with an I, that's perfectly okay too.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [456.942, 465.102], "stop_times": [465.102, 465.443], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 456.942}, "reply_to": "21470__0_035", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__0_037", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I'll... I'll wait and see what the question is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [465.443], "stop_times": [466.765], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 465.443}, "reply_to": "21470__0_036", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_038", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Let's see what it is.\nThe... the question is, could these claims not have been brought in advance of any application to these particular prisoners of the revised... whatever they were... the 1998 guidelines?\nAnd if the answer is yes, then they could be brought at a time when, I suppose, habeas would... would not have been a possible remedy.\nIs... is... am I correct on those two points?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [466.765, 467.523, 486.388, 495.559], "stop_times": [467.523, 486.388, 495.559, 497.416], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 466.765}, "reply_to": "21470__0_037", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__0_039", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--The State concedes that if they had brought this case before a parole hearing at which the guidelines were applied, that it would be a different case, and that 1983 would be a remedy in that... in that situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [497.416], "stop_times": [508.709], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 497.416}, "reply_to": "21470__0_038", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_040", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Here's... here's the difficulty that I... that I have.\nWhen I read your brief, I thought, well, he must be right because this is really about custody.\nIt's really about custody.\nThey want to get out eventually.\nBut then when I... I... when I went back to Balisok, I thought, oh, here's the problem.\nThe problem is that it's a damage remedy in Balisok.\nAnd normally you want the person to go into 1983 to get damages.\nBut he's going to get mixed up.\nWhen do you send him to habeas?\nWell, we don't want to send him to habeas unless it's clear that habeas should have been brought.\nAnd so if he's just challenging, for example, introduction of Fourth Amendment violation evidence or something like that, don't go to habeas.\nDon't go to habeas.\nYou didn't have to go to habeas unless you had to, unless you had... unless it was necessary to upset the conviction.\nYou see?\nThat's why that language is there.\nNow, I got that far.\nThen I said, oh, I see what you do.\nWe should have one rule for damages.\nWell, that makes sense.\nBut there's no reason not to have a different rule when you have the injunctive action, and there maybe we could follow your rule.\nBut the next thing I come across is a statement that says, no, no, the rule is the same whether you bring a damage action or whether you bring an injunctive or declaratory relief action.\nAnd I said, well, why did we write that?\nYou know, we're the ones who caused all this trouble.\nBut the... the... well, because we didn't want to make it too complicated and... and not have all the questions coming, well, what kind of an action is it really, et cetera.\nOkay.\nSo once I got that far, I said, oh, well, I'm going to have to change something for you to win.\nEither I have to change the thing that says the damages should be the same as the injunctive, or I have to change something else somewhere along the line, the word necessary.\nI don't want to change the word necessary.\nMaybe I could change the other, but why bother really?\nBecause all that's important here is people know which way they should go.\nNow, that's where I am at the moment, thinking give him his 1983 action.\nIt's simpler.\nIt follows from Balisok.\nWhy not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [508.709, 511.029, 515.707, 517.206, 518.738, 524.51, 529.21, 535.074, 538.987, 540.548, 546.034, 553.668, 554.413, 561.933, 562.801, 564.24, 565.65, 568.519, 570.338, 572.251, 578.911, 591.053, 593.419, 595.408, 605.061, 605.696, 609.548, 618.626, 619.977, 623.157, 627.387, 632.111, 633.367, 634.956], "stop_times": [511.029, 515.707, 517.206, 518.738, 524.51, 529.21, 535.074, 538.987, 540.548, 546.034, 553.668, 554.413, 561.933, 562.801, 564.24, 565.65, 568.519, 570.338, 572.251, 578.911, 591.053, 593.419, 595.408, 605.061, 605.696, 609.548, 618.626, 619.977, 623.157, 627.387, 632.111, 633.367, 634.956, 636.161], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 508.709}, "reply_to": "21470__0_039", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__0_041", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, Your Honor, there would be some real consequences that would follow from that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [636.161], "stop_times": [639.822], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 636.161}, "reply_to": "21470__0_040", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_042", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "That's what I thought.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [639.822], "stop_times": [640.226], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 639.822}, "reply_to": "21470__0_041", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__0_043", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "The reason that it's important that these cases go to habeas rather than 1983 is because of the State court exhaustion requirement that's attendant with habeas.\nParole claims like those advanced here are often, if not always, intricately bound up with State law issues, and the State law is often going to provide much more meaningful relief than the Federal law claims that the prisoners advance.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [640.226, 648.119], "stop_times": [648.119, 663.296], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 640.226}, "reply_to": "21470__0_042", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_044", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Doesn't the Prison Litigation Reform Act require exhaustion even in a 1983 action?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [663.296], "stop_times": [670.959], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 663.296}, "reply_to": "21470__0_043", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__0_045", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Yes, but as Your Honor is aware, that's an administrative exhaustion requirement which this Court referred to in Nelson, I believe, as a substantially lower gate than the exhaustion requirement imposed by habeas.\nMoreover, it's telling--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [670.959, 682.417], "stop_times": [682.417, 684.392], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 670.959}, "reply_to": "21470__0_044", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_046", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Is... may... may I just follow up on that question?\nAt the administrative level, cannot these State law policies perfectly well be taken into consideration?\nIn other words, your argument was these things are bound up with State law issues and the best place to have them resolved is... is in a State forum.\nThey can be resolved in a State administrative forum, can't they?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [684.392, 686.843, 694.937, 703.021], "stop_times": [686.843, 694.937, 703.021, 706.841], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 684.392}, "reply_to": "21470__0_045", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__0_047", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--They could, Your Honor, but I... I think the types of legal determinations with respect to legal entitlements and also the court... we would assume a State court would also consider Federal claims that might be made by the prisoners when they bring their State court claim.\nThose types of legal claims are better resolved by State courts.\nThey have the expertise to make the... the determination.\nAnd in fact, in Ohio--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [706.841, 720.109, 723.712, 726.603], "stop_times": [720.109, 723.712, 726.603, 728.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 706.841}, "reply_to": "21470__0_046", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_048", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, couldn't one say the same thing of prison conditions that you can bring in as a 1983 action?\nThe States know better about how their prisons are operating and what changes would have to be made.\nSo I... I think that you... you may be right that the State knows more about how its parole system operates, but so does it know more about how its prison system operates.\nAnd that doesn't... that's not what determines whether you have 1983 or habeas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [728.008, 736.746, 742.422, 754.929], "stop_times": [736.746, 742.422, 754.929, 761.572], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 728.008}, "reply_to": "21470__0_047", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21470__0_049", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Well, but Congress, with respect to conditions claims... and if you look at the language of the administrative exhaustion requirement in the PLRA at 42 U.S.C. 1997(e)(a), it says no action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under 1983 without administrative exhaustion.\nSo even Congress, in thinking about the PLRA and in thinking about requiring administrative exhaustion, understood that 1983 is really about conditions of confinement.\n1983 isn't about... it never has been about... release.\nHabeas has traditionally been the relief that people... or the cause of action that people bring when what they're interested in is relief... or release from prison.\nAnd these claims, no one can dispute, are release-driven claims.\nThey may not ultimately be successful in securing release, but the prisoners here--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [761.572, 780.422, 790.238, 793.479, 803.38, 807.568], "stop_times": [780.422, 790.238, 793.479, 803.38, 807.568, 812.426], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 761.572}, "reply_to": "21470__0_048", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_050", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, no, I've got that part.\nBut the... and... and you're right about that part.\nBut that... you know, that doesn't get over the... the hump here I think because of the... what we've written.\nThe... I mean, where I'm coming out now, what you've just said, is well, you know, there's going to be exhaustion in both cases.\nAnd prison conditions, if we say that habeas doesn't... that 1983 applies here I think probably... I can't guarantee it... but those where prison conditions would then cover it, and then there would be exhaustion, and there... where it doesn't seem to make difference there.\nAnd now I'm back to asking the other half of this, which is, well, all right, suppose I say I see your point, I think you're right.\nNow, what... what is your recommendation?\nWhat do we change?\nDo we change the word necessary in Balisok, which I'd be pretty reluctant to do?\nOr do we drive a wedge between the damage cases and the injunctive/declaratory relief cases?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [812.426, 813.496, 815.613, 820.293, 827.681, 842.974, 851.155, 852.989, 853.734, 858.619], "stop_times": [813.496, 815.613, 820.293, 827.681, 842.974, 851.155, 852.989, 853.734, 858.619, 868.549], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 812.426}, "reply_to": "21470__0_049", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__0_051", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--I don't think you need to do either, Your Honor.\nI think if we go back to Heck and look at the language there that talks about necessarily implying the invalidity of a criminal judgment, which is something--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [868.549, 871.269], "stop_times": [871.269, 880.483], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 868.549}, "reply_to": "21470__0_050", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_052", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Oh, well.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [880.483], "stop_times": [881.865], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 880.483}, "reply_to": "21470__0_051", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__0_053", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--respondents concede in their brief, the only question then is does a parole decision count as a, quote, criminal--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [881.865], "stop_times": [886.84], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 881.865}, "reply_to": "21470__0_052", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_054", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "All right.\nNo, but then what you're doing is taking the first half because what you're reading is you're reading that word necessary, whatever those words were in Balisok that we were just talking about, as your case satisfying that condition.\nAnd if your case satisfies that condition, then so does the case where a person wants to bring a damage action because of illegally seized evidence at his trial.\nDoesn't it?\nI mean, because all... I mean... and then we've swept... then we've done... we've really moved Balisok from what it was trying to do.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [886.84, 887.058, 898.831, 908.73, 910.608], "stop_times": [887.058, 898.831, 908.73, 910.608, 918.77], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 886.84}, "reply_to": "21470__0_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__0_055", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--I don't think that's necessarily right, Your Honor, because the illegally seized evidence at the trial... I don't know that that would necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction that resulted from that trial.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [918.77], "stop_times": [930.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 918.77}, "reply_to": "21470__0_054", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_056", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Why is he bringing his damage action?\nHe thinks he's bringing it because what they did at that trial hurt me.\nNow, how did it hurt me?\nIt hurt me because I went right to prison.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [930.176, 932.008, 936.133, 937.525], "stop_times": [932.008, 936.133, 937.525, 939.619], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 930.176}, "reply_to": "21470__0_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__0_057", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Right, Your Honor, and that... that's absolutely correct, but I'm not arguing for, and I want to make it very clear that I'm not arguing for any rule that would turn on the subjective intent of the prisoner in bringing their claim.\nIt turns on the necessary implication of success on that claim, and that's a... a distinction that the Court made both in Heck and in Balisok.\nThey looked to what's the necessary implication.\nSo we look to the claims here, not why they brought them, but what are the claims.\nAnd the claims here, and the particular ones that I would focus on, are the ex post facto claims.\nIf the... if they have success on their ex post facto claims... and we don't believe their claims are meritorious, but if they're successful on those claims, there's no way the State's decision can stand.\nThey are entitled to a new hearing at which they would again be considered for parole--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [939.619, 950.125, 958.084, 960.523, 963.475, 968.63, 978.813], "stop_times": [950.125, 958.084, 960.523, 963.475, 968.63, 978.813, 983.097], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 939.619}, "reply_to": "21470__0_056", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_058", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Yes, but does that mean the... the judgment... the order denying release on parole is invalid?\nThere are really two parts to it.\nOne, you... we're not going to release you.\nSecondly, your next hearing will be at a later date than you want.\nInsofar as you challenge the date of the hearing... the date of the next hearing, does that necessarily imply the invalidity of the entire order denying parole?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [983.097, 989.172, 990.398, 992.579, 995.893], "stop_times": [989.172, 990.398, 992.579, 995.893, 1006.666], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 983.097}, "reply_to": "21470__0_057", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21470__0_059", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--We... we concede that if there's an ex post facto violation here, these prisoners are entitled to a new parole hearing.\nAnd I guess the--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1006.666, 1014.479], "stop_times": [1014.479, 1015.52], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1006.666}, "reply_to": "21470__0_058", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_060", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "But they're not entitled to parole.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1015.52], "stop_times": [1017.138], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1015.52}, "reply_to": "21470__0_059", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21470__0_061", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Absolutely, Your Honor.\nAbsolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1017.138, 1018.238], "stop_times": [1018.238, 1018.744], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1017.138}, "reply_to": "21470__0_060", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_062", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "So that it doesn't totally invalidate the order that is at issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1018.744], "stop_times": [1022.913], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1018.744}, "reply_to": "21470__0_061", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21470__0_063", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, the way that... that I've been thinking about it is if you put the State parole decision up on the wall and you put the Federal decision up on the wall, one of them has to come down.\nThe Federal decision trumps the State decision.\nIt can--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1022.913, 1031.943, 1034.474], "stop_times": [1031.943, 1034.474, 1034.862], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1022.913}, "reply_to": "21470__0_062", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_064", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, it doesn't entirely come down.\nIt just... half of it comes down.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1034.862, 1036.121], "stop_times": [1036.121, 1037.78], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1034.862}, "reply_to": "21470__0_063", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21470__0_065", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--No.\nThe whole thing comes down, Your Honor.\nThey're entitled both to an immediate new release hearing and--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1037.78, 1038.771, 1039.861], "stop_times": [1038.771, 1039.861, 1042.538], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1037.78}, "reply_to": "21470__0_064", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_066", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "But not for release.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1042.538], "stop_times": [1043.188], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1042.538}, "reply_to": "21470__0_065", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21470__0_067", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--if they're successful on their claims, they're entitled to more frequent release hearings in the future.\nSo the decision, the State's--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1043.188, 1046.704], "stop_times": [1046.704, 1048.019], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1043.188}, "reply_to": "21470__0_066", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_068", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "But... but isn't it true that one aspect of your order that's under attack is they had refused to grant them parole?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1048.019], "stop_times": [1054.129], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1048.019}, "reply_to": "21470__0_067", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21470__0_069", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1054.129], "stop_times": [1055.74], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1054.129}, "reply_to": "21470__0_068", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_070", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "And that remains.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1055.74], "stop_times": [1056.63], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1055.74}, "reply_to": "21470__0_069", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21470__0_071", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "It doesn't, Your Honor.\nThey have to decide that again.\nThat... that order is void ab initio.\nIt's as though it were never entered.\nThey have to make a new decision about whether or not this person should... should have parole and that they cannot in any way... the State cannot rely on the prior decision that they reached on that issue.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1056.63, 1057.689, 1058.99, 1061.17, 1062.73], "stop_times": [1057.689, 1058.99, 1061.17, 1062.73, 1072.994], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1056.63}, "reply_to": "21470__0_070", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_072", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I thought the only relief they were seeking was a more prompt next hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1072.994], "stop_times": [1076.555], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1072.994}, "reply_to": "21470__0_071", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21470__0_073", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "No, they... Dotson's complaint, I believe at page 20 of the joint appendix... he wants to, quote, proceed toward a prompt and immediate parole hearing in accordance with the statutory laws and administrative rules in place when the plaintiff committed his crimes.\nThey want an--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1076.555, 1092.655], "stop_times": [1092.655, 1093.431], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1076.555}, "reply_to": "21470__0_072", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_074", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "But aren't... aren't those claims moot or academic now?\nBecause, as I understand it, he has had another parole hearing.\nSo he's... with the hearing that he was seeking, he's already had another.\nSo he's not complaining about the absence of a hearing or... or flaws in the procedure at the hearing.\nI thought that this case now reduces to a clean question about the retroactive application of the new guidelines.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1093.431, 1098.54, 1104.951, 1111.87, 1121.22], "stop_times": [1098.54, 1104.951, 1111.87, 1121.22, 1131.681], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1093.431}, "reply_to": "21470__0_073", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21470__0_075", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Well, it isn't a clean question, Your Honor, because exactly the same error that he alleges infected his first hearing was present at his second hearing.\nIf... if you look at the materials that they added to their brief at lines 3, 7, and 8 where they have the new parole decision, it's clear that Dotson's 2002 parole decision was predicated on exactly the same guidelines, exactly the same 1998 guidelines that he says violated his rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause.\nSo, in fact, if anything, it's made his situation worse because a Federal decision on his claims now would both necessarily imply the invalidity of his previous hearing and the 2002 hearing, and the 2002 hearing was a release hearing.\nUnlike the halfway review that occurred earlier, it was a full-fledged release hearing in 2002, at which the parole board decided both that he should not get parole then and that he should not again be considered for parole until 2005.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1131.681, 1140.72, 1159.319, 1173.623], "stop_times": [1140.72, 1159.319, 1173.623, 1188.008], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1131.681}, "reply_to": "21470__0_074", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_076", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Was there... maybe I'm wrong about this, but I thought there no challenge being made to the 2002 hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1188.008], "stop_times": [1193.388], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1188.008}, "reply_to": "21470__0_075", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21470__0_077", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "But what Heck makes clear is it doesn't matter what you say you're challenging.\nWhat we need to look to is what's the necessary implication of securing success on your claims in Federal court for a State decision.\nHere, the necessary implication, if they're successful on their ex post facto claims, is going to be that the 2002 decision can't stand, the 1999 decision--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1193.388, 1197.488, 1206.728], "stop_times": [1197.488, 1206.728, 1217.591], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1193.388}, "reply_to": "21470__0_076", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_078", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Why can't it simply be that prospectively for this class of prisoner, the old guidelines will apply, prospectively without undoing anything that's happened in the past?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1217.591], "stop_times": [1229.354], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1217.591}, "reply_to": "21470__0_077", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21470__0_079", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--I think for the same reason that in Balisok I don't think there could have been a prospective order that said... said something like the method you have for choosing decision-makers creates fraud, bias, and deceit, on a going-forward basis you must change that method for selecting decision-makers.\nSaying that you have to change it on a going-forward basis would mean, necessarily imply, that there had been fraud, bias, and deceit by the decision-maker that would mean that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1229.354, 1246.993], "stop_times": [1246.993, 1255.728], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1229.354}, "reply_to": "21470__0_078", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_080", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I think twice you started something and our questions impeded you.\nBut I think you were equating the parole board's decision to a criminal sentence, and so you... you were saying just as the... the Federal authority can't come in and nullify the State criminal sentence, neither can it nullify the parole board determination.\nAnd... and I thought that the comparison between a... a sentence... a criminal conviction and sentence and a parole board's discretionary determination... you seemed to be putting those on the same plane.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1255.728, 1262.132, 1290.143], "stop_times": [1262.132, 1290.143, 1307.353], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1255.728}, "reply_to": "21470__0_079", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21470__0_081", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Not exactly on the same plane, Your Honor, but recognizing that this Court in Balisok said that post-judgment administrative decisions regarding the duration of confinement also count as criminal judgments that are protected for purposes of... of the Heck doctrine.\nAnd in Greenholtz, this Court--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1307.353, 1324.713], "stop_times": [1324.713, 1325.914], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1307.353}, "reply_to": "21470__0_080", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_082", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "But... but the... the generality at which you keep referring to it, with respect to conditions of confinement, is a... is a higher level of generality than anything that Balisok decided.\nIn Balisok, the particular decision was a decision to revoke an entitlement to be released at whatever the date the good time would give, and... and that is a much more specific... I mean, that literally affects an entitlement to be released.\nIt is not merely a decision with respect to length of confinement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1325.914, 1337.898, 1356.513], "stop_times": [1337.898, 1356.513, 1362.423], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1325.914}, "reply_to": "21470__0_081", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__0_083", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Well, Your Honor, if this turns on whether or not it's an entitlement, I would agree with you that it seems good-time credits might be different from an entitlement sense than parole.\nBut... but all the way back, in tracing the cases from Preiser forward, the Court has talked about duration of confinement, and certainly no one can argue that the decision here is going to have dramatic consequences for the duration of these prisoners' confinement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1362.423, 1372.223], "stop_times": [1372.223, 1384.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1362.423}, "reply_to": "21470__0_082", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_084", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "We... we don't know what consequence it will have for the duration of his confinement.\nAll we know is that it will have a consequence in determining the date at which the next look will be taken by the parole board to see whether he then is in a condition to be released.\nThat's all we can tell.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1384.888, 1388.297, 1400.064], "stop_times": [1388.297, 1400.064, 1401.298], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1384.888}, "reply_to": "21470__0_083", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__0_085", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "That's correct, Your Honor, but they're... they're pressing ex post facto claims.\nAnd as this point... Court pointed out in Garner in 2000, they can maybe bring those claims based on changes in frequency of parole hearings, but they're going to have to show a definite impact on the quantum of punishment that they receive as a result of that change.\nSo if they're going to be successful on their ex post facto claims, they're going to have to show an impact on the duration of their confinement.\nEither they have no ex post facto claim because there's no durational impact on their--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1401.298, 1404.339, 1418.048, 1425.699], "stop_times": [1404.339, 1418.048, 1425.699, 1430.205], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1401.298}, "reply_to": "21470__0_084", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_086", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Okay.\nBut you're... you're assuming... your argument now is assuming that they are going to be successful on this element, that you say they've got to satisfy later.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1430.205, 1430.446], "stop_times": [1430.446, 1438.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1430.205}, "reply_to": "21470__0_085", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__0_087", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Right, but that's the Heck--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1438.187], "stop_times": [1439.171], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1438.187}, "reply_to": "21470__0_086", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_088", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "And... and whether they are or not has nothing to do with... with Balisok and Heck.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1439.171], "stop_times": [1443.282], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1439.171}, "reply_to": "21470__0_087", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__0_089", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--I... I disagree, Your Honor, because in Heck and Balisok, the Court said look to what happens if they're successful on their claims.\nSo I'm... we're... the State is supposed to hypothesize that somehow they're going to be successful on these claims.\nWe don't agree it's going to happen, but once we hypothesize that they're going to be successful on an ex post facto claim, it means they're going to have to show, have to demonstrate a durational impact on their sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1443.282, 1450.302, 1455.772], "stop_times": [1450.302, 1455.772, 1466.011], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1443.282}, "reply_to": "21470__0_088", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_090", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Sure.\nIt also... it also means that if... if... assuming your argument is sound, if you lose this case, you win the war.\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1466.011, 1466.359, 1472.239], "stop_times": [1466.359, 1472.239, 1473.474], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1466.011}, "reply_to": "21470__0_089", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__0_091", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "At... at some level, I think there's an... an inherent and fundamental tension in their position, and... and the coin could flipped and conversely there's that same tension in ours.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1473.474], "stop_times": [1482.107], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1473.474}, "reply_to": "21470__0_090", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_092", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Are... are you sure that that's what they have to prove, that... a durational impact?\nWouldn't it be enough to show that they were deprived of an opportunity to have the sentence shorter?\nWouldn't... wouldn't it... assuming there was an ex post facto violation, wouldn't that be enough of an injury, that they lost an opportunity to have their sentence shortened?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1482.107, 1487.075, 1493.809], "stop_times": [1487.075, 1493.809, 1504.185], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1482.107}, "reply_to": "21470__0_091", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__0_093", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "But, Your Honor, I believe what makes out the ex post facto claim is an increase in the quantum of punishment after they've committed their crimes.\nSo they need to show that as an element.\nI... I see... I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for rebuttal, if I could.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1504.185, 1511.735, 1514.025], "stop_times": [1511.735, 1514.025, 1517.572], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 1504.185}, "reply_to": "21470__0_092", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__0_094", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Yes, you may do so.\nMr. Lewis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1517.572, 1518.384], "stop_times": [1518.384, 1523.199], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1517.572}, "reply_to": "21470__0_093", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21470__1_000", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Justice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nThis case presents a straightforward opportunity to apply the Heck rule.\nRespondent Johnson's section--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1523.199, 1526.915, 1531.745], "stop_times": [1526.915, 1531.745, 1534.55], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1523.199}, "reply_to": "21470__0_094", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_001", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Can you tell us why... why is it still live when they... when they already received a second hearing?\nOr why is not moot?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1534.55, 1539.592], "stop_times": [1539.592, 1541.568], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1534.55}, "reply_to": "21470__1_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21470__1_002", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Johnson still has remaining claims for prospective injunctive relief in this case and, as well, declaratory relief.\nWhat may be mooted is his claim for retroactive injunctive relief, in other words, a new parole hearing.\nI think in order for him to pursue that type of a claim, he'd have to go back down to the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1541.568, 1548.291, 1553.63], "stop_times": [1548.291, 1553.63, 1557.796], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1541.568}, "reply_to": "21470__1_001", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_003", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "What... what is--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1557.796], "stop_times": [1558.442], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1557.796}, "reply_to": "21470__1_002", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__1_004", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, put in plain language what it is Johnson is claiming he's entitled to.\nI don't understand.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1558.442, 1563.67], "stop_times": [1563.67, 1564.676], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1558.442}, "reply_to": "21470__1_003", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21470__1_005", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, he... really three different things.\nHe's requesting prospective injunctive relief, fix the due process violations that are going on in Ohio parole proceedings.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1564.676, 1567.002], "stop_times": [1567.002, 1574.967], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1564.676}, "reply_to": "21470__1_004", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_006", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Which is a new... a new parole hearing.\nIsn't... I mean, it... I--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1574.967, 1576.767], "stop_times": [1576.767, 1578.812], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1574.967}, "reply_to": "21470__1_005", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__1_007", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "How could that be fixed?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1578.812], "stop_times": [1579.532], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1578.812}, "reply_to": "21470__1_006", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21470__1_008", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Yes.\nHow... how can it be fixed except by giving him a new parole hearing?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1579.532, 1580.011], "stop_times": [1580.011, 1582.673], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1579.532}, "reply_to": "21470__1_007", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__1_009", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, he does have a class action.\nHe filed a class action and he's trying to fix the proceeding prospectively.\nIt doesn't necessarily require him to have a new parole hearing.\nHe's still in confinement and will very likely have a new parole hearing, a new parole hearing that he wants the proceedings to be different in.\nHe's not necessarily asking for a new parole hearing.\nHe's saying--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1582.673, 1583.923, 1588.033, 1590.11, 1596.967, 1601.602], "stop_times": [1583.923, 1588.033, 1590.11, 1596.967, 1601.602, 1602.446], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1582.673}, "reply_to": "21470__1_008", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_010", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Why isn't he?\nIf... if... what he's saying is the past proceedings were invalid, I want you to do it right in the future.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1602.446, 1602.832], "stop_times": [1602.832, 1609.847], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1602.446}, "reply_to": "21470__1_009", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__1_011", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Sure.\nI think that was part of his claim, which might be mooted, but he's also saying in any future--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1609.847, 1610.295], "stop_times": [1610.295, 1615.0], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1609.847}, "reply_to": "21470__1_010", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_012", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "No.\nIt... it isn't mooted because he still got it done wrong.\nThe second hearing was still wrong.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1615.0, 1615.292, 1618.02], "stop_times": [1615.292, 1618.02, 1620.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1615.0}, "reply_to": "21470__1_011", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__1_013", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Well, we don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1620.42], "stop_times": [1621.179], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1620.42}, "reply_to": "21470__1_012", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_014", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "His claims here... his claims here are correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1621.179], "stop_times": [1623.116], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1621.179}, "reply_to": "21470__1_013", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__1_015", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--We don't know that for sure, but part of his claim as well is to say in future parole hearings that I'm going to be subjected to, even if you don't give me a new one, in future parole hearings that I'm going to be subjected to, I want these processes fixed to... to come into compliance with due process.\nAnd I think that's separate and apart from--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1623.116, 1639.876], "stop_times": [1639.876, 1640.88], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1623.116}, "reply_to": "21470__1_014", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_016", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "You... you say we don't know whether the... the new parole hearing he got was still invalid?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1640.88], "stop_times": [1647.862], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1640.88}, "reply_to": "21470__1_015", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__1_017", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--I don't think there's enough in the record to determine that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1647.862], "stop_times": [1650.828], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1647.862}, "reply_to": "21470__1_016", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_018", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Oh, so we can assume that that was valid.\nYou're... you're willing to assume that for purposes of this case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1650.828, 1652.567], "stop_times": [1652.567, 1655.646], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1650.828}, "reply_to": "21470__1_017", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__1_019", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I am not willing to assume that.\nI... I don't think we can say one way or the other.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1655.646, 1656.667], "stop_times": [1656.667, 1658.544], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1655.646}, "reply_to": "21470__1_018", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_020", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "But you're not challenging it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1658.544], "stop_times": [1659.684], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1658.544}, "reply_to": "21470__1_019", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_021", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "We can't yet.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1659.684], "stop_times": [1661.589], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1659.684}, "reply_to": "21470__1_020", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_022", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Okay, fine.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1661.589], "stop_times": [1662.256], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1661.589}, "reply_to": "21470__1_021", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_023", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "We may intend to.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1662.256], "stop_times": [1663.579], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1662.256}, "reply_to": "21470__1_022", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_024", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Then we take it as valid.\nThat's not a claim you're challenging.\nBut I take it your claim is in the year 2009 he will have another hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1663.579, 1664.543, 1665.822], "stop_times": [1664.543, 1665.822, 1670.455], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1663.579}, "reply_to": "21470__1_023", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_025", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Actually 2005.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1670.455], "stop_times": [1672.46], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1670.455}, "reply_to": "21470__1_024", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_026", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "2005?\nOkay, 2005 he'll have another hearing.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1672.46, 1673.591], "stop_times": [1673.591, 1675.703], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1672.46}, "reply_to": "21470__1_025", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_027", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Absolutely.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1675.703], "stop_times": [1676.272], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1675.703}, "reply_to": "21470__1_026", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_028", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "And in the year 2005, I want not to have the... what are they called?\nThe 1998 guidelines.\nI don't want my 1998 guidelines applied in the 2005 hearing because you have some theory, maybe good, maybe bad, but it's a theory that that would violate the Constitution of the United States.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1676.272, 1681.508, 1682.942], "stop_times": [1681.508, 1682.942, 1693.551], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1676.272}, "reply_to": "21470__1_027", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_029", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1693.551], "stop_times": [1694.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1693.551}, "reply_to": "21470__1_028", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_030", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "So you're saying he's going to have this.\nI want an injunction or declaratory relief they can't do it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1694.088, 1695.746], "stop_times": [1695.746, 1698.989], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1694.088}, "reply_to": "21470__1_029", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_031", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "That's right, and as well, he says I want to be heard at this next parole hearing.\nNow, that was... part of his due process allegations in this case were that he... he wasn't even allowed to meaningfully participate in--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1698.989, 1702.809], "stop_times": [1702.809, 1709.334], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1698.989}, "reply_to": "21470__1_030", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_032", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "And he's saying it violates the Constitution in two respects: one, they won't listen to me; and two, they apply the 1998 guidelines.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1709.334], "stop_times": [1716.376], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1709.334}, "reply_to": "21470__1_031", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_033", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--That's essentially it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1716.376], "stop_times": [1717.353], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1716.376}, "reply_to": "21470__1_032", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_034", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "That's it.\nOkay.\nWe're talking now about this 2005 hearing and he wants new procedures, and the question is, is this 1983 or is it habeas?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1717.353, 1717.775, 1718.245], "stop_times": [1717.775, 1718.245, 1725.649], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1717.353}, "reply_to": "21470__1_033", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_035", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "That's... that's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1725.649], "stop_times": [1726.689], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1725.649}, "reply_to": "21470__1_034", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_036", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1726.689], "stop_times": [1727.114], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1726.689}, "reply_to": "21470__1_035", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_037", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "And... and it is section 1983 because it doesn't violate the Heck rule.\nThis--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1727.114, 1731.115], "stop_times": [1731.115, 1731.847], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1727.114}, "reply_to": "21470__1_036", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_038", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "And what... what is your... what is Johnson's mootness argument?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1731.847], "stop_times": [1735.285], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1731.847}, "reply_to": "21470__1_037", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21470__1_039", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Well, to the extent in his complaint he was seeking a new parole hearing as a result of the challenge to the '99 decision, that's probably mooted because he has received this 2001 hearing and we just don't know enough about it to know whether he's going to challenge it or not.\nHe'd have to amend his complaint in the district court.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1735.285, 1749.958], "stop_times": [1749.958, 1752.168], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1735.285}, "reply_to": "21470__1_038", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_040", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Could... is it possible that both Dotson and Johnson could get new hearings by a filing habeas--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1752.168], "stop_times": [1761.139], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1752.168}, "reply_to": "21470__1_039", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21470__1_041", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I don't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1761.139], "stop_times": [1762.835], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1761.139}, "reply_to": "21470__1_040", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_042", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--petition?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1762.835], "stop_times": [1763.264], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1762.835}, "reply_to": "21470__1_041", "speaker": "j__sandra_day_oconnor"}
{"id": "21470__1_043", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I don't think so.\nI don't think that Johnson has a Federal habeas remedy here because the Federal habeas statute is a challenge to the legality of custody, the legality of confinement, and that's not anything that he's challenging in this case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1763.264, 1764.207], "stop_times": [1764.207, 1776.893], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1763.264}, "reply_to": "21470__1_042", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_044", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "What would you do if there was an allegation of a serious procedural flaw in a past hearing?\nThe parole commission was... was drunk or they read the wrong file or something, and it was just a challenge to the invalidity of the past hearing.\nWould that be 1983 or habeas?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1776.893, 1783.503, 1794.942], "stop_times": [1783.503, 1794.942, 1796.433], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1776.893}, "reply_to": "21470__1_043", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21470__1_045", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I think that's a closer call, but I think it--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1796.433], "stop_times": [1798.999], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1796.433}, "reply_to": "21470__1_044", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_046", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "That's why asked you.\nWhy isn't it--\n[Laughter]", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1798.999, 1799.518, 1800.063], "stop_times": [1799.518, 1800.063, 1800.454], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1798.999}, "reply_to": "21470__1_045", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21470__1_047", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Right.\nAnd... and I... I think it is still section 1983 if certain things are present.\nThat is, is he going to necessarily imply the invalidity of the duration of his sentence by winning his case?\nAnd if that's meets the Heck rule and if he isn't, then I think he can proceed in section 1983.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1800.454, 1801.501, 1806.665, 1814.247], "stop_times": [1801.501, 1806.665, 1814.247, 1819.695], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1800.454}, "reply_to": "21470__1_046", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_048", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Do we have any case in which what was being... what was sought to be challenged in a habeas action was not the duration of the sentence, but the procedure by which the duration of the sentence was determined?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1819.695], "stop_times": [1834.464], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1819.695}, "reply_to": "21470__1_047", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__1_049", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I don't--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1834.464], "stop_times": [1836.931], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1834.464}, "reply_to": "21470__1_048", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_050", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Is there any... why... why shouldn't that be a habeas action?\nWhy shouldn't 1983 be limited to prison conditions, which is what we've always... and referred to it as... as that in the past?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1836.931, 1840.13], "stop_times": [1840.13, 1849.352], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1836.931}, "reply_to": "21470__1_049", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__1_051", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Well, I think in the hypothetical that you've presented, Justice Scalia, if the prisoner wins the case in that particular case, then his sentence is invalidated, and I think that's the important critical factor here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1849.352], "stop_times": [1861.867], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1849.352}, "reply_to": "21470__1_050", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_052", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "No, no, no, not necessarily.\nHe... he's just saying the parole hearing I got lacked due process safeguards.\nHad I had those safeguards, I might... I might... have been given a shorter sentence.\nI can't prove I would have.\nI'm not challenging the sentence really, but I want a new hearing.\nI didn't get due process.\nGive me a proper hearing because I might get out earlier.\nWhy shouldn't that come under habeas?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1861.867, 1863.736, 1871.999, 1879.042, 1880.137, 1883.448, 1885.018, 1889.602], "stop_times": [1863.736, 1871.999, 1879.042, 1880.137, 1883.448, 1885.018, 1889.602, 1891.187], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1861.867}, "reply_to": "21470__1_051", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__1_053", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Because it's not a challenge to the legality of the confinement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1891.187], "stop_times": [1895.088], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1891.187}, "reply_to": "21470__1_052", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_054", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "My law clerk found two cases which we've just looked at briefly.\nOne is called Wilwerding v. Swenson and the other Johnson v. Avery where she says that in those two cases people were using habeas to challenge prison conditions even.\nNow, so there are... there are two cases that, if she's... and she's usually right... that... that... where habeas was used to challenge prison conditions.\nSo I've thought, well, if they can use it, they certainly could use it here.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1895.088, 1898.197, 1909.959, 1919.878], "stop_times": [1898.197, 1909.959, 1919.878, 1923.428], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1895.088}, "reply_to": "21470__1_053", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_055", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, and I... I think point with... with both of those decisions is that the Heck rule did not come into play because the prisoners must have gone through and exhausted their State court remedies, and so there wasn't an issue as to whether they must bring their claim in habeas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1923.428], "stop_times": [1938.298], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1923.428}, "reply_to": "21470__1_054", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_056", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "No.\nIt was a different issue, but it said habeas could be brought.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1938.298, 1938.535], "stop_times": [1938.535, 1941.013], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1938.298}, "reply_to": "21470__1_055", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_057", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Sure.\nI think the Court in... in that particular case--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1941.013, 1941.494], "stop_times": [1941.494, 1943.238], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1941.013}, "reply_to": "21470__1_056", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_058", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "So habeas could be brought here?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1943.238], "stop_times": [1944.42], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1943.238}, "reply_to": "21470__1_057", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_059", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--I don't think so.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1944.42], "stop_times": [1945.586], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1944.42}, "reply_to": "21470__1_058", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_060", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Why not?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1945.586], "stop_times": [1946.311], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1945.586}, "reply_to": "21470__1_059", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_061", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I don't think there's a remedy in habeas for the respondent Johnson in this case because the first thing that's going to be asked when he goes to the Federal district court to seek habeas relief is, well, are you challenging the legality of your custody?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1946.311], "stop_times": [1958.015], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1946.311}, "reply_to": "21470__1_060", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_062", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Yes, and they say sure... sure I am.\nI'm saying I had terms.\nYou know, I was going to be here under conditions A, B, C, and A, B, C in my opinion mean I will be released sooner, and instead, they gave me D, E, F, and D, E, F means I'm likely to be released later.\nI can't guarantee it.\nThat's what he'll say.\nHe says I can't guarantee it, but I wouldn't be bringing this case if I didn't think at least it was a shot.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1958.015, 1959.52, 1960.985, 1971.791, 1973.692, 1974.615], "stop_times": [1959.52, 1960.985, 1971.791, 1973.692, 1974.615, 1978.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1958.015}, "reply_to": "21470__1_061", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_063", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Right.\nAnd... and... but he's not necessarily challenging the legality of his custody.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1978.342, 1978.751], "stop_times": [1978.751, 1982.839], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 1978.342}, "reply_to": "21470__1_062", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_064", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, but... but that's part of the conclusion that we're going to have to reach to... to resolve the case.\nWhy isn't he?\nHow is that that much different than if a judge... let's assume, under a proper sentencing guideline scheme, the judge just uses the wrong guideline.\nThe man is going to go to jail for either 5 or 10 years.\nWe don't know which.\nBut that's... that's a classic habeas case.\nHere, he's going to stay in a prison for 5 or 10 years.\nWhy isn't this a classic habeas case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [1982.839, 1988.345, 1989.096, 1998.427, 2009.559, 2002.881, 2006.455, 2010.24], "stop_times": [1988.345, 1989.096, 1998.427, 2009.559, 2002.881, 2006.455, 2010.24, 2011.838], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 1982.839}, "reply_to": "21470__1_063", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21470__1_065", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Because I think in... in the first hypothetical, Your Honor, that... that you gave, the challenge, if successful, would... would completely invalidate the sentence that he received.\nThey'd have to redo the... the sentence.\nAnd... and I think that's the critical distinction in this case, is that when Johnson files his complaint, he has a 10 to 30-year sentence by the... by the State court.\nIf he wins, he still has a 10 to 30 year sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2011.838, 2019.591, 2021.911, 2032.062], "stop_times": [2019.591, 2021.911, 2032.062, 2034.957], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2011.838}, "reply_to": "21470__1_064", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_066", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, it wouldn't completely invalidate the sentence.\nWe know that he's still going to be held and he's going to be held in custody.\nIt's a question of how long, which is exactly what this case is.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2034.957, 2036.821, 2039.679], "stop_times": [2036.821, 2039.679, 2043.142], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2034.957}, "reply_to": "21470__1_065", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21470__1_067", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "But in the hypothetical you propose, Justice Kennedy, the... the prisoner was actually... would be actually challenging the sentence he received, and by winning the case, he's going to undo the State court sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2043.142], "stop_times": [2055.408], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2043.142}, "reply_to": "21470__1_066", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_068", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Yes, well, those cases happen to involve... happen to involve sentences.\nThis case doesn't involve a sentence.\nIt involves an opportunity to have his sentence shortened.\nAnd if habeas can be brought for that, we would phrase it differently.\nWe wouldn't say it would have to invalidate the sentence.\nWe would say it would have to invalidate the proceeding that could have shortened his sentence.\nI grant you we can't use the same language we did in the earlier cases, but if this is properly a habeas action, then we... we can get some language to make it fit.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2055.408, 2059.608, 2062.427, 2066.987, 2072.878, 2075.877, 2081.474], "stop_times": [2059.608, 2062.427, 2066.987, 2072.878, 2075.877, 2081.474, 2093.444], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2055.408}, "reply_to": "21470__1_067", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__1_069", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, I don't... I don't think it is properly a habeas action.\nI think even in the decisions where courts may have heard similar claims in habeas, I think it was a matter of just saying, well, the prisoner is already here.\nHe's already exhausted all of his State court remedies.\nIt doesn't really matter whether it's section 1983 or habeas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2093.444, 2096.293, 2104.411, 2106.594], "stop_times": [2096.293, 2104.411, 2106.594, 2109.934], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2093.444}, "reply_to": "21470__1_068", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_070", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Suppose we wrote an opinion that said, whatever the reasoning... I don't know what it would be right now... that said in the future your client should go ahead in 1983.\nI'm putting you in a slightly awkward position, so don't answer if you don't want to.\nBut I mean, for the future all these cases will be brought in habeas.\nNow, suppose that's what the opinion said.\nWe're absolutely making it clear just what the... would there be any harm done?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2109.934, 2118.65, 2122.145, 2126.284, 2128.86], "stop_times": [2118.65, 2122.145, 2126.284, 2128.86, 2132.534], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2109.934}, "reply_to": "21470__1_069", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_071", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I... I think there would be.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2132.534], "stop_times": [2134.888], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2132.534}, "reply_to": "21470__1_070", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_072", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Now, what would that harm be?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2134.888], "stop_times": [2136.09], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2134.888}, "reply_to": "21470__1_071", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_073", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I think that by... by having a rule of that sort, that it would be expanding the jurisdiction of habeas and it would start to swallow up otherwise cognizable section 1983 claims.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2136.09], "stop_times": [2146.476], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2136.09}, "reply_to": "21470__1_072", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_074", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "And why would that be bad?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2146.476], "stop_times": [2147.253], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2146.476}, "reply_to": "21470__1_073", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_075", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "And why--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2147.253], "stop_times": [2148.115], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2147.253}, "reply_to": "21470__1_074", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__1_076", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I'm sorry?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2148.115], "stop_times": [2149.682], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2148.115}, "reply_to": "21470__1_075", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_077", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Why would that be bad?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2149.682], "stop_times": [2150.88], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2149.682}, "reply_to": "21470__1_076", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_078", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, because the Congress has enacted a statute--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2150.88], "stop_times": [2154.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2150.88}, "reply_to": "21470__1_077", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_079", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "No, no.\nBut I mean, is... I'm asking you a practical question as a practicing lawyer.\nWould it be bad?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2154.125, 2154.305, 2157.609], "stop_times": [2154.305, 2157.609, 2158.586], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2154.125}, "reply_to": "21470__1_078", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_080", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Absolutely it would.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2158.586], "stop_times": [2160.225], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2158.586}, "reply_to": "21470__1_079", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_081", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Because?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2160.225], "stop_times": [2160.61], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2160.225}, "reply_to": "21470__1_080", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_082", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Because there's a statute that allows--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2160.61], "stop_times": [2163.025], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2160.61}, "reply_to": "21470__1_081", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_083", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, I mean, leaving aside... Congress changed the statute.\nIt says absolutely it's going to be habeas.\nIs there any bad consequence in the law?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2163.025, 2165.596, 2167.93], "stop_times": [2165.596, 2167.93, 2169.82], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2163.025}, "reply_to": "21470__1_082", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_084", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--It's going to give States a license to violate civil rights that will otherwise not be protected under the statute.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2169.82], "stop_times": [2174.775], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2169.82}, "reply_to": "21470__1_083", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_085", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "We'll catch them in habeas.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2174.775], "stop_times": [2175.587], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2174.775}, "reply_to": "21470__1_084", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_086", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Yes, but the... the State exhaustion requirements in habeas are much tougher.\nOf course, the State wants them to have to go through State exhaustion.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2175.587, 2179.245], "stop_times": [2179.245, 2182.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2175.587}, "reply_to": "21470__1_085", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_087", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Ah, so it comes down to that.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2182.075], "stop_times": [2183.602], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2182.075}, "reply_to": "21470__1_086", "speaker": "j__stephen_g_breyer"}
{"id": "21470__1_088", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "That's really the critical--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2183.602], "stop_times": [2184.59], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2183.602}, "reply_to": "21470__1_087", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_089", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--You said... you said a moment ago that it would be expanding habeas, and I'd like you to expand on that.\nIt would be expanding habeas, I am assuming, because in every successful habeas case, the ultimate remedy that the court can order, if the State does not snap to it, is the immediate release of the prisoner.\nAnd I take it when you said it would expand habeas, it would expand it because this would not be an immediate release case no matter what.\nIs that correct?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2184.59, 2190.019, 2202.568, 2210.611], "stop_times": [2190.019, 2202.568, 2210.611, 2211.342], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2184.59}, "reply_to": "21470__1_088", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__1_090", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--That's correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2211.342], "stop_times": [2211.982], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2211.342}, "reply_to": "21470__1_089", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_091", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Okay.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2211.982], "stop_times": [2212.387], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2211.982}, "reply_to": "21470__1_090", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__1_092", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "You would basically end up going to a Federal district court seeking habeas relief asking for processes to be changed prospectively.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2212.387], "stop_times": [2218.973], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2212.387}, "reply_to": "21470__1_091", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_093", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "And that's why they could not bring habeas in this case because if they won, they still would not have shown anything that entitled to them to get out now or get out now unless the State within 30 days does something.\nIs... is that the nub of it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2218.973, 2230.024], "stop_times": [2230.024, 2231.194], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2218.973}, "reply_to": "21470__1_092", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__1_094", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "That's... that's really it, Justice Souter.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2231.194], "stop_times": [2233.292], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2231.194}, "reply_to": "21470__1_093", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_095", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, I'm... I'm not sure.\nIt depends how you formulate the order.\nThe... the judge says, I'm going to order this prisoner released unless, within 6 months, he has a parole hearing under the guidelines I set.\nThat's the way the habeas statute works.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2233.292, 2234.422, 2235.953, 2242.664], "stop_times": [2234.422, 2235.953, 2242.664, 2245.748], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2233.292}, "reply_to": "21470__1_094", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21470__1_096", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, if that's the relief that the... the prisoner was seeking, I think that is clearly a habeas claim.\nBut that's not what Johnson is claiming in this case.\nHe's not asking for entitlement to release at all.\nHe's asking for the processes to be changed prospectively for future parole hearings, and he's asking for declaratory relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2245.748, 2249.237, 2251.049, 2253.448], "stop_times": [2249.237, 2251.049, 2253.448, 2260.594], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2245.748}, "reply_to": "21470__1_095", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_097", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Regardless of what he's asking for, if he got what he wanted, he still would not be entitled to any immediate release.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2260.594], "stop_times": [2266.955], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2260.594}, "reply_to": "21470__1_096", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__1_098", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "That's absolutely correct.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2266.955], "stop_times": [2267.803], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2266.955}, "reply_to": "21470__1_097", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_099", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "He would still have a sentence of X years, and the question is, how often are we going to look at him to decide when, within X years, we may let him out.\nIs that--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2267.803, 2275.82], "stop_times": [2275.82, 2276.379], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2267.803}, "reply_to": "21470__1_098", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__1_100", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "That's... that's absolutely it.\nHe cannot... by winning his case, he's not going to shorten his sentence in any way.\nAnd that's... that's a big distinction from the Balisok case where there was an automatic entitlement to a shorter sentence--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2276.379, 2277.882, 2282.484], "stop_times": [2277.882, 2282.484, 2289.075], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2276.379}, "reply_to": "21470__1_099", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_101", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, he might--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2289.075], "stop_times": [2289.918], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2289.075}, "reply_to": "21470__1_100", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21470__1_102", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--for Balisok in that case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2289.918], "stop_times": [2290.566], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2289.918}, "reply_to": "21470__1_101", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_103", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--he might shorten the term of his confinement.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2290.566], "stop_times": [2293.238], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2290.566}, "reply_to": "21470__1_102", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21470__1_104", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Might but not necessarily.\nAnd this Court made very clear most recently in the Nelson decision--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2293.238, 2295.798], "stop_times": [2295.798, 2299.182], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2293.238}, "reply_to": "21470__1_103", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_105", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, you could say the same thing when you're challenging the sentence.\nHe might but he might not.\nWe're just... we're just hearing the case.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2299.182, 2300.612, 2301.602], "stop_times": [2300.612, 2301.602, 2303.854], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2299.182}, "reply_to": "21470__1_104", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21470__1_106", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--I think a challenge to the sentence necessarily invalidates that sentence if you win.\nBut a challenge to parole is much different because you're not affecting the sentence if you win your case.\nAnd the term necessary is completely necessary to the Heck analysis, as this Court made clear most recently in the Nelson case from last term.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2303.854, 2308.722, 2313.694], "stop_times": [2308.722, 2313.694, 2322.723], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2303.854}, "reply_to": "21470__1_105", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_107", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--That's the nub of it I guess.\nThe fact that he may be granted parole has no implication for the validity of the sentence.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2322.723, 2324.613], "stop_times": [2324.613, 2331.145], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2322.723}, "reply_to": "21470__1_106", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__1_108", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "That's absolutely right.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2331.145], "stop_times": [2332.01], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2331.145}, "reply_to": "21470__1_107", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_109", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "In fact, it assumes the sentence is valid, but that he will probably stay clean if he gets out.\nThat's all it means, isn't it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2332.01, 2337.532], "stop_times": [2337.532, 2339.28], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2332.01}, "reply_to": "21470__1_108", "speaker": "j__david_h_souter"}
{"id": "21470__1_110", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "That's really all it means.\nAnd this Court last term in Muhammad in... in footnote 1 made clear that the incarceration that matters for this analysis is the... in the incarceration of the sentence from the State court.\nAnd I think that's... that's what the Court needs to look at, is what is Johnson's effect on the State court judgment or sentence.\nWhat's the necessary implications?\nNot in this case at all.\nAnd really, this case I think has already been decided by Wolff.\nIt's something that the petitioners sort of don't mention too much in their briefs.\nIn Wolff, the prisoners in... in that case were trying to get their good-time credits back.\nI think this is an easier case than the Wolff decision.\nAnd what the Court did was parse out, okay, you can't get your good-time credits back, but you can seek prospective injunctive relief to fix the processes that are used in connection with depriving prisoners of good-time credits.\nAnd that's precisely what Johnson is seeking here.\nYour Honor, the other thing I wanted to mention was the notion... Your Honors, the other thing I want to mention was the notion that there's no State review of these decisions.\nThe Prison Litigation Reform Act clearly provides for State administrative review of even challenges to the process.\nSo the... the State of Ohio could easily set up an appeal process administratively to... to correct that problem.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2339.28, 2340.05, 2351.421, 2360.291, 2361.63, 2363.462, 2368.197, 2372.484, 2378.1, 2380.87, 2393.099, 2396.756, 2405.99, 2413.09], "stop_times": [2340.05, 2351.421, 2360.291, 2361.63, 2363.462, 2368.197, 2372.484, 2378.1, 2380.87, 2393.099, 2396.756, 2405.99, 2413.09, 2420.276], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2339.28}, "reply_to": "21470__1_109", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_111", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Lewis.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2420.276], "stop_times": [2420.729], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2420.276}, "reply_to": "21470__1_110", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21470__1_112", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Thank you.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2420.729], "stop_times": [2421.423], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2420.729}, "reply_to": "21470__1_111", "speaker": "john_q_lewis"}
{"id": "21470__1_113", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Mr. Untereiner, is it?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2421.423], "stop_times": [2431.425], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2421.423}, "reply_to": "21470__1_112", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21470__2_000", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Yes, Justice Stevens.\nJustice Stevens, and may it please the Court:\nI'd like to, first of all, go to the point that Justice Ginsburg raised about the allegations in Mr. Dotson's complaint.\nThis case has... has become much simpler with respect to Dotson because any claim that he might have had about this 2000 scheduling decision has been mooted.\nWhat's really left are claims for future injunctive relief, for prospective relief.\nThese are classic 1983 type cases.\nPrisoners have been bringing lawsuits since Wolff against McDonnell alleging that parole procedures and other kinds of procedures, disciplinary procedures ought to be reformed and seeking future injunctive relief with respect to those kinds of... of procedures.\nIn Edwards against Balisok, this Court indicated that ordinarily claims for prospective injunctive relief will not be barred by the Heck doctrine because ordinarily they will not call into question or necessarily imply the invalidity of any previous decision.\nSo to Justice Breyer's question, this would require a change in the law, and it would, I think, fairly substantially cut back on the kinds of suits that have been brought for 30 years under Wolff because in all kinds of suits like this, the State would argue, as the petitioners are arguing today, that there's some prior administrative decision that's called into question by a future claim for injunctive relief with respect to some aspect of the procedures relating to good-time credit revocation or parole or the revocation of probation.\nSo I think this would be a fairly substantial change in the law.\nA lot of these claims would be barred by Heck.\nThe... Justice Scalia, you asked the question about the habeas, the scope of habeas relief.\nAnd I think it's important to understand that the lower courts have generally held that habeas is not available for these kinds of claims that are prospective only, seeking changes in future procedures.\nThere are some lower court cases that say that where a prisoner seeks release on parole and demands a right or claims a right to release on parole, that might be cognizable in habeas, but the vast weight of authority in the lower courts is that claims that only seek an... the right to a new parole hearing, the outcome of which is completely discretionary--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2431.425, 2433.105, 2446.895, 2454.035, 2466.347, 2471.136, 2474.787, 2492.062, 2509.735, 2547.205, 2550.646, 2553.246, 2567.125, 2581.105], "stop_times": [2433.105, 2446.895, 2454.035, 2466.347, 2471.136, 2474.787, 2492.062, 2509.735, 2547.205, 2550.646, 2553.246, 2567.125, 2581.105, 2602.57], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2431.425}, "reply_to": "21470__1_113", "speaker": "alan_edward_untereiner"}
{"id": "21470__2_001", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "You want a 1983 hearing in which a United States district judge tells the parole commission, now, here are your marching orders for future cases.\nYou have to comply with this rule, that rule, this rule.\nWhat is an analog that you can give us where United States courts have done this under 1983?\nUsing an administrative case, if the... if the agency does it the wrong way, we reverse that decision.\nIt would be like a review of a conviction that's not final.\nHave we had cases where under 1983 litigants come in and say, now, these agencies are doing it the wrong way?\nYou have to... can you give me an analog?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2602.57, 2611.726, 2614.437, 2620.554, 2627.107, 2630.06, 2639.055], "stop_times": [2611.726, 2614.437, 2620.554, 2627.107, 2630.06, 2639.055, 2641.667], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2602.57}, "reply_to": "21470__2_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21470__2_002", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--I think there... there are a fair number of cases in the lower court where... lower courts where these types of claims for injunctive relief have been brought and the Federal courts have ordered, on a prospective basis, that the States conform to all kinds of... I mean, Wolff is a case like that I think where the... the State was required to do certain things in the future.\nSo I think these are ordinary 1983 claims for injunctive relief.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2641.667, 2661.837], "stop_times": [2661.837, 2665.916], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2641.667}, "reply_to": "21470__2_001", "speaker": "alan_edward_untereiner"}
{"id": "21470__2_003", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Is there any significant difference between this case and Wolff?\nI mean, Wolff was a case of procedural fault supposedly, and if those faults were cured, someone would have a better chance at getting good-time credit.\nWasn't that what--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2665.916, 2671.466, 2685.077], "stop_times": [2671.466, 2685.077, 2686.236], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2665.916}, "reply_to": "21470__2_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21470__2_004", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Yes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2686.236], "stop_times": [2687.176], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2686.236}, "reply_to": "21470__2_003", "speaker": "alan_edward_untereiner"}
{"id": "21470__2_005", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--So it seems to me it's very... very close to your situation.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2687.176], "stop_times": [2692.395], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2687.176}, "reply_to": "21470__2_004", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21470__2_006", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "It is very close, Justice Ginsburg.\nDotson is essentially making two claims for prospective relief.\nHe is saying that these 1998 parole guidelines effectively rescind his eligibility for parole.\nAt the time of his conviction, he was entitled to parole after serving 15 years.\nUnder these guidelines, he'll have to wait till... until 32 and a half years have passed before he's eligible for parole.\nAnd he's claiming that in... in his next parole release hearing, which is in June 2005 and beyond, the State is required to apply the old rules to him so that he'll be eligible.\nSo this is very much like what was at issue in Wolff.\nThe second claim he has is that he's entitled to annual parole release hearings in the future.\nAgain, it's a future... it's a prospective claim only.\nIn the future, he will be entitled to annual parole release hearings, and the new rules say that the State can postpone those hearings for up until 10 years.\nSo on both of those claims, he is seeking changes in the future, and these are classic 1983 type cases that have been brought, as I say, for the last 30 years in the lower courts.\nNow, the Heck test requires a showing that if he prevails on his section 1983 claims, he would... that would necessarily imply the invalidity of his underlying conviction or sentence.\nAnd I think this case is very different from the Balisok case.\nThere... there was a colloquy about that earlier.\nI think that Balisok is clearly distinguishable because the administrative decision there would have had an immediate and direct impact on the duration of the prisoner's sentence by... by revoking the good-time credits.\nWhereas, here, the impact is very, very speculative.\nJustice Souter, you referred earlier to a durational consequence.\nThe durational consequence here is really quite hypothetical and remote.\nIf he prevails on his 1983 claims, all he will be entitled to are future hearings, and since parole is entirely discretionary in Ohio, we can't predict the outcome of those proceedings.\nHe'll also be entitled to... merely to be considered eligible for parole in the future.\nSo I think that the... the consequences... any impact on... on the duration of his confinement is... is really quite hypothetical here and it would require an expansion not only of the Heck rule but also of habeas jurisdiction to resolve this case in the State's favor.\nUnless there are any further questions, we would ask that the Court affirm the Sixth Circuit's unanimous decision in favor of Dotson.\nAll 11 members of that court found that Dotson's claims were not barred by Heck, and this Court should affirm.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2692.395, 2694.387, 2698.814, 2705.237, 2709.246, 2715.957, 2728.497, 2731.676, 2736.796, 2740.455, 2749.557, 2760.896, 2778.195, 2781.374, 2783.776, 2799.807, 2803.884, 2809.582, 2814.299, 2828.072, 2833.943, 2851.772, 2861.527], "stop_times": [2694.387, 2698.814, 2705.237, 2709.246, 2715.957, 2728.497, 2731.676, 2736.796, 2740.455, 2749.557, 2760.896, 2778.195, 2781.374, 2783.776, 2799.807, 2803.884, 2809.582, 2814.299, 2828.072, 2833.943, 2851.772, 2861.527, 2868.462], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 0, "timestamp": 2692.395}, "reply_to": "21470__2_005", "speaker": "alan_edward_untereiner"}
{"id": "21470__2_007", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Thank you, counsel.\nMr. Cole, you have about 4 and a half minutes left.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2868.462, 2870.242], "stop_times": [2870.242, 2875.884], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2868.462}, "reply_to": "21470__2_006", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21470__3_000", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Thank you, Your Honor.\nA number of points.\nI wanted to start by responding to Justice Souter's question, which was again asking about this need for entitlement to earlier release as part of habeas, and would ask the Court to consider the In re Braden case where a prisoner in Alabama was seeking to challenge a detainer that had been issued by Kentucky.\nAnd the basis for the challenge to the detainer in habeas was the fact that it was having implications for his parole eligibility in Alabama.\nSo there, there was not going to be necessarily an entitlement to earlier release, but simply a difference in the parole considerations.\nSecond, Justice O'Connor, with respect to your questions about mootness, the only point that I would add is that if this case is moot now, it was moot when the Sixth Circuit decided it as well.\nSo if mootness is the direction we're going, I think there need to be a decision vacating the judgment below--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2875.884, 2876.697, 2877.662, 2896.692, 2904.775, 2912.443, 2924.034], "stop_times": [2876.697, 2877.662, 2896.692, 2904.775, 2912.443, 2924.034, 2929.804], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2875.884}, "reply_to": "21470__2_007", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__3_001", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, what's your position as to whether or not it's moot?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2929.804], "stop_times": [2931.792], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2929.804}, "reply_to": "21470__3_000", "speaker": "j__anthony_m_kennedy"}
{"id": "21470__3_002", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--Your Honor, we don't believe it's moot either, and in... in fact, for two reasons.\nFirst, once again, it's threatening consequences for an existing decision, albeit it not the one that was originally threatened or where invalidity would be implied below, but there is a new one where that would have that consequence.\nIn terms of bad consequences, I think the single biggest bad consequence of directing these prisoners to 1983 rather than habeas is it's going to deprive them of the opportunity for meaningful relief in Ohio's courts.\nThe Layne decision in the last... decided just 2 years ago, three prisoners brought a declaratory judgment action about the way parole works in Ohio.\nThey were successful and their case resulted in 3,000 prisoners receiving--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2931.792, 2935.904, 2948.652, 2960.54, 2968.663], "stop_times": [2935.904, 2948.652, 2960.54, 2968.663, 2973.286], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2931.792}, "reply_to": "21470__3_001", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__3_003", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "But... but you raise deprivation of the benefit they would get from the Ohio courts.\nIf they wanted that benefit, they could have brought a 1983 action in State courts.\nState courts have jurisdiction.\nSo it's a little odd for you to say, oh, they're being deprived of a benefit when they're telling you by this very lawsuit they don't want it.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2973.286, 2978.32, 2982.489, 2984.388], "stop_times": [2978.32, 2982.489, 2984.388, 2991.151], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 2973.286}, "reply_to": "21470__3_002", "speaker": "j__ruth_bader_ginsburg"}
{"id": "21470__3_004", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--That's true, Your Honor.\nAt the same time, this... bringing this... this case in 1983 in Federal court means that they're not going to be able to get injunctive relief on State grounds under the Pennhurst doctrine.\nSo they are depriving themselves of a chance to get that type of meaningful relief that Ohio courts are offering and that courts in other States are offering.\nThe other... the other point I wanted to make is that with respect to Petitioner Johnson's argument, his understanding of sentence, that if it doesn't impact the sentence, it can't be in habeas, would mean that parole revocations can't be in habeas either.\nA parole... parole... when you're on parole, you're still serving part of your sentence, as he understands it, part of the initial term that the court has imposed upon you.\nGranted, you're not doing it in prison, but a parole revocation wouldn't impact your sentence.\nIt would merely bring you back into prison to serve the remainder of your sentence rather than having you serve it on the street.\nSo I think that understanding of sentence can't make sense for... for habeas purposes.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [2991.151, 2992.297, 3002.319, 3010.73, 3025.338, 3034.248, 3039.796, 3045.088], "stop_times": [2992.297, 3002.319, 3010.73, 3025.338, 3034.248, 3039.796, 3045.088, 3049.919], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 2991.151}, "reply_to": "21470__3_003", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__3_005", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I think sentence means custody.\nDon't you think it means custody?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [3049.919, 3052.833], "stop_times": [3052.833, 3054.489], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3049.919}, "reply_to": "21470__3_004", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__3_006", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Well, but to the extent we're talking--", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [3054.489], "stop_times": [3056.259], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3054.489}, "reply_to": "21470__3_005", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__3_007", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "The custody you've been sentenced to?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [3056.259], "stop_times": [3057.795], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3056.259}, "reply_to": "21470__3_006", "speaker": "j__antonin_scalia"}
{"id": "21470__3_008", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "--But to the extent we're talking about duration of custody or duration of confinement, again, the claims here do have a... success on the claims here would have a meaningful impact on the duration of confinement.\nThis Court in Muhammad said... I think this is probably the... the closest quote on point... challenges to particulars affecting the duration of confinement are the province of habeas corpus.\nThis is a challenge to a particular, the parole procedures, that's affecting the duration of their confinement.\nOr at least that's their allegations, and that's what success on their claims is going to mean.\nAnd because of those durational consequences, as well as because of the consequences of success on the merits for previous State parole decisions, we believe that those claims are better routed to habeas than to 1983.\nIf there are no further questions.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [3057.795, 3071.572, 3084.393, 3091.832, 3096.099, 3110.694], "stop_times": [3071.572, 3084.393, 3091.832, 3096.099, 3110.694, 3112.595], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3057.795}, "reply_to": "21470__3_007", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__3_009", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I had one further question.\nAre you asking us to change anything in Wolff against McDonnell, or can we follow that case?", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [3112.595, 3113.716], "stop_times": [3113.716, 3119.125], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3112.595}, "reply_to": "21470__3_008", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
{"id": "21470__3_010", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "I think we can follow that case as it's been reinterpreted in Heck.\nWolff said that... well, Heck said that Wolff was about challenges that would not... and I believe the language is... necessarily vitiate the underlying decision.\nSo the way Heck understood Wolff was that the procedural challenges there, with regard to the prospective relief they were seeking, were not the type of relief that would necessarily vitiate any decision that had already been made.\nHere, by contrast, the claims that they're bringing, the ex post facto claims, if they're successful on the merits, would necessarily vitiate the decisions that have gone before.\nThank you, Your Honors.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [3119.125, 3122.484, 3132.785, 3144.876, 3154.183], "stop_times": [3122.484, 3132.785, 3144.876, 3154.183, 3155.125], "speaker_type": "A", "side": 1, "timestamp": 3119.125}, "reply_to": "21470__3_009", "speaker": "douglas_r_cole"}
{"id": "21470__3_011", "conversation_id": "21470", "text": "Thank you, Mr. Cole.\nThe case is submitted.", "meta": {"case_id": "2004_03-287", "start_times": [3155.125, 3156.204], "stop_times": [3156.204, 3157.189], "speaker_type": "J", "side": null, "timestamp": 3155.125}, "reply_to": "21470__3_010", "speaker": "j__john_paul_stevens"}
